Doctordick

Ok, Since you assert that "this is well known", I will direct you to the logical process required. My assertion is quite simple, conversion of the expression P(x1,x2,⋯,xi⋯,xn) together with the fact that P(x1,x2,⋯,xi⋯,xn) - P(x1,x2,⋯,xi⋯,xn) =0 into a valid mathematical expressions will yield each and every mathematical relationship held to underlie modern physics. I have already shown you three fundamental problems which exist in such a conversion. There are at least three more which must be satisfied before that expression can be seen as a mathematical function. Presuming you are an authority on that "well known" problem, I will leave it to you to specify what you think the next problem might be. If you cannot specify at least one of those problem I will seriously presume you do not comprehend the problem itself and I will cease posting on this forum (something most people here would seem to prefer). Then you would assert that these animals you refer to understand reality? According to you they "notice cause and effect in the physical world"? They do that without any concepts whatsoever. You have just named those concepts as "cause" and "effect". If I were trying to deduce the consequences of significance would I have to use the words "cause" and "effect'? In effect, are you refusing to allow me to use numerical indices to refer to the specific concepts their understanding is based upon? The issue I am examining is "explaining an understanding of reality" (the central issue of modern physics) not "surviving the impact of reality"! Do you really believe that common animals could produce a publishable document explaining their beliefs? In addition, would you please explain how you would explain a universe where no experiences exist? What the devil would you call what you are explaining? There is a strong possibility this will end up being my last post on this forum! Have fun --- Dick

Because nothing I say constitutes speculation in any way. It is straight out logical analysis of the fact that any communication may be represented by a digital sequence. I didn't know I was insulting anyone. As a matter of fact, I perceived the thread to be exactly the reverse. In fact, I only continued to respond because Strange at least seemed to be perhaps interested. I note that even at this point Strange has made no posts which had any indication that they understood anything I said. And that includes this latest post. But Strange insists I respond so I will. I am still hopeful that you comprehend my solution to problems #1 and #2. If you don't think my presentation was logically valid, let me know what difficulties you see. Meanwhile I will present what I refer to as problem #3. In my definition of P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) (the probability the thought represented by (x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) is taken to be true) the specific order of the represented comments is a significant issue. In the standard definition of a mathematical function, the subscript "i" simply represents the position of the represented variable in the function definition; and has nothing to do with the actual value of the represented index. In a mathematical function "xi" is a variable and not a fixed value as it is in an element of a thought representation (consider for example, a sentence). This difference is a significant problem in the transformation I am proposing. Actually, the required transformation is quite obvious if one thinks about it for a moment. Communication is a temporal phenomena and as such the time that element of the communication is recognized is an important aspect. This suggests that a new parameter should be introduced to represent that temporal component. I will propose handling the problem by adding a parameter "t" to my representation. But please note that my "t" is no more than an ordering parameter: i.e. the common concept of time can not be presumed as it includes ideas not required here. Thus P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) is converted to P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,t). Since we must include all possibilities (that order of specific indexes may or may not be significant within a specific representation) one can divide P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) into two specific representations P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,t1) and P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,t2). In this new representation, the identical specific indices convert to exactly the same point (the same position on the "x" axis). If, in this new representation, there are additional indices which require such order, additional divisions can be performed. Thus we now have a collection of representations of the form P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,t) which include all the possibilities so far discussed: i.e., n is the same in every representation and the collection of represented indices include both known and unknown values. It is important to realize that the parameter "t" I have introduced is absolutely nothing more than an ordering parameter: i.e., for every specified value of "t" there exist some collection of indices presumed to be known. If all of the indices making up P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,t) are unknown, "t" is also unknown. It should also be recognized that the actual value of "t" is unspecified; it is actually nothing more than an ordering parameter for all known expressions (x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn). If you comprehend my handling of problems #1,#2 and #3 and agree that they handle the issues I brought up I will proceed to the next issue (which, if you are actually following my presentation, should be quite obvious). I would appreciate any rational comments. Thanks --- Dick

