There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

The problem is that it wasn't clear. Some of it comes down to the somewhat subtle differences between "model", "modeling", and "simulation". Then there are the differences in the usage of the term between fields. Since the two examples given in my post are from physics and that is my field I will stick mostly physics, but there is one more item very relevant to this thread that I will consider.

Model: (A) a mathematical representation of a general system or (B) a mathematical/numerical representation of a specific state.
Modelling: Construction of a model from first principles or from data
Simulation: A numerical representation of a physical system evolved in time from initial conditions and a set of modeled equations.

I've done modelling and simulation, and for me the principle difference is that some complex systems have time derivatives and require simulation, and others do not and are modeled.

The Higgs is a model of the (A) type as is the Standard Model of particle physics. The EM propagation calculated through the pyramid in that paper is a model of the (B) type.

OK I would have thought the EM propagation of the pyramid overall would be a system model (type A) as its about the overall shape of the pyramid sitting as an object in space. Whereas the modelling withing the pyramid with say additional scenarios such as adding stress or thermal to general further effects would be a type B.

There is a third kind of model, a digital model of measurements. This is what you get from those vase scans, a digital model that can be displayed or examined.

So this would be like recreating the 3D object into digital form as life like as possible. To then further examine it like the real thing.

So if the modeling recreates the real thing then why cannot modeling also give real results as though the findings came from physical tests. For example if the digital model of the vase is the exact same thing as the real thing. Then we could cofidently say that a plug made from that model will fit the real vase without even doing a physical test to find out.

The same with modelling the pyramids. If the modeling is truely reflecting the physical pyramid. Then if the model shows energy is concentrated in chambers then we shoyld expect that this will be the case in reality. If it is fact that granite produces certain effects under certain conditions then the modeling will be correct and we can be conflident that this will be the case in reality.

Some simulation is called "model" beacause "simulation" sounds too much like "fake". Climate and weather models involving moving air masses are properly speaking "simulations".

Or it may be that a simulation goes a bit beyond a model. A model seems to have pretty firm framework. Just like the pyramid and is more a closed system. Whereas it seems a simulation involves more complex systems within systems.

A model of type (A) described by a few simple equations with parameters. It describes the expansion of space.

Those are actually different models.

In the case of the cosmological models, new data demonstrated a missing component (dark energy) that had to be included. Other times the flaws in a model can no longer be covered by wide error bars as more precise data shows that the model doesn't quite match. This seems to be happening now with the simple model of dark energy as a cosmological constant.

We often here that even the Standard Model is in doubt. Like ideas such as String theory I think a theory can be adjusted to fit and it becomes propped up by a complicated arrangement of adjustments. Which is actually contradictory to occam's razors.

Evolution is far off topic, but "genetics + random changes + NS" hasn't been the current model of evolution in quite some time.

That isn't the assumption.

Now we must come to the model of EM waves and pyramids that started all of this. I have no problems with the model itself, presuming that the authors knew how to make such a model and the dielectric properties of limestone for long wavelength waves are measured. That is a model of an objects properties using a simplified structure and measured material properties. It hasn't been "field tested", but that probably isn't an issue.

So if you saying its not an issue or if there was an issue with being able to field test the model. Why cannot the model stand on its own legs as the support for the potential for energy generation. Why can't this be the basis for how the Egyptians could generate certain effects that they utilised.

The model is how rather uninteresting. We can be certain the Egyptians didn't give the pyramid those EM focusing properties on purpose as they demonstrate no knowledge of long wavelength EM radiation, something that would remain unknown for another 4500 years.

Ah why does the material science verses transcedent immaterial knowledge come down to teleology and agency. I find this interesting. The creatures conscious choices are made out to be coincident or epiphenomena to the material. Everything has to be coincident or accident. There can be no purposeful knowledge.

Why, because as you say its 4,500 years ago and there cannot be such knowledge at that time. So it has to be a coincident. An accident lol. The problem is the accidents and coincidents are building up and its looking beyond a mere blind accident. Your underestimatig the Egyptians and humans as a whole.

Your claim that they did not know about FM waves and all that is a subjective and person opinion based on your worldview today that all knowledge must be seen the way modern western science sees it.

