May I add to Mike's applause and thank Dr. Dick for his revealing comments here.

I think though that I have given Dr. Dick's technique "of adding unknown data" serious thought. I ask him to answer the issues I raised about that procedure.

An "explanation" is a wider context "in terms of which" things are explained, according to a philosophy text. So since "everything" is already the widest possible context; perhaps an alleged "explanation of everything" is a contradiction in terms?

Problem: the assumption of the possibility of "truly random" is a big assumption: as "randomness" is a myth. Also "number" is a fancy name for "category", isn't it? Ten elepants, twenty ducks; to count is to categorise?

Random categories? How about non-assigned categories? Your "random numbers" seem to be much the same as an imaginary dictionary filled with invented words who may be used to "define" each other any way you choose. Any structure you give your invented dictionary must be self-consistent?

Quoting:

"First I will point out that, if that set of numbers is sufficiently large (and think of "large" as very very large), it is very probable that I will be able to find sub sets of those numbers which appear to be in a large number of those sequenced sets. This is particularly true if I include as "the same" those numbers which, as a group, can be seen as having some identifiable pattern. For example suppose I look for two numbers which differ by some unknown amount, and a third which is about half way between those two? Do you really believe that you can construct a set of numbers so large as to have 10^20 numbers in each of the sequenced sets without having that pattern appear somewhere in a large number of those sequenced sets. In fact, I could say that you could not construct a set of three numbers which would not include the pattern I just described ("about" being a very loose term). There exists a proof (which I have heretofore not mentioned because I don't have a reference to it) which essentially says that no matter what pattern one chooses, there exists a number such that it is impossible to construct a set of numbers greater than that number which will not contain the specified pattern. (The definition of what is meant by a "pattern" is quite specific in that proof.) "

My initial reaction to this was that this is erroneous. Why should that pattern occur? Then I realised this equates to my discovery in your work of the role of complementarity. It also reflects back to my interpretation of your "Egyptian Scenario" from Counterbalance.

Clever. Very curious. Needs some thought.

Example: specified pattern: two sequential different numbers

Can you construct a set of numbers greater than
1 member that doesn't contain a smaller number followed by a bigger number (or vice-versa)?

And so on for other patterns?

Quote:

"What my paper shows is that, in any sequence of sets of random numbers, if one can find any definable sets of numbers (any patterns which can be cataloged or named) which appear in a reasonably large number of those sets of random numbers, one will find that those sets have a very high probability of obeying the laws of physics"

Curious. The sets obeying the laws of physics, not the named patterns? It seems you mean the defined patterns obeying the laws of physics.

I get the impression that if your patterns occur in a reasonablty large number, those patterns are exerting a non-random characteristic on your sets of allegedly random numbers. Why not say that the sustaining of a pattern through the "field" of "random number" sets is effectively a "joining the dots" effect on the allegedly "random" sets (that synchronises these "random" sets into complementary "musical chairs" games?

Quoting:

"That is, if you see a certain pattern within a greater pattern such that the average of the first pattern is sequentially larger (relative to the average of the greater pattern) from set to set of that ordered sequence, there is a very high probability that the next observation of said averages will continue the pattern (particularly if your definition of "probability" is based on how many times it happens in your observations). "

Surely this statement is circular? The conclusion is contained in the premises: "AVERAGE of the first pattern is sequentially larger (relative to the average of the greater pattern) from set to set of that ordered sequence"?

Also this reminds me of the computer game "life" and of Stephen Wolfram's cellular automata.

Quoting: "that any sequenced set of random numbers"; since "number" may be "category"; the sequenced set may be "ordered addition of categories", so any "living definition"? ???

Quoting: "What this all says is that the appearance of order is no proof of order at all."

The law of non-contradiction imparts an absolute order (your work self-destructs without it!).

Quoting:

"As I said to Aurino once, any explanation is just a story."

No. Some "explanations" involve evasion and contradiction. A true explanation must be honest.

If you "explain" "moon" as "made of cheese"; you had better use this word "cheese" in a way that fits the way we use the word "rock".

Quoting: "Truth of the story is completely beside the point; the real issue is how valuable is the story for the purpose of keeping track of the probabilities of the patterns you have already seen (how good a catalog does it make)."

Disagree. Honesty is very much the point. The catalogue can be relied on within tautologically defined limits also.

Quoting: "Who cares how your subconscious managed to come up with your particular story; if you like its success rate at parsing the universe you find yourself in, great!"

