QUOTE (bukh+Mar 5 2009, 10:12 AM)
infinity cannot be defined
infinity has been defined.
What you mean is you cannot accept it.
I was going to say you cannot understand it but I don't think that's true. I think you are capable of understanding it if you just allowed yourself to.
And I believe "summed to infinity" usually does mean that the sum is infinity, but rather the counter go to infinity.
ex 1/2+1/(2^2)+1/(2^3)+1/(2^4)...+1/(2^n)=1
infinity has been defined.
What you mean is you cannot accept it.
I was going to say you cannot understand it but I don't think that's true. I think you are capable of understanding it if you just allowed yourself to.
And I believe "summed to infinity" usually does mean that the sum is infinity, but rather the counter go to infinity.
ex 1/2+1/(2^2)+1/(2^3)+1/(2^4)...+1/(2^n)=1
Buttershug
"infinity has been defined.
What you mean is you cannot accept it."
What is the accuracy by which infinity has been defined ?
"infinity has been defined.
What you mean is you cannot accept it."
What is the accuracy by which infinity has been defined ?
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 4 2009, 08:16 PM)
It is in fact possible to randomly select from an infinite list.
The key is to recognize that any such selection will be biased towards small numbers, but a biased selection is still a random one none the less.
Consider the following experiment.
An atom with a half life of one minute, that undergoes an Alpha decay is contained within a chamber.
The walls of the chamber are capable of detecting the emission of the Alpha particle.
The chamber is hardwired to a number generator that outputs one random number between 0 and 9 every second, storing the string of numbers produced.
When the chamber detects that the atom has decayed, it outputs the string as a number.
The machine has a 50% chance of producing a 60 digit number, a 25% chance of producing a 120 digit number, a 12.5% chance of producing a 180 digit number and so on and so forth, so, the machine is biased towards producing short numbers.
However.
If the machine produces a number after 1 half life (ie, a 60 digit number) then it's just as likely to produce 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as it is to produce 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 as it is to produce 528452050871912763517683940057261527311983672637281983214783
The length of the number is randomized, the number is randomized, and the machine has the potential to operate for any period of time.
And the correct answer to "What are the chances of randomly selecting the same number twice from an infinite pool" is "Kronecker delta".
And if we consider the machines details, as in how the machine derives the output for us..
What is over looked by most is the machine or device "itself" consists of mass, and its this mass at the Atto meter or even smaller scale, is in fact how and why a seemingly random number may result gained from the huge amount of changes that occur at the atto meter scale..
But I would put it to all readers - if every change {Velocities and or motion of all mass) at every scale was known by us, the resulting random number could be predicted every single time way before the machine or device is even initiated for a random result..
For example: How many of you have a shuffled and or random play list, and yet after many times playing this random list, you sense the playing pattern may follow some logical order? or is this just me and my keen sense of patterns? In fact I remember reading an article on this, where apple had to mess around with their shuffle routine..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
The key is to recognize that any such selection will be biased towards small numbers, but a biased selection is still a random one none the less.
Consider the following experiment.
An atom with a half life of one minute, that undergoes an Alpha decay is contained within a chamber.
The walls of the chamber are capable of detecting the emission of the Alpha particle.
The chamber is hardwired to a number generator that outputs one random number between 0 and 9 every second, storing the string of numbers produced.
When the chamber detects that the atom has decayed, it outputs the string as a number.
The machine has a 50% chance of producing a 60 digit number, a 25% chance of producing a 120 digit number, a 12.5% chance of producing a 180 digit number and so on and so forth, so, the machine is biased towards producing short numbers.
However.
If the machine produces a number after 1 half life (ie, a 60 digit number) then it's just as likely to produce 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as it is to produce 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 as it is to produce 528452050871912763517683940057261527311983672637281983214783
The length of the number is randomized, the number is randomized, and the machine has the potential to operate for any period of time.
And the correct answer to "What are the chances of randomly selecting the same number twice from an infinite pool" is "Kronecker delta".
And if we consider the machines details, as in how the machine derives the output for us..
What is over looked by most is the machine or device "itself" consists of mass, and its this mass at the Atto meter or even smaller scale, is in fact how and why a seemingly random number may result gained from the huge amount of changes that occur at the atto meter scale..
But I would put it to all readers - if every change {Velocities and or motion of all mass) at every scale was known by us, the resulting random number could be predicted every single time way before the machine or device is even initiated for a random result..
For example: How many of you have a shuffled and or random play list, and yet after many times playing this random list, you sense the playing pattern may follow some logical order? or is this just me and my keen sense of patterns? In fact I remember reading an article on this, where apple had to mess around with their shuffle routine..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Trippy
I think it relates to accuracies or lack of same -
A so-called well defined number has an absolute accuracy - infinite has no such accuracy -
In the event that you select a number - you at the same time defines its accuracy - or constraint its accuracy - by assuming that said number is infinitely accurately defined - and then you calculate probabilities out from assumed but not known and established facts about the so-called mathematical "sum to infinity"
I still find that apples and oranges are being mixed up.
I think it relates to accuracies or lack of same -
A so-called well defined number has an absolute accuracy - infinite has no such accuracy -
In the event that you select a number - you at the same time defines its accuracy - or constraint its accuracy - by assuming that said number is infinitely accurately defined - and then you calculate probabilities out from assumed but not known and established facts about the so-called mathematical "sum to infinity"
I still find that apples and oranges are being mixed up.
Laidback
"But I would put it to all readers - if every change {Velocities and or motion of all mass) at every scale was known by us, the resulting random number could be predicted every single time way before the machine or device is even initiated for a random result.."
Yes - in the perspective of God's eye - there is no such thing as randomness.
Once we have accepted Physical World as our "reality" we have humbly to respect that we are intimately bound up to this choice - we humans are part of physical world and physical world cannot express itself according to continuity and infinity.
"But I would put it to all readers - if every change {Velocities and or motion of all mass) at every scale was known by us, the resulting random number could be predicted every single time way before the machine or device is even initiated for a random result.."
Yes - in the perspective of God's eye - there is no such thing as randomness.
Once we have accepted Physical World as our "reality" we have humbly to respect that we are intimately bound up to this choice - we humans are part of physical world and physical world cannot express itself according to continuity and infinity.
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 5 2009, 09:59 PM)
Buttershug
"infinity has been defined.
What you mean is you cannot accept it."
What is the accuracy by which infinity has been defined ?
100% accuracy.
It's a definition of a concept so it can't be anything other than 100% accurate.
(it's usage OTOH...)
"infinity has been defined.
What you mean is you cannot accept it."
What is the accuracy by which infinity has been defined ?
100% accuracy.
It's a definition of a concept so it can't be anything other than 100% accurate.
(it's usage OTOH...)
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 5 2009, 10:34 PM)
100% accuracy.
It's a definition of a concept so it can't be anything other than 100% accurate.
(it's usage OTOH...)
What is interesting is that sizes of infinities of the infinitely small exist.
It's a definition of a concept so it can't be anything other than 100% accurate.
(it's usage OTOH...)
What is interesting is that sizes of infinities of the infinitely small exist.
Cusa
"What is interesting is that sizes of infinities of the infinitely small exist."
Yes - it would seem that a potential is not that well defined - mathematics would seem to make a kind of hierarchy ranking of infinite - one one hand - and on the other hand mathematics takes the privilege to define absolutes out from such hierarchies - if I read it rightly. And then suddenly mathematics can "calculate" accurately out from varying kinds of infinities. So any "infinity-calculation" is being based upon the fact that 100% accuracy is the same 100% accuracy all the time - per definition !!!
A la: Which is simple the sum to infinity of:
(1/(2^n))*(1/(10^n))
For the above case it works out at something like 2.5%"
"What is interesting is that sizes of infinities of the infinitely small exist."
Yes - it would seem that a potential is not that well defined - mathematics would seem to make a kind of hierarchy ranking of infinite - one one hand - and on the other hand mathematics takes the privilege to define absolutes out from such hierarchies - if I read it rightly. And then suddenly mathematics can "calculate" accurately out from varying kinds of infinities. So any "infinity-calculation" is being based upon the fact that 100% accuracy is the same 100% accuracy all the time - per definition !!!
A la: Which is simple the sum to infinity of:
(1/(2^n))*(1/(10^n))
For the above case it works out at something like 2.5%"
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 6 2009, 11:11 AM)
Trippy
I think it relates to accuracies or lack of same -
A so-called well defined number has an absolute accuracy - infinite has no such accuracy -
In the event that you select a number - you at the same time defines its accuracy - or constraint its accuracy - by assuming that said number is infinitely accurately defined - and then you calculate probabilities out from assumed but not known and established facts about the so-called mathematical "sum to infinity"
I still find that apples and oranges are being mixed up.
I'm sorry, but I find myself forced to class this as irrelevant gibberish.
If we're talking about selecting from a pool of infinite discrete objects (for example, natural numbers) then your objections about accuracie are meaningless (not that I can actually make sense of it anyway).
I think it relates to accuracies or lack of same -
A so-called well defined number has an absolute accuracy - infinite has no such accuracy -
In the event that you select a number - you at the same time defines its accuracy - or constraint its accuracy - by assuming that said number is infinitely accurately defined - and then you calculate probabilities out from assumed but not known and established facts about the so-called mathematical "sum to infinity"
I still find that apples and oranges are being mixed up.
I'm sorry, but I find myself forced to class this as irrelevant gibberish.
If we're talking about selecting from a pool of infinite discrete objects (for example, natural numbers) then your objections about accuracie are meaningless (not that I can actually make sense of it anyway).
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 6 2009, 01:54 PM)
I'm sorry, but I find myself forced to class this as irrelevant gibberish.
If we're talking about selecting from a pool of infinite discrete objects (for example, natural numbers) then your objections about accuracie are meaningless (not that I can actually make sense of it anyway).
Hi Trippy
I may be able to be clearer than Bukh was .(or may not)
If you can pull a number from infinity then you prevent it from being infinity by default.
even saying 0 to infinity disqualifies it, because you have a fixed beginning. to go further and say "I am choosing 4565" (randomly) gives 4565 a value which has no place in an infinite string.
I know mathematics allows that it does, but universally(physically), if you have a cow then that becomes a defined measure which requires all else to be define able.....Infinity is not definable in physical....
It is only useful when you don't care what's outside the cow. To do that you would only be able to give the cow a value of "random"......or "infinity".......or even worse zero.
Cheers
Iseason
If we're talking about selecting from a pool of infinite discrete objects (for example, natural numbers) then your objections about accuracie are meaningless (not that I can actually make sense of it anyway).
Hi Trippy
I may be able to be clearer than Bukh was .(or may not)
If you can pull a number from infinity then you prevent it from being infinity by default.
even saying 0 to infinity disqualifies it, because you have a fixed beginning. to go further and say "I am choosing 4565" (randomly) gives 4565 a value which has no place in an infinite string.
I know mathematics allows that it does, but universally(physically), if you have a cow then that becomes a defined measure which requires all else to be define able.....Infinity is not definable in physical....
It is only useful when you don't care what's outside the cow. To do that you would only be able to give the cow a value of "random"......or "infinity".......or even worse zero.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 6 2009, 08:51 PM)
Hi Trippy
I may be able to be clearer than Bukh was .(or may not)
If you can pull a number from infinity then you prevent it from being infinity by default.
even saying 0 to infinity disqualifies it, because you have a fixed beginning. to go further and say "I am choosing 4565" (randomly) gives 4565 a value which has no place in an infinite string.
I know mathematics allows that it does, but universally(physically), if you have a cow then that becomes a defined measure which requires all else to be define able.....Infinity is not definable in physical....
It is only useful when you don't care what's outside the cow. To do that you would only be able to give the cow a value of "random"......or "infinity".......or even worse zero.
Cheers
Iseason
You do understand that finite numbers are finite right?
That in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?
The objection is meaningless.
I may be able to be clearer than Bukh was .(or may not)
If you can pull a number from infinity then you prevent it from being infinity by default.
even saying 0 to infinity disqualifies it, because you have a fixed beginning. to go further and say "I am choosing 4565" (randomly) gives 4565 a value which has no place in an infinite string.
I know mathematics allows that it does, but universally(physically), if you have a cow then that becomes a defined measure which requires all else to be define able.....Infinity is not definable in physical....
It is only useful when you don't care what's outside the cow. To do that you would only be able to give the cow a value of "random"......or "infinity".......or even worse zero.
Cheers
Iseason
You do understand that finite numbers are finite right?
That in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?
The objection is meaningless.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 6 2009, 09:04 PM)
You do understand that finite numbers are finite right?
That in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?
The objection is meaningless.
