hi Si
You are thinking in terms of what your senses allow you to visualize.You can see a boundary because YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE a tangible/measurable border. This is a time line view of how it constructs..."you lay one brick and then another"
In this case You lay a brick (occurrence)at the beginning and then lay your next brick at the end...then the middle is balanced constantly. When yo choose your third brick , you must consider it's effect on the first two bricks. the forth brick causes the others to occupy different "zones" than they had previously in order for balance to be ensured.
But they are not a completed whole, so only the effect of balancing is taking place, which if I refer to a time/space picture would require they be as far as "The east is from the west" . they will not be in the same time or space EVER. only once every occurrence has been enough to fill the "whole" (less one representation of the particle, can we see time and space......We are not at all involved in a process , but a result. We are living in a balanced /well planned/brick by brick, universe....The planner was not God....But a finite law that could not possibly break itself EVER.
If I were to go left when the law said go right, it does not affect me but the balance within the greater universe........Imagine that the universe is perfect.....Everything does what is intended according to strict laws of physics.....Then along comes a little pocket that becomes creative and decides by behavior to do the opposite.....adjustments on a universal scale are almost unnoticeable, since to affect all the universe we must have a blowout of a party.
but the adjustments don't follow a time line but the occurrence order,therefore the future and past are more effected than the present since there is simply much more to adjust the balance....
On a small scale , we see limits as to how global warming may be a man caused event........That is only a localized view of balances and checks. We are incredibly insignificant in the whole picture , so we won't see the changes we cause for some time , but are also where we are for the same reason.
To answer your question directly,there is only one "whole" and it is both the smallest and the largest energy in the universe...The universe is contained in it's occurrences which can never be seen in the same way twice. You yourself are made of a finite number , but compared to the universal amount they are insignificant.
Your quantity measures itself against the universal occurrences and finds it's place in the order...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
Is there a medicine for this illness?
Truth is the cure for our current illness of false conceptualisation. Reality is not divided with things that do not exist. Even the apparent 'things' that do exist are not divided at source, but interconnected.
If you let this sink in, you will realise that the essence of existence is that it must be One thing, 'working' in many different ways. The One thing that all things commonly share is Space ('Akasa', 'Tao', 'God', 'Nature', etc, whatever you want to call it) - and being essentially undivided, it absolutely MUST exist Infinitely (without boundaries).
All the 'names' we have given existence in the past have been vague intuitions, without much 'substance' to speak of. Because of this, people have also described it as 'unknowable', 'nothingness', 'void' and so on. However, such descriptions are not entirely true, or even misleading. The answer is to approach the same subject from the new scientific paradigm of understanding, so that we actually test physically the things we have intuition of.
Thus, 'Space' is a word we can use nowadays without the blind hypocrisy of yesteryear getting in the way.
Logic determines that Space is necessarily Infinite, and vibrating with its own intrinsic energy (providing 'motion') to produce the 'finite' appearance of 'physicality' that we are able to measure.
'Consciousness' is an evolving 'bridge' between the finite and the Infinite, which are twin aspects of the same (One) thing. There is no reason why existence may not evolve the ability to understand itself. It just needs to be Honest, True, thus also Real, as once again, these are the same thing. In such a way, only an Honest person can truly understand what is Real. Following only what is perceived to be 'good' will not afford the same result. Only a correct balance of understanding and acceptance is what there truly is. We currently describe 'chaos' but do not understand that it is harmonic, at source. This is because it is only a 'chaotic (falsely divided) mind' that sees 'chaos'.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 21 2008, 10:04 AM)
Truth is the cure for our current illness of false conceptualization. Reality is not divided with things that do not exist. Even the apparent 'things' that do exist are not divided at source, but interconnected.
If you let this sink in, you will realize that the essence of existence is that it must be One thing, 'working' in many different ways. The One thing that all things commonly share is Space ('Akasa', 'Tao', 'God', 'Nature', etc, whatever you want to call it) - and being essentially undivided, it absolutely MUST exist Infinitely (without boundaries).
All the 'names' we have given existence in the past have been vague intuitions, without much 'substance' to speak of. Because of this, people have also described it as 'unknowable', 'nothingness', 'void' and so on. However, such descriptions are not entirely true, or even misleading. The answer is to approach the same subject from the new scientific paradigm of understanding, so that we actually test physically the things we have intuition of.
Thus, 'Space' is a word we can use nowadays without the blind hypocrisy of yesteryear getting in the way.
Logic determines that Space is necessarily Infinite, and vibrating with its own intrinsic energy (providing 'motion') to produce the 'finite' appearance of 'physicality' that we are able to measure.
hi Gorgeous
I agree with all You say about SPACE up to the "vibration" point.
Don't You think "vibrating" would be already too advanced demand on SPACE?
My own guess is that initially, the energy is provided by space being chaotic itself, which is equal to chaotic appearance and disappearance of space . That is also the source of energy, and, obviously, at some stage of coherentness of these chaotic motions created by ( possibly) aggregation of space leads to notion of vibration which is necessarily the property of an extended or rotational object- in this case piece of space, or property of connected space (called strings in mainstream, but that does not mean we have to feel bounded by the theories based on strings- just the name fits small connected vibrating aggregates of space). Why would they vibrate with own frequencies- because they are constantly being hit, or forced, by chaotic space appearances/disappearances.
Waves follow, obviously, but they are not at origin of energy and negative or low , cooling entropy needed to create order and complexity which we see.
Waves can not reduce entropy. Chaotic space dimensions can, based on same principles but working in opposite direction chaotic motion of particles does increase entropy via heat processes.
You will be displeased with this idea, I know, since it means 3D space is not infinite in a sense of "Last source of everything"; what is infinite comes "before" the idea of spatial dimensionality.
But may be you find some interesting ideas in this. Basically it means we have to look beyond SPACE waves to acquire the source of motion. Otherwise, waves rule from first loop upwards.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 21 2008, 10:04 AM)
Consciousness' is an evolving 'bridge' between the finite and the Infinite, which are twin aspects of the same (One) thing.
g.
I agree with this quotation .
But this quotation is not enough clear.
I think you wrote about the conception
of " Dualism of Consciousness."?
============= ============
Descartes said: "I think , therefore I am"
The Buddhist monks say "I think not, therefore I am"
==========================
The man acts:
1) usually under logic program,
2) sometimes on intuition (unconsciousnessly).
=============== =============
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis.
1.
In a usual daily life everything we do is done logically.
2.
On the other hand, in intuition we act:
a) Without the participation of the sense organs.
b) Without the participation of the logic mental processes.
===================..
g.
I agree with this quotation .
But this quotation is not enough clear.
I think you wrote about the conception
of " Dualism of Consciousness."?
============= ============
Descartes said: "I think , therefore I am"
The Buddhist monks say "I think not, therefore I am"
==========================
The man acts:
1) usually under logic program,
2) sometimes on intuition (unconsciousnessly).
=============== =============
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis.
1.
In a usual daily life everything we do is done logically.
2.
On the other hand, in intuition we act:
a) Without the participation of the sense organs.
b) Without the participation of the logic mental processes.
===================..
QUOTE (Ivars+May 21 2008, 10:29 AM)
hi Gorgeous
I agree with all You say about SPACE up to the "vibration" point.
Don't You think "vibrating" would be already too advanced demand on SPACE?
My own guess is that initially...
It is possible to stop guessing and find out...Not easy, but possible. The current propensity for Humans is to try all 'other' forms until only truth is left. It does not have to be this way, but we have allowed ourselves to become so (self) deceptive that all 'error' must first be discarded, hence the 'I think not...' approach.
When there is no 'concept' to describe with, there is only Reality left; the first-hand experience. This is the essence of 'Zen' and 'Taoist' philosophy, but these disciplines are left wanting when it comes to the act of description, hence 'modern science', which attempts to measure (thus 'describe'). Ultimately, the 'Eastern' approach is more favourable, because it is all about personal understanding anyway, and these disciplines cater for this extremely well. 'Modern science' can only describe what there actually IS to describe; that is 'Reality'. If the 'Eastern experience' is the physical 'touching' of what is Real, then modern science will be able to describe it...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
You are 'born' of Infinite Space, you are made up of vibrating wave-centres of Infinite Space, and thus you will ultimately return to Infinite Space. There is no argument that you 'yourself' do not create.
g.
I agree with all You say about SPACE up to the "vibration" point.
Don't You think "vibrating" would be already too advanced demand on SPACE?
My own guess is that initially...
It is possible to stop guessing and find out...Not easy, but possible. The current propensity for Humans is to try all 'other' forms until only truth is left. It does not have to be this way, but we have allowed ourselves to become so (self) deceptive that all 'error' must first be discarded, hence the 'I think not...' approach.
When there is no 'concept' to describe with, there is only Reality left; the first-hand experience. This is the essence of 'Zen' and 'Taoist' philosophy, but these disciplines are left wanting when it comes to the act of description, hence 'modern science', which attempts to measure (thus 'describe'). Ultimately, the 'Eastern' approach is more favourable, because it is all about personal understanding anyway, and these disciplines cater for this extremely well. 'Modern science' can only describe what there actually IS to describe; that is 'Reality'. If the 'Eastern experience' is the physical 'touching' of what is Real, then modern science will be able to describe it...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
You are 'born' of Infinite Space, you are made up of vibrating wave-centres of Infinite Space, and thus you will ultimately return to Infinite Space. There is no argument that you 'yourself' do not create.
g.
Seems to me this is like the flat earth argument of old. When talking about the size of the cosmos I see it as having no end i.e. infinite. When considering the smallest possibility perhaps a singularity.
Infinity - Origin - Chaos - Entropy -
I do not know if this is the right place
Anyhow -
It would seem to be more or less accepted that Origin conditions involve some kind of "infinite" formless dimensions - accounting for the energy - and seen as a necessary prerequisite for the eventual formation of smallest physical expressions.
I would like to see it upsite down - Origin condition is the SIMPLEST - with the only pre-conditions that spatiality - in its pure form is "available" - because spatiality IS perhaps the one condition that cannot be made out from anything else.
And then The Principle - something that create and gowern the physical expressions - the simple binary system - out from which any mathematical system perhaps can be constructed. And the binary system must be self-percepting in the sense that it is the system as such that knows whether something is belonging to this or to that - there is no outside observer - there is nothing over the system that can observe anything - the system must be self-perceptive. So any binary division involves that the "parts" know themselves to where they belong - and now the rest is a logic and simple complexion - based on - most likely - the idea behind cellular automata. Dynamically changing configurations - where any configuration know itsself - so to speak - exactly what configuration it is belonging to - or perhaps better: the dynamically changing configurations are self-explanatory / self-showing - because each and any dimension knows if it is "black" or "white" - or perhaps better D or L.
And now to entropy - total chaos - ideal chaos is NOT related to infinitely many numbers - or dimensions or --
On the contrary - chaos IS when there is no complexity. Chaos is the simplest. It is absolutely unpredictable out from a binary-ratio formation of dimensions whether one or the other is going to be D or L respectively - That is true chaos. Without complexion there is no chance for building repetitive systems, no chance for any kind of ordering principles - there exists pure absolute chaos at Origen when "Pure Space" is being acted upon by The Principle - resulting in two ratios - one L and the other D (or one D and the other L) and it takes a lot of binary action until the first state of ordered system is being reached - with a sufficient amount of dimensionalities to create repetitive patterns according to rules of cellular automatum. And first then entropy is being affected.
Chaos is the simplest - order is increasing complexion - and chaos is the starting condition - where an extreme simplicity is neccessary in order to get ideal chaos.
Energy IS the Princples applied to Pure Space - energy is being created parallel with complexion - or perhaps better saying that energy IS complexion - and energy is constantly being born in the deepest layesr and the amount of potential complexion is the same in each scale.
The rest is according to scales - sharp phase-transformations - a freezed zero-frame (the 3D pixel grid) out from which our human scale is being percepted (by us humans).
The discussion about infinity is perhaps a little "religious" - true infinity must (according to my thinking) be impossible per se to sense - but I think that it can be argued that the very concept of PHYSICAL (irrespective scale) must involve discrete dimensions and finite numbers - so my logic is that only pre-physical conditions - Origin conditions can involve the concept of infinite. The segregation of infinite pure space in dimensionalities which cannot be given a size - only a ratio - a relative position - there is no universal yardstick - there is only A Principle acting on Infinite.
I do not know if this is the right place
Anyhow -
It would seem to be more or less accepted that Origin conditions involve some kind of "infinite" formless dimensions - accounting for the energy - and seen as a necessary prerequisite for the eventual formation of smallest physical expressions.
I would like to see it upsite down - Origin condition is the SIMPLEST - with the only pre-conditions that spatiality - in its pure form is "available" - because spatiality IS perhaps the one condition that cannot be made out from anything else.
And then The Principle - something that create and gowern the physical expressions - the simple binary system - out from which any mathematical system perhaps can be constructed. And the binary system must be self-percepting in the sense that it is the system as such that knows whether something is belonging to this or to that - there is no outside observer - there is nothing over the system that can observe anything - the system must be self-perceptive. So any binary division involves that the "parts" know themselves to where they belong - and now the rest is a logic and simple complexion - based on - most likely - the idea behind cellular automata. Dynamically changing configurations - where any configuration know itsself - so to speak - exactly what configuration it is belonging to - or perhaps better: the dynamically changing configurations are self-explanatory / self-showing - because each and any dimension knows if it is "black" or "white" - or perhaps better D or L.
And now to entropy - total chaos - ideal chaos is NOT related to infinitely many numbers - or dimensions or --
On the contrary - chaos IS when there is no complexity. Chaos is the simplest. It is absolutely unpredictable out from a binary-ratio formation of dimensions whether one or the other is going to be D or L respectively - That is true chaos. Without complexion there is no chance for building repetitive systems, no chance for any kind of ordering principles - there exists pure absolute chaos at Origen when "Pure Space" is being acted upon by The Principle - resulting in two ratios - one L and the other D (or one D and the other L) and it takes a lot of binary action until the first state of ordered system is being reached - with a sufficient amount of dimensionalities to create repetitive patterns according to rules of cellular automatum. And first then entropy is being affected.
Chaos is the simplest - order is increasing complexion - and chaos is the starting condition - where an extreme simplicity is neccessary in order to get ideal chaos.
Energy IS the Princples applied to Pure Space - energy is being created parallel with complexion - or perhaps better saying that energy IS complexion - and energy is constantly being born in the deepest layesr and the amount of potential complexion is the same in each scale.
The rest is according to scales - sharp phase-transformations - a freezed zero-frame (the 3D pixel grid) out from which our human scale is being percepted (by us humans).
The discussion about infinity is perhaps a little "religious" - true infinity must (according to my thinking) be impossible per se to sense - but I think that it can be argued that the very concept of PHYSICAL (irrespective scale) must involve discrete dimensions and finite numbers - so my logic is that only pre-physical conditions - Origin conditions can involve the concept of infinite. The segregation of infinite pure space in dimensionalities which cannot be given a size - only a ratio - a relative position - there is no universal yardstick - there is only A Principle acting on Infinite.
QUOTE
The discussion about infinity is perhaps a little "religious"
You wish!
There is no argument; only misunderstanding of how Reality operates. If you do not comprehend it, you will have 'argument' within you, until you do.
g.
QUOTE
hi Si
You are thinking in terms of what your senses allow you to visualize.You can see a boundary because YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE a tangible/measurable border. This is a time line view of how it constructs..."you lay one brick and then another"
You are thinking in terms of what your senses allow you to visualize.You can see a boundary because YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE a tangible/measurable border. This is a time line view of how it constructs..."you lay one brick and then another"
No, sorry if I gave you that impression, I do not expect there to be a boundary, I was playing devils advocate. Infinity for me is a somewhat philosophical question simply because I do not know enough to confidently assert the topology of the Universe. I do however beg the question in regards to a finite Universal structure that 'if' it is finite then how is it so?
Philosophically speaking the Earth can be considered both finite and infinite as in if you run in the same direction on the surface for long enough, you end up where you started, however if you venture upwards you soon realize the finite spherical structure.
How the Universe is necessarily structured I cannot say with any certainty, the consensus seems to change from infinite to a deceptively small hall of mirrors.
I think the difficulties being addressed in your previous conception of infinite, was that you seemed stuck on the idea of everything separating apart infinitely. There are many concepts of infinite that address this issue eg; Standing waves, Multiverse's etc, etc. I'm confident that Science will lead us to more clarity, perhaps not a definitive answer in my lifetime but you never know.
Hi Guys
I see a lot here that I can agree with , and of course some which I can't. Not that that is the point of having a reasoned discussion , as I'm sure most here understand.
Gorgeous , I don't see motion in the way you do and reading through some other responses , this is probably my major difference in perspective. I have never tried to give energy a structure that I would then have to define as 'here or there' 'this or that'.I stopped doing that and even trying to do that about a year ago. The reason is motion.
Every "measurement" of energy relies on the view of motion that we have as being a mute point. "energy moves in this way and can be measured thusly and thusly we can prove our theory correct because we can measure motion."....That's a simplified statement , but is why I don't think "measuring " energy gives more than a narrow parameter for explaining it .
A standing wave point of view comes from a pre-conceived that energy in wave form exists "right to the very core". This may well be a totally inaccurate assumption , because we could be so far from original cause that waves are unobservable from that perspective.
The view that space causes it's own energy via vibration may also be so far removed from what the singular 'whole ' , as you have mentioned can do as well.
I liked the hall of mirrors description when I have read it previously in another forum, though the picture formed is rather 'physical' and binding in it's description.
I prefer that the "whole" is an illusion . That the only actual physicality that exists is the smallest concept. The real hard part is not filling in the gaps in a way that is actually possible, since a singular energy makes everything possible , and yes Gorgeous, even God and Santa Claus. .......But in finding what is probable.
Just to clarify......Infinity is a time reliant term. Since it is time reliant , space and motion (which are essential measurement structures in a time line perspective) are necessary. What I still need to be clear about is my view (correctly or incorrectly) that while that structure exists, it is finite. This is what I am essentially arguing against, because I see three very different 'behaviors ' which are key to one another. Take away one and the whole thing grinds to a halt. It is what would be left at the halt that I am proposing.
That one Quanta,pixel,energy packet, m&m, Mars bar or whatever it is , that is all that will exist without a time reliant definition.
Cheers
Iseason
I see a lot here that I can agree with , and of course some which I can't. Not that that is the point of having a reasoned discussion , as I'm sure most here understand.
Gorgeous , I don't see motion in the way you do and reading through some other responses , this is probably my major difference in perspective. I have never tried to give energy a structure that I would then have to define as 'here or there' 'this or that'.I stopped doing that and even trying to do that about a year ago. The reason is motion.
Every "measurement" of energy relies on the view of motion that we have as being a mute point. "energy moves in this way and can be measured thusly and thusly we can prove our theory correct because we can measure motion."....That's a simplified statement , but is why I don't think "measuring " energy gives more than a narrow parameter for explaining it .
A standing wave point of view comes from a pre-conceived that energy in wave form exists "right to the very core". This may well be a totally inaccurate assumption , because we could be so far from original cause that waves are unobservable from that perspective.
The view that space causes it's own energy via vibration may also be so far removed from what the singular 'whole ' , as you have mentioned can do as well.
