Choices and Limits...

Let me just take this last part of your recent post first, Tim. I think our interpretations are still a bit at variance in some of these areas…

The Transformation of Non-Transformation__One/Many…???

Bolzano had an argument against scepticism which he thought proved the existence of true propositions. "Suppose there were no truths. Then the proposition that there are no truths would be a truth, so by reductio there is at least one truth".

Is it even possible to define 'discrete' and 'unified' in one Universe of Meaning...???

Are two or more 'wills' needed to describe our real mechanical Universe...???(this is an old idea)

We must differentiate between local and non-local determinacy as with the state of all points being causal to the point of the future outcome of the entire whole being a product of every point and time of the present, or the mere determinacy of the ability for any local point in the universe being able to replicate the same laws as any other distant point due to homogenous and isotropic mechanics embedded within the fabric of the FS spacetime matrix itself.

(Take this para with a grain of salt, as it’s very long, but I tried to get it all in here… It’s really about the problem of drawing our thinking from ‘One Source’__the ‘Self’, vs. the ‘Self, World and Universe…’ I keep going on about this issue Tim, because we can't solve any QM and RM unifications, without first admitting 'Absolute Background Independencies' for both QM and RM, as 'background dependencies' for either one, makes any unification impossible__due to RM being scientifically known to be 'background independent'__therefore indeterminacy and radomness must be allowed, but not pseudo-chaos, and methods must be allowed for the transformations between them, as per Va = Vr <--> Vu.)

I get a kick outta you trying to always throw in the determinacy issue, no matter how many times I try to show you the fallacy of such a position. Let me put it like this, ‘Naked Determinacy is the God Postion’__not the science position__as ‘Absolute Determinacy’ would absolutely eliminate our ability to have and excercize ‘Intelligence and Logic through Free-Will’s Necessity of Such Mechanical Action as even Math Decision Choices.’ Now, you can take this position all you want, but you can not possibly recover the intelligence from your own mind, to allow such intelligence to exist__and show its complete chainal path__without adding in some ‘Demon Created Intelligence’ as per the way all religions and belief systems do. Let me just walk you through this ‘Thought Mechanics Necessity Process’__when pertained to science. After I get through speaking, you must show me where you would get your intelligence from, in any other way__as you certainly have intelligence, I do respect greatly. This is the oldest philosophical, logical and scientific argument in the world, going back to the Pre-Socratic Greeks and others, so I’m stating nothing new, just re-stating what’s already been discovered of ‘Scientific Thought’ to be ‘Absolutely Necessary.’ Tim, we have two choices__We can draw our thoughts from the real objective World and the Universe of physical objects, or we can draw our thoughts from the innate world of personal psychological thoughts, imaginations and emotive states. If we draw them from the World and Universe, we know them to be provable by evidence and experiment of, for all the scientific world to see. If we draw them from ourselves and our private languages and egos, we have no chance in hell of ever proving such private facts to science. Now, let’s look deep at why non-deterninacy is ‘Absolutely Necessary’ as an aspect of the Universe, by way of the simple example of our own ‘Free-Wills’ necessary to produce the intelligence, talked about above, as can only be drawn from the real World and Universe. Were we to draw the information from our private language selves, we have no evidence path possible to show to the world of science, as all such information simply non-grounds back into the self-ego, as it’s no more than the circular logic, or non-logic, of the snake swallowing its own tail__Whereas, if we draw our knowledge from the real external World’s and Universe’s physical evidence, we can absolutely__proof positively__show any other individual in the world where this information is grounded, outside ourselves. If we choose to say such information is 100% pre-determined by absolute cause and effect, we immediately eliminate any possibility of intelligence choosing between fully un-grounded self-beliefs__and our self-intellectually-Ratio-logical systems of Intelligent Thought Processes, which can be fully proved by the external world’s comparisons of the mathematics_ratio-logic_ of this internal thought process, as it’s completely mechanically reproducible on paper__and directly relatable to real world processes__whereas all the internal psychological, emotional, imagination and belief system thinking is non-mathematical, thus non-reproducible in the external world, on paper__or by any physical means known of relaying proofs__Therefore ‘Free-Will to Choose Method, and not Determinism’ is required for any thinking mind to have such ‘Intelligence’ as we absolutely know exists. This is nothing more than pure and physically scientific thought mechanics, or ‘The Science of Thinking.’ We can’t avoid these most fundamentals of ‘The Modal Esoteric Differences’ of these two forms of thinking__that must be fundamentally first ‘Chosen’ by us, before we do any form of scientific thinking. We must purge the psychological element from our pre-thinking abductions__which ‘Determinism’ certainly is, unless corrected to mixed ‘Indeterminacy and Determinism’. Psychology is simply non-rational emotional belief states, thought and discussed by other non-rational emotional belief states, or no more than ‘Boutique Thinking’(except where cognitively logical)__and, Philosophy is simply about significant intellectual states of thought, being discussed and externally ground proveable by other significant rational intellectual states of ‘Real World and Universe Object Thoughts’__or otherwise put, ‘Significant States of Knowing’ not believing. My point being, ‘Determinism’ is not path recoverable in any externally grounded system of thought__due to the fact such statements of ‘Hard Determinism’s Absolute Cause and Effect Chain’ can only be found in ‘The Psychological Emotional Belief States’__and must be eliminated from science discussions, and a position of “Soft-Determinism” must be granted, with even “Softer-Non-Determinacy” being a real part of the Universe, to allow ‘Intelligence by Way of Free-Will’ to intellectually exist__to choose our most fundamental thoughts, and thought states, pertaining to the external real World and Universe__In the Fundamenatal First Thought Space State… “Determinism Absolutely Necessitates Choice, and Choice Absolutely Necessitates Free-Will” to choose its thoughts to scientifically function in its intellect__choosing information from the outside world__as vs. its emotions__choosing informations from the internal world__Even definitions and meanings must be chosen from the external world of proper dictionaries, to be acceptable to science… Tim, this is why philosophy is so important to physics, as only philosophy’s total knowledge paths, within and without the brain, can furnish the paths of knowledge necessary to prove meanings and interpretations of meanings, the internal mechanics lacks. It’s only the mechanics of thoughts’ total external to internal to external paths, that prove the evidential results, and their real world correspondences, quantifications and verifications of__We can’t do emotions or beliefs on paper__we can do ratio-logic and math on paper, and physics in the labs… But, and this is a big But__We can not distinguish either’s significance, without our bio-neuro-physically given Free-Will Choice to first do so…

Now, if you can show an argument around that, please do so… :-)

The above long para says appx. what this para says___"Bolzano’s epistemology rests on a theory of logical consequence that is twofold: an account of truth preservation that is epitomized in his notion of “deductibility” (Ableitbarkeit) on the one hand (See Siebel 1996, 2002, 2003; van Benthem 1985, 2003; Etchemendy 1990), and an account of “objective grounding” (Abfolge) on the other (see Tatzel 2002, 2003; see also (Thompson 1981; Corcoran 1975). The notion of deducibility presents a semantic account of truth-preservation that is neither trivial nor careless. The same holds for his views on probability. Likewise his attempt at a definition of grounding constitutes the basis of an account of a priori knowledge and mathematical explanations whose interest has been noticed by some authors, and in some cases even vindicated (Mancosu 1999)."

Tim, here's something important of Bolzano's logic, I just came across, but thoroughly agree__"Among Bolzano’s many idiosyncratic convictions, perhaps the most interesting, but also the most strange to the modern mind, was his belief that each branch of science has a unique, strictly scientific presentation, which for him meant not only a unique finite axiom system (a belief he shared with many) but also an essentially unique entailment (Abfolge) of each theorem of this science by the axioms, a belief which might well be unique to Bolzano."

It need not be totally ‘Deterministic’, as will be explained, as I procede.

The conservation mechanics along with our further inference of motion spectrum mechanics requires a degree of determinacy to replicate and +%produce the laws which we study and exploit per science.

A degree of determinacy_yes_and even a very high degree of determinacy, to even a 99+%, but never 100%. All ‘The Uncertainty Principle’ or ‘Universal Randomness’ needs is a 1,000,000th of a % to function__But, some minimal is ‘Absolutely Required’ as we absolutely know the Universe has quantum randomness, as does evolution, as does humanity with free-will, just for a few known examples. And that free-will forms a lot of humanity’s physically structured global communities, by sheer choice of intellectual thought, judgment, will, and action__to achieve the goals, we set for ourselves… That’s a lotta free-will choosing from that fundamental abduction pool… You can’t institute every abduction concept in your mind, at once__you absolutely must choose the one at a time, you wish to accomplish = Free-Will Goals…

Randomness at this stage represents chaos to me to the point that a physical law of any kind wouldn’t exist as distances and time would easily change the laws of physics as we know them.