Hi Trippy
The objection is "from infinity"
Cheers
Iseason
That in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?
The objection is meaningless.
Hi Trippy
The objection is "from infinity"
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 6 2009, 09:13 PM)
Hi Trippy
The objection is "from infinity"
Cheers
Iseason
It's meaningless, and based on flawed logic.
The objection is "from infinity"
Cheers
Iseason
It's meaningless, and based on flawed logic.
trippy
"You do understand that finite numbers are finite right?"
Yes - finite numbers are finite by the very definition - but then it is a valid question to ask about the accuracy of such a finite number, in that such a finite number is eventually being used in the calculus.
I may be wrong in the way that I look at this problem - perhaps you will say that it is no problem at all - but I cannot wrap my head around this question that numbers are being defined as finite - without further qualifying their accuracy - and then such numbers are being used in calculations involving concepts of infinity.
I am aware of the fact that - " in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?"
"You do understand that finite numbers are finite right?"
Yes - finite numbers are finite by the very definition - but then it is a valid question to ask about the accuracy of such a finite number, in that such a finite number is eventually being used in the calculus.
I may be wrong in the way that I look at this problem - perhaps you will say that it is no problem at all - but I cannot wrap my head around this question that numbers are being defined as finite - without further qualifying their accuracy - and then such numbers are being used in calculations involving concepts of infinity.
I am aware of the fact that - " in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?"
bm1957
In agreement with my point and the way people actually do it.
QUOTE
Yes, it can.
I take it you know long division (i.e. haven't forgotten it since high
school!).
Let's calculate 9|9.00000000000...
First, how many 9s in 9? One answer is 1 r0. Write the 1 in the units and
carry the 0, repeat ad infinitum and you get the answer 1.000...
-I take it you know long division (i.e. haven't forgotten it since high
school!).
Let's calculate 9|9.00000000000...
First, how many 9s in 9? One answer is 1 r0. Write the 1 in the units and
carry the 0, repeat ad infinitum and you get the answer 1.000...
In agreement with my point and the way people actually do it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, it can. I take it you know long division (i.e. haven't forgotten it since high school!). Let's calculate 9|9.00000000000... First, how many 9s in 9? One answer is 1 r0. Write the 1 in the units and carry the 0, repeat ad infinitum and you get the answer 1.000... |
-
In agreement with my point and the way people actually do it.
Another equally valid answer is 0 r9. So we write 0 in the units and carry the
9. How many 9s in 90? 9 r9. We write 9 in the tenths and carry the 9. Repeat
ad infinitum and you get the equally valid answer 0.999...
No one divides like this! Proper division requires the remainder to be smaller
than the divisor.
It can't be less than and equal to the limit, at the same time. The only way
the sum can contain an infinite number of terms, is to always remain < the
limit.
When calculations are done, the theoretical sequences are never used, only
appoximations, and then the values are rounded for the desired precision.
Computers have tables containing common constants like e and pi, with a fixed
precision, i.e. an approximation. So it's not miraculous that operations
involving them work. If these constants cancel in the process, then it doesn't
matter. If they remain, then the table value replaces the symbol, and you
still have an approximation.
Rule 1 for measurements. You can't get more precision out than what you put
in.
Since it's only a matter of scale, we can move from the very small to the very
large.
Assume 1 =.9R = 9(.1+.01+...+(.1)^n). Multiply both sides by 10^n.
Now 10^n = 9[10^(n-1)+10^(n-2)+...+1] = 9[10^n-1]/(10-1)= 10^n-1.
The left side equals the right side only if 1=0 for all n.
In agreement with my point and the way people actually do it.
Another equally valid answer is 0 r9. So we write 0 in the units and carry the
9. How many 9s in 90? 9 r9. We write 9 in the tenths and carry the 9. Repeat
ad infinitum and you get the equally valid answer 0.999...
No one divides like this! Proper division requires the remainder to be smaller
than the divisor.
QUOTE
But by definition, 0.9r is equal to the limit of the sum of the infinite
sequence. It is not equal to the infinite sequence itself.
sequence. It is not equal to the infinite sequence itself.
It can't be less than and equal to the limit, at the same time. The only way
the sum can contain an infinite number of terms, is to always remain < the
limit.
When calculations are done, the theoretical sequences are never used, only
appoximations, and then the values are rounded for the desired precision.
Computers have tables containing common constants like e and pi, with a fixed
precision, i.e. an approximation. So it's not miraculous that operations
involving them work. If these constants cancel in the process, then it doesn't
matter. If they remain, then the table value replaces the symbol, and you
still have an approximation.
Rule 1 for measurements. You can't get more precision out than what you put
in.
Since it's only a matter of scale, we can move from the very small to the very
large.
Assume 1 =.9R = 9(.1+.01+...+(.1)^n). Multiply both sides by 10^n.
Now 10^n = 9[10^(n-1)+10^(n-2)+...+1] = 9[10^n-1]/(10-1)= 10^n-1.
The left side equals the right side only if 1=0 for all n.
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 7 2009, 01:08 AM)
trippy
"You do understand that finite numbers are finite right?"
Yes - finite numbers are finite by the very definition - but then it is a valid question to ask about the accuracy of such a finite number, in that such a finite number is eventually being used in the calculus.
I may be wrong in the way that I look at this problem - perhaps you will say that it is no problem at all - but I cannot wrap my head around this question that numbers are being defined as finite - without further qualifying their accuracy - and then such numbers are being used in calculations involving concepts of infinity.
I am aware of the fact that - " in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?"
Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look.
"You do understand that finite numbers are finite right?"
Yes - finite numbers are finite by the very definition - but then it is a valid question to ask about the accuracy of such a finite number, in that such a finite number is eventually being used in the calculus.
I may be wrong in the way that I look at this problem - perhaps you will say that it is no problem at all - but I cannot wrap my head around this question that numbers are being defined as finite - without further qualifying their accuracy - and then such numbers are being used in calculations involving concepts of infinity.
I am aware of the fact that - " in order to choose '1' I don't need to be able to represent the infinite string of zeros to the left of it, otherwise we'd never be able to do ant calculations?"
Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look.
In fact accuracy is irrelevant in real numbers as well. pi is the unique solution to sin(x) = 0 between 2 and 4. √2 is the unique positive solution to x² = 0.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 7 2009, 02:21 AM)
√2 is the unique positive solution to x² = 0.
Really?
Really?
QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 7 2009, 10:14 PM)
Really?
Hi all
That stopped everybody!
Is there an arguement in this?
Cheers
Iseason
Hi all
That stopped everybody!
Is there an arguement in this?
Cheers
Iseason
Trippy
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
To me the accuracy of 32/16 is the same as the accuracy of 2, and the same as the accuracy of pi.
Any number is unique in its context. By applying a fairly low accuracy - there is a limited "umber of numbers" available. Calculus can never be more accurate than the accuracy put into the calculus.
According to Wiki the definition on continuous is:
"In mathematics, a continuous function is a function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output. Otherwise, a function is said to be discontinuous.
To me this imply that the definition on continuous is being based upon discreteness - there must be an input.
Infinity to me can best be defined as something that is not defined with respect to accuracy.
Perhaps it would be better saying that accuracy in many cases is a not determined factor. Like pi is not determined accuracy wise if not being further qualified by the number of decimals being used, 32/12 is not determined accuracy wise as long as the number of qualifying decimals are not being put.
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
To me the accuracy of 32/16 is the same as the accuracy of 2, and the same as the accuracy of pi.
Any number is unique in its context. By applying a fairly low accuracy - there is a limited "umber of numbers" available. Calculus can never be more accurate than the accuracy put into the calculus.
According to Wiki the definition on continuous is:
"In mathematics, a continuous function is a function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output. Otherwise, a function is said to be discontinuous.
To me this imply that the definition on continuous is being based upon discreteness - there must be an input.
Infinity to me can best be defined as something that is not defined with respect to accuracy.
Perhaps it would be better saying that accuracy in many cases is a not determined factor. Like pi is not determined accuracy wise if not being further qualified by the number of decimals being used, 32/12 is not determined accuracy wise as long as the number of qualifying decimals are not being put.
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 8 2009, 11:02 AM)
Trippy
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
If by accuracy you mean number of decimals then infinity can not be so defined.
If you use the broader definition of meaning correct, then you can define infinity.
If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi.
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
If by accuracy you mean number of decimals then infinity can not be so defined.
If you use the broader definition of meaning correct, then you can define infinity.
If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 9 2009, 04:35 AM)
If by accuracy you mean number of decimals then infinity can not be so defined.
If you use the broader definition of meaning correct, then you can define infinity.
If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi.
I mean it in the broader sense.
And yes, I'm aware that if I specify the number of digits of Pi it is no longer Pi, but, I can still exactly mark Pi, or any other irrational number, exactly on the number line (give or take the qaccuracy of the pencil I'm using).
If you use the broader definition of meaning correct, then you can define infinity.
If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi.
I mean it in the broader sense.
And yes, I'm aware that if I specify the number of digits of Pi it is no longer Pi, but, I can still exactly mark Pi, or any other irrational number, exactly on the number line (give or take the qaccuracy of the pencil I'm using).
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 9 2009, 12:02 AM)
Trippy
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
To me the accuracy of 32/16 is the same as the accuracy of 2, and the same as the accuracy of pi.
Any number is unique in its context. By applying a fairly low accuracy - there is a limited "umber of numbers" available. Calculus can never be more accurate than the accuracy put into the calculus.
According to Wiki the definition on continuous is:
"In mathematics, a continuous function is a function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output. Otherwise, a function is said to be discontinuous.
To me this imply that the definition on continuous is being based upon discreteness - there must be an input.
Infinity to me can best be defined as something that is not defined with respect to accuracy.
Perhaps it would be better saying that accuracy in many cases is a not determined factor. Like pi is not determined accuracy wise if not being further qualified by the number of decimals being used, 32/12 is not determined accuracy wise as long as the number of qualifying decimals are not being put.
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
I am literally unable to make any sense from this post.
I'm sorry.
Accuracy is not a valid contention.
I'm still selecting from an infinite pool of natural numbers, I'm just doing so in a way that is biased towards short numbers.
Accuracy is irrelevant to the setup I mentioned.
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
To me the accuracy of 32/16 is the same as the accuracy of 2, and the same as the accuracy of pi.
Any number is unique in its context. By applying a fairly low accuracy - there is a limited "umber of numbers" available. Calculus can never be more accurate than the accuracy put into the calculus.
According to Wiki the definition on continuous is:
"In mathematics, a continuous function is a function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output. Otherwise, a function is said to be discontinuous.
To me this imply that the definition on continuous is being based upon discreteness - there must be an input.
Infinity to me can best be defined as something that is not defined with respect to accuracy.
Perhaps it would be better saying that accuracy in many cases is a not determined factor. Like pi is not determined accuracy wise if not being further qualified by the number of decimals being used, 32/12 is not determined accuracy wise as long as the number of qualifying decimals are not being put.
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
I am literally unable to make any sense from this post.
I'm sorry.
Accuracy is not a valid contention.
I'm still selecting from an infinite pool of natural numbers, I'm just doing so in a way that is biased towards short numbers.
Accuracy is irrelevant to the setup I mentioned.
Trippy
"And yes, I'm aware that if I specify the number of digits of Pi it is no longer Pi, but, I can still exactly mark Pi, or any other irrational number, exactly on the number line (give or take the qaccuracy of the pencil I'm using)."
Which kind of "accuracy" would you suggest to use - in the event that you mark Pi EXACTLY on the number line ?
"And yes, I'm aware that if I specify the number of digits of Pi it is no longer Pi, but, I can still exactly mark Pi, or any other irrational number, exactly on the number line (give or take the qaccuracy of the pencil I'm using)."
Which kind of "accuracy" would you suggest to use - in the event that you mark Pi EXACTLY on the number line ?
"QUOTE (bukh @ Mar 9 2009, 12:02 AM)
Trippy
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
To me the accuracy of 32/16 is the same as the accuracy of 2, and the same as the accuracy of pi.
Any number is unique in its context. By applying a fairly low accuracy - there is a limited "umber of numbers" available. Calculus can never be more accurate than the accuracy put into the calculus.
According to Wiki the definition on continuous is:
"In mathematics, a continuous function is a function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output. Otherwise, a function is said to be discontinuous.
To me this imply that the definition on continuous is being based upon discreteness - there must be an input.
Infinity to me can best be defined as something that is not defined with respect to accuracy.
Perhaps it would be better saying that accuracy in many cases is a not determined factor. Like pi is not determined accuracy wise if not being further qualified by the number of decimals being used, 32/12 is not determined accuracy wise as long as the number of qualifying decimals are not being put.