I liked the hall of mirrors description when I have read it previously in another forum, though the picture formed is rather 'physical' and binding in it's description.
I prefer that the "whole" is an illusion . That the only actual physicality that exists is the smallest concept. The real hard part is not filling in the gaps in a way that is actually possible, since a singular energy makes everything possible , and yes Gorgeous, even God and Santa Claus. .......But in finding what is probable.
Just to clarify......Infinity is a time reliant term. Since it is time reliant , space and motion (which are essential measurement structures in a time line perspective) are necessary. What I still need to be clear about is my view (correctly or incorrectly) that while that structure exists, it is finite. This is what I am essentially arguing against, because I see three very different 'behaviors ' which are key to one another. Take away one and the whole thing grinds to a halt. It is what would be left at the halt that I am proposing.
That one Quanta,pixel,energy packet, m&m, Mars bar or whatever it is , that is all that will exist without a time reliant definition.
Cheers
Iseason
the infinity is the breakdown of a smooth function,when the limit to the function 1/x
approching of zero,is not infinity,but a variable quantities ,that cannot be measured.then the mobius's transformations is fractioned and haven't inversible.
thence appear the displacement vector as non-smooth functions to the 4-dimensional universe,that does appear the time,as an pseudoscalar entity,that has
characteristics of imaginary numbers,that define the discreteness and non-invariace rotational,that to the quaternions,has as property,the noncommutativity.
then the 4-dimensional manifolds appear infinities spacetime,in decoherence,and
some non-smooth manifolds that appear in the 4-dimensional worldlines.the INFINITY APPEAR as discrete and continue functions,then have complex spectra,that contain all the rational functions,linked to the imaginary numbers,as
dual and antidual phase spaces,that are inversions by rotations not symmetrics.
thence appear the in the infinity,the time,that become the spacetime,not totally infinity,but with,non-continue functions
approching of zero,is not infinity,but a variable quantities ,that cannot be measured.then the mobius's transformations is fractioned and haven't inversible.
thence appear the displacement vector as non-smooth functions to the 4-dimensional universe,that does appear the time,as an pseudoscalar entity,that has
characteristics of imaginary numbers,that define the discreteness and non-invariace rotational,that to the quaternions,has as property,the noncommutativity.
then the 4-dimensional manifolds appear infinities spacetime,in decoherence,and
some non-smooth manifolds that appear in the 4-dimensional worldlines.the INFINITY APPEAR as discrete and continue functions,then have complex spectra,that contain all the rational functions,linked to the imaginary numbers,as
dual and antidual phase spaces,that are inversions by rotations not symmetrics.
thence appear the in the infinity,the time,that become the spacetime,not totally infinity,but with,non-continue functions
QUOTE (mott.carl+May 22 2008, 11:48 AM)
the infinity is the breakdown of a smooth function,when the limit to the function 1/x
approching of zero,is not infinity,but a variable quantities ,that cannot be measured.then the mobius's transformations is fractioned and haven't inversible.
thence appear the displacement vector as non-smooth functions to the 4-dimensional universe,that does appear the time,as an pseudoscalar entity,that has
characteristics of imaginary numbers,that define the discreteness and non-invariace rotational,that to the quaternions,has as property,the noncommutativity.
then the 4-dimensional manifolds appear infinities spacetime,in decoherence,and
some non-smooth manifolds that appear in the 4-dimensional worldlines.the INFINITY APPEAR as discrete and continue functions,then have complex spectra,that contain all the rational functions,linked to the imaginary numbers,as
dual and antidual phase spaces,that are inversions by rotations not symmetrics.
thence appear the in the infinity,the time,that become the spacetime,not totally infinity,but with,non-continue functions
This sounds like a fine piece of poetry, however I am unable to understand what your getting at with any clarity.
There may be a few too many noodles in your soup for me to digest.
approching of zero,is not infinity,but a variable quantities ,that cannot be measured.then the mobius's transformations is fractioned and haven't inversible.
thence appear the displacement vector as non-smooth functions to the 4-dimensional universe,that does appear the time,as an pseudoscalar entity,that has
characteristics of imaginary numbers,that define the discreteness and non-invariace rotational,that to the quaternions,has as property,the noncommutativity.
then the 4-dimensional manifolds appear infinities spacetime,in decoherence,and
some non-smooth manifolds that appear in the 4-dimensional worldlines.the INFINITY APPEAR as discrete and continue functions,then have complex spectra,that contain all the rational functions,linked to the imaginary numbers,as
dual and antidual phase spaces,that are inversions by rotations not symmetrics.
thence appear the in the infinity,the time,that become the spacetime,not totally infinity,but with,non-continue functions
This sounds like a fine piece of poetry, however I am unable to understand what your getting at with any clarity.
There may be a few too many noodles in your soup for me to digest.
Detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is
approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law
doesn't work. The cosmological constant in Universe is zero.
The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct only
in the local part of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum is endless.
And when this Infinity comes nobody knows what to do
with the infinity. Our tiny minds cannot get a handle on its size,
so we try to give it shapes and boundaries, all of which is folly.
Therefore was invented "dark matter" and another abstract,
ineffective objects.
But to our happiness the Infinite Vacuum has one physical
parameter- the temperature. The temperature of Infinite Vacuum
is concrete, real fact. It is T=0K.
==============================
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is
approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law
doesn't work. The cosmological constant in Universe is zero.
The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct only
in the local part of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum is endless.
And when this Infinity comes nobody knows what to do
with the infinity. Our tiny minds cannot get a handle on its size,
so we try to give it shapes and boundaries, all of which is folly.
Therefore was invented "dark matter" and another abstract,
ineffective objects.
But to our happiness the Infinite Vacuum has one physical
parameter- the temperature. The temperature of Infinite Vacuum
is concrete, real fact. It is T=0K.
==============================
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 22 2008, 02:42 AM)
No, sorry if I gave you that impression, I do not expect there to be a boundary, I was playing devils advocate. Infinity for me is a somewhat philosophical question simply because I do not know enough to confidently assert the topology of the Universe. I do however beg the question in regards to a finite Universal structure that 'if' it is finite then how is it so?
Philosophically speaking the Earth can be considered both finite and infinite as in if you run in the same direction on the surface for long enough, you end up where you started, however if you venture upwards you soon realize the finite spherical structure.
How the Universe is necessarily structured I cannot say with any certainty, the consensus seems to change from infinite to a deceptively small hall of mirrors.
I think the difficulties being addressed in your previous conception of infinite, was that you seemed stuck on the idea of everything separating apart infinitely. There are many concepts of infinite that address this issue eg; Standing waves, Multiverse's etc, etc. I'm confident that Science will lead us to more clarity, perhaps not a definitive answer in my lifetime but you never know.
Hi SU,
I've bolded the part of your reply that is the correct way to view existence. People often assume it must be one way or the 'other', but this is incorrect, and not just because I say so. It has been intuited and deduced regularly from Human perspective, and is now verifiable using the language of modern science and philosophy. Thus, your intuition is also correct. There are viable ways to test your intuition with the scientific method, now, much to the apparent disgust of those who benefit from the current state of 'play'
. Nothing is 'assumed', but is deduced and testably so!A rapidly growing number of Real scientists are moving forwards with this as we converse.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm
g.
Every part of Physics connects with the Ether/Vacuum.
It is impossible to avoid the Infinite Vacuum.
ABC of physics begins from Ether/Vacuum.
===================..
Antiparticles live in Vacuum/ Ether Sea.
/Dirac/
An electron interacting with Ether/Vacuum becomes infinite.
/QED/
More then 90% of the matter in the Infinite Vacuum/Ether/Universe
is unseen " dark matter ".Nobody knows what it is.
etc...................
Why?
Because:
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
Paul Dirac .
It is impossible to avoid the Infinite Vacuum.
ABC of physics begins from Ether/Vacuum.
===================..
Antiparticles live in Vacuum/ Ether Sea.
/Dirac/
An electron interacting with Ether/Vacuum becomes infinite.
/QED/
More then 90% of the matter in the Infinite Vacuum/Ether/Universe
is unseen " dark matter ".Nobody knows what it is.
etc...................
Why?
Because:
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
Paul Dirac .
Infinity..
The only place where to look for energy that keeps Universe ticking.
I think infinity has a little bit too much mystery to it. One thinks of infinity as something unreachable, in both directions- either small , or big.
In fact, there is a way to resolve a question what infinity ends with. It may be scalable concept, but I would like to look at the ultimate scale.
Let us look at infinity in smallness. Usually we think about it as something we try to reach by dividing what we have. For example, we may say that space is infinitely divisible.
That approach does not give closure to infinity. As we divide space in smaller volumes, we reach infinity of natural number divisions and still we feel there must be something smaller. Then we divide space dimensions itself, reducing them to infinitesimal, reducing space to infinitesimal existence, and still we feel we have not reached the end - there has to be smaller infinitesimal dimensions.
However, the way to reach closure would be to have space totally disappear. 0 space. But such situation obviously is not reachable by division .
So I have come to conclusion that there is only one way to close , jump over division infinity to smallest possible infinity. That involves exactly such strange piece of space dimension which both exists and does not exist at the same time ( it is enough if it happens in the time of the reality we perform the search for infinite smallness) .
Such an infinitesimal space dimension, oscillating between 2 states of existence and non-existence so fast that we would never be able to tell whether it exists or not is perfectly suited to be the result of infinite division of space we perform.
So we can say, that, as we try too find the smallest piece of space by looking at its infinite divisionability property, is an infinitesimal dimension of space that both exists and does not.
Now when we have divided space into such manner, we would like to know how many these smallest parts of space do we have?
Obviously, a lot. But how many?
If we divided space dimensions by natural numbers n, we would end up with infinity n->oo and size of a piece would be 1/oo ; however, obviously we can divide in smaller pieces using real numbers, and using any other numbers whose total number would be Cantors infinities , and size 1/ infinities. Still we would not account for all existant/ non-existant origin pieces as the pieces we get by division with all those infinities EXIST, hence they can not be the smallest, hence their number is not given by these infinities.
The answer from what is available in mathematics and from the peculiar property of tetration and other hyperfast operations to produce complex numbers from real is very simple, and as such will be laughed at here. Nevertheless, there does not exist a proof why it can not be true.
So , the number that should be used to count these smallest parts of Space which are both in existance and not in existence is I - imaginary unit. About size, we should be careful, since size is a relative measure.
At this point, I have to stop - I can not give better description - since I have realized there are issues about counting with complex numbers I have not understood yet.
Similarly, as we increase infinity of space in size or /and number of dimensions,we have to reach a closure as well, in a different way but obviously involving circle, sphere or Mobious circle.
The only place where to look for energy that keeps Universe ticking.
I think infinity has a little bit too much mystery to it. One thinks of infinity as something unreachable, in both directions- either small , or big.
In fact, there is a way to resolve a question what infinity ends with. It may be scalable concept, but I would like to look at the ultimate scale.
Let us look at infinity in smallness. Usually we think about it as something we try to reach by dividing what we have. For example, we may say that space is infinitely divisible.
That approach does not give closure to infinity. As we divide space in smaller volumes, we reach infinity of natural number divisions and still we feel there must be something smaller. Then we divide space dimensions itself, reducing them to infinitesimal, reducing space to infinitesimal existence, and still we feel we have not reached the end - there has to be smaller infinitesimal dimensions.
However, the way to reach closure would be to have space totally disappear. 0 space. But such situation obviously is not reachable by division .
So I have come to conclusion that there is only one way to close , jump over division infinity to smallest possible infinity. That involves exactly such strange piece of space dimension which both exists and does not exist at the same time ( it is enough if it happens in the time of the reality we perform the search for infinite smallness) .
Such an infinitesimal space dimension, oscillating between 2 states of existence and non-existence so fast that we would never be able to tell whether it exists or not is perfectly suited to be the result of infinite division of space we perform.
So we can say, that, as we try too find the smallest piece of space by looking at its infinite divisionability property, is an infinitesimal dimension of space that both exists and does not.
Now when we have divided space into such manner, we would like to know how many these smallest parts of space do we have?
Obviously, a lot. But how many?
If we divided space dimensions by natural numbers n, we would end up with infinity n->oo and size of a piece would be 1/oo ; however, obviously we can divide in smaller pieces using real numbers, and using any other numbers whose total number would be Cantors infinities , and size 1/ infinities. Still we would not account for all existant/ non-existant origin pieces as the pieces we get by division with all those infinities EXIST, hence they can not be the smallest, hence their number is not given by these infinities.
The answer from what is available in mathematics and from the peculiar property of tetration and other hyperfast operations to produce complex numbers from real is very simple, and as such will be laughed at here. Nevertheless, there does not exist a proof why it can not be true.
So , the number that should be used to count these smallest parts of Space which are both in existance and not in existence is I - imaginary unit. About size, we should be careful, since size is a relative measure.
At this point, I have to stop - I can not give better description - since I have realized there are issues about counting with complex numbers I have not understood yet.
Similarly, as we increase infinity of space in size or /and number of dimensions,we have to reach a closure as well, in a different way but obviously involving circle, sphere or Mobious circle.
infinity
c.1374, from O.Fr. infinité, from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas used as a loan-transl. of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity
g.
c.1374, from O.Fr. infinité, from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas used as a loan-transl. of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity
g.
Ivars
Infinity
I still favour the thinking that neither infinite nor continuous can be part of physical world -
and it is most likely hidden in scales
imagine that pure space is being divided in smallest that can be in physical existance - and then infinitesimal number of smallnes - the closest we can get to pure space - now such "nearly" pure space starts again in dividing from two - and then the "infinite" is hidden in what is seemingly another pure space
Infinity
I still favour the thinking that neither infinite nor continuous can be part of physical world -
and it is most likely hidden in scales
imagine that pure space is being divided in smallest that can be in physical existance - and then infinitesimal number of smallnes - the closest we can get to pure space - now such "nearly" pure space starts again in dividing from two - and then the "infinite" is hidden in what is seemingly another pure space
"One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
/Einstein./
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
/Einstein./
Ivars
I can see the same logical pathway in your thinking that I have used. I know many others have also done the same. I gave up the search for the methodology of the intervening space between one and whole as being too complex to fully/accurately be described, but stuck with the two pieces of knowledge that could be known without the use of measuring.
As you have found , the best description is one. the next step is problematic unless you set the outer parameter as well....."whole". Between the two main parameters exist realms of time , space and motion that defy definitive description at this stage. Most scientists would say that there is more to learn than we actually know. however , we can know this, that because the parameters must exist. ......One and Whole....then it must be finite.....because if the system is closed on one end , then it cannot be open at the other and still be measured in any portion.
This however, does not resist nor does it deny the bulk of behaviors we can measure and laws that are stated in science. in fact some of the most rigorously entrenched laws must be true in order for these behaviors to exist.
1. conservation of energy
2. action at a distance
3. constant speed of light
4. relativity
These are each very much a part of this thought process.
For instance, if conservation of energy were not true, then I would agree with infinity. If action at a distance did not exist then I would not argue that "another" type of interaction was occurring apart from a time line. If speed of light were not a part of science , then faster travel ling particles rather than something other than a time line would be viable.
These things as well as many other behaviors which are entrenched in thinking are enhanced , rather than disputed by this line of thought. The separation of TIME,MOTION,AND SPACE as differing ways of measuring the same thing is key to what I am saying. They all measure the number of occurrences of the originating particle, relative to the observer.
Cheers
Iseason
I can see the same logical pathway in your thinking that I have used. I know many others have also done the same. I gave up the search for the methodology of the intervening space between one and whole as being too complex to fully/accurately be described, but stuck with the two pieces of knowledge that could be known without the use of measuring.
As you have found , the best description is one. the next step is problematic unless you set the outer parameter as well....."whole". Between the two main parameters exist realms of time , space and motion that defy definitive description at this stage. Most scientists would say that there is more to learn than we actually know. however , we can know this, that because the parameters must exist. ......One and Whole....then it must be finite.....because if the system is closed on one end , then it cannot be open at the other and still be measured in any portion.
This however, does not resist nor does it deny the bulk of behaviors we can measure and laws that are stated in science. in fact some of the most rigorously entrenched laws must be true in order for these behaviors to exist.
1. conservation of energy
2. action at a distance
3. constant speed of light
4. relativity
These are each very much a part of this thought process.
For instance, if conservation of energy were not true, then I would agree with infinity. If action at a distance did not exist then I would not argue that "another" type of interaction was occurring apart from a time line. If speed of light were not a part of science , then faster travel ling particles rather than something other than a time line would be viable.
These things as well as many other behaviors which are entrenched in thinking are enhanced , rather than disputed by this line of thought. The separation of TIME,MOTION,AND SPACE as differing ways of measuring the same thing is key to what I am saying. They all measure the number of occurrences of the originating particle, relative to the observer.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Iseason, bukh, gorgeous,socrates et al.
The reason I invoked imaginary numbers is not just out of fancy. I have been thinking a lot what negative and imaginary numbers count.
So far, the closest I have got to understanding is that in any process we observe (including, in my opinion, infinite division, division of a kind that not only reduces the volumes of space, but deconstructs the dimensions of space itslelf, leaving those existing/non-existing oscillating smallest parts):
From the point of view of given process :
-Positive numbers count things that exist
-Negative numbers count things that does not exist, but can exist
-Positive Imaginary numbers count things that neither exist, nor not exist- oscillatory existance- and they count the moments when they exist
-Negative imaginary numbers count the moments when these oscillatory things that could exist, does not exist.
There fore try to apply somehow imaginary unit to the smallest oscillating parts of Universe as they fit this description, and, since they are fundamental, if math is a proper expression of underlaying reality, they should be describable by most fundamental parts of mathematics- I, 1,-1, 2, e, Pi, ..with clear interpetation why so.
Now obviously space of all negative numbers include all things that does not exist but could exist- so quite naturally that Imaginary unit has a restriction on it- once it turns from oscillatiory thing into one that does not exist, but could, it has to become a negative number- for some reason it is happening as multiplication: I*I=-I*-I= -1 The non-existant things can be obtained either from existing part of oscillatiry unit, or non-existant- any one of them is not enough to create existing thing. You need both, as can be seen in next paragraph.
If oscillatory thing has to become existant, it can not avoid becoming one of those counted by positive numbers as there are no others, since there are no others: In mathematics that requires participation of both of its 2 states Hence -I*I=1 .
Obviously, an oscillating thing in any system has energy, so the same should be true for basic oscillating space constituent, not because we want so, but because of its philosophical nature it can not not have- as its moving between existance and non-existance.
Another thing with imaginary number is that it is rather self sufficient- as obvious from Euler equation, or from simple fact that:
I^(1/I) = e^(Pi/2) and
I^I= e^(-Pi/2) so all needed constants e, 2, Pi are included in I and basic arithmetic operations ( which of course by now means exhaust all possible operations of any rank, but act as attractors to the possible infinity of hyperoperations)
I have been looking at infinite smallness . The fact that 2 appears in formulas, is easy to understand, since we talk about basically 2 states- existance and non-existance.
The fact that e and Pi is there is also possible to explain by thinking how these smallest parts can form existing, non-existing, and oscillatory aggregates. Most likely, they would form and dissappear rather spontaneously, so the size of aggregates in each scale, the lenght that can be formed by more than one oscillating infinitesimal becoming existing or non-existing by joining should follow some probability distribution that could be normal, could be something else.
