To those who are interested in a logical examination of reality, what follows concerns what is presented in Part III of Chapter 5 posted at

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_V.htm

I would have posted this at astronomy.net but they seem to be down for an indeterminate time. I want to publicly post this as I think it is entirely possible that it might induce someone to think a little which would be a delight. For those of you who think what I present is a ridiculous notion, I challenge you to find an error in the presentation.

Mike, with regard to your note,

From my experience, I have come to the conclusion that brilliance is quite overrated! I personally am certainly not brilliant at all; instead, I would consider myself quite dull, shall we say slow minded at best. Though slow, I try to be careful. And, remembering what I was thinking is much less important than being able to think it out again; that is the essence of faith in logic. Logic is like a blind man's dog, you need only follow where it leads you and you cannot go wrong.

****
Mike: I do not see any reason why the polygons must be equilateral.
****

I think you have the horse on the wrong side of the cart. There is absolutely no reason for the polygons to be equilateral at all; the other side of the coin is much more important. That is the fact that it is not necessary to allow the edges to vary at all. That is a rather extreme constraint to put on a mental model and still be able to achieve results so completely general.

****
Mike: I think you are making an excellent case.
****

My suspicions are that you don't understand what I am doing there. Certainly I intended nothing to be taken metaphorically; it is intended to be a rather straight forward logical argument. At issue is the fact that any explanation of anything is essentially a made up story which fits the facts. It is the assumption of the scientific world that there exists but one such story, which they are sincerely endeavoring to uncover. I am of the opinion that their position is actually quite obtuse and simple minded: I am myself fairly sure that the actual number of possible explanations (each of which entirely fit the all the facts) is probably infinite. What I am presenting here is exactly that: an alternate explanation of the universe which fits every fact exactly.

In this section, I am considering a very classical picture of our Universe (that it is a collection of events localized in a space time continuum); I am attempting to analyze exactly what kind of dynamics such a picture implies. That is, my first case is a classical universe which contains nothing but a single particle and absolutely nothing else. Go ahead and let (in your imagination) that universe be a three dimensional Newtonian universe which evolves in time. Now, if you were god and outside that universe, tell me exactly what the differences are between the infinite number of different possibilities!

Note that a coordinate system is itself a mental construct and all you can actually do is shift the origin or change the scale (in the classical Newtonian picture). Where do you wish to put that origin? If it is not on the particle itself, you need a distance measure to say how far away it is. With but one particle, how do you intend to establish such a thing as a length measure. It seems that the only rational position for the origin of your coordinate system is at the particle itself. If the position of the particle is the origin of your coordinate system, exactly what differences exist between the various possibilities you can conceive of? It follows as the night the day that all possible universes which contain but a single particle, must be absolutely identical in every way and the concept of "dynamics" can not even exist!

Suppose we say, forget the Newtonian picture and look at it from Einstein's space-time geometry: exactly the same logical complaints brought up above still exist: all possible universes consisting of a single particle are absolutely identical!

So, let us instead think about a universe which consists of two particles. The only difference between the picture above and the two particle universe is the second particle: it can move with respect to the first particle. Or can it? First, how are directions to be determined? The only direction which can be established is the direction between the two particles. If that is the only direction which can be established, then all the two particles can do is move either together or apart along that line (there exists no reference to establish any rotation). So the next question should be, exactly how far apart are they at any given moment? Again the question arises as to how you are to establish a distance measure? If you think about it for a moment, you should realize that the only distance reference in the universe is the distance between those two particles!

It follows that, in a two particle universe, the distance between the two particles cannot change, nor can the direction of the line between the two change. Once again, all possible universes consisting of two particles are absolutely and incontrovertibly identical.

When we go to consider a three particle universe, things get a little more complicated. In order to simplify the mental problem which faces us, let us (at least for the moment) consider a one dimensional universe. In that case, we have exactly the same problem we had with a two particle universe except for the addition of another particle. Only one direction exists because we have constrained ourselves to examination of a one dimensional universe. We can use any pair of particles to establish a unit of distance and, having done that, it is quite clear that the third particle may be at any specific distance away from the first two. So we have finally found a system which can actually display dynamic change (that is, change over a period of time).

Let us look at the possible dynamics which may occur. It turns out that the possibilities are actually quite limited. Consider an equilateral triangle in a plane containing the one dimensional universe considered (think of a triangle drawn on a sheet of paper with a line on that paper representing the one dimensional space) and project the three points of the triangle on that line (perpendicular to the line). Now rotate the triangle on its center and consider the apparent motion of the projections of the corners. Choose two points (the projections of any two corners) to represent a distance reference on the line. Clearly (using those two points as a distance reference), as the triangle is rotated, the position of the third point varies from minus infinity (when the leg between the two reference points is perpendicular to the line used to represent our one dimensional space) when the third point is on the left (by tradition) to plus infinity when the third point is on the right.