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
Trippy: "I am literally unable to make any sense from this post."
That leaves two possibilities
Trippy
"Accuracy is irrelevant.
1 is 1 and will always be 1 no matter how closely you look."
To me the accuracy of 32/16 is the same as the accuracy of 2, and the same as the accuracy of pi.
Any number is unique in its context. By applying a fairly low accuracy - there is a limited "umber of numbers" available. Calculus can never be more accurate than the accuracy put into the calculus.
According to Wiki the definition on continuous is:
"In mathematics, a continuous function is a function for which, intuitively, small changes in the input result in small changes in the output. Otherwise, a function is said to be discontinuous.
To me this imply that the definition on continuous is being based upon discreteness - there must be an input.
Infinity to me can best be defined as something that is not defined with respect to accuracy.
Perhaps it would be better saying that accuracy in many cases is a not determined factor. Like pi is not determined accuracy wise if not being further qualified by the number of decimals being used, 32/12 is not determined accuracy wise as long as the number of qualifying decimals are not being put.
Accuracy is a not determined factor when saying that 0.9... equals 1.
Trippy: "I am literally unable to make any sense from this post."
That leaves two possibilities
Buttershug
"If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi."
Absolutely agree
- and likewise if you specify the number of digits of 2 it is no longer 2 but an approximation of 2
"If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi."
Absolutely agree
- and likewise if you specify the number of digits of 2 it is no longer 2 but an approximation of 2
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 8 2009, 06:07 PM)
Buttershug
"If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi."
Absolutely agree
- and likewise if you specify the number of digits of 2 it is no longer 2 but an approximation of 2
Are you talking engineering math or abstract math?
And you can't point to pi on a physical number line.
Think of the number line like training wheels on a bicycle.
If you want to get really good on a bicycle you have to leave the training wheels behind.
"If you specify the number of digits of pi then it is no longer pi, it becomes an approximation of pi."
Absolutely agree
- and likewise if you specify the number of digits of 2 it is no longer 2 but an approximation of 2
Are you talking engineering math or abstract math?
And you can't point to pi on a physical number line.
Think of the number line like training wheels on a bicycle.
If you want to get really good on a bicycle you have to leave the training wheels behind.
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 9 2009, 06:39 AM)
Trippy
"And yes, I'm aware that if I specify the number of digits of Pi it is no longer Pi, but, I can still exactly mark Pi, or any other irrational number, exactly on the number line (give or take the qaccuracy of the pencil I'm using)."
Which kind of "accuracy" would you suggest to use - in the event that you mark Pi EXACTLY on the number line ?
If I take a freshly sharpened pencil, if I'm skilled, I can make a line 0.1mm in width.
I take a strip of paper, marked in 1cm increments, labeled as the integers.
I take a circle with radius of 0.5cm, and make a single mark on its circumference.
I align that mark with zero, then 'roll' the circle along the strip until the mark is again 'touching' the strip.
I mark that location and lable it Pi.
If I am capable of doing this with absolute precision, and I am using a perfect, and prefectly rigid circle, then that location is exactly Pi.
However, in the real world, it's probably more like Pi ±0.02
Of course, this can be improved, however...
Error corrected - *** was I thinking?
"And yes, I'm aware that if I specify the number of digits of Pi it is no longer Pi, but, I can still exactly mark Pi, or any other irrational number, exactly on the number line (give or take the qaccuracy of the pencil I'm using)."
Which kind of "accuracy" would you suggest to use - in the event that you mark Pi EXACTLY on the number line ?
If I take a freshly sharpened pencil, if I'm skilled, I can make a line 0.1mm in width.
I take a strip of paper, marked in 1cm increments, labeled as the integers.
I take a circle with radius of 0.5cm, and make a single mark on its circumference.
I align that mark with zero, then 'roll' the circle along the strip until the mark is again 'touching' the strip.
I mark that location and lable it Pi.
If I am capable of doing this with absolute precision, and I am using a perfect, and prefectly rigid circle, then that location is exactly Pi.
However, in the real world, it's probably more like Pi ±0.02
Of course, this can be improved, however...
Error corrected - *** was I thinking?
Buttershug
"Are you talking engineering math or abstract math?
And you can't point to pi on a physical number line.
Think of the number line like training wheels on a bicycle.
If you want to get really good on a bicycle you have to leave the training wheels behind."
I think that I am talking both - I find it increasingly difficult to separate those two.
And of course I cannot point to pi on a physical number line - what ever a physical number line is ? - I think we can agree that such a physical number line is not something like the meter - metric kept in an Institute like a kg-metric and so on - but exactly what IS a physical number line ? And in which respect will a "physical number-line" differ from an abstract number line - Exactly what is the fundamental differences between physical math and abstract math ?
When you - being an experienced and knowledgeable person - when you quited your training wheels - then what did you substitute your number line with. Or perhaps you are still using your training wheels ?
Can you imagine math without a kind of metric - and when I say metric I do not consider something related to length or anything like that - I am considering something that can be used as an "ordering system" something that can be used in arranging "objects" in a kind of system. Objects in this context could be numbers - and how do you envisage ordering systems for numbers - which kind of metric do you apply ? Which kind of "training wheels" are you using ?
"Are you talking engineering math or abstract math?
And you can't point to pi on a physical number line.
Think of the number line like training wheels on a bicycle.
If you want to get really good on a bicycle you have to leave the training wheels behind."
I think that I am talking both - I find it increasingly difficult to separate those two.
And of course I cannot point to pi on a physical number line - what ever a physical number line is ? - I think we can agree that such a physical number line is not something like the meter - metric kept in an Institute like a kg-metric and so on - but exactly what IS a physical number line ? And in which respect will a "physical number-line" differ from an abstract number line - Exactly what is the fundamental differences between physical math and abstract math ?
When you - being an experienced and knowledgeable person - when you quited your training wheels - then what did you substitute your number line with. Or perhaps you are still using your training wheels ?
Can you imagine math without a kind of metric - and when I say metric I do not consider something related to length or anything like that - I am considering something that can be used as an "ordering system" something that can be used in arranging "objects" in a kind of system. Objects in this context could be numbers - and how do you envisage ordering systems for numbers - which kind of metric do you apply ? Which kind of "training wheels" are you using ?
God almighty.
"God almighty. "
Any problem (s) ?
Any problem (s) ?
Trippy
Now you have given up your freshly sharpened pencil -
What IS your take on accuracy - are you still of the opinion that it is totally irrelevant in the context of infinity ?
Now you have given up your freshly sharpened pencil -
What IS your take on accuracy - are you still of the opinion that it is totally irrelevant in the context of infinity ?
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 9 2009, 09:59 AM)
Trippy
Now you have given up your freshly sharpened pencil -
What IS your take on accuracy - are you still of the opinion that it is totally irrelevant in the context of infinity ?
Yes.
Accuracy is wholly irrelevant when selecting a discrete value from an infinite pool of discete values, because there is no such thing as 'between' it is, or it isn't.
Now you have given up your freshly sharpened pencil -
What IS your take on accuracy - are you still of the opinion that it is totally irrelevant in the context of infinity ?
Yes.
Accuracy is wholly irrelevant when selecting a discrete value from an infinite pool of discete values, because there is no such thing as 'between' it is, or it isn't.
Calculus for real world curves can only appoximate. Einstein took it to far I think in his belief that all math is exact. Only the abstract realm is eternal and exact.
Mitch Raemsch; Passing through every size of infinity
Mitch Raemsch; Passing through every size of infinity
QUOTE (phyti+Mar 6 2009, 10:58 PM)
In agreement with my point and the way people actually do it.
Yes, 1 is obviously an answer t0 9/9. I'm glad we can agree on that
I just did. And it was perfectly logical and valid. Long division does not require the remainder to be smaller than the divisor, I put it to you that that is something which you just made up. Please show me a reference to back up your assertion, otherwise you must retract it.
I just did. And it was perfectly logical and valid. Long division does not require the remainder to be smaller than the divisor, I put it to you that that is something which you just made up. Please show me a reference to back up your assertion, otherwise you must retract it.
It can't be less than and equal to the limit, at the same time.
I never said it was. 0.9r never changes value, and is always equal to the infinite sum of the sequence 0.9, 0.09, 0.009, ..., which is also the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
That certainly isn't logical. It follows that for any finite number of terms the sum must be less than the limit, but your argument just doesn't follow I'm afraid. What is your reasoning?
*Nothing else you wrote was relevant to this discussion.*
Math cannot calculate till the very infinity -
Good thing it doesn't have to then.
Good thing 0.99... is already complete with no calculation required.
Yes, 1 is obviously an answer t0 9/9. I'm glad we can agree on that
QUOTE
No one divides like this! Proper division requires the remainder to be smaller
than the divisor.
than the divisor.
I just did. And it was perfectly logical and valid. Long division does not require the remainder to be smaller than the divisor, I put it to you that that is something which you just made up. Please show me a reference to back up your assertion, otherwise you must retract it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No one divides like this! Proper division requires the remainder to be smaller than the divisor. |
I just did. And it was perfectly logical and valid. Long division does not require the remainder to be smaller than the divisor, I put it to you that that is something which you just made up. Please show me a reference to back up your assertion, otherwise you must retract it.
It can't be less than and equal to the limit, at the same time.
I never said it was. 0.9r never changes value, and is always equal to the infinite sum of the sequence 0.9, 0.09, 0.009, ..., which is also the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
QUOTE
The only way
the sum can contain an infinite number of terms, is to always remain < the
limit.
the sum can contain an infinite number of terms, is to always remain < the
limit.
That certainly isn't logical. It follows that for any finite number of terms the sum must be less than the limit, but your argument just doesn't follow I'm afraid. What is your reasoning?
*Nothing else you wrote was relevant to this discussion.*
.9r is a mathematical expression with a value of 1. It can not be treated as a number (used as a multiplicand) for purposes of a proof.
Derek1148
".9r is a mathematical expression with a value of 1. It can not be treated as a number (used as a multiplicand) for purposes of a proof."
I think that this nicely reflects that math is a "lazy" discipline.
That math has to give up - once it comes to infinity. Math cannot calculate till the very infinity - math has to accept that numbers fundamentally are discrete - and discrete cannot reach infinite. So math has to accept that the very remain of infinitely small cannot be dealt with on one hand - and the need on the other hand to have a finiteness in order to be able to make calculus. So the handy way of solving the problem is to define .9... to be equal to 1.
Like Cusa express it that .9... plus infinitely small is equal to 1.
".9r is a mathematical expression with a value of 1. It can not be treated as a number (used as a multiplicand) for purposes of a proof."
I think that this nicely reflects that math is a "lazy" discipline.
That math has to give up - once it comes to infinity. Math cannot calculate till the very infinity - math has to accept that numbers fundamentally are discrete - and discrete cannot reach infinite. So math has to accept that the very remain of infinitely small cannot be dealt with on one hand - and the need on the other hand to have a finiteness in order to be able to make calculus. So the handy way of solving the problem is to define .9... to be equal to 1.
Like Cusa express it that .9... plus infinitely small is equal to 1.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 9 2009, 03:34 PM)
.9r is a mathematical expression with a value of 1. It can not be treated as a number (used as a multiplicand) for purposes of a proof.
It is below one by the nonzero infinitesimal. It is the closest thing to one but is less.
Mitch Raemsch
It is below one by the nonzero infinitesimal. It is the closest thing to one but is less.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 9 2009, 07:29 PM)
Like Cusa express it that .9... plus infinitely small is equal to 1.
You're quoting Cusa?
You're quoting Cusa?
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 9 2009, 07:29 PM)
Math cannot calculate till the very infinity -
Good thing it doesn't have to then.
Good thing 0.99... is already complete with no calculation required.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 10 2009, 10:46 AM)
Good thing it doesn't have to then.
Good thing 0.99... is already complete with no calculation required.
Hi all
But .999 cannot have multiple values. Either it equals .999 OR it equals one.... Defining the value is not a property of the term , but the boundary you give that term.
.999 is "whole" if it is counting itself as the counter to the other value. (alter ego). The only works if there is nothing "outside" .999 And then if you disregard that infinity has no borders, which means that it cannot be in any sort of containment.
So you could not have infinity here and there, since the two values can't occupy the same space. In fact infinity(going on forever) must happen 'all at once'. But since you don't have a beginning or an ending, you are saying that every point in space has infinite volume and energy to continue a process that never started?
Cheers
Iseason
Good thing 0.99... is already complete with no calculation required.
Hi all
But .999 cannot have multiple values. Either it equals .999 OR it equals one.... Defining the value is not a property of the term , but the boundary you give that term.
