Doctordick Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) I am of the opinion that I have made a discovery which totally unravels the flaws in modern scientific thought. A discovery which no one seems to comprehend. I have a very strong feeling that my problem is that they misinterpret what I am saying. This note is no more than another attempt to clarify my position. If one looks at the history of science carefully, one will discover that most all of the major advances occurred when someone recognized that an assumption being made in the accepted explanation was wrong. That there was another interpretation of what was known which opened doors not yet examined. If one examines the structure of scientific exploration itself, it is quite clear that "research" is based on the assumption that current theories are correct. Anyone who believes that the current theories are without flawed assumptions is simply gullible. Removing all assumptions is the basis of my attack. The only solution to removing all assumptions is to design a method of representing the presumed facts which is capable of representing absolutely all possibilities, even possibilities which have not yet been conceived. It should be clear that the thought process being examined must include absolutely all possible solutions. Imbedded in that idea is the fact that learning a language necessary to express the presumed facts is a fundamental part of the problem. That issue is omitted from every scientific analysis of which I am aware. Understanding the universe includes understanding a means of representing that understanding even if that understanding is being communicated to no one except ourselves: i.e., one can not even think about one's perceptions without a means of representing those perceptions. This is the issue I am trying to convey. That issue brings language itself to the forefront. Without comprehension of a language, we cannot even begin to think about anything. That is the reason no one ever makes any attempt to explain Einstein's theory of relativity (or anything else for that matter) to a new born child. In fact, I find it astonishing that children manage to solve the problem of understanding vocal communication so quickly. It follows that, if we wish to represent the problem of "understanding" reality itself we need a means of representing totally undefined information which makes absolutely no presumptions as to what relationships are being represented.. A clue to that difficulty is embedded in the structure of language itself. Every conceivable language requires a collection of defined words. The definitions of some words must be understood before any relationship may be expressed. It follows from that fact that the presumed meanings of these words is the first presumption made in that long string of assumptions standing behind our "understanding of reality" (I have simply defined reality to be "the universe" as that is what I mean by the two terms). At any point in the process of "learning to understand reality", one has presumed the meaning of a finite number of words (if the required number were infinite, they could not be learned). This is the starting point of my analysis. Since the number of words under discussion is finite, they can be listed and that list may be enumerated (that means they may listed and labeled with a numerical label). Note that, at this point, I am presuming mathematics itself is an internally consistent collection of relationships carefully analyzed and described by thoughtful individuals. As mathematics is a field unconcerned with "reality" the presumptions in mathematics have no bearing on the analysis I am discussing. Mathematics is a representation system designed to generate internally consistent conclusions and makes no assumptions beyond its own definitions.. Thus it is that I can represent each and every word under discussion with it's numerical label in that list which I will represent as "x" (the common mathematical symbol for an unknown). Note that I have made no presumptions as to the meaning of any word in that learned set thus no presumptions have been made in my supposed understanding of reality. Again, in the interest of simplicity, I will refer to words as "fundamental concepts" as, when I use the term "word" I will be referring to the concept represented by that word. Fundamental, as expressing one's understanding would be impossible without those concepts. However, the meaning of those words was deduced from experience where the experience constitutes the collection of interactions with reality which were presumed to yield the meaning of those words. Since the set of words can be used to express the presumed understanding of those interactions, it follows that the individual interactions themselves can be expressed by the notation (x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}), i.e., an ordered collection of a finite number of understood concepts. At this point I have developed a notation for representing each and every presumed interaction with reality via a set of concepts created internally consistent with those interactions. If they are not internally consistent with those interactions, I assert that they do not constitute a valid understanding. If the reader disagrees with me, I would suggest they put forth their reasons for that disagreement. Essentially, I have now put forth a representation of any and all understandings of any possible collection of interactions. This representation makes utterly no presumptions regarding that understanding of reality. The next step is quite trivial. Now that they have the necessary collection of "fundamental concepts" (think words) to express their understanding of reality, they also have the capability of explaining that understanding. The explanation can be seen as representable by a collection of interaction specified by the notation (x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}). That adds a valuable additional component to the representation. It is possible to represent an interaction which is not part of the collection of interactions experienced by the person providing the explanation. The expression (x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}), even if the "x_{i}" are understood concepts, might not yield an actual known interaction. In fact, all possible expressions (x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}) can be divided into three sets: first, the set of actual known interactions, second, the set of comprehendible interactions