1
New Theories / Re: What is THE PANOPTIC CHALLENGE? Can you meet the challenge?
« on: 04/10/2017 03:54:33 »
Thank you very much for your feedback Bogie_smiles. It is much appreciated and I would like you to keep looking for inconsistencies. The more critical eyes consider the challenge, the more likely we are to arrive at the best set of originators from which to build the foundations.
During this time I am critically looking at the statements too and trying to improve hopefully to the point of removing any inconsistencies. Since posting the reply I have had 2 latest thoughts regarding Perception and Conception. viz Theories are based on ‘Perception’ … come from observations of the Universe, whereas Ideas are based on ‘Conception’ … come from processes, defined or undefined, within our entistitial constructs such as the human brain. These link to the understanding of pelop and celoc. Thinking and constant review in my head are continuing.
In my challenge, your 'local reality' is equivalent to thinking within pelop and celoc. All entities will have both perceptions and conceptions based on their constituent Universal structure which, by your definition, is local. It links to the main part of the book I have half written "On the Origins Of Perception" in which I define limits that relate to proximity (in any form, time, space, etc), magnitude (the relative magnitudes of the perceiving entity), universal dimension, or sensory mechanisms. These are all defined within said book based on such things as I have included in the Panoptic Challenge.
My main issue is with perception and misperception which started my quest over 20years ago to bring me to the current point. Unfortunately, adding these chapters on Universal origins and dimensions has side-tracked me to an area of existence I was not originally intending to pursue meaning the addition of 5 extra chapters at the beginning.
So your line of reasoning, as with the mapping of current understandings of the Universe through mathematical modelling and discussion of relationships through physics, all fit together albeit with disputes on definitions and conceptual frameworks along the way. But all of that is as it should be. We create conceptions of something, then we look for initial evidence to create theories, then we test the theories and eventually arrive at something that we can match to the processes and structures of the Universe. At which time we call fact, until this process arrives at inconsistencies or disputes which, if people maintain their cool and logic, lead us to better understandings which we will then acknowledge as fact… and so on.
Unfortunately, and this is a personal opinion, many people get side-tracked with the beauty of the mathematics and models we have conceived or verified so far and end up contained within their own pelops and celocs which, instead of leading to the next breakthrough, actually act as a break on developments. This is why scientists hang on to what they earnestly believe to be true until the evidence is incontrovertible and they are forced to change their opinions and beliefs.
Anyway, I am open to any ideas that allow for flexible thinking and appreciate you sharing your ideas with me. There may be just one small thing one of us says that leads a reader to solve a paradox or foundational problem they have had with their own logic or thinking to create the next great breakthrough of our species, or our descendants.
Please keep the critical thinking alive. Much thanks for your time spent reviewing my challenge and I hope our discussion spurs more on to commenting constructively or asking questions for clarification or reconsideration.
Our lines of reasoning are all we have. Apologies again for any typos which may inpede the flow of my writings.
During this time I am critically looking at the statements too and trying to improve hopefully to the point of removing any inconsistencies. Since posting the reply I have had 2 latest thoughts regarding Perception and Conception. viz Theories are based on ‘Perception’ … come from observations of the Universe, whereas Ideas are based on ‘Conception’ … come from processes, defined or undefined, within our entistitial constructs such as the human brain. These link to the understanding of pelop and celoc. Thinking and constant review in my head are continuing.
In my challenge, your 'local reality' is equivalent to thinking within pelop and celoc. All entities will have both perceptions and conceptions based on their constituent Universal structure which, by your definition, is local. It links to the main part of the book I have half written "On the Origins Of Perception" in which I define limits that relate to proximity (in any form, time, space, etc), magnitude (the relative magnitudes of the perceiving entity), universal dimension, or sensory mechanisms. These are all defined within said book based on such things as I have included in the Panoptic Challenge.
My main issue is with perception and misperception which started my quest over 20years ago to bring me to the current point. Unfortunately, adding these chapters on Universal origins and dimensions has side-tracked me to an area of existence I was not originally intending to pursue meaning the addition of 5 extra chapters at the beginning.
So your line of reasoning, as with the mapping of current understandings of the Universe through mathematical modelling and discussion of relationships through physics, all fit together albeit with disputes on definitions and conceptual frameworks along the way. But all of that is as it should be. We create conceptions of something, then we look for initial evidence to create theories, then we test the theories and eventually arrive at something that we can match to the processes and structures of the Universe. At which time we call fact, until this process arrives at inconsistencies or disputes which, if people maintain their cool and logic, lead us to better understandings which we will then acknowledge as fact… and so on.
Unfortunately, and this is a personal opinion, many people get side-tracked with the beauty of the mathematics and models we have conceived or verified so far and end up contained within their own pelops and celocs which, instead of leading to the next breakthrough, actually act as a break on developments. This is why scientists hang on to what they earnestly believe to be true until the evidence is incontrovertible and they are forced to change their opinions and beliefs.
Anyway, I am open to any ideas that allow for flexible thinking and appreciate you sharing your ideas with me. There may be just one small thing one of us says that leads a reader to solve a paradox or foundational problem they have had with their own logic or thinking to create the next great breakthrough of our species, or our descendants.
Please keep the critical thinking alive. Much thanks for your time spent reviewing my challenge and I hope our discussion spurs more on to commenting constructively or asking questions for clarification or reconsideration.
Our lines of reasoning are all we have. Apologies again for any typos which may inpede the flow of my writings.