Now you see, here’s where you are entering that belief system into your science, by mentioning chaos__where ‘Chaos’, ‘True Chaos’, is not known to science__It’s imo, a simply emotionally believed interpretation about science, or pseudo-science. How would you possibly prove to me that ‘True Chaos’ exists, when all I see around me is a ‘General World and Universal Uniformeity…?’__especially if science necessitates you to ground your thinking in any form of scientifically accepted method. ‘True Chaos’ only exists in ‘Naked Belief’__No…? I’m not trying to be hard on ya Tim__It’s just all these ‘Belief Demons’ must be purged from thinking, to achieve ‘True Scientific Thinking…’

I’ve admitted to the unknowable nature of the determinism of the entire system as randomness within quantum motions will forever be present from our reference frame, so the point is unarguable. Is there randomness to the universe?

Yes__as if it exists anywhere, as you admit, it exists everywhere, by the very laws of conservation of motion__Physical laws require it, by necessity… Using the word ‘Universe’ in the ‘God Context’ doesn’t get you around the conservation laws of the Universe… See what I mean…? David had this problem with me, and couldn’t see I was always grounding all my thinking in the many laws of physics, as scientific thinking can only be grounded in such laws__to be fully true__due to their absolute mathematicality and ratio-logic foundations and path integral informations’ requirements… If we don’t ground all our thinking in the Universal laws__our thinking is beyond any possible definitions and meanings within ‘The World of Scientific Necessities’__but at the same time, we must realize there exist incommensurabilities within the fundamental motions and maths, which have been known since early times. It’s just simple ‘Necessity Path Logic’__within ‘The Total Universal Circle of Possible Scientific Knowing…’ ‘Mathematical Laws’ must always ground in primary modal thinking, to distinguish and discriminate intellectual knowledge information__from emotional belief information__and the only possible method of this is the incommensurabilities' necessities between belief and rationality, even though both belief and rationality exist in the real World, at the same time… This complex reasoning always goes back to the incommensurabilities between ‘The One and The Many’ ancient problem, of ‘The Many Interpretation and Meaning, In The Pseudo-One’__that just may be a real single Universe__We just don’t know, as it’s beyond our present scientific knowledge limits…

We’ll never know, but I do know that I can expect the quantum mechanics to always replicate themselves to produce near exact outcomes both structurally and unstructurally, which is a high degree of determinism within the fabric of motion itself.

Tim, when speaking scientifically, one must parse their words precisely when talking deeply, the deeper one goes into the sciences__or the conflations and confusions multiply like wildfire. I’m not picking on you, but unless the language is used precisely, we can’t make real sense to each other. I know it’s extremely difficult to catch the misspoken concepts, but I pick them up instantly, as I know the importance and significance of the esoteric distinctions, to proper and successful science communication. Oh, I make the same mistakes also, but I’m just trying to clear up this one problem area of ‘Determinism vs. Indeterminacy’ since it’s so important to understanding the rest of the deep scientific aspects of CM, QM and RM…

Btw, we already know there’s ‘Randomness’ in the Universe__as we easily find it in personal choices of something so simple as what food to order in a restaurant, where telling the waitress when she asks what you want to eat; “Oh, it doesn’t matter__it’s already all determined cause and effect”__so she brings you a ‘Rock…’ No Tim, you must choose to tell here what you want, if you want to get, what you want to eat… :-)

It’s not so much the accuracy through time which I’m referring to Lloyd. It’s the relativistic accuracy due to acceleration as we currently have no absolute clock which doesn’t dilate or no absolute ruler which doesn’t contract due to acceleration or gravitational influence.

Tim, as a being locked in a c conservation Universe, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. We are bound by the laws and limits of the conservation, transference and transformation laws, we live or exist within__There ain’t no exit from the conservation laws of motion. The clocks work fine, and our mathematicians have correction algorithms for all positioning systems, or we wouldn’t get the accurate missle hits or space positionings we do… We just gotta live with the Universe’s limits of knowledge possibility. There’s no possible way to know beyond knowing’s ability to know. You’re trying to exceed the limits of possibles… That’s what epistemology was created for, by the Greeks and others, millennia ago. We all gotta know the epistemic limits of knowledge capacity, to do correct science… Limit knowledge is the most important subject in science and math__and it ain’t simple to rap your head around, completely__as it involves all the Planck scale limits, as well as the computational calculus scale limits of pure mathematics itself… That’s why I posted those Wolfram links… There’s no short path to total scientific knowledge, although many think there is… I spent years alone, just on understanding all the limit sciences, of the different disciplines__as they all vary in the particular law and math applications, then the meanings also vary, as different systems can be used for different methods of ‘Limit Science…’

Science has to make the mathematical corrections per Relativity itself as with the GPS system due to the inability for the clock to adjust itself per its increase and sustained velocity. There seems to be no common thread woven throughout all reference frames whereby allowing an absolute frequency and distance reference which would allow a self fluctuating invariant ruler and clock per velocity and gravitational effects, which is why I am suggesting a comparative analysis of two or more synchronized reference frequencies to perhaps accomplish such similar to how they do down the road with measuring the phase shift of the reflected laser in the videos you provided.

That’s because, it’s not possible Tim__There’s far too many variables involved. We can only do two ‘solid body math’, at present, and when it comes to stringing together all the varying densities and other variables, affecting and effecting velocities in the cause and effect chain, there’s just no possible way for any observation or math system yet devised, to figure all such variables, as the variables are so tremendously multiplied by gravity and magnetospheres’ complications__it’s just plain impossible to achieve what you are wanting to be the science of present reality. Science admits, and has to admit its limits, to do proper science__It’s just been all the Pseudo-ToeQuesters in the World, who don’t realize__‘Science Limits Must Be Learned, To Do Real Science…’

Perhaps to determine where, when and to what extent we are relative to all else within the absolute realm, we must perhaps use our demodulation abilities in relation to the EM medium and learn to establish the variances within it due to our motions which ultimately establish the invariance of absolute space and time.

Let me put it this way, Tim__This is where you have to start realizing information itself must be modulated into its possible, impossible and necessary realities__and that’s simple modal logic, or the very primitive logic we were born with__and it must be used first, just as we used it first as a child, and all cavemen used it to hunt and fish with. Academics has almost edited our necessary ‘Modal Logic’ from the scene of all physics textbooks, and physicists, philosophers, mathematicians and logicians aren’t going to make any further progress__until they relearn their basic logical instincts must be respected__the basic ratio-logical instincts. I don’t know how to put it any other way Tim__Modal logic is just so simple a system of thought, that sorts all our fundamental thoughts__we can’t live or do science without it… We gotta know how to think about thinking__first…

Einstein had it backwards, thus we must work backwards from him to establish truth. What aspect of the EM field is motion sensitive whereby its permeating nature would allow such to be exploited as an absolute reference frame to all other slower moving reference frames?

Again, beyond the limit capabilities of science__We can’t measure that hyper-fine a wave structure__there’s just far too much noise in the system, by all the other wave structures… You’d have to know what’s inside a photon, or what a photon is made of, and no-one has ever even seen a single photon__we only see quanta__Packets… We, and science, are limited, Tim__and the ‘Limit Wall’ ain’t about to fall, any time soon… Better to work in areas we can and do know are possible of answers…

We might find that the velocity of such might always produce a value of c due to our instruments, but the frequency aspect is known to shift, thus any frequency related aspects are exploitable IMHO.

Only if we can develop instruments sensitive enough to measure em… Don’t take my word for it, all this information is available even on Wiki…

As to the clocks nearing c, it’s only hypothetical as we haven’t worked out the exact acceleration decay mechanics whereby I can acknowledge the upper acceleration limits of a clock.

Maybe hypothetical Tim, but does science have any other evidence, or even a suspicion in this area…? Is it even possible for any other system of motion and Universal laws to exist…? I’d say it’s not even possible, though I have no proof of such a conjecture, but Statistical Mechanics, Fundamental Particle Science and The Laws of Physics lead me to think this is true…

Somewhere between the two extreme ends of the linear velocity spectrum of the most massive black hole and EM radiation, all structured systems are somewhere between near linear motionless and c. Just as with the concepts being discussed, their function and physical characteristics are derived by where they fall along this scale, whereby changing their position along this scale, or changing the reception rate of any encoded information about them due to a change in position of a receiver along this scale, totally changes the meaning of what one thing is.

Absolutely true…

I also like the direction you’re headed with your other thoughts as it goes back to my interpretation of an ultimate proof being the link between mechanics and thought, whereby we might some day be able to imply that rather than, ‘I think therefore I am’……… ‘I think therefore it must be so’

About Descartes’ statement__”This objection would be similar to that brought by Pascal against Descartes, when he asserted that we might also say, “I walk, therefore I am.” Steiner

“I once was a Rich man__I could think as a Child…”

Relativistic Effects Upon Information...continued

“Hi Tim, just thought I'd write this short compliment first, before I answer to the meat of your post. You've given an excellent assessment of the inner mechanics of 'abduction' workings. I really liked how you posed it as 'a mental pool of information' we actually use to draw initial pre-conclusions, in our thinking processes, from. Anyway, glad to see your mind works at this depth of processing informations most as similar as mine, as it's exactly what's needed to understand the depths of our multi-functioning states of our existing Universe, as pertains to the most fundamental motions, and states of possibilities and necessities, at the limits of knowledge plausibilities and probabilities...

