I started a new thread because nothing on the other thread has anything to do with what I am talking about. In hopes that someone might be interested in that subject, I will answer beskeptical and chip here.

I have no argument with you to speak of. The comment you refer to

was nothing but an expression of a personal opinion on a side issue. I never claimed to understand the human brain and I make no claim to understand it now.

The whole issue I originally brought up comes down to the fact that we "the conscious entity who is capable of being aware" is entirely isolated from the real world by the fact that "ABSOLUTELY" everything they perceive is presented to them as "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" created by our brain.

As an example of what I am referring to here, I point out that, while I am typing this, I see before me the screen of a monitor at about arms reach displaying the words you are reading. Now, according to the modern scientific explanation of how this comes about, the lens of my eye focus an image of that screen on the retina of my eye where nerves (excited by photons) transmit a message to my brain. Somehow, my brain then creates an illusion of that screen before me. I have utterly no conscious awareness of the activities required to produce that result. Try as I might, I cannot "perceive" this as an image on the retina of my eye nor as electrically firing nerves in my brain; I can only "perceive" it as an object about two feet away. It seems to me to be undeniable that my perceptions of reality are all "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" created by my brain.

That is to say, I sense the illusions my subconscious mind puts before my conscious awareness and that these illusions include the fundamental meanings of those senses themselves.

It is the position of all of humanity that, except for some well known illusions, those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are accurate representations of reality. What I point out is that we cannot even think about our own brains without depending on the "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" created by our brains. Suppose our brains are performing a more complex manipulation of the information than we give it credit for. Since the explanation of what our brain does is part of our explanation of reality, what happens if we open that issue up.

Suppose we take the position that those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are not "accurate" representations of reality at all but are rather "convenient" representations of reality designed to make it easy for us to know what to expect (that would certainly be convenient). What can one say about reality if that is that case? I have essentially not responded to anyone because no one wants to discuss that issue. All they want to do is argue that those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are an "accurate" representation of reality.

If that is the case, end of story! I have no argument with any of you at all. If one assumes the "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever]" are "accurate" representations of reality, how can one discus the possibilities which arise when that assumption is presumed false? You and I are just not talking about the same issue.

But not the one I want to talk about right! That error is clearly not possible. Ok, you're the boss!

Now to Mr. Chips:

I don't intend to insult you at all but I am afraid your understanding of physics is quite limited. I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics awarded by a major university. I don't claim to be a great physicist; however, I do have an excellent grasp of all the issues you bring up and they are misrepresentations of the facts. I will answer your complaints one by one as the possibility exists that someone will understand what I am saying and hostility solves nothing.

First of all, I do not have any disrespect for Einstein and his theory at all. It works quite well; and much valuable information may be derived from it; however, I personally think he has made a subtle error. That error has to do with his concept of time. I know of no competent scientist on earth who will put themselves forward as an authority who knows exactly what "time" is. Yet, whatever it is, they all "know" it is measured by clocks. Now, isn't there something strange about that?

And yes, you leave a lot out and miss the gist entirely.

If you had any serious training in physics at all you would know that the gravitational red shift was dropped as a valid test of Einstein's theory a long time ago because it is a direct result of conservation of energy. That is, any theory which includes conservation of energy will generate the red shift. That issue became clear when it was recognized that the energy of a photon was proportional to its frequency.

It certainly does as the central theme behind general relativity is to make the force of gravity a consequence of geometric effects in the same sense that centrifugal force is a geometric effect. Three hundred years ago, when Newton came up with his laws, he introduced a thing called an inertial coordinate system. Newton's law, F=ma, was put forth as true only in an inertial coordinate system. If you are not in an inertial coordinate system, you will find things moving (having non zero acceleration) when they have no forces on them (F=0). That cup of coffee falls off the dashboard of your car when you go around the corner too fast (I am one of those old guys who remembers cars with square dashboards and no cup holders).

If you know the acceleration of your coordinate system, you can calculate exactly what the apparent paths of free object will seem to be when observed from that moving coordinate system. In many problems, it is more convenient to use an accelerating coordinate system than an inertial system (for example, when all but one object are forcibly at rest in the coordinate system: i.e., the interior of my car not counting that coffee cup). In such a case, from the perspective inside that accelerating coordinate system, free objects appear to have forces on them. Those forces are often called "pseudo" forces as they are not real but merely a consequence of the analysis not being in an inertial coordinate system. If one were in an inertial system, the free object would simply tend to follow a straight line, not the path of the turning car.

So Newton showed that some forces were entirely due to "being in the wrong coordinate system". These pseudo forces always show one particular characteristic. That characteristic is that all pseudo forces are directly proportional to mass. Why is that? For a very simple reason: the observed motion (a direct function of the acceleration) is a function of the motion of the coordinate system and not a function of any aspects of the object being observed. Since the pseudo force is exactly the fictitious force you have to put in F=ma to obtain the observed apparent acceleration, it must be proportional to the mass. This must be true since, when you stick in the "pseudo force" you are really sticking in the actual acceleration of the coordinate system directly. That is, heavier objects will require a stronger force to follow the same path.