not experienced and third, the collection of interactions inconceivable under the understanding being expressed. Seen as an ordered collection of words, that third set can be seen as meaningless. That brings up the final step in my representation. If P(x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}) can be seen as representing the probability that (x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}) is a valid known interaction, then the complete collection of possible expressions P(x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}) can be seen as representing the understanding the individual has achieved. It must be understood that I have presented a universal representation of any possible explanation of any collection of facts (facts are interactions known to be true). I have not presented an explanation of anything. That is to say, if you want to use my notation to represent an explanation you would like to represent, you need to first possess and understand some explanation. The first step would be to list all the words required to express that understanding and second, list all the facts necessary to defend that explanation (including a sufficient number of facts required to deduce the meanings of all the required words). One could then refer to every word with its numerical label in the list of words and express every known fact with P(x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}) =1: i.e., that ordered collection of words expresses a truth. The above is entirely trivial and would be of utterly no use except for a very astonishing consequence of that notation. The underlying issue of significance is the fact that the numerical labels given to those fundamental concepts are of no significance whatsoever. That leads to the fact that if one creates a second set of numerical labels "y_{i}" where "y_{i}"refers to exactly the same concept referred to by "x_{i}", it must be true that P(y_{1},y_{2},…,y_{n}) =P(x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}). If one choses the set y_{i}=x_{i}+a then the derivative of P(y_{1},y_{2},…,y_{n}) with respect to "a" must vanish by definition. If P(y_{1},y_{2},…,y_{n}) were to be a bonafide mathematical expression, that fact would guarantee that [math]\LARGE{\sum_i^n\frac{\partial \;\; }{\partial x_i}}\large{ P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)=0.}[/math] If that were true, it would imply some very significant and far reaching facts about any explanation represented by my notation P(x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}). Since my representation is absolutely universal, those facts apply to any internally consistent explanation of anything. However, P(x_{1},x_{2},…,x_{n}) can not be a mathematical expression for several reasons. First "n" (the number of words in a specific assertion) varies from assertion to assertion and second, the set of numbers specified by "x_{i}" are not variables but are rather constants. It turns out that there exist changes in my representation which overcome those problems; however, those changes and the problems they introduce are far from simple. The above is essentially another expression of chapter I of my book. The changes in representation which overcome those problems constitute chapter II. A pdf copy of that book may be found at http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com . I am available for any questions concerning the above. Thanks -- Dick Edited September 4, 2015 by Doctordick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

LaurieAG Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 Hi DD, There's a discussion going on here http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?153299-The-last-and-final-argument-about-reality that covers much of what you write about. If you read up on the hundreds of pages of discussion there on scientific Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) vs Mind Independent Reality (MIR) you might be able to get some traction on your ideas. I have similar views in that the scientific MDR cannot judge it's own absoluteness one way or the other and, as a result of ignoring the MIR (i.e. what hasn't been discovered yet), it puts itself into an absolute situation by default, which it cannot be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

HydrogenBond Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 An example of modern MDR is dark energy and dark matter. These things are inferred from large scale observed affects, but they have never been proven in the lab; seen in the lab, to make sure this is real. Based on that MDR criteria, I can say the observed affect is really due to invisible giants who are not dark at all. These giants are inferred by the affects, and have also never been proven to be real in the lab. Both are the same, if it was't for prestige that makes some MDR glow in the dark. This is fancier. All is mind dependent. If this was not true, areas of science would close the doors and go fishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Doctordick Posted September 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Hi DD, There's a discussion going on here http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?153299-The-last-and-final-argument-about-reality that covers much of what you write about. If you read up on the hundreds of pages of discussion there on scientific Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) vs Mind Independent Reality (MIR) you might be able to get some traction on your ideas. I have similar views in that the scientific MDR cannot judge it's own absoluteness one way or the other and, as a result of ignoring the MIR (i.e. what hasn't been discovered yet), it puts itself into an absolute situation by default, which it cannot be. Hi Laurie, 225 pages are a lot of posts so I haven't read them all; however, I have read enough to get a solid impression of what is going on. As far as I am concerned, it is an excellent example of total failure to communicate. Everyone posting on that thread seems to believe they understand the terms and expect the others to see things the way they see them. No one is concerned with the meaning of the words they are using. As far as I can tell they never bother trying to define the terms they use. They all simply presume that the meanings are well understood by anyone who speaks English and cannot comprehend the misinterpretation going on. In particular, I don't see their conversation as having anything to do with my proof. Thanks anyway -- Dick Buffy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