Since the identity of the three points is a fabrication of our mind (we have been given no information as to which point is which), it follows that every possible physical distribution of the three particles maps into a particular orientation of the triangle. It follows that all one dimensional universes containing three particles are equivalent (at any particular time) to a particular orientation of that triangle. Using the common assumption in most observations of particles that the particles move continuously from one position to another, it is clear that the evolution of our three particle universe may be explained by rotation of that triangle (the only operation which provides a continuos change from one distribution to another).

Thus we have concluded that all possible three particle universes may be seen as a projection of a rotating equilateral triangle onto a line. Is the rotation smooth or varying in speed? Well, in order to answer that question, we must have some way of measuring time in our universe; how are we to do that? The only option we have is to define time in terms of the motions themselves. That being the case, there is utterly no difference between different speeds of rotation (if you cannot understand that, let me know and I will try to make the point clearer). You should be able to figure out that issue on your own. The net effect is that all one dimensional universes consisting of three particles can be seen as the projection of a rotating equilateral triangle.

Exactly the same arguments may be made for a one dimensional universe containing four particles; however, that step is not really necessary as, given that the proposition is true for n=1,2, and 3, all we need prove is that, if it is true for n particles, it must be true for n+1 particles.

That being the case, let us suppose that absolutely every one dimensional universe containing n particles can be seen as the projection of the corners of an n-1 dimensional equilateral polygon (projected on a line, the one dimensional space, in that n-1 dimensional space containing the polygon). If we can use that to prove that it is true for a one dimensional universe containing n+1 particles, we have proved (by induction) that it is true for all n.

In order to perform that proof, we must first be able to analytically display the coordinates of the corners of that n dimensional equilateral polygon. This is not a trivial problem though it can be done with a little thought. We need to build our object corner by corner. What I will do is add a new dimension each time I add a point. By following this procedure, the orientation of the polygon (at every step) is such that it maps directly on all lower dimensional representations of such polygons. I will construct the polygon with a unit edge length.

First (starting with two particles, n=2, in a one dimensional space, n-1=1), the one dimensional polygon of unit edge length has corners (end points) at -1/2 and +1/2. Note that it is centered at the origin. See the first line (x sub 1 coordinate) of corner zero and corner one (that would be the first figure in part III of Chapter 3, referred to at the beginning of this note). The one dimensional space (the line) is the same line (the coordinate x sub 1).

Next, add a dimension perpendicular to the first (which we will call the coordinate x sub 2). Move our original points in the direction of that new axis a distance +1/2(sqrt(3)) and add a new point at -1/sqrt(3) on that axis. A little algebra will show that our new point is exactly 1 unit away from the other two points,
d=sqrt[(1/2)^2+(3/2sqrt(3))^2]=sqrt[1/4+3/4]=1
and all three points are the same distance form the origin
r=sqrt[(1/2)^2+(1/2sqrt(3))^2]=sqrt[1/4+1/12]=sqrt[4/12]=1/sqrt(3)

We now have a two dimensional polygon with unit edge length centered at the origin in a two dimensional space whose corners represent three particles. See the second line (the x sub 2 coordinate) of corners zero, one and two. Our one dimensional space will always be the line along the coordinate x sub 1

Hence forth, we add a dimension perpendicular to the dimensions we already have (coordinate x sub n) and move all the points so far constructed (note that the space the polygon lies in is entirely perpendicular to the new added dimension) along that axis a distance +1/sqrt[2n(n+1)] and add a new point at minus sqrt[n/{2(n+1)}]. Again, a little algebra will show that the new point is exactly 1 unit away from the other points and that all the points are exactly sqrt[n/{2(n+1)} from the origin. See the rest of the lines in the first chart of Part III, Chapter 5.

The second chart is identical to the first except that polygon prior to the addition of the nth point has been rotated in a manner to achieve the desired entries for all corners prior to the addition (we have assumed such can be done for the next lower order polygon - the case where the number of particles is n).

Equation 5.29 immediately following that chart shows that a rotation around the plane defined by coordinate x sub 1 and the added dimension will perform the desired changes such that the new point can be anywhere in the universe (our one dimensional universe along coordinate x sub 1).

Only one last step is required to complete the proof: any rotation in a plane defined by two axes in our n dimensional space makes changes only in the coordinates on those axes. All other coordinates remain unchanged. It follows that the theorem just proved can be applied to any axis in the display. That is to say that we can (by rotations) achieve any distribution of relative positions [x sub 1 coordinate, x sub 2 coordinate, x sub 3 coordinate] which we can call [x,y,z]. It follows that (so long as we have a sufficient number of axes to cover the required independent rotations: i.e., for a three dimensional projection, we need at least five dimensions - or six particles) any three dimensional distribution of n particles can be seen as a projection of an (n-1) dimensional equilateral polygon on a three dimensional space and that all universes can be seen as identical except for rotations.