Now here is where an interesting observation occurs. The force of gravity is apparently directly proportional to mass. The mathematicians of the day noticed that and asked the question, "could there exist a geometry which would make gravity a pseudo force?" This started people to doing all kinds of things related to an astonishing number of variations in geometrical representation. One of valuable things which came out of that work were some very powerful methods of solving problems by transforming those problems to a coordinate system such that the differential equations of motion were trivial: the trajectories of the objects became geodesics of the geometry. That is, all of the forces were transformed out of the problem and into the geometry.

A whole field of study is based on that work. It is called Hamiltonian mechanics. Any decent education in physics should provide the student with a good understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics. Much of the founding of Quantum mechanics is based directly on the important functional relationships found in Hamiltonian mechanics.

As I said, a lot of that work was originally motivated by an attempt to find a geometry which would make gravity a pseudo force. That issue fell by the wayside for two reasons: first the benefits of the work were worthwhile in their own right and ended up being the driving force of more work and second, a man named Maupertuis proved that there was no geometry which would eliminate gravity.

It was the fact that the geometry deduced from Einstein's general theory of relativity did indeed make gravity an apparent force. That is, the apparent accelerations due to gravity existed only because one was using the wrong coordinate system.: i.e., free objects actually followed a geodesic in his geometry, making geometry a pseudo force and explaining the proportionality between the gravitational force and mass.

What I am getting at is the fact that if you understand physics, you will understand the relationship between Einstein's gravity and centrifugal force. Furthermore, if you understood general relativity, you would understand that it also produces all the pseudo forces talked about under Newtonian physics. That is, the phenomena of centrifugal force does not vanish in a correct general relativistic analysis of swinging a rock on a string! If it did, the theory of general relativity would be experimentally wrong.

This is an amateur's confused representation of what I said. What I was trying to say was that, if the only support for Einstein's use of Minkowski's space-time geometry was special relativity, the presumption that real space had to be a Minkowski like space was foolish. Certainly none of the various specialized geometries used in Hamiltonian mechanics were ever put forth as the "only" rational geometry of reality. Yes, use of Minkowski geometry is convenient to a lot of solutions to difficult problems but so are the various geometries conceived of in other applications. The jump of faith that Einstein's geometry is the only possible geometry of real space does only one thing: it cuts of interest in examination of alternatives and that I say is foolish.

Now the support bestowed on his picture by his theory of general relativity is very strong. It is support of the idea that perhaps space really is Minkowski in nature. That idea is defended by the common proposition that "a reduction of gravitational theory to geodesic motion in an appropriate geometry could be carried out only in the four-dimensional space-time continuum of [Einstein's] relativity theory".

Now that is a very strong declaration and I have heard essentially the same thing from a great many professionals in physics. But just how often do physicists actually prove things? Inductive reasoning is more their speed. Suppose the statement is false! Once again, the real impact of the common belief in Einstein's infallibility is to cut interest in the examination of alternatives. This it has done very successfully for almost one hundred years.

If an alternative attack with a Euclidean geometry also yields that same perhelic shift, how can the shift be a valid test of Einstein's theory? In my paper, I present an alternative based on a Euclidean geometry which also produces that shift. You cannot simply dismiss that alternative because it's "anti-Einstein". That makes your physics a religion, not a science.

That is not at all what I said. If you look at the equations of motion I deduce from my Euclidean geometry, you will find that they are identical to the spherically symmetric solutions to Einstein's field equations on which the perhelic shift of Mercury and the bending of starlight by our sun are based; except for a term in square brackets. That means, if the term in square brackets is ignored, the two attacks yield exactly the same result. Exactly the same results means that the results are the same.

So, what about the term in square brackets. First, it is down by the same order of magnitude with regard to Einstein's solution as Einstein's solution is to Newton's. That means it is a very very small effect. It would be as difficult to see the impact of that term on Einstein's result as the impact of Einstein's change was on Newton's result. That means, with regard to current experiments, the term in square brackets may certainly be ignored. If it is ignored, than these tests do not differentiate between my results and Einstein's. So the tests, as done, are not valid tests of the fact that Einstein's geometry is the only geometry consistent with reality. So long as no one considers my attack, there is no reason for them to think about that additional term I produce and likewise, a very low probability that anyone will ever take the trouble to check for its existence. And finally, the errors we are talking about here are on the same level as the errors caused by an erroneous distribution of mass inside the sun, further complicating the question.

My work obtains exactly the same Lorentz transformations and exactly the same results predicted by general relativity. If that is true, just what does "Minkowski's mathematical concept of space-time" validates "the Lorentz transformations" mean? And just exactly how does "a concept" test "general relativity"? I think your grammar is getting awfully loose here.

There is absolutely nothing "anti-relativity" in my paper. All the relativistic results are supported 100%. If you don't think they are, you didn't understand what I was saying. It also is not "anti-Einstein" unless you believe finding a problem with Einstein's work is "anti-Einstein". When did he get raised to the position of god? All I have done is present an alternative. Until an error in my work is uncovered, I can only presume I am right, it is a valid alternative. That is, another perspective which fits all the facts does exist. And my perspective has one advantage over Einstein's: mine is in explicit agreement with Quantum Mechanics. Einstein's is not.