As I said earlier I don;t think the ancients knowledge was like academic scholarship knowledge. Or Enlightened knowledge. It was more direct experiential. They lived closer and in harmony with nature and reality. So they actually experienced what they discovered and then utilised.

All their attention was to reflect the natural geometry and forces within everything they did. That is why everything is aligned to the skies and nature.

 

[BCP1928]

As I said earlier I don;t think the ancients knowledge was like academic scholarship knowledge. Or Enlightened knowledge. It was more direct experiential. They lived closer and in harmony with nature and reality. So they actually experienced what they discovered and then utilised.

All knowledge is acquired in that way. Science acquires knowledge through observation and experiment with nature. Craftsmen acquire their skills by trial and error, working directly with the natural materials. They all actually experience what they discover and utilize.

 

[stevevw]

All knowledge is acquired in that way. Science acquires knowledge through observation and experiment with nature. Craftsmen acquire their skills by trial and error, working directly with the natural materials. They all actually experience what they discover and utilize.

They cannot possibly experience what they are discovering. Experience is a completely different paradigm to material science. One is quantities like matter, electrons and fields. The other is about qualities like experiences of love, spirituality and colors. A completely different realm.

Its the Mind/Matter metaphysics. What is fundemental mind or matter. Besides how could someone experience a sunset of Mars even though we can observe its physical effects.

As mentioned earlier the experience of colors like Red for example brings knowledge about nature and reality that material science cannot bring. How could material science test for the experience of Red. The only way to test is to directly ask the experiencer. The experiencer gains the new knowledge directly from nature.

The direct experiences of the ancients with nature and reality gave them a deeper knowledge about reality that the material science can never know. Its like a back door to what material science is trying to understand from the outside. A direct line to nature and reality.

Because the entire worldview belief was immersed in direct experiences of nature, looking at nature from the inside and not from the outside like material science. Becoming part of nature and directly connecting with it.

This gave the ancients a direct experience and knowledge of nature and reality which enabled them to understand how it worked. How stones reacted, how certain locations altered things, how the basic laws of nature worked. Through experience not intellect.

If they became part of nature or immersed in it more deeply through conscious and transcedent experiences then why would they not discover some of natures secrets in how it worked.

In fact I think the direct subjective experiences of nature and reality cannot be seperated out of the equation. Galileo I think said that to do science the subject needed to be removed from the equation. But if fundemental reality has to include subjective conscious experiences then we cannot remove the subject.

Science will never fully understand reality by removing the subject and I think it is actually the direct experiences of reality is how we understand more fully nature and reality.

As the ancients were fully immersed in the most fundemental aspect of reality (the direct conscious experience) without any distraction from enlightened materail scientific thinking. They were able to gain more directly and fully what science has been trying to work out from the outside for 100s of years.

 

[BCP1928]

They cannot possibly experience what they are discovering. Experience is a completely different paradigm to material science. One is quantities like matter, electrons and fields. The other is about qualities like experiences of love, spirituality and colors. A completely different realm.

Its the Mind/Matter metaphysics. What is fundemental mind or matter.

As mentioned earlier the experience of colors like Red for example brings knowledge about nature and reality that material science cannot bring. How could material science test for the experience of Red. The only way to test is to directly ask the experiencer. The experiencer gains the new knowledge directly from nature.

The direct experiences of the ancients with nature and reality gave them a deeper knowledge about reality that the material science can never know. Its like a back door to what material science is trying to understand from the outside. A direct line to nature and reality.

Because the entire worldview belief was immersed in direct experiences of nature, looking at nature from the inside and not from the outside like material science. Becoming part of nature and directly connecting with it.

This gave the ancients a direct experience and knowledge of nature and reality which enabled them to understand how it worked. How stones reacted, how certain locations altered things, how the basic laws of nature worked. Through experience not intellect.

If they became part of nature or immersed in it more deeply through conscious and transcedent experiences then why would they not discover some of natures secrets in how it worked.

In fact I think the direct subjective experiences of nature and reality cannot be seperated out of the equation. Galileo I think said that to do science the subject needed to be removed from the equation. But if fundemental reality has to include subjective conscious experiences then we cannot remove the subject.