The requirement that one have the two extra dimensions is subtle but understandable with a little thought. If you disagree, give me the reasons you think the statement is wrong (so that I understand your perspective) and I will try to make the issue clearer.

What no one seems to understand is that my entire presentation in "The Foundations of Physical Reality" is to the point that there exists no explanation of reality which fails to obey most of modern physics. That statement is based on fundamental principles of logic and has absolutely nothing to do with reality itself: i.e., physics itself is no more of a defense of the correctness of that world view than are the arguments of astrology. A good understanding of probabilities destroys the defense of astrology and a good understanding of logic destroys the defense of modern physics.

****
Mike: It seems funny that you have the word "dimention" in your title page.
****

I often make spelling errors but I haven't been able to find the case you refer to. If you give me a little more information, I will fix it.

Have fun -- Dick

What? Not a single comment? Over your head or is it beneath your respect?

Have fun -- Dick

My comment: Who is Mike?

Well, I for one, find this one of your comments refreshing: "I am sure a simple result could be generated if I knew what I was doing."

"What no one seems to understand is that my entire presentation in 'The Foundations of Physical Reality' is to the point that there exists no explanation of reality which fails to obey most of modern physics."

You assert, then, that all explanations of reality in fact obey most of modern physics? Did you, instead, mean to say that there is no explanation of reality which corresponds perfectly to modern physics?

I seem to have a mental realm: thoughts, logical constructs, etc. I seem to perceive an outside realm as well. I am free to assume that either, both, or neither of these realms is a valid reflection of reality. Here are my choices:

1. Neither the interior nor exterior realms reflect reality. Nothing I perceive or think has any relation to reality.

2. Only the interior realm is valid; the exterior realm--experiment, sensation--is illusory. Navel-gazing is the only activity which has any bearing on reality.

3. Only the exterior realm is valid; the interior realm--logic, etc--is illusory. It is fruitless to connect brute sensation with any logical constructs; sensation is the only reality.

4. Both the interior and exterior realms are valid; truth may be approximated by testing thought against experiment.

Name your poison, amigo.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-01-14 04:05 ]</font>

traztx,

Mike is Mike Pearson; if you wish you can check "god and science" on "astronomy.net"! I posted on "badastronomy.com" because "astronomy.net" was (at the time) off the air.

GrapesOfWrath,

Yes, I saw the humor in that comment when I wrote it. I presume you understood the fundamental meaning but I will rephrase it here if you need it. If one is familiar with multi-pole expansions, there are a number of tricks which cut through the morass of finding the solutions to the eigenvalue equation. Though I am working with an n dimensional version of the problem, I suspect there are some simple ways to achieve the same results I obtain without wading through the detailed analysis I present. If I were bright, I might be able to see those tricks.

DStahl,

Yes, I do assert that all explanations of reality must (if they are internally consistent) obey most of modern physics. The sole reason for the existence of the word "most" in that sentence is that I believe there are a number of internal inconstancies in modern physics. Likewise, my work has never been checked by a competent critic thus it is also possible that I have made an error. Nevertheless, I think I have made an excellent case for the fact that modern physics is a tautology.

I think you would agree that, if modern physics does have inconstancies in it, that would be very strong evidence that it does not correspond perfectly to reality.

I am not at all sure I understand the nature of the realms you refer to. I get the feeling you are referring to what you see as a fundamental difference between what goes on in your head and what goes on outside your head. This separation is strong evidence that you have a particular model of the whole thing which you feel is valid.

With regard to the choices you extend, before a choice can be made, you must first explain what you mean by the word reality. Since you have not given me your definition of that term, I will have to go with my definition. Under my definition of reality, all four possibilities are of exactly the same standing: all are possible and nothing that I can think of can place one above another.

In my publication, I essentially show that one can begin with any set of beliefs expressible in words and, if those beliefs include the information necessary to clarify the meanings of those words and those beliefs are presumed to be self consistent, then, using objective labels (numbers) to catalog all those beliefs, those beliefs will contain entities and ideas which will map directly into modern physics. This implies that all explanations are equally valid so long as they are internally consistent.

Thank you all for your comments; however, I note that no one has made any attempt to criticize the hypothesis that reality is a simple rotating n dimensional equilateral polygon projected on a three dimensional space. For all you brilliant astronomers, I will point out that an orientation of that polygon exists which projects every corner except two to the origin of the coordinate system (that would be the orientation discussed in the first chart). Now that kind of maps into the big bang pretty well doesn't it?