I'll get to all this a bit later Tim, as I've gotta' think your entire post through, to respond seriously enough to you, to take our ideas further into where I think they should maybe go next__to peer deep into Ol' Father Time and Mother Motion...

Anyway, just had to comment on your 'explication' of self-abduction, as it was so good to hear you describe it so simply, yet profound in its implications to model buildings' ease...

Lloyd”



The logical reasoning of absolute truth is much like a giant jigsaw puzzle with each piece bound by it’s place within the puzzle by way of its shape and color contributing to the whole. Within our minds, many pieces have been fit together by way of the scientific methodology, philosophical truths, etc, to form increasingly larger portions of the puzzle, with many conjoined segments which display faint glimpses of portions of the overall image lying before us now whose edges and color won’t further allow them to be joined due to the missing segments and often only single pieces by which they would otherwise be bound to the whole. Within this whole of truth, we struggle to keep the overall state of the puzzle within our minds with pieces and segments lying here and there as we inductively and deductively further place pieces together which seem to fit, and sometimes take portions which have been fitted together apart to study what it is that make them fit together and determines their place within the whole. It is the information we gather from such efforts which often directs our search for specific pieces as we dig through the pile of disconnected pieces to find certain shapes and colors which we are led to search for due to our projection of what must be by way of what we know is. Some may even observe enough about the fractal pieces and portions to look ahead as far as to try and witness the total image of the whole with all the seams running throughout by which it is bound whereby finding further inductive guidance from abductive imagery. Yet, often times the projected imagery which seems so true to us finds itself as merely a misguided vision of the truth whereby fallacy too finds its place within the whole as having foundations in the misalignment and interpretation of portions of truth. It is often after the further piecing together of the whole that we find hints at an image which is not what we have long held too, at which point we re-evaluate the collective state of things and make further abductions whereby we might have the guidance needed to pluck a single piece from within a mass of others, merely by observing a shade change of color within a certain corner or the placement and shape of the curves which define its ultimate position. Only when all of the pieces are in place will the final image be definitely revealed, because this puzzle didn't come with a box with the image already on it...lol.

As a religious person would tell us, “there’s nothing new under the sun”. I’m uncertain that the mind is capable of producing even an abstract concept or thought which isn’t founded somewhere in reality. I don’t see the mind as an aspect of creation, but rather mere re-arrangement. Even the most abstract concept which holds no truth in reality is still a fractal assembly of pieces and segments which are forced together that don’t actually belong. Truth to me is what physically is within the absolute universe, while increasing degrees of fallacy are merely built upon increasingly more unrelated fractal pieces of truth. The uniqueness of the mind is its ability to reach across vast distances of space and time and conjoin aspects of truth which would have otherwise had no means of contact due to their absolute place in the whole otherwise establishing eternal separation.




“Relativistic Effects Upon Information III…

All frequencies are re-modulated when received by the receiver, or we wouldn’t see the same picture sent, as intended, and all atomic time clock signals are re-modulated according to the mathematics of relative distances and motions, within the receiving clocks, radios, tv’s, computers or whatever instrument is being used to receive the signals. Without re-modulation corrections, we'd receive the altered signals, as you’ve described them__but our Universe and Nature self-modulates its own fundamental signals__and herein, imo, lies a very important aspect of QM differences of mans manipulations of this system, which is not the same as mans to Universe and Nature.(as presently interpreted and understood, anyway) I just realized this in answering you, Tim__and this may be very important to further understanding the deeper aspects of QM’s deeper/est frequencies’ modulation mechanics, compared to our own…??? I have questions myself in this area, now that your query has brought it up__rattled my brain…

I’m thinking about it__but, I’ll continue to go through your post first…

Nope, this can’t wait... I think this is huge Tim. What your probings about frequency modulations are showing me is, A Giant Discovery In Science__I Think__Think__If the brain modulates the same image on Earth, identical to our vision and perception__or perception anyway__as it does in space, where the velocities of light in substance densities are so different, and we know it absolutely does function the same to our perception, i.e., we see the same exact images of objects in both places, and receive the same, or near same sounds and images over em-frequency transmissions__Then how is this possible, without outside of our brain’s physical em-field Influences…? It’s not…! And, this is what’s so huge about discussing this modulation subject, in different velocity reference frames. Science has for the last 100+ years_scientifically_demanded “nothing outside the brain, affects the brain and/or is effected by the brain”__but, how else does the brain modulate__identically__in the two drastically different reference frames and em-velocities of dense Earth’s atmosphere and space’s non-dense vacuum, where we absolutely know light travels at a minimum of 1/4 to ½ c differences__What’s modulating the transferences of em-frequency signals of the objects seen in both separate reference frames__except the external em-field’s interactions, upon the internal em-fields…? Tim, this is the rational, empirical and experimental evidences and proofs we need to prove the aether exists__It’s absolute modal necessity, mental necessity and physical necessity… Not to mention all its massive other implications of pure fundamental em-field mechanics possibilities and necessities...

The brain’s internal continuum/intuitive field__Is being absolutely physically modulated by the external vacuum’s continuum/physical em-aether-field__and necessarily physically so__Field-Modulation of Physical Object’s Images Upon The Mechanical Processes of The Brain/Mind__By Way of Total EM-Field Modulations' Physical Frequency-Wave-Particle Interactions… Unless you have something to prove I'm full of bat-cakes this morning…

I’ll get back to you later, on the rest of your post, as this new idea is over-consuming my thoughts right now. Let me know if I’m seducing my own thinking…

Regards,
Lloyd”



It is the very dichotomy of motion states set against each other which we are exploring here as with massive structured systems requiring a degree of angular motion whereby substance is locally bound vs. the linear nature of the unstructured EM field itself with its mass stretched thinly across vast distances, which establish reality as we know it. Both contrasting states, with one bounding the other at the largest macro scale of space containing vast quantities of matter, with a recursive inward aspect of structured matter possibly further confining unstructured volumes of FS which internally resonate at the more micro scales, establish harmonic aspects of the local expression of frequency vs. the non-local expression of frequency. Similar to how most older musical devices work e.g. tape recorder, record player, cd, etc, there’s the linear information stored upon the data medium which passes over the reading portion of the instrument as with a tape head, record player needle or whatever. The rate at which this contact is made is obviously important in how the encoded information is re-modulated back to the audio or video frequencies whereby effecting the quality of the reconstruction from the original.

When we encode information upon the writable medium of the EM field by way of modulating lower frequency interactions e.g. audio, video, etc, up to increasingly higher frequency states to be broadcast that particular space and time position is not rewritable as one broadcast, the signal travels spherically outward whereby a distant antenna receives the sequenced encoded data as the EM waves pass around it. It is the internal resonance of the receiver which makes it sensitive to the written EM medium. This is accomplished by aspects of the oscillator circuitry which also played a part in the frequency of the transmission. Tuning a radio is merely matching frequencies of the transmitted signal vs. the receiver. With EM waves, the rate at which the written medium passes the receiver is constant c within the spatial vacuum (but varies within other medium densities). Thus, we can’t change the sequencing of the encoded EM wave, but we can change how we experience it by way of the relative motions of the receiver. We can hypothetically envision a portion of an EM wave as being at rest (for the sake of ease of understanding due to only having to deal with one frame of motion). Now this stretch of unstructured EM medium has encoded frequency modulated data written in only one direction across it which is representative of a receiver traveling across it (like the record or tape player head) in the direction of reading the sequenced information in the order it was produced at c velocity. So far, this has taken no effort of the motions of the receiver being as the initial motion is an aspect of the medium traveling at c. Now, lets imagine a simple receiver as merely being a comparative frequency analysis of the EM wave with no further demodulation aspects. We could have a piezoelectric quartz crystal oscillator which is found in many watches and other electronic devices and encompasses aspects of the mechanical resonate frequency of solids per atomic motions and such,. We might have a capacitor and inductor wired in a circuit to make an electronic oscillator which has aspects of the electrostatic field discharge of the capacitor charging the magnetic field of the inductor which recursively discharges to re-charge the capacitor, etc, etc, which has electromagnetic aspects within its oscillation. We might also have an electronic amplifier arranged within a feedback loop, whereby the noise of its output is run back through a filter and looped back to the input whereby it is re-amplified to eventually stabilize as a sine wave with a single frequency. Now, for all of these aspects to be in ‘tune’ the various types of oscillators passing over the EM medium must stay at the same frequency as the EM medium itself, therefore if we further accelerate the oscillators above c in its direction of travel, (which is not to be mistaken with faster than light velocity as due to the separation of reference frames the oscillator has just now began moving because I’ve hypothesized the medium as being at rest) for there to be no variation in any of the receivers decoding of the information within the EM medium, every aspect which governs the many forms of oscillation and frequency within the oscillators whether electromagnetic, atomic, acoustic, or whatever, along with the Lorentz contraction aspects and so on which apply to them and are subject to sensitivity due to velocity must all be uniform transformations else various types of oscillators will drift differently in frequency. Reverse the direction of the oscillators propagation relative to the EM medium and instead of adding to c, any increased motion of the oscillator in that direction is subtracted from c, whereby we would have the same frequency effects of the oscillator transformations due to its motions, but a lowered Doppler shift of the EM medium frequencies rather than the increased frequency Doppler shift from before. As also discussed, a gravitational field is merely an increased density field which also factors into the frequency and wavelength aspects being considered with its ability to alter such.

