Thank you for continuing.
"Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0312230944.676e60ca at posting.google.com...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<rLwFb.8916$wL6.1698 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> > news:fa69ae35.0312190154.5bfb33d4 at posting.google.com...> > > "kenneth p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in
message
> > news:<ROhEb.3508$wL6.1160 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > > > [...]
> >
> > > Now, could you please tell me what kind of a field is this 4-D
> > > energydynamics field? I would like to hear, if possible, a precise
> > > mathematical description.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Or were you talking about 4-D energydynamics
> > as I've discussed them with respect to nervous
> > system function?
> >
>> [Ken]
> > Briefly, the neural Topology is 4-D.
> >
> > The 4th 'dimension' is a pseudo dimension
> > that's just used to cross-correlate the 3-D
> > Neuroanatomy.
> >
> > This is necessary because the fiber pathways
> > interconnect loci that are at 3-D-'vectored'
> > distances from each other. Ever locus within
> > the nervous system has varying numbers of
> > such 3-D 'correlations'.
>> [Alex]
> I do not understand your terminology here.
> What is a "pseudo-dimension"? Dimensions
> are just the basis of a set of linear
> equations.(see
>http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/maths.htm> and page down a few> times).
> A dimension in space-time is the basis of
> the set of linear equations that describe
> movement.
It's, perhaps, an ideosyncracy of mine. I
'like' "dimensions" I invoke to have rigorous
correlation with "common sense reality".
The brain is a 3-dimensional object.
Any 'point' within it can be denoted using
the 3 standard coordinates.
But, within that 3-space, many loci within
the brain include 3-D ramifications within
the 3-Space above.
In order to 'list' all of the interesting stuff
about these embedded 3-D ramifications
within the entire 3-space, I use what I
call a pseudo-4th-'dimension'.
I hesitate to call it an actual "dimension"
for a number of reasons that I'll explain
below, but all I do with it is use it to
keep tract of the interconnections [the
relatively-well-defined neuroanatomical
pathways] between all the 'points' in
the brain's overall 3-space with all the
other 'points' in the brain's overall
3-space.
The main reason that I refer to it as a
"pseudo-`dimension`" is because I
haven't yet tried to rigorously order
it. Although it's point-to-point mapping
is accurate, it's overall ordering remains
arbitrary.
As far as I'm concerned, referring to
such as a "dimension" just wouldn't
be True.
Perhaps in the future.
Anyway, this 4-space does not include
'time' as a dimension.
I explained that in another recent post.
If that was insufficient, please let me
know.
> I do not understand "3-D-'vectored'"
This just refers to the way that, given any
'point' within the brain's 3-Space, any other
such 'point' can be desiganted by a line
between the two point's coordinates.
> or "3-D-'correlations'", these
> are not standard terms in maths or physics.
This usage is just my way of addressing the
fact that it's necessary to account for the
way that activations occurring at one 'point'
within the brain's 3-space are correlated to
the activations that occur at some other
'point' in the brain's 3-space.
The firing of a neuron in cortex, for instance,
often results in neurons in the thalamus becoming
activated, and vice versa. The retina projects to
the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus,
and, from there, to visual cortex, and from there,
to a bunch of other visual areas in parietal cortex,
frontal cortex, and myriad other places.
These are all "3-D-'correlations' with respect to
the flow of information within the brain.
It's the stuff that's described in any good
Neuroanatomy textbook. That's all.
> [Ken]
> >
> > The pseudo 4th-'dimension' is used to just
> > keep tract of these 3-D projection correl-
> > ations.
>> [Alex]
> What is "keeping track of correlations".
It's the same as what one does when one
"keeps tract" of addresses in one's address book.
Exactly the same, except different 'address'
information is kept tract of pthe e-D coordinate
correlations.
> A correlation is suggested when something
> changes at the same time as something else.
Yes. In the case of the stuff I've been discuss-
ing, the neuroanatomical interconnectedness,
and the way that activation at one locus within
the brain's 3-space changes when activation at
another locus within the brain's 3-space changes.
> One of these changes need not cause the
> other change.
In the brain, if one follows the neural pathways
sufficiently, one always finds that, via various
"relays", everything eventually gets back to
everything else. That these "relays" are sometimes
via round-about routes is some of what makes
studying the brain interesting.
There are also "correlations" between external
observables and neural activations - general
behavior, language, curiosity, creativity, volition,
general attraction/avoidance, fear, anger, hunger,
thirst, cognition, etc.
That there are so many such "correlations" is
more of why I cal the 4th-'dimension' "pseudo.
> What 2 things change and what aspect of
> these changes is recorded in a "4th-dimension"?
It's as above.
> [Ken]
> > [As is discussed in AoK, Ap2, except,
> > when that discussion was written, I'd not
> > yet eliminated what's referred to as "time" as
> > a dimension. Where I now use a 3-space to
> > address the non-interconnected nervous system
> > loci, back then, I used a 4-Space, invoking
> > "time" as an ordering principle with respect
> > to successive activations at each 'point' within
> > the 3 spatial dimensions, and a "5th [pseudo]
> > 'dimension'" that whas used, as above, to
> > cross-correlate 3-D projections. It was not
> > long after writing AoK that I realized that the
> > "time" dimension is completely redundant be-
> > cause the same information is encoded in
> > relative activation at any 'point' in the neural
> > 3-space - because the 'next' relative activa-
> > tion is determined by the 'present' activation.
> > So using a 'time' dimension is entirely un-
> > necessary.
>> [Alex]
> This is puzzling, you have 'next' and 'present'
> but no time. Do these things coexist at an instant?
> If all possibilities are encoded and there is no time
> how does change or succession appear?
It's easy.