Have fun guys -- Dick

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DoctorDick on 2003-01-15 18:23 ]</font>

Whoops, you replied just as I was posting. My point is precisely this: "reality" depends utterly on what assumptions you choose to make about perceptions, both externally generated sensations and internally generated constructs. (Note that if one chooses to say "there are no truly externally generated sensations" then one has, in fact, chosen: only the interior realm is honored. Or, perhaps, neither realm is honored and all "reality" is inaccessible: with Socrates we say, "I know only that I know nothing.")

I assert that all living humans in fact act in accordance with assumption #4: all humans believe sensation and mind, together, tell something about reality. (Some humans say otherwise, claiming for instance to believe that sensation is illusion: but they eat, they breathe, and they avoid the sensation of mortal pain, so I would assert that they in fact act in accordance with #4.)

Are there "really" four spatial dimensions instead of the three we perceive?

1. Physical experiment explicitly shows only three macroscopic spatial dimensions. There may be hints, in some gravitational theories, of a fourth spatial dimension, but it is so far a theoretical speculation and not evidenced to the reports of our senses.

2. Physics, the mathematical logic which seems to explain the universe, works with three macroscopic spatial dimensions. Logic dictates that it is foolish to propose needless complications in explaining reality.

Therefore, by invoking Assumption #4, I find that logical checks and physical observations do not indicate more than three macroscopic spatial dimensions. I would guess, good Doctor, that you are selectively using Assumption #2 and denying your interior realm--thought, speculation--the objectivity gained by checking it against the exterior realm of sensation, observation, and experiment.

Just an opinion, of course.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-01-15 18:45 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-01-15 18:46 ]</font>

Well, Doctor, I must say that I am not being too serious here. I'm not competent to parse your math, but here are some notes not quite so tongue-in-cheek as my other maunderings.

String theory posits three macroscopic spatial dimensions and eight subatomic-scale dimensions. The total of eleven gives a set of possible vibration patterns for the proposed 'strings' which corresponds to subatomic particles found in experiment.

As a general rule, physics seeks testable hypotheses: if a view of the universe as a regular polygon is equivalent in every testable way to conventional physics, then it may be viewed as a mathematical curiousity but I don't know that it would have much staying power.

Finally, in the preface to your online work you write: "Any scientific field may be seen as a body of assumptions (what I am referring to here are those things taken to be true without any examination) together with postulated relationships (and here I mean those things specifically held forth as the basis of the field including any specified assumptions) and the logical deductions which may be obtained from those relationships." In my view this is incorrect: science assumes only that experiment reveals the universe; it does not reveal, say, the fever-dream of an Amazonian fisherman suffering from blackwater fever. The existence of an objective reality can be argued philosophically (as I light-heartedly did) but not scientifically. Science makes use of logical constructs but it is ultimately shaped by experiment--at least, ideally.

That said, I have not had time to read all five chapters at your website. Do you think that your theory of the universe makes testable predictions which would distinguish it from conventional physics?

<a name="3-1-16.y2k"> page= 3-1-16.y2k aka maybe yuck2
On 2003-01-16 02:28, DStahl wrote:
1
anyway my prime reason to click the link
WAS2: get a first inpression of the ?"FORM"?
after seing that it refered to a prior chapter..
i moved along back to this thread..
My approach {if I were2} (& I won't)
would be to run it all thru a spelling checker }
enough silliness..I in general agree .. your results
depend a lot on your presup'$ {3 pres yeild 3D's} (4p's xpose 4D's) etc
myself I use FIVE clocks {Um spin:Orbit ratios REALMS} in cluded ar #3 EEarth spins & orbits Sun #4 Sun spins & orbits center.gal Electrons spin & orb Pro etc etc {5 s} total package

Dstahl,

First, you start telling me about reality without defining the term. I am afraid that you simply do not comprehend the issues which must be considered here. If you need to make any assumptions concerning perceptions you have already lost your argument. Essentially, your first act is to step off on to a totally insupportable limb (which eventually will be sawed off behind you) and then discuss the branches you see before you. As soon as you begin discussing "sensations", you are off to a flight of fancy which has no defense. Socrates was blinded by his own brilliance as are almost the entire community of intellectual numb skulls who inhabit the academy of modern science. You start by saying "I know only that I know nothing" and then twist it into a defense that what you believe must be true because of what? You seem to be saying that you know nothing so believing you are right is the best you can do! Pure mental masturbation if I ever saw it. I, on the other hand, take the position "I know only that I know nothing" and actually build something of value from it without ever defining or using the definition of perception.

What you need to comprehend is that you cannot model reality until after you have something to go on; however, what you have to go on must have been perceived through your perceptions which are certainly part of reality, thus until you have a model of reality, you have no perceptions to work with. Your perceptions themselves are part of the solution, not part of the problem. To think of them as part of the problem is to presume you know something! Your arguments become simple minded sophistry not worthy of discussion.