LaurieAG Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Hi Laurie, 225 pages are a lot of posts so I haven't read them all; however, I have read enough to get a solid impression of what is going on. As far as I am concerned, it is an excellent example of total failure to communicate. Everyone posting on that thread seems to believe they understand the terms and expect the others to see things the way they see them. No one is concerned with the meaning of the words they are using. As far as I can tell they never bother trying to define the terms they use. They all simply presume that the meanings are well understood by anyone who speaks English and cannot comprehend the misinterpretation going on. In particular, I don't see their conversation as having anything to do with my proof. Thanks anyway -- Dick Actually there is quite a bit of definition going on lately, much of the argument goes in a circle with one side trying to narrow down the definitions and the other side redefines things to suit the argument at the time. One of the anti MIR guys even redefined the majority of science as neither fact nor fiction to try to win his point. Also, people who don't have English as their first language will be able to see a treasure trove of different structures used on both sides due to inverted symmetries. Incidentally their ATM forum might be a useful place to get feedback on your proof DD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Doctordick Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Actually there is quite a bit of definition going on lately, much of the argument goes in a circle with one side trying to narrow down the definitions and the other side redefines things to suit the argument at the time. One of the anti MIR guys even redefined the majority of science as neither fact nor fiction to try to win his point. Also, people who don't have English as their first language will be able to see a treasure trove of different structures used on both sides due to inverted symmetries. Incidentally their ATM forum might be a useful place to get feedback on your proof DD. Hi Laurie, I have been gone quite a while. (Looking at other discussions which people erroneously claim are related to my presentation.) It has been made quite clear to me that practically no one has any real comprehension of what I am talking about. Essentially the issue which seems to go right by them without generating any response at all is the fact that I am examining the problem of understanding itself. Can that problem be represented in a manner which makes absolutely no constraints whatsoever on what the correct answer is? Critical to my attack is comprehending the fact that I am taking absolutely nothing as correct. My concern is representing what others think is correct in a manner which constrains their beliefs in no way other than requiring their explanations to be internally self consistent. This is a "notation" problem. One thing everyone seems to overlook is the fact that "notation" and "what that notation represents" are two very different issues. Most every person essentially asserts that they cannot comprehend a notation without knowing what the notation is representing and that I fail to make the issue clear. What I am trying to communicate is the fact that they must lay aside what the notation is representing. The explanation of the universe is "the explanation of the universe". I am concerned with representing that explanation, and have utterly no interest in what that explanation is. The only issue of concern to me is the fact that, if you have an explanation of the universe (an explanation of reality) then you can explain it period. I am only concerned with representing your explanation, not what it is. In order to perform that representation I assert that the information can be split into two categories: elements and facts. Elements constitute the required concepts which have meaning when standing alone (i.e., elements of the representation) and facts constitute information representable by specific collections of elements. Thus I represent an element with a numerical label "[math]x[/math]" and facts are represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. So, how would you explain it. In the world we live in, you would, in all probability, write a book about the issue. What everyone seems to overlook is that an understanding of the language that book is written in has to be learned before one can learn the explanation. So the first thing I must do is identify the relevant words use in that book. Stick each of them with a numerical label. If the same word is used more than once it needs to get the same numerical label every time. Then I must learn the meanings of the words. This requires a set of facts called "the definitions". So every word "[math]x[/math]" must be provided with a definition [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. Once I have that collection of facts, I can represent your book with a collection of sentences each representable with an expression in the form [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. Furthermore, the facts upon which that explanation was deduced can also be expressed via an expression of the form [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. Now that is essentially the extent of my notation. I will add to that one further notation: I will define [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] to be the probability that [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] (that specific fact) is true. That last step allows me to define exactly what I mean by "an explanation". The expression [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] can now be opened to absolutely any combination of elements "[math]x[/math]". It follows that [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)=1[/math] for any valid fact, and zero for any impossible assertion and finally, some value between zero and one for any unexamined assertion. Now that is essentially exactly what my notation consists of. There are some minor changes which must be made in order to assure that any future means if expressing facts (some new invented language perhaps) will still be representable. That is it! The rest of my presentation amounts to nothing more than logic applied to that notation. Would anyone like to comment on that issue? Thanks -- Dick Edited October 13, 2015 by Doctordick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.