Also, Pi should offer a link to BIG infinity since.
There many ifs, of course, but I agree with Iseason, that, despite Godel, once You involve enough uncountable, undefinable quantities like I, You can have a closure. Again, what is missing in mathematics is mathematics of operations.
@bukh
Are You somehow dividing physical from non-physical? I know there is a phase transition of special kind, but one can not be explained witout other- at least not to the source of energy=information?
The reason I invoked imaginary numbers is not just out of fancy. I have been thinking a lot what negative and imaginary numbers count.
So far, the closest I have got to understanding is that in any process we observe (including, in my opinion, infinite division, division of a kind that not only reduces the volumes of space, but deconstructs the dimensions of space itslelf, leaving those existing/non-existing oscillating smallest parts):
From the point of view of given process :
-Positive numbers count things that exist
-Negative numbers count things that does not exist, but can exist
-Positive Imaginary numbers count things that neither exist, nor not exist- oscillatory existance- and they count the moments when they exist
-Negative imaginary numbers count the moments when these oscillatory things that could exist, does not exist.
There fore try to apply somehow imaginary unit to the smallest oscillating parts of Universe as they fit this description, and, since they are fundamental, if math is a proper expression of underlaying reality, they should be describable by most fundamental parts of mathematics- I, 1,-1, 2, e, Pi, ..with clear interpetation why so.
Now obviously space of all negative numbers include all things that does not exist but could exist- so quite naturally that Imaginary unit has a restriction on it- once it turns from oscillatiory thing into one that does not exist, but could, it has to become a negative number- for some reason it is happening as multiplication: I*I=-I*-I= -1 The non-existant things can be obtained either from existing part of oscillatiry unit, or non-existant- any one of them is not enough to create existing thing. You need both, as can be seen in next paragraph.
If oscillatory thing has to become existant, it can not avoid becoming one of those counted by positive numbers as there are no others, since there are no others: In mathematics that requires participation of both of its 2 states Hence -I*I=1 .
Obviously, an oscillating thing in any system has energy, so the same should be true for basic oscillating space constituent, not because we want so, but because of its philosophical nature it can not not have- as its moving between existance and non-existance.
Another thing with imaginary number is that it is rather self sufficient- as obvious from Euler equation, or from simple fact that:
I^(1/I) = e^(Pi/2) and
I^I= e^(-Pi/2) so all needed constants e, 2, Pi are included in I and basic arithmetic operations ( which of course by now means exhaust all possible operations of any rank, but act as attractors to the possible infinity of hyperoperations)
I have been looking at infinite smallness . The fact that 2 appears in formulas, is easy to understand, since we talk about basically 2 states- existance and non-existance.
The fact that e and Pi is there is also possible to explain by thinking how these smallest parts can form existing, non-existing, and oscillatory aggregates. Most likely, they would form and dissappear rather spontaneously, so the size of aggregates in each scale, the lenght that can be formed by more than one oscillating infinitesimal becoming existing or non-existing by joining should follow some probability distribution that could be normal, could be something else.
Also, Pi should offer a link to BIG infinity since.
There many ifs, of course, but I agree with Iseason, that, despite Godel, once You involve enough uncountable, undefinable quantities like I, You can have a closure. Again, what is missing in mathematics is mathematics of operations.
@bukh
Are You somehow dividing physical from non-physical? I know there is a phase transition of special kind, but one can not be explained witout other- at least not to the source of energy=information?
Hi Ivars
i am not trying to change anything that we can perceive. Science is as astute at measuring what can be measured for my liking. What I am proposing is another methodology in the presence of a set of parameters .....Smallest and largest states.
this is a view held relative by us as we exist, that we can perceive things on a size , mathematically balanced and constant scale. In every instance we do this (apart from the theoretical) we involve time,motion, and space. If we were to remove one of these our measurements would be meaningless.
This leads to a limited behavior pattern in the absence of a trinity measuring system.
1. If I try to measure space without time and motion ......I have nothing
2. If I try to measure motion without time and space ......I have nothing
3. If I try to measure time without motion and space ......I have nothing.
These tools themselves are measurable. You simply need to look again at the method you use when INCLUDING them into the structure of the events.
You have talked about positive and negative. 1 = beginning.....Whole = end (from the relative position of the measure)
The time line system starts at the beginning and moves fluidly through time and space to the end. This is how we have evolved to measure the system we inhabit. But there are reasons this cannot be correct. Light from stars are a key indicate of this.a wave of light travels some 14 billion years to finally reach earth and then becomes heat or some other form. That wave existed in the past and again in the future.
Even when I consider what my eyes might be able to perceive in real time , the same applies. In real time ,until it hits my eyes it is in both the future and the past relative to me.
I will not receive the light to my eyes until......so it is in my past
The light hitting my eyes will be a future event for me...but to the light it is always the present (relatively)
So I have me as a relative position ..the light in my past and in my future at the same time.....This one example of measuring shows that position creates whether the light is in a time line ...If past ,future and present are all consecutively active in everyday life. how then we not follow the same course when looking universally...
we cannot follow from first cause to now and understand the functions....But using the two parameters of one and whole we can see interaction as it creates the positions that we will use to measure this in a time line fashion.
one =whole.....The middle ground according to maths is infinite.
rather than using motion as a measure , I prefer occurrences of the energy particle. the occurrences are the laws with which the whole becomes relative
beginning
beginning .....Whole
beginning .....one occurrence......Whole
Beginning one occurrence......one occurrence....Whole.
and so on . The energy doesn't have to move and space is occupied by where the energy "was" rather than where it will move to . Of course the method has a lot of cycles to create the universe which creates more and more "occurrences " , but even distribution means that the occurrences need to be in sync universally to balance time
when an occurrence has been it can not inhabit the same position . In fact , that positions of all of the other occurrences must shift according to each new occurrence. What it creates is a constantly evolving pattern who's only law is that all occurrences be as far as possible from every other occurrences as possible... if there are 8 occurrences then the geometrical picture would equate to finding the eight positions that are farther est from each other as possible...
You can try this.
draw a square....place a dot in the cent re......now consider where to equally spaced dots would look if they must be spaced at the great es distance away from each other.....not add a third..it must affect the positions of the first two...then a fourth...
So far the positions can just hug corners.....add a fifth....then a sixth.....
the one law applied only one position can exist as the current occurrence. It affects the position of every other dot. When you consider the complexity of the universe , and applie the same rules , you must move huge tracts of occurrences for each new one added...We live in a moving universe, but motion is not been going on for a short period of time......imagine this rhythm getting to a point of not being able to just distance occurrences but had to overlap them in order to get balance....pretty soon going back to an original position but having to change it to avoid meeting itself. time and space become very important as layers upon layers ..
Cheers
Iseason
i am not trying to change anything that we can perceive. Science is as astute at measuring what can be measured for my liking. What I am proposing is another methodology in the presence of a set of parameters .....Smallest and largest states.
this is a view held relative by us as we exist, that we can perceive things on a size , mathematically balanced and constant scale. In every instance we do this (apart from the theoretical) we involve time,motion, and space. If we were to remove one of these our measurements would be meaningless.
This leads to a limited behavior pattern in the absence of a trinity measuring system.
1. If I try to measure space without time and motion ......I have nothing
2. If I try to measure motion without time and space ......I have nothing
3. If I try to measure time without motion and space ......I have nothing.
These tools themselves are measurable. You simply need to look again at the method you use when INCLUDING them into the structure of the events.
You have talked about positive and negative. 1 = beginning.....Whole = end (from the relative position of the measure)
The time line system starts at the beginning and moves fluidly through time and space to the end. This is how we have evolved to measure the system we inhabit. But there are reasons this cannot be correct. Light from stars are a key indicate of this.a wave of light travels some 14 billion years to finally reach earth and then becomes heat or some other form. That wave existed in the past and again in the future.
Even when I consider what my eyes might be able to perceive in real time , the same applies. In real time ,until it hits my eyes it is in both the future and the past relative to me.
I will not receive the light to my eyes until......so it is in my past
The light hitting my eyes will be a future event for me...but to the light it is always the present (relatively)
So I have me as a relative position ..the light in my past and in my future at the same time.....This one example of measuring shows that position creates whether the light is in a time line ...If past ,future and present are all consecutively active in everyday life. how then we not follow the same course when looking universally...
we cannot follow from first cause to now and understand the functions....But using the two parameters of one and whole we can see interaction as it creates the positions that we will use to measure this in a time line fashion.
one =whole.....The middle ground according to maths is infinite.
rather than using motion as a measure , I prefer occurrences of the energy particle. the occurrences are the laws with which the whole becomes relative
beginning
beginning .....Whole
beginning .....one occurrence......Whole
Beginning one occurrence......one occurrence....Whole.
and so on . The energy doesn't have to move and space is occupied by where the energy "was" rather than where it will move to . Of course the method has a lot of cycles to create the universe which creates more and more "occurrences " , but even distribution means that the occurrences need to be in sync universally to balance time
when an occurrence has been it can not inhabit the same position . In fact , that positions of all of the other occurrences must shift according to each new occurrence. What it creates is a constantly evolving pattern who's only law is that all occurrences be as far as possible from every other occurrences as possible... if there are 8 occurrences then the geometrical picture would equate to finding the eight positions that are farther est from each other as possible...
You can try this.
draw a square....place a dot in the cent re......now consider where to equally spaced dots would look if they must be spaced at the great es distance away from each other.....not add a third..it must affect the positions of the first two...then a fourth...
So far the positions can just hug corners.....add a fifth....then a sixth.....
the one law applied only one position can exist as the current occurrence. It affects the position of every other dot. When you consider the complexity of the universe , and applie the same rules , you must move huge tracts of occurrences for each new one added...We live in a moving universe, but motion is not been going on for a short period of time......imagine this rhythm getting to a point of not being able to just distance occurrences but had to overlap them in order to get balance....pretty soon going back to an original position but having to change it to avoid meeting itself. time and space become very important as layers upon layers ..
Cheers
Iseason
All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. ... I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived! It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing. You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before. (Heraclitus, 500 B.C.)
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 25 2008, 09:38 PM)
All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. ... I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived! It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing. You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before. (Heraclitus, 500 B.C.)
g.
1.
All things come out of the One..........from Vacuum.
2.
Be not deceived!
In the " river in which you bathe a second time is no longer
the same one which you entered before."......" but the puddle
in which you bathe a second time can be the same".
g.
1.
All things come out of the One..........from Vacuum.
2.
Be not deceived!
In the " river in which you bathe a second time is no longer
the same one which you entered before."......" but the puddle
in which you bathe a second time can be the same".
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 25 2008, 09:38 PM)
You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before. (Heraclitus, 500 B.C.)
Hi Gorgeous,
You can have names for things that does not have rigid permanence as well. They are called verbs:).
Hi Gorgeous,
You can have names for things that does not have rigid permanence as well. They are called verbs:).
QUOTE (Ivars+May 26 2008, 06:28 AM)
Hi Gorgeous,
You can have names for things that does not have rigid permanence as well. They are called verbs:).
If you like!
"The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind" - Chuang Tzu
g.
You can have names for things that does not have rigid permanence as well. They are called verbs:).
If you like!
"The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind" - Chuang Tzu
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 26 2008, 10:36 AM)
If you like!
"The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind" - Chuang Tzu
g.
The conflict between right and wrong is a problem
of the “Quantum Dualism of consciousness” .
=======================
"The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind" - Chuang Tzu
g.
The conflict between right and wrong is a problem
of the “Quantum Dualism of consciousness” .
=======================
QUOTE (s0cratus+May 26 2008, 11:43 AM)
The conflict between right and wrong is a problem
of the “Quantum Dualism of consciousness” .
=======================
Yes, that would be the 'mind' that Chuang Tzu refers to, then.
g.
of the “Quantum Dualism of consciousness” .
=======================
Yes, that would be the 'mind' that Chuang Tzu refers to, then.
g.
Seems to me the only thing that is finite is our knowledge.
Our ignorance is infinite and attempts to answer complex questions by religion are mere band aids. Hopefully science and mathematics can at least provide some answers and will continue to look at the questions with an open mind
Our ignorance is infinite and attempts to answer complex questions by religion are mere band aids. Hopefully science and mathematics can at least provide some answers and will continue to look at the questions with an open mind
Iseason
QUOTE: "time and space become very important as layers upon layers .."
Yes - exactly
Everything is into oscillating existance - smallest dimensionalities are in oscillating existance ON - OFF - and synchronized on/off - and one ON-pattern is a once in a Universal-Time occurence - it is a CONFIGURATION - just this one configuration and only one time - never ever again the same configuration
Smallest dimensionality can be either D or L - (black or white - yin or yang - or whatever one like to call them) and when a cellular automaton system is being applied on such a 3D grid of smallest dimensionalities randomly presented by D and L there will be a ever changing pattern, with the characteristic that such a pattern will eventually be repetitive. Once a repetition is being established - such a repetition will represent a "particle" and such particles will be the smallest elements in the next scale.
Our physical scale - our Universe is just a scale - a scale defined by human scale - defined by the particle scale that is expressing human physical senses - human flesh and blood scale.
Motion is an illusion created by ever ongoing reconfigurations of patterns in wave-like changes entering into repetitions - circular standing waves - and that is what we define as particles.
What we perceive as existance is solely based upon the patterns by which the configurations of smallest dimensionalities scalewise enters into repetitions.
Every time ONE pattern - even the smallest pattern change - such a change will effect the whole universe in its next configurational expression - that is what can be said to be entanglement.
QUOTE: "time and space become very important as layers upon layers .."
Yes - exactly
Everything is into oscillating existance - smallest dimensionalities are in oscillating existance ON - OFF - and synchronized on/off - and one ON-pattern is a once in a Universal-Time occurence - it is a CONFIGURATION - just this one configuration and only one time - never ever again the same configuration
Smallest dimensionality can be either D or L - (black or white - yin or yang - or whatever one like to call them) and when a cellular automaton system is being applied on such a 3D grid of smallest dimensionalities randomly presented by D and L there will be a ever changing pattern, with the characteristic that such a pattern will eventually be repetitive. Once a repetition is being established - such a repetition will represent a "particle" and such particles will be the smallest elements in the next scale.
Our physical scale - our Universe is just a scale - a scale defined by human scale - defined by the particle scale that is expressing human physical senses - human flesh and blood scale.
Motion is an illusion created by ever ongoing reconfigurations of patterns in wave-like changes entering into repetitions - circular standing waves - and that is what we define as particles.
What we perceive as existance is solely based upon the patterns by which the configurations of smallest dimensionalities scalewise enters into repetitions.
Every time ONE pattern - even the smallest pattern change - such a change will effect the whole universe in its next configurational expression - that is what can be said to be entanglement.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "Are You somehow dividing physical from non-physical? I know there is a phase transition of special kind, but one can not be explained witout other- at least not to the source of energy=information? "
yes and no - triggy question -
perhaps it is better to say that there exist different levels of "physical existance"
smallest dimensionalities expressing their On - Off is the simplest form of physical existance -
and when such smallest dimensionalities show the first repetitional pattern the first "particle" structure is born.
then it is scalewise growing "bigger and bigger" until human scale is being reached.
QUOTE: "Are You somehow dividing physical from non-physical? I know there is a phase transition of special kind, but one can not be explained witout other- at least not to the source of energy=information? "
yes and no - triggy question -
perhaps it is better to say that there exist different levels of "physical existance"
smallest dimensionalities expressing their On - Off is the simplest form of physical existance -
and when such smallest dimensionalities show the first repetitional pattern the first "particle" structure is born.
then it is scalewise growing "bigger and bigger" until human scale is being reached.
QUOTE (neilrowe+May 26 2008, 10:48 PM)
Seems to me the only thing that is finite is our knowledge.
Our ignorance is infinite and attempts to answer complex questions by religion are mere band aids. Hopefully science and mathematics can at least provide some answers and will continue to look at the questions with an open mind
Agreed!
g.
Our ignorance is infinite and attempts to answer complex questions by religion are mere band aids. Hopefully science and mathematics can at least provide some answers and will continue to look at the questions with an open mind
Agreed!
g.
QUOTE (bukh+May 26 2008, 11:24 PM)
perhaps it is better to say that there exist different levels of "physical existence"
smallest dimensionalities expressing their On - Off is the simplest form of physical existence -
and when such smallest dimensionalities show the first repetitional pattern the first "particle" structure is born.
then it is scalewise growing "bigger and bigger" until human scale is being reached.
Hej bukh
In principle, agreed. But what about the role and state of BIGGEST dimensionalities? The other end of infinity?
In my opinion, the very special phase transition imaginary/physical happens at Kolmogorov vortex, or looping, or repetitive patterns of infinitesimal dimensions of SPACE ( NOT small pieces of 3D space) which is the balance point between these 2 infinities. For some reason, it is asymmetric, so development is ( mostly) unidirectional. The reason could be that Biggest infinity does not oscillate, but rotate.
We know only 2 motions when space becomes at least 2 dimensional - translation and rotation. In 1D space, there is only translation. As we increase the number of dimensions of space, rotations have more and more axis to rotate about.
What would be Your definition of rotation as illusion in 3D? The same repetitive patterns, right? What would happen in the center? What would happen on the outside if radius is infinity?
What would happen if the number of space dimensions (not size, but dimensions- 3,4,5, .....n........w,w1.........etc) goes to very big, infinity, or, even, to something beyond infinity? How wold then translation and rotation Illusion express themselves?
The logic for of repetition probably stays, but what is repetition in infinite dimensional space?
That is the same question as WHAT is the ultimate complexity? What is the limit of rotation in infinite dimensional space?
By analogy with oscillating smallest parts that are both in existence and not in existence, the maximum complexity has to be such that it is both complex and ultimately simple- oscillating complexity?
smallest dimensionalities expressing their On - Off is the simplest form of physical existence -
and when such smallest dimensionalities show the first repetitional pattern the first "particle" structure is born.
then it is scalewise growing "bigger and bigger" until human scale is being reached.
Hej bukh
In principle, agreed. But what about the role and state of BIGGEST dimensionalities? The other end of infinity?
In my opinion, the very special phase transition imaginary/physical happens at Kolmogorov vortex, or looping, or repetitive patterns of infinitesimal dimensions of SPACE ( NOT small pieces of 3D space) which is the balance point between these 2 infinities. For some reason, it is asymmetric, so development is ( mostly) unidirectional. The reason could be that Biggest infinity does not oscillate, but rotate.
We know only 2 motions when space becomes at least 2 dimensional - translation and rotation. In 1D space, there is only translation. As we increase the number of dimensions of space, rotations have more and more axis to rotate about.
What would be Your definition of rotation as illusion in 3D? The same repetitive patterns, right? What would happen in the center? What would happen on the outside if radius is infinity?
What would happen if the number of space dimensions (not size, but dimensions- 3,4,5, .....n........w,w1.........etc) goes to very big, infinity, or, even, to something beyond infinity? How wold then translation and rotation Illusion express themselves?
The logic for of repetition probably stays, but what is repetition in infinite dimensional space?
That is the same question as WHAT is the ultimate complexity? What is the limit of rotation in infinite dimensional space?