You assert that all living humans in fact act in accordance with assumption #4: all humans believe sensation and mind, together, tell something about reality. Well that may sound rational to an ignoramus but it you had any sense at all you would comprehend that the statement depends very strongly on the definition of sensation and mind; two words you presume are well defined when in fact you haven't (and cannot) define them at all. Fundamentally, by failing to define these words you end up presuming that whatever idea you have in your head (so to speak) is valid! You are intellectually lost already.

Of course, you know that, or you would not have included the comment, "Just an opinion, of course". To quote Buddha, "there is nothing to opinions, they may be beautiful or ugly, smart or foolish, everyone can support them or discard them".

With regard to your competency at mathematics, part III of chapter 5 (the portion which was first brought up in this thread) requires nothing beyond high school algebra and trigonometry to follow the entire proof. If those subjects are beyond you then I am sorry; however, from your comments above, I am afraid it is your ability to follow logic which fails you and not the subject matter.

Please note that what I put forward in my paper is not a theory but a proof. I simply show what follows from the definition, "reality is a set of numbers", and nothing more. In doing this proof, I discovered that modern physics (at least that part which is known to be correct) is a tautology: i.e., a consequence of it's definitions and not its experiments, the outcomes of which are, in fact, predetermined by those definitions. Just because the experimentalists couldn't see that does not make it false. To make my statement false, they would have to find an error in my logic and I have not found anyone with the guts and intellect to even try. I think they are all scared to death of it; what would happen to their professional status if they condescended to look at my work.

Finally, your complaint about my comment, "Any scientific field may be seen as a body of assumptions (what I am referring to here are those things taken to be true without any examination) together with postulated relationships (and here I mean those things specifically held forth as the basis of the field including any specified assumptions) and the logical deductions which may be obtained from those relationships." displays a complete inability to comprehend what I am saying. Again, I am sorry your thought processes are so reactionary. Try thinking about what I am saying and not just reacting to it. There is no threat there; sticks and stones can break one's bones but words can never hurt you. My arguments are either correct or they are flawed. The whole thing is as simple as that.

Have fun -- Dick

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DoctorDick on 2003-01-17 03:19 ]</font>

Whoa. This is about the most rude and arrogant post I've read so far on this board.
My opinion? Some babble to sound intelligent.

T<SUB>ban</SUB> - 10, genius.

"In doing this proof, I discovered that modern physics (at least that part which is known to be correct) is a tautology: i.e., a consequence of it's definitions and not its experiments, the outcomes of which are, in fact, predetermined by those definitions. Just because the experimentalists couldn't see that does not make it false."

Fine. I was just offering some thoughts, as I said, not too seriously. There are lots of folks out there who have overthrown physics in their own minds. Good luck with your explorations.

I guess someone could then easily come up with an experiment that didn't fit the ol' paradigm, right? Why not?

Another country heard from! So Mr. Fruh-Batz, you find me "rude" and "arrogant". Well, that's an opinion and opinions are cheap - everyone has one. I note that you make utterly no comments concerning the possibility that I am correct. What is it, you just don't want to talk about it or you can't follow my comments?

DStahl,

I hope I haven't upset you. That certainly was not my intention; I was just trying to get you to think outside the box for a moment. I'm old and I sometimes lack a little patience with the closed minds I run up against, particularly the refusal to consider issues which to me seem quite obvious. Do you really believe you haven't made some major insupportable assumptions in your initial perspective?

Mr. GrapesOfWrath,

Nice to hear from you. In reading your posts, I get the impression that you are above the competence of the average on this board and I haven't seen anything to indicate you don't think (although I haven't read all your posts). I always have hopes that I will find someone who won't disappoint me.

With regard to your comment about something that doesn't fit the ol' paradigm, I will point out that chapter three contains a significant difference. If you check out equations 3.29 and 3.32, you will find that my result for the orbit of Mercury is slightly different from the standard GR result (as done by Schwarzschild) as is the result for a beam of light grazing a star. In both cases, my result yields a slight difference from standard GR related to the radial component of the orbit. As I comment in my paper, that correction to Schwarzschild is down by an order of magnitude from his corrections to the Newtonian result and is certainly a second order effect. As such it seems to be well below the current accuracy of experiment (see my comments following those equations). On the other hand, who knows what a good experimentalist could do with it.

Furthermore, as I have also commented a number of times, since no competent physicist has ever checked my mathematics, the possibility certainly exists that I have made an error. In my opinion, I would think checking the logic of my proof would be considerably cheaper than performing the experiment (at least as a first step anyway). Nevertheless, the consensus seems to be that the most profitable route is to ignore the whole thing. Historically speaking, I will comment that there appears to be no stronger indicator that something important is afoot than that the academy refuses to look. If that is the case here, I certainly have history on my side.

