Willem F Esterhuyse

So the message could be encoded in the intensity.

The WOW message reads: "6EQUJ5". We can take EQU to mean "=". Then "J" can be taken as the symbol for "successor of" (aliens would have a different symbol than ours). Then the message reads: "6 = S5", so it makes sense!

But it solves a lot of problems. James Clark Maxwell, I think.

Observables is produced by an operation on a system. This is again a step removed from being a real physical quantity. You make the leap of belief. Make sure your belief system is consistent though.

I can hand you an object that creates a gravity field.

Its just a short step from this to say that therefore a gravity field physically exists. Its just how you empliment it that is still in question.

It seems like you (studiot) have a mental block, refusing to reason to the conclusion. TheVat agrees with me that there has to be something physical corresponding to the mathematical field.

You see: you are removing yourself from the physical reality. Because we understand the particle to behave like "A" the particle behaves as "A". This requires the particle to read our minds. Its absurd.

Space is defined as what numbers relative to a reference position points to.

It follows from "space = space = space, with space points superimposed on a point of space". If fields are just abstract in a mind then how are particles going to access it in order to know where to go?

Fields must cause particles to do its thing independently of any observer. If physical fields were just abstract the television would not work on its own. Physical particles would have to access Plato's realm through a mind.

What do you say to my insistence that there wouldn't have been any shared experience if fields was not made of something? You forget that one spot can only be encoded with one number by superimposing space points on the spot. How are the three scalar fields grouped together? I understand: one exist just on paper, the other in physical space.

"How do you view this ?" My view is that Physics uses Logic.

They need to be made of something, otherwise shared experience would be impossible and we wouldn't have an agreed upon language. Electrons in a television tube reacts to the field independent of an observer. "They must comply with certain rules though" means you acknowledge that they must be made of something. An observer is necessary if the fields are abstract. Share your understanding then. I don't understand this.

For example the idea that a field is numbers assigned to space points. How these numbers are written into space points is left up to magic. What some don't realize is that there must be a field for each property of a particle. How these fields are unified into the field of a particle is left up to magic. Since a particle has many properties just one number at a space point won't specify the particle completely. In addition if a space point can only accommodate one number then a particle cannot be specified to be located at a point and how is the space distribution of the particle then going to be defined. There needs to be a grouping together of space points function. How each number links to what property of a particle is left undefined. What fields are made of is also left undefined. I may not post my solutions to these problems because I have not yet found a prediction that can be tested.