I care.

You assume everyone has a "subconscious". This is an assumption. What if an alien had NO subconscious? What if they were conscious of everything from the moment they came into existence?

I claim that it is not so much that people "have a subconscious"' but that they are partially unconscious because they are DELIBERATELY REPRESSING AWARENESS OF DATA and also repressing the fact that they are repressing.

Be totally internally honest and non-evasive and let be; you can have full internal consciousness (so have no subconscious it appears!)

Quote:

"But don't try to tell me you "know" what you are talking about. Its accuracy is no defense of its truth."

In your system, that may be understandable. But how about this: its CONSCIOUSNESS may show its truth?

If you could see me, were I FULLY CONSCIOUS, you would see the TRUTH in me and through me. Were I fully conscious, I would live fully in God and He in me, and through me you would see Him. Thus my newborn twin and I were very close to truth, as at that age we saw a great deal of consciousness.

Errors may hide in seemingly accurate presentations perhaps; full consciousness reveals them.

Quote: "correlating random numbers"

Isn't "correlating" co? And isn't "co" synchronization? And isn't "synchronization" a game of musical chairs? And isn't your conserved pattern a "joining the dots"?

Your explanation of your system seems to fit "three complementary musical chairs games, one of which is "joining the dots" between the other two. The key is to "know the difference" between "musical chairs" and "join the dots".

"random numbers" are "non-assigned categories"; the conservation of category-assignment is the hallmark of "definition" as that conserved pattern "moves" through a "space" of allegedly non-assigned categories. (If they remain non-assigned in the presence of a definition they are assigned by default).

What if you don't have an image of the universe; but relate DIRECTLY to the universe itself? You are one with the universe; then what of modern physics? Your every move is like a new law of physics.

Quoting: "With regard to that issue there is one very large segment of our common "knowledge" which clearly appears to violate common science. Is it possible that our subconscious assigns the label "meaningless" to anything which cannot be fit into that common ground for communication? Just exactly what is a dream? Can it be seen as that set of real experiences which do not fit our "beliefs"? "

If you want to know what a dream is, you can find out. When very sleepy, be alert to and document all phenomena in your head that you can.

You can find that "English language worded thoughts" are underpinned by a sub-layer of many candidate words and phrases being offered up for consideration.

Below this layer you can find these candidate words and phrases are sourced from a variety of internal theatre-like dramas with various roles assigned.

Below this layer you have the (superficially may be bizzarre-looking) pattern matching juggling of many past experiences; essentially the dream layer.

What I'm saying is dream-like activity may underpin wake activity.

Further, dreaming may be an artifact of self-evasion; a fully conscious person might not dream as they remain spiritualy awake at all times.

Quoting: "Intuition is source of information which is otherwise unexplainable: i.e., impossible to explain."

Not correct: intuition can be explained as involving the detection of existent phenomena directly?

"This is the source of information I have repeatedly called my subconscious."

Solution: make it conscious. Be open to existence.

"I admit that this source is an extremely powerful source of usable information but it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called well thought out."

Why need it be "well thought out"? The existence of a phenomenon is perfect: no thinking-out needed. If it exists, it exists. Truth needs no justification.

Re: "understanding of mathematics"; didn't someone say a child does calculus every time he catches a ball?

Every newborn baby could be claimed to understand directly, in a very perfect (no fancy labels needed) way, more math than any mathematician?

To know mans' artificial, clumsy, label and symbol math is not necessary. Whatever truth math represents, can be comprehended directly. Experts on math may be dissapointed!

Quoting: "But humans have a capability not available to squirrels; we can think things out logically (at least some of us can). One of the problems with the world is that most people put themselves on exactly the same intellectual level as the squirrels and they want us to believe that reliance on intuition is thinking."

It may be that squirrels know a great deal more than people think. We are born to think perfectly in honesty; lying is learned. "Thinking things out logically" : whose logic? Honest thought is natural to babies, direct interaction with reality is their way.

"The only rational solution is to leave your survival to the training a million years of survival has provided, but don't stop thinking, you might accidentally see something worthwhile. "

Debateable. A million years of humans dying and being muddled doesn't inspire confidence, does it?

I suggest: to know what humans are: do same as for other things: know the history. So know thyself, your own personal history, as YOU experienced it.

Become fully conscious, experience total recall; become who you really are. Let be what exists, discover eternal life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,

dolphin