.999 is "whole" if it is counting itself as the counter to the other value. (alter ego). The only works if there is nothing "outside" .999 And then if you disregard that infinity has no borders, which means that it cannot be in any sort of containment.
So you could not have infinity here and there, since the two values can't occupy the same space. In fact infinity(going on forever) must happen 'all at once'. But since you don't have a beginning or an ending, you are saying that every point in space has infinite volume and energy to continue a process that never started?
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason
"But .999 cannot have multiple values. Either it equals .999 OR it equals one.... Defining the value is not a property of the term , but the boundary you give that term."
Yes - and that applies for all values or numbers - it also apply for 3 - it applies for 0.276544729027625823687456715418767546734581260946783 - it applies for pi - it applies for ANY number - or shall we call them symbols.
"But .999 cannot have multiple values. Either it equals .999 OR it equals one.... Defining the value is not a property of the term , but the boundary you give that term."
Yes - and that applies for all values or numbers - it also apply for 3 - it applies for 0.276544729027625823687456715418767546734581260946783 - it applies for pi - it applies for ANY number - or shall we call them symbols.
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 10 2009, 05:57 AM)
Hi all
But .999 cannot have multiple values. Either it equals .999 OR it equals one.... Defining the value is not a property of the term , but the boundary you give that term.
.999 is "whole" if it is counting itself as the counter to the other value. (alter ego). The only works if there is nothing "outside" .999 And then if you disregard that infinity has no borders, which means that it cannot be in any sort of containment.
So you could not have infinity here and there, since the two values can't occupy the same space. In fact infinity(going on forever) must happen 'all at once'. But since you don't have a beginning or an ending, you are saying that every point in space has infinite volume and energy to continue a process that never started?
Cheers
Iseason
Good thing that 0.99... and 1 are the SAME value then.
0.99... has no containment and needs no containment.
And your second two paragraphs have serious "if then" disconnects.
And why did you bring the word "process" into it?
What does 1.00.... equal?
But .999 cannot have multiple values. Either it equals .999 OR it equals one.... Defining the value is not a property of the term , but the boundary you give that term.
.999 is "whole" if it is counting itself as the counter to the other value. (alter ego). The only works if there is nothing "outside" .999 And then if you disregard that infinity has no borders, which means that it cannot be in any sort of containment.
So you could not have infinity here and there, since the two values can't occupy the same space. In fact infinity(going on forever) must happen 'all at once'. But since you don't have a beginning or an ending, you are saying that every point in space has infinite volume and energy to continue a process that never started?
Cheers
Iseason
Good thing that 0.99... and 1 are the SAME value then.
0.99... has no containment and needs no containment.
And your second two paragraphs have serious "if then" disconnects.
And why did you bring the word "process" into it?
What does 1.00.... equal?
Buttershug
"Good thing that 0.99... and 1 are the SAME value then."
Yes same value - because math defines them as the same - and because math has decided to handle the problem involved with the concept of infinity as "lack of accuracy"
Math has decided that 0.9... IS the same value as 1.
"Good thing that 0.99... and 1 are the SAME value then."
Yes same value - because math defines them as the same - and because math has decided to handle the problem involved with the concept of infinity as "lack of accuracy"
Math has decided that 0.9... IS the same value as 1.
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 10 2009, 12:02 PM)
Buttershug
"Good thing that 0.99... and 1 are the SAME value then."
Yes same value - because math defines them as the same - and because math has decided to handle the problem involved with the concept of infinity as "lack of accuracy"
Math has decided that 0.9... IS the same value as 1.
determined.
It decided what infinity means. And it is because of that that 0.99...=1
And it's lack of "relevancy of accuracy", not lack of "accuracy".
Or should I say lack of measurement of accuracy as opposed to accuracy itself.
It has an infinite number of decimals therefore is more accurate than anything that does not have an infinite number of decimals.
"Good thing that 0.99... and 1 are the SAME value then."
Yes same value - because math defines them as the same - and because math has decided to handle the problem involved with the concept of infinity as "lack of accuracy"
Math has decided that 0.9... IS the same value as 1.
determined.
It decided what infinity means. And it is because of that that 0.99...=1
And it's lack of "relevancy of accuracy", not lack of "accuracy".
Or should I say lack of measurement of accuracy as opposed to accuracy itself.
It has an infinite number of decimals therefore is more accurate than anything that does not have an infinite number of decimals.
Buttershug
"Or should I say lack of measurement of accuracy as opposed to accuracy itself.
It has an infinite number of decimals therefore is more accurate than anything that does not have an infinite number of decimals."
Well - I am tempted to ask if 1.0... is accuracy itself and o.9... is the next best accuracy ?
"Or should I say lack of measurement of accuracy as opposed to accuracy itself.
It has an infinite number of decimals therefore is more accurate than anything that does not have an infinite number of decimals."
Well - I am tempted to ask if 1.0... is accuracy itself and o.9... is the next best accuracy ?
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 10 2009, 05:54 PM)
Buttershug
"Or should I say lack of measurement of accuracy as opposed to accuracy itself.
It has an infinite number of decimals therefore is more accurate than anything that does not have an infinite number of decimals."
Well - I am tempted to ask if 1.0... is accuracy itself and o.9... is the next best accuracy ?
They are the same thing.
And using the engineering meaning of accurracy (which you seem to be doing) while talking about infinitiy would be like talking about touchdowns in a baseball game.
"Or should I say lack of measurement of accuracy as opposed to accuracy itself.
It has an infinite number of decimals therefore is more accurate than anything that does not have an infinite number of decimals."
Well - I am tempted to ask if 1.0... is accuracy itself and o.9... is the next best accuracy ?
They are the same thing.
And using the engineering meaning of accurracy (which you seem to be doing) while talking about infinitiy would be like talking about touchdowns in a baseball game.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 11 2009, 01:51 PM)
They are the same thing.
And using the engineering meaning of accurracy (which you seem to be doing) while talking about infinitiy would be like talking about touchdowns in a baseball game.
Hi all
it's really not very advantageous to argue facts when they are already entrenched as useful tools. It can only be that .999 works in place of one so well that there is no need to think about what might actually be true if .999 wasn't allowed to take the place of one.
But perhaps we should.
Cheers
Iseason
And using the engineering meaning of accurracy (which you seem to be doing) while talking about infinitiy would be like talking about touchdowns in a baseball game.
Hi all
it's really not very advantageous to argue facts when they are already entrenched as useful tools. It can only be that .999 works in place of one so well that there is no need to think about what might actually be true if .999 wasn't allowed to take the place of one.
But perhaps we should.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 11 2009, 05:40 AM)
It can only be that .999 works in place of one so well that there is no need to think about what might actually be true if .999 wasn't allowed to take the place of one.
But perhaps we should.
Why?
But perhaps we should.
Why?
Hi Buttershug Isason et al
To me this is a discussions about fundamentals - not having any practical implications - more philosophically -
Math works excellent in the way it is being defined - and accuracy is not a concern in order for mathematics to work. I am happy with my own insight that there is no principal difference between the accuracy of any mathematical symbol - it is the way that math is being executed that defines and set the accuracies of the symbols.
Mother Nature will not change irrespective how we look at her from a mathematical point of view. The fundamental problems - paradoxes involved with the concept of infinity remains the same.
The question to me, is about the point of disappearance and scaling. My take is that physical world - what is into existence - cannot be diluted into nothing - and vice verse that physical world cannot be created out from nothing.
To me it is important trying to define/understand/communicate the very fundamentals like:
Least
Most divisible
Time
Distance
Frequency
Density
Mass
Volume ---- etc
trying to define the fundamental out from which the everything can be understood/defined/communicated
Obviously the infinity concept play a key role in such an understanding.
I like to see physical universe as how information has expressed itself in a form that can be perceived by information itself - because fundamentally it is about how information perceive information. We humans can best be seen as an informational qubit, we are part of physical universe - and we need a tool in order to be able to define and understand our surroundings on the most fundamental level.
In this process I have come to "object of sameness" as my understanding tool. Object of sameness is the equivalent of information bit. The accurateness - the complexion by which anything is being defined is alone dependent on the amount of information put into it. And this is the equivalent of the number of information bits being used and the way - the complexion that said information bits are being arranged into.
By selecting "object of sameness" as the equivalent to information bit - is the same as saying that object of sameness carry the information code - the necessary information needed in order to arrange and express physical world. The code is SHAPE. Object of sameness possess a shape, and objects of sameness arrange and re-arrange themselves into space and express "objects" -and the driving force - the energy that drives the objects of sameness to arrange in ever shifting configurations (different belongings) is the principle of least void - objects of sameness tries to arrange into patterns/configurations that exhibit the best overall optimal fit - so as to get the most evenly distribution of free void all over Universe.
Irrespective how much object of sameness is being divided into smaller - it will never be divided into nothing, it will always maintain a "body - volume" and it will always maintain a shape. Information cannot be diluted into zero.
Object of sameness has always been into existence - object of sameness is the fundamental for the existence of physical world. It is the division of object of sameness and the arranging of such divisions or ratios of object f sameness that can be played around with.
And please be aware that I am not saying that object of sameness literally exist - it is a necessary mind concept - it is a tool - it is my tool -
To me this is a discussions about fundamentals - not having any practical implications - more philosophically -
Math works excellent in the way it is being defined - and accuracy is not a concern in order for mathematics to work. I am happy with my own insight that there is no principal difference between the accuracy of any mathematical symbol - it is the way that math is being executed that defines and set the accuracies of the symbols.
Mother Nature will not change irrespective how we look at her from a mathematical point of view. The fundamental problems - paradoxes involved with the concept of infinity remains the same.
The question to me, is about the point of disappearance and scaling. My take is that physical world - what is into existence - cannot be diluted into nothing - and vice verse that physical world cannot be created out from nothing.
To me it is important trying to define/understand/communicate the very fundamentals like:
Least
Most divisible
Time
Distance
Frequency
Density
Mass
Volume ---- etc
trying to define the fundamental out from which the everything can be understood/defined/communicated
Obviously the infinity concept play a key role in such an understanding.
I like to see physical universe as how information has expressed itself in a form that can be perceived by information itself - because fundamentally it is about how information perceive information. We humans can best be seen as an informational qubit, we are part of physical universe - and we need a tool in order to be able to define and understand our surroundings on the most fundamental level.
In this process I have come to "object of sameness" as my understanding tool. Object of sameness is the equivalent of information bit. The accurateness - the complexion by which anything is being defined is alone dependent on the amount of information put into it. And this is the equivalent of the number of information bits being used and the way - the complexion that said information bits are being arranged into.
By selecting "object of sameness" as the equivalent to information bit - is the same as saying that object of sameness carry the information code - the necessary information needed in order to arrange and express physical world. The code is SHAPE. Object of sameness possess a shape, and objects of sameness arrange and re-arrange themselves into space and express "objects" -and the driving force - the energy that drives the objects of sameness to arrange in ever shifting configurations (different belongings) is the principle of least void - objects of sameness tries to arrange into patterns/configurations that exhibit the best overall optimal fit - so as to get the most evenly distribution of free void all over Universe.
Irrespective how much object of sameness is being divided into smaller - it will never be divided into nothing, it will always maintain a "body - volume" and it will always maintain a shape. Information cannot be diluted into zero.
Object of sameness has always been into existence - object of sameness is the fundamental for the existence of physical world. It is the division of object of sameness and the arranging of such divisions or ratios of object f sameness that can be played around with.
And please be aware that I am not saying that object of sameness literally exist - it is a necessary mind concept - it is a tool - it is my tool -
Hi all
Bukh . your "object of sameness" could be determined to be a 'key'. Because 'sameness implies a small defining parameter , where we interact with information in a huge array of varieties. so I understand what you are saying. The information must be suited to either the keys we have to use in respect to it and/or the keys it uses to interact with us. this is not taking 'size ' as a limiting factor or shape as "object of sameness" implies.
As to the question of "why" from Derek1148.
I took the day to ponder this and don't think it an easy one to answer. For sure , there are a lot of applications that work when infinity is applied. I am not doubting it as a tool. What bothers me is that because of this, the search heads in all the same direction in terms of the size of the universe and it's make up.
With something as large as "the universe", allowing that a behaviour will be everywhere 'that you can't see' is conjecture rather than a fact which can be measured. In fact I think I have shown with a simple statement that it could not go on forever. The statement is not "how big is the universe", because I would also be trying to measure that which we could not measure.
The statement is not flawed . "if the physical universe were infinite(meaning that it goes on forever), then there would be no opportunity for the middle (which we occupy) to create mass. This is simply because , as has been shown here, infinity has no shades of variation.
