Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
And, Buffy, I can't give you any examples because I don't know how to solve the problem of understanding reality. Nevertheless, that equation imposes some very interesting constraints on the possible relationships which can exist; but we can't talk about them until we can solve the equation and I am not going to start down that road until I at least feel that you understand the difference between an undefined and a defined structure and the constraints being imposed by that equation. The concept is actually no more complex than the difference between .0002 dollars and .0002 cents.
|
Doctordick,
You obviously don't know what I am talking about
: you have no idea how *useful* your last several posts have been *because* you have been forced into applying a few "examples." I'd urge you to do two things:
- Go back and read your last three posts.
- Think about revising what you appear to define the word "example" as.
Even the most theoretical math does not exist in a vacuum: most mathematicians abhor "applied mathematics," but they do *constantly* relate new concepts to existing ones
by example. On the other hand, what you are doing in the next step is most certainly applied mathematics! You are indeed starting with a purely mathematical argument which is fine, but if you want to apply it to "what we know of reality" then mappings--even abstract meta-mappings--to "reality"--or meta-realities, which I know is *really* the point--have to be drawn and justified.
The crux of what Q and I both--I think, and maybe even Anissi--are trying to figure out is whether or not your equation maps onto anything at all, and whether that mapping is valid, even if it is pure logic and math. You have yet to address Q's question of why partial differentials are required, and my ongoing unstated question remains "why must it be zero?"
If this is all just an exercise in throwing around arbitrary formulas, then the answer "why not?" is perfectly valid, but if you're (eventually) go on to the next step of saying "this formula can be made a *valid assumption* in constructing internally consistent worldviews" then you need to start mapping the pieces of your formula on to the next step. If you don't its just a meaning-free arbitrary formula!
To apply this issue onto your thesis: your formula may or may not be consistent with any particular worldview, but it all depends on the
it exists within!
So please *do* think about the examples above and try to work with them: Maybe Q's example is too limited (although quite frankly your response to it was tremendously useful!), but anything you can do to provide analogies will assist us meatheads in "understanding what you're talking about."
I'm learning more about what you're talking about by your dismissive treatment of examples than you can ever imagine!
Recursively yours,
Buffy