In my opening post I commented that it should also be clear that P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn), as defined in this post, could not possibly be a mathematical function for a number of very important reasons. #1 - To begin with, the relevant numbers are not variables; they are constants representing specific concepts in the relevant language. #2 - A second problem arises because, in a mathematical expression, "n" would be a fixed number which would be exactly the same in each and every represented thought. In addition, there are a number of other very serious problems which arise if one attempts to create a representation which can be seen as a mathematical function. However, I will show how a very straight forward conversion in the representation can be made by redefining those indices in a manner which totally avoids making any presumptions whatsoever as to what those indices represent. Right there is the solution of the problem (subtle redefinition of those indices) but absolutely no one seemed to even comprehend the problem to be solved but instead posted comments about the idiocy of my proposition. That is why I gave up on the entire group except for you. Though you also seemed to have failed to comprehend the direction I wished to proceed I got the impression that perhaps you were perhaps interested. At least you didn't try to specify the idiocy of my propsition. I put #1 and #2 in there because they are relatively easy to comprehend and to solve but no one even suggested a solution (and I presumed they simply did not comprehend the necessity). I kept coming back only because I was looking for some comprehension of the issue I was bringing up and I made the comments I made because the people I answered had proposed difficulties which simply didn't exist. I had hoped to find someone curious about issue I brought up (which never occurred). Contrary to your post I did explain "HOW" I derive physics. I merely redefine the indices "xi" such that P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) can be seen as defining a mathematical function. Those altered definitions end up yielding exactly the relationships required by modern physics. #1 is easily converted out by the fact that a number "c", if added to absolutely every index in every possible expression, changes those indices without altering the meaning of the represented thought at all. And setting P=0 for any expression which fails to represent a valid truth for some collection of indices essentially converts the relevant numbers to variables. And #2 can be easily handled by adding indices to every thought such that "n" is the same in every expression (choose n to be the number of indices in the "longest" required thought. The only issue which arises is that these added indices are not known. Essentially, when "P" is to be evaluated for some collection of known indices, one must integrate the expression P(x1,x2,⋯,xn) over the entire range of those undefined indices: issue #2 no longer disqualifies P as a mathematical function. If you understand the problems introduced by the above two issues and the solution I have specified I will go on to specify the other problems and my proposed solutions. Thank you for your attention --- Dick

Yes I have. The attack and the problems involved are clearly laid out in my opening post on this thread.

No, I do not assume "experiences exist" Per Se. I am attacking the problem of creating explanations a rather different issue. If you are asserting that in your concept of reality there exists nothing which needs explaining then you clearly have no interest in the problem. Secondly, if you insist that explanations exist which cannot be represented in any language then explain to me your need for such explanations. You apparently lack the ability to think! Have fun -- Dick

That is untrue. I have tried but you have refused to consider my presentation. My conclusions are quite astounding; A version of modern physics (which conforms to all experiments) can be directly deduced in its entirety from the simple fact that the explanations of our experiences must be transformed into a collection of facts which can be represented by the notation: P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) where "P" stands for the probability the receiver considers the source holds the thought to be true. Please read my opening post carefully.

"tar" I have pretty well given up on reaching anyone on this thread. However, on looking at the thing again it came to me that you might possibly be reachable. In answer to Strange, I posted the essence of my assertion on July 30, 2017 at 3:54 PM. That post reflects the essence of my thoughts. You should think about that post carefully! That meaning is something you have put into the language as part of the process of learning it: i.e. it is an assumption that you understand the language. I agree; however I disagree in your presumption that errors can not exist within your interpretation of that code. You have to first learn the language and you should comprehend that your belief that you understand the language is a presumption you make. You cannot claim to understand the language without eventually making such a presumption. You miss the significant issue. I am not discussing the communication of information; I am discussing the mechanism which stands behind that communication. The significant issue is that "it can be labeled and numbered" not that relevant labels and numbers are either available or understood. That they must be understood is just another presumption "YOU" want to make. There are many written examples of ancient languages which are no longer understood. Those writing may none the less be represented by numeric graphic representations. That in no way requires the language be understood! Even pictures can be represented as a collection of three dimensional points (x,y designating the relevant points and z designating the color of those points). On the other hand if you know anything about computers you should comprehend that those self same pictures can just as well be represented by a specific list of numbers (binary numbers are what computers use to communicate). So you agree with me that any language can be represented by lists of numerical labels. The point is that "if you knew the language" you could create such an appropriate list. That is the only issue of interest to me. If you do not believe that is a fact, create for me a language which could not be communicated via a computer! Or perhaps any possible thing! Again, you want to make the presumption you understand what the code stands for. This is an issue of no interest to me whatsoever! If you are serious, consider the possibility of enumerating the brain cells which are firing. Do you think that being able to do that would imply understanding what that brain is thinking? Again you insist on PRESUMING THE CONCEPTS BEING LABELED ARE KNOWN. An event which can not have occurred until after the code has been interpreted: i.e. learned. No I am not making any such presumption. I am not saying a thing about how the world works. I am concerned only with our communication techniques. Understanding what is represented is clearly a presumption you insist on making!!! I am concerned only with the rather surprising constraints which exist on those communication techniques without making any presumptions as to the actual techniques at all. Pleas explain that flaw you wish presume without presuming the communication is understood!! Oh I agree, most everything science does is based on PRESUMING THE ASSUMPTIONS made by others are correct. My issue is, what can be proved valid due to that very procedure, quite a different issue which is clearly not being examined by anyone besides myself. If what I am saying is beyond your comprehension please don't bother to respond. Thank you -- Dick

