Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH
Oh btw, I started to comment on Dennet and Consciousness Explained, but it went totally off-topic so quickly that I decided to not post it here. Anyhow, have not read the book, but been meaning to many times.
|
There is one question I would like to ask Dr. Dennet regarding “Consciousness Explained”. Since he claims a supposed explanation of Consciousness, he should be able to answer any question regarding the presence or absence of consciousness. The question I have in mind is, “is one conscious when one is dreaming?” I think the answer to that question could be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH
I was struggling with t', and after looking at it for a while, it seems like it was due to an error earlier in the OP;
I think that should be  in there. That's how it's used in the subsequent steps in the OP, including the final result (me thinks). |
And you are right on the money again. I have looked at my original notes (the work from which I essentially copied the OP) and all of the errors you found are actually errors in my effort to copy and are correctly expressed in the original. At least it is nice to know that my original is not that contaminated with such off the wall errors. Thanks again (and I edited the OP earlier this morning when I first looked at your post).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH
I think I'll still walk through the bits about definition of simultaneity carefully, albeit the result there seems to me to be a very obvious consequence of everything we've talked thus far. But at least I might spot some more typos  |
I can only hope you don't. It is quite clear to me at this point that, when it comes to the kind of errors you have found, I can't see the woods for the trees. I guess, when I proof read these things, all I do is just scan the stuff. I do find a lot of errors on my own you know. In fact, I find quite a few on first reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH
Okay, as it is with SR, I'm not really familiar with the math of GR. I just look at it in a kind of "intuitive" way, imagining a spacetime transformation in my mind. But I'm sure if I'm careful enough and ask enough questions, I can walk through it as well.
|
I have been thinking about the approach by which the Euler-Lagrange equation was presented to me and I don't know if I can remember the details. It was a long time ago and, as I remember it, not taken from a book; at least not from any book I have a copy of (my math professor was educated back before quantum and relativity were really serious physics subjects and I suspect his view was closer to the point of view more common in the late 1800's). So I may just have to do a little hand waving there. We will see what I can come up with when I get into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH
Certainly. A new thread?
|
Yes, but a tad down the line. Before we go into GR, I would like to show you my deduction of Dirac's equation. That deduction is quite straightforward and answers a few interesting questions mostly avoided by conventional modern physics. I will try to work up my first post this weekend.
Have fun -- Dick