On a side note, Nikola Tesla was always an interesting read to me as one of my favorite inventors as he once capitalized upon the resonant frequency of atoms and molecules to build his “Earthquake Machine” which was said to have been a prototype of only a few inches which shook his entire New York lab. I’m uncertain of the truth to such magnitude, but I do recall certain bridges being shaken to pieces due to amplifications of their resonant frequencies and such, if I remember correctly. Point being, that frequency and wavelength make up the fabric of our world both within structured and unstructured matter. Structured matter itself can actually be better understood as information within the unstructured EM field, whereby Lorentz transformations and such are a product of the c conservation mechanics due to motion. There’s the localized structured information of composite systems along with the unstructured encoded information within the EM field as a result of the presence of the structured composite systems. Meaning is reference frame dependent as modulations and demodulations occur as a result of the system being set against itself whereby such meaning can easily be lost due to the angular sequencing of the structural motions themselves along with the linear sequencing of the unstructured medium being dependent upon the relative motions of reference frames moving within and amongst other reference frames.



“Tim, have you at this point considered the fundamental possibility of a many independent points of motion occurences pushing the entire mechanics of the Universe__thus having no mathematical algorithms possible to describe, yet still having the possibility of indeterminacy, randomness and uncertainty multi-position competing toward the Uniformiety of the Universe, we now witness…? If you notice, there’s really no physicists who back quantum determinism, at this absolute fundamental level of motion, as per Wiki’s Link… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy I really think you should give this some thought, to bring this part of your algorithmic possibilities processes in line with what we can know__as in my opinion, the fundamental motion mechanics would absolutely necessitate a many points, sets of individual algorithms, due to the massive distances which would necessarily exist at state change decay or big/small bangs points… I’m only asking you to look at this a bit deeper, to bring it in line with the mathematical necessities, almost all theorists think has to be the case in this area, especially the major majority of mathematical, theoretical physicists involved…”



The many independent points of motion you are referring to here is in line with my spacetime quantization model I was discussing back at TQ. I still prefer the visualization aspect of motion being embedded within localized domains with all more macro motions being mere transferences, but when I see that my ideas are causing more confusion than unity I generally let them rest until our thoughts get aligned to the point that they can be better expressed with greater communication.




“Let me just throw a point in here. The truth may still be the triadic mechanics of particle and field interactions, not just the dyadic actions, you are assuming. Then it would be an unbalanced many points system, that gets balanced by the greater random competitions, which create our witnessed general uniformiety. This wouldn’t really be algorithmitzable, due to having to be processed by Statistical Mechanics of from unknowns to knowns first, before we even arrive at the possibilities of using algorithms on Statistical Probabilities of randomnized knowns to fixed knowns, yet still exhibiting chances of changes, to allow for evolution to be true, since we know it scientifically is, by the evidence. You see, evolution requires a small amount of random mutation/randomness/uncertainty to function, and algorithms can only be used for certain fixed events, within the greater Universal combinatoriality and Nature’s evolution always requiring a certain amount of randomness and uncertainty__which fixed algorithms don’t/can’t account for, because our math just won’t go there, due to the many body problem, or the inaccuracies that multiply, at the infinitesimal and near infinite scales… We are limited to the math that functions on physical systems, unless we invent new maths to process beyong our present capacities. This is why I’ve always tried to show you, we are limited to a certain degree of free-will, as this can be represented mathematically in the same processes, even if the greater combinatorial processes of the Universe may be absolute cause and effect, not all can ever be… Many independent systems are not completely causal, they are incidental to the ground state facts of indeterminacy, just as is Einstein’s background independence math, within his RM… I don’t even know where QM’ers get the idea of quantum determinism__which implies background dependence, as this is counter to all the facts I’ve studied about QM maths, theories and systems, or that is even listed on Wiki and other reference encyclopedias… Tim, could you please explain to me how do you get determinism out of fundamental quantum indeterminacy…?”



We must differentiate between local and non-local determinacy as with the state of all points being causal to the point of the future outcome of the entire whole being a product of every point and time of the present, or the mere determinacy of the ability for any local point in the universe being able to replicate the same laws as any other distant point due to homogenous and isotropic mechanics embedded within the fabric of the FS spacetime matrix itself. The conservation mechanics along with our further inference of motion spectrum mechanics requires a degree of determinacy to replicate and produce the laws which we study and exploit per science. Randomness at this stage represents chaos to me to the point that a physical law of any kind wouldn’t exist as distances and time would easily change the laws of physics as we know them. I’ve admitted to the unknowable nature of the determinism of the entire system as randomness within quantum motions will forever be present from our reference frame, so the point is unarguable. Is there randomness to the universe? We’ll never know, but I do know that I can expect the quantum mechanics to always replicate themselves to produce near exact outcomes both structurally and unstructurally, which is a high degree of determinism within the fabric of motion itself.



“Well, you are quite correct that there’s not much information on it, but all really is grounded to the c facts of weights and measurements, as it has been for over a century or so now, and our information is kept at the U.S. Dept. of Weights and Measures. The actual absolute scale measurement and weight objects actually exist, as they existed first in European and English Gov. Depts. Also all the CODATA standards of science and physics exists there, which is all based off of these Atomic Clock time and c measurement standards, and improved upon all the time, by using more accurate element frequencies and methods to extend these accuracies, as will as new x-ray efforts to use the galaxy and other Universal star points to even further extend the current accuracies, and then list these new attempts in the CODATA. I’ve listed these facts before on ‘East Meets West’ and elsewhere. These accuracies already exceed our computers abilities to even do the math, at complex levels without creating more inaccuracies in the computer math, than exists in the actual physical measurements, themselves… The fundamental limit is always the mathematics, not our fundamental measurement problems, and I here mean the complex math process intergrations being applied to the physical problems, where they be such hyper-fine structures, physicists are now trying to work out__the math inaccuracies within computer programs overwhelm the results accuracies. This stuff is all mentioned at these addresses that are in an older post, that didn’t get posted until today, as it was in draft mode edit; here they are:”



It’s not so much the accuracy through time which I’m referring to Lloyd. It’s the relativistic accuracy due to acceleration as we currently have no absolute clock which doesn’t dilate or no absolute ruler which doesn’t contract due to acceleration or gravitational influence. Science has to make the mathematical corrections per Relativity itself as with the GPS system due to the inability for the clock to adjust itself per its increase and sustained velocity. There seems to be no common thread woven throughout all reference frames whereby allowing an absolute frequency and distance reference which would allow a self fluctuating invariant ruler and clock per velocity and gravitational effects, which is why I am suggesting a comparative analysis of two or more synchronized reference frequencies to perhaps accomplish such similar to how they do down the road with measuring the phase shift of the reflected laser in the videos you provided. Perhaps to determine where, when and to what extent we are relative to all else within the absolute realm, we must perhaps use our demodulation abilities in relation to the EM medium and learn to establish the variances within it due to our motions which ultimately establish the invariance of absolute space and time. Einstein had it backwards, thus we must work backwards from him to establish truth. What aspect of the EM field is motion sensitive whereby its permeating nature would allow such to be exploited as an absolute reference frame to all other slower moving reference frames? We might find that the velocity of such might always produce a value of c due to our instruments, but the frequency aspect is known to shift, thus any frequency related aspects are exploitable IMHO.

As to the clocks nearing c, it’s only hypothetical as we haven’t worked out the exact acceleration decay mechanics whereby I can acknowledge the upper acceleration limits of a clock. Somewhere between the two extreme ends of the linear velocity spectrum of the most massive black hole and EM radiation, all structured systems are somewhere between near linear motionless and c. Just as with the concepts being discussed, their function and physical characteristics are derived by where they fall along this scale, whereby changing their position along this scale, or changing the reception rate of any encoded information about them due to a change in position of a receiver along this scale, totally changes the meaning of what one thing is. I also like the direction you’re headed with your other thoughts as it goes back to my interpretation of an ultimate proof being the link between mechanics and thought, whereby we might some day be able to imply that rather than, ‘I think therefore I am’……… ‘I think therefore it must be so’

Will edit all this later….in a time crunch.

Relativistic Effects Upon Information II...

Hi Tim, just thought I'd write this short compliment first, before I answer to the meat of your post. You've given an excellent assessment of the inner mechanics of 'abduction' workings. I really liked how you posed it as 'a mental pool of information' we actually use to draw initial pre-conclusions, in our thinking processes, from. Anyway, glad to see your mind works at this depth of processing informations most as similar as mine, as it's exactly what's needed to understand the depths of our multi-functioning states of our existing Universe, as pertains to the most fundamental motions, and states of possibilities and necessities, at the limits of knowledge plausibilities and probabilities...

I'll get to all this a bit later Tim, as I've gotta' think your entire post through, to respond seriously enough to you, to take our ideas further into where I think they should maybe go next__to peer deep into Ol' Father Time and Mother Motion...