Actually, I don't think I explain my work well. What seems quite obvious to me apparently eludes others. I have noticed a great propensity for people to misinterpret what I say and I suspect no one will ever be able to follow it without a little personal guidance from me and I am afraid people don't like to take guidance from "rude and arrogant" people.

There are at least three things which, to me, have always appeared obvious and yet seem to concern no one else. I have only recently realized how short sighted people are with respect to these particular issues. First is the issue of communications itself. Most people seem to assume they understand what is being said to them; whereas I, on the other hand, feel that is a very dangerous presumption.

Clearly, as children, we guess the meanings of most words from the context of our introduction to them. We should remember that it is always possible that we have guessed wrong on any given word. How do we know when we have guessed wrong? The answer is actually quite simple, we then find inconsistencies in the circles of our perceived definitions. Only when we become aware of an inconsistency can we make any adjustment in our understanding of the meaning somewhere.

Fundamental to the whole picture of the impact of definition itself is the idea that the specific meaning of every word should be essentially left open until we have the entirety of the message to work with. What I am suggesting is that the only attack available to us which completely avoids assumption is an attack which makes no guesses at all until one is ready to make a final guess on the whole picture. Since most of the information about reality which we have to work with arrives via a language (that is, a collection of words), in our thoughts, how are we to avoid attaching unthoughtout meanings to these words?

Actually, the solution is quite simple: we should (at least in our abstract thoughts) just label these words and catalog the collections we have to work with. Numbers certainly supply us with an infinite supply of labels which carry with them no inherent connotations. So, what we should do, if we wish to understand the universe, is look at the information expressed in that catalog of collections we have to work with. This leads me to my very first exact definition of a word. So what would be a good word for what we have to work with? How about "reality"? This is why I have defined reality to be a set of numbers. Have I not cast the problem in an objective form? Is this not an objective philosophical perspective?

I hold that, in order to philosophically discuss reality, you need to define words. Now that is really a philosophically hard problem. Define me a single word without defining another word first. Actually, I have avoided confrontation of that very problem by placing the whole thing on the backs of the mathematicians. They certainly concern themselves with problem of exact definition and seem to have a very strong case for the particular words they employ. So I really just back out of the issue having presumed understanding of but a single word : "reality". One could argue that the philosophical problem is still there but I hold that, if it really is, we are truly SOL and might as well forget the subject.

The further definitions I present are exact with regard to that fundamental definition whereas the common definitions of physics are vague concepts explained via the descriptions of various experiments. (Those definitions are not actually very decent definitions at all and are certainly not exact.) So I build a set of words which are exactly defined and, as a matter of fact, map quite easily into the common perception of those words (at least with regard to the uses for which I put them). Having established these few definitions, I go on and show some very significant facts which turn out to be extremely valuable.

The second thing which seems to elude the common man is the fundamental nature of symmetries. Anyone who has been introduced to fundamental physics has been told that "symmetry arguments are the most powerful arguments which can be made"; however, it is very rare for anyone to explain to them why symmetry arguments are so powerful. For the most part, most educators simply consider the issue settled once they have expressed the existence of that power. I have found that even trained scientists overlook this issue.

The power of symmetry comes from the fact that it contains and expresses the inherent consequences of ignorance. No operation consisting of thought only can create fundamental information. Any fundamental information must be based on reality itself. If you can express a necessary lack of information in a form such that the fact that the information does not exist is inherently contained in all possible solutions then that form always constitutes an explicit display of some sort of symmetry.

For example, consider a case of rotational symmetry. What one is actually expressing by the terminology rotational symmetry is the fact that a rotation of the system creates no changes at all. That is to say, that we are completely ignorant of the angular orientation of any aspect of the problem: i.e., that all angular orientations are entirely equivalent. Mirror symmetry means that no information exists which can separate the mirror image of a situation from the original.

The third thing which seems to evade consideration by everyone is that the universe itself, viewed from a holistic perspective, must display every conceivable symmetry. That follows directly from the fact that all information required to establish or define any aspect of the universe must come from the universe itself (absolutely no information exists which is not derived from the universe). That being a fact, the universe itself is outside any absolute reference of any kind.

Now, what is so powerful about symmetry arguments is that anything which is unknowable in the statement of a problem (any problem) must also be unknowable in the solution of the problem. This statement is absolute and incontrovertible. There exists no constraint more absolute than that constraint. If a variable of intermediate calculational interest happens to be one which is fundamentally unknowable (whether assumed unknowable or actually unknowable is immaterial here) then physicists commonly call that variable cyclic (for historical reasons which I could explain if such were significant). Cyclic variables are very important to modern physics as, from the mix of cyclic variables and mathematics (distilled logic), they become the source of quantization and everyone knows quantum effects are the single most significant consequences of modern physics.