By analogy with oscillating smallest parts that are both in existence and not in existence, the maximum complexity has to be such that it is both complex and ultimately simple- oscillating complexity?
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "But what about the role and state of BIGGEST dimensionalities? The other end of infinity?"
I like the simplicity that physical is being played within the infinity of smallest and largest.
And that mathematics is introvert and physical is extrovert.
Biggest dimensionalities - they are the Origin - they are the configurational expression when I=1
I think that phase the transistion imaginary/physical for the first time takes place when infinitisimals have reached a number where repetitions can occur, and I do not think that there exist anything but 3D. Smallest infinitisimals are 3D, they represent a ratio of pure space -
And IF - if we want to deal with something non-physical or prephysical or pre-Origin - meaning something that can be said to BE without being physical - then it could be - perhaps - something 1D, 2D - but it is meaningless to have a concept of pre-physical - it is better to say that pure space (filled with infinite number of smallest infinities) is what has always been. Nothing before that.
mathematical numbers - are 3D , any and each number is being represented by a ratio - so it is not possible to create anything 1D or 2D out from math.
QUOTE: "But what about the role and state of BIGGEST dimensionalities? The other end of infinity?"
I like the simplicity that physical is being played within the infinity of smallest and largest.
And that mathematics is introvert and physical is extrovert.
Biggest dimensionalities - they are the Origin - they are the configurational expression when I=1
I think that phase the transistion imaginary/physical for the first time takes place when infinitisimals have reached a number where repetitions can occur, and I do not think that there exist anything but 3D. Smallest infinitisimals are 3D, they represent a ratio of pure space -
And IF - if we want to deal with something non-physical or prephysical or pre-Origin - meaning something that can be said to BE without being physical - then it could be - perhaps - something 1D, 2D - but it is meaningless to have a concept of pre-physical - it is better to say that pure space (filled with infinite number of smallest infinities) is what has always been. Nothing before that.
mathematical numbers - are 3D , any and each number is being represented by a ratio - so it is not possible to create anything 1D or 2D out from math.
QUOTE (bukh+May 27 2008, 05:57 AM)
but it is meaningless to have a concept of pre-physical - it is better to say that pure space (filled with infinite number of smallest infinities) is what has always been. Nothing before that.
hej bukh
WHY?
hej bukh
WHY?
Ivars and Buhk
I read through your talk in recent posts. One thing that sets the stage to make theory work within the current boundaries is that the value of both smallest quantity and universal needs to remain a constant. You cannot accept the on/off, nor the variance between universal and first particle without explanation.
this is entirely to bring the thought process in line with two accepted theories.
1. energy cannot be created nor destroyed
2. constant speed of light.
1. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
means that if one variance point creates a difference (which I agree with ) then the size of the single variance point is the energy and the rest an illusion.
In this way both the universal value and the point of variance (which is actually all the energy) have the same value. you cannot have a "whole " or universal which actually exists at the same time as the variance instigator.
I agree that the motion we perceive is simply a varying of the single lowest denominator but will take it further to say that the particle "never shares time or space". It cannot , because it is all there is .
2.Constant speed of light
is a rather more difficult behavior to explain because I have argued before that faster than light speed is possible. When I did so ,I also was thinking that a smaller particle might exist than science was proposing. I no longer think this is the case . nor is it necessary in order for the behavior to be explained.
Since we can only perceive things ,no matter what we use , along a time line, the gaps within our ability to measure the pathways of the particle are limited to what is here and now. We follow this pathway which leads us to big gaps in space that , while they are empty to our perceptions, will somewhere along the time line be filled in.
This means that the particle doesn't EVER have to move anywhere in order to create the universe and the cycle which creates time is only by linking ALL of the occurrences in a manner that allows us to perceive them. Remember that we can perceive time via distance only and motion only by variation of time and space.
The on/off cycle is more of a beginning / end perception.
I think we are actually able to see the end in the same way as we perceive the beginning.
we just don't understand the parameters.
Cheers
Iseason
I read through your talk in recent posts. One thing that sets the stage to make theory work within the current boundaries is that the value of both smallest quantity and universal needs to remain a constant. You cannot accept the on/off, nor the variance between universal and first particle without explanation.
this is entirely to bring the thought process in line with two accepted theories.
1. energy cannot be created nor destroyed
2. constant speed of light.
1. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
means that if one variance point creates a difference (which I agree with ) then the size of the single variance point is the energy and the rest an illusion.
In this way both the universal value and the point of variance (which is actually all the energy) have the same value. you cannot have a "whole " or universal which actually exists at the same time as the variance instigator.
I agree that the motion we perceive is simply a varying of the single lowest denominator but will take it further to say that the particle "never shares time or space". It cannot , because it is all there is .
2.Constant speed of light
is a rather more difficult behavior to explain because I have argued before that faster than light speed is possible. When I did so ,I also was thinking that a smaller particle might exist than science was proposing. I no longer think this is the case . nor is it necessary in order for the behavior to be explained.
Since we can only perceive things ,no matter what we use , along a time line, the gaps within our ability to measure the pathways of the particle are limited to what is here and now. We follow this pathway which leads us to big gaps in space that , while they are empty to our perceptions, will somewhere along the time line be filled in.
This means that the particle doesn't EVER have to move anywhere in order to create the universe and the cycle which creates time is only by linking ALL of the occurrences in a manner that allows us to perceive them. Remember that we can perceive time via distance only and motion only by variation of time and space.
The on/off cycle is more of a beginning / end perception.
I think we are actually able to see the end in the same way as we perceive the beginning.
we just don't understand the parameters.
Cheers
Iseason
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "WHY?"
I think it is like considering: What is the Origin of the Origin
QUOTE: "WHY?"
I think it is like considering: What is the Origin of the Origin
There is no such thing as a 'small infinity', or 'infinitely small'. Direction, distance and size plays no part in true infinity.
We have known about such things for many thousands of years.
We have known about such things for many thousands of years.
The apeiron is not plainly spatiotemporal infinity, but the principle and the origin (Greek: archê) of existence itself. Since very little of Anaximander’s own words have survived, we have to turn to Aristotle for a description of the apeiron: “Everything has an origin or is an origin. The Boundless has no origin. For then it would have a limit. Moreover, it is both unborn and immortal, being a kind of origin. For that which has become has also, necessarily, an end, and there is a termination to every process of destruction.” (Aristotle, Physics 203b6-10).
QUOTE
infinity
c.1374, from O.Fr. infinité, from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas used as a loan-transl. of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity
c.1374, from O.Fr. infinité, from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas used as a loan-transl. of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity
We have known about such things for many thousands of years.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| infinity c.1374, from O.Fr. infinité, from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas used as a loan-transl. of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity |
We have known about such things for many thousands of years.
The apeiron is not plainly spatiotemporal infinity, but the principle and the origin (Greek: archê) of existence itself. Since very little of Anaximander’s own words have survived, we have to turn to Aristotle for a description of the apeiron: “Everything has an origin or is an origin. The Boundless has no origin. For then it would have a limit. Moreover, it is both unborn and immortal, being a kind of origin. For that which has become has also, necessarily, an end, and there is a termination to every process of destruction.” (Aristotle, Physics 203b6-10).
Hej iseason
QUOTE: "if one variance point creates a difference (which I agree with ) then the size of the single variance point is the energy and the rest an illusion."
Yes - exactly - the SIZE is the factor that determines said energy - or CHANGE - configurational change. And I like to think that everything can be calculated and expressed out from dimensionalities - there exist no such thing as a point - everything physical has a dimension. And with this standard ENERGY is constant - energy is bound up to dimension - and Origin condition is pure space - infinite in the sense that space has the size that space has - (like color of the moon -) and Origin energy is infinite or has the amount that it has -
The rest is about ratios and complexions -
The amount of energy is always measured by the size and the speed of the change that is characterizing the said amount of energy. It is on the very bottom line a matter about configurational change of a dimensional expression. And then we are back in smallest dimensionalities that dynamically arrange themselves in ever changing configurations - and scale-wise ordered or arranged -
AND then one can ask the question - do we have smallest dimensionality - ???? - or is it an illusion that that there exist a transistion from continuous and into discreteness - is true infinity hidden into infinite scaling ??? and does this imply that continuous is not a viable concept -
My logic (for the time being) tells me that true continuou is not a viable concept -
The logic question is then - if no continuity - what then about infinity ????
Constant speed of light is "easier" to handle - because now we are in a weldefined scale - human scale - and SPEED is "size" of "particle" times the frequency by which it can reconfigure - and speed of light is defined out from the photon of visible light - the photon being the smallest informational quant that can be percepted by human eyes. The size of this informational quant is accurately defined out from the human percepting sense that is called the eye.
faster than light - is it possible ? I have argued that information can be communicated upwards - scale-wise in the system - and therefore speed must be slightly faster in smaller scales - stepwise increasing when we move dawnwards - but of course this has nothing to do with speed in our physical scale. In our physical scale there is (perhaps) smaller informational quants where the product of Size x Reconfigurational Rate gives a bigger product - a higher speed.
QUOTE: "This means that the particle doesn't EVER have to move anywhere in order to create the universe and the cycle which creates time is only by linking ALL of the occurrences in a manner that allows us to perceive them. Remember that we can perceive time via distance only and motion only by variation of time and space."
Absolutely agreed -
Motion is an illusion - there is no motion - but there is oscillating reconfigurations - in all scales - so existance is purely defined out from oscillating PATTERNS of increasingly "bigger and bigger" - or perhaps one should say more and more complex configurations that takes a space. And time is strictly defined out from its location - time is strictly local - but universe is oscillating harmoniously - so perhaps it is more accurate to say that the yardstick for time-measurement is strictly local - and defined out from the complexity that is being measured.
QUOTE: "The on/off cycle is more of a beginning / end perception.
I think we are actually able to see the end in the same way as we perceive the beginning.
we just don't understand the parameters."
Right - but irrespective how I try to see it - I have difficulties in understanding dynamic without change and to understand change without diescreteness - and change without oscillation of discreteness.
QUOTE: "if one variance point creates a difference (which I agree with ) then the size of the single variance point is the energy and the rest an illusion."
Yes - exactly - the SIZE is the factor that determines said energy - or CHANGE - configurational change. And I like to think that everything can be calculated and expressed out from dimensionalities - there exist no such thing as a point - everything physical has a dimension. And with this standard ENERGY is constant - energy is bound up to dimension - and Origin condition is pure space - infinite in the sense that space has the size that space has - (like color of the moon -) and Origin energy is infinite or has the amount that it has -
The rest is about ratios and complexions -
The amount of energy is always measured by the size and the speed of the change that is characterizing the said amount of energy. It is on the very bottom line a matter about configurational change of a dimensional expression. And then we are back in smallest dimensionalities that dynamically arrange themselves in ever changing configurations - and scale-wise ordered or arranged -
AND then one can ask the question - do we have smallest dimensionality - ???? - or is it an illusion that that there exist a transistion from continuous and into discreteness - is true infinity hidden into infinite scaling ??? and does this imply that continuous is not a viable concept -
My logic (for the time being) tells me that true continuou is not a viable concept -
The logic question is then - if no continuity - what then about infinity ????
Constant speed of light is "easier" to handle - because now we are in a weldefined scale - human scale - and SPEED is "size" of "particle" times the frequency by which it can reconfigure - and speed of light is defined out from the photon of visible light - the photon being the smallest informational quant that can be percepted by human eyes. The size of this informational quant is accurately defined out from the human percepting sense that is called the eye.
faster than light - is it possible ? I have argued that information can be communicated upwards - scale-wise in the system - and therefore speed must be slightly faster in smaller scales - stepwise increasing when we move dawnwards - but of course this has nothing to do with speed in our physical scale. In our physical scale there is (perhaps) smaller informational quants where the product of Size x Reconfigurational Rate gives a bigger product - a higher speed.
QUOTE: "This means that the particle doesn't EVER have to move anywhere in order to create the universe and the cycle which creates time is only by linking ALL of the occurrences in a manner that allows us to perceive them. Remember that we can perceive time via distance only and motion only by variation of time and space."
Absolutely agreed -
Motion is an illusion - there is no motion - but there is oscillating reconfigurations - in all scales - so existance is purely defined out from oscillating PATTERNS of increasingly "bigger and bigger" - or perhaps one should say more and more complex configurations that takes a space. And time is strictly defined out from its location - time is strictly local - but universe is oscillating harmoniously - so perhaps it is more accurate to say that the yardstick for time-measurement is strictly local - and defined out from the complexity that is being measured.
QUOTE: "The on/off cycle is more of a beginning / end perception.
I think we are actually able to see the end in the same way as we perceive the beginning.
we just don't understand the parameters."
Right - but irrespective how I try to see it - I have difficulties in understanding dynamic without change and to understand change without diescreteness - and change without oscillation of discreteness.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 27 2008, 09:59 AM)
There is no such thing as a 'small infinity', or 'infinitely small'. Direction, distance and size plays no part in true infinity.
There was no real space, then. But one part is missing when trying to create Universe from this chaos. The other infinity. Both true infinities are beyond size, true.
More like this, in reference to Plato's Timaeus ( I equal other infinity or Pure potential space to the model in Timaeus):
There was no real space, then. But one part is missing when trying to create Universe from this chaos. The other infinity. Both true infinities are beyond size, true.
More like this, in reference to Plato's Timaeus ( I equal other infinity or Pure potential space to the model in Timaeus):
The demiurge is said to bring order out of substance by imitating an unchanging and eternal model (paradigm)
This is also an interesting passage:
There was no real space, then. But one part is missing when trying to create Universe from this chaos. The other infinity. Both true infinities are beyond size, true.
More like this, in reference to Plato's Timaeus ( I equal other infinity or Pure potential space to the model in Timaeus):
This is also an interesting passage:
This is the inherent problem of taking things on paper literally, instead of actually trying to understand the Reality of them.
There cannot be more than One Infinite 'thing' existing. Existence (Space) needs no more than 3-dimensions (HxWxD), and motion, to be the way we observe it to be. It is effectively 'everything'. You must then try to understand the 'mechanism' whereby the infinite existence forms the finite 'things' that we observe and measure. 'Quantum' is a word that mainstream science currently uses, but it cannot describe anything that does not actually exist.
Instead of taking these words as some kind of 'literal gospel', why not try to find out the Reality of them for yourself? For instance, what is it, that is being positioned as 'quantum'? Whatever is imagined to be 'outside' of your 'big bang'...is this also 'quantum'?
g.
1. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
2.Constant speed of light
we just don't understand the parameters.
Cheers
Iseason
1. energy cannot be created nor destroyed
But Energy can change.
For example, from potential to kinetic and back.
Question; How does this process go?
The answer gives QED + SRT.
2. constant speed of light quanta.
For a photon, time is frozen, and its own clock shows zero.
Light quanta can go infinitely far in this zero time.
But if photon always goes with constant speed c=1,
it is mad particle. The photon must change its speed.
How does the light quanta works?
My opinion.
1.
The moving light quanta does not depend of a source.
So, thinking about photon, you can forget about a " source" .
It means that photon is an independent particle.
2.
Light quantum can travel with constant speed c=1.
and then we call it Photon.
3.
Light quantum can work with speed c>1.
and then we call it Electron.
4.
Light quantum can stop its moving and take
a rest c=0 and then we call it Antiparticle.
5.
Is my interpretation correct ?
Yes. It is correct. Why?
Because when Electron interacts
with Vacuum we also call it Antiparticle.
6.
If you doubt in my rightness, ask yourself :
What does " The Law of conservation and transformation
of energy" mean according to one single Light quanta ?
====================...
QUOTE
The apeiron was never defined precisely, and it has generally (e.g. by Aristotle and Augustine) been understood as a sort of primal chaos.
There was no real space, then. But one part is missing when trying to create Universe from this chaos. The other infinity. Both true infinities are beyond size, true.
More like this, in reference to Plato's Timaeus ( I equal other infinity or Pure potential space to the model in Timaeus):
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The apeiron was never defined precisely, and it has generally (e.g. by Aristotle and Augustine) been understood as a sort of primal chaos. |
There was no real space, then. But one part is missing when trying to create Universe from this chaos. The other infinity. Both true infinities are beyond size, true.
More like this, in reference to Plato's Timaeus ( I equal other infinity or Pure potential space to the model in Timaeus):
The demiurge is said to bring order out of substance by imitating an unchanging and eternal model (paradigm)
This is also an interesting passage:
QUOTE
Then, the demiurge connected the body and the soul of the universe: he diffused the soul from the center of the body to its extremities in every direction, allowing the invisible soul to envelop the visible body. The soul began to rotate and this was the beginning of its eternal and rational life
QUOTE (Ivars+May 27 2008, 11:35 AM)
There was no real space, then. But one part is missing when trying to create Universe from this chaos. The other infinity. Both true infinities are beyond size, true.
More like this, in reference to Plato's Timaeus ( I equal other infinity or Pure potential space to the model in Timaeus):
This is also an interesting passage:
This is the inherent problem of taking things on paper literally, instead of actually trying to understand the Reality of them.
There cannot be more than One Infinite 'thing' existing. Existence (Space) needs no more than 3-dimensions (HxWxD), and motion, to be the way we observe it to be. It is effectively 'everything'. You must then try to understand the 'mechanism' whereby the infinite existence forms the finite 'things' that we observe and measure. 'Quantum' is a word that mainstream science currently uses, but it cannot describe anything that does not actually exist.
Instead of taking these words as some kind of 'literal gospel', why not try to find out the Reality of them for yourself? For instance, what is it, that is being positioned as 'quantum'? Whatever is imagined to be 'outside' of your 'big bang'...is this also 'quantum'?
g.
QUOTE (neilrowe+May 26 2008, 10:48 PM)
Seems to me the only thing that is finite is our knowledge.
Our ignorance is infinite and attempts to answer complex questions by religion are mere band aids. Hopefully science and mathematics can at least provide some answers and will continue to look at the questions with an open mind
We cannot reach T=0K.
So, it seems we can know nothing about
what lies after this border . But it isn't correct.
1.
Theoretically we can know what is hidden into T=0K
by physical formulas and laws: J. Charles ( 1787),
Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst (1910), M. Planck (1911),
A. Einstein (1925).
2.
Practically :
the secret of T=0K (of infinity and insufficiency) is
hidden in theory of “Quantum Dualism of Consciousness” .
This theory also includes the practical work: meditation.
===================...
Our ignorance is infinite and attempts to answer complex questions by religion are mere band aids. Hopefully science and mathematics can at least provide some answers and will continue to look at the questions with an open mind
We cannot reach T=0K.
So, it seems we can know nothing about
what lies after this border . But it isn't correct.
1.
Theoretically we can know what is hidden into T=0K
by physical formulas and laws: J. Charles ( 1787),
Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst (1910), M. Planck (1911),
A. Einstein (1925).
2.
Practically :
the secret of T=0K (of infinity and insufficiency) is
hidden in theory of “Quantum Dualism of Consciousness” .
This theory also includes the practical work: meditation.
===================...
QUOTE (iseason+May 27 2008, 08:02 AM)
1. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
2.Constant speed of light
we just don't understand the parameters.
Cheers
Iseason
1. energy cannot be created nor destroyed
But Energy can change.
For example, from potential to kinetic and back.
Question; How does this process go?
The answer gives QED + SRT.
2. constant speed of light quanta.