Infinity cannot revisit itself, nor review itself. It cannot be .9999 AND .5555 but must only be one value at any point that you measure it . But if you could measure any part of infinity , you are not measuring infinity............OR something infinite.
Cheers
Iseason
Bukh . your "object of sameness" could be determined to be a 'key'. Because 'sameness implies a small defining parameter , where we interact with information in a huge array of varieties. so I understand what you are saying. The information must be suited to either the keys we have to use in respect to it and/or the keys it uses to interact with us. this is not taking 'size ' as a limiting factor or shape as "object of sameness" implies.
As to the question of "why" from Derek1148.
I took the day to ponder this and don't think it an easy one to answer. For sure , there are a lot of applications that work when infinity is applied. I am not doubting it as a tool. What bothers me is that because of this, the search heads in all the same direction in terms of the size of the universe and it's make up.
With something as large as "the universe", allowing that a behaviour will be everywhere 'that you can't see' is conjecture rather than a fact which can be measured. In fact I think I have shown with a simple statement that it could not go on forever. The statement is not "how big is the universe", because I would also be trying to measure that which we could not measure.
The statement is not flawed . "if the physical universe were infinite(meaning that it goes on forever), then there would be no opportunity for the middle (which we occupy) to create mass. This is simply because , as has been shown here, infinity has no shades of variation.
Infinity cannot revisit itself, nor review itself. It cannot be .9999 AND .5555 but must only be one value at any point that you measure it . But if you could measure any part of infinity , you are not measuring infinity............OR something infinite.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 12 2009, 09:10 AM)
Hi all
It cannot be .9999 AND .5555
Cheers
Iseason
And yet again I say "good thing it isn't"
0.999 and .5555 are not infinity.
Did you mean .99... and .55...?
Even then they are not infinity, they have an infinite number of digits but that does not make they infinity.
And if you go out at night, you will know the Universe is not infinite, at least not infinite and full of stars. Interestingly enough it was Edgar Allan Poe that recogized that. If the Universe was infinite, the night sky would be as bright as day because of the infinite number of stars shining. (that includes infinite time as well as space)
It cannot be .9999 AND .5555
Cheers
Iseason
And yet again I say "good thing it isn't"
0.999 and .5555 are not infinity.
Did you mean .99... and .55...?
Even then they are not infinity, they have an infinite number of digits but that does not make they infinity.
And if you go out at night, you will know the Universe is not infinite, at least not infinite and full of stars. Interestingly enough it was Edgar Allan Poe that recogized that. If the Universe was infinite, the night sky would be as bright as day because of the infinite number of stars shining. (that includes infinite time as well as space)
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 12 2009, 09:10 AM)
As to the question of "why" from Derek1148.
I took the day to ponder this and don't think it an easy one to answer. For sure , there are a lot of applications that work when infinity is applied. I am not doubting it as a tool. What bothers me is that because of this, the search heads in all the same direction in terms of the size of the universe and it's make up.
With something as large as "the universe", allowing that a behaviour will be everywhere 'that you can't see' is conjecture rather than a fact which can be measured. In fact I think I have shown with a simple statement that it could not go on forever. The statement is not "how big is the universe", because I would also be trying to measure that which we could not measure.
The statement is not flawed . "if the physical universe were infinite(meaning that it goes on forever), then there would be no opportunity for the middle (which we occupy) to create mass. This is simply because , as has been shown here, infinity has no shades of variation.
Infinity cannot revisit itself, nor review itself. It cannot be .9999 AND .5555 but must only be one value at any point that you measure it . But if you could measure any part of infinity , you are not measuring infinity............OR something infinite.
Cheers
Iseason
.9r has a mathematical value of 1. The "infinite" number of descending 9’s is forever limited by the decimal point. They will never be greater than 1. Your argument, apparently, is that they never reach a value of 1. But, there is no expressible difference between .9r and 1.
Further, how would you arrive at .9r? It is a mathematical expression with a value 1. It is not a number. And cannot be treated as a number. (.3r and .6r are not numbers and cannot be treated as such either.) What fraction produces .9r?
I took the day to ponder this and don't think it an easy one to answer. For sure , there are a lot of applications that work when infinity is applied. I am not doubting it as a tool. What bothers me is that because of this, the search heads in all the same direction in terms of the size of the universe and it's make up.
With something as large as "the universe", allowing that a behaviour will be everywhere 'that you can't see' is conjecture rather than a fact which can be measured. In fact I think I have shown with a simple statement that it could not go on forever. The statement is not "how big is the universe", because I would also be trying to measure that which we could not measure.
The statement is not flawed . "if the physical universe were infinite(meaning that it goes on forever), then there would be no opportunity for the middle (which we occupy) to create mass. This is simply because , as has been shown here, infinity has no shades of variation.
Infinity cannot revisit itself, nor review itself. It cannot be .9999 AND .5555 but must only be one value at any point that you measure it . But if you could measure any part of infinity , you are not measuring infinity............OR something infinite.
Cheers
Iseason
.9r has a mathematical value of 1. The "infinite" number of descending 9’s is forever limited by the decimal point. They will never be greater than 1. Your argument, apparently, is that they never reach a value of 1. But, there is no expressible difference between .9r and 1.
Further, how would you arrive at .9r? It is a mathematical expression with a value 1. It is not a number. And cannot be treated as a number. (.3r and .6r are not numbers and cannot be treated as such either.) What fraction produces .9r?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 13 2009, 08:25 AM)
.9r has a mathematical value of 1. The "infinite" number of descending 9’s is forever limited by the decimal point. They will never be greater than 1. Your argument, apparently, is that they never reach a value of 1. But, there is no expressible difference between .9r and 1.
Further, how would you arrive at .9r? It is a mathematical expression with a value 1. It is not a number. And cannot be treated as a number. (.3r and .6r are not numbers and cannot be treated as such either.) What fraction produces .9r?
Hi all
If you review this thread , there are many who argue that the universe IS infinite. That is what I am against.
i certainly am not arguing in it's favor...Lol.
Cheers
Iseason
Further, how would you arrive at .9r? It is a mathematical expression with a value 1. It is not a number. And cannot be treated as a number. (.3r and .6r are not numbers and cannot be treated as such either.) What fraction produces .9r?
Hi all
If you review this thread , there are many who argue that the universe IS infinite. That is what I am against.
i certainly am not arguing in it's favor...Lol.
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason et al
Recently I said: "The accurateness - the complexion by which anything is being defined is alone dependent on the amount of information put into it. And this is the equivalent of the number of information bits being used and the way - the complexion that said information bits are being arranged into."
Reconsidering this - it is better to say that accurateness or complexion is not dependent on the amount of information put into it - but dependent on the amount of information that can be extracted from it.
Physical world is being defined out from how human perceives and defines surroundings. Human is the limiting factor for accuracy - physical world cannot be defined more accurately than human is capable of discriminating.
So on one hand it is possible to think that the Everything is infinite but the "reality" created by human mind - physical World - is finite.
Recently I said: "The accurateness - the complexion by which anything is being defined is alone dependent on the amount of information put into it. And this is the equivalent of the number of information bits being used and the way - the complexion that said information bits are being arranged into."
Reconsidering this - it is better to say that accurateness or complexion is not dependent on the amount of information put into it - but dependent on the amount of information that can be extracted from it.
Physical world is being defined out from how human perceives and defines surroundings. Human is the limiting factor for accuracy - physical world cannot be defined more accurately than human is capable of discriminating.
So on one hand it is possible to think that the Everything is infinite but the "reality" created by human mind - physical World - is finite.
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 13 2009, 10:00 PM)
Iseason et al
Recently I said: "The accurateness - the complexion by which anything is being defined is alone dependent on the amount of information put into it. And this is the equivalent of the number of information bits being used and the way - the complexion that said information bits are being arranged into."
Reconsidering this - it is better to say that accurateness or complexion is not dependent on the amount of information put into it - but dependent on the amount of information that can be extracted from it.
Physical world is being defined out from how human perceives and defines surroundings. Human is the limiting factor for accuracy - physical world cannot be defined more accurately than human is capable of discriminating.
So on one hand it is possible to think that the Everything is infinite but the "reality" created by human mind - physical World - is finite.
Hi Bukh.
Have to disagree.
Going back to a recent poster. All would be white or black in anything which involves infinity,without variation. Human use of 'bits' requires that infinity would have 'directions' which requires variation .
It is like saying that infinity can be here, but not there.....since the first infinity has not the ability to stop extending, no other could begin. "forever and ever" requires all space and time OR it is not forever and ever.
Cheers
Iseason
Recently I said: "The accurateness - the complexion by which anything is being defined is alone dependent on the amount of information put into it. And this is the equivalent of the number of information bits being used and the way - the complexion that said information bits are being arranged into."
Reconsidering this - it is better to say that accurateness or complexion is not dependent on the amount of information put into it - but dependent on the amount of information that can be extracted from it.
Physical world is being defined out from how human perceives and defines surroundings. Human is the limiting factor for accuracy - physical world cannot be defined more accurately than human is capable of discriminating.
So on one hand it is possible to think that the Everything is infinite but the "reality" created by human mind - physical World - is finite.
Hi Bukh.
Have to disagree.
Going back to a recent poster. All would be white or black in anything which involves infinity,without variation. Human use of 'bits' requires that infinity would have 'directions' which requires variation .
It is like saying that infinity can be here, but not there.....since the first infinity has not the ability to stop extending, no other could begin. "forever and ever" requires all space and time OR it is not forever and ever.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Iseason
We have to be very accurate about definitions.
What is universe - are we dealing with physical world or are we dealing with "The Everything" -
I am totally in agreement with you that physical world cannot be infinite
But I have no exact idea about how physical world shall be defined
Is it an anthropocentric definition ? - I would like to say Yes - physical world is about how the everything is being perceived by human mind.
Now the question - Is it thinkable that human mind (being part of the Everything) is capable of "isolating" itself from the surrounding everything so as to be in a position to "sample" the everything. Must the everything be quantized in order for human mind to be able to sample - to quantize
That is my question -
We have to be very accurate about definitions.
What is universe - are we dealing with physical world or are we dealing with "The Everything" -
I am totally in agreement with you that physical world cannot be infinite
But I have no exact idea about how physical world shall be defined
Is it an anthropocentric definition ? - I would like to say Yes - physical world is about how the everything is being perceived by human mind.
Now the question - Is it thinkable that human mind (being part of the Everything) is capable of "isolating" itself from the surrounding everything so as to be in a position to "sample" the everything. Must the everything be quantized in order for human mind to be able to sample - to quantize
That is my question -
Hi Bukh.
I like the definition of the universe being all the available energy first. Then any interactions must be held within that confining parameter.
I tend to see your 'best fit' as a step further down the track to where energy can be usable via multiples....It still needs to be able to act ac cross the boundaries of completed time and space no matter which behavior you choose. So it becomes a review. Your best fit (in review ) was gained by changing and re-arraigning (as you say) until EVERYTHING had it's correct place...And the time could begin.
Something occur rs within the reviewing process which locks the order so that it cannot be ever changed again. This is the main key. ...By my thinking.Energy "was" and then "was not".....That can create the on/off cycle to run variation within that which had no variation before.
Cheers
Iseason
I like the definition of the universe being all the available energy first. Then any interactions must be held within that confining parameter.
I tend to see your 'best fit' as a step further down the track to where energy can be usable via multiples....It still needs to be able to act ac cross the boundaries of completed time and space no matter which behavior you choose. So it becomes a review. Your best fit (in review ) was gained by changing and re-arraigning (as you say) until EVERYTHING had it's correct place...And the time could begin.
Something occur rs within the reviewing process which locks the order so that it cannot be ever changed again. This is the main key. ...By my thinking.Energy "was" and then "was not".....That can create the on/off cycle to run variation within that which had no variation before.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 15 2009, 08:46 PM)
Hi Bukh.
I like the definition of the universe being all the available energy first. Then any interactions must be held within that confining parameter.
I tend to see your 'best fit' as a step further down the track to where energy can be usable via multiples....It still needs to be able to act ac cross the boundaries of completed time and space no matter which behavior you choose. So it becomes a review. Your best fit (in review ) was gained by changing and re-arraigning (as you say) until EVERYTHING had it's correct place...And the time could begin.
Something occur rs within the reviewing process which locks the order so that it cannot be ever changed again. This is the main key. ...By my thinking.Energy "was" and then "was not".....That can create the on/off cycle to run variation within that which had no variation before.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi every one,
I may have mentioned this here before, that I model the whole Universe as a Klein Bottle, A multi-necked one at that, to allow the defining of each and every sub systems inputs and outputs of Energy simply as a neck, to which if we define the Universe into two systems - All events or motion {exchanges} of energy between the neck and the rest of the Universe can be detailed..
