Thoughts please? The luddites and the new-fangled-folk

[Lasse]

Could you explain the nature of space (time) in your cosmos?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said:

Though I will happily talk with myself through the medium of written English. This is known as a mind dump.

But the staff will not be happy. That's what a blog is for.

1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said:

Anyway, my opinion on the language of mathematics is this: it is multilayered, i.e. a latin/greek/etc character encodes some logic, then another character encodes logic on that logic, etc. So it is seen as efficient, yet implicit. So maths seems superficially to be a good candidate for encode rich logic. However, there is one major risk I can see associated with this, compared with textual logic: the layer-upon-layer-upon-layer logical structure can lead to confusion over the exact initial meaning of the base layer, akin to the old English game called 'Chinese whispers' -- though I am not sure of the origin of that name. We can also analyse maths through propagation of error that I will do in words, not maths, so as to not be circular in my reasoning. If there is a small error in encoding or decoding of knowledge on one layer, and then that knowledge is used to encode the next layer, potentially with its own associated error, and then decoded, maybe with further error, then the error magnifies to the point of distorting the intended meaning of the logic.

In the context of science though, there is error correction, so this is largely moot. These errors must manifest themselves somehow, and eventually theory will disagree with experiment, and the theory must be modified or discarded.

1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said:

Another second issue that can occur, and does occur for example when one provides a proper noun to one layer of knowledge, e.g. Einsteinian, is that one may forget some or all of the limitations of such a theory and apply it more generally than it should be or was originally intended to be. Again, such super-generalisation of knowledge magnifies with layers such that such use of said knowledge is close to meaningless on a logical level. There are obviously other reasons to be VERY careful when encoding and decoding logic and understanding in mathematics, else it becomes something taken on FAITH not COMPREHENSION. I do not state or imply here that there are issues with faith per se, but I state that maths is suggested and intended to be comprehension-based not faith-based and to take any encoded logic on faith is to do a disservice to the very meaning of SCIENCE.

One reason why it is important to keep such limitations in mind, but also, see error-correction mentioned above.

[Jack Egerton]

I can tell you where my mind went since I last posted that reply -- and yes, it relates to the cosmos I defined -- a smart question would be: why would a person that hits the floor after freefall not pass through the floor (or distance from Earth at which they were born) in the Egertonian force-free model? This could be because the particles do pass through the floor but the information about which particles constituted the person is somehow jumbled but not entirely lost (entropy advancement) in a form of imprint of the localised disturbance caused by said particles. This seems to be in agreement with Information Theory that Hawking used in his conceptualisation of Hawking radiation.

swansont: that does help, agreed.

p.s. though 'disturbance' implies force, so my thought process has not quite straightened that all out yet, evidently. The rest of the description remains valid but not fully explained.

p.p.s. last known location of particles could be last bit of Information pertaining to said particles -- no 'disturbance' required then.

Then differing velocity (maybe differing kinetic energy, if energy were required in the model) is equivalent to different information known about the particles, perhaps, though that is implied above.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Jack Egerton

[Phi for All]

On 4/23/2018 at 4:04 AM, Jack Egerton said:

I can tell you where my mind went since I last posted that reply -- and yes, it relates to the cosmos I defined --

!

Moderator Note

Jack, Jack, Jack. It's not allowed to use one unproven speculation to support another. It leads to circular reasoning, and it's extremely frustrating to discuss any of the concepts with you when you seem to be fixated on something you can't explain well to others. 

I have to shut this thread down. Please don't refer to your speculative cosmos in any thread other than its own.