--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, I'm rather skeptical of people who say they have a great idea that they
> just cannot communicate to anyone. But, lets just suppose that there is
> someone who has come up with a conceptualization of a grand unified theory
> that they cannot communicate to anyone else; or a wondrous piece of music
> that they cannot put in any concrete form; or a design for a solar cell
> that would cost a dollar per square meter to produce and would be 60%
> efficient, etc., all of which is actually in full form in their head, but
> they are unable to communicate the idea. Is there any empirical
> verification of this possible?
snip - like go read the original post kind of snip.
> Thinking some more about it, it seems that new forms of math are as likely
> a candidate as any for ideas that cannot be expressed symbolically. But,
> I've never heard of a mathematical system who's rules exist, but cannot be
> described in terms of things already know to other mathematicians.
> Obviously symbols can be invented on the fly, so that's not a problem...its
> more that one could imagine a set of rules so far removed from present
> systems that there is no mapping. But, I know of no instances of someone
> with a real track record coming up with systems he/she cannot describe at
> all to any other mathematician.
>
> Dan M.
Consider person A. One day while quilting ana triangular shaped cloth on a
loom. She has already started the work and is creating the peice by stoping
one line short every other pass. She needs the peice to be as least as long
on the longest side as a triangular window she wishes to cover. She wonders
if it will fit the way she is weaving it. She knows how many threads are in a
centameeter, and she knows ho may threads wide the loom is. She knows how
long the side of the peice will be if she keeps shortening every other
thread, it will be twice as long. In a flash she realizes that if the bottom
(loom width) side were it'self again as many threads long, and so were the
length, they, geometricaly, would have to exactly fold in to be the same
length as the unknown side it'self again as many threads long. "Briliant" she
thinks. There must be some way to figure this out. So down to her local
mathmatics department of her local university she goes thinking that she has
discoverd one of the secrets of the universe. "These smart people," she
thinks, " must know how to find the original length from it'self again as
many threads long!"
But how does she descrie it? She get's to meet the professor in the hall and
she begins to try and describe her idea and to ask help, but since she can
not describe it in any way that makes sense to the professor he dissmisses
her as a loony.
I wonce awoke from a dream where I saw a structure for the universe. I never
have been able to describe it. I once tried to explain it to friends and the
exact same words that you used above were used. "Everything is gravity" or
"Gravity doesn't exist, it is a feature of what matter is made of, only it is
seen as a force becouse of the expasion of the universe, it is not a force in
and of itself. What is more, perhaps all the other forces are just side
effects of this."
"Like beeds on a string as the universe expands the beeds all get closer and
closer." Now that doesn't make any sense. Besides it's just some cooky idea
from someone who never got past 3ed symester physics.
The string is the universe the beeds matter. To make it all more clear put
lengths of straw (the kind you drink out of) inbetween the beends. Now take
out the string and mesure out to replace it with a length of bungy. Mark
mesurment distences on the bungy and put the whole thing back together. Now
pull the bungy from both ends. Accroding to the markings on the bungy the
beeds keep getting closer together. Now, if the bungy were big enough and the
beeds numerous enough and the bungy were being stretched fast enough wouldn't
it kind of match what our universe looks like? If you were a beed, beeds that
were futher appart would seem to move away while ones closer together would
seem to move closer together.
Of course my physics proff dindn't think the idea was interesting at all. He
also didn't like the "time is just the way we experience all the curled up
space demensions" either. Or the "cause and effect are just what is left over
after all the waves traveling in all directions cancle eachother out." But
since I have heard that one from people who can actualy do the math.
What does it mean? I have enough interest and facination that I should learn
the math. ...Or write fantacy...
But what if I were right once and a while? Even when I am not I am currently
incapable of describing it to the point that it can be falseifiable.
If that is your point then greate, we can agree.
But I also have seen the answer to problems which were not so far outside my
area of expertice. The fact that I didn't have the language to describe them
didn't alter the fact that in those instences I was in fact correct. It was
verifiable becouse there did end up to be a way to describe the idea, just
not in words, but in code.
Music is more elusive. With music is something you can hear and know without
knowing which roots you are hearing or which formant peaks the form has. You
are not even sure sometimes whether of not physics will actualy allow such a
wave structure. You can very easily be imagining two structures
simultainiously which, when realized would cancle to something much less
interesting. Never the less there is nothing in the physics of the processor
(your brain) which would not allow such an experience.
What if the brain is a quantum computer? That would explain why we can solve
so many NP complete problems in PT. Is our language sufficient enough to
describe an idea stored in quibits? What about when that idea is dependent on
another idea also stored in quibits?
We might not be able to describe such an idea using our current languages in
polynomial time. In fact I am certain that such ideas exist. But I necisarily
can not describe why. It is not varifiable. Just as it can not be verified
that a computer program will complete. The only way to do so is to prove that
there is no infinate loop, and this can not be done....in polynomial time
anyway.
Finaly: As I am not so good with words I may have been less than clear.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