How are quantum phenomena created? If nothing can be known for sure then any solution to any problem can, at best, only be expressed as a probability. Now this is where things get interesting. Probability is, by definition, a positive definite number between zero and one. That implies that the algorithm necessary to calculate the answer involves some operation which obliterates signs. Now this implies the thing which is to be manipulated in the algorithm may be either positive or negative.

The issue of positive and negative values yielding the same probabilities (through squaring) yields wave phenomena (a consequence of the fact that sine squared plus cosine squared is always one). This yields a mathematical result of far reaching consequence. (Please, everyone, learn mathematics - you will never find it worthless!) Any variable which is cyclic implies another variable (often called the canonical variable) which is a conserved quantity. Another way to look at the situation is to realize that, if a cyclic variable exists in the problem, then some aspect of the problem exists which cannot change.

Consider, for the moment, any expression which is capable of expressing the probability of some result as a function of that cyclic variable. Clearly, if the cyclic variable is changed, that probability can not change (if it does then the value of the variable is significant and it cannot possibly be cyclic). It follows that the differential of that probability with respect to the cyclic variable must be zero (check out the definition of a differential). Now, if you know any calculus at all you should comprehend that a vanishing differential implies something does not change! Whatever this thing is which cannot change, as its value must be obtained through integration (it's a differential result remember) and boundary conditions become important. This is exactly the fundamental source of all quantization.

Now I hope I have not overwhelmed you all with mathematical insights. What I think you should realize is that Philosophy without logic is utterly worthless and that mathematics is nothing but a collection of valuable logical relations. A philosopher who avoids mathematics is about the same as an accountant who avoids learning to add numbers or a preacher who avoids learning to speak; it is an essential tool of his trade. If you have difficulty getting a good grasp on mathematics, you have difficulty with logic itself (at least any part of it beyond a simple syllogism).

If you could understand my publication (and that possibility always exists) then you would understand that what I have shown is that physics is true for any explanation of any universe under the single, very hard to fault, constraint that the explanation must be consistent with itself. An explanation which is inconsistent with itself isn't a very valuable explanation. (The sole purpose of any explanation is to produce answers and if the answers are inconsistent, we need something more to decide which one to use: i.e., the explanation is incomplete.)

What is an explanation? Any explanation breaks down to three independent factors which must be understood. First, all explanations depend upon something which must be accepted as true without evidence of any kind. As Harv (check the science and god forum on astronomy.net) so strongly expresses, without belief in something, there is no starting place; that is, the ultimate skeptic presents a totally worthless solution to the dilemma. Lastly, any explanation must explain something: that is to say, the if the explanation provides no answers, it serves utterly no purpose at all.

In my publication, I essentially show that one can begin with any set of beliefs expressible in words and, if those beliefs include the information necessary to clarify the meanings of those words and those beliefs are presumed to be self consistent, then, using objective labels (numbers) to catalog all those beliefs, those beliefs will contain entities and ideas which can be mapped directly into modern physics. This implies that all explanations are equally valid so long as they are 100% internally consistent with themselves.

I am very curious as to the extent of the possibilities here. I certainly know I have not exhausted them. I have been hoping for years that I might someday run into someone who could understand the range and variation of the possibilities but to date, I have found no one capable of stepping outside the model of the world their subconscious presents to them and looking at the situation objectively. At this point, the probability is very high that I will die before I find anyone capable of discussing any of these issues with me. That is why I continually shake the intellectual tree so vigorously.

Have fun -- Dick

Why, do you suppose, that might be?

Post removed by Chip. No reason to participate. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2003-01-18 23:55 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath,

You are certainly funny! You ask, "Why, do you suppose, that might be?" I would say it is quite obvious why that is so: because most people are so intellectually stupid that they put their egos above their rationality. Nothing is more important to them than their own personal position in the intellectual pecking order and they fear nothing more than having others recognize their error. Knowledge is power and the most common misuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity. That is such a popular activity that it consumes the majority of intellectual effort.

Have fun -- Dick

Boy, you guys sure must hate my guts. I notice that you certainly spend a significant amount of time trying to belittle me compared to the amount of time you spend paying any attention to what I say. Do you all realize that not a one of you has proposed even the first criticism of my paper or any of my ancillary comments? Is logic simply beyond you?

Have fun -- Dick

Well most other posters and myself did not "belittle" your paper. In my case, I quoted terms, as well as an equation from it, and offered an equation about fractals, but due to the excessive and unproductive flaming from you in return, I see no reason to participate in any of your threads again. There are better things to do, so I've removed my post from this thread. I would however suggest you consider taking a course in the rhetoric and style of scientific papers. Good luck! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2003-01-18 23:57 ]</font>

That's true. But here, mine is the one that counts. I too find your posts to be rude and arrogant. When people reply to your post, even thoughtfully, you belittle them. I strongly urge you to find a better tone. While you're looking for it, try reading the FAQ as well.