Science will never fully understand reality by removing the subject and I think it is actually the direct experiences of reality is how we understand more fully nature and reality.

As the ancients were fully immersed in the most fundemental aspect of reality (the direct conscious experience) without any distraction from enlightened materail scientific thinking. They were able to gain more directly and fully what science has been trying to work out from the outside for 100s of years.

So in order to understand objective reality we have to abandon our efforts to study objective reality directly and study instead our subjective experience. I'm not sure I understand that. Take the color red, for example. Scientists can study photons of a certain wavelength and learn their properties but they could learn more about those photons and their properties by contemplating their subjective experience of the color red?

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK I would have thought the EM propagation of the pyramid overall would be a system model (type A) as its about the overall shape of the pyramid sitting as an object in space.

The models of my "type A" are the simple models. They include the fundamental theories (like the standard model of particle physics, Maxwell's equations, etc.) and all of derived and empirical laws of physics (Newton's laws of motion, Kepler's laws, Ohm's law, eqns. for pendulums and springs, the hydrostatic structure of the atmosphere, etc.)

Whereas the modelling withing the pyramid with say additional scenarios such as adding stress or thermal to general further effects would be a type B.

For "type A" I was thinking of models that could be written in a simple or closed mathematical form. My "type B" models cover the wide range of models up when dynamic action is need, which is the realm of simulation. There can be simple, solvable time elements, like in the equations for a simple pendulum, where a solution. If the model for a simple pendulum wasn't simple and had easy to calculate properties, then physics professors around the world would not be tying bowling balls to the ceiling of lecture halls with long wires, releasing the ball very close to their faces and then calmly standing still while the ball came back at their faces. One of the properties of that simple pendulum model is that the furthest the ball travels from the bottom of its path is when it has no velocity and it returns to the same point. This is why it is safe to just stand there. Other properties of the simple model are the period and the repeating path and velocity of the pendulum.

The pyramid EM model applies a simple models of EM propagation, to a physical model of a pyramid (akin to the digital models), and a model of the EM properties of the materials (air, limestone) in to a more complex, but stationary model (which I put in type B) of EM propagation inside the pyramid. You could also call this an "applied model". These kinds of "applied modes" are very useful for determining the properties of things you can't directly measure (like the internal structure of Mars or the Sun) or for how they will react if built. The static stresses on structures or parts are modeled routinely in the design phase. Many things have dynamic responses (like the building that deflects and oscillates in the wind) and simulation starting from those applied models is needed.

So this would be like recreating the 3D object into digital form as life like as possible. To then further examine it like the real thing.

Yep, that's what they're for.

So if the modeling recreates the real thing then why cannot modeling also give real results as though the findings came from physical tests. For example if the digital model of the vase is the exact same thing as the real thing. Then we could cofidently say that a plug made from that model will fit the real vase without even doing a physical test to find out.

The digital model of the vase would be very useful for additional measurement that couldn't be done directly or non-destructively. You could experiment with it on what kind of tools would fit inside, etc. The people who made those models have used them to determine the regularity of the objects

The same with modelling the pyramids. If the modeling is truely reflecting the physical pyramid. Then if the model shows energy is concentrated in chambers then we shoyld expect that this will be the case in reality. If it is fact that granite produces certain effects under certain conditions then the modeling will be correct and we can be conflident that this will be the case in reality.

If the model is sufficient then the effect should be detected roughly as modeled. We should remember that the limestone filling blocks of the pyramids are rough and there are small voids and other materials in the structure aside from the well known shafts.

Or it may be that a simulation goes a bit beyond a model. A model seems to have pretty firm framework. Just like the pyramid and is more a closed system. Whereas it seems a simulation involves more complex systems within systems.

One simple example is the double pendulum . While the full motion of a single pendulum can be modeled with a single equation, the double pendulum cannot. We can create model equations for the two components, but we can't directly solve them, so they must be simulated. The big difference in my mind is that simulations *have* initial conditions. Simulations are built from models. (Complex models typically have other simple models at the bottom, like our pyramid example.)

