Quantized redshift anomaly

Tommy, I don't think we are on the same page. You asked about things that exist in models and I am saying the models have nothing to do with real things any more than Donald Duck. You seem to want to think the things are real and I don't think that, I think the things are just existing in models and not real.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Posted - 10 Feb 2005 : 21:39:24

---

Tommy, I don't think we are on the same page. You asked about things that exist in models and I am saying the models have nothing to do with real things any more than Donald Duck. You seem to want to think the things are real and I don't think that, I think the things are just existing in models and not real.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I still don't get what you are driving at. What you seem to be saying is obvious to me. But just because the real is not real since it is all that we have we can assume things are real as long as we know that they are not really real. On the other hand, isn't this "word" real"? Korzybski said that the map is not the territory, is that what you mean? Well, he suggested that we can find a close resemblance through the "structure" of our language. Structure translates to relationships. Bohm calls for a new language based on rheomodes which translates to verbs which translates to relationships or interaction. The systems movement is based on interactionings, so what we need to do is forget the "things" and look at what they are doing to eachother. That's why I say we can only find the ZPE by how it interacts with the mundane physical world. I think that most of quantum physics is based on interactions.

<font size="2"><center><b>What can be done toward an alternative gestalt system</b></center></font id="size2">

Thomas Kuhn writes that many scientific revolutions involved a gestalt shift. He also writes that there is an innate resistance to change in science due to various reasons, most of them having nothing to do with the science. All scientific revolutions, he says, require that a theory be replaced by the alternative, revolutions do not occur unless there is this alternative.

So what we need is a "scientific gestalt alternative" to the Big Bang theory.

To affect a paradigm shift we will have to provide something to shift to. Obviously it should "feel natural" in other words resonate with what we know about nature. It may be that the way of nature can provide us with a methodology to discover how nature did it in the first place.

We have at our disposal the new science of systemics. Systemics is not a science about something, rather it is a science of science, a metascience. Systemics provides us with a method of inquiry that is different from conventional or shall I say classical science. Classical science worked by taking things apart. Systemics works by describing how things are put together. While classical science is a study of nearly infinite subjects, systemics is the study of how those infinite subjects work together. In a general sense, systemics is the study of principles while classical science is the study of particulars. The science of systemics is the science of relationships as described in Relationship Theory.

We can begin our inquiry by the general assumption of parts or wholes.

Classical science assumes the parts first. That is why you see a concerted effort by some theorists to explain how parts evolve. The other assumption we can make is that of the Whole. (Here is the primary gestalt -- parts and wholes.) Systemics assumes the whole is first. And then the principles follow. Classical science assumes the parts came first and hopefully someday they will figure out all the principles...

There is a significant (conceptual) simplification going on here. Compare the principles we find necessary to combine parts into whole, with the principles of taking a whole apart. With the former, the principles are many and diverse, but the latter has only one primary first principle. The significance is that with parts, there is no first principle, while with the whole there is a first principle. Because the is a first principle, we can use this principle right from the start.

So we can, as our alternative gestalt, start with the assumption of the Whole. We are not required at this point to say what this Whole is. But at least we are not assuming nothing and making everything out of that.

Then we can determine what happens "first" to this whole thereby establishing the first principle and subsequently use that principle in our further development or derivations.

So the first question is what does a whole do first? Establish this and the rest is straightforward

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Then we can determine what happens "first" to this whole thereby establishing the first principle and subsequently use that principle in our further development or derivations. So the first question is what does a whole do first? Establish this and the rest is straightforward.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think you just described the Meta Model, or chapter one of my book "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets". Although Quasi-Steady State, Plasma Cosmology, and Variable Mass Cosmology are also still on the table as alternatives to BB, MM is the only replacement cosmology that is deductive from first principles. -|Tom|-

Tommy, If you know the models generate things that do not exist in reality why do you ask about how the things do the impossible? If the author wants a mouse to talk she can make that work-don't you think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

Then we can determine what happens "first" to this whole thereby establishing the first principle and subsequently use that principle in our further development or derivations. So the first question is what does a whole do first? Establish this and the rest is straightforward.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think you just described the Meta Model, or chapter one of my book "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets". Although Quasi-Steady State, Plasma Cosmology, and Variable Mass Cosmology are also still on the table as alternatives to BB, MM is the only replacement cosmology that is deductive from first principles. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">

I have not yet read about your MM Tom, because I want to get my ideas out first lest they be influenced by others. Not suggesting that I have any developed ideas worth looking into, just that I would like to establish what I have in mind. It is very interesting to me that you have started from "first principles" because I have found that evolutionary development has followed certain principles which predict that there is a first principle to start with. Also, it seems to me that either the final theory will agree with previous historical explanations of a certain kind, or the final theory will invalidate everything before it. I don't like the idea that the new science ends up with a picture that cannot be understood outside of a few priests...