No we don't hate your guts. At least I don't. Ancillary comments? I think you should be prepared to defend even the smallest issue.

And, no, logic is not beyond us.
OK, that's good then.
I don't think that is true at all. I think that is a misconception on your part. Can you offer support for it?

Sir,

I am very sorry you feel that I am rude and arrogant. I did not mean to upset the man in charge. I have reread my posts and still do not find them very rude or arrogant at all. Rather, it seems to me that the only way someone would see that in them would be if they identified with the academy which I criticize.

I have read your FAQ and still find your complaint pretty vague. Could you be so kind as to be more specific as to exactly what I said that you find so offensive?

Sorry about that -- Dick

How about this?

The FAQ says pretty clearly to be nice, don't insult the people here, and don't use words inappropriate for kids. If it were only adults here I wouldn't have any problems with language, but there are kids who read this.

Here's a pretty good example, in informant's post.

Sir,

I apologize for using the word you have x'ed out and I will be more careful; however, I don't see anything insulting about my comment. I was quite sincere in my belief that the writer did not comprehend the issues which I was trying to bring up. I commented that I felt that Socrates was blinded by his own brilliance. Now that is an opinion on a circumstance we have no opportunity to check. I suspect I would have found a much warmer welcome from Socrates on that issue than you seem to think. I think he missed some very important issues which might very well have cleared up some of the problems he confronted. Can you really sustain the idea that Socrates made no mistakes in his thinking?

Now "numb skulls" is a bit insulting; but, who am I insulting? Only those who refuse to think! If you count yourself within their ranks then I have insulted you; but do you really want to count yourself among them.

Sorry I have disturbed you -- Dick

Wow! It seems that the mere presence of Dr. Dick in a town can make experiments fail!

Sorry dr. Dick. I couldn´t resist. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Greeting from down there!

almost the entire community of intellectual numb skulls who inhabit the academy of modern science? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Argos,

No need to apologize. What experiments do I cause to fail?

GrapesOfWrath,

You are funny! I am sure there are some members of the academy who are not "numb skulls" but I am afraid they are too busy fending off the nuts to pay me any attention. I really don't blame them much since the world certainly has an excess of nuts to contend with. Since my stuff is not easy to understand, and it really isn't by the way, my only hope is that, if I raise enough of a storm, someone educated enough to follow it might just take a look. Meanwhile, who knows, maybe I will interest someone in entering the field of (????). I don't know what name to give to it physics, mathematics, philosophy ... whatever. In 1987, I attempted to publish and every journal I sent it to (about a dozen) returned it as outside the interest of their journal (I don't think they knew what referee to send it to). I have apparently discovered a new field (tongue in cheek).

Have fun -- Dick

It´s just an old joke about theoretical scientists. Your thoughts seem to develop in a highly theoretical level.

But I confess I like your examples on the simple one-two-three particles/single dimension universe models. I also noted that you are somewhat bitter about the academic system.

I should also say that I didn´t appreciate much the way you treated our fellows DStahl and Chip, who have been so kind and generous to all of us through all these years. It really seemed arrogant to me.

But, of course, I may be wrong. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2003-01-20 20:10 ]</font>

Argos,

Sorry, I hadn't heard the joke. Since I have not been intimately involved with the science community for close to 40 years, I wouldn't be surprised by ignorance of a joke.

You say you liked my examples of the one-two-three particle/single dimensional universe. Can I take that to mean you understand it. If you do, then do you understand the extension to n particles. If you understand highschool algebra, the proof should not be above your head. Explain to me what doesn't make sense to you and I will try to help.

With regard to being bitter, I think you misread me greatly. I think you see me as bitter because I express a great distaste for the academic community. You jump to the conclusion that only bitterness could impel one to express such distaste. That simply is not so. I am not a bitter person at all; in fact, I have met few people as happy with their life as I. I wouldn't change one thing about my life if I had the opportunity to do so, as everything I have experienced has led to understanding which I know I would not have if things had been otherwise. My distaste for the academic community derives not from the way they have treated me (as I have certainly had the best of it) but rather the disappointment I feel in their rather simple minded attempts to advance their science. The way they hoodwink the uneducated and the way they constrain and distort the minds of the young people who want to learn. I really do have an honest low opinion of their abilities (at least the great majority of them).

I know there have been some great minds in the world and may even be some alive today, but they are certainly rare and quite difficult to reach. I really don't expect to reach anyone who can follow my work but, on the other hand, what harm can I do? The worst case scenario is that someone might be moved to think a little. As far a Dstahl and Chip go, I don't think I was that hard on them.

Perhaps I am arrogant since I fully believe I can understand any rational argument anyone on earth can present. Furthermore, I think you should all feel that way. Anyone who believes someone else could be intellectually superior to themselves is selling themselves short.

Have fun -- Dick