Alternative Models of Reality

Tom,

Think of it this way; Is there some logical reason why mathematicians don't run anything other than mathematics departments? Why they are a tool within the larger scheme of things?

Regards,

John M

" ... what is the nature of information?"

Discrete events.

" ... where does the chicken end and the fox begin?"

In the outcome of discrete events.

John, instead of simply lecturing on what you think information theory and complex systems and chaos and the like are, why don't you undertake to actually study those disciplines and learn how they work instead of blurring it all together? You have a fine mind -- like a wild horse, strong and magnificent. Don't you think it would serve you better if you put a rein on it? Do you think you would be less free if you did?

"Is there some logical reason why mathematicians don't run anything other than mathematics departments? Why they are a tool within the larger scheme of things?"

Isn't that another version of the argument, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

Would it surprise you that some of us are more content to be tools (actually, research mathematicians are the tool-makers, and plenty of people with educations in mathematics do "run things") than to run things and be ignorant of how they work? Plenty of harm, mostly unintended consequences, has come of that, wouldn't you say?

Best,

Tom

"I point out that of what most consider 'the theory' is actually just 'explanation'."

Peter, for heaven's sake, *you yourself* have already quoted and misunderstood why special relativity is mathematically complete: "Einstein concluded and went to great pains to confirm in his definitive 1952 paper that 'SR is entirely contained within the postulates'. That means that the attached assumptions and interpretations are NOT SR!"

Except that isn't what Einstein's statement means. It means that if any of the postulates of special relativity are wrong, the theory is wrong. How do you think Einstein managed to apply Riemannian geometry to general relativity? -- as he said, " ... by challenging an axiom (postulate)." That is, by replacing the fifth postulate of Euclidean geometry with one of non-Euclidean geometry.

If you substitute your own postulates you are not extending Einstein's theory, you are denying it. There is no place for a term c' in special relativity. The theory is complete.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

What is an "event?"

I know you don't much appreciate my methods of learning, but I consider there to be both advantages and disadvantages to being part of the system.

In case you haven't noticed, I am neither rich or powerful and I don't really mind. I find the more you have, the more you have to worry about and I am rather organically connected to my reality. This does involve some significant blurring of the lines as what is me and what is my context. When your life depends on being able to read another creature's mind, a little blurring goes a long way.

In case you haven't noticed, the people presumably in charge are doing little more than precariously riding history's biggest cultural wave and one which looks destined to crash within our lifetimes. I wouldn't want to be in their position of having to decide whether to kick the can a little further down the road, likely creating even larger problems, or trying to decide how best to essentially crash the system. Stop printing money, start a war.....

The point is that bottom up/detail oriented and top down/generalized big picture, are a natural dichotomy. There is no overall viewpoint, other than sitting way off in the distance, like a historian.

Even mathematicians make assumptions,

"In the outcome of discrete events."

So just where is that discrete point between the chicken and the fox?

Sort of like the issue of where life begins; birth, conception, or 4 billion years ago.

The fact is that you are mortal and the only way to see outside the bubble of your mortality is to let a little of what's outside seep in, because eventually everything inside will seep out.

Regards,

John M

John,

You're right, of course. There is value in all points of view. You've ably explained what drives your own. What drives mine is what I often quote from Jacob Bronowski, "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."

You say, " ... bottom up/detail oriented and top down/generalized big picture, are a natural dichotomy." That's a nice observation which summarizes why I think so highly of George Ellis's essay two competitions ago (second place winner). His elegant resolution of the dichotomy is an important contribution to complex system science, because it generalizes quite neatly to the cosmological limit. That's the ultimate goal of every scientific theory.

"There is no overall viewpoint, other than sitting way off in the distance, like a historian." And that should tell you why your trying to generalize discrete eye color to a blurry sameness is not viable. If you understand that, you'll also understand why your time-temperature model, built on the same principle, also doesn't work.

You write, "Even mathematicians make assumptions,

'In the outcome of discrete events.'

So just where is that discrete point between the chicken and the fox?"

It depends. On what scale of observation at what discrete moment?

And here is where you really put your finger on the difference in how we think:

"The fact is that you are mortal and the only way to see outside the bubble of your mortality is to let a little of what's outside seep in, because eventually everything inside will seep out."

I'm not concerned with mortality as other than another point on the continuum.

All best,

Tom

Tom,

Don't go too far in that agreeing business, or we won't have anything to argue over.

" On what scale of observation at what discrete moment?"

So the point depends on the observation? What if it's a dynamically shifting observation?

