Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus00
I sent you a private message discussing it to avoid dragging this thread too far off topic. Should we start a new thread?
|
A funny thing happened the other day. I got a pop up which said I had a new private message but when I went to look there was no message there. Then, last night before I went to bed, I checked my e-mail and there was a notification that I had a new private message from you. Of course there was a copy in the e-mail but I used the link to go to the message and there it was. Since I get few private messages, I suspect it was your message which caused that original notification. The only reason I comment about it here is that I think there are some subtle bugs in the message system.
Give me a little time and I will compose a response. Don't expect it fast because there are a number of subtle things which I think you need to understand. If it is all right with you, which I am presuming is true, I will answer that private message in a new thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Honestly! Look at that exchange. You knew just what I was asking for - why is your answer twice ambiguous?
|
I apparently have no idea as to what you were asking for and I still don't. I read the post you referred to and do not find it applying to your questions at all. But thank you nonetheless as I was apparently being quite sloppy when I wrote it. The sentence you quote, “Without the tau axis, there is no way of using points to represent all possibilities with points.” is quite ridiculous. I have edited that post and replaced that sentence with “Without the tau axis, there is no way of using points to represent all possibilities.” which is what the line should have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
This post is where I found the answer you could have quickly given had you intended some basic explanation of your system rather than quick and unproductive responses that insult my intelligence:
|
Believe me, I had no intention of insulting your intelligence and I apologize for inadvertently doing so. I am very sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
So, I assume you have some t axis which is built on some four dimensional geometry.
|
It appears that you are jumping far ahead in my deduction without understanding exactly what has been proved. When I insert the tau axis, it is done for one single purpose only. At that point, I have a set of numerical indices representing references to specific ontological elements. I note that, if the representation is to apply to all possible flaw free epistemological constructs, then the possibility exists that the same ontological element may occur twice in a given boundary between the past (what is known) and the future (what is not known). That would mean that the same numerical reference would appear twice (or perhaps more times). But, in a geometrical representation of this information (these references being reduced to points on the x axis), two identical numbers would plot to the same point and the fact that this reference appeared more than once would be totally lost.
That is the reason the tau axis is there: to provide the possibility of plotting two points with the same x value (simply give them different tau values). That is the one and only purpose of the tau axis. At that point in the derivation I am plotting the information into a three dimensional Euclidean geometry with axes x, tau and time. There is no “four dimensional geometry” and my tau is certainly different from “proper time” as introduced by Einstein as an imaginary axis (multiplied by the square root of minus one).
Now later, after I derive Schroedinger's equation and define the Energy, Momentum and Mass operators; I will point out that what is derived is a one dimensional Schroedinger's equation. The fact that this implies any and all possible universes (and that would be bodies of information) can be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics is a rather useless clue as the representation is one dimensional. If this is to apply to the universe we find ourselves in, we have some major problems. First, we must exist within that universe and all of what we know must be gained from interactions with the universe outside ourselves. Now in a one dimensional universe, there are only two directions (one way or the other, upstream or downstream) and the boundary between ourselves and the rest of the universe would be reduced to two points. What can we know of such a thing: i.e., the fact that the elements which go to make up that universe must obey Newtonian mechanics is of little use in such a world view.
There is a solution to this difficulty. We can select our numerical references in pairs and plot them in an x,y geometry. (We still need to add a tau axis because the possibility of identical pairs of x,y coordinates still exists.) When we go through exactly the same deduction I have already mapped out, we arrive at a two dimensional Schroedinger's equation. This circumstance is somewhat different from the previous result in that it essentially states that any and all possible universes can be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics in a two dimensional space. We now have the possibilities of rotation and the boundary between ourselves and the rest of the universe is a line. We have a great number of possible interactions with the rest of the universe.
On the other hand, anyone who has made any attempt to design a two dimensional universe is well aware of some rather constraining restrictions on possibilities. That being the case, suppose we select our numerical references in triplets and plot them in an x,y,z geometry (the need for tau still stands). The same deduction then yields a three dimensional Schroedinger's equation. Now the fact that any and all possible universes can be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics in a three dimensional space brings forth a much more complex set of possibilities; in particular, the universe as we tend to see it.
This last fact presents a very strong possibility. We could go on with this procedure and select our numerical references in sets of four. Clearly that would yield a four dimensional Schroedinger equation. That would clearly imply that all possible universes could be seen as obeying Newtonian mechanics in a four dimensional space. Such a view would bring in a multiplying host of new possibilities. The question then arises, why don't we see reality as four dimensional? Perhaps the answer is quite simple; we see the universe as a three dimensional space because that is the smallest number of dimensions which yields a really usable mental model. It could be that our unconscious minds simply quit at that point.
If you have gotten this far without being totally grossed out, go have a look at the thread, “A simple geometric proof with profound consequences”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Maybe I should just go admire your theory ...
|
Again, by continually referring to my presentation as a theory, you make it quite clear that you do not understand what I am presenting. Nothing I have put forward is theoretical. The entire thing is a factual presentation.
It is a fact that all flaw free epistemological constructs can be interpreted in a manner which guarantees my fundamental equation must be valid.
You can move this post if you wish as being off topic but I don't think it really is. Everyone holds that my definition of time is invalid for reasons which I do not feel are sound and the definition of time is the topic of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overdog
Well, is seems to me that the very act of seperating the ontological basis and the epistemological contructs into two distinct sets implicitly adopts an epistemological point of view that recognizes a dichotomy. Your mathematical construct then, is based on this philosophical point of view. While the mathematical construct may indeed be pristine and indisputable, the philosophical point of view which recognizes the dichotomy is not accepted by some other points of view.
|
I have never referred to
the ontological basis and
the epistemological constructs as ”two distinct sets”. They are different fields of thought, neither has any meaning in the absence of the other.
Quote:
|
Ontology is the study of what exists and the nature of what exists. It is, in short, metaphysics. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justification. Trying to determine which Laws of Nature there are, and what they are in and of themselves is to do ontology (or, alternatively, to do metaphysics). Trying to determine how we are justified in believing in these Laws of Nature, or believing anything about these Laws of Nature, is to do epistemology.
|
What I have done is to take the ontology as totally unknown and then solve the problem of “how can we represent
all possible epistemologies. This is no more or less than a specific logical problem which I have demonstrated is solvable. A problem which generates some very interesting consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overdog
Which gets me by to my original observation about the discussion being waged from different philosophical perspectives, seperated by an unbridgable paradigm shift in epistemology.
|
There is no philosophical perspective here; there are just the facts – nothing but the facts. Oh, it certainly suggests a paradigm shift but that is a consequence of the proof, not a source of the proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overdog
In that respect, I see your work as showing that any theory purporting to address ontology, when viewed in terms of an objectivist philosophy of knowledge, inevitably leads to the conclusion that whatever it is we think the theory says about about objective reality, it is, in the end, revealed as unknowable, and therefore an assumption.
Did I get that right?
|
I don't think so. What I am showing is that any flaw free epistemological construct conceivable (by which I mean it is 100% consistent with the information it is based upon: i.e., what you think you know) can be interpreted as a world view obeying certain rules; these rules, to a great extent, happen to be exactly the rules put forth by modern physics. What is important is the fact that the ontology behind my proof is “undefined” meaning my proof is valid no matter what the foundation of that world view (what we think of as reality) might be. That is why I always keep referring to “intelligence” as a data compression mechanism.
Have fun -- Dick
Definitive answer to "what's the Time Warp?"
“It's just a jump to the left….” 