For a photon, time is frozen, and its own clock shows zero.
Light quanta can go infinitely far in this zero time.
But if photon always goes with constant speed c=1,
it is mad particle. The photon must change its speed.
How does the light quanta works?
My opinion.
1.
The moving light quanta does not depend of a source.
So, thinking about photon, you can forget about a " source" .
It means that photon is an independent particle.
2.
Light quantum can travel with constant speed c=1.
and then we call it Photon.
3.
Light quantum can work with speed c>1.
and then we call it Electron.
4.
Light quantum can stop its moving and take
a rest c=0 and then we call it Antiparticle.
5.
Is my interpretation correct ?
Yes. It is correct. Why?
Because when Electron interacts
with Vacuum we also call it Antiparticle.
6.
If you doubt in my rightness, ask yourself :
What does " The Law of conservation and transformation
of energy" mean according to one single Light quanta ?
====================...
QUOTE (bukh+May 27 2008, 09:49 AM)
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "WHY?"
I think it is like considering: What is the Origin of the Origin
hej bukh
Should be quite informative.
QUOTE: "WHY?"
I think it is like considering: What is the Origin of the Origin
hej bukh
Should be quite informative.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck)
Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. (Charles Darwin)
I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ...
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. (Galileo Galilei)
g.
Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. (Charles Darwin)
I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ...
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. (Galileo Galilei)
g.
hej bukh
I agree with the idea that infinity is undefined in e.g size - the rest is ratios- but that does not mean there is nothing beyond such infinity, which is absolute. There should be. Beyond smallness and greatness there has to be a source of energy and a sense of direction.
I agree with the idea that infinity is undefined in e.g size - the rest is ratios- but that does not mean there is nothing beyond such infinity, which is absolute. There should be. Beyond smallness and greatness there has to be a source of energy and a sense of direction.
The rest is about ratios and complexions -
Still I would like to know- what is maximum complexity, if complexation most likely involve subsequent rotations of space in higher dimensions? Complexity is(?) rotations of physical, thus forming higher dimesional until infinitely dimensional spaces. But what comes next? If K-vortex has size, and its rotations take/create space, there is a limit how many complexations of physical matter can happen in our universe.
Why would they be ordered or arranged at all? Why not remain disordered? Even if they are drawn together by neigbouring, why end up in spiralling patterns we see everywhere?
I would still like to know how You imagine rotation is represented as video running on pixels? What happens in the center?
Why would they be ordered or arranged at all? Why not remain disordered? Even if they are drawn together by neigbouring, why end up in spiralling patterns we see everywhere?
I would still like to know how You imagine rotation is represented as video running on pixels? What happens in the center?
AND then one can ask the question - do we have smallest dimensionality - ???? - or is it an illusion that that there exist a transistion from continuous and into discreteness - is true infinity hidden into infinite scaling
Well my idea is that infinite is never reached ( as it is unreachable- by definition) but to go to smallest non-physical oscillating scale You have to gather speed enough to jump over infinity. Beyond infinity.
For the third time...and you can just as easily check it out in any dictionary of your choice. Perhaps you can explain how it is possible to 'jump over' something that has no boundaries to it?
Apart from that, there is always common sense, but I know that is not high on your list of considerations.
You seem to be thinking that 'infinity' is some kind of 'thing' that exists in the 'out there, somewhere' of another part of Space, or something! How very strange. But I can understand how this is done, when you approach the subject from the erroneous view of 'separate' or 'discrete' things, without taking the Reality of the wholeness and interconnectedness of existence into account. This is often the case with people who are trying to leave some sort of 'gap' for their 'exterior' version of a 'Geppetto-like God' to fit into.
(One has to wonder whether this is where 'string theory' comes from?
)
g.
So the question is perhaps: Is physical fundamentally based upon discreteness - and "jumping" over infinity into the next following Universal cyclus.
hej bukh
In a sense, YES. Just need fast enough "engine" - process. Hyperfast.
Apart from that, there is always common sense, but I know that is not high on your list of considerations.
hej Gorgeous,
I am in business, CEO, family,kids, so I have kind of common sense But I am no engineer, thats true.
However, when experimenting with ideas - You are absolutely right. Common sense makes common ideas.
Waves are just too neat for me. There has to be chaos included in whatever we use to explain nature.
To begin with our knowledge grows in spots. ..What you first gain, ... is probably a small amount of new information, a few new definitions, or distinctions, or points of view. But while these special ideas are being added, the rest of your knowledge stands still, and only gradually will you line up your previous opinions with the novelties I am trying to instill, and to modify to some slight degree their mass. ..Your mind in such processes is strained, and sometimes painfully so, between its older beliefs and the novelties which experience brings along. (William James, Pragmatism)
g.
Mathematics does not deal with Real Infinity (Space).
Hi gorgeous,
They do. Prove me wrong. ( Taking into account mathematical knowledge is by far not finished).
And infinite can be reserved for the concept of repeating Universe ad infinitum, in one way or another by jumping over infinity once Universe has come to a complexion where it cannot be further complexisized - so the jump is necessary in order to avoid numbered infinity.
hej bukh
e.g. Rotation is obvious case of contained infinity. Getting out of rotating trajectory into another means jumping over infinity.
That is why I keep asking: If motion is an illusion , change etc etc WHAT happens in the centre of rotation? Is there a way to excape rotation (and infinity of it) via moving to exactly the centre?
I ask that because it seems that to know something, that something has to first be separated from all else, bordered from whatever it came from, and then put back to see how it fits into where it came from.
When I said "all else" I had the idea that infinity could be compared to "all else"
I also forgot the "Thanks"
Thanks
QUOTE
and Origin condition is pure space - infinite in the sense that space has the size that space has - (like color of the moon -) and Origin energy is infinite or has the amount that it has -
I agree with the idea that infinity is undefined in e.g size - the rest is ratios- but that does not mean there is nothing beyond such infinity, which is absolute. There should be. Beyond smallness and greatness there has to be a source of energy and a sense of direction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and Origin condition is pure space - infinite in the sense that space has the size that space has - (like color of the moon -) and Origin energy is infinite or has the amount that it has - |
I agree with the idea that infinity is undefined in e.g size - the rest is ratios- but that does not mean there is nothing beyond such infinity, which is absolute. There should be. Beyond smallness and greatness there has to be a source of energy and a sense of direction.
The rest is about ratios and complexions -
Still I would like to know- what is maximum complexity, if complexation most likely involve subsequent rotations of space in higher dimensions? Complexity is(?) rotations of physical, thus forming higher dimesional until infinitely dimensional spaces. But what comes next? If K-vortex has size, and its rotations take/create space, there is a limit how many complexations of physical matter can happen in our universe.
QUOTE
that dynamically arrange themselves in ever changing configurations - and scale-wise ordered or arranged -
Why would they be ordered or arranged at all? Why not remain disordered? Even if they are drawn together by neigbouring, why end up in spiralling patterns we see everywhere?
I would still like to know how You imagine rotation is represented as video running on pixels? What happens in the center?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| that dynamically arrange themselves in ever changing configurations - and scale-wise ordered or arranged - |
Why would they be ordered or arranged at all? Why not remain disordered? Even if they are drawn together by neigbouring, why end up in spiralling patterns we see everywhere?
I would still like to know how You imagine rotation is represented as video running on pixels? What happens in the center?
AND then one can ask the question - do we have smallest dimensionality - ???? - or is it an illusion that that there exist a transistion from continuous and into discreteness - is true infinity hidden into infinite scaling
Well my idea is that infinite is never reached ( as it is unreachable- by definition) but to go to smallest non-physical oscillating scale You have to gather speed enough to jump over infinity. Beyond infinity.
There is no such thing as 'beyond infinite', even in 'mathematics'!!
g.
g.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "but that does not mean there is nothing beyond such infinity, which is absolute. There should be. Beyond smallness and greatness there has to be a source of energy and a sense of direction."
Well - let's assume that there is "something" beyond such an infinity - then there must also be something beyond that - and so on - and this can be continued into absurditum - the Origin of the Origin of the ----- at a certain point we (I) have to accept that Universe - that the stuff that we humans are an intimate part of - cannot self-percept the Origin of "ourselves" - perhaps the answer is hidden in the complexion - that in order to self-percept something, a certain level of complexion is needed - and there will be a natural gap - there will be a scale difference between what can be self-percepted - the self-percepting complexion must be scale-wise higher than the smallest - so infinity cannot per se EVER be understood.
QUOTE: "I would still like to know how You imagine rotation is represented as video running on pixels? What happens in the center?"
I do not understand your point ? are you asking what happens in the center of an eddie - a spiral - a hurricane ? - in my thinking everything is dynamically CHANGING - it is not possible to have a repetition of THE SAME - identically the same - next following configuration will be different - and it is the extent of differences, that we see as varying energetic levels, zero-energy does not apply, -
QUOTE: "Well my idea is that infinite is never reached ( as it is unreachable- by definition) but to go to smallest non-physical oscillating scale You have to gather speed enough to jump over infinity. Beyond infinity"
Are you now suggesting that Universe is and ever repeating cyclus from pure space (filled with kinetic information) - Orgin Condition, being translated from 1 to 0, being translated from one true infinity and via physical universal life into the other true infinity, between the two extremes - the two true infinities represented by 1 and 0, and into the next following cyclus again starting with pure space (filled with kinetic information) - and so on ad infinitum ?
So the question is perhaps: Is physical fundamentally based upon discreteness - and "jumping" over infinity into the next following Universal cyclus.
QUOTE: "but that does not mean there is nothing beyond such infinity, which is absolute. There should be. Beyond smallness and greatness there has to be a source of energy and a sense of direction."
Well - let's assume that there is "something" beyond such an infinity - then there must also be something beyond that - and so on - and this can be continued into absurditum - the Origin of the Origin of the ----- at a certain point we (I) have to accept that Universe - that the stuff that we humans are an intimate part of - cannot self-percept the Origin of "ourselves" - perhaps the answer is hidden in the complexion - that in order to self-percept something, a certain level of complexion is needed - and there will be a natural gap - there will be a scale difference between what can be self-percepted - the self-percepting complexion must be scale-wise higher than the smallest - so infinity cannot per se EVER be understood.
QUOTE: "I would still like to know how You imagine rotation is represented as video running on pixels? What happens in the center?"
I do not understand your point ? are you asking what happens in the center of an eddie - a spiral - a hurricane ? - in my thinking everything is dynamically CHANGING - it is not possible to have a repetition of THE SAME - identically the same - next following configuration will be different - and it is the extent of differences, that we see as varying energetic levels, zero-energy does not apply, -
QUOTE: "Well my idea is that infinite is never reached ( as it is unreachable- by definition) but to go to smallest non-physical oscillating scale You have to gather speed enough to jump over infinity. Beyond infinity"
Are you now suggesting that Universe is and ever repeating cyclus from pure space (filled with kinetic information) - Orgin Condition, being translated from 1 to 0, being translated from one true infinity and via physical universal life into the other true infinity, between the two extremes - the two true infinities represented by 1 and 0, and into the next following cyclus again starting with pure space (filled with kinetic information) - and so on ad infinitum ?
So the question is perhaps: Is physical fundamentally based upon discreteness - and "jumping" over infinity into the next following Universal cyclus.
There can be only One 'true infinity', and nothing 'else' jumps over it.
g.
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "There can be only One 'true infinity', and nothing 'else' jumps over it."
Have you a Google reference on that ?
QUOTE: "There can be only One 'true infinity', and nothing 'else' jumps over it."
Have you a Google reference on that ?
QUOTE
infinity
c.1374, from O.Fr. infinité, from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas used as a loan-transl. of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity
c.1374, from O.Fr. infinité, from L. infinitatem (nom. infinitas) "boundlessness," from infinitus boundless, unlimited" (see infinite). Infinitas used as a loan-transl. of Gk. apeiria "infinity," from apeiros "endless."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Infinity
For the third time...and you can just as easily check it out in any dictionary of your choice. Perhaps you can explain how it is possible to 'jump over' something that has no boundaries to it?
Apart from that, there is always common sense, but I know that is not high on your list of considerations.
You seem to be thinking that 'infinity' is some kind of 'thing' that exists in the 'out there, somewhere' of another part of Space, or something! How very strange. But I can understand how this is done, when you approach the subject from the erroneous view of 'separate' or 'discrete' things, without taking the Reality of the wholeness and interconnectedness of existence into account. This is often the case with people who are trying to leave some sort of 'gap' for their 'exterior' version of a 'Geppetto-like God' to fit into.
(One has to wonder whether this is where 'string theory' comes from?
)g.
QUOTE (bukh+May 27 2008, 09:06 PM)
So the question is perhaps: Is physical fundamentally based upon discreteness - and "jumping" over infinity into the next following Universal cyclus.
hej bukh
In a sense, YES. Just need fast enough "engine" - process. Hyperfast.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 27 2008, 11:08 PM)
Apart from that, there is always common sense, but I know that is not high on your list of considerations.
hej Gorgeous,
I am in business, CEO, family,kids, so I have kind of common sense
But I am no engineer, thats true.However, when experimenting with ideas - You are absolutely right. Common sense makes common ideas.
Hi Guys
In answer to photon behavior.......A photon of light is the loneliest creature in the planet. It is so small that the chances of one running into another is truly astronomical...
If big bang were true and the greatest mass of base energy was compressed absolutely, then the closest possible connection could have only taken place in that one arrangement... If space expanded from that point (or every point) then photons cannot possibly interact. With what??? they are so small that everything else must travel incredible speeds below their own...A snail which stops moving is going at light speed to a photon. because as far as relativity is concerned , the photon is the observer of mass.
As for this speed being the Governor of time, being that it is postulated that going faster will reverse time. Either the photon sits just inside the boundary or it would be governed by the same rule...
My comments about light speed are meant to convey that in singular energy structure , there is no need to break the law of light speed in order to "be in different parts of the universe " zipping here , then there to place a pixel and run to the next spot......No ,,,that simply follows a time line view.
the singular energy has one rule that affects us most....we can see it , but only in the reflection of what it has done.
Cheers
Iseason
In answer to photon behavior.......A photon of light is the loneliest creature in the planet. It is so small that the chances of one running into another is truly astronomical...
If big bang were true and the greatest mass of base energy was compressed absolutely, then the closest possible connection could have only taken place in that one arrangement... If space expanded from that point (or every point) then photons cannot possibly interact. With what??? they are so small that everything else must travel incredible speeds below their own...A snail which stops moving is going at light speed to a photon. because as far as relativity is concerned , the photon is the observer of mass.
As for this speed being the Governor of time, being that it is postulated that going faster will reverse time. Either the photon sits just inside the boundary or it would be governed by the same rule...
My comments about light speed are meant to convey that in singular energy structure , there is no need to break the law of light speed in order to "be in different parts of the universe " zipping here , then there to place a pixel and run to the next spot......No ,,,that simply follows a time line view.
the singular energy has one rule that affects us most....we can see it , but only in the reflection of what it has done.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Ivars+May 28 2008, 05:46 AM)
hej Gorgeous,
I am in business, CEO, family,kids, so I have kind of common sense But I am no engineer, thats true.
However, when experimenting with ideas - You are absolutely right. Common sense makes common ideas.
Great! - Then you will have the common sense to know that I was addressing bukh in a reply to his post! - Unless you are about to confirm that you 'two' are actually the same poster?
You could all maybe ask your'selves' why your 'work' is not as comprehensive as this...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/chris-hawkin...heory.htm#intro
...because, from the 'angle' you guy(s) are coming 'in' at, it needs to be.
g.
I am in business, CEO, family,kids, so I have kind of common sense
But I am no engineer, thats true.However, when experimenting with ideas - You are absolutely right. Common sense makes common ideas.
Great! - Then you will have the common sense to know that I was addressing bukh in a reply to his post! - Unless you are about to confirm that you 'two' are actually the same poster?
You could all maybe ask your'selves' why your 'work' is not as comprehensive as this...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/chris-hawkin...heory.htm#intro
...because, from the 'angle' you guy(s) are coming 'in' at, it needs to be.
g.
Hi Gorgeous
I hope and trust that we all feel that this Forum is a pleasant and relaxed place to discuss ideas - there are - or at least should not be ANY formal tone or requirements to style and content and so-called intellectual level. Any member will show her/himself through what she/he is posting - and anyone can choose to take part in a thread - or not - and anyone can make comments as liked. Everything returns to sender.
QUOTE: "...because, from the 'angle' you guy(s) are coming 'in' at, it needs to be."
Please explain ?
I hope and trust that we all feel that this Forum is a pleasant and relaxed place to discuss ideas - there are - or at least should not be ANY formal tone or requirements to style and content and so-called intellectual level. Any member will show her/himself through what she/he is posting - and anyone can choose to take part in a thread - or not - and anyone can make comments as liked. Everything returns to sender.
QUOTE: "...because, from the 'angle' you guy(s) are coming 'in' at, it needs to be."
Please explain ?
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 28 2008, 10:29 AM)
Great! - Then you will have the common sense to know that I was addressing bukh in a reply to his post! - Unless you are about to confirm that you 'two' are actually the same poster?
hej Gorgeous
That just shows how focused I am on details
Well, its not ready until its ready. But we ( 2 of us!) think we have made some progress since initial ideas little more than a year ago. So far nothing has happened that would kind of stop us short in tracks.
After some time I am going to read David Bohm and his hidden variables - I have delayed it because:
1) I did not have enough background to understand enough the depth of ideas
2) I do not like predigested food, so I wanted to reach own conclusions and see how they correspond with Bohm's.
The idea of Brownian motion of infinitesimal space dimensions (in form of hidden variables) comes from him , actually. I do not know his theory, but need to explain Sub quantum activity is obvious to me if we want to include more than just physics.
Waves are just too neat for me. There has to be chaos included in whatever we use to explain nature.
hej Gorgeous
That just shows how focused I am on details
Well, its not ready until its ready. But we ( 2 of us!) think we have made some progress since initial ideas little more than a year ago. So far nothing has happened that would kind of stop us short in tracks.
After some time I am going to read David Bohm and his hidden variables - I have delayed it because:
1) I did not have enough background to understand enough the depth of ideas
2) I do not like predigested food, so I wanted to reach own conclusions and see how they correspond with Bohm's.
The idea of Brownian motion of infinitesimal space dimensions (in form of hidden variables) comes from him , actually. I do not know his theory, but need to explain Sub quantum activity is obvious to me if we want to include more than just physics.
Waves are just too neat for me. There has to be chaos included in whatever we use to explain nature.
QUOTE (Ivars+May 28 2008, 11:07 AM)
Waves are just too neat for me. There has to be chaos included in whatever we use to explain nature.
To begin with our knowledge grows in spots. ..What you first gain, ... is probably a small amount of new information, a few new definitions, or distinctions, or points of view. But while these special ideas are being added, the rest of your knowledge stands still, and only gradually will you line up your previous opinions with the novelties I am trying to instill, and to modify to some slight degree their mass. ..Your mind in such processes is strained, and sometimes painfully so, between its older beliefs and the novelties which experience brings along. (William James, Pragmatism)
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "Perhaps you can explain how it is possible to 'jump over' something that has no boundaries to it?"
