On Friday, November 7, 2014 1:27:39 AM UTC, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Hi Zibbsey, > > A new discovery for you. A computer can be a topological shape! A > sector of the structures that are invariant under dilations in > Sub-Riemannian manifolds is identical to the Lambda calculus. > This can be said to imply that spatial relations can "carry" > information just as well as sequences of binary symbols. >
and I actually love category theory wish I'd done it first. What follows has its best moments nearer the beginning, but ye should not go too far as it becomes a shaggy dog story of bollocks that terminates in rant about deutsch The word Carry...that was about disputing gravity is explained by space time in a substantial sense better. I want your help with this. But I don't think I'm sufficiently clear what my main point was. The gravity thing is said in terms of that. So the main point is, the equations of special relativity will produce everything the same, if the whole piece about space time is withdrawn from the core theory and in its place a range of visualization tools supporting a preparation process for every kind of calculation, that draws everything toward intuitively friendly forms. It sounds more complex. But it isn't. Because toolsets and tools, cartoons what not...this would all be outside theory, as a variation on educational courses in some kind of car-crash with a Feynman diagram. It isn't theoretical complexity. We don't include guides and cartoons and educational feeds when we do Occam. But we should look at this the other way too: It would add complexity to the formulation and resolution of problems or calculations. This is also a separate domain than theory...in the Applied sector. But for the sake of the point let's lump it with theory. There is new complexity. However proportionate to that, there is new levels of standardization that open up a potential to reinforce around junctures most struggled with, heavy lifting support. What is the balance, more complex or more simple, is demonstratably intractably convergent to simplification, with other features too. This is because the people it makes life worse for are competent in current use. But reinforcement of this kind is very much distributed as standard steps find to skip as soon as your god through that part. So those competent don't have to use any of it at all. Or only what they want, and with repetition they'll no longer need any of it. So its unchanged for them. The truth is they would probably just carry on using the space time piece as if in theory. Who cares. They'd have more time for that, because time taken to teach competency would be slashed right down. Time taken going over getting the direction and relative view....time taken correcting mistakes that had to be traced back through hell. All this what I'm saying would deliver. The other effect would be a proportionate expansion - numbers but seniority levels ...in the more junior direction too. Expansion of people excited and looking forward to next, using relativity. Cost of Competency would stretch out toward the mean of average ability. Go through it maybe. Change attitudes about what it means to be average. It's feasibly the most complex structure in the universe to nearest approximation. Average is glory. Maybe not dicksize. But other than that. So that's my replacement notion. Now it's about why is the space time conception methodologically, Occam, and intuition savvy minded, a serious mistake with damaging ramifications. - it's first and foremost because it doesn't need to be assumed in theory. As easily it's assumed an enablement metapschor. Basically it's another schema on the replacement notion. I mean, it is in practice and usage, whether we say so or not. - But as a schema in keeping with my replacement. It isn't very effective. Using requires visualized translations in complex ways. Correct usage requires competency in the theory, not only equations but conceptions. illegal usage, or most common error points are static over decades. I'd bet how far a given person gets with practical problems, decides how much they try to work with Einstein instead of newton in the future. Two things here I'd bet: Relativity proliferation is dormant and has been so since the end of the beginning. Actually it's going to be in recession pretty much in line with declining standards in education. And that matters in my view....a hell of a lot. Einstein should have washed newton away within years. Excuses are made about this like Newton is still fine for most accuracy and precision levels, and newton is a lot easier. And this is one of distortions that worse the face of science. A stroke is definitely on the radar going by a face like that. Because those are excuses and they are fallacious. They only make sense by collapse the considerations all around to just the points. What about that over the same period 5 generations of scientist and science graduate and engineering career path, in which almost no one...almost no scientist even, has sharpened to engineering competency in use of Einstein. Over that same period virtually no advance on relativity or deepening of knowledge of issues, better defining of the problem with QM, so no methodological supports there. Nothing has progressed and no one has had any good ideas. And given it's the same people that still use newton for everytnking, same teachers that stlll teach newton, and run though Einstein really fast and stick to template problems....because truth is teacher never learned himself. So there's an independent rationale for supports and reinforsments, around difficult sequences, as standardizations which directions to set it up,and which way to point for solutions. Which isn't easy. I remember in this list, when owen was