Here is the newest version of the synopsis: Proof of "Axioms" of Propositional Logic: Synopsis. Willem F. Esterhuyse. Abstract. We introduce more basic axioms with which we are able to prove some "axioms" of Propositional Logic. We use the symbols from my other article: "Introduction to Logical Structures". Logical Structures (SrL) are graphs with doubly labelled vertices with edges carrying symbols. The proofs are very mechanical and does not require ingenuity to construct. It is easy to see that in order to transform information, it has to be chopped up. Just look at a kid playing with blocks with letters on them: he has to break up the word into letters to assemble another word. Within SrL we take as our "atoms" propositions with chopped up relations attached to them. We call the results: (incomplete) "structures". We play it safe by allowing only relations among propositions to be choppable. We will see whether this is the correct way of chopping up sentences (it seems to be). This is where our Attractors (Repulsors) and Stoppers come in. Attractors that face away from each other repels and so break a relation between the two propositions. Then a Stopper attaches to the chopped up relation to indicate it can't reconnect. So it is possible to infer sentences from sentences. The rules I stumbled upon, to implement this, seems to be consistent. Sources differ asto the axioms they choose but some of the most famous "axioms" are proved. Modus Ponens occurs in all systems. 1. Introduction. We use new operators called "Attractors" and "Stoppers". An Attractor ( symbol: "-(" OR ")-") is an edge with a half circle symbol, that can carry any relation symbol. Axioms for Attractors include A:AA (Axiom: Attractor Annihilation) where we have as premise two structures named B with Attractors carrying the "therefore" symbol facing each other and attached to two neighbouring structures: B. Because the structures are the same and the Attractors face each other, and the therefore symbols point in the same direction, they annihilate the structures B and we are left with a conclusion of the empty structure. Like in: ((B)->-( )->-(B)) <-> (Empty Structure). where "<->" means: "is equivalent to" or "follows from and vice vesa". A:AD reads as follows: ((A)->-(B))->-( <-> )->-(A) []->-(B)->-( where "[]->-" is a Stopper carrying "therefore" relation. We also have the axiom: A:AtI (Attractor Introduction) in which we have a row of structures as premise and conclusion of the same row of structures each with an Attractor attached to them and pointing to the right or left. Like in: A B C D <-> (A)-( (B)-( (C)-( (D)-( OR: A B C D <-> )-(A) )-(B) )-(C) )-(D) where the Attractors may carry a relation symbol. Further axioms are: A:SD says that we may drop a Stopper at either end of a line. And A:ASS says we can exchange Stoppers for Attractors (and vice versa) in a line of structures as long as we replace every instance of the operators. A:AL says we can link two attractors pointing trowards each other and attached to two different structures. We prove Modus Ponens as follows: Line nr. Statement Reason 1 B B -> C Premise 2 (B)->-( (B -> C)->-( 1, A:AtI 3 (B)->-( )->-(B) []->-(C)->-( 2, A:AD 4 []->-(C)->-( 3, A:AA 5 (C)->-( 4, A:SD 6 (C)->-[] 5, A:ASS 7 C 6, A:SD We see that the Attractors cuts two structures into three (line 2 to line 3). In 2 "(B -> C)" is a structure. We can prove AND-elimination, AND-introduction and transposition. We prove Theorem: AND introduction (T:ANDI): 1 A B Premise 2 A -(x)-( B -(x)-( 1, A:AtI 3 (A)-(x)-[] (B)-(x)-[] 2, A:ASS 4 (A)-(x)-[] B 3, A:SD 5 (A)-(x)-( B 4, A:ASS 6 (A)-(x)-(B) 5, T:AL where "-(x)-" = "AND", and T:AL is a theorem to be proved by reasoning backwards through: 1 A -(x)- B Premise 2 A -(x)- B -(x)-( 1, A:AtI 3 )-(x)-(A) []-(x)-(B)-(x)-( 2, A:AD 4 []-(x)-(A) )-(x)-(B)-(x)-[] 3, A:ASS 5 A )-(x)-(B) 4, A:SD. where the mirror image of this is proved similarly (by choosing to place the Stopper on the other side of "-(x)-"). Modus Tollens and Syllogism can also be proven with these axioms. We prove: Theorem (T:O): (A OR A) -> A: 1 A -(+)- A Premise 2 A -(+)- A -(+)-( 1, A:AtI 3 )-(+)-(A) []-(+)-(A)-(+)-( 2, A:AD 4 []-(+)-(A) )-(+)-(A)-(+)-[] 3, A:ASS 5 A )-(+)-(A) 4, A:SDx2 6 A []-(+)-(A) 5, A:ASS and from this (on introduction of a model taking only structures with truth tables as real) we can conclude that A holds as required (structure A with a Stopper attached to it does not have a truth table associated with it). We prove Syllogism: 1 A -> B B -> C Premise 2 (A -> B)->-( (B -> C)->-( 1, A:AtI 3 )->-(A)->-[] (B)->-( )->-(B) []->-(C)->-( 2, A:ADx2 4 (A)->-[] (B)->-( )->-(B) []->-(C) 3, A:ASS, A:SDx2, A:ASS 5 (A)->-[] []->-(C) 4, A:AA 6 (A)->-( )->-(C) 5, A:ASS 7 A -> C 6, A:AL

I run the logic in mind and as a result discovered places in mind where language starts. Now I think pages at a time.

I updated it.

Here is a synopsis attached. Proof of Axioms - Synopsis.docx

It has a justification for chopping up sentences added. Its a no-brainer.

So that you could see whether the higher thought functions is activated. The program leaves out quoted posts in the quoted post. We know what part of the brain registers conscious thought, if this part of the brain is activated at the same time as some higher thought area, we know it must have been a conscious thought.

