Dear Fis,
The recent postings are highly charged. We are cooking up something in this
community. James has again taken the dialectic role of the advocatus diaboli
as he says:
"First hole -- no one has a glimmer of a notion to -explain- gravity ... not
'describe it' .._explain it/account for it_."
So then, here is the challenge to debate a logical picture of gravity.
Translating everything and all into the language of probability yields many
fruitful results. There appear lots of natural constants, levels,
thresholds, and the like. The force concept dissolves into a process of
prediction, where what was force before is now an expected exactitude of a
prediction.
What gets predicted is the steps in a neighboured world, where the
neighbourhood steps furcate (contrast, divide, dissimilarise) the collection
of logical relations happening on a set of n objects.
There is an inner imbalance in the collection of logical relations that are
there on a set of n objects, because we cannot agree, how to count: the
units as individuals or as members of groups. The average extent of the
disagreement could be that what the physicists mean by "quantum".
The imbalance allows predicting. In case there are 2 (two) schwerpunkte on
the set of logical relations, it is easy to visualise a constant dialectic
two-and-fro between two halves of something. The two systems of counting
come from the fact that we count the uniformity of the units as we conduct
an addition and we count the diversity of the summands as we deconduct an
addition. Those additions that keep alive after being deconducted, too,
constitute reality 1. How dense they are, how they are structured, what are
their statistics, this is what Contrast Theory details.
Gravitation := prediction ( place ) .
The term <prediction> refers to neighbourhood steps in a sequence. A
sequence is a consecutive enumeration. Steps are detailed in structure
theory. Structure theory is the description of the cuts that keep apart the
summands of an addition. The description happens by means of the logical
descriptors <how> and <how many>. These are axiomatic, because one who
discusses gravitation knows how to distinguish and how to count.
Neighbourhood is the result between the matches between <how>, <how many>
and <where>. <where> is logically axiomatic, too, because one cannot count
indistinguishable objects without distinguishing their places. Their
interdependence is what makes the contrastal counting so pretty useful.
The place argument of a prediction is the result, if the quality and the
quantity arguments are more fixed. On the other hand, the quantity appears
to be nothing but a simple dimension, one among many, that are neighboured
each according to its own facon.
The density swarm of logical relations has two mass points. The opposing
views are dialectically: "the extent of uniformity is the unit" and "the
extent of diversity is the unit".
Good, so you say, dear Fis, but what has this to do with gravity? The
following:
Our generations extended use of counting machines has allowed us to be more
exact than our forefathers. We have established that the average addition is
inexact to the tune of some 10 to the minus 95th power in percents. This
inexactitude is the average extent of the logical rounding error we commit
by saying a+b=c. We neglect something as we conduct and addition. This
something - the just noticeable difference of that it could have been
otherwise, regardless of what and how -, keeps apart the background and the
foreground, that what is the case happening before the background of that
what is not the case.
That, what is not the case is the diversity-related conciseness in the
system of references, in that moment as that what is the case happens. That
what is the case does have consequences. If it increases, that what is not
the case decreases, if it shrinks, that what is not the case expands. The
question of what determines what is the case is answered by the function
concise(). The function concise() can accept arguments as well from the
similarity and as well from the diversity set of symbols.
If the units of something get too much alike among itself, something on
differentness gets out of bounds. If the units of something get too much
diverse among each others, something of sameness gets out of bounds. A
common set of rules for bounds applies.
The diversity comes from the fact that the numbers don't match exactly. One
gets differing results for counting the units of a set as individuals as
opposed to counting them as members of groups. The diversity descriptor can
itself be used as a background unit and it is by its philosophical and
logical merits as legitimate as the counting system heretofore in use, that
is based on similarities of the units. This counting system is based on
dissimilar units and has as natural units gradations of <how>. Each unit is
different, so it is pretty well suited to measure diversity with.
Having a diversity-based counting system standing alongside and
intermingling with the similarity-based counting system in use heretofore
allows predictions, bets, about which of the systems will be more
centralised, uniform, homogenous, etc. in the next moment.
One can also bet on the step happening along the <where> dimension of the
logical swarm not quite finding its place.
The unit in the <where> dimension is a step in a consecutive enumeration.
The step is on N. We predict a place as we discuss the effects of
gravitation.
So, let me thank for the invitation to present a technique possible by using
probability extents as units. The assertion was that gravitation is just
another name for a prediction about a place. The prediction is possible,
because there is something that is there to predict, something that can be
otherwise. The relation between otherwise and so-wise can be brought back to
properties of natural numbers as one uses them to maybe conduct additions
with them or maybe not. If one does not decide whether one does conduct an
addition or not, one has a basic set of lego-like playthings to use. Where
these come next to lie is in some approaches predictable. If the certitude
that the prediction will come true refers to the result of a linear
enumeration on N, one speaks of the extent of the (in this case:
gravitational) force. In reality, one measures the inner certitude that
one's predictions re the place of the thing will come true. In this fashion,
this is a rhetorical de-Newtonisation of mechanics. Newton would never have
put his findings in subjective terms of convictions of presaging the future
being attributed to some outside force.
Using two counting systems in tandem, that one based on similarity, like the
one actually in use, and another one, this one based on the diversity of the
units, allows recognising patterns. Some relations between where and when
explain themselves by the artefacts of the counting systems.
There indeed exists a concise logical picture of gravity, what the advocatus
diaboli negated. Please adjudicate in the sense of the notion.
____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit
Version: AVK 16.8051 from 22.06.2006
Virus news: www.antiviruslab.com
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Jun 22 17:08:14 2006
