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…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...