Well - an infinitely small jumb should suffice - only problem is that you really do not know how small is needed - so you may easily over-jump - pity pity -
And for G@ds sake - look at it a bit more relaxed - we are not combating a war - it is not a competition in having the right ideas - it is just a serious intellectual exercise -
QUOTE: "Perhaps you can explain how it is possible to 'jump over' something that has no boundaries to it?"
Well - an infinitely small jumb should suffice - only problem is that you really do not know how small is needed - so you may easily over-jump - pity pity -
And for G@ds sake - look at it a bit more relaxed - we are not combating a war - it is not a competition in having the right ideas - it is just a serious intellectual exercise -
QUOTE (bukh+May 28 2008, 06:14 PM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "Perhaps you can explain how it is possible to 'jump over' something that has no boundaries to it?"
Well - an infinitely small jumb should suffice - only problem is that you really do not know how small is needed - so you may easily over-jump - pity pity -
And for G@ds sake - look at it a bit more relaxed - we are not combating a war - it is not a competition in having the right ideas - it is just a serious intellectual exercise -
I think that may be your maddest post yet! Don't you worry your little head about me, sweetie. If this is your account of a 'serious intellectual exercise', I can see the physics world shaking in their boots now!
Now....where did I put my infinitely small jumb?
g.
QUOTE: "Perhaps you can explain how it is possible to 'jump over' something that has no boundaries to it?"
Well - an infinitely small jumb should suffice - only problem is that you really do not know how small is needed - so you may easily over-jump - pity pity -
And for G@ds sake - look at it a bit more relaxed - we are not combating a war - it is not a competition in having the right ideas - it is just a serious intellectual exercise -
I think that may be your maddest post yet! Don't you worry your little head about me, sweetie. If this is your account of a 'serious intellectual exercise', I can see the physics world shaking in their boots now!
Now....where did I put my infinitely small jumb?
g.
it's a pity that all these posts end up in a #itch-slap with Gorgeous. It would be much better if such an obviously talented mind could instead look at the thoughts here and other threads that I've seen posted less cynically. I think then Gorgeous could add reasonable opposition instead of straight out derision. I really do challenge you to do so.
Here's a start.
How do you allow that something without boundaries (infinity) can be measured in any part?
Cheers
Iseason.
Here's a start.
How do you allow that something without boundaries (infinity) can be measured in any part?
Cheers
Iseason.
QUOTE (iseason+May 28 2008, 11:11 PM)
it's a pity that all these posts end up in a #itch-slap with Gorgeous. It would be much better if such an obviously talented mind could instead look at the thoughts here and other threads that I've seen posted less cynically. I think then Gorgeous could add reasonable opposition instead of straight out derision. I really do challenge you to do so.
Here's a start.
How do you allow that something without boundaries (infinity) can be measured in any part?
Cheers
Iseason.
It can be noted that my first encounter is most often one of a reasonable position, intended solely to aid the enquirer with his/her own further discovery...Unless it is something of such obvious lunacy that the only explanation must be one of 'fun' (yes, that strange 'thing' that never gets a mention in peoples' 'bibles').
When this initial reason is wilfully denied, the 'enquirer' is exposed as something much less than they are pretending to be. If s/he then makes a genuine effort, as in the case of 'Ivars' previously, to try to understand, then the reasonableness will continue. You think such an 'obviously talented mind' such as mine has time to waste on people who do not actually want to understand anything?
I have posted 3 times the acceptably correct dictionary~reference for 'Infinity' and it has been continuously ignored, as have all of my other posts. Now THAT'S 'cynicism'! Unfortunately, for you people who insist on a separate 'god' to bother the world with, you cannot deny Reality, so you pretend to yourself that the question is not being answered.
So, all of these apparent 'enquiries' are nothing more than a sham attempt at saving face for your 'beliefs'. Any necessary truth concerning Infinity is predictably ignored, in favour of the pre-blinkered view.
Your question has been answered on many occasions all through this thread. It remains for you to develop the eyes to see an accurate answer with, and that means rubbing the 'goo' out of them, firstly.
Now, like for like, I challenge YOU to post something reasonable, sensible and coherant! - Otherwise, you are all just 'b*tch~slapping' yourselves, and whatever form of 'belief' you claim to represent.
g.
Here's a start.
How do you allow that something without boundaries (infinity) can be measured in any part?
Cheers
Iseason.
It can be noted that my first encounter is most often one of a reasonable position, intended solely to aid the enquirer with his/her own further discovery...Unless it is something of such obvious lunacy that the only explanation must be one of 'fun' (yes, that strange 'thing' that never gets a mention in peoples' 'bibles').
When this initial reason is wilfully denied, the 'enquirer' is exposed as something much less than they are pretending to be. If s/he then makes a genuine effort, as in the case of 'Ivars' previously, to try to understand, then the reasonableness will continue. You think such an 'obviously talented mind' such as mine has time to waste on people who do not actually want to understand anything?
I have posted 3 times the acceptably correct dictionary~reference for 'Infinity' and it has been continuously ignored, as have all of my other posts. Now THAT'S 'cynicism'! Unfortunately, for you people who insist on a separate 'god' to bother the world with, you cannot deny Reality, so you pretend to yourself that the question is not being answered.
So, all of these apparent 'enquiries' are nothing more than a sham attempt at saving face for your 'beliefs'. Any necessary truth concerning Infinity is predictably ignored, in favour of the pre-blinkered view.
Your question has been answered on many occasions all through this thread. It remains for you to develop the eyes to see an accurate answer with, and that means rubbing the 'goo' out of them, firstly.
Now, like for like, I challenge YOU to post something reasonable, sensible and coherant! - Otherwise, you are all just 'b*tch~slapping' yourselves, and whatever form of 'belief' you claim to represent.
g.
Thanks
That's what I thought you'd say
Cheers
Iseason
That's what I thought you'd say
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+May 29 2008, 12:49 AM)
Thanks
That's what I thought you'd say
Cheers
Iseason
Yeah, me too.
g.
That's what I thought you'd say
Cheers
Iseason
Yeah, me too.
g.
Hi
To give a little idea how jumps over infinity may happen- based on hyperfast operations ( mathematics). This is first set of ideas, obviously not lucid at all, but may be gives some ideas.
Probably, we have to start with tetra-integers n(4) , meaning n in a[4]n(4). These integers will have :
-Non associative, non-commutative partitions (since 2(4)+3(4) = 5(4)? will not be the same as 3(4)+2(4) in terms of the result of operation a[4]5 = a[4](2(4)+3(4)) is not the same as a[4](3(4)+2(4))
-correspondingly different combinatorics, ordered (e.g. hyper factorial 2^(3^(4^(5......^n) ))))
-different notion of primes , etc.
- once these rules are established, it should be possible to create :
tetra rationals Q(4)
tetra reals R(4)
tetra negative numbers and Z(4)
now, with this, it would be possible to extend the notion of equation to e.g.:
x[4]n+x[4]m = C
Which would allow to define tetra imaginary unit perhaps as solution to :
x[4]2=-1 (x^x=-1) and lead to properties of tetra complex numbers C(4).
if we have function a[4]n = f(a,4,n) obviously taking n-> infinity ends up with principally unreachable scale of infinity (tetra-infinity) if we take f(a,4,n) to infinity via taking a->infinity.
This allows to look for another notion of tetra - infinitesimal which would allow to establish tetra-differentiation and tetra-integration.
Now we can also answer the question about infinite tetration h(z) moving things to complex numbers from some reals.
The result of infinite h(z) = complex means that from the math point of view we use, the next scale(s) of infinity ( tetra and above) shows up like imaginary for C(3) .They are however real in R(4). However, from equation x^x=-1 and generally x[n]2=-1 it is obvious that there is a structure behind this. However, what the speed of tetration does, is to push the result over the limits of infinity scale we work in with normal, exponential functions and normal integers.
Obviously, the number of discrete scales of infinity thus corresponds to the number of operations- tetra, penta, etc. We may again form operation integers based on this and ask what are their partitions ,combinatorics etc and extensions to rational, real, etc values and calculus.
So we should end up with 3 types of integers
1) Integers for numbers
2) Integers for operations
3) integers for application times of operations to numbers
Each of them will have different partition laws and combinatorics; integers for NUMBERS is clear and well known, properties of integers for operations is not known, properties for integers for number of application of operations will depend on the number of operations. If operation number is fixed, e.g tetra= 4 these combinatorics/partitions of INTEGER n for number of applications of operations will be a function of operation so, n(4).
Now we can define pentation as exponentiation in scale based on tetration and move on with finding out the laws of arithmetics of n(5), n(6) etc. and corresponding Q(5), R(5), Z(5), C(5) and look for patterns how they develop, as we have N(n), Q(n), R(n), Z(n), C(n) etc. and corresponding calculus.
If we find them, we can extend these PATTERNS of laws of arithmetics/combinatorics to rational, real, imaginary operation numbers and see what happens.
Then we look back and try to understand the whole thing together.
The first instructive thing would be to develop arithmetic and combinatorics of tetration integers n(4) = application times of tetration to some number.
I got these ideas from Ramanujans f(x) mentioned in his notebooks volume 1, page 326-327 and Hardy's "Orders of infinity", combined+tetration and hyperoperations as such.
To give a little idea how jumps over infinity may happen- based on hyperfast operations ( mathematics). This is first set of ideas, obviously not lucid at all, but may be gives some ideas.
Probably, we have to start with tetra-integers n(4) , meaning n in a[4]n(4). These integers will have :
-Non associative, non-commutative partitions (since 2(4)+3(4) = 5(4)? will not be the same as 3(4)+2(4) in terms of the result of operation a[4]5 = a[4](2(4)+3(4)) is not the same as a[4](3(4)+2(4))
-correspondingly different combinatorics, ordered (e.g. hyper factorial 2^(3^(4^(5......^n) ))))
-different notion of primes , etc.
- once these rules are established, it should be possible to create :
tetra rationals Q(4)
tetra reals R(4)
tetra negative numbers and Z(4)
now, with this, it would be possible to extend the notion of equation to e.g.:
x[4]n+x[4]m = C
Which would allow to define tetra imaginary unit perhaps as solution to :
x[4]2=-1 (x^x=-1) and lead to properties of tetra complex numbers C(4).
if we have function a[4]n = f(a,4,n) obviously taking n-> infinity ends up with principally unreachable scale of infinity (tetra-infinity) if we take f(a,4,n) to infinity via taking a->infinity.
This allows to look for another notion of tetra - infinitesimal which would allow to establish tetra-differentiation and tetra-integration.
Now we can also answer the question about infinite tetration h(z) moving things to complex numbers from some reals.
The result of infinite h(z) = complex means that from the math point of view we use, the next scale(s) of infinity ( tetra and above) shows up like imaginary for C(3) .They are however real in R(4). However, from equation x^x=-1 and generally x[n]2=-1 it is obvious that there is a structure behind this. However, what the speed of tetration does, is to push the result over the limits of infinity scale we work in with normal, exponential functions and normal integers.
Obviously, the number of discrete scales of infinity thus corresponds to the number of operations- tetra, penta, etc. We may again form operation integers based on this and ask what are their partitions ,combinatorics etc and extensions to rational, real, etc values and calculus.
So we should end up with 3 types of integers
1) Integers for numbers
2) Integers for operations
3) integers for application times of operations to numbers
Each of them will have different partition laws and combinatorics; integers for NUMBERS is clear and well known, properties of integers for operations is not known, properties for integers for number of application of operations will depend on the number of operations. If operation number is fixed, e.g tetra= 4 these combinatorics/partitions of INTEGER n for number of applications of operations will be a function of operation so, n(4).
Now we can define pentation as exponentiation in scale based on tetration and move on with finding out the laws of arithmetics of n(5), n(6) etc. and corresponding Q(5), R(5), Z(5), C(5) and look for patterns how they develop, as we have N(n), Q(n), R(n), Z(n), C(n) etc. and corresponding calculus.
If we find them, we can extend these PATTERNS of laws of arithmetics/combinatorics to rational, real, imaginary operation numbers and see what happens.
Then we look back and try to understand the whole thing together.
The first instructive thing would be to develop arithmetic and combinatorics of tetration integers n(4) = application times of tetration to some number.
I got these ideas from Ramanujans f(x) mentioned in his notebooks volume 1, page 326-327 and Hardy's "Orders of infinity", combined+tetration and hyperoperations as such.
guys
I still have a big if.
Infimnity is a measurement, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it . If you decide that Infinity can be contained , then you are probably measuring"a rully, rully biiiiiiig Number, but not infinity.
Cheers
Iseason
I still have a big if.
Infimnity is a measurement, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it . If you decide that Infinity can be contained , then you are probably measuring"a rully, rully biiiiiiig Number, but not infinity.
Cheers
Iseason
There can be no such thing as 'discrete scales of infinity'.
Mathematics does not deal with Real Infinity (Space).
g.
Mathematics does not deal with Real Infinity (Space).
g.
iseason
QUOTE: "Infimnity is a measurement, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it . If you decide that Infinity can be contained , then you are probably measuring"a rully, rully biiiiiiig Number, but not infinity."
Exactly - and that is why I do not the very concept of Infinity and Contnuity - as long as we are dealing with measurements - and that is why infinite - or better say non-defined - is being restricted to the concept of pure space out from which ratios can be taken - and ratios are numbers - size IS relative - non-defined
And infinite can be reserved for the concept of repeating Universe ad infinitum, in one way or another by jumping over infinity once Universe has come to a complexion where it cannot be further complexisized - so the jump is necessary in order to avoid numbered infinity.
QUOTE: "Infimnity is a measurement, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it . If you decide that Infinity can be contained , then you are probably measuring"a rully, rully biiiiiiig Number, but not infinity."
Exactly - and that is why I do not the very concept of Infinity and Contnuity - as long as we are dealing with measurements - and that is why infinite - or better say non-defined - is being restricted to the concept of pure space out from which ratios can be taken - and ratios are numbers - size IS relative - non-defined
And infinite can be reserved for the concept of repeating Universe ad infinitum, in one way or another by jumping over infinity once Universe has come to a complexion where it cannot be further complexisized - so the jump is necessary in order to avoid numbered infinity.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 29 2008, 08:51 AM)
Mathematics does not deal with Real Infinity (Space).
Hi gorgeous,
They do. Prove me wrong. ( Taking into account mathematical knowledge is by far not finished).
QUOTE (iseason+May 29 2008, 06:48 AM)
guys
I still have a big if.
Infinity is a measurement, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it . If you decide that Infinity can be contained , then you are probably measuring"a rully, rully biiiiiiig Number, but not infinity.
Cheers
Iseason
hi Iseason,
Well, You can not reach infinity, obviously, so infinity is not a really big number, its infinity.
However, you can jump over it into a different scale. There are numbers and numbers, not just normal integers we use for counting discrete objects.
E.g. take the famous thread here , 0,9999(9) = 1?
When You extend periods of 9 to infinity (meaning integer count of them n-> infinity) , You never reach it, obviously, however, there exists 1 which is beyond it- so also here jump over infinity of repeating 9-nes is well accepted, but to a different scale ( integer 1) .
This jump over infinity is called taking of limits, and is very well accepted notion in mathematics, however, the understanding of what happens when You do it is still on axiomatic ( it is so because it is so) level, as You can see from that thread.
I still have a big if.
Infinity is a measurement, no matter how much anyone wants to deny it . If you decide that Infinity can be contained , then you are probably measuring"a rully, rully biiiiiiig Number, but not infinity.
Cheers
Iseason
hi Iseason,
Well, You can not reach infinity, obviously, so infinity is not a really big number, its infinity.
However, you can jump over it into a different scale. There are numbers and numbers, not just normal integers we use for counting discrete objects.
E.g. take the famous thread here , 0,9999(9) = 1?
When You extend periods of 9 to infinity (meaning integer count of them n-> infinity) , You never reach it, obviously, however, there exists 1 which is beyond it- so also here jump over infinity of repeating 9-nes is well accepted, but to a different scale ( integer 1) .
This jump over infinity is called taking of limits, and is very well accepted notion in mathematics, however, the understanding of what happens when You do it is still on axiomatic ( it is so because it is so) level, as You can see from that thread.
QUOTE (bukh+May 29 2008, 09:12 AM)
And infinite can be reserved for the concept of repeating Universe ad infinitum, in one way or another by jumping over infinity once Universe has come to a complexion where it cannot be further complexisized - so the jump is necessary in order to avoid numbered infinity.
hej bukh
e.g. Rotation is obvious case of contained infinity. Getting out of rotating trajectory into another means jumping over infinity.
That is why I keep asking: If motion is an illusion , change etc etc WHAT happens in the centre of rotation? Is there a way to excape rotation (and infinity of it) via moving to exactly the centre?
So that I can better follow this thread would someone answer a question? Yes or no would be fine, elaboration would be better if you have the time. If you do take the time to elaborate please judge my level of knowledge by the the question asked and answer accordingly. Then I'll go back into the audience.
A University of Toronto website says that infinities exist or don't exist depending on what type of math used. In those maths where infinity dose exist, in order to get an answer that makes sense does infinity have to be broken or taken out of an equation?
I ask that because it seems that to know something, that something has to first be separated from all else, bordered from whatever it came from, and then put back to see how it fits into where it came from.
A University of Toronto website says that infinities exist or don't exist depending on what type of math used. In those maths where infinity dose exist, in order to get an answer that makes sense does infinity have to be broken or taken out of an equation?
I ask that because it seems that to know something, that something has to first be separated from all else, bordered from whatever it came from, and then put back to see how it fits into where it came from.
QUOTE (orestis+May 29 2008, 07:30 AM)
I ask that because it seems that to know something, that something has to first be separated from all else, bordered from whatever it came from, and then put back to see how it fits into where it came from.
When I said "all else" I had the idea that infinity could be compared to "all else"
I also forgot the "Thanks"
Thanks
If you think of infinity, consider Gauss's Electrical law of Maxwell's equations. The two variables of distance and electrical field equate to Charge. As one value becomes large, the other becomes small. The values cannot be infinity because their product must equal Charge, Q.
QUOTE (Ivars+May 29 2008, 09:52 AM)
Hi gorgeous,
They do. Prove me wrong. ( Taking into account mathematical knowledge is by far not finished).
Spatial Infinity is 3-dimensional, and thus exists everywhere. Mathematics deals with finite measurement. Even if an equation ends in a supposed 'infinity', it still has a point to start from and thus is not representitve of true spatial 3-dimensional infinity...the 'boundless' and 'borderless' one you will find in the dictionary.
Now it's your turn to prove yourself 'right'.
g.
They do. Prove me wrong. ( Taking into account mathematical knowledge is by far not finished).
Spatial Infinity is 3-dimensional, and thus exists everywhere. Mathematics deals with finite measurement. Even if an equation ends in a supposed 'infinity', it still has a point to start from and thus is not representitve of true spatial 3-dimensional infinity...the 'boundless' and 'borderless' one you will find in the dictionary.
Now it's your turn to prove yourself 'right'.
g.
hi gorgeous
1) I can not prove me right until I find the math. And the question is exactly how to work infinity (-ies) properly and clearly in it. There is still so much not done. Divergent series, divergent iterations, extra fast/slow numbers , "Magic " coincidences and analogies.. etc.etc.
2) As to existence of 3D spatial infinite REAL , present space in the absence of observer or measurement - that is unprovable as well. Existence of 3D space dimensions itself ( which is the same, actually) even is unprovable.