For example If I was to refer to a Cell our defined neck and its reciprocal {The rest of the Universe} I could refer to all of the cells energy and then to all of its inputs and or outputs as a multi-necked Klein bottle - And with enough Data of all the inputs and outputs, Scientists and or Biologists could postulate a cells final moments (Its Division if in a favourable Environment or Destruction via a lethal environment) or if we reverse all the inputs and outputs energy exchanges, we could define the cells first moment (Source and or Parent dividing cell), having said that I feel this method may be our best shot at modeling anything and everything, and once such modeling is commonplace, all cellular diseases will be at our mercy...
Err~gotta go!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I like the definition of the universe being all the available energy first. Then any interactions must be held within that confining parameter.
I tend to see your 'best fit' as a step further down the track to where energy can be usable via multiples....It still needs to be able to act ac cross the boundaries of completed time and space no matter which behavior you choose. So it becomes a review. Your best fit (in review ) was gained by changing and re-arraigning (as you say) until EVERYTHING had it's correct place...And the time could begin.
Something occur rs within the reviewing process which locks the order so that it cannot be ever changed again. This is the main key. ...By my thinking.Energy "was" and then "was not".....That can create the on/off cycle to run variation within that which had no variation before.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi every one,
I may have mentioned this here before, that I model the whole Universe as a Klein Bottle, A multi-necked one at that, to allow the defining of each and every sub systems inputs and outputs of Energy simply as a neck, to which if we define the Universe into two systems - All events or motion {exchanges} of energy between the neck and the rest of the Universe can be detailed..
For example If I was to refer to a Cell our defined neck and its reciprocal {The rest of the Universe} I could refer to all of the cells energy and then to all of its inputs and or outputs as a multi-necked Klein bottle - And with enough Data of all the inputs and outputs, Scientists and or Biologists could postulate a cells final moments (Its Division if in a favourable Environment or Destruction via a lethal environment) or if we reverse all the inputs and outputs energy exchanges, we could define the cells first moment (Source and or Parent dividing cell), having said that I feel this method may be our best shot at modeling anything and everything, and once such modeling is commonplace, all cellular diseases will be at our mercy...
Err~gotta go!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Iseason et al
Perhaps one can say that 1 is the equivalent of the Everything - and 0.9... is the equivalent of physical world. Infinity is the equivalent of the inaccuracy involved in calculations. Physical world cannot calculate to 1 - there will always be inaccuracy on the last decimal - because physical world is discrete and finite - unlike the everything which perhaps can be seen as continuous and infinite and therefore without inaccuracy.
So the Everything contain everything - physical world has to live with incompleteness - and it is the non-fulfilled incompleteness that drives the re-configurations. The more ratios the everything is being segregated into, the better the overall fit - and the smaller the energetic gradients - so with increasing complexity - increasing entropy - there is a parallel decrease in potential energy.
Potential energy is accurately expressed in the misfit - kinetic energy is a difficult concept - because it is being executed quantic - and the quanta takes no time - time is defined out from what has already been configured - not out from what is in the process of being configured.
But thanks to the scale-wise and inertially expression of physical world - it is possible to define kinetic energy.
The configurations are being locked in the sense that re-configurations enter into repeating patterns - scale-wise - and a re-configuration of smallest objects will be seen as smaller adjustments in the next out-folding via all the scales and into the next-following flash expression of physical world - "Universe Exists Only Once"
Once the full repetitive pattern has been played - once all the "pictures" in the movie has been played - then the exact next physical expression has been accurately displayed and defined, and the process can revert into the opposite direction - inwards - shrinking - matter converts to anti-matter, anti-matter and matter cannot exist parallel in the same time - matter and anti-matter will always be separated. The opposite re-configuration goes to deeper and deeper and smaller and smaller Russian Dolls until it reaches the smallest objects of sameness - and they reconfigure from the very Origin and outwards into a new flash expression. (in this context I am not going to introduce the impact of "observer" on the free entanglement - it is the observer that create symmetry breaking - because any observer role involve a kind of constraint - a kind of isolation from the everything).
This implicate an immense amount of hidden variables - in principle the hidden variables can continue infinitely and the point of disappearance is being defined out from the accuracy by which the physical reality is being calculated. Human as an observer is capable of sampling discrete out from continuous everything - because human - like mathematics - use renormalization - when something becomes irrelevant it is transformed into a single amount of inaccuracy - and in that way discreteness is being achieved.
Perhaps one can say that 1 is the equivalent of the Everything - and 0.9... is the equivalent of physical world. Infinity is the equivalent of the inaccuracy involved in calculations. Physical world cannot calculate to 1 - there will always be inaccuracy on the last decimal - because physical world is discrete and finite - unlike the everything which perhaps can be seen as continuous and infinite and therefore without inaccuracy.
So the Everything contain everything - physical world has to live with incompleteness - and it is the non-fulfilled incompleteness that drives the re-configurations. The more ratios the everything is being segregated into, the better the overall fit - and the smaller the energetic gradients - so with increasing complexity - increasing entropy - there is a parallel decrease in potential energy.
Potential energy is accurately expressed in the misfit - kinetic energy is a difficult concept - because it is being executed quantic - and the quanta takes no time - time is defined out from what has already been configured - not out from what is in the process of being configured.
But thanks to the scale-wise and inertially expression of physical world - it is possible to define kinetic energy.
The configurations are being locked in the sense that re-configurations enter into repeating patterns - scale-wise - and a re-configuration of smallest objects will be seen as smaller adjustments in the next out-folding via all the scales and into the next-following flash expression of physical world - "Universe Exists Only Once"
Once the full repetitive pattern has been played - once all the "pictures" in the movie has been played - then the exact next physical expression has been accurately displayed and defined, and the process can revert into the opposite direction - inwards - shrinking - matter converts to anti-matter, anti-matter and matter cannot exist parallel in the same time - matter and anti-matter will always be separated. The opposite re-configuration goes to deeper and deeper and smaller and smaller Russian Dolls until it reaches the smallest objects of sameness - and they reconfigure from the very Origin and outwards into a new flash expression. (in this context I am not going to introduce the impact of "observer" on the free entanglement - it is the observer that create symmetry breaking - because any observer role involve a kind of constraint - a kind of isolation from the everything).
This implicate an immense amount of hidden variables - in principle the hidden variables can continue infinitely and the point of disappearance is being defined out from the accuracy by which the physical reality is being calculated. Human as an observer is capable of sampling discrete out from continuous everything - because human - like mathematics - use renormalization - when something becomes irrelevant it is transformed into a single amount of inaccuracy - and in that way discreteness is being achieved.
Hi Laidback
Yes a Klein Bottle is one way of describing a dynamic system with in-and out-flux and in a certain equilibrium, and seeing the neck as something that is overall all the time. A cell is a nice example of such a system and Universe can also be seen as systems of Klein bottles with near equilibrium of informational in- and out-flow in each scale.
Having that said, I am afraid that human is a fairly small informational qubit with only a limited complexion and with a limited insight in the system that it is part of - and human will never be in a position to get anything but a superficial insight in "itself"f.
Yes a Klein Bottle is one way of describing a dynamic system with in-and out-flux and in a certain equilibrium, and seeing the neck as something that is overall all the time. A cell is a nice example of such a system and Universe can also be seen as systems of Klein bottles with near equilibrium of informational in- and out-flow in each scale.
Having that said, I am afraid that human is a fairly small informational qubit with only a limited complexion and with a limited insight in the system that it is part of - and human will never be in a position to get anything but a superficial insight in "itself"f.
The problem with a Klein bottle is the same one that so many of you seem to have difficulty with: If you can't pour it out of a boot*, you can't pour it out of a bottle.
*: With instructions printed on the bottom of the heel...
*: With instructions printed on the bottom of the heel...
"The problem with a Klein bottle is the same one that so many of you seem to have difficulty with: If you can't pour it out of a boot*, you can't pour it out of a bottle."
Yes - and ?
I see no problem with a Klein bottle.
Yes - and ?
I see no problem with a Klein bottle.
Jesus.
The inference may have escaped you, as most things seem to.
Google: "Pouring piss out of a boot"...
The inference may have escaped you, as most things seem to.
Google: "Pouring piss out of a boot"...
Jesus
"Put the foot into the boot !"
- The inference may have escaped you, as most things seem to. -
"Put the foot into the boot !"
- The inference may have escaped you, as most things seem to. -
QUOTE (Laidback+Mar 16 2009, 12:12 PM)
Hi every one,
I may have mentioned this here before, that I model the whole Universe as a Klein Bottle, A multi-necked one at that, to allow the defining of each and every sub systems inputs and outputs of Energy simply as a neck, to which if we define the Universe into two systems - All events or motion {exchanges} of energy between the neck and the rest of the Universe can be detailed..
For example If I was to refer to a Cell our defined neck and its reciprocal {The rest of the Universe} I could refer to all of the cells energy and then to all of its inputs and or outputs as a multi-necked Klein bottle - And with enough Data of all the inputs and outputs, Scientists and or Biologists could postulate a cells final moments (Its Division if in a favourable Environment or Destruction via a lethal environment) or if we reverse all the inputs and outputs energy exchanges, we could define the cells first moment (Source and or Parent dividing cell), having said that I feel this method may be our best shot at modeling anything and everything, and once such modeling is commonplace, all cellular diseases will be at our mercy...
Err~gotta go!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback,Bukh, all
Interesting, looking at your answers to my post. I looked at your descriptions before something dawned on me.
The 'lack' of energy would not need to be equal to,or anywhere close to matching the energy. In other words, Because the variation existed once, it changes what can exist forever.
From this point(no /or absence of energy), a single point of variation appears in the "whole". Where I placed a single quanta of energy, you can place a single "lack of energy"
This has the distinction of NOT being the possible "first particle" if you do reversion. It can only exist via comparison with the "whole". Being a lack of energy, it can affect configuration without having to move within the whole.
EVERYTHING else must move around it. But because it is unlike it's surroundings, it cannot rest ,because something and nothing cannot co-exist.(much like matter and antimatter.)
A pattern is much more likely than not. In fact a vortex is highly likely to be the pattern. Think on it for a minute. If one part in a million was so opposite to a bowl of something else, but neither substance could get away from the other, what would the resulting behavior be?
You cannot explode your 'vessel'. the two must form a behavior which follows actions which are likely. Something CANNOT (for this case) absorb nothing.
one part in a million......how much/many edges would be touching the 'nothing' at any time?
Still another question(thought at the end of this post). Could the variation 'immunise' each point of contact.............eventually reducing itself in the process until each section of the universe is the same(and 'nothing' was gone). If so , then we are seeing the process of immunisation.This would give a methodology to 'memory' and why we can see other energy.
Cheers
Iseason
I may have mentioned this here before, that I model the whole Universe as a Klein Bottle, A multi-necked one at that, to allow the defining of each and every sub systems inputs and outputs of Energy simply as a neck, to which if we define the Universe into two systems - All events or motion {exchanges} of energy between the neck and the rest of the Universe can be detailed..
For example If I was to refer to a Cell our defined neck and its reciprocal {The rest of the Universe} I could refer to all of the cells energy and then to all of its inputs and or outputs as a multi-necked Klein bottle - And with enough Data of all the inputs and outputs, Scientists and or Biologists could postulate a cells final moments (Its Division if in a favourable Environment or Destruction via a lethal environment) or if we reverse all the inputs and outputs energy exchanges, we could define the cells first moment (Source and or Parent dividing cell), having said that I feel this method may be our best shot at modeling anything and everything, and once such modeling is commonplace, all cellular diseases will be at our mercy...
Err~gotta go!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback,Bukh, all
Interesting, looking at your answers to my post. I looked at your descriptions before something dawned on me.
The 'lack' of energy would not need to be equal to,or anywhere close to matching the energy. In other words, Because the variation existed once, it changes what can exist forever.
From this point(no /or absence of energy), a single point of variation appears in the "whole". Where I placed a single quanta of energy, you can place a single "lack of energy"
This has the distinction of NOT being the possible "first particle" if you do reversion. It can only exist via comparison with the "whole". Being a lack of energy, it can affect configuration without having to move within the whole.
EVERYTHING else must move around it. But because it is unlike it's surroundings, it cannot rest ,because something and nothing cannot co-exist.(much like matter and antimatter.)
A pattern is much more likely than not. In fact a vortex is highly likely to be the pattern. Think on it for a minute. If one part in a million was so opposite to a bowl of something else, but neither substance could get away from the other, what would the resulting behavior be?