In my opening post, I pointed out the fact that a numerical representation requires a rather surprising constraint: i.e., P(x1+c,x2+c,⋯,xi+c,⋯,xn+c)−P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn)=0 is absolutely required under such a representation. It is interesting because absolutely no presumptions were made: i.e., (x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) can represent any thought expressed in any language. And I also assert that it is novel as I have never seen any such assertion made in any scientific article I have read and I have read a great number. Now, if that assertion can be converted into a mathematical expression (which it certainly is not as originally defined) by redefining those indices without constraining what is expressed, some rather astounding results can be obtained. If you do not find that to be both interesting and novel, I suggest you (and all the other mindless readers) cease posting to this thread. I have already pointed out a rather trivial adjustment in the definition of those numerical indices which rids the problem of the fact that "n" varies from expression to expression (which is totally contradictory to the definition of mathematical functions). I have merely added ignorance to the representation! If this is totally beyond your mental comprehension, I apologize! Have fun ---- Dick

I get the definite feeling that you entirely failed to read (or failed to comprehend my post of 7/26/2017 You should comprehend that adding "ignorance" to the representation (when I set "n" in every expressed thought to be the largest value required by the largest thought representation) adds elements (included concepts which are explicitly (undecidable). That was my first example of changes in the definition of those indices required to make it possible to view P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) as a valid mathematics expression. A step designed to remove problem #2 in my opening post! If that step is incomprehensible to you why don't you just stop worrying about this thread. Just as an aside, can you come up with a change in my definitions which will remove the first problem? It is not actually a very difficult issue to fix. Have fun ---- Dick

I have a couple quotes which might (or might not) clarify what I am talking about! "Too often it is said that there is no absolute truth, but only opinion and private judgment; that each of us is conditioned, in his view of the world, by his own peculiarities, his own taste and bias; that there is no external kingdom of truth to which, by patience and discipline, we may at last obtain admittance, but only truth for me, for you, for every separate person. By this habit of mind one of the chief ends of human effort is denied, and the supreme virtue of candor, of fearless acknowledgment of what is disappears from our moral vision. Of such skepticism mathematics is a perpetual reproof; for its edifices of truths stands unshakable and inexpungable to all the weapons of doubting cynicism." Bertrand Russell, 1872­-1970 "As a conscious being I am involved in a story. The perceiving part of my mind tells me a story of a world around me. The story tells of familiar objects. It tells of colours, sounds, scents belonging to these objects; of boundless space in which they have their existence, and of an ever-­rolling stream of time bringing change and incident. It tells of other life than mine busy about its own purposes. As a scientist I have become mistrustful of this story." Sir Arthur Eddington, 1934 These men have played a large roll in my thoughts. Thank you --- DoctorDick