3) So the judgment will be made anyway by the logical consistency of theory, not experiment - ultimately. But the theory lacks the language. Return to point 1)
1) I can not prove me right until I find the math. And the question is exactly how to work infinity (-ies) properly and clearly in it. There is still so much not done. Divergent series, divergent iterations, extra fast/slow numbers , "Magic " coincidences and analogies.. etc.etc.
2) As to existence of 3D spatial infinite REAL , present space in the absence of observer or measurement - that is unprovable as well. Existence of 3D space dimensions itself ( which is the same, actually) even is unprovable.
3) So the judgment will be made anyway by the logical consistency of theory, not experiment - ultimately. But the theory lacks the language. Return to point 1)
For a perfectly detailed, precise and penetrating look at infinity
Check out the Post titled infinity by mptteam
located in Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories of the forum
The universe itself and its existence are infinities
Check out the Post titled infinity by mptteam
located in Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories of the forum
The universe itself and its existence are infinities
QUOTE (orestis+May 30 2008, 12:30 AM)
So that I can better follow this thread would someone answer a question? Yes or no would be fine, elaboration would be better if you have the time. If you do take the time to elaborate please judge my level of knowledge by the the question asked and answer accordingly. Then I'll go back into the audience.
A University of Toronto website says that infinities exist or don't exist depending on what type of math used. In those maths where infinity dose exist, in order to get an answer that makes sense does infinity have to be broken or taken out of an equation?
I ask that because it seems that to know something, that something has to first be separated from all else, bordered from whatever it came from, and then put back to see how it fits into where it came from.
Welcome orestis and others
The premise for my beginning this post was that infinity must be all-encompassing. It means that infinity "having no boundary" of "forever and ever", Would be evenly distributed to such a point that no area of it could be measured.
Several have argued that we can stand outside infinity or separate ourselves and then measure what's around it.I think not.
Others think mathematical infinities can be seen in physical terms....I think not
If Infinity does exist , it creates a universe of no variance and since we can measure the universe by it's parts , then it is not infinite......and nor is any part, because "having no boundaries" you cannot exist aside from it in order to measure just what you want to.
I am in favor of a singular particle universe. If you read back through this thread then you will get an understanding of the basic thought process. But whether the theory I favor is anything like correct or not , Infinity has only one behavior/law which governs it, and by proxy, one infinity would be all infinities and we could not measure a teaspoon of sugar.
Cheers
Iseason
A University of Toronto website says that infinities exist or don't exist depending on what type of math used. In those maths where infinity dose exist, in order to get an answer that makes sense does infinity have to be broken or taken out of an equation?
I ask that because it seems that to know something, that something has to first be separated from all else, bordered from whatever it came from, and then put back to see how it fits into where it came from.
Welcome orestis and others
The premise for my beginning this post was that infinity must be all-encompassing. It means that infinity "having no boundary" of "forever and ever", Would be evenly distributed to such a point that no area of it could be measured.
Several have argued that we can stand outside infinity or separate ourselves and then measure what's around it.I think not.
Others think mathematical infinities can be seen in physical terms....I think not
If Infinity does exist , it creates a universe of no variance and since we can measure the universe by it's parts , then it is not infinite......and nor is any part, because "having no boundaries" you cannot exist aside from it in order to measure just what you want to.
I am in favor of a singular particle universe. If you read back through this thread then you will get an understanding of the basic thought process. But whether the theory I favor is anything like correct or not , Infinity has only one behavior/law which governs it, and by proxy, one infinity would be all infinities and we could not measure a teaspoon of sugar.
Cheers
Iseason
Thank you iseason. That put some order into the thread for me.
Hej Iseason
QUOTE: "If Infinity does exist , it creates a universe of no variance and since we can measure the universe by it's parts , then it is not infinite......and nor is any part, because "having no boundaries" you cannot exist aside from it in order to measure just what you want to."
Now I am repeating somewhat that I said previously - just for clarification - perhaps not neccessary to repeat - anyhow:
Imagine that the only infinite that is into existance - the one and only - is the dimension of "Pure Space" - same as saying that the dimension of Pure Space is not defined - it has the size that such a pure space has - it is infinite.
Pure Space has always been and will always be.
And now we come to the definition of being physical - to be a Universe.
Physical can best be defined as dynamic dimensionalities - a physical expression can best be defined as the "being" of dimensionalities that constantly change relative to each other. And a dimensionality can best be desribed as a configuration - a pattern - of smaller dimensions arranged spatially in said configuration. So physical become an ever changing pattern of such smallest dimensionalities arranged in space - arranged or placed in Pure Space. Physical IS 3D.
ANY dimensionality is a RATIO of Pure Space - any dimensionality - irrespective how many dimensionalities there are in Pure Space - any dimensionality represent a discrete 3D configuration - there exists no such thing as a point - no such thing as a sizeless point.
Dimensionalities are discrete and their number is finite - there is not an infinite amount of dimensionalities - Physical / Universe - is made of a finite number of dimensionalities -
And now we come to the crucial point - what happens when Universe come to a point where dimensionalities cannot been further divided - when we reach infinitely small - at this point the system "jumps" (according to Ivars idea) over infinity into another and new discreteness - and the whole system the whole Universal cyclus can repeat itsself.
This imply that PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS DISCRETE AND FINITE AS A SYSTEM - AND CAN BE MEASURED RELATIVELY - ALL AND EVERYTHING THAT IS BEING MEASURED IN UNIVERSE IS RELATIVE MEASUREMENTS - AND THEY ARE EXACT RELATIVE MEASUREMENTS PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE BEING EXPRESSED IN EXACT TERMS - AND EXACT TERMS INVOLVE A BINARY SYSTEM.
QUOTE: "If Infinity does exist , it creates a universe of no variance and since we can measure the universe by it's parts , then it is not infinite......and nor is any part, because "having no boundaries" you cannot exist aside from it in order to measure just what you want to."
Now I am repeating somewhat that I said previously - just for clarification - perhaps not neccessary to repeat - anyhow:
Imagine that the only infinite that is into existance - the one and only - is the dimension of "Pure Space" - same as saying that the dimension of Pure Space is not defined - it has the size that such a pure space has - it is infinite.
Pure Space has always been and will always be.
And now we come to the definition of being physical - to be a Universe.
Physical can best be defined as dynamic dimensionalities - a physical expression can best be defined as the "being" of dimensionalities that constantly change relative to each other. And a dimensionality can best be desribed as a configuration - a pattern - of smaller dimensions arranged spatially in said configuration. So physical become an ever changing pattern of such smallest dimensionalities arranged in space - arranged or placed in Pure Space. Physical IS 3D.
ANY dimensionality is a RATIO of Pure Space - any dimensionality - irrespective how many dimensionalities there are in Pure Space - any dimensionality represent a discrete 3D configuration - there exists no such thing as a point - no such thing as a sizeless point.
Dimensionalities are discrete and their number is finite - there is not an infinite amount of dimensionalities - Physical / Universe - is made of a finite number of dimensionalities -
And now we come to the crucial point - what happens when Universe come to a point where dimensionalities cannot been further divided - when we reach infinitely small - at this point the system "jumps" (according to Ivars idea) over infinity into another and new discreteness - and the whole system the whole Universal cyclus can repeat itsself.
This imply that PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS DISCRETE AND FINITE AS A SYSTEM - AND CAN BE MEASURED RELATIVELY - ALL AND EVERYTHING THAT IS BEING MEASURED IN UNIVERSE IS RELATIVE MEASUREMENTS - AND THEY ARE EXACT RELATIVE MEASUREMENTS PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE BEING EXPRESSED IN EXACT TERMS - AND EXACT TERMS INVOLVE A BINARY SYSTEM.
Hey buhk
The place we are disputing is "pure space". I see that ANY space is available , without let to infinity. I will allow that each volume of space that is currently "free space" will become full in varying positions along a time line.
This is the job and cause of motion. As the motion of the earth goes through space, it does so as a broom sweeping along leaving as much dirt in its wake. Each potion occupied once will not be available to be used again. Universally , the same process is occurring. We can see much , because we ourselves are affect at a relative level. Each snapshot we can see is an order that is being followed precisely by all heavenly bodies.
Similarities are to be expected as galaxies sweep and move as a mass in their own right. Eventually, there will be a minimum of unoccupied positions, and like finishing a jigsaw , the work completes. But then the fun begins. If a Galaxy were to hit a part of space where ALL the pixels were available, then it would increase it's travel in that direction. Superhighways will exist in this way ,Perhaps even as black holes...
Cheers
Iseason
The place we are disputing is "pure space". I see that ANY space is available , without let to infinity. I will allow that each volume of space that is currently "free space" will become full in varying positions along a time line.
This is the job and cause of motion. As the motion of the earth goes through space, it does so as a broom sweeping along leaving as much dirt in its wake. Each potion occupied once will not be available to be used again. Universally , the same process is occurring. We can see much , because we ourselves are affect at a relative level. Each snapshot we can see is an order that is being followed precisely by all heavenly bodies.
Similarities are to be expected as galaxies sweep and move as a mass in their own right. Eventually, there will be a minimum of unoccupied positions, and like finishing a jigsaw , the work completes. But then the fun begins. If a Galaxy were to hit a part of space where ALL the pixels were available, then it would increase it's travel in that direction. Superhighways will exist in this way ,Perhaps even as black holes...
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason
QUOTE: "The place we are disputing is "pure space". I see that ANY space is available , without let to infinity. I will allow that each volume of space that is currently "free space" will become full in varying positions along a time line."
- You are right - I have probably not been exact when trying to explain what I mean by "Pure Space".
Pure Space is an Origin Condition - and already at this point - one have to be very cautious about the definition of Origin condition - perhaps it is better to say that is is a conditin which originates during Universal Cyclus.
Universe is oscillating from one extreme condition characterized by: pure space - no motion - and into the other extreme: pure motion no space.
So when I say Pure Space - it is meant to be this extreme starting condition in a Universal Cyclus.
And then I am postulating that the binary princple is being applied - such that pure space is "divided" into two - and that is the physical unfolding - - by introducing two dimensionalities - it is possible to say whether something belongs to this or to that, respectively.
And from then on infinite or non-defined pure space is being "divided" in more and more dimensionalities - or ratios - and at all time there exist no such thing as "empty space" - or nothingness.
Pure Space will be filled up by "smaller and smaller" dimensionalities - more and more according to divisions by the binary system- and increasingly complezed arranged relatively to each other. And in this way - according to the binary mathematical principle or system - dimensionalities will arrange themselves in dynamically changing expressions - as 3D forms in space. But there is NO VOID - nothing between dimensionalities - motion is dynamic rearrangements of smallest dimensionalities - with each flash-expression exactly telling if something is belonging to this or to that 3D-configuration.
The jig saw is filled out from the very origin - first there are only two bricks - and the bricks will incerase in number - forming more and more complex arrangements - but at any time the pure space is being filled completely out, - just remembering that everything is ratio - not size.
Nature always know if a brick belongs to this or to that - and that is (perhaps) via D and L and cellular automaton principles.
QUOTE: "The place we are disputing is "pure space". I see that ANY space is available , without let to infinity. I will allow that each volume of space that is currently "free space" will become full in varying positions along a time line."
- You are right - I have probably not been exact when trying to explain what I mean by "Pure Space".
Pure Space is an Origin Condition - and already at this point - one have to be very cautious about the definition of Origin condition - perhaps it is better to say that is is a conditin which originates during Universal Cyclus.
Universe is oscillating from one extreme condition characterized by: pure space - no motion - and into the other extreme: pure motion no space.
So when I say Pure Space - it is meant to be this extreme starting condition in a Universal Cyclus.
And then I am postulating that the binary princple is being applied - such that pure space is "divided" into two - and that is the physical unfolding - - by introducing two dimensionalities - it is possible to say whether something belongs to this or to that, respectively.
And from then on infinite or non-defined pure space is being "divided" in more and more dimensionalities - or ratios - and at all time there exist no such thing as "empty space" - or nothingness.
Pure Space will be filled up by "smaller and smaller" dimensionalities - more and more according to divisions by the binary system- and increasingly complezed arranged relatively to each other. And in this way - according to the binary mathematical principle or system - dimensionalities will arrange themselves in dynamically changing expressions - as 3D forms in space. But there is NO VOID - nothing between dimensionalities - motion is dynamic rearrangements of smallest dimensionalities - with each flash-expression exactly telling if something is belonging to this or to that 3D-configuration.
The jig saw is filled out from the very origin - first there are only two bricks - and the bricks will incerase in number - forming more and more complex arrangements - but at any time the pure space is being filled completely out, - just remembering that everything is ratio - not size.
Nature always know if a brick belongs to this or to that - and that is (perhaps) via D and L and cellular automaton principles.
QUOTE (Ivars+May 29 2008, 05:19 PM)
hi gorgeous
1) I can not prove me right until I find the math. And the question is exactly how to work infinity (-ies) properly and clearly in it. There is still so much not done. Divergent series, divergent iterations, extra fast/slow numbers , "Magic " coincidences and analogies.. etc.etc.
2) As to existence of 3D spatial infinite REAL , present space in the absence of observer or measurement - that is unprovable as well. Existence of 3D space dimensions itself ( which is the same, actually) even is unprovable.
3) So the judgment will be made anyway by the logical consistency of theory, not experiment - ultimately. But the theory lacks the language. Return to point 1)
Complete and utter tripe.
There is still 'much not done' by You. You could start by not ignoring the dictionary.
Ultimately, it rests on whether you actually want to know, of course, or whether you would rather not know, as the idea sends shivers down the spine of those who cannot think for themselves,and are thus afraid of change.
The 'judgment' will be made by the honest thinking individual, regardless of whatever anyone of 'us' says. Only the honest, thinking individual will be able to discern what is Real concerning their own existence. There is plenty of 'evidence', and the art of deduction is a skill to be learned by those who are capable, but above all else, honest. Few and far between...
g.
1) I can not prove me right until I find the math. And the question is exactly how to work infinity (-ies) properly and clearly in it. There is still so much not done. Divergent series, divergent iterations, extra fast/slow numbers , "Magic " coincidences and analogies.. etc.etc.
2) As to existence of 3D spatial infinite REAL , present space in the absence of observer or measurement - that is unprovable as well. Existence of 3D space dimensions itself ( which is the same, actually) even is unprovable.
3) So the judgment will be made anyway by the logical consistency of theory, not experiment - ultimately. But the theory lacks the language. Return to point 1)
Complete and utter tripe.
There is still 'much not done' by You. You could start by not ignoring the dictionary.
Ultimately, it rests on whether you actually want to know, of course, or whether you would rather not know, as the idea sends shivers down the spine of those who cannot think for themselves,and are thus afraid of change.
The 'judgment' will be made by the honest thinking individual, regardless of whatever anyone of 'us' says. Only the honest, thinking individual will be able to discern what is Real concerning their own existence. There is plenty of 'evidence', and the art of deduction is a skill to be learned by those who are capable, but above all else, honest. Few and far between...
g.
hi gorgeous,
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step in starting to think for yourself.
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step in starting to think for yourself.
Ultimately, it rests on whether you actually want to know, of course, or whether you would rather not know, as the idea sends shivers down the spine of those who cannot think for themselves,and are thus afraid of change.
Shivers??? I do not want to know, I want to understand. See the difference? Its enormous.
This sounds OK, but it also requires understanding to complement openness to reality,I assume possessed by honest individual. Openness as such is not enough. It sounds like taking believing a step to far, and it makes ultimate reality subjective, which it is not. It is not also objective- and that inherent ambiguity is the difficulty most honest individuals can not cope with. But I totally agree there is enough of evidence to understand reality.
QUOTE
There is still 'much not done' by You. You could start by not ignoring the dictionary.
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step in starting to think for yourself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is still 'much not done' by You. You could start by not ignoring the dictionary. |
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step in starting to think for yourself.
Ultimately, it rests on whether you actually want to know, of course, or whether you would rather not know, as the idea sends shivers down the spine of those who cannot think for themselves,and are thus afraid of change.
Shivers??? I do not want to know, I want to understand. See the difference? Its enormous.
QUOTE
The 'judgment' will be made by the honest thinking individual, regardless of whatever anyone of 'us' says. Only the honest, thinking individual will be able to discern what is Real concerning their own existence. There is plenty of 'evidence', and the art of deduction is a skill to be learned by those who are capable, but above all else, honest. Few and far between...
This sounds OK, but it also requires understanding to complement openness to reality,I assume possessed by honest individual. Openness as such is not enough. It sounds like taking believing a step to far, and it makes ultimate reality subjective, which it is not. It is not also objective- and that inherent ambiguity is the difficulty most honest individuals can not cope with. But I totally agree there is enough of evidence to understand reality.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "Only the honest, thinking individual will be able to discern what is Real concerning their own existence"
Honest and Real is a little strange terms to use in this context - I would like to think.
QUOTE: "Only the honest, thinking individual will be able to discern what is Real concerning their own existence"
Honest and Real is a little strange terms to use in this context - I would like to think.
Hi all,
(IMO) And please falsify if possible,
Existence must be infinite as would absolute nothingness be if it could exist. However absolute nothingness is also absence of anything including existence.
Simply by the fact that we are here experiencing existence means that it must be infinite.
My thinking cannot see any other way (which does not mean I am correct) but if anyone can explain to me how I am incorrect I would be fascinated to know.
Kind regards
(IMO) And please falsify if possible,
Existence must be infinite as would absolute nothingness be if it could exist. However absolute nothingness is also absence of anything including existence.
Simply by the fact that we are here experiencing existence means that it must be infinite.
My thinking cannot see any other way (which does not mean I am correct) but if anyone can explain to me how I am incorrect I would be fascinated to know.
Kind regards
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 31 2008, 01:56 PM)
Existence must be infinite as would absolute nothingness be if it could exist. However absolute nothingness is also absence of anything including existence.
Simply by the fact that we are here experiencing existence means that it must be infinite.
hi SU,
Very well stated. Crisp.
My view is dual. Dynamic duality of opposites- absolute change turns absolute nothingness into existance, while absolute nothingness turns absolute change into absolute stillness. No piece.
Simply by the fact that we are here experiencing existence means that it must be infinite.
hi SU,
Very well stated. Crisp.
My view is dual. Dynamic duality of opposites- absolute change turns absolute nothingness into existance, while absolute nothingness turns absolute change into absolute stillness. No piece.
Sorry, "no peace".
QUOTE (Ivars+May 31 2008, 02:49 PM)
hi SU,
Very well stated. Crisp.
My view is dual. Dynamic duality of opposites- absolute change turns absolute nothingness into existance, while absolute nothingness turns absolute change into absolute stillness. No piece.
Hi Ivars,
I still have a question:
I am having difficulties reconciling how absolutely nothing can turn anything when it is by default without properties?
Cheers
Very well stated. Crisp.
My view is dual. Dynamic duality of opposites- absolute change turns absolute nothingness into existance, while absolute nothingness turns absolute change into absolute stillness. No piece.
Hi Ivars,
I still have a question:
I am having difficulties reconciling how absolutely nothing can turn anything when it is by default without properties?
Cheers
Hi SU,
I was in a hurry, did not write things out properly.
Nothingness has one property. It can not exist. And that is enough.