bombasting his way to the bottle, one of the top competent dudes here, didn't himself understand directions and solutions. He was totally open about that or I wouldn't mention it. He didn't care. I wouldn't either. But we had to ask. And I don't think anyone on the list actually knew the answer before it came. And this is probably where the top 5% of users most people here are. So there's already a problem and already major consequences played out and playing out. New level theory needs to wash right through. The process yields discovery. more important, young minds get competent enough to begin thinking about the problems...earlier. A lot of good ideas people have while young and too unimportant and ignorant to taking things that way is stupid and makes them look a fool. But hold on.....one day someone say....show me that way again. So reasons and levels of reasons just keep on coming. Which indicates these are not trivial matters, and not being attended anywhere by anyone. Nor have ever. I've done a large section of it for reasons of personal self help. It works. One problem takes longer but at 10 its way faster and way higher scoring...and you don't have to do a lot to get that. And finally the MAIN reason to lose spacetime as an object from theory. Occam simpler to lose it. Occam simpler use it as a knock on. Occam simpler to learn it. So Occam simpler to do the specific translations necessary to replace a newton solution with Einstein for a given sort of problem. And the bonus, which is enough to be a knock down argument on its own, is that just the fact the spacetime thing is immediately intuitive and everyone agrees realizes the same terrain just by using equations would be too hard. Maybe no one could do that. And that's getting said as if it's a bad thing if no one did. Which is the assumption spacetime as an object, is objectively true. But no one will have a single good case for why they think this is a reasonable and necessary assumption to make. Everything points the other way. It isn't needed. It isn't helpful having once delivered it's boiler insightwhich takes all of itself to deliver. The Occam counting added complexity is the layer itself OF REALITY. A whole fucking layer man. For something just as good as a metaphor, and guess what, What is True doesn't wilt or shrink go to not true. It really doesn't matter if it starts as a metaphor in terms of what's true. There is one step remaining in one direction. Reserved for True. But if it isn't true, there's a good chance no one ever gets past here to realize that. The metaphor assumed true never discovers that it isn't. How can it...it's just a visual model. An aid. A metaphor. Doesn't matter what you call it, that's definitely what it is. That's the signal. But it might be true as well. Metaphors that are true are just special case metaphors that have a goal of faithfully representing the actual situation. And THAT is still a metaphor however you work it. Culturally and methodologically and logically and historically, AND IN EVERY OTHER context you each will encounter the same basic decision. The priority rules run the same way. We do not assume our onception of objective reality is true. We don't estimate it. We can't anyway, but it doesn't add anything. Try to improve the solutitioon process. Try to get independent measure points to gauge if you are going the right way. Try to break down the conception. Or merge it. Or scale it. Or rotate it through to different concepts and scenarios. There's a million ways to example a metaphor. And a million ways examine objective reality. They are the same ways. But translated through some abstractions for metaphor because there's no support for examination there is with the observable world. Sorry I ranted. For a long time I did that, and worsened it by design by not checking typos or for anything, and by typing too fast for my skill. I did all of that consciously by design because a major item of my own theory unlike anyone elses it seems, is we are much more malleable, and much more impacted by other people and their ideas, esp their ideas about ourselves and our own ideas. People here there is a culture that tacitly buys popper and deutsch hook line and sinker. the gift of criticism/ Even though deutsch thinks it's all .bollocks for himself, and he rationalizes routinely and I don't think he even perceives the distinction of that to truth any more. And despite this is actually a typical worsening trait linked to popperianism itself. For example the more versed someone is, the more they do this and do a lot of other things in discussions that actually fall short of the standards most people ignorant of all philosophy and that they even have standards. Even they don't rationalize and use distortive devices on the scale of those two deutsch's lietenants. cHis two wise angels. One for each ear. I think he harmed them. He flattered them with unrealistic but reinforced gestures of parity with himself intellectually and the other ways like communication skills. Determination and drive. competent as necessary in all the other skills necessary to get people listening. Deutsch was also very clearly insincere in that he regarded their abilities and potential more soberly. As evidenced by the fact over 10 years, for three equals of popperianism. Three faithful musketeer. Criticism loving but never taking sides against the other. Never criticizing at all other than technical. Maybe they were being altruistic. Saving the golden arrow for others needing it more. OK, but then there's the other stark fact that the logs of FoR and elsewhere are replete with incidents in which they all resort to fallacies or simply just ending the interaction, and it's always when it's pretty clear their position is worsening. Deutsch has actually never