Anyway, just had to comment on your 'explication' of self-abduction, as it was so good to hear you describe it so simply, yet profound in its implications to model buildings' ease...

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd,

I see many of the concepts of logic within my own mental methodologies and thought processes as with the algorithmic ways I process information, resolve problems and such. If I had to characterize my general overall method of scientific exploration I’d say that my thoughts contain the largest collection of information from my studies which I can continuously maintain, similar to a mental pool of information. From this pool I draw conclusions (abduction) from the collection of information whereby I further support or discredit such conclusions by both inductive and deductive methods of further examination of more generalized analysis of the original pool of information along with new information which might come by way of study which is added to the information pool. This is seen with my frequent inference of an underlying universal symmetry which all physical aspects and processes are satisfying which would allow a method of micro to macro unification of forces and such as though the physical asymmetries we find in nature are preservation aspects of a much deeper symmetry with forces being the unbalanced transition of states through time to accomplish such balance. Find what aspect is being balance, and you find the need for the imbalance of all other aspects. From this abduction aspect, I further inductively and deductively investigate the many ideas and information within my thoughts which I’ve gathered to support, deny or direct a further hypothesis. It is from the many occurrences of such symmetries within the details of the many scientific physical process which I’ve studied that I further infer its presence as a defining attribute of the whole, but the very details which at some point inferred such must further support such abductive reasoning when all physical aspects of the process are further compounded or arrived at by further dismantling of a larger composite aspect.

P.s.
Relativistic Effects Upon Information III…

All frequencies are re-modulated when received by the receiver, or we wouldn’t see the same picture sent, as intended, and all atomic time clock signals are re-modulated according to the mathematics of relative distances and motions, within the receiving clocks, radios, tv’s, computers or whatever instrument is being used to receive the signals. Without re-modulation corrections, we'd receive the altered signals, as you’ve described them__but our Universe and Nature self-modulates its own fundamental signals__and herein, imo, lies a very important aspect of QM differences of mans manipulations of this system, which is not the same as mans to Universe and Nature.(as presently interpreted and understood, anyway) I just realized this in answering you, Tim__and this may be very important to further understanding the deeper aspects of QM’s deeper/est frequencies’ modulation mechanics, compared to our own…??? I have questions myself in this area, now that your query has brought it up__rattled my brain…

I’m thinking about it__but, I’ll continue to go through your post first…

Nope, this can’t wait... I think this is huge Tim. What your probings about frequency modulations are showing me is, A Giant Discovery In Science__I Think__Think__If the brain modulates the same image on Earth, identical to our vision and perception__or perception anyway__as it does in space, where the velocities of light in substance densities are so different, and we know it absolutely does function the same to our perception, i.e., we see the same exact images of objects in both places, and receive the same, or near same sounds and images over em-frequency transmissions__Then how is this possible, without outside of our brain’s physical em-field Influences…? It’s not…! And, this is what’s so huge about discussing this modulation subject, in different velocity reference frames. Science has for the last 100+ years_scientifically_demanded “nothing outside the brain, affects the brain and/or is effected by the brain”__but, how else does the brain modulate__identically__in the two drastically different reference frames and em-velocities of dense Earth’s atmosphere and space’s non-dense vacuum, where we absolutely know light travels at a minimum of 1/4 to ½ c differences__What’s modulating the transferences of em-frequency signals of the objects seen in both separate reference frames__except the external em-field’s interactions, upon the internal em-fields…? Tim, this is the rational, empirical and experimental evidences and proofs we need to prove the aether exists__It’s absolute modal necessity, mental necessity and physical necessity… Not to mention all its massive other implications of pure fundamental em-field mechanics possibilities and necessities...

The brain’s internal continuum/intuitive field__Is being absolutely physically modulated by the external vacuum’s continuum/physical em-aether-field__and necessarily physically so__Field-Modulation of Physical Object’s Images Upon The Mechanical Processes of The Brain/Mind__By Way of Total EM-Field Modulations' Physical Frequency-Wave-Particle Interactions… Unless you have something to prove I'm full of bat-cakes this morning…

I’ll get back to you later, on the rest of your post, as this new idea is over-consuming my thoughts right now. Let me know if I’m seducing my own thinking…

Regards,
Lloyd

P.s.
Tim, this is "The Path Integral Conservation of Information Law" I mentioned back in 2009 on "East Meets West Logic", I think at that first post you made to me, or right there-abouts to your first post to me...

Relativistic Effects Upon Information IV...

I decided to add this other post to this one, so's you wouldn't miss either. Sorry, it's long, but anyway, here it is... At least half the length is your own post, you won't need to re-read...

Hi Tim, and now I’ll try again to answer some of the points in your post. It’s been quite a day of me further translating the ideas I’ve already come across. They seem to be still expanding. Here’s some of what I’ve reduced down; Limit states of motion, create all motion__and; At limit state changes, fermions turn to bosons and the opposite at opposite limits. It’s a constant perpetual frequency mechanics. Of course this may well be saying much of what we already know, but it’s put my mind to working at new and different ideas…

Non-Mathematically General, and Mathematically Exact Inferences and Actions…
The Self-Modulation of The Conservation Laws of Physics…
The Self-Modulation of Motion__The Limits of Wave Frequencies…
The Self-Modulation Necessity of All Universal Motion…
The Natural Limits of Frequency Mechanics…
It’s A Natural Perpetual Wave Modulation Motion, Necessitated By Motion Itself…

I see many of the concepts of logic within my own mental methodologies and thought processes as with the algorithmic ways I process information, resolve problems and such. If I had to characterize my general overall method of scientific exploration I’d say that my thoughts contain the largest collection of information from my studies which I can continuously maintain, similar to a mental pool of information. From this pool I draw conclusions (abduction) from the collection of information whereby I further support or discredit such conclusions by both inductive and deductive methods of further examination of more generalized analysis of the original pool of information along with new information which might come by way of study which is added to the information pool. This is seen with my frequent inference of an underlying universal symmetry which all physical aspects and processes are satisfying which would allow a method of micro to macro unification of forces and such as though the physical asymmetries we find in nature are preservation aspects of a much deeper symmetry with forces being the unbalanced transition of states through time to accomplish such balance.

Tim, have you at this point considered the fundamental possibility of a many independent points of motion occurences pushing the entire mechanics of the Universe__thus having no mathematical algorithms possible to describe, yet still having the possibility of indeterminacy, randomness and uncertainty multi-position competing toward the Uniformiety of the Universe, we now witness…? If you notice, there’s really no physicists who back quantum determinism, at this absolute fundamental level of motion, as per Wiki’s Link… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy I really think you should give this some thought, to bring this part of your algorithmic possibilities processes in line with what we can know__as in my opinion, the fundamental motion mechanics would absolutely necessitate a many points, sets of individual algorithms, due to the massive distances which would necessarily exist at state change decay or big/small bangs points… I’m only asking you to look at this a bit deeper, to bring it in line with the mathematical necessities, almost all theorists think has to be the case in this area, especially the major majority of mathematical, theoretical physicists involved…

Find what aspect is being balance(d), and you find the need for the imbalance of all other aspects.

Let me just throw a point in here. The truth may still be the triadic mechanics of particle and field interactions, not just the dyadic actions, you are assuming. Then it would be an unbalanced many points system, that gets balanced by the greater random competitions, which create our witnessed general uniformiety. This wouldn’t really be algorithmitzable, due to having to be processed by Statistical Mechanics of from unknowns to knowns first, before we even arrive at the possibilities of using algorithms on Statistical Probabilities of randomnized knowns to fixed knowns, yet still exhibiting chances of changes, to allow for evolution to be true, since we know it scientifically is, by the evidence. You see, evolution requires a small amount of random mutation/randomness/uncertainty to function, and algorithms can only be used for certain fixed events, within the greater Universal combinatoriality and Nature’s evolution always requiring a certain amount of randomness and uncertainty__which fixed algorithms don’t/can’t account for, because our math just won’t go there, due to the many body problem, or the inaccuracies that multiply, at the infinitesimal and near infinite scales… We are limited to the math that functions on physical systems, unless we invent new maths to process beyong our present capacities. This is why I’ve always tried to show you, we are limited to a certain degree of free-will, as this can be represented mathematically in the same processes, even if the greater combinatorial processes of the Universe may be absolute cause and effect, not all can ever be… Many independent systems are not completely causal, they are incidental to the ground state facts of indeterminacy, just as is Einstein’s background independence math, within his RM… I don’t even know where QM’ers get the idea of quantum determinism__which implies background dependence, as this is counter to all the facts I’ve studied about QM maths, theories and systems, or that is even listed on Wiki and other reference encyclopedias… Tim, could you please explain to me how do you get determinism out of fundamental quantum indeterminacy…?

From this abduction aspect, I further inductively and deductively investigate the many ideas and information within my thoughts which I’ve gathered to support, deny or direct a further hypothesis. It is from the many occurrences of such symmetries within the details of the many scientific physical process which I’ve studied that I further infer its presence as a defining attribute of the whole, but the very details which at some point inferred such must further support such abductive reasoning when all physical aspects of the process are further compounded or arrived at by further dismantling of a larger composite aspect.