You cannot explode your 'vessel'. the two must form a behavior which follows actions which are likely. Something CANNOT (for this case) absorb nothing.
one part in a million......how much/many edges would be touching the 'nothing' at any time?
Still another question(thought at the end of this post). Could the variation 'immunise' each point of contact.............eventually reducing itself in the process until each section of the universe is the same(and 'nothing' was gone). If so , then we are seeing the process of immunisation.This would give a methodology to 'memory' and why we can see other energy.
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason
Your latest post is not the easiest for me to grasp
I do not get the meaning of "lack of energy" and when you are talking about the process of immunization it gives me the impression that it is equal to the process of achieving better and better fit - so the gradient for change becomes smaller and smaller and eventually disappear.
Anyhow - I have been reconsidering - again again - the whole concept of infinite - and tend to think that the Everything also fundamentally is discrete and finite, but with the potential to ever segregate into smaller and smaller. Smallest will never dilute into nothingness - irrespective of scale - smallest can always be segregated into even smaller and still be a body with a shape - without shape no informational content and no organizing principle. Infinite is an impossible concept, infinite is a never reached potential - and logically everything vanish if infinite is being reached -
Please elaborate a bit more on your latest post
Your latest post is not the easiest for me to grasp
I do not get the meaning of "lack of energy" and when you are talking about the process of immunization it gives me the impression that it is equal to the process of achieving better and better fit - so the gradient for change becomes smaller and smaller and eventually disappear.
Anyhow - I have been reconsidering - again again - the whole concept of infinite - and tend to think that the Everything also fundamentally is discrete and finite, but with the potential to ever segregate into smaller and smaller. Smallest will never dilute into nothingness - irrespective of scale - smallest can always be segregated into even smaller and still be a body with a shape - without shape no informational content and no organizing principle. Infinite is an impossible concept, infinite is a never reached potential - and logically everything vanish if infinite is being reached -
Please elaborate a bit more on your latest post
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 17 2009, 09:40 PM)
Iseason
Your latest post is not the easiest for me to grasp
I do not get the meaning of "lack of energy" and when you are talking about the process of immunization it gives me the impression that it is equal to the process of achieving better and better fit - so the gradient for change becomes smaller and smaller and eventually disappear.
Anyhow - I have been reconsidering - again again - the whole concept of infinite - and tend to think that the Everything also fundamentally is discrete and finite, but with the potential to ever segregate into smaller and smaller. Smallest will never dilute into nothingness - irrespective of scale - smallest can always be segregated into even smaller and still be a body with a shape - without shape no informational content and no organizing principle. Infinite is an impossible concept, infinite is a never reached potential - and logically everything vanish if infinite is being reached -
Please elaborate a bit more on your latest post
Hi Bukh
I must agree on the clarity of the last post. I was still gathering the thought as I wrote.
Let's begin by looking at two completely opposite effects. One positive and one negative. Then when we are considering the two we add them unevenly. (as I proposed, one part in one million.) The effect on the one part is considerably higher because of variation.
So I chose something or nothing. But this is not necessarily a true picture, just words. If the singular effect were completely alien to the million, it would be required to move constantly without let. Either that or be trapped in one position (surrounded). But that could only occur in the center. (even opposing forces).
If it were able to be absorbed by the million, Then the effect is reducing as the singular unit moves through the whole. I chose to absorb it evenly (the single unit divided into the million). This gave a good methodology for 'memory'.There are several ways to see the methodology.
1. That the singular unit has to move through every position (reducing as it goes)
This will not diminish it's effect on it's environment because it is ALWAYS different from the rest. But if a position has absorbed it before, it is no longer available to do so.
2. That the variation be surrounded by the environment. Once again it is being absorbed , but this time in a more permeable way. First the closest division (equal size to the unit) creates a ring around it. There is still a variation that can be detected from outside that ring.....Another "like sized quanta" creates a second ring. This ring is now different to the first ring........First and second cause...
Then a third , fourth and so on......This can create a universe that has variation which is exactly the same , but is not in the same position.
Each ring consists of one quanta (from the million) and one portion of the variation.
You could imagine that the last ring would be exactly the same value as the first, but is situated on the outside and much larger in circumference, thinner and with a totally different property to the first....None of the rings could ever be alike .
the process is "interference friendly" and so wave friendly....
Cheers
Iseason
Your latest post is not the easiest for me to grasp
I do not get the meaning of "lack of energy" and when you are talking about the process of immunization it gives me the impression that it is equal to the process of achieving better and better fit - so the gradient for change becomes smaller and smaller and eventually disappear.
Anyhow - I have been reconsidering - again again - the whole concept of infinite - and tend to think that the Everything also fundamentally is discrete and finite, but with the potential to ever segregate into smaller and smaller. Smallest will never dilute into nothingness - irrespective of scale - smallest can always be segregated into even smaller and still be a body with a shape - without shape no informational content and no organizing principle. Infinite is an impossible concept, infinite is a never reached potential - and logically everything vanish if infinite is being reached -
Please elaborate a bit more on your latest post
Hi Bukh
I must agree on the clarity of the last post. I was still gathering the thought as I wrote.
Let's begin by looking at two completely opposite effects. One positive and one negative. Then when we are considering the two we add them unevenly. (as I proposed, one part in one million.) The effect on the one part is considerably higher because of variation.
So I chose something or nothing. But this is not necessarily a true picture, just words. If the singular effect were completely alien to the million, it would be required to move constantly without let. Either that or be trapped in one position (surrounded). But that could only occur in the center. (even opposing forces).
If it were able to be absorbed by the million, Then the effect is reducing as the singular unit moves through the whole. I chose to absorb it evenly (the single unit divided into the million). This gave a good methodology for 'memory'.There are several ways to see the methodology.
1. That the singular unit has to move through every position (reducing as it goes)
This will not diminish it's effect on it's environment because it is ALWAYS different from the rest. But if a position has absorbed it before, it is no longer available to do so.
2. That the variation be surrounded by the environment. Once again it is being absorbed , but this time in a more permeable way. First the closest division (equal size to the unit) creates a ring around it. There is still a variation that can be detected from outside that ring.....Another "like sized quanta" creates a second ring. This ring is now different to the first ring........First and second cause...
Then a third , fourth and so on......This can create a universe that has variation which is exactly the same , but is not in the same position.
Each ring consists of one quanta (from the million) and one portion of the variation.
You could imagine that the last ring would be exactly the same value as the first, but is situated on the outside and much larger in circumference, thinner and with a totally different property to the first....None of the rings could ever be alike .
the process is "interference friendly" and so wave friendly....
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Bukh,
Let me interject to the following reasoning of yours..
Let me interject to the following reasoning of yours..
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 16 2009, 09:12 AM)
Once the full repetitive pattern has been played - once all the "pictures" in the movie has been played - then the exact next physical expression has been accurately displayed and defined, and the process can revert into the opposite direction
Consider as the universes motion {velocities eventuate} as in try and consider two systems that are in the act of creating a third system in between them, it should be noted such an event is how and why change is possible, because as the two systems pool or inject energy into the new system being created, they expel energy, and eventually one of the systems will come to some point where, all other reciprocal systems together provide cause for another finite change, this change may be the death of one of the systems or a birth of two or more new system and or life spans..
A life span that will continue on until the rest of the systems reciprocating energy gives rise for another change be it (birth or death to a life span), and if we turn our attention to how many systems we now may have - The original system may still exist but at this point present itself very different to its original dynamics, of course when changes occur, one could imply the old system has expired, and the new system is simply an evolutionary step of the Whole Original System..
The reason I mention my above logic is because my 4 Dimensional model has everything confined to a Loop..
For example as one system expels energy from one of its outputs then that energy that is outputted has to be useful to another system, and as long as this supply is available, the system dependent on it, is able to continue, but if the supply dwindles then the system dependent on it shall eventually expire..
Just remember our critical rule that energy can not be created nor destroyed, so as kinetic energy is stored as Potential Energy, the system storing such kinetic energy increases in potential Energy, but this is at the expense of allowed change.. A compression should be considered here, where at one point this potential may be greater than some other potential, that will be lethal to some other system or systems, put simply change in dynamics has once again evolved..
All because of enough Potential energy has been gained and or enough stored kinetic energy {velocities}where for this to be possible is that we must have two opposing velocities to do this which if we consider it was our original two systems, merely presenting them selves to each other..
Here's an example of how to store a whole aircraft in mid air going nowhere, and to do this - We must have the aircraft's velocity at around the same but opposing velocity and or airspeed, like wise if we have densities that converge, we are in fact implying to compression because if each density were at the same opposing velocity as they meet their velocities cancel out, and we end up with double the density, noting the two densities dimensions now only occupy half the original area.. {compression} mind you - velocities dimensions in fact have been converted to densities dimension and or Kinetic energy has been converted to Potential energy OR simply expressed - energy is stored, the very reason why the H Bomb can do so much damage, simply because each and every Particle is the result from all directions the merging of opposing velocities and or kinetic energy..
Nuff said,
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
A life span that will continue on until the rest of the systems reciprocating energy gives rise for another change be it (birth or death to a life span), and if we turn our attention to how many systems we now may have - The original system may still exist but at this point present itself very different to its original dynamics, of course when changes occur, one could imply the old system has expired, and the new system is simply an evolutionary step of the Whole Original System..
The reason I mention my above logic is because my 4 Dimensional model has everything confined to a Loop..
For example as one system expels energy from one of its outputs then that energy that is outputted has to be useful to another system, and as long as this supply is available, the system dependent on it, is able to continue, but if the supply dwindles then the system dependent on it shall eventually expire..
Just remember our critical rule that energy can not be created nor destroyed, so as kinetic energy is stored as Potential Energy, the system storing such kinetic energy increases in potential Energy, but this is at the expense of allowed change.. A compression should be considered here, where at one point this potential may be greater than some other potential, that will be lethal to some other system or systems, put simply change in dynamics has once again evolved..
All because of enough Potential energy has been gained and or enough stored kinetic energy {velocities}where for this to be possible is that we must have two opposing velocities to do this which if we consider it was our original two systems, merely presenting them selves to each other..
Here's an example of how to store a whole aircraft in mid air going nowhere, and to do this - We must have the aircraft's velocity at around the same but opposing velocity and or airspeed, like wise if we have densities that converge, we are in fact implying to compression because if each density were at the same opposing velocity as they meet their velocities cancel out, and we end up with double the density, noting the two densities dimensions now only occupy half the original area.. {compression} mind you - velocities dimensions in fact have been converted to densities dimension and or Kinetic energy has been converted to Potential energy OR simply expressed - energy is stored, the very reason why the H Bomb can do so much damage, simply because each and every Particle is the result from all directions the merging of opposing velocities and or kinetic energy..
Nuff said,
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Granouille+Mar 16 2009, 10:48 AM)
Jesus.
The inference may have escaped you, as most things seem to.
Google: "Pouring piss out of a boot"...
The inference may have escaped you, as most things seem to.
Google: "Pouring piss out of a boot"...
Hi Granouille,
Let me point out the Universe is a system that is evolving..
As for getting the piss out of the boot, let me assure you there is NO need to pour out the piss, this is because as the piss enters the system it will end up leaving the boot, simply because if both systems (boot and Piss) are to exist, both must present to each other and for that matter to all other systems they interact with, {REF: reason why mass is never at rest} anyway in doing so - each and every system expels some of their stored Potential energy as kinetic energy, and to most they simply would referred to such events as decomposition, but to me the boot and the piss contained therein could be considered as two or more bottle necks that are connected to other systems and or Klein Bottle Necks where energy goes in while elsewhere it is expelled..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Let me point out the Universe is a system that is evolving..
As for getting the piss out of the boot, let me assure you there is NO need to pour out the piss, this is because as the piss enters the system it will end up leaving the boot, simply because if both systems (boot and Piss) are to exist, both must present to each other and for that matter to all other systems they interact with, {REF: reason why mass is never at rest} anyway in doing so - each and every system expels some of their stored Potential energy as kinetic energy, and to most they simply would referred to such events as decomposition, but to me the boot and the piss contained therein could be considered as two or more bottle necks that are connected to other systems and or Klein Bottle Necks where energy goes in while elsewhere it is expelled..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 16 2009, 06:45 PM)
Hi Laidback,Bukh, all
Interesting, looking at your answers to my post. I looked at your descriptions before something dawned on me.
The 'lack' of energy would not need to be equal to,or anywhere close to matching the energy. In other words, Because the variation existed once, it changes what can exist forever.