I simply cannot comprehend how you managed to mix these two issues together this way. Yes, my main gist of the paper concerns perceptions (go read my response to beskeptical above) but not perceptions as you have suggested here. The second part of your sentence refers to a comment I made near the end of presentation of my deduction of general relativistic effects. That had to do with the surprising result that, in my picture, one can define rigid objects. Since most physics depends on experiments which involve rigid components, the fact that Einstein's picture disallows the "definition" of a rigid object makes life somewhat more complex than necessary.

I don't think I have ever vilified Einstein or called him names. You find me unconvincing because you have no understanding of what I said.

I think you see insults where none is intended.

I would say the misinterpretation of the paper which you put forth is certainly way off kilter. You simply do not understand what I am doing and, as far as I can tell, all of your conclusions are completely beside the issue being discussed.

Again, I think you see insult where none is intended.

It seems that way to you because you have no understanding of what I am saying.

Fundamentally you are avoiding the same issue as beskeptical above. To reiterate my comment to him,

That is the gist of my paper. The results are the results of that analysis and were as surprising to me twenty years ago as they are to everyone else today. No one ever considers the question I ask. They simply elude talking about it. If you want to understand what I am talking about, you need to look very carefully at Chapter 1. In order to assist you in that review if you or anyone else has any interest in it, I will provide you with some pony notes as to what is critical and what can be ignored.

Chapter 1 is divided into four parts. I would suggest you simply skip to Part II and read the first two paragraphs; they give the gist of what started me down this track. Part III is quite short and pretty well sets the stage for what I am doing.

Part IV contains the essence of what I discovered.

There are 29 equations in Part IV. I have put an asterisk on the ones I think you should look at carefully.

*The first two (1.1 and 1.2) express something which I have not seen elsewhere and can be well justified. Tell me if you can not comprehend why they must be true and I will provide you with a proof that they are.

Equations 1.3 through 1.7 essentially justify the generality of representing probability as the magnitude of a normalized function. I think most every physicist accepts that as true so there is no need to worry about that section. If you do read it, please note the non-standard definition of the symbol normally used for a line integral (definition following equation 1.5). I do that solely for notational simplicity as I use no line integrals in the presentation anywhere.

Equation 1.8 through 1.14 are essentially constitute the standard proof that conservation of momentum arises from the fact that physics cannot depend on the position of the origin of one's coordinate system. Again, that result is well known to any competent physicist.

Equations 1.15 through 1.18 serve no purpose other than to argue that what I do following equation 1.21 is the most reasonable thing to do. Thus they are really not at all necessary to the presentation.

*Equation 1.18 through 1.20 are fundamental to my final results. It is my opinion that these are on very solid ground. I hope you will agree.

*Equations 1.21 through 1.24 constitutes a proof that 1.22 is valid. If you cannot follow the proof, let me know and I will try to make it clearer.

Equations 1.25 are a summary of my resultant constraints. Three are standard quantum mechanics results well known to any physicist the fourth is equation 1.22.

*Equations 1.26 and 1.27 constitutes a conversion of 1.25 into a single equation via 0+0=0 together with the definition of some anti-commuting matrices .

*Equation 1.28 and the discussion surrounding it is a proof that the equations displayed in 1.25 can be recovered from 1.27.

So there are five critical equations: 1.2, 1.20, 1.22, 1.25 and 1.27. If the first four are valid, then so is the fifth (under the definitions I have proposed). The question is, under the definitions I have set up, is equation 1.27 a valid equation or not?

The rest of the paper amounts to nothing more than examining and interpreting the solutions to equation 1.27.

Is anyone interested?

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

I am interested, but I fear that the physics is over my head. If you don't mind entertaining and discussing things on a lower level, I would like to partake in this thread. If that does not appeal to you, I can fully understand and respect that.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Ah ha! Thanks for a lucid explanation and clarification of some of the points in your paper that were mentioned within my very quick assessment in the other thread. I also followed some of your sequences of equations, which were logical and interesting but later totally missed your attempted alignment of relativity theory with quantum theory. If you can really accomplish that, or find the avenue by which it could travel, my hat is off to you. I’m not saying I think you’re right because these things are complex, and I’m just one fellow with an interest in such things, but your ideas on perception intrigued me (and remind me of Jaynes in some respects.)

In light of your explanations here, (which I’ll save for reference,) I’ll go back and look into the other parts you listed. I’ll retract the word "insult" pertaining to your statements. (Unless you get nasty.) Perhaps "sweeping" would be better. You say I know “nothing” (as in zero) about physics. (Sweeping statement.) Well, I’m certainly not the “all seeing eye” sought by Sinbad, but I'm glad you took the time to explain statements anyway. :wink:

I will try to answer any question you ask to the best of my ability. And, just as an aside, I don't think anyone should regard anything as being over their head. If something really does make sense, anyone can make sense of it if they take the time to think it out for themselves.

Authorities are a nice thing to have if you need to perform a prescribed action to accomplish an important result (that's do your job and get paid for it in "philosophese") but when it comes to the issue of understanding something, it's all in your own head and the authorities are often of little help.

To Chip,

Thank you for that gracious response. Sorry about saying you know "nothing"; I sometimes have a tendency to exaggerate things. I never have been very good at communicating. When I was young, my mother told me that one learns a lot more by listening than by talking so I spent most of my time listening and thinking; i.e., I haven't really had a lot of practice expressing my thoughts.

