User talk:MobyDikc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My talk page.

Feedback on: Multiple Natures Conjecture

Sloppy Mike {er, Moby}, very sloppy. Do you want feedback point-by-point or is this sufficient to jar you back to your senses?

Thanks, Dave

-- Point-by-point wouldn't be bad. -- MobyDikc

So if you remove space time, how do you deal with blackholes, and the recent simulations of blackholes? I would second the first comment, adding that you need to rethink your argument and if you can really justify your conjectures. Oh, and the definition of the mind is not usefull in any context it does not aid ones quest to define the mind or simulate it. If X,Y,Z are not measurments, then what are they?

-- I'm not sure there's any issues with black holes in the Multiple Natures Conjecture. Black holes are just objects (collections of particles and atoms) that emit so many gravitons that no photons make it away from the object. In the Multiple Natures Conjecture, which posits two flavors of space (absolute and relative) the object takes up a given amount of absolute space in absolute nature, but in the relative nature of any observer outside the event horizon, where photons from the object won't reach the particles in the eyes of that observer, there will be no relative space.

- There are a number of problems with your idea, first off nobody should take any of this seriously, but since all the wanna-be scientists want to play at physics, here goes. First off your Newtonian Physics Model is a poor example that is dismissed as being an old theory of physics which doesn't need to be worried about. On the contrary if you hope to understand current physics you need to understand what Newton was doing. Newtonian Physics is not somehow separate from "Modern Physics" if you were a physicist you would know that newton's ideas apply at very large scale the problem really enters the picture when you deal with taking the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics and try to put them together, at the current point in time they are incompatible giving results that don't make sense, which is why theories like Loop Quantum Gravity, Super Gravity, String Theory (though its more a philosophy then a theory), and a lot of others, all of which try to combine those theories in a unified concept of gravity. The next problem skipping a few, your next model of quantum mechanics , is not quantum mechanics, where's entanglement/spooky action at a distance, where does the wave equation come in, how does this model account for EM,Strong and weak Nuclear force... Where's the math, quantum mechanics is a set of constructs that are math expressions, that attempt and do a good job modeling what happens at the atomic level. Of course part of the reason that quantum mechanics was developed was that when scientists started looking at the atomic world in the context of their theories nothing worked, so skipping many important details one arrives at the formalism that is quantum mechanics, that is also the basis of the field of quantum computing...

   Now the fun part (for me)

Postulates the meaningless postulates: Mind Postulate "The mind is a self referential axiomatic system that exists and operates according to the initial conditions and laws of the universe." Measurement Postulate "Measurements, such as distance duration, and mass, are statements of the mind" Well where to start the first one is vacuous philosophical drivel, combined with meaningless jargon. It states nothing makes no real claims or testable predictions essentially its a waste of ~23 words. The same can be said for the second, if one does not have measurement then one cannot communicate where something is in a general way or talk about things changing in a model, so the second postulate serves no purpose whatsoever. Since according to you the model cannot be falsified it falls into the category of a non-model, and even more into the realm of drivel, and vacuous word sophistry. No amount of babbling on the topic will raise this paper to the level of science or a coherent theory due to the fact that it fails any test of what makes a scientific theory. "The goal of building a molecules is to build a system that makes a measurements of its world like a neural network." Sorry this is incorrect use of one of your buzz words of science, a neural network doesn't make measurements its a mathematical representation of a particular network that is designed to in a very crude way behave like neurons in the brain, but is by no means equivalent. Anyways according to you measurement postulate that would be a statement of the mind and thus not a real measurement. "The Multiple Natures Conjecture is: by describing a universe whose laws and initial conditions lead to an instrument which makes its own description of the universe, accurate predictions for quantum and relativistic phenomena can be extracted from the subjective ontology." Its actually not describing anything since a model like this is not a model at all. Not to mention the idea is not new, look at any theory that puts an observer in the system, there are lots out there, I will leave it to you to find some, its good practice, if you want to ever do some real research. The concept of subjective reality is another problem since it devalues science because its one mans opinion over another, but we know this is not true, since the right model is the one the makes testable predictions that hold up in the cold light of day, your model fails to be a model for the stated reasons and thus fails this point as well. I believe one can even make a claim that these ideas are just misconceptions of other greater minds works. But you will see this when you decide to become serious about studying physics and philosophy. You state that your theory is anti-relativity, but all the decent view in that camp have math and science to back it, you have vacuous sophistry to back yours. Your theory dispenses with space time yet offers no replacement for it, in fact you offer no real replacement for any idea you dismiss. Take some time to understand the theories you are trying to replace, then go for it, but you can't make things up and expect to be taken seriously. Your citation I don't understand since process physics offers no support for your waffling nor does the anti-relativity theories, you are a without scientific support, the only support that you can truly claim is the support of your imagination and your myopic views of science, and list of buzz words you don't understand. The quote at the bottom of the page by Einstein is a misunderstanding for of course he had the brains to and the math to make his imagining s useful you don't have the math or the knowledge so don't try it till you do. Or do what you do an continue to be the laughing stock of any serious physics place you post your ideas. Now on the side issue of real research let me share some personal experience, I am getting ready to publish another paper, now this one is short, 5 pages but its the culmination of 2 years and thousands of pages of reading. This does not compare with the book I am writing where I have already compiled more then 400,000 pages of research in articles, thesis's, studies..., not to mention countless books. This is what real research is, now this is combined with actually reading widely in philosophy and the core texts of my fields of research, computer science, computer engineering, theoretical physics, neuroscience, mathematics and many other fields and sub fields, but it took me years before I thought I had good enough work to publish. Now to be fair all my work is in a brand new emerging field which I am writing the first books in and such that combines dozens of fields and sub fields, but still. This is what it takes in my experience not to be made the laughing stock in the scientific community. I don't want to bash, if you want help I can give you suggestions on where to start, I started out self taught on the math and physics and all the other stuff...