A weather forecasting model (err, rather simulation) has many models inside of it: a hydrostatic model of the vertical structure, a model for fluid flow, a model for solar heating, a landform model, a cloud cover model, precipitation model, etc. Then it needs to be discritized on to a grid of mesh points where all of the model equations are turned in to discrete forms ( df/dx becomes (f(i+1) - f(i))/(x(i+1) - x(i)), though that is not a very good discretization), and initial states. In meteology the last thing is called "assimilation" and has its own specialists who work out how to blend in observed data into the simulations in the past states before computing future states.

We often here that even the Standard Model is in doubt. Like ideas such as String theory I think a theory can be adjusted to fit and it becomes propped up by a complicated arrangement of adjustments. Which is actually contradictory to occam's razors.

The Standard Model (of particle physics) is incredibly successful. It effectively explains (either directly or through laying basis for other models) virtually everything that exists with the exception of gravity and the "dark" entities of cosmology with but a few dozen measured parameters. String theory is a family of proposed models that would supercede the SM and GR. If such a model an be found and would have fewer parameters than the SM+GR and explain more it would be parsimonious even if it still had 23 parameters. Parsimony (or Ockham's razor) is just a preference for models that do not include unnecesary complications or parameters. It is not some fundamenal law of nature.

I'm going to stop here and leave the more contentious issues to a future post.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So if you saying its not an issue or if there was an issue with being able to field test the model. Why cannot the model stand on its own legs as the support for the potential for energy generation. Why can't this be the basis for how the Egyptians could generate certain effects that they utilised.

If the model is correct, then EM radiation will be concentrated, but that is but the first necessary condition. Other issues are that there isn't much energy in the radio waves hitting the Earth. Also, how does the focusing work with angle of entry for the EM waves? I haven't been able to read the article as I've had problems with the proxy server from home and I don't read this site from my office, but from the popular article they only show downward EM radiation.

So far we haven't even gotten to the question of Egypt even having technology to extract that concentrated energy, but we will...

Ah why does the material science verses transcedent immaterial knowledge come down to teleology and agency. I find this interesting. The creatures conscious choices are made out to be coincident or epiphenomena to the material. Everything has to be coincident or accident. There can be no purposeful knowledge.

This whole paragraph was full of words I didn't use or imply.

I didn't say anything about "transcendent immaterial knowledge" or contrast it with "material science".
I didn't say anything about "accidents".
I said absolutely nothing about "epiphenomena" or "creatures"
I said nothing about "purposeful knowledge".

Nor did I imply any of these things in any way, shape, or form.

None of these are relevant to any questions about the pyramid EM propagation models, the energy concentration, or whether the Egyptians had the technology to do so.

Why, because as you say its 4,500 years ago and there cannot be such knowledge at that time. So it has to be a coincident. An accident lol. The problem is the accidents and coincidents are building up and its looking beyond a mere blind accident. Your underestimatig the Egyptians and humans as a whole.

Not at all. To intentionally build the pyramid as an radio wave concentrator and collect electric energy from it would require knowledge of electromagnetism. There is no evidence that *ANYONE* knew about EM until the modern period.

EM (radio) waves were predicted for the first time by Maxwell in 1867 and confirmed by Hertz in 1887.

To do the kind of calculations required to design an electromagnetic wave concentrator *requires* EM theory. There is no way around it. It is impossible that any one in the ancient world had the knowledge to built an radio wave concentrator.

Your claim that they did not know about FM waves and all that is a subjective and person opinion based on your worldview today that all knowledge must be seen the way modern western science sees it.

It is not subjective. It is the whole of ancient written knowledge and artifacts. There are no expositions on antennae. None on connecting electricity (like static electricity that they knew about) with magnetism (like compass).

EM waves come from the linkage between electric and magnetic fields. You need to know about both and how they interact to predict radio waves and you need to know about radio waves to concentrate this.

It is utterly impossible for any ancient human civilization to had radio technology.

As I said earlier I don;t think the ancients knowledge was like academic scholarship knowledge. Or Enlightened knowledge. It was more direct experiential. They lived closer and in harmony with nature and reality. So they actually experienced what they discovered and then utilised.

There is no way to "experience" radio waves. None.

All their attention was to reflect the natural geometry and forces within everything they did. That is why everything is aligned to the skies and nature.

The built them so they pointed "up"? So what?