I know my paper is not well written but I don't change it because I really don't understand exactly what is causing the difficulty. It is sort of like computer manuals: they only become clear when you understand what they are trying to say. I have come to recognize that many things which to me seem obvious are not seen as obvious by others at all. What I am saying is that there are some subtleties there which are actually not even mentioned but that I already know need clarification. We need to handle them as they come up.

Fundamentally, there are only two things in my paper, the derivation of my fundamental equation and the various solutions of that equation. The solutions are pretty well beside the point if the equation is just ad-hoc so the derivation becomes the single most important issue.

If you really want to understand what I am saying, it seems to me that the only rational path is to take chapter 1 one step at a time and make sure that each step is clearly understood. Jumping ahead under the assumption that something will be cleared up later is a major mistake. Please follow the pony I gave you and let us see if together we can make all the steps in chapter 1 clear.

I am very much looking forward to talking with you.

I think you reasonably accurately state the issue here. You are operating on the assumption that we can't trust our senses at all. We are not. Further, it is scientifically provable that we can trust our senses to within certain limits (also scientifically provable).

Now that doesn't rule out The Matrix of course - but are you seriously suggesting mass, identical halucinations?

I also think we covered this in the other thread - and you say you havent' responded because we don't want to discuss the issue. Well thats an oxymoron! If we didn't want to discuss the issue, there would be nothing to respond to! Its you who doesn't want to discuss the issue. Unless of course by "discuss" you mean "agree without discussion."

That it's somewhere in the neighborhood of our flawed perceptions?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Consciousness is viewed to be an epiphenomenon. There is not a place in your brain labeled "consciousness" or any other sort of, as my neurobiology prof liked to call it, "little man watching a TV screen". What makes you conscious of seeing a color is the firing of the neurons that are linked to "green"ness. The auditory registering of somebody's voice in another place, by the neuron which developed to respond to that voice, is also consciousness, though it's on the other side of the brain. That your "consciousness" is so complex is because of the complex neuronal firings inspired by a single input (memory resonance, neurons linking between sensory input areas [there's a condition where you can taste color, smell sound, that sort of thing, and there are indications that it happens even in normal people in a smaller level], output neurons firing [when you imagine running, the same neurons that actually make you run are firing]).
All of which is to say that your brain isn't deceiving you, because you and your brain are one in the same.

So you're asking "What if the memory resonances and all that are inaccurate?" Let's assume they are flawed. What would it look like if they weren't?

Those people without mental disorders have consistent experiences that continue to reaffirm their neural constructs (mental disorder could be called, possibly, the experience of inexplicable contradictory input). It's identical to scientific analysis: Confirmation by repeated testing. And as we get new input, we mesh it into our worldview and tweak our worldview as needed.
Are there errors in what we see? Sure. But that most of us (er... most of you, actually, I'm bipolar) go through daily, without massively overwhelming contradictory input, indicates that your mental construct is accurate enough. Just like science.

I'll get to most of the rest of your post later (I just wanted to deal with the neurobiology part before following your tangent into physics).

Which major university? If you want to argue from authority, then you must fully establish that authority.

__________________
Contrary to the opinion of the press, the public, and their mothers, most scientists are dull and uninteresting people.
- James Watson

No such proof exists! All such proofs depend upon the assumption that the concepts you have in your head (your mental model of what is going on) are correct. You are assuming you can trust your senses and using that to prove you can trust your senses. That is a circular argument.

And I say again, you don't want to discuss the issue; you want to argue that it is not possible that you are wrong. All I ask is, "what if you're wrong?". Case over; you and I have nothing to talk about.

I have exactly the same comment to make to Betenoire. You are also taking the position that it is not possible that you are wrong. You simply do not understand what I am saying.

For those who are interested in discussing the consequences of my observation, I will summarize the results in a nutshell:

Our mental image of the universe is constructed from data received through mechanisms which are also part of that image. The entire scientific world holds it as obvious that one could not possibly model anything until after some information about the thing to be modeled is obtained. That proposition absolutely has to be invalid. The problem with the proposition is that we cannot possibly model our senses (the name I give to the fundamental source of the information to be modeled) until after we have modeled the universe.

Somehow, we have constructed a mental image of the universe given totally undefined information transcribed by a totally undefined process. The fact that we poses a mental model implies that problem may be solved. I have discovered the central clue to solving that problem. That clue is actually quite simple.

The whole issue comes down to the fact that we, "the conscious entities who are capable of being aware", are entirely isolated from the real world by the fact that "ABSOLUTELY" everything they perceive is presented to them as "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever,???]" created by their brain (the name they give to the portion of their explanation which provides them with thoughts).

I point out that it is the position of all of humanity that, except for some well known illusions, those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever,???]" are accurate representations of reality. In fact, we cannot even think about our own brains without depending on the "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever???]" created by our brains.

Suppose our brains are performing a more complex manipulation of the information than we give it credit for. The important issue here is that the explanation of what our brain does is part of our explanation of reality. I am asking you to think about what happens when we open that issue up.