Let me just ask you a question here; Could it be that you are attributing mathematical symmetry topological points, related to the 2-D physical measurement reality being produced by the Universe’s very trivial description of the real facts of solid 3-D bodies of the real Universal objects in motion. I know many have made this mistake of thinking these trivial point symmetries have motion validity, but I think if you re-think this, you may see the information I’m pointing to… I even made this mistake for years about both math and the laws of physics, plus a few definitions like mass, matter and energy, and even some confusions about relativity, even though I’d thoroughly read Einstein’s original work; (But I only later realized one has to have the German interpreter’s version of the English text, and not the English translator’s edition of his original German text, as only a German can interpret German into English properly, as the German language is that difficult to properly interpret and translate__What a difference many European texts make, when interpreted and translated by and in the languages first written in. This is really true of the Greeks especially, also__Just thought you should know, as there’s a lotta bad interpretations/translations out there, of all foreign language texts.) And now; We must always realize the Universe produces all our real observations and facts, and the math and laws never produce any real facts and objects__They are just the discriptors of facts, to make our jobs easier(and math can be used as partial proofs of science’s measurements, if experimental evidence accompanies it)__as long as we don’t confuse descriptors and facts underlying the discriptors. I’m not accusing you of this mis-interpretation, but it does seem to me as though you may be doing this, as per your insistence on ‘absolute determinism’, if you could check it out for me, I’d appreciate it…

In other cases, such as the resolution to a problem at work or the most efficient way to execute a task, I systematically consider my access to resources such as tools and equipment, then I factor every way to execute the task as there are often many different scenarios. At this point, I examine the pros and cons of the various methods and reach a conclusion for the most appropriate in terms of efficiency, effort, etc. Once all aspects are considered I take the path which best satisfies all aspects of the mental program which has been running. Often times, certain aspects, such as safety, outweigh efficiency and such, while also often times outputting a decision to acquire more tools and such to meet the requirements. Many of the concepts of logical reasoning are second nature to me to the point that many of the more general concepts are just intuitive to me, while I admittedly get lost with the more complex aspects of the discipline. I’ve never had a big interest in it, as I am more inclined to spend my thoughts on mechanical analysis and such, which effects my ability to apply the focus needed to get farther along with it.
Speaking of mechanics, I’m currently considering the relativistic effects of Doppler shifts of not only the frequency of EM waves due to near c acceleration, but more so the encoded information of frequency modulated carrier waves. I don’t recall much information on this aspect as a means to establish some form of an absolute ruler and clock amongst various frames of reference so as often is the case for my statements, as I spend more time in thought than study, these concepts are original to my mind. As always, you’ll have to direct me of any established information on such.

Well, you are quite correct that there’s not much information on it, but all really is grounded to the c facts of weights and measurements, as it has been for over a century or so now, and our information is kept at the U.S. Dept. of Weights and Measures. The actual absolute scale measurement and weight objects actually exist, as they existed first in European and English Gov. Depts. Also all the CODATA standards of science and physics exists there, which is all based off of these Atomic Clock time and c measurement standards, and improved upon all the time, by using more accurate element frequencies and methods to extend these accuracies, as will as new x-ray efforts to use the galaxy and other Universal star points to even further extend the current accuracies, and then list these new attempts in the CODATA. I’ve listed these facts before on ‘East Meets West’ and elsewhere. These accuracies already exceed our computers abilities to even do the math, at complex levels without creating more inaccuracies in the computer math, than exists in the actual physical measurements, themselves… The fundamental limit is always the mathematics, not our fundamental measurement problems, and I here mean the complex math process intergrations being applied to the physical problems, where they be such hyper-fine structures, physicists are now trying to work out__the math inaccuracies within computer programs overwhelm the results accuracies. This stuff is all mentioned at these addresses that are in an older post, that didn’t get posted until today, as it was in draft mode edit; here they are:

http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/fqxi09/
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
http://blog.wolfram.com/2011/03/30/launching-a-new-era-in-large-scale-systems-modeling/#more-5437

What I’m thinking is that we need to move the Doppler shift aspects of acceleration from the visible portion of the spectrum in terms of mere color distortions and apply it to the transmission and reception of information within the radio frequency range. It is possible that encoding information within an EM signal, such as a transmitted radio wave gives it an absolute time and distance stamp which can be deciphered amongst various frames of reference moving at various velocities. I’m considering that this might be a factor due to the effects of the solid state electronic aspects of the receiver undergoing physical changes within one reference frame due to acceleration vs. that of the EM signal produced by way of a transmitter within another frame. There is a link between Doppler shifts and physical contraction aspects within this thought experiment as most all velocity related aspects are perhaps captured within this scenario. Are the state changes symmetrical throughout all forms and states of FS whereby no change is noticeable or would we perhaps be able to distinguish variances in such state changes whereby the shifts of EM waves are different than that of the atomic QM aspects which govern the receiver.

This is what I’m still thinking about Tim, as posted in the last post. It’s the most interesting area of quantum physics I’ve been interested in for some time, as I published a lot about it a few years back on ‘East Meets West’__but nobody really picked up on it then. I’ll look later and see where those posts are and list them in another post, or at the top of this one with an edit addition… I mentioned this same thing to Dave back in `06, but he of course weren’t interested, as it weren’t his idea, imo…

For instance, would we find that a song transmitted on a radio station of say 101 MHz within one frame would be received at a shifted value of another station operating at another frequency within a faster/slower moving frame? Would there be no variance at all within this aspect? What I’m really interested in is our application of meaning to such encoding as with the question of whether aspects of the song itself change through the modulation and demodulation aspects of the process. Perhaps it would be just static by way of losing its audible meaning once output back to the lower audible frequencies. I know that the proportions of the modulated transmitted wave would stay unchanged as though still maintaining the characteristics of the encoded information, but how we experienced these proportions or frequency modulations of the wave would be effected by our acceleration along with the direction of the source from our direction of travel.

And here’s where I picked up on what you said, to respond the way I did in the last post. It’s still unclear to me, but something’s really important here, as my mind has been buzzing constantly since, and much new information in other areas I’ve been working on is falling out, as per my philosophy group’s work, and my global economics theorizing and modeling work. And, I know this doesn’t happen unless something important has been triggered in me lil’ ol’ pea brain, and I certainly know it has been, but I may most likely have to sleep on it to sort it out fully__as I’m really still too clouded right now…

A near 2c collision of a transmitted signal with a receiver would be experienced differently than a signal which is catching up to an accelerated frame as with the animations I provided the other day of the measure of the velocity of light.

The only type of receiver that could experience a near 2c collision in reality, would be a photon with a photon, or information packet with information packet, and not a real physical mechanical or human receiver, but I think you may realize this, so just checking what you really mean here__as work has been done by both Mathis and Ellman in this area__quite good work, imo…

I would compare such concepts with aspects of music itself. A song performed upon a guitar is a sequence of notes as is the encoded EM wave, thus changing the reception velocity could relate to playing at a higher or lower octave which merely changes the pitch of the song, while the song still maintains its original meaning. Aspects of the direction of reception could relate to the tempo of a performed song. Mainly I’m exploring the concept that being as c is absolute, then the information we encode within it is chiseled in stone in a sense to pass through all frames a(s) it propagates. The abstract meanings we apply to these sequenced waves allow us an examination of a group of waves in terms of giving them characteristics (other than just instantaneous color as with visible light shifts) which can be observed directly.

Tim, I’ve done a tremendous amount of research on inference mechanics over the years, and to me, the frequencies give us the same exact images and sounds every time__It’s just how accurate we see and hear them according to the number of vibration exposures we experience__the more experienced, the clearer the concepts will always be. To me, as I mentioned in the last post__it’s the differing densities of the mediums the frequencies must pass through that makes all the differences, that must be path integral informations conserved, by the total systems’ adherence to the laws of absolute c conservation motion of Va = Vr + Vu, or Vr <--> Vu… To me, we can’t interpret anything anything different in that abduction pool, other than what the world puts there for us to see, unless we falsely judge the given informations, or add stupid beliefs to them. And, I know it’s hard to completely purge our conceptions of all bad judgments, if one is careful enough, we can come awfully close, or if we are at least subject to being openly subjected to others critiques to remove any remaining errors, we may just be able to see the truest concepts of our entire Universe__But, this is one hell of a big job__a tremendous amount of work is required, as I think you are already aware of… It’s a lot more difficult than our work-a-day jobs, but it’s some interesting, and rewarding when one gets real results__as I have experienced these results at different times in my life, as pertains to highly complex ideas solutions at my jobs, all through my life… I won a lotta state and regional championships by being able to exercise this aspect of my abductive abilities… Btw, I only more recently realized I’d always been using abductive logic in my inductive and deductive thinking__for years earlier, especially as pertained to building race-cars, race-boats, race-snowbiles, race-harleys and all types of competition pistols and rifles… I still shoot long range rifle__1000 yards… Anyway, I’m still thinking more on what you wrote here, also…

It is the translation of these meanings within the modulation and demodulation aspects of the instrument and such amongst various reference frames along with the translation aspect of meaning itself if the instrument changes are symmetrical which I am exploring.

