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
