I think the primary difference between Doug's RSt ideas and Bruce's RS2 ideas, is the question "Geometry of What" ?
The original RST 2nd postulate states that:
"Physical Universe's geometry is Euclidean"
Doug states that:
"The geometry of extension-space is Euclidean"
...which according to the original 2nd postulate would mean that Physical Universe IS extension-space.
RS2 states that:
"The geometry of natural-space and natural-time is Projective"
...which according to the original 2nd postulate would mean that Physical Universe IS natural-space and time.
NOTE: that logically extension-space emerges out of natural-space, in the theoretical development.
However, Doug denies the very existence of natural-space and claims that the only space in existence is the emergent extension-space as defined by his S()TUDRs, and to him the 2nd postulate refers to the geometry of this extension-space.
Doug has an idea that scalar motion can hapen without prexistent geometry, which implies that space and time do not have to have geometrical properties.
To Bruce the idea of motion without preexitent geometry is a logical fallacy.
No wonder these guys can't even talk to each other.
Regards,
Horace
Geometry of What?
Geometry of What?
Horace,
Horace wrote:
Larson ignored these qualities as primary and interchangeable - that is exiting at the same ontological level. Instead, he developed some devices in the form of scalar rotation and vibration to represent particular aspects of these qualities. This is fine in that they were developed in accordance with the observation of atomic motion - so they have legitimate correspondence with emperical measurement and therefore, presumably, some utility. However, these devices are quite arbitrary in that they do not really exist beyond the math! This is fine if we recognize that these devices are placing an artificial limitation on how motion may be interpreted at the scalar (NRS) level.
Further, the idea of subjective and objective frameworks for the interpretation of motion is applicable at the level of the NRS. This is another dual context that should be represented.
Horace wrote:
Horace wrote:
Mike
Horace wrote:
This is wrong, but I can understand his confusion. Space and time are the same thing, therefore one could interpret both/either in a Euclidean context. However, any temporal quality will have difficulty being represented in a Euclidean context, because Euclidean geometry is an expression of a spatial quality. Temporal qualities are better expressed in a circular context. I am assuming that RS2 is capable of providing the dual context necessary to describe temporal and spatial qualities.However, Doug denies the very existence of natural-space and claims that the only space in existence is the emergent extension-space as defined by his S()TUDRs, and to him the 2nd postulate refers to the geometry of this extension-space.
Larson ignored these qualities as primary and interchangeable - that is exiting at the same ontological level. Instead, he developed some devices in the form of scalar rotation and vibration to represent particular aspects of these qualities. This is fine in that they were developed in accordance with the observation of atomic motion - so they have legitimate correspondence with emperical measurement and therefore, presumably, some utility. However, these devices are quite arbitrary in that they do not really exist beyond the math! This is fine if we recognize that these devices are placing an artificial limitation on how motion may be interpreted at the scalar (NRS) level.
Further, the idea of subjective and objective frameworks for the interpretation of motion is applicable at the level of the NRS. This is another dual context that should be represented.
Horace wrote:
Doug has also indicated that scalar motion can only exist in the context of change (s/t -> s'/t') and therefore a ratio of space to time is not "motion".Doug has an idea that scalar motion can hapen without prexistent geometry, which implies that space and time do not have to have geometrical properties.
Horace wrote:
Bruce can speak for himself, but I don't think he concluded this. Geometry is like a reference system in that it provides a framework or premise for the interpretation of motion. The idea of assuming or postulating particular geometries for the universe is a perfectly reasonable scientific approach. The idea of assuming a preexisting geometry of the universe is completely unnecessary and bad science.To Bruce the idea of motion without preexitent geometry is a logical fallacy.
Mike
Geometry of What?
MWells wrote:
Each stratum coming after that basic assumption of "reciprocity" compounds further assumptions on the interpretation of that ratio as "motion", "direction", "reversal", "rotation", "translation"... et al. Larson, however, lumped them all together under the name "scalar motion". RS2 does not, but shows how they interconnect and are derived from assumptive principles.
