Re: Absolute reality -> mind -> Relative Reality

On Mar 6, 7:09 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:31 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:50 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 9:33 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

The point is, unless there they are actually written on God's stone
tablets somewhere, equations are just one possible way of doing
physics with pen and paper.

NO, IT IS THE ONLY WAY. The mathematics that physics uses HAS NO
ALTERNATIVE. If you want to produce numbers, you use mathematics. It
is as simple as that.

But you can use mathematics without equations.

Do you even THINK before you write? Seriously. Did you actually think
"but you can use mathematics without equations" is something other
than a stupid thing to say, or am I at the receiving end of your
unfiltered mental spray here?

Yes.

Doubt it.



"What is NKS?

It is a new kind of science based on simple programs. Almost all the
science that's been done for the past three hundred or so years has
been based in the end on the idea that things in our universe somehow
follow rules that can be represented by traditional mathematical
equations. The basic idea that underlies A New Kind of Science is that
that's much too restrictive, and that in fact one should consider the
vastly more general kinds of rules that can be embodied, for example,
in computer programs.

Instead of asking what mathematical equation some system obeys, it
asks what simple program produces the behavior seen in that system.

Postdiction is only useful for verifying new theories. This is
worthless since it only allows you to verify what is already known -
not make new predictions.


The scientific method says new experiments are inspired by a new
hypothesis.

All you know how to say is "hasn't made a prediction".

Just because you drank the kool aid doesn't mean everyone has to.


Pure NKS investigates how various types of simple programs typically
behave - much as traditional mathematics examines various mathematical
equations. Applied NKS then looks for simple programs behind the
behavior seen in natural and other systems. "

A fine idea in theory - look for patterns. Too bad you still have to
use actual mathematics to do it, which undermines your point entirely.


My point all along was to use a different kind of mathematics than is
currently employed.

It doesn't undermine my point.


http://forum.wolframscience.com/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=2#whatnks

You believe mathematics requires equations.

This is why I hate explaining subtle points to you. You'll take what
I'm about to explain, and use it as the thin edge of a wedge to shove
in something totally incorrect.

NO, I do not believe mathematics requires equations. I know this to be
true because mathematics is a header for a rigorous school of thought
that is bound by logic. Equations are simply one way of manipulating
the rules math has you obey.

However, if you want to compute a /number/, somewhere along the line
an equation must come into play.


That's what you believe. I know.


If you think otherwise, you are
fooling yourself and wasting everyone's time.



You can't understand the alternative, nor do you want to.

Believers don't change their minds. They just die out.

This line of argument doesn't work for any of the other cranks on
here, why would it work for you?


Work?

I'm pretty much resigning the fact that nothing will work.



The mathematics for QM are not the only ones.

You have never even solved the Schroedinger equation. How the ***
would you know?

Leibniz.

Leibniz is not an answer, much less an acceptable answer since he died
centuries before QM even existed.


"Until the discovery of subatomic particles and the quantum mechanics
governing them, many of Leibniz's speculative ideas about aspects of
nature not reducible to statics and dynamics made little sense. "
wikipedia


I'm sure they aren't even the best ones.

How can you be sure? You have no concept of what you are trying to
discuss.

I think I'm coming up with a physics based on a different type of
mathematics.

No, you are not. You have no understanding of what modern physics has
to do, so how can you possibly believe you are capable of reinventing
all of physics?

I understand what modern physics has to do.

No, you don't. You might think you do, but you don't.

If you pass the MMX and Young's Double slit experiment you're half way
home.

Not even fucking close. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING RIGHT.

If you can model enough classical phenomena to model these tests, then
yes, you are about 50% done.

NO, YOU ARE NOT. Classical effects are a small, SMALL subset of what
is actually important these days. I pretty much everything there is to
know about classical mechanics. While that is a fair bit, that doesn't
even begin to cover the broad range of phenomena known in the 21st
century.


So you're saying what has happened in the last 100 years is
considerably more consequential to physics than what happened before
then?

You might be right on that one.



It's not like there are more experiments regarding entanglement than
there are regarding classical electricity.

Stupid argument. Not only is entanglement a small portion of quantum
theory's applications, it is a very new part of the field whereas
"classical electricity", as you put it, is pushing two centuries old.

You don't say?



Stop talking to
me until you open up a modern physics textbook. Somehow things like
the photoelectric effect, gravitational lensing, and gravitational
radiation just...evade your understanding. Can't imagine why.

The photoelectric effect is the basis of how a photomultiplier used in
Young's double slit experiment works.

1) Young's double slit experiment has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with either
photomultipliers or the photoelectric effect.



Are you sure?



2) Photomultipliers have N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the photoelectric
effect. The best you can argue is that a part of their function in
some implementations uses the photoelectric effect.

3) You have no idea what you are talking about.



If the experiment is to be explained by my hypothesis, the
photoelectric effect, along with a good deal of chemistry already has
to be present.

Nobody cares about your words. If you can't compute a number, your
spew is worthless. Like I told you four years ago.

You're a one trick Pony, Eric.
.

Quantcast