Gotta be real careful here, as interpretation and translation of meanings, is the most difficult of science’s, philosophy’s and logic’s major tasks. I’ve worked on eliminating the errors of my and others errors of interpretation and translations for years__and all I can recommend is ratio-logic__That is always check all meanings and interpretations with mathematics__and if any information can not be mathematically interpreted and translated__then imo, it can’t be used in science, without entering more errors than you can ever get rid of, if this has anything to do with what you are really referring to. Imo, symmetry does not offer enough mathematical isomorphic linkings to the real 3-d world to use, other than for our general psychological meanings and interpretations, which can’t be successfully used in science__due to their overall non-mathematicality. I may be prejudiced, and I do like much of the symmetry lady’s work, but I just don’t see what Einstein saw in her and her father’s mathematics. I’ve found it causes more problems for interpretations, meanings and translations__except to the general psychological translations of the Universality of the Laws of physics being Symmetrical__but, that’s more of a convenience of understanding the greater picture__than any true mathematical or physical realities of the Universe… I stay away from Emmy Noether’s ideas, other than seeing the beauty of them, but when trying to communicate these ideas to others, it’s almost impossible, as our minds process such information personally, as far as I’m concerned__and personal is private language that can make perfect sense to ourselves, but is often not relayable to another person by any means except visible presence of the experiment under consideration. To me, it like asking the question; “What is the world?” The concept is too obvious to make any interpretive sense… Many concepts come up like this, under symmetry ideations, imo… I can’t follow symmetry dialectics or dialogics__they require too much private language use to me…

Encoded sequenced information in the form of remote control and system observation over vast distances such as the pioneer spacecraft and such would be in question here also as velocity became a factor.

I agree with this, alright__as I’ve written often about it. To me, there’s still some anomalies at distance through the magnetosphere of our solar and galaxy systems we do not yet have the science to answer… They may be minor, but they still have the power to upset the apple-cart of established ideas, theories and science… I’m also taking that into consideration…

We must also consider the equivalency of the gravitational effects upon such dynamics as with a massive bodies ability to alter the transmission and reception of encoded information. This is perhaps an aspect of the pioneer anomaly itself, as system information and the control thereof are perhaps dependent upon the intensity of the gravitational field in which they find themselves. A change in velocity isn’t necessary to produce a perceived change in such by way of merely manipulating the method by which such a velocity state is observed. If all you know about a system is by way of EM encoded communication, and such communication is sensitive to aspects which change due to such other aspects as your distance from a massive body or extreme velocity changes, then it doesn’t have to be our knowledge of the force of gravity which is wrong, but rather our knowledge of the effects of such upon communication aspects. Just thinking out loud and off the top of my head again.

Oh, I agree with your thinking off the top of your head, here Tim. You know, I also adhere to the principle of all thought, even wrong thought is good, as it gives us something to think against. Just thought I’d drop that one in… :-)

Later,
Tim
P.S. just remembered that many atomic clocks are actually radio receivers running off of shortwave radio signals. In this scenario, the encoded information is a timing aspect itself.

Yeah, but is there actually any difference between time and or distance, other than our need to have two distance systems, to measure one or others…? Think about it… It’s like; “How many wills can one mind have…?” Answer; “As many as mind can store of past will’s actions, in permanent memory…” I don’t know about you, but my working states of memory, are live states of past will memory__and that abduction pool has a lot of wills talking to each other, when I really peer in there, and this is where many interpretation, meaning and translation problems occur, as memory is highly succeptible to Fallacious Demons, just like DeCartes thinking the body was separate from the mind__I’d like to see a mind that could think, without a body to think within, where the brain is. Beware the ‘Self-Thinking Demons’__especially your own… :-)

With little thought given here, this should imply a variation in the time reference of such an instrument dependent upon the Doppler shift due to approaching or fleeing the signal source, which would cause such an instrument to actually be in disagreement with the average slowing analog clock due to near c acceleration.

Woah here__real clocks can never approach near c velocities__tis against the velocity conservation laws of physics__Va = Vr + Vu__always c limited… Remember, even group 2c is absolute c limited… Run a virtual titanium baseball to a virtual absolute c, and it virtually turns to photons… :-)

Perhaps if such is the case, two or more standard transmitted sources would allow a temporal triangulation scenario whereby accomplishing an absolute clock which could adjust itself to keep proper time between various frames whereby establishing simultaneity by way of calculating the received frequency differences within such signals which were known to be actually equivalent signals at lower relative velocities. I'm sure this has been covered somewhere, but I can't recall any reference material on such.

I think you are exceeding the epistemic limits of possible velocity reality here Tim. One must always keep one’s real physics within the possible velocity reference frames, and mention the virtual frames of reference, otherwise__or the ‘Cartesian Demon’ comes marching in, and it all becomes theater and illusion…
The Cartesian Theater… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

Enjoy, I’ll get with you on the rest of my ideas later…

Relativistic Effects Upon Information

Hi Lloyd,

I see many of the concepts of logic within my own mental methodologies and thought processes as with the algorithmic ways I process information, resolve problems and such. If I had to characterize my general overall method of scientific exploration I’d say that my thoughts contain the largest collection of information from my studies which I can continuously maintain, similar to a mental pool of information. From this pool I draw conclusions (abduction) from the collection of information whereby I further support or discredit such conclusions by both inductive and deductive methods of further examination of more generalized analysis of the original pool of information along with new information which might come by way of study which is added to the information pool. This is seen with my frequent inference of an underlying universal symmetry which all physical aspects and processes are satisfying which would allow a method of micro to macro unification of forces and such as though the physical asymmetries we find in nature are preservation aspects of a much deeper symmetry with forces being the unbalanced transition of states through time to accomplish such balance. Find what aspect is being balance, and you find the need for the imbalance of all other aspects. From this abduction aspect, I further inductively and deductively investigate the many ideas and information within my thoughts which I’ve gathered to support, deny or direct a further hypothesis. It is from the many occurrences of such symmetries within the details of the many scientific physical process which I’ve studied that I further infer its presence as a defining attribute of the whole, but the very details which at some point inferred such must further support such abductive reasoning when all physical aspects of the process are further compounded or arrived at by further dismantling of a larger composite aspect.

In other cases, such as the resolution to a problem at work or the most efficient way to execute a task, I systematically consider my access to resources such as tools and equipment, then I factor every way to execute the task as there are often many different scenarios. At this point, I examine the pros and cons of the various methods and reach a conclusion for the most appropriate in terms of efficiency, effort, etc. Once all aspects are considered I take the path which best satisfies all aspects of the mental program which has been running. Often times, certain aspects, such as safety, outweigh efficiency and such, while also often times outputting a decision to acquire more tools and such to meet the requirements. Many of the concepts of logical reasoning are second nature to me to the point that many of the more general concepts are just intuitive to me, while I admittedly get lost with the more complex aspects of the discipline. I’ve never had a big interest in it, as I am more inclined to spend my thoughts on mechanical analysis and such, which effects my ability to apply the focus needed to get farther along with it.

Speaking of mechanics, I’m currently considering the relativistic effects of Doppler shifts of not only the frequency of EM waves due to near c acceleration, but more so the encoded information of frequency modulated carrier waves. I don’t recall much information on this aspect as a means to establish some form of an absolute ruler and clock amongst various frames of reference so as often is the case for my statements, as I spend more time in thought than study, these concepts are original to my mind. As always, you’ll have to direct me of any established information on such.