Larson had a tendency to lump several concepts into one word, like "scalar motion", "biological level" or "ethical sector", because he quantified what he knew, and stuck everything else in the next stage for future research. Back in the 1950s when he first put the RS to paper, we did not have the understanding of projective and perspective geometry that we do now, courtesy of computer graphics and imaging. Just as Larson had to weed out the "physical" from the "non-physical" to figure out the "level 2, biological" and "level 3, ethic" systems, RS2 had to weed out all Larson's concepts of scalar motion, and placed them with a specific set of observational assumptions based on our current understanding of geometry and polar spaces, used heavily in computer graphic rendering. The rules are now well known; they were barely postulated back in the 1950s, the only reference I've found being "Synthetic Geometry" derived from the works of Rudolf Steiner.
Anyone who has studied Theosophy of other ontological systems is aware that Larson's 3rd, "ethical" sector is just a "catch-all" for concepts that don't fit in the first 2 sectors. There are most likely 7 "sectors" or planes of ontological existence, based on the research of others. But "level 2" is as far as he took the system before he died, so anything from "sectors 3-7" is lumped together in Sector 3. One of these days, that is going to need some weeding out as well, to find out where the logical, discrete breaks are to produce an RS version of 7 planes of existence.
In regards to Bundy, who adamantly claims "Motion, itself, doesn't move", I defer to the old Pythagorean maxim, "do not place your candle against the wall."
Mike is correct. In RS2, "Geometry" is the set of assumptions in which a particular set of scalar magnitudes is interpreted via observation of our minds and senses. The different strata of geometry have different assumptions; the projective being the least "assumptive", only assuming that magnitudes can be brought into a "reciprocal" relation with each other to produce a ratio, and then a cross-ratio.Bruce can speak for himself, but I don't think he concluded this. Geometry is like a reference system in that it provides a framework or premise for the interpretation of motion. The idea of assuming or postulating particular geometries for the universe is a perfectly reasonable scientific approach. The idea of assuming a preexisting geometry of the universe is completely unnecessary and bad science.
Each stratum coming after that basic assumption of "reciprocity" compounds further assumptions on the interpretation of that ratio as "motion", "direction", "reversal", "rotation", "translation"... et al. Larson, however, lumped them all together under the name "scalar motion". RS2 does not, but shows how they interconnect and are derived from assumptive principles.
Larson had a tendency to lump several concepts into one word, like "scalar motion", "biological level" or "ethical sector", because he quantified what he knew, and stuck everything else in the next stage for future research. Back in the 1950s when he first put the RS to paper, we did not have the understanding of projective and perspective geometry that we do now, courtesy of computer graphics and imaging. Just as Larson had to weed out the "physical" from the "non-physical" to figure out the "level 2, biological" and "level 3, ethic" systems, RS2 had to weed out all Larson's concepts of scalar motion, and placed them with a specific set of observational assumptions based on our current understanding of geometry and polar spaces, used heavily in computer graphic rendering. The rules are now well known; they were barely postulated back in the 1950s, the only reference I've found being "Synthetic Geometry" derived from the works of Rudolf Steiner.
Anyone who has studied Theosophy of other ontological systems is aware that Larson's 3rd, "ethical" sector is just a "catch-all" for concepts that don't fit in the first 2 sectors. There are most likely 7 "sectors" or planes of ontological existence, based on the research of others. But "level 2" is as far as he took the system before he died, so anything from "sectors 3-7" is lumped together in Sector 3. One of these days, that is going to need some weeding out as well, to find out where the logical, discrete breaks are to produce an RS version of 7 planes of existence.
In regards to Bundy, who adamantly claims "Motion, itself, doesn't move", I defer to the old Pythagorean maxim, "do not place your candle against the wall."
Every dogma has its day...