acknowledged a problem or even a flaw, let alone that he is refuted. He's never once done it...not that wasn't pretty obvious a throwaway he didn't care one way or another for. This is now at abnormal levels by any standard person. He's supposed to be one of the leading theorists of our time. He allows this kind of flattery way out of proportion to his real contribution. Why does he allow it, over criticize it? Dawkin was hailed a genius and credited with gene centric theory, and even evolution itself over Darwin at one point by some. It wasn't true and he was innocent of claiming it. But he would know that what's true is what gets around...a simple strategic choice to be silent when the tides are way too much going his way. The counter-criticism wally. .But not the other way, Deutsch fields incoming from the criticism direction in exactly the right way to make people sorry they bothered and not bother again. search the list...just search it. Deutsch has an easy history to research hecause he nearly always responds to questions and requests, almost never cuts in or adds a view, or initiates a thread. So he answers. idivide the questions by answers by threads. Then take the median and mean. You've got the standard deviation from that, so get the curve...there's a spike. So find the spike, the long threads. Filter for threads that start with a question indicating disagreement. Go to the end and see how things develop or end. There are patterns...basically which involve going the wrong way for each scenario, for the direction of all the virtues and worthies which are all the same direction. and its the other way. If you do get there look for the john clark inductivism debate. Clark wins and the situation is clear. True, it's a technical win, and nothing is resolved. But equally true popper's refutation and deutsch's depend on technical wheezes, that basically aren't legitimate because they raise issues that don't get addressed in the process. So again it isn't in line with integrity and truth seeking. Certain people you'd know are a little over their paygrade. Others hace sycophant tendencies or are star struck. I'm starstruck. I'm working class with all the deferential traits and for my superiors and betters. I do...that's the default starting point. But people don't get the relationship...it isn't as abusive or contemptful as people think,either way. Deference is given conditionally and the conditions set a high standard. Typically everything the level above the fella himself. So there's a standard and an easy comparison. That's the condition. And failing it changes the dynamic radically and fast. And the middle and aristocratic classes know it. They know well. And they respect it and don't ask for different. yeah ok I guess I'm shaggy dogging ya now. . > wrote: > At the moment goofy theories abound, typically that divide into infinity >> structures which derive according to whatever is needed for whatever is the >> centre piece theory to pass muster. Typically, screen out the infinity >> section and what's left just isn't becoming of someone given a desk and a >> job for life entrusted with our most precious incumbent knowledge. The >> custodians are they who must comprehend value that is there, and through >> that understand the properties and continuation, levels of applicability, >> the continuation of the necessary meat and potatoes of a scientific >> civilization. To compare, to measure, to design, to predict, to solve >> dynamical, material, fluidphysical stresses and limits, through structures >> and transports, scales...all the same but now better...some new dimension >> causing complexity collapses maybe, that new theory explains is because >> symmetrical equates to a region that is redundant at this scale, that >> wasn't at the scale above. >> >> You know, something a true scientific breakthrough theory would simply >> deliver. Something mind boggling before, like emergence, suddenly >> understood as something very simple and invariant that doesn't explain >> emergence or talk about levels or scales, because all of that is about to >> be >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:14:46 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I re-read S. Mitra's paper >>> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0902.3825v2.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFnc0z9SwLW-HfdQv80vaf6sf0heg> >>> >>> again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible >>> measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of >>> entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe. >>> The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite >>> definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size >>> in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information >>> expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure >>> that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to >>> be looked at carefully. >>> In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the >>> ongoing discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time >>> consistent as a 1p world? >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Kindest Regards, >>> >>> Stephen Paul King >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > > Kindest Regards, > > Stephen Paul King > > Senior Researcher > > Mobile: (864) 567-3099 > > [email protected] <javascript:> > > http://www.provensecure.us/ > > “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use > of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain > information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and > exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as > attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message > immediately.” > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
