Re: randomness


"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175267497.157466.280380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 29, 8:51 am, "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
How do you build partial existence? Is it a feedback mechanism?
Do you get into spacetime?

Uncertain existence is partial existence. Consider a set whose
elements
have
a 50:50 chance of existing. A set which is existentially fuzzy. There
is
nonzero probability that it's not even there.

Of course, invoking "nonexistence" can be seen as ridiculous, but if
one
has
triviality i.e. existential indeterminacy then partial existence makes
perfect sense.

We're playing billiards, sometimes known as "pool".

9 ball impacts 3 ball, and 3 ball drops into the corner pocket.

Everybody is happy.

Unfortunately, the 9 ball is existentially fuzzy. There is a nonzero
probability that the 9ball doess not even exist. Hence, there is a
certain
probability that the process was acausal. That it had no cause.

Simply saying thatthe 9ball does not exist, after having said that it
does -
this would be nonsense. However, partial existence via probabilistic
fuzzyness - this allows genuine acausality.

I have a pretty hard time with this concept, but I cannot refute your
approach either.

Thanks for the criticism and the objectivity. I like to role play a little
like I'm playing the pompous expositor, and just argue on and on and on like
an idiot, but I do put a lot of thought into it and think some of this stuff
is probably valid. There is a very real possibility that I'm just full of
***, but I'll never know if I dont just argue it all the way through. An
incomplete or halfassed argument will prove nothing, and this theory is
getting huge.


I think there is something to be said for following
out the consequences of a construction and measuring the
construction's value based on those results. It seems to me that this
thing you work with sort of denies my approach and so I would be left
working around it via another angle.

I think that you're thinking of something like Kolmogorov complexity or
something like that ?


I accept that we will never
compute reality due to the complexity of the situation.

I'm glad that I'm not a professional scientist because they would have
strung me up a long time ago. I think that getting people to believe in
"partial existence" would be very difficult, even if you had a proof.


Then we get
into these minimal systems such as two-slit experiments where we are
supposed to anticipate a clean solution and still get strange
behaviors. The level of control and measurement down there does seem
consistent with your scenario but why then isn't the macro world more
full of this sort of weirdness? Superposition? Are the product
behaviors we initially are taught the fundamental forces to be totally
wrong? I understand that the correspondence principle is enough to
replace the static system with a more dynamic system like your
existential indeterminacy. I do accept a need for freedom somehow or
other yet it is almost a matter of faith until the appropriate
construction comes along.


The weird behaviours can be contained by considering scale properly -
attempting to understand this makes me dizzy. I can "see" it, but I dont
have a model of what I'm visuallizing. Yet.

I will say that most serious mathematicians would probably strongly disagree
with many things I've said, or certainly question whether it is even
mathematics at all. I myself do not know the answer to that, except to say
that I intend to keep on arguing and see what happens. If I make an ass of
myself, then I've lost very little. On the other hand, maybe it might lead
to some real problem solving. I dont know.

One thing that I do know. This type of "number" is very weird:

a + ~b

~b is a random selection from either a continuous or discrete set,

and the mind boggling thing is that this choice, continuous vs discrete,
this can be made arbirtary vis-a-vis topological indeterminacy which was
explained as being morphic to the solution set of 0 = a * 0.

I find it mindblowing, that ~b might be arbitrarily continuously or
discretely selected. That both might be embodied in a single variable -
that is wild, and might be possible to really formalize such a thing.

I think that you need a scalar calculus of some kind to make it happen
properly, and so if sub-Planck scale actually implies triviality, as I've
stated elsewhere, then you really would have a valid reason to believe that
all of this stuff is really valid, and wave-particle duality is explained
algebraically. HUP would make sense algebraically as well. The implications
would be beyond astonishing.



I do have some math that can generate
support for spacetime from a general construction
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
and if it could be fitted with a random basis then perhaps some
physics would alight.
Polysign covers the dimensional side of things.

-Tim



.

Quantcast