As I said, suppose we take the position that those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever???]" are not "accurate" representations of reality at all but are rather "convenient" representations of reality designed to make it easy for us to know what to expect (and I point out that such a result would certainly be a reasonable and valuable definition of convenient). What can one say about reality if that is that case? Apparently the only thing we have to work with is that the model must yield expectations in accordance with input whatever that input might be. Is there any way of expressing "expectations" in the language of mathematics? Why, yes there is; it's called probability. That would mean that the most convenient representation of reality would be to yield probabilities of something.

But, probabilities of what? Well, how about the probabilities of things which occur often enough and are important enough to our survival to warrant an assigned name. Does it really make any difference what name we give to those things? That issue constitutes nothing more than inventing a language and has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining the expectations; language has to do with communicating those expectations. So the language structure can be regarded as nothing more than a collection of labels for important things. We could just as well use numerical labels.

Let's get back to the issue of expectations! That hypothetical problem of creating "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever???]" which are "convenient" to deducing those expectations.

Lurking in this circumstance there is a valuable freedom: since that mechanism which creates the "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever???]" is part of the model to be created, we are free to allow it to produce absolutely any "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever???]" which will make obtaining those probabilities easier. With regard to that issue, I specifically prove that, with any arbitrary set of numbers conceivable (think of them as merely numerical labels for whatever it is that are "real"; things worth assigning a name to), there always exists a set of numbers which will constrain the original set to the given set under the rule F=0 (F specifically defined in my work).

It follows that if we are allowed to create any "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever???]", it would be very "convenient" to create the set that will make the rule of our model F=0: i.e., we can trade variations in "the rule" our model must follow for "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever???]". So, why not use F=0? It is simple and it is universal!

So I build a mathematical model of a system which obeys the rule F=0 and yields the relevant probabilities. What do I discover? I discover the astounding result that the model makes most all of physics true by definition.

Now, am I suggesting mass, identical hallucinations? Or am I suggesting a unique absolutely general "hallucination" which provides excellent prediction of expectations based on past experience?

How about right on the money with respect with our "flawed perceptions"?

So you're looking for the answer that we can't say anything for sure about reality?

If that's the case, what else is there to discuss?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Ok, I'll bite - what if we are wrong? Boil it down for us - you seem to be saying that if our senses can't be trusted then we can know nothing for sure about the world around us. Is that your point? We'll you're right. So....

Either way, DD there is nothing to discuss about the conclusion. Its a binary situation and the conclusion follows directly from the starting assumption. Thats why all of the discussion has been focused on the assumption and not the conclusion. The conclusion is the easy part.

DD, its not that we don't want to discuss your conclusion - your conclusion is fine. Its just that there is nothing about it to discuss. The point of contention is in your assumption - and YOU don't want to discuss the assumption.

No, that is the wrong answer. The correct answer is that it makes utterly no difference what reality actually is. That question is completely beside the point. The point is to understand it: i.e., given your past experiences with reality, be able to make good judgments on the issue of what to expect. From my explicit analytic solution to the problem it becomes clear that our mental image of the universe is, for practical purposes, little more than a convenient way to catalog anything.

Reread what I said:

When I say it is universal what I mean is that the rule is valid for absolutely any reality. What my work does is transform the problem of understanding anything from a "what exists and what are the rules" problem into a pure "what exists" problem. The rule is F=0. When one deduces how the rule appears when the results of it are applied to a specific problem guess what! Things appear to obey physics.

That means that it doesn't make any difference what reality is at all, I have proved it can be seen as a collection of things obeying physics (that would be a correct version of physics; another subject worthy of discussion). Everybody wants a theory of everything; this is a theory of everything. Only it isn't a theory. That's why no one wants to talk to me. I am clearly a certified crank! Anybody can see that.

No, that is your point. That is why you are so dead set against considering the issue; because you believe (i.e., an unshakable faith in the idea) that those "[illusions, images, ideas, perceptions, whatever,???]" are accurate representations of reality. You believe that anything else is Solipsism and so you have closed your mind to the question. Don't worry about it; you are in good company. Most all the scientific academy would back you to the hilt.

It's the easy part only if you have your mind already made up and don't want to think about the issue.

So TELL me then what is your point? I just said I'll accept your assumption for the sake of arguement. Tell me what conclusion that assumption leads you to!

1. Are there any other observations we can make to define our reality?
2. Does changing the way we reconcile our observations with conscious thought change reality as we understand it?

The more I read of you DD, the more I feel you are making much ado about nothing. The way we define our reality is interesting, but it seems to bear no more importance than discovering why everything tastes like chicken.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Well maybe this is very slightly closer to what he’s saying at the beginning.

Our names (labels) for things (objects, stars, redshifts, elephants, sushi, etc…) are really all metaphors (including scientific models) which stand for what things actually are and/or do. (Our language and consciousness is highly based on metaphor.)

But, (this is one of the important points) our scientific theories drawn from repeatable experiments or based on observations, and expressed mathematically in physics, are thought of as “natural” and therefore “real,” but this is not true. Science too is not from “reality” but rather from the metaphors we use to think with. That is, the symbols we create to communicate or express the things we observe. That is at least once removed from those things. There is no reason for scientists to loose sleep over this because even once removed, there is a consistency to observation of the same phenomenon. (To some this may seem unimportant but there’s more, and Julian Jaynes is the only other thinker I’ve found to express this, though not mathematically.)