Yes, it is dammed near "Nothing" --- but not quite!!! And representing experiences without making any assumptions of any kind is quite a difficult thing to achieve. I would rather you comprehend that I used the word "language" to specify the means of communication without specifying exactly how that communication is achieved. My central point is the fact that any communication received from the universe is built from concepts which can be labeled. And using that numeric representation, any thought can be represented via collections of those concepts in a form (x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn). The existence of such a representation is my only assertion. If you disagree present me with a thought which cannot be so represented. You are simply not concerned with the issue of "explaining" itself. Explanations are the central issue of most all sciences and my point is the fact that John Cuthber's comment, "What can be deduced without making presumptions!" -- Nothing, (though quite close to right), is not absolutely correct! I am not concerned with the issue of "coming up with an explanation", I am concerned with "communicating an explanation"! I am looking at that communication as referring to what the receiving individual has to work with: i.e., the universe he (or she) experiences. And most all of our beliefs are built upon presumptions built on presumptions. The only real defense of those beliefs are self consistency with our experiences. The real issue I am concerned with is "do there exist explanations which we have not thought of?" Have you no interest in "truth"? I suspect "meaningful" is no more than requiring that self consistency I just referred to above. You are presuming I am talking about those beliefs being "true". I am not, I am concerned with the "receiving individual's" belief that they are true (that the source is not feeding them invalid information), an issue central to whatever conclusions are arrived at. No, my argument is not full of assumptions. Your reading of it is embedded in assumptions as to what you think I am saying and/or where you think I am going! Read what I have written carefully and if you can comprehend the constraints I want to work with let me know. My first step in redefining those indices is to add ignorance to the representation. I do this by setting n equal to the largest value required by the largest possible thought. This makes n the same in all represented thoughts. Thank you for reading this -- DoctorDick

Latex seems to work fine now. The problem was apparently in my presumption that it would work in the preview mode!!

Area 54 -- In a sense, (that is, with regard to my numeric representation) photographs are certainly a form of communication of presumed facts which can be represented by numerical references. Consider transmission of those photographs with a computer. They are certainly transformed into a numeric code. Think about it a little. John Cuthber, You have presumed you know what "I" means, what "think" means, what "therefore" and what "am" means. Those are all presumptions! I have no idea as to what "OP" refers to so I can not respond to that comment.