Take a book, and lay it on the floor. Stick
something under one end of it so that it's
elevated relative to the other end of the book.
"Inclined plane."
Put a ball on the book at its elevated end, and
release it.
The ball rolls down toward least potential
energy.
Energy gradients within physical reality are
exactly analogous to this.
One doesn't have to 'worry' about 'rates'
because thing's'll just go toward least potential
energy, and the steeper the energy gradient,
the greater will be the propensity to so go.
Always.
So, just see the 3-D energy gradients, and
you'll know how things will go.
You can use a 'clock' to 'meter' the motion,
but using a 'clock' doesn't alter anything [unless
you 'put it on the book in the path of the ball'].
> [Ken]
> > [I've since verified that the same
> > is True with respect to physical reality in
> > general, which is why I refer to "space-time"
> > as "so-called".
>> [Alex]
> The space-time of physical reality is just a
> vector space that describes motion. It is the
> correct terminology ("so-called" suggests
> that it does not exist) there is plentiful
> evidence for space-time from the existence
> of magnetism to the atomic bomb.
I stand on what I posted.
What's been referred to as "magnetism" is
'just' an energy-density 'rarification' that's
always coupled with an energy-density
augmentation [the right-hand rule with
respect to EM.
If there are energy-density variations, there
are energy gradients that stuff 'seeking' least
potential energy will 'go down' upon. No 'time'
is nesessary [as above].
And 'bombs' of all types are just devices that
are engineered to release potential energy 'on
command', which creates 'an' energy gradient,
and stuff moves in accord with that energy
gradient.
And, before you bzz me, the "command" also
occurs via an energy gradient.
> See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz2b.htm
> for a quick introduction to space-time.
I've rewritten GR.
Then I threw out that big black book.
> [Ken]
> > All there is within physical
> > reality is energy 'density' in 3-space. Be-
> > cause of the energy-flow that is WDB2T, the
> > energy density at any 'point' in 3-space
> > determines the 'next' energy density at that
> > 'point' in 3-space, and, because physical
> > reality is continuous, this occurs throughout
> > physical reality, which is =just= 3-dimensional.
> > No such thing as 'time' exists within physical
> > reality. Everything that has, formerly, been
> > referred to as being "time dependent", is
> > not that, but energy-density-with-respect-to-
> > the-WDB2T-energy-flow-dependent, and the
> > WDB2T energy-flow just goes 'down-hill'
> > from greatest energy density to least energy-
> > density, and all physical dynamics are deter-
> > mined by this one continuous universal energy-
> > flow dynamic.
>> [Alex]
> Surely flow is measured in units per second.
> How do you get a flow without time?
One can introduce a 'clock', but stuff's going
down the energy gradient that it's 'in contact' with
goes down just as it would have in the absence
of the 'clock'.
'Clocks' themselves, don't meter [non-physically-
real] 'time'. They just meter energy going down the
energy gradient that was establiched within their
mechanisms by winding the spring [inserting the
battery, plugging it in, turning it upside-down
[hour glass], looking at the shadow [sun dial], etc.]
> Incidently "energy" is a potential of some
> "thing" for creating movement, it refers to the
> possible creation of motion, which implies
> time and distance.
Nope, it just refers to that which makes
a difference with respect to a gradient.
> The use of the term "energy" cannot really be
> applied as a description of a thing in itself,
> things HAVE energy, they cannot be said to
> BE energy except in science fiction.
Are you trying to get me to say, "E=mc^2" so
I can make someone's "Crackpot Index"? :-]
> Mass is a measure of energy but it is more
> than a century since people thought of particles
> as amorphous blobs of "mass",
Huh?
> the modern challenge is to describe the "thing"
> that has mass that is a particle.
I've done that for what have been referred to as
"atoms".
> [Ken]
> >
> > It's all extremely-simple and straight-forward.
> >
> > Seeing the energy density at any 'point' in
> > 3-space enables one to deterministically
> > predict the 'next' energy-flow at that 'point'
> > be-cause everything within physical reality
> > just goes with the universal WDB2T energy-
> > flow.
>> [Alex]
> Does this flow happen at an instant or over a
> period of time?
"Instant" = a measure of non-physically-real 'time'.
Forget about it.
Just see the energy gradients.
Put your car in neutral on a hill.
Get out.
Watch.
All available evidence substantiates the view
that the same stuff is everywhere within physical
reality be-cause WDB2T permeates physical
reality.
Physical reality's most-fundamental energy
gradient is WDB2T.
> The energy density at an instantaneous point
> in 3D space is a weird thing, remember Heisenberg?
Honestly, I just cannot see any "uncertainty".
[The so-called "subatomic particles" are all
described in terms of energy-thresholding
dynamics in Tapered Harmony, so, in this
view, there can be no position/momentum
difficulties.]
> 'Change in energy' times 'interval for change'
> is a constant, according to quantum physics
> your point might have infinite energy at a
> true instant.
All available evidence substantiates that
there's no such thing as "conservation"
within physical reality.
It's be-cause of WDB2T.
It's everywhere, as an energy gradient upon
which everything within physical reality just
goes down.
What about "star creation "?
Energy can be expended, at a greater
'rate' than the 'rate' of increase in potential
energy to create potential energy.
Star creation would only be a
'contradiction' if there were more stars
being created than there were stars
burning out.
But all available evidence substantiates
the position that flow of energy from
order to disorder that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T] permeates
physical reality, and, if it's so, then,
for every star-quantity of energy that
becomes ordered, more than that
energy must become dis-ordered [at
least].
Lo and behold, physical reality is
'just' the one humongous energy
gradient.
>> Best Wishes
>> Alex Green
Best Wishes back to you, Alex,
ken [k. p. collins]