DD derives his examples of how we think and also draws conclusions within the clear-cut symbology of a succession of equations. “Observations” of the universe of any type are represented by sets of numbers. This is done to clarify the problem. For the sets of expressions (numbers) that are used to symbolically represent the things we observe, there can always be found a constraining set or imposed constraint, which he expresses as:



or “F=0.” (Elsewhere P =probability as F = finite. Correct?)

One of the interesting things he does is to assume that an algorithm, which yields to the observations of the universe, exists before finding it. The ultimate value much later (which I haven’t come to yet) may be that those theories or concepts which clearly define observation and seem self-consistent, but are at odds with one another, may be mutually compatible when redefined under imposed constraints.

Thanks Chip, that helps.

I would like to see what DD has to say in response to russ now... The question I have kind of hinges on it.

Newton asked, "what would you see if there were nothing holding the moon up there?" And the academy answered, "that's a stupid question, it would fall down and go boom!" And Newton said, "no, not really, it could be that the force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the earth times the mass of the moon divided by the distance between them squared!" "If that were the case, you would see just what you see; but it takes a little logical thought to realize that!"

So DoctorDick asks, "what would you see if your senses were not "accurate" representations of reality. And the academy answered, "that's a stupid question, if that were true we couldn't know anything and science would fall down and go boom!" And DoctorDick answered, "no, not really, it could be that your senses are "convenient" representations of reality!" "If that were the case you would see just what you see; but it takes a little logical thought to realize that!"

Thank you chip, I think you are beginning to follow what I am talking about. And I thank you for showing me how to display images here (I'm an ignorant boy).

(But F does not stand for "Finite", it just stands for some unknown function.) Secondly, the issue you bring up concerns F itself, not the equation you quote. The point is that there always exists an F such that F=0 is true only for a valid set of arguments (thus F=0 constrains those arguments to what is observed). On the other hand, vanishes if the set of arguments is invalid as, if the set is invalid, the probability of seeing that set is zero. This implies that F is always zero even when the arguments are allowed to take on any value.

It follows that equation 1.20



is always valid; i.e., if we knew F, equation 1.20 would define

If you want a proof that the function F must exist, I will lay it out for you; however, if you can follow the arguments from 1.20 through 1.25, you should understand the essense of the proof yourself.

That function F seems to be the crux of the problem people can not seem to pick up on. Perhaps this will make it a little clearer.

The explanation of the behavior of any collection of things must consist of two very different categories of concepts. First, one must define all the things whose behavior is to be explained. Second, one must provide the rules which yield the behavior to be explained.

The common scientific procedure exercised to explain any phenomena is to dream up something which can serve as the cause of the unexplained phenomena and then deduce the consequences of the dreamed up thing existing. If all of the phenomena required by its existence are found to be consistent with what is observed, the dreamed up item is deemed to exist! (i.e., if the entire collection obeys the rules the scientist believes are correct.)

Example: electrons, mesons, neutrons, neutrinos even dark matter. (Remember, I am a physicist so I see things from a physicists perspective. Sorry about that! I am sure you can think of examples in your field.)

In addition to dreaming up things which are to exist, the scientific procedure also allows the scientific community to change the rules the things which exist are required to obey so long as the result of the new rules is exactly what is observed (or at least somewhat close, as they may end up dreaming up additional things at the same time). Ditto on my perspective here.

Example: introduction of gravitational forces, electro-magnetic forces, the weak force, nuclear forces or even "dark energy" or Einstein's curved space time geometry.

A mathematician friend of mine, (who follows the math but not the physics) has long held that I have proved an important theorem. I have always held that I have nothing to present but common logic; however, if there is an important theorem here it is as follows:

***************************

If, *******
in order to explain the behavior of the defined things,******
one is given the freedom to add any thing to that list of things whose behavior is to be explained,*****
under the constraint that the behavior of the entire collection must obey all the rules which yield the behavior to be explained,*****

then anything can be explained through the rule F=0 as defined in Chapter 1 of my paper.

****************************

That is, I have proved that one may trade rules for things to be explained. My F=0 is perhaps the simplest rule conceivable.

When I examine the behavior of a collection of things obeying F=0, I find that the individual items in the collection must obey common modern physics for the most part (there are a number of subtle differences, but they are all outside the accuracy of current physics experiments.)

I think I have presented a perspective on reality which is very powerful and should be examined carefully.

Have fun -- Dick

I'm not sure metaphor is the right word - arbitrary labels is all things seem like to me. Though when you put layer upon layer of arbitrary label in the language, some could be considered metaphors.

Its no surprise that translation between languages is so difficult. Could you translate that please, DD? You're not being very specific about what your point is. Dunno - all I've seen is you saying our interpretations of your cryptic posts is wrong. I have yet to see a concise (one sentence, plain english) statement of your thesis.

My point is that you might find it valuable to make an attempt to understand chapter 1 of my opus.

However, you might not so I am not going to worry about it. You are free to think about whatever you want to think about.

