Hi Tom,
Nonsense in the context of my message means that I interjected something into physics theory that has no chance of being correct nor of exhibiting signs of meaning or purpose. That there is no logical connection between what I add and previous work that proved useful. Examples of such possible nonsensical changes are to remove electric charge, to remove gravity, to accept light as a variable everywhere even in actual space as opposed to free-space.
If any one of these changes has no logical connection to empirical evidence and has no correlation with established physics theory then there should be no resulting useful results. There is the extremely unlikely possibility that one might accidentally appear to give a useful result, but not multiple cases for that change nor in conjunction and combination with the other changes that I have adopted.
It is possible to adopt different useful interpretations. I consider the two choices of making mass an indefinable property and of making it a definable property reasonable conclusions. Both can be expected to produce useful results. At some point though, important differences in results will begin to matter greatly. The major difference, in my opinion, is that the wrong choice interjects disunity into physics theory. That disunity will not be removable until that first choice is changed. If the choice is not changed, then disunity will become intollerable at some point so that physics theory cannot continue to advance.
That is when inventions are introduced by theorists: "What can I add that will achieve the appearance of unity?" The added invented property will not itself be detectable. The disunited properties that made need of the invented property will then be used to indirectly prove the existence of the undetectable property. Today's theoretical physics has many such invented properties.
My reason for insisting that all properties inferred to exist from empirical evidence must be definable in terms of that evidence is that: A direct clear connection to empirical evidence is the best guard against making inferior choices. If you look at my definitions replacing Maxwell's equations First Essay I expect that you might see that replacing electric charge with a fundamental increment of time does produce useful results. The fields are gone. The resulting equatons are expressible in the same terms as is empirical evidence. The last step to be added is to replace energy with force and distance and to replace momentum with force and time.
If that result is not convincing and still allows for random chance to have produced a 'meaningful looking' result, then the reader should consider all the other meaningful results that are provided in that same essay. I began my essays with that first one filled with results because they point very strongly to something occurring that cannot be nonsense.
My general meaning of random is no meaning. Even the billiard ball types of example, while being useful simulations for visualizing randomness, are not truly random. In true randomeness there is no way for billiard balls to bounce off one another. That act of bouncing shows that a useful property with meaning has been interjected into the example. Anything concluded from that example is not an accurate appraisal of the consequences of randomnes.
My choice for the central question or focus point for consciousness is our ability to find, arrange, interpret, and attach meaning to that wild storm of photons, and, to turn that meaning into a useful picture so that we imagine that we see the universe operating, and, to do this lightning quick over and over with a very high degree of accuracy. This act, and any part of it, is not possible without our already having access to meanings stored within ourselves. It cannot be acquired. No new step can have any meaning unless we give it to it.
James