The logical impossibility for it to exist is what I call pure change, pure motion, absolute chaos, etc. There is nothing, but there is this logical impossibility.
Now since there is this logical imposibility, it creates something out of nothing, because it itself exists (this logical impossibility) .
As it is something created out of nothing, the logical impossibility disappears since now there is something.
As pure change (logical impossibility without any substance on which it could act) disappear, we have the again nothing and the logical impossibility that nothing can not exist, so pure chage exists again, and as there is something ( this logical impossibility=pure change) than it ceases to exist since there is not nothing, but something etc...
Since we experience existance, each of these oscillating duality cycles should leave a mark by creating also something that is not change, but substance. In my opinion, these are infinitesimal dimensions of space ( infinitesimal here means absolutely smallest possible, not as in mathematics). In such way space dimensions (=space itself) is created out of nothing because it can not exist, but it is created in small pieces (not 3D volumes, but dimensions of space itself are built up).
Since we experience existance, this process of space creation has direction that leads to accumulation of space ( we are also complexifications of space, albeit quite advanced) .
Since there is direction, one of the 2 principles- nothingness (=potential space) and pure change ( pure motion without substance) has to be primary.
Since we have something, not nothing, obviously it is not nothingness that is primary.
So we are left with pure change=pure motion=absolute chaos= the logical impossibility of existance of nothingness as a primary source of existance.
This logical impossibility is infinite in the sence eternal. But it has oscillating property of creating space out of nothing in pieces.
In essence, this is Yin ( pure change, pure motion, pure chaos, pure substance, content) - Yang (nothingness, potential space, pure form, pure structure) principle.
I was in a hurry, did not write things out properly.
Nothingness has one property. It can not exist. And that is enough.
The logical impossibility for it to exist is what I call pure change, pure motion, absolute chaos, etc. There is nothing, but there is this logical impossibility.
Now since there is this logical imposibility, it creates something out of nothing, because it itself exists (this logical impossibility) .
As it is something created out of nothing, the logical impossibility disappears since now there is something.
As pure change (logical impossibility without any substance on which it could act) disappear, we have the again nothing and the logical impossibility that nothing can not exist, so pure chage exists again, and as there is something ( this logical impossibility=pure change) than it ceases to exist since there is not nothing, but something etc...
Since we experience existance, each of these oscillating duality cycles should leave a mark by creating also something that is not change, but substance. In my opinion, these are infinitesimal dimensions of space ( infinitesimal here means absolutely smallest possible, not as in mathematics). In such way space dimensions (=space itself) is created out of nothing because it can not exist, but it is created in small pieces (not 3D volumes, but dimensions of space itself are built up).
Since we experience existance, this process of space creation has direction that leads to accumulation of space ( we are also complexifications of space, albeit quite advanced) .
Since there is direction, one of the 2 principles- nothingness (=potential space) and pure change ( pure motion without substance) has to be primary.
Since we have something, not nothing, obviously it is not nothingness that is primary.
So we are left with pure change=pure motion=absolute chaos= the logical impossibility of existance of nothingness as a primary source of existance.
This logical impossibility is infinite in the sence eternal. But it has oscillating property of creating space out of nothing in pieces.
In essence, this is Yin ( pure change, pure motion, pure chaos, pure substance, content) - Yang (nothingness, potential space, pure form, pure structure) principle.
QUOTE (bukh+May 30 2008, 01:37 PM)
But there is NO VOID - nothing between dimensionalities - motion is dynamic rearrangements of smallest dimensionalities - with each flash-expression exactly telling if something is belonging to this or to that 3D-configuration.
hi bukh
I have understood Your NO VOID principle- there is nothing between released space dimensions ( infinitesimal or cumulated) since there is also no space itself there.
When we talk about smallest dimensinalities of space, why do we need to carry around 3D space with us? Where do we get it from, these 3D configurations, suddenly?
Imagine space with any dimensionality being incessantly created everywhere where there are neighbouring dimensions. 3D space can exist only potentially, and appears as 2D vortexes of space gets fixed in 3rd D, locally. This condition seems to have the ability to percolate, or fill the space with kind of lattice ( as You suggest with pixels) but still there are "regions" of imaginary time without space since percolation does not require 100% participation.
I am not sure potential space is 3D, either. What I am sure of, it has a geometry which is related to pi- either infinite circle(s) ( ideal line) or sphere.
hi bukh
I have understood Your NO VOID principle- there is nothing between released space dimensions ( infinitesimal or cumulated) since there is also no space itself there.
When we talk about smallest dimensinalities of space, why do we need to carry around 3D space with us? Where do we get it from, these 3D configurations, suddenly?
Imagine space with any dimensionality being incessantly created everywhere where there are neighbouring dimensions. 3D space can exist only potentially, and appears as 2D vortexes of space gets fixed in 3rd D, locally. This condition seems to have the ability to percolate, or fill the space with kind of lattice ( as You suggest with pixels) but still there are "regions" of imaginary time without space since percolation does not require 100% participation.
I am not sure potential space is 3D, either. What I am sure of, it has a geometry which is related to pi- either infinite circle(s) ( ideal line) or sphere.
Ivars et al
QUOTE: "In essence, this is Yin ( pure change, pure motion, pure chaos, pure substance, content) - Yang (nothingness, potential space, pure form, pure structure) principle."
Yes - I agree - neither Yin - nor Yang has any existance by themselves - as long as we are dealing with physical universe. Yin alone has no physical existance - yang alone has no physical existance - and when working together - when they co-exist - then physical universe is being created.
When dealing with Origin - I like to think that we are dealing with the Origin of Physical Universe - not physical in the sense of human physical scale - but physical in its ultimate sense - And in this context, physical is being created out from something which is NOT physical, the merging of two non-physical existances create physical - so physical IS in a sense being created out from nothing.
QUOTE: "In essence, this is Yin ( pure change, pure motion, pure chaos, pure substance, content) - Yang (nothingness, potential space, pure form, pure structure) principle."
Yes - I agree - neither Yin - nor Yang has any existance by themselves - as long as we are dealing with physical universe. Yin alone has no physical existance - yang alone has no physical existance - and when working together - when they co-exist - then physical universe is being created.
When dealing with Origin - I like to think that we are dealing with the Origin of Physical Universe - not physical in the sense of human physical scale - but physical in its ultimate sense - And in this context, physical is being created out from something which is NOT physical, the merging of two non-physical existances create physical - so physical IS in a sense being created out from nothing.
Hi Ivars,
Thankyou for the reply.
I'm going to suggest a purely hypothetical thought experiment.
Lets assume that 'absolute nothing' is a property or tangible substance.
Lets assume that absolute nothingness (for the sake of argument) is contained in a magical vacuum bottle.
In reality absolute nothingness cannot exist, but this is purely hypothetical.
When we take the lid off the magic bottle, what do you suppose will happen?
Thankyou for the reply.
I'm going to suggest a purely hypothetical thought experiment.
Lets assume that 'absolute nothing' is a property or tangible substance.
Lets assume that absolute nothingness (for the sake of argument) is contained in a magical vacuum bottle.
In reality absolute nothingness cannot exist, but this is purely hypothetical.
When we take the lid off the magic bottle, what do you suppose will happen?
The point that seems to be emerging here is that, because nothingness is a logical impossibility, it creates something out of itself so as to eliminate a condition that is logically unacceptable. Does this not imply that this "something" has always existed? - otherwise we must accept that there was a time for which the illogical condition was able to persist, and if we accept this we must accept the possibility of an eternal nothingness.
From this, I suggest that, because we now experience existence, we must conclude that existence is infinite - all this, of course, subject to the correctness of the statement that nothingness is a logical impossibility.
regards
edward
From this, I suggest that, because we now experience existence, we must conclude that existence is infinite - all this, of course, subject to the correctness of the statement that nothingness is a logical impossibility.
regards
edward
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "When we talk about smallest dimensinalities of space, why do we need to carry around 3D space with us? Where do we get it from, these 3D configurations, suddenly?"
No - No - as I have been suggesting - it is the opposite way round.
We are not suddenly getting smallest dimensionalities .
We have Pure Space - 3D - but pure space is physically meaningless as long as there is no system that can tell where something belongs - where something is being positioned. Just this one pure 3D. And the first thing to happen - when we have the unfolding - when physical is being born - then for the first time pure space is being organized in two dimensionalities - and it is possible to say whether something belong to this or belong to that. Either it is the one dimensionality or it is the other,
And already at this point we have to be very accurate about "Whom" to know where to belong - this knowing about where to belong is an inborn ability of the dimensionality - the dimensionality "knows" where it belongs. This inborn or inbuild knowledge is a key to understand counsciousness, conscoiusness has to do with this odd ability of self-percepting - self knowing about its structure. Structure is not something that is beeing de-coded by an out-side observer, there exists (of course) no such thing as outside observers when we are down into the real complexions.
And another key to understand the universal system is that each dimensionality - inhabit a yin - or yang soul - or perhaps we can call it D or L - and whenever a configuration is being created - or build - by smaller dimensionalities - the resulting new - and bigger configuration will be either D or L according to the D's and L's that said configuration are made of. This is well in accordance with cellular automaton principles (I think )
Now imagine that Origin-Infinity (Pure Space) is being divided in more and more dimensionalities - more and more ratios are being created - then at a certain point there are being created a critical amount of dimensionalities - resulting in the first phase-transistion.
And now I am not saying that the creation of dimensionalities are even all over Pure-Space, one can easily imagine that some "areas" of pure space is being ratio'ed more than other parts, so that the complexion all over universe is uneven.
I can imagine how pi must be created out from a binary division of a starting dimensionality - in the sense that by creating more and more ratios - "smaller and smaller parts - it is deemed to create a geometry where pi is the characterizing factor.
So there is no sudden appearance of anything - everything is being "constructed" little by little - but all the time according to very simple principle of binary divisions of dimensionalities
and BB can be seen as a ripening of a certain part of universe into dimensionalities one scale below our physical scale, and how these dimensionalities - as we call "smallest" - percolate into a lattice structure - expressing our physical universe (human scale universe) - and again with due respect for total relativity - everything is RATIO - and everything is SCALE - and everything can in principle repeat itsself infinitely. But a scale is finite in number - a scale is represented by discreteness - EVERYTHING PHYSICALLY IS DISCRETE AND FINITE - only the repetition of another - the next new scale - and the next --and the next - is infinite. (And dimension of pure space is infinite and number of spaceless forms is infinite.)
QUOTE: "When we talk about smallest dimensinalities of space, why do we need to carry around 3D space with us? Where do we get it from, these 3D configurations, suddenly?"
No - No - as I have been suggesting - it is the opposite way round.
We are not suddenly getting smallest dimensionalities .
We have Pure Space - 3D - but pure space is physically meaningless as long as there is no system that can tell where something belongs - where something is being positioned. Just this one pure 3D. And the first thing to happen - when we have the unfolding - when physical is being born - then for the first time pure space is being organized in two dimensionalities - and it is possible to say whether something belong to this or belong to that. Either it is the one dimensionality or it is the other,
And already at this point we have to be very accurate about "Whom" to know where to belong - this knowing about where to belong is an inborn ability of the dimensionality - the dimensionality "knows" where it belongs. This inborn or inbuild knowledge is a key to understand counsciousness, conscoiusness has to do with this odd ability of self-percepting - self knowing about its structure. Structure is not something that is beeing de-coded by an out-side observer, there exists (of course) no such thing as outside observers when we are down into the real complexions.
And another key to understand the universal system is that each dimensionality - inhabit a yin - or yang soul - or perhaps we can call it D or L - and whenever a configuration is being created - or build - by smaller dimensionalities - the resulting new - and bigger configuration will be either D or L according to the D's and L's that said configuration are made of. This is well in accordance with cellular automaton principles (I think
)Now imagine that Origin-Infinity (Pure Space) is being divided in more and more dimensionalities - more and more ratios are being created - then at a certain point there are being created a critical amount of dimensionalities - resulting in the first phase-transistion.
And now I am not saying that the creation of dimensionalities are even all over Pure-Space, one can easily imagine that some "areas" of pure space is being ratio'ed more than other parts, so that the complexion all over universe is uneven.
I can imagine how pi must be created out from a binary division of a starting dimensionality - in the sense that by creating more and more ratios - "smaller and smaller parts - it is deemed to create a geometry where pi is the characterizing factor.
So there is no sudden appearance of anything - everything is being "constructed" little by little - but all the time according to very simple principle of binary divisions of dimensionalities
and BB can be seen as a ripening of a certain part of universe into dimensionalities one scale below our physical scale, and how these dimensionalities - as we call "smallest" - percolate into a lattice structure - expressing our physical universe (human scale universe) - and again with due respect for total relativity - everything is RATIO - and everything is SCALE - and everything can in principle repeat itsself infinitely. But a scale is finite in number - a scale is represented by discreteness - EVERYTHING PHYSICALLY IS DISCRETE AND FINITE - only the repetition of another - the next new scale - and the next --and the next - is infinite. (And dimension of pure space is infinite and number of spaceless forms is infinite.)
QUOTE (Ivars+May 31 2008, 05:36 AM)
hi gorgeous,
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step in starting to think for yourself.
Shivers??? I do not want to know, I want to understand. See the difference? Its enormous.
This sounds OK, but it also requires understanding to complement openness to reality,I assume possessed by honest individual. Openness as such is not enough. It sounds like taking believing a step to far, and it makes ultimate reality subjective, which it is not. It is not also objective- and that inherent ambiguity is the difficulty most honest individuals can not cope with. But I totally agree there is enough of evidence to understand reality.
No. Wrong. Do it again!
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step to thinking by yourself. Observe the likes of 'mott.carl' for evidence of this.
Honest individuals do not 'presume' much of anything. Your error is to presume you are honest! Real Honesty can cope with anything. Again, your statement is proof of your own illusion regarding your own state of 'understanding'.
There is no 'ambiguity' in Reality ~ only in the minds of those who fail to understand it, or that are trying to promote deliberate misunderstanding within society.
Try to understand the last post from Edward3, as this is correct. 'Nothingness' plays no part in any 'equation', nor any form of deduction concerning what is necessarily Real. It is not needed, otherwise it would not be 'nothing'.
To Edward3...Your logic is now correct. If you then realise that anything 'Infinite' of 3-dimensions must exist everywhere in all instances, it must, in fact, be the One thing that actually exists, on an 'absolute' level. Then, we come to the necessary motions of this One thing, that are needed to determine how we observe it the ways we do. It must contain some 'mechanism' by which it takes on a 'finite' appearance, and then returns to its Natural state.
Also, consider that people have intuition of this 'One thing', by default of necessarily being a part of it. Here lies the psychological understanding of what some have intuited as 'God', 'Tao', 'Brahman' and others. The only real difference is that people have come to think of such things as 'separate' from themselves, whereas the Reality must be that One thing (whatever its name) must be EVERYTHING, and thus all 'parts' are parts of the One thing. The current language for correct description is 'science', and the word for such a One~interconnected~ thing is 'Space'. 'Space' is observable by all sentient beings, as the One thing that interconnects all things.
g.
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step in starting to think for yourself.
Shivers??? I do not want to know, I want to understand. See the difference? Its enormous.
This sounds OK, but it also requires understanding to complement openness to reality,I assume possessed by honest individual. Openness as such is not enough. It sounds like taking believing a step to far, and it makes ultimate reality subjective, which it is not. It is not also objective- and that inherent ambiguity is the difficulty most honest individuals can not cope with. But I totally agree there is enough of evidence to understand reality.
No. Wrong. Do it again!
Ignoring the dictionary is the first step to thinking by yourself. Observe the likes of 'mott.carl' for evidence of this.
Honest individuals do not 'presume' much of anything. Your error is to presume you are honest! Real Honesty can cope with anything. Again, your statement is proof of your own illusion regarding your own state of 'understanding'.
There is no 'ambiguity' in Reality ~ only in the minds of those who fail to understand it, or that are trying to promote deliberate misunderstanding within society.
Try to understand the last post from Edward3, as this is correct. 'Nothingness' plays no part in any 'equation', nor any form of deduction concerning what is necessarily Real. It is not needed, otherwise it would not be 'nothing'.
To Edward3...Your logic is now correct. If you then realise that anything 'Infinite' of 3-dimensions must exist everywhere in all instances, it must, in fact, be the One thing that actually exists, on an 'absolute' level. Then, we come to the necessary motions of this One thing, that are needed to determine how we observe it the ways we do. It must contain some 'mechanism' by which it takes on a 'finite' appearance, and then returns to its Natural state.
Also, consider that people have intuition of this 'One thing', by default of necessarily being a part of it. Here lies the psychological understanding of what some have intuited as 'God', 'Tao', 'Brahman' and others. The only real difference is that people have come to think of such things as 'separate' from themselves, whereas the Reality must be that One thing (whatever its name) must be EVERYTHING, and thus all 'parts' are parts of the One thing. The current language for correct description is 'science', and the word for such a One~interconnected~ thing is 'Space'. 'Space' is observable by all sentient beings, as the One thing that interconnects all things.
g.
Gorgeous
I can honestly say that the only thing I disagree with in your last post is that this is very close to what I have been saying all along. Why then have you CHOSEN to berate my views.
If an education in religion is so much a barrier, I haven't expressed any views in that regard (in science posts) for some time. Yet if a reader were to look back in this thread , they will see quite a few philosophical quotes from learned persons of similar eras. All of them yours.
I cannot help but call it hypocritical to question other peoples ability to view the world honestly when you reserve that ability for yourself alone by the knocking , instead of seeing the similarities in posts other than those with whom you have no beef.
Iseason.
I can honestly say that the only thing I disagree with in your last post is that this is very close to what I have been saying all along. Why then have you CHOSEN to berate my views.
If an education in religion is so much a barrier, I haven't expressed any views in that regard (in science posts) for some time. Yet if a reader were to look back in this thread , they will see quite a few philosophical quotes from learned persons of similar eras. All of them yours.
I cannot help but call it hypocritical to question other peoples ability to view the world honestly when you reserve that ability for yourself alone by the knocking , instead of seeing the similarities in posts other than those with whom you have no beef.
Iseason.
Iseason
QUOTE: "I can honestly say that the only thing I disagree with in your last post is that this is very close to what I have been saying all along. Why then have you CHOSEN to berate my views."
Funny - I get the same feeling of besserwissen when I read Gorgeous.
There would seem to be many slightly different ways of expressing the same ideas - perhaps it is a matter of "Listening" or what ? - Gorgeous !
QUOTE: "I can honestly say that the only thing I disagree with in your last post is that this is very close to what I have been saying all along. Why then have you CHOSEN to berate my views."
Funny - I get the same feeling of besserwissen when I read Gorgeous.
There would seem to be many slightly different ways of expressing the same ideas - perhaps it is a matter of "Listening" or what ? - Gorgeous !
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 31 2008, 11:00 PM)
No. Wrong. Do it again!
Hi Gorgeous
You are right, humbliness is key to being open and developing understanding.
If ego goes in between You and the Reality, that is the end of learning.
Yes, Edward3 made a good point, stopped me in my tracks- but that is just for a while.
Hi Gorgeous
You are right, humbliness is key to being open and developing understanding.
If ego goes in between You and the Reality, that is the end of learning.
Yes, Edward3 made a good point, stopped me in my tracks- but that is just for a while.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.