P3D Re: DIRDS & SIRDS

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998
>From: roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts) writes:
>.........(I said).............................
>>****  I'm implying that the optical/visual phenomena of DIRD vs. SIRD is the
>>same thing. The algorithm derives from the phenomenon itself. Seeing the
>>phenomenon and trying to write an algorithm for it would automatically
>>reveal both situations. 
>
>Hold on! The fact that non-repeating SIRDS are *possible* is not
>mathematically obvious. Somebody found a transform (inverse transform?)
>that would perform the operation. You still haven't explained the 
>mathematical properties of the algorithms to produce DIRDS and SIRDS.
>I would assume from your posts that you understand both of them.

****  A too common mistake in the scientific community, and more so in
products derived therefrom, is to forget that MATH is an abstract that is
conveniently descriptive of the world, not necessarily defining of the
world. One needs to work the formula the right direction to avoid getting
stuck with an incomplete description. Any math description needs to be
verified by comparison to the real thing. If it's not complete, notice
what's missing or in error and try again. 

The transform develops usually from an understood circumstance. Those
understandings can also be used by theory to predict additional instances or
variations. The phenomenon of stereo vision applied to or observed in DIRDS
and SIRDS crosses all the borders. If you can see evidence of something, but
not have the actual math to accomplish it, you then can work out an
appropriate algorithm to provide a solution to what is otherwise easily seen
and understood. If you work centric only to the algorithm and ignore the
real effects of what it does, then you easily miss obvious variations.

It doesn't take a new algorithm to put DIRDS and SIRDS in the same boat. It
takes an understanding application of one phenomenon, understood from actual
direct observation and a few simple comparisons. Any applicable math is
subservient to physical realities.

>
>>...Unified field theories existed in the belief systems of some
>>primitive peoples before a specific Western scientific version of it
>>existed. 
>
>You mean like the Norse mythology of Ygdrassil, the world-ash? I had something
>with a little more mathematical basis in mind. Of course the Phoenicians
>did pretty well in reconciling the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces,
>but not even the Babylonians or the Incas, for all their mathematical
>acumen, were able to combine the weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. ;-)

****  Yet all or most of those forces follow patterns observable in the
larger scale. Patterns that many ancients noticed, worked with and had
religions and theories about, some of which were better than others. Quite
similar to current science since we too have theories that hit the trash can
after years of solid acceptance. I suspect most ancients were about as
intelligent relative to what was known as we are, making similar good and
bad deductions and observations. History only records a small percentage of
what existed.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------