The critical issue everyone seems to miss is that the meaning of the phrase "without making presumptions". Apparently it is something no one on this forum seems to comprehend. I am opening this thread because it seems that responses to my earlier post, "Understanding Reality", have totally degenerated to into silly meaningless garbage without any sign of thought at all. If no one here is capable of comprehending what I am saying I will stop posting my thoughts. Please consider the following facts very carefully! Coming up with an explanation of anything requires comprehension of a language first. If there are readers who believe that is not a fact, I would have them please present an explanation without use of a language of any kind. My second fact is that any and all languages require symbols (think in terms of concept representations) to represent any specific collection of relevant concepts! If the reader believes this is false, please provide an explanation which requires no means of referring to any concepts relevant to that explanation. My third fact is, those symbols (if they are known) can be referred to by assigning specific numbers to each and every relevant symbol! The subtle issue of that fact is that, even when the actual assigned numbers are not known, it is still a fact that the concepts can nonetheless be represented by a "specific" collection of numbers and that issue by itself has significant consequences. Anyone who believes that is a false assertion please post a collection of symbols which can be used to represent a language which can not be numerically listed. The following constitute my opening assertions. First, presuming that "the language is known" is itself a direct violation of the constraint "without making assumptions"!! That is, learning the language must first be achieved before even thought of an explanation is possible. Comprehending the relevant language is part and parcel of understanding itself. What I wish to discuss are the underlying facts the solution to any collection of information MUST obey. My opening assertion is that there exist relationships within those facts which can be deduced without making any assumptions as to what those facts actually are. An additional assertion concerns a numerical representation of thoughts, "without making any presumptions" as to the meanings of that specific collection of numbers. Once a specific label is assigned to each and every learned concept (essentially the relevant language elements) that label can be seen as a unique numerical reference (think of an unknown secret code). It follows that, given the specific numerical label for every relevant concept representation in that language, any thought which can be expressed in that language may be expressed by: [latex] (x_1,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i, \cdots ,x_n) [/latex] ) Note that this representation inherently includes what is commonly referred to "context". That is the fact that what those words actually mean can change from case to case depending on the associated meanings of other words in the thought being represented. (Jokes are built from such relationships!) My point is that such a representation, which makes utterly no assumptions as to what concepts those numbers refer to, must be presumed possible. The possibility of such a representation requires no actual knowledge of either the source of the information (what is quite often referred to as reality) or the actual language being represented! That fact itself has consequences. What follows is no more than pure logical analysis of the above proposed circumstance. The absolute first step in creating the circumstance I wish to analyze is to create a definition of the concept "understanding" without constraining what is to be understood in any way. I begin by defining two entities. The first entity I will refer to as "the receiver". The receiver is the entity receiving the relevant information from which he (or she) will attempt to learn (or deduce) both the language being represented and the thoughts necessary to explain the reality he (or she) will eventually perceive as standing behind those thoughts. It must be understood that the receiver stands in absolute ignorance except for the actual collection of thoughts, [latex](x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex], he (or she) has presumed to be valid. The second entity is the source of the relevant issues. Absolutely no information is available about the source except characteristics presumed by the receiver as part of his (or her) deduced explanations of that received information. That is, the presumed truth, of the thoughts as the receiver perceives them to be. (The presumptions he (or she) makes.) Deducing fundamental consequences of the above constraints. I first define "understanding" to be the probability the receiver presumes the source holds a specific represented thought to be true. Note that this assertion is only meaningful within the representation the receiver creates; i.e., it is a consequence of the presumptions the receiver makes. In my analysis (since we are to make no assumptions) no judgements as to the actual truth of the solution the receiver creates can be made. None the less, in the analysis being presented, understanding can represented by the notation: [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex] where "P" stands for the probability the receiver considers the source holds the thought to be true. In essence, that thought is presumed to be a true fact. It should be clear that learning the language represented by the indices xi is the very first part of the problem facing the receiver. The receiver must make presumptions as to what the thoughts being represented are. Internal consistency is the only underlying issue of any understanding achieved. That is, knowledge of the relevant information is represented by the supposed truth of the specific thoughts expressed by [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ). [/latex] What is important about my definition of understanding is the fact that adding a single specific arbitrary number (which I will represent by "c") to each and every index used to represent the underlying language makes utterly no change in the meaning of any specified thought. That meaning is deduced from patterns in the received information, not the actual numbers. Adding "c" to each and every index yields internal patterns of the numerically indexed concepts exactly as they were in the original assignments. Thus it must be absolutely true that, no matter what the value of c is, [latex]P(x_1 +c,x_2 +c, \cdots ,x_i +c, \cdots ,x_n +c) - P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) = 0 [/latex] Now anyone who has any knowledge of mathematics will recognize the fact that if [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex] were a mathematical function, the above assertion would, via standard interpretation, have some very significant consequences. However, it should also be clear that [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ), [/latex] as defined in this post, could not possibly be a mathematical function for a number of very important reasons. #1 - To begin with, the relevant numbers are not variables; they are constants representing specific concepts in the relevant language. #2 - A second problem arises because, in a mathematical expression, "n" would be a fixed number which would be exactly the same in each and every represented thought. In addition, there are a number of other very serious problems which arise if one attempts to create a representation which can be seen as a mathematical function. However, I will show how a very straight forward conversion in the representation can be made by redefining those indices in a manner which totally avoids making any presumptions whatsoever as to what those indices represent. If there is anyone interested in conversion of the expression [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex] into a valid mathematical expression I will continue this thread. Note that the proposed conversion, though quite simple, is not a trivial process at all. If the above is totally beyond your comprehension, don't bother commenting. However, if you can comprehend the problem I have presented, let me know and I will present the details of the required alternate definitions of my indices. The end result turns out to require exactly the relations standing behind modern physics: i.e., no information whatsoever about actual reality is required to show modern physics is (for the most part) essentially valid. It also points out a few minor errors in modern physics not realized by the professionals. Those errors clearly arise from invalid presumptions in their hypotheses. In the deductions I produce, quantum mechanics is essentially valid from the word go. Relativity as per Einstein's mathematical relationships falls out implicitly; however, physical interpretation of the results turns out to be quite different. The difference in in interpretation turns out to revolve around some specific solutions to the electromagnetic theory (which also falls out implicitly in my presentation). The specific solutions of interest are rather surprising. As far as I know, those specific solutions have never been examined by the scientific community. Thank you for your trouble -- Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics 1971. Sorry about my inability to get LaTeX to work!!!

[math] y = \int f(x) dx [/math] [LaTeX] y = \int f(x) dx [/LaTeX] \] y = \int f(x) dx \] How do I get latex to work???