Where do you keep coming up with this mixing peoples eye color? The issue is trying to remember who has which color. It isn't a matter of blurring the color, but keeping an effectively infinite amount of data points organized. Otherwise your mind just puts up its own little spinning wheel.

Regards,

John

The issue being the limits of what we can know and overwhelming the system is one way to reach those limits.

And what is an "event?" How can it be discrete, considering this would depend on the scale of the observation?

"What if it's a dynamically shifting observation?"

Describe what you were you doing when you last experienced a dynamically shifting observation.

Tom,

That wasnt an appropriate example on my part. I was thinking in terms of doppler shifting affecting frequency. How does the scale of observation affect when the protein shifts from being chicken to being fox?

And how do you define an event that it is discrete from other events?

Regards,

John

Come to think of it, what is an observation at a discrete moment? Wouldn't it also be that "point on a contiuum?"

" ... was thinking in terms of doppler shifting affecting frequency."

Doppler shift does not affect frequency. The motion of the wave source affects how the observer measures frequency, that we call the Doppler effect.

" ... how do you define an event that it is discrete from other events?

By a single exchange of energy in a specified interval.

" ... what is an observation at a discrete moment?"

See above.

"Wouldn't it also be that 'point on a contiuum?'"

It would have to involve at least two points of the continuum, wouldn't it? That's why we have quantum bits and complex analysis.

Trust me, John, it's a lot easier just to learn the mathematics than to wander around, wondering.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"The motion of the wave source affects how the observer measures frequency, that we call the Doppler effect."

Isn't the point that the "observer" is also relative? And it isn't just that the source could be moving, but the observer as well.

"By a single exchange of energy in a specified interval."

I understand your bottom up point, but just this once, can you think top down. What is the "classic reality," but all those single quanta of energy operating in mass, like pixals creating a larger picture. From which we then select a point of view.

The problem is that its not just a point or two on a continuum, but lots of points in a field. Try thermodynamics if you want some grasp of it.

I like wandering around. It teaches me more than just the straight and narrow.

Regards,

john M

John,

Even if it's just 'space' then space is still 'something', otherwise an inch would be the same as a mile. I agree space isn't 'matter', but to assume only 'matter' exists is naive.

Einstein wasn't being naive when he said; "space without ether is unthinkable". He had a very good point. It's just us dimwits being limited in our conceptual power. We now call it 'Dark Energy' and know it can't be less that ~80 per cent of the total matter/energy of the universe.

Now we have space exporation in fact we know far more. We've found every bit of space we've been in is full of (invisible to the eye) particles (free electron/positron condensed fermion pairs and protons etc, we call 'plasma') and activity, i.e. they come and go with disturbances. Densities found are is up to 10^14 particles/cm^-3. They can also move about 'hydrodynamically'. This is the ISM IGM, QV, Higgs field, call it what you will, but it cannot be 'nothing'.

But the real point is that they have a local rest frame, or 'state of motion'. So our probes have a designated 'speed' through them. This is the point of the big row between science and old philosophy, which ignores what we find and still wrongly considers space as nothing. See the intro to my last years essay. Your horse can then have a logical TRUE speed wrt Earth, but then also infinitely many arbitrary 'relative' speeds wrt other planets, the space station, trains etc etc. It would just have to experiment do do it's true speed in a passing train, as does light to propagate at c. The evidence of that is Doppler shift. How more logical do you need it.!? That's the key unlocking logical truth. You only have to try it in the door.

Peter

John,

''Man alone measures time. Man alone chimes the hour. And, because of this, man alone suffers a paralyzing fear that no other creature endures. A fear of time running out.'' Mitch Albom, The Time Keeper

A good quote I've just seen. I think it shows we're pretty arrogant thinking our semantic conception has any importance. What we call the 'time' we see is really just some physical disturbances propagating away from a glorified metronome we call a 'clock'. If we head towards them we meet them more rapidly, but being stupid we think that makes our invention 'time' go 'faster'!!

Peter

Zeeya,

You seem very proficient with the magic wand! I stayed logged in for a few hours.

Thanks also for your note above. I'll await your opinion on raising the dark matter of dark matter. Using it in my own magic wand seems to let us recover Einstein's (though not everyone's it seems) Special Relativity from the confirmed superluminal quasar jet pulse motions. (see my replies to Tom, Sept 4).

Peter

"I like wandering around. It teaches me more than just the straight and narrow."

If that suits you, fine.

Tom,

Put it all in motion.

Regards,

John