This is interesting stuff. DoctorDick, what level of physics/mathematics would you say are required to fully understand your paper? I ask because I rely on intuition to understand the majority of the complex topics discussed on this forum. This is due to the fact that I've never had a course in physics and my highest level of math is College Algebra (which I'm taking for the second time as a refresher before I get into Calculus). I've saved the mathematics (Calculus 1, 2, 3, Statistics, etc.) for the latter portion of my Computer Science degree so that I can jump straight into a Physics degree upon completion. Is this the correct approach or is it possible to get into physics without a strong background in Calculus? If so, can you recommend any online courses/tutorials or books on introductory physics? Thanks in advance.

__________________
Planning a vacation to Thailand? http://www.ezwaythailand.com

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Carl Sagan

I might make the effort if you'd give the thesis. Your writing teacher would be very upset. I had a teacher who would return a paper if the opening paragraph didn't contain a single sentence thesis statement.

My thesis is "there is a better way of looking at reality"! I apologize but communication is not my strong suit; I have never taken a course in writing. If you are not interested in it, don't worry about it. It's not important.

To just read it off and understand what you are reading without any further thought, you would probably have to understand a lot of things which are only taught on the graduate level (at least the way the course work was set up forty years ago and I suspect it is pretty much the same today; I really haven't had much contact with academic institutions since I received my Ph.D.). However, when I was in high school, calculus was a college subject and when I was in college, Quantum was a graduate subject. I am pretty sure it's not quite like that anymore.

I am afraid intuition doesn't take one too far. Without understanding mathematics, you miss a lot of valuable concepts. In that regard, it is the concepts of mathematics which are really important. All you really have to do is understand them. The problem is that you generally can't get a good understanding of them without substantial practice using them. Fundamentally, I am one of those people who think of mathematics as a language and one does not become fluent unless one uses it regularly. Too many people who study mathematics think of it as a set of rules to follow; they often think the purpose of the practice is to grind in those rote rules. I mention that only because I am a little bothered by the fact that you think you need a refresher course in algebra. Mathematics is just like speaking a foreign language: if you understood it once, it comes right back when you need it. (It is entirely possible I am completely misreading the situation.)

I also do not understand what you mean by "jump straight into a Physics degree". At what level is the Computer Science degree you refer to? I would suspect that, in order for you to get into a graduate school in physics, you would at least have to have a Bachelor's in physics. On the other hand, "Computer Science" didn't even exist when I was in school. It might be that current science programs would consider it as a base for a continued physics education; however, in that case, I think they would certainly require some major remedial work.

Speaking of physics without a strong background in Calculus, I know a guy who actually managed to get a Bachelor's in physics without taking calculus at all (I have utterly no idea how that happened). Personally, I think a strong background in calculus is a necessity but I am not in academia. What you need to do is find someone in physics academia now who can advise you. Doesn't the school where you are studying computer science have a physics department?

Not really, as I have not researched the subject. You might look at Tom Potter's web page:

http://tompotter.us

I haven't looked at it carefully but he seems to have a lot of stuff there that might be worth looking at. He offers a tutorial download which I haven't downloaded or looked at all.

And Eric Schecter, a math professor at Vanderbilt University, has a nice page on common errors I think is worth looking at.

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/commerrs/

These are some pages I have run across by accident and book marked because they looked interesting. Sorry I can't really help you. Maybe those guys can. I wrote Schecter a note once (about the axiom of choice) and he was very nice. Tom Potter appears to be friendly too.

Good Luck -- Dick

I am taking a refresher because it has been 3 years since I took College Algebra the first time. I aced the class and understood it well, but like anything else, if you don't do something constantly you tend to get rusty. For example, I do alot of computer programming. If I haven't programmed in a particular language in a while, then I reread some of my manuals just to refamiliarize myself with the syntax (rules for the programming language). This is why I'm taking College Algebra again. I want to be able to hit the ground running and not have to refer back to old books everytime I run into a concept that I've forgotten. This time around I want to understand it as well as possible, rather than just taking the course to meet my degree requirements (which is what I did the first time around). This will make it easier for me when I take more complex courses in mathematics.

What I mean is after I obtain my Bachelors degree in Computer Science, I'd like to obtain a Bachelors degree in Physics, which means I'll be starting from the beginning. This is why I thought it would be a good idea for me to save all my Calculus courses towards the end of my CS degree, so that I wouldn't forget what I learned and need to take the courses over to refresh my memory. You may be wondering why I'm doing the above, which is what everyone else around me wonders. Well, I'm getting the CS degree for the sake of career progression. I learned to program on my own (by purchasing books and reading online tutorials). The only purpose my CS degree will serve is as a piece of paper that confirms that I know how to program. Truth is, I'm not learning anything at school that I don't already know from being self-taught (with exception to Calculus). I've had an interest in Astronomy since high school and I'm getting more active in trying to understand the universe. To do that, I obviously need to learn the mathematics and physics that produce the theories which attempt to explain the universe. My job does not require this degree, I just want to learn it so I can have a better understanding of nature. And who knows, maybe I'll change professions in the future and become a "real" scientist.