From this point(no /or absence of energy), a single point of variation appears in the "whole". Where I placed a single quanta of energy, you can place a single "lack of energy"
This has the distinction of NOT being the possible "first particle" if you do reversion. It can only exist via comparison with the "whole". Being a lack of energy, it can affect configuration without having to move within the whole.
EVERYTHING else must move around it. But because it is unlike it's surroundings, it cannot rest ,because something and nothing cannot co-exist.(much like matter and antimatter.)
A pattern is much more likely than not. In fact a vortex is highly likely to be the pattern. Think on it for a minute. If one part in a million was so opposite to a bowl of something else, but neither substance could get away from the other, what would the resulting behavior be?
You cannot explode your 'vessel'. the two must form a behavior which follows actions which are likely. Something CANNOT (for this case) absorb nothing.
one part in a million......how much/many edges would be touching the 'nothing' at any time?
Still another question(thought at the end of this post). Could the variation 'immunise' each point of contact.............eventually reducing itself in the process until each section of the universe is the same(and 'nothing' was gone). If so , then we are seeing the process of immunisation.This would give a methodology to 'memory' and why we can see other energy.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Iseason,
Lets look at this via values..
lets say a system has the value of potential energy of 100%
and lets have those two mentioned sub systems present to each other..
and each has half the energy
so each would have a value of 50%. and antimatter as 0%
so here is moment one..
0%, 50% and 50% is our initial moment
0%, 45%, 10% and 45% is moment two's values for our system..
so how come there are four values {three REAL subsystems} in our system now?
Well if we consider for each sub system to exist it must present itself, but to do this it must output a small copy of itself.. And I refer to this copy as Kinetic energy or a density with a velocity to it - the velocity being @"c"..
So as each system presents themselves via these expelled copies {densities with velocities @"c"} they merge with each other doubling the density where they merge, the result is a new Potential or system is created..
of course the above used a simple symmetrical model, which is unlike the Universe..
So values in reality are in fact far more erratic and or non symmetrical..
Err~ I hope I have clarified how important the total account of energy must not change whatsoever for a closed system.. meaning anything less than nothing simply is impossible, because as soon zero is anything other, it simply is a value or something which must have been gained from another value..
Another point is when a system outputs energy its value of energy must fall, and as this energy is received, it must give rise to the value of energy for the receiving system..
If one refers to a single necked Klein bottle the joining neck is where this energy is exchanged, but as we observe the neck, the necks energy increases to a point it is able to be the catalyst for any number of numerous scenarios..
Just watch one of those larvae lamps for a while and I am sure most should get the gist of the basics where if the clear density is defined as nothing and the coloured is defined as energy or something..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Interesting, looking at your answers to my post. I looked at your descriptions before something dawned on me.
The 'lack' of energy would not need to be equal to,or anywhere close to matching the energy. In other words, Because the variation existed once, it changes what can exist forever.
From this point(no /or absence of energy), a single point of variation appears in the "whole". Where I placed a single quanta of energy, you can place a single "lack of energy"
This has the distinction of NOT being the possible "first particle" if you do reversion. It can only exist via comparison with the "whole". Being a lack of energy, it can affect configuration without having to move within the whole.
EVERYTHING else must move around it. But because it is unlike it's surroundings, it cannot rest ,because something and nothing cannot co-exist.(much like matter and antimatter.)
A pattern is much more likely than not. In fact a vortex is highly likely to be the pattern. Think on it for a minute. If one part in a million was so opposite to a bowl of something else, but neither substance could get away from the other, what would the resulting behavior be?
You cannot explode your 'vessel'. the two must form a behavior which follows actions which are likely. Something CANNOT (for this case) absorb nothing.
one part in a million......how much/many edges would be touching the 'nothing' at any time?
Still another question(thought at the end of this post). Could the variation 'immunise' each point of contact.............eventually reducing itself in the process until each section of the universe is the same(and 'nothing' was gone). If so , then we are seeing the process of immunisation.This would give a methodology to 'memory' and why we can see other energy.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Iseason,
Lets look at this via values..
lets say a system has the value of potential energy of 100%
and lets have those two mentioned sub systems present to each other..
and each has half the energy
so each would have a value of 50%. and antimatter as 0%
so here is moment one..
0%, 50% and 50% is our initial moment
0%, 45%, 10% and 45% is moment two's values for our system..
so how come there are four values {three REAL subsystems} in our system now?
Well if we consider for each sub system to exist it must present itself, but to do this it must output a small copy of itself.. And I refer to this copy as Kinetic energy or a density with a velocity to it - the velocity being @"c"..
So as each system presents themselves via these expelled copies {densities with velocities @"c"} they merge with each other doubling the density where they merge, the result is a new Potential or system is created..
of course the above used a simple symmetrical model, which is unlike the Universe..
So values in reality are in fact far more erratic and or non symmetrical..
Err~ I hope I have clarified how important the total account of energy must not change whatsoever for a closed system.. meaning anything less than nothing simply is impossible, because as soon zero is anything other, it simply is a value or something which must have been gained from another value..
Another point is when a system outputs energy its value of energy must fall, and as this energy is received, it must give rise to the value of energy for the receiving system..
If one refers to a single necked Klein bottle the joining neck is where this energy is exchanged, but as we observe the neck, the necks energy increases to a point it is able to be the catalyst for any number of numerous scenarios..
Just watch one of those larvae lamps for a while and I am sure most should get the gist of the basics where if the clear density is defined as nothing and the coloured is defined as energy or something..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi all
Ok. I'll try another angle. We live in a universe of waves and interference. These give rise to a multitude of different behaviors by being "relative" and unique within the universe. .....so we must look for and define "what makes it unique". At the same time, Every position is Known by every other position via "action at a distance, gravity, relativity. And further , we can see positions which requires recognition of "sameness, while retaining individual relativity". ......Big Ask!!.
One way is for every wave,interference,variation......Whatever you like to call it , has the same source. In fact that is the only way to ensure that the multiple behaviors gel with the other sciences. Immunization is "creating a blueprint". By taking an equal portion divided into the whole, no particle , wave,position has a greater value than any other.
Upon encountering an immunized cousin, My make up can read it and fit it into the sequence. At some point the two opposites reach a peak where no more of the original values (in BOTH systems) exist. All that is left is the "whole" which has similar value wherever you look.
However during the PROCESS of immunization Multiple distributions of the two original values exist as well as the third...
1. Smallest division (germ)
2. largest quantity of divisible (host)
3. immunized divisions
4. Whole
I could add a step for each change which changes the % by one point gained and lost in the two main systems.......But at the end only two systems are possible. Largest and smallest. It would take another GERM to recreate the process. The germ is variation which is akin to time because it is not in any of the categories above, but relies on reviewing the process. Since each position is unique, there needs a methodology which can be seen in physical reality to exist. Wave structure is such a behavior which fits the bill.
Cheers
Iseason
Ok. I'll try another angle. We live in a universe of waves and interference. These give rise to a multitude of different behaviors by being "relative" and unique within the universe. .....so we must look for and define "what makes it unique". At the same time, Every position is Known by every other position via "action at a distance, gravity, relativity. And further , we can see positions which requires recognition of "sameness, while retaining individual relativity". ......Big Ask!!.
One way is for every wave,interference,variation......Whatever you like to call it , has the same source. In fact that is the only way to ensure that the multiple behaviors gel with the other sciences. Immunization is "creating a blueprint". By taking an equal portion divided into the whole, no particle , wave,position has a greater value than any other.
Upon encountering an immunized cousin, My make up can read it and fit it into the sequence. At some point the two opposites reach a peak where no more of the original values (in BOTH systems) exist. All that is left is the "whole" which has similar value wherever you look.
However during the PROCESS of immunization Multiple distributions of the two original values exist as well as the third...
1. Smallest division (germ)
2. largest quantity of divisible (host)
3. immunized divisions
4. Whole
I could add a step for each change which changes the % by one point gained and lost in the two main systems.......But at the end only two systems are possible. Largest and smallest. It would take another GERM to recreate the process. The germ is variation which is akin to time because it is not in any of the categories above, but relies on reviewing the process. Since each position is unique, there needs a methodology which can be seen in physical reality to exist. Wave structure is such a behavior which fits the bill.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 18 2009, 09:26 PM)
Hi all
Ok. I'll try another angle. We live in a universe of waves and interference. These give rise to a multitude of different behaviors by being "relative" and unique within the universe. .....so we must look for and define "what makes it unique". At the same time, Every position is Known by every other position via "action at a distance, gravity, relativity. And further , we can see positions which requires recognition of "sameness, while retaining individual relativity". ......Big Ask!!.
One way is for every wave,interference,variation......Whatever you like to call it , has the same source. In fact that is the only way to ensure that the multiple behaviors gel with the other sciences. Immunization is "creating a blueprint". By taking an equal portion divided into the whole, no particle , wave,position has a greater value than any other.
Upon encountering an immunized cousin, My make up can read it and fit it into the sequence. At some point the two opposites reach a peak where no more of the original values (in BOTH systems) exist. All that is left is the "whole" which has similar value wherever you look.
However during the PROCESS of immunization Multiple distributions of the two original values exist as well as the third...
1. Smallest division (germ)
2. largest quantity of divisible (host)
3. immunized divisions
4. Whole
I could add a step for each change which changes the % by one point gained and lost in the two main systems.......But at the end only two systems are possible. Largest and smallest. It would take another GERM to recreate the process. The germ is variation which is akin to time because it is not in any of the categories above, but relies on reviewing the process. Since each position is unique, there needs a methodology which can be seen in physical reality to exist. Wave structure is such a behavior which fits the bill.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Bukh,Laidback.
This seems to have become a difficult point. Is it the term "immunize?".
you could as easily call it "acquire a definition". Where by there is no discern able variance without taking on a portion of the parent particle. This way the volume of space has no value because of no variation, until it breaks up into the smallest divisible which can only happen via the particle which creates the variance imparting itself.
I could have said that the universe was two halves which mingled to create variance, but that requires that differing values pre-existed. With the view that a single particle existed at a scale equal to each future sized particle, only one value exists at any point in time and space. Because it is the breaking up of the smallest energy quanta that creates multiple representations of itself, You could look at any interrupted view and not break the "energy cannot be created nor destroyed " law".
By using a methodology that the process causes each new particle to create a unique sized ring around the original position, there can be no chance that two same dimensional variables ever exist, even though they will all(were they not ringed), occupy the same area. So a ring around the outer universe is the same value as a ring second in the order.
If this 'stretching" worries you, Then consider that ANY theory involving time and space will define size as a basic rule, even if we go back to pixels, they must have dimensions.In fact the methodology does not require that the rings are definable at all. Simply that they are ruled by the breaking up of the originating particle.
a law can certainly be coined that space has a defined number of positions based on the number of possible divisible of energy. (that can not be new science). By ensuring that interactions are dictated by that law is in line with a quanta universe. What causes "quanta" is where the argument can come in .
Cheers
Iseason
Ok. I'll try another angle. We live in a universe of waves and interference. These give rise to a multitude of different behaviors by being "relative" and unique within the universe. .....so we must look for and define "what makes it unique". At the same time, Every position is Known by every other position via "action at a distance, gravity, relativity. And further , we can see positions which requires recognition of "sameness, while retaining individual relativity". ......Big Ask!!.
One way is for every wave,interference,variation......Whatever you like to call it , has the same source. In fact that is the only way to ensure that the multiple behaviors gel with the other sciences. Immunization is "creating a blueprint". By taking an equal portion divided into the whole, no particle , wave,position has a greater value than any other.
Upon encountering an immunized cousin, My make up can read it and fit it into the sequence. At some point the two opposites reach a peak where no more of the original values (in BOTH systems) exist. All that is left is the "whole" which has similar value wherever you look.
However during the PROCESS of immunization Multiple distributions of the two original values exist as well as the third...
1. Smallest division (germ)
2. largest quantity of divisible (host)
3. immunized divisions
4. Whole
I could add a step for each change which changes the % by one point gained and lost in the two main systems.......But at the end only two systems are possible. Largest and smallest. It would take another GERM to recreate the process. The germ is variation which is akin to time because it is not in any of the categories above, but relies on reviewing the process. Since each position is unique, there needs a methodology which can be seen in physical reality to exist. Wave structure is such a behavior which fits the bill.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Bukh,Laidback.
This seems to have become a difficult point. Is it the term "immunize?".
you could as easily call it "acquire a definition". Where by there is no discern able variance without taking on a portion of the parent particle. This way the volume of space has no value because of no variation, until it breaks up into the smallest divisible which can only happen via the particle which creates the variance imparting itself.
I could have said that the universe was two halves which mingled to create variance, but that requires that differing values pre-existed. With the view that a single particle existed at a scale