What I’m thinking is that we need to move the Doppler shift aspects of acceleration from the visible portion of the spectrum in terms of mere color distortions and apply it to the transmission and reception of information within the radio frequency range. It is possible that encoding information within an EM signal, such as a transmitted radio wave gives it an absolute time and distance stamp which can be deciphered amongst various frames of reference moving at various velocities. I’m considering that this might be a factor due to the effects of the solid state electronic aspects of the receiver undergoing physical changes within one reference frame due to acceleration vs. that of the EM signal produced by way of a transmitter within another frame. There is a link between Doppler shifts and physical contraction aspects within this thought experiment as most all velocity related aspects are perhaps captured within this scenario. Are the state changes symmetrical throughout all forms and states of FS whereby no change is noticeable or would we perhaps be able to distinguish variances in such state changes whereby the shifts of EM waves are different than that of the atomic QM aspects which govern the receiver. For instance, would we find that a song transmitted on a radio station of say 101 MHz within one frame would be received at a shifted value of another station operating at another frequency within a faster/slower moving frame? Would there be no variance at all within this aspect? What I’m really interested in is our application of meaning to such encoding as with the question of whether aspects of the song itself change through the modulation and demodulation aspects of the process. Perhaps it would be just static by way of losing its audible meaning once output back to the lower audible frequencies. I know that the proportions of the modulated transmitted wave would stay unchanged as though still maintaining the characteristics of the encoded information, but how we experienced these proportions or frequency modulations of the wave would be effected by our acceleration along with the direction of the source from our direction of travel. A near 2c collision of a transmitted signal with a receiver would be experienced differently than a signal which is catching up to an accelerated frame as with the animations I provided the other day of the measure of the velocity of light. I would compare such concepts with aspects of music itself. A song performed upon a guitar is a sequence of notes as is the encoded EM wave, thus changing the reception velocity could relate to playing at a higher or lower octave which merely changes the pitch of the song, while the song still maintains its original meaning. Aspects of the direction of reception could relate to the tempo of a performed song. Mainly I’m exploring the concept that being as c is absolute, then the information we encode within it is chiseled in stone in a sense to pass through all frames at it propagates. The abstract meanings we apply to these sequenced waves allow us an examination of a group of waves in terms of giving them characteristics (other than just instantaneous color as with visible light shifts) which can be observed directly. It is the translation of these meanings within the modulation and demodulation aspects of the instrument and such amongst various reference frames along with the translation aspect of meaning itself if the instrument changes are symmetrical which I am exploring. Encoded sequenced information in the form of remote control and system observation over vast distances such as the pioneer spacecraft and such would be in question here also as velocity became a factor. We must also consider the equivalency of the gravitational effects upon such dynamics as with a massive bodies ability to alter the transmission and reception of encoded information. This is perhaps an aspect of the pioneer anomaly itself, as system information and the control thereof are perhaps dependent upon the intensity of the gravitational field in which they find themselves. A change in velocity isn’t necessary to produce a perceived change in such by way of merely manipulating the method by which such a velocity state is observed. If all you know about a system is by way of EM encoded communication, and such communication is sensitive to aspects which change due to such other aspects as your distance from a massive body or extreme velocity changes, then it doesn’t have to be our knowledge of the force of gravity which is wrong, but rather our knowledge of the effects of such upon communication aspects. Just thinking out loud and off the top of my head again.


Later,

Tim

P.S. just remembered that many atomic clocks are actually radio receivers running off of shortwave radio signals. In this scenario, the encoded information is a timing aspect itself. With little thought given here, this should imply a variation in the time reference of such an instrument dependent upon the Doppler shift due to approaching or fleeing the signal source, which would cause such an instrument to actually be in disagreement with the average slowing analog clock due to near c acceleration. Perhaps if such is the case, two or more standard transmitted sources would allow a temporal triangulation scenario whereby accomplishing an absolute clock which could adjust itself to keep proper time between various frames whereby establishing simultaneity by way of calculating the received frequency differences within such signals which were known to be actually equivalent signals at lower relative velocities. I'm sure this has been covered somewhere, but I can't recall any reference material on such.

The Only True Logical Scientific Methodology...

“Modal Abduction Is Mind-Independent Logic__i.e., Scientific…”

Hi Tim… I don’t blame you for taking breaks from this level of deep concentrations, as I often do also, but more for shorter times, as I am probably more used to dealing with such depths__since it’s been my major interest for the last 40+ years. Just over the last three weeks, I’ve probably read 20 books worth of material, including some 12 books. Of course, my investigations are always more directed toward logical and mathematical proofs and methods of__but I look in every crany of knowledge investigations possible, for my answers. Most recently, I’ve been again researching the most up-to-date pdf’s on Peirce’s ‘abduction’__since that was his scientific method of ‘scientific hypothesis’__and I find more problems with scientists and the academic community, in not fully understanding the deep logical mechanics of how we actually form hypothesis__even if it be applied to how you may be forming your’s also, at this time. Anyway, I’ve found thousands of pdf’s from all over the nations of the world__with logicians and scientists everywhere__trying to figure out and extend Peirce’s ideas of ‘abduction’ as applied to scientific understanding, on most every level nameable__as it’s actually the most fundamental level of thinking. The trouble is Tim, such ‘abductive methodologies’ actually show where absolute determinism would be impossible__and simply by way of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws of thermodynamics, or really fundamental motion, as the same…

Let me give a short explication__Due to the fact that motion is fundamentally known to produce orbs(suns, black-holes, planets, galaxies and other rocks, etc.) it is deterministically necessary to also be non-deterministic__to produce all three states of say, ‘simple gas motions’, i.e., thermodynamic mechanics of producing all the orbs one sees when looking up at the night sky__and mainly all due to its other side of radiation decay and re-constitution mechanics. If you fully trace out all macro and micro-state mechanics, you’ll find combinatoric mechanics and its sister mechanics__decay state mechanics__actually having to cancel each other’s mechanics__With deduction and induction logics’ mechanics having no internal inference structures to account for just such mechanics__without robbing, or adding to, properties belonging to either induction or deduction__they do not possess, i.e., using a ‘begging the question’ logic, ‘infinite regresses’ or an ‘overly-circular reasoning’ not allowed by the very reasoning and logic being used__without violating non-contradiction, or some of the other laws of logic. Just think it out at the base level__How does any logic system, based mainly on deduction and determinism, and assisted by weak induction__apply to the total necessary mechanics, to accomplish the job__without violating the very fundamental laws of thermodynamcis and logic…? If you hold these concepts in your mind, and try to figure all necessary mechanics of the known Universal mechanics of the existing Universe__you’ll never be able to complete the logic__unless you allow randomness, chaos, non-determinism or ‘abduction’ to assist your thinking. ‘Abduction’ here meaning no more than the necessary non-determinacy of ‘Uncertainty’ to be the 3rd leg of your logic__which ‘Statistical Mechanics’ can work into the Universe’s necessary logic and science… (A note here:__curves have no fundamental grounding for particle-wave motions__fundamental motion is absolutely relative to itself, as uncertain curved paths, only according to proximity, which no math or logic can fundamentally predict__This continues all the way through the geo-Universe’s combinatoric condensations of FS, into all other such orbs__The Universe is thus, fundamentally non-deterministic… And, as to my assessment of this fundamental relativistic motion fact, it’s still an absolute Universal fact… The Universe, unto itself, may be absolutely determined to relativistically turn absolute, by this very relativistic fundamental motion, but we have no understanding of such fundamental actions, other than pure conjecture, as we see the Universe as a highly ordered state__but, what definition and meaning could we mere humans put to the greater Universe…? Yes, we may be able to derive fundamental motion’s mechanics, but I don’t think we can ever derive the Universe’s most fundamental state meanings and definitions__It would be like asking__”What’s a photon made of…?” I think you may be able to see the meaning and measurement problems, here__No-one has an answer to curved space, because it’s a relative truth, and relative truths have no answers(physics may think it has answers here, but it only has static answers, and static don’t apply to our Universe’s real states)__All definitions of relative truths of motion, are relative to other curved motions(when meaning is taken to the absolute), according to Dirac’s exclusionary principle__some particles avoid each other by relative curving, creating all the more relative positions, at this most fundamental particle-wave level…)

Tim, imo, it’s not a point of not measuring the fabric of the Universe accurately enough__It’s the problem of not realizing, just about all present science is using a false methodology of measure and interpretation logics, to attempt measuring the Universe__With the wrong tools… Without the right tool of ‘abduction’ being used, the Universe is, imo, interpretably and measurably impossible of accomplishing__Yet, for me to explain ‘abduction’ to you, when you are most likely not interested in it__would be senseless… Anyway, ‘abduction’ in short, is ‘the most powerful scientific methodology’ ever devised, as it creates a 3rd logic framework, to hold the total inductive, abductive and deductive hypothesis in place, while one uses a triadic logic on its mechanics, to arrive at a new mechanics of the Universe__which can not be arrived at any other way…

Here’s a link to the shortest and best explanation of abduction I have, but you most likely won’t understand it__as being truly related to your ideas of measurement and logical interpretations of the Universe… LINK… http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.138.4235&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Here’s what it all comes down to imo, Tim… You have to first name your ‘Scientific Goal’, then build your ‘Scientific Method’, then do the ‘Scientific Actions’ to achieve the initial ‘Scientific Goal’, first asserted. If you don’t ‘First Assert’ the ‘Scientific Goal’, you can’t prove the ‘Science…’ And to me, it’s just that simple__and everybody’s just fumbling around, instead of looking for simple ‘Abduction’, which is this very method__The 3rd 3-D State of Triadic Logic…

Think about it Tim, and see if you can hold all the necessary states of logic, laws and science/physics, in and through your use of dyadic deterministic logic__I don’t think so… I think the laws of logic have gotta’ be studied much deeper by everybody, before science makes further advances… I don’t even think it’s any longer possible for those scientists using the older dyadic logic(deductive/inductive) and those scientists using the newer triadic logic(induction/abduction/deduction) to even communicate__unless all scientists learn and accept the newer ‘Triadic Modal Abductive Logic…’ There’s just far too much space between them, imo…

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduktion(hit translate, upper right corner, as this German definition is far better than Wiki's English version...)

Best to ya,
Lloyd

P.s.
Please realize here Tim, I'm still simply talking about non-deterministic mechanics, mixed with causal mechanics__as to me, they both exist__at both geo- and bio- levels... This is still an absolute mechanics, yet non-deterministic, as to totality__where true and possible 'Fallibility' rules all definitions and meanings__and where definitions and meanings are concerned, tis absolutely impossible to avoid philosophy entering the science interpretations__as we absolutely must communicate in either philosophy or psychology__and I choose philosophical math, logic and science...