I apologize if I've somewhat hijacked this thread. I'll make it a point to speak with a counselor, for the sake of finding out what the requirements are. Thanks for your response though. That being said, I'll leave you with a quote from Einstein that I can relate to in my current situation: "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

__________________
Planning a vacation to Thailand? http://www.ezwaythailand.com

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Carl Sagan

On the contrary, I'm supplying more information to be considered in the discussion. I'm expressing to you my personal view of the matter, and you've done little to convince me by not providing any evidence. And I'll repeat the essential question, which may have been confused in my earlier comments.
Assuming my senses are lying to me (er... from my view, my neurons are lying to each other) would there be any difference if they weren't?

Now, the one thing you have done, instead of answering my questions like you demand of us, or supplying evidence and further detailed arguments for your view, is argue from authority. "I have a PhD" ergo "You're wrong." But your authority is weak, and you missed the part where I asked which "major university" you're mooching off of to get your authority.

__________________
Contrary to the opinion of the press, the public, and their mothers, most scientists are dull and uninteresting people.
- James Watson

Nothing I said implied any presumed explanation of consciousness of any kind. I merely pointed out that everything anyone is aware and why they are aware of it is dependent on the correctness of his explanation of other phenomena which he is not directly aware of.

This is a statement which can only be regarded as correct if your explanation of the phenomena upon which your awareness is dependent is deemed to be valid. My point is "suppose the explanation is invalid"?

This comment also presumes that the explanation of the phenomena on which your awareness is dependent is valid. It assumes neurons exist in spite of the fact that your only knowledge of those neurons arrives via phenomena which the existence of the neurons is to explain. That argument is entirely circular! Likewise, you have arrived at the conscious conclusion that those neurons exist in a thing you call your brain because of things you have become aware of via the existence of those things in that supposed brain. The entire structure is circular in nature. What you are explaining is explained in terms of things you need to explain!

It makes no difference what your explanation is, somewhere in the circle you are assuming your explanation is correct. My question is, what can you say about it without assuming your explanation is correct? That is the question you are avoiding thinking about.

More of the same! Everything you say is based on the assumption that your explanation of what you are aware of correct. As I say, any defense of that statement is inherently circular. The only rational step to be taken is to think about the consequences of the possibility of an error in the presumption that what you are aware of is a valid representation of reality.

As I said, you have no interest in the question I have brought up; you are taking the position that it is not possible that you are wrong. I will say again, either you have some great compulsion not to think about what I have said or you simply do not understand what I said.

That brings me to your last post.

From the fact that you felt the compulsion to include the parenthetical comment, I presume you want to think about the problem from the perspective that your explanation of reality is valid. Again, you want to think about the issue of the consequences of your mental picture of reality being invalid under the assumption that your mental picture of reality is valid. That is a direct contradiction of terms. Either you are being intentionally dense or you do not understand what I am talking about.

First, I have no answers for your questions as they do not constitute questions with which I have concerned myself. Your questions depend upon aspects of the currently accepted explanation of reality being valid and my opus concerns the consequences of it being invalid, an issue you do not care to discuss. Ok, so don't discuss it then; you can go join russ_watters, he agrees with you.

I do not argue from authority at all. I merely mentioned to chip that I had a Ph.D. in physics as I knew he did not. If he had had graduate study in physics, there are a number of statements in his post that he would not have made. The main reason I told him I had a Ph.D. was to assure him that I had no intention of insulting his knowledge and understanding of the field. For a person without graduate study in physics, his analysis was quite rational. In my response to chip I gave detailed information on how to understand the deductions I have made.

Finally, I think "mooching off" is a rather insulting term to be using here. Particularly in view of the fact that many people here have made much about me being rude.

Thank you for your kind attention -- Dick

I'm still following these, (when I get a chance too.) Stay tuned... #-o

Thank you for the note chip. I was a little worried that I had run you off. Yesterday I checked all the threads here to see if you had been posting anywhere else since you last posted on my thread. So far, you appear to be the only person here who is taking what I have presented seriously.

I appreciate that very much. If I can be of any help at all, just let me know. I am well aware of the fact that my presentation is not the best and I need a little help figureing out just what aspect of it people are finding most difficult. Only a two way exchange can help that kind of thing.

Thanks again -- Dick

Hi Chip,

It's been better than a month and you have made no further comments. I was wondering if you are still trying to follow my thoughts. If you are having difficulty, perhaps I could help.

Hi,
Several factors have kept me away - late night part-time consulting work on the Internet - taking up considerable time. I've occasionally posted on easier topics.

I have been thinking about your theory though. I haven't had the time to make a worthwhile comment here about your concepts. However, recently I have been jotting down some ideas as relates to the fundamental physical constants and perhaps how your concepts could relate to some kind of universality about our perception of constants, but so far its only a series of notions. :wink:

By the way - I find it interesting that to the solution or explanation of a problem or observation, (such as – say – the behavior of gamma ray bursts,) one can add anything to the explanation or solution as long as the constraint of that formula defines all of the observations or solutions. So any observation can be interpreted via the rule F=0 (in chapter 1 of your paper.) Lurking in there is a principle that I suspect Kurt Godel would have known about, but I'll have to go back and pull my copy of Hofstadter’s "Godel – Escher – Bach" off the shelf to find out. I’m still perusing your paper when I get a chance too.