The way I describe it

The three possible ways a (physical) beginning could have started

A. The whole became the whole"
B. The whole divided into two parts
C. The whole divided into many parts

A doesm't say anything new. It is a tautology or A = A
B is the obvious next step.
C is impossible as the first step because C has to get through B first.

A model might be useful here - take a whole pie and cut it into pieces. How many pieces result from the first cut? As you can readily see, it is impossible to cut the pie into one or three pieces with the first cut.

Now, I said that the first cut is into two parts. But there is a catch which can fool a lot of examiners. I stated that the first cut is into two pieces or parts. But if one watches what happens during this cut, it becomes clear that a part of the whole was eliminated by the cut itself. That part eliminated by the cut was the relationships between the two parts that originally held them together as one whole. So by making the first cut, the part we call the relationships are eliminated and thus it only appears to us that we have two parts. Actually a division of a whole results in THREE parts, not two. Every coin had THREE sides. Dualism, in the general sense, does not take into account these relationships which is why it looks right but isn't right enough.

But what we have modeled so far is only half the story. We started with a whole and created a distinction or differentiation. In order to come full circle and complete the first event, the differentiation must return to wholeness by integration. Whole &gt; differentiation &gt; integration &gt; whole.

Thus this (physical) beginning agrees with our ancient philosophies that also depict the first principle as a ternary of this and that and their relationship.

So what we have is a basic principle which is interpenetrative. This principle can be observed elsewhere in the macro world by observing the process of mitosis/meiosis The embryo ALWAYS divides into two, and while still maintating a relationship, the two divide likewise. This goes on and on until we are born a whole once again.

A model of this initial process and all subsequent processes as well, (assuming that there is a first principle) can be made by the clapping of two hands. In other words, if your model is such that its principles would form the precursor of all other following principles, you should be able to take part of it and put on one hand, and take the other part and put it on the other hand, bring them together and "CLAP" will be the result.

Now, there is another catch, something that has eluded many examiners. In most cases, the relationship between things is not a thing itself. Look at these black marks on a white page, the meaning of the marks is not black or white itself. It is because the relationships are not things that they are so often overlooked or ignored or taken for granted. The inside of a coin which holds the two outsides together as one whole is HIDDEN. So when we are told that there are two sides to evry coin, we believe them.

What we are talking about is not "new" but is an ignored aspect of our scientific knowledge. What we are talking about is what Bertalanffy called a "system." Bertalanffy, a biologist, saw a pattern which he called "organicism" and he believed that this pattern existed everywhere and so it would be natural for science to acknowledge it using the word he proposed as a "system" He defined a system as "elements in standing interaction" The pattern was that things combined in certain ways so as to form new wholes. Just like the proton combined with the electron and formed the atom. Just like atoms combine in certain ways to form whole molecules. And how life formed out of molecules combining in certain ways.

The Universe is a Whole-system.

There are certain system principles which operate at the ontological level. These system principles are to be found in all "whole-systems". The first system principle is that of the Whole. That is to say a system is to be treated as a whole, and not as a part. (Not saying that parts are not systems, there are holons which are parts at one level and whole systems at another level.) There is a trick to this. The proper way of going from the whole to the consituent holonic parts is through the relationship or interactions. That is because the Whole is that relationship. Take water for example, composed of two parts, and their relatinship. We do not experience the properties of the constituent parts, the gases of oxygen and hygrogen, what we experience, when we feel the wetness of water for example, is the relationships of the gases as they work together. So when we talk about wholes we are talking about emergent propeties of internal relationships. Emergence is a property of all systems. A pile of sand does not make a system. A sand castle is a system. It is the system property of emergence that creates the new.

It is going to be very difficult to ascertain what the Whole of the Universe is when all we can know is the properties of its constituent parts, and then try to guess what those properties become when they are in a resonant relationship...

Good thing that there are poets writing in the literature who can suggest an answer to THAT question.

So here is the gestalt shift that will someday occur. Rather than assuming nothing and from that came parts which we have yet to figure out how that happened, let us assume the Whole and figure out how the Whole became parts.

Poincare said that when looking for a universal, the simplest is most likely to be true. But there is another requirement, if a principle is universal, it will have to explain the simplest principle too. Thus the universal principle is the simplest principle. The First principle.


So we have notions of negative and positive (how much does that explain) and their relationships. From what I hear the Dirac Sea is made of particle pairs, but what are the relationships there? It goes on and on forever it seems. nce one makes the gestalt shift.

tommy