Here is a better version: Proof of "Axioms" of Propositional Logic: Synopsis. Willem F. Esterhuyse. Abstract. We introduce more basic axioms with which we are able to prove some "axioms" of Propositional Logic. We use the symbols from my other article: "Introduction to Logical Structures". Logical Structures (SrL) are graphs with doubly labelled vertices with edges carrying symbols. The proofs are very mechanical and does not require ingenuity to construct. It is easy to see that in order to transform information, it has to be chopped up. Just look at a kid playing with blocks with letters on them: he has to break up the word into letters to assemble another word. Within SrL we take as our "atoms" propositions with chopped up relations attached to them. We call the results: (incomplete) "structures". We play it safe by allowing only relations among propositions to be choppable. We will see whether this is the correct way of chopping up sentences (it seems to be). This is where our Attractors (Repulsors) and Stoppers come in. Attractors that face away from each other repels and so break a relation between the two propositions. Then a Stopper attaches to the chopped up relation to indicate it can't reconnect. So it is possible to infer sentences from sentences. The rules I stumbled upon, to implement this, seems to be consistent. 1. Introduction. We use new operators called "Attractors" and "Stoppers". An Attractor ( symbol: "-(" OR ")-") is an edge with a half circle symbol, that can carry any relation symbol. Axioms for Attractors include A:AA (Axiom: Attractor Annihilation) where we have as premise two structures named B with Attractors carrying the "therefore" symbol facing each other and attached to two neighboring structures: B. Because the structures are the same and the Attractors face each other, and the therefore symbols point in the same direction, they annihilate the structures B and we are left with a conclusion of the empty structure. Like in: ((B)->-( )->-(B)) <-> (Empty Structure). where "<->" means: "is equivalent to" or "follows from and vice versa". We also have the axiom: A:AtI (Attractor Introduction) in which we have a row of structures as premise and conclusion of the same row of structures each with an Attractor attached to them and pointing to the right or left. Like in: A B C D <-> (A)-( (B)-( (C)-( (D)-( OR: A B C D <-> )-(A) )-(B) )-(C) )-(D) A:AD distributes the Attractors and cut relations and places a Stopper on the chopped relation (see line 3 below). Stopper = "|-" or "-|". Further axioms are: A:SD says that we may drop a Stopper at either end of a line. And A:ASS says we can exchange Stoppers for Attractors (and vice versa) in a line of structures as long as we replace every instance of the operators. A:AL says we can link two attractors pointing towards each other and attached to two different structures. We can prove: P OR P -> P. We prove Modus Ponens as follows: Line nr. Statement Reason 1 B B -> C Premise 2 (B)->-( (B -> C)->-( 1, A:AtI 3 (B)->-( )->-(B) |->-(C)->-( 2, A:AD 4 |->-(C)->-( 3, A:AA 5 (C)->-( 4, A:SD 6 (C)->-| 5, A:ASS 7 C 6, A:SD We see that the Attractors cuts two structures into three (line 2 to line 3). We can prove AND-elimination, AND-introduction and transposition. We prove Theorem: AND introduction (T:ANDI): 1 A B Premise 2 A -(x)-( B -(x)-( 1, A:AtI 3 (A)-(x)-| (B)-(x)-| 2, A:ASS 4 (A)-(x)-| B 3, A:SD 5 (A)-(x)-( B 4, A:ASS 6 (A)-(x)-(B) 5, T:AL where "-(x)-" = "AND", and T:AL is a theorem to be proved by reasoning backwards through: 1 A -(x)- B Premise 2 A -(x)- B -(x)-( 1, A:AtI 3 )-(x)-(A) |-(x)-(B)-(x)-( 2, A:AD 4 |-(x)-(A) )-(x)-(B)-(x)-| 3, A:ASS 5 A )-(x)-(B) 4, A:SD. where the mirror image of this is proved similarly. Modus Tollens and Syllogism can also be proven with these axioms. We prove: Theorem (T:O): (A OR A) -> A: 1 A -(+)- A Premise 2 A -(+)- A -(+)-( 1, A:AtI 3 )-(+)-(A) |-(+)-(A)-(+)-( 2, A:AD 4 |-(+)-(A) )-(+)-(A)-(+)-| 3, A:ASS 5 A )-(+)-(A) 4, A:SDx2 6 A |-(+)-(A) 5, A:ASS and from this (on introduction of a model taking only structures with truth tables as real) we can conclude that A holds as required. We prove Syllogism: 1 A -> B B -> C Premise 2 (A -> B)->-( (B -> C)->-( 1, A:AtI 3 )->-(A)->-| (B)->-( )->-(B) |->-(C)->-( 2, A:ADx2 4 (A)->-| (B)->-( )->-(B) |->-(C) 3, A:ASS, A:SDx2, A:ASS 5 (A)->-| |->-(C) 4, A:AA 6 (A)->-( )->-(C) 5, A:ASS 7 A -> C 6, A:AL

So that you could see whether the higher thought functions is activated. The program leaves out quoted posts in the quoted post.

Ask questions while under a brain scan.

It is a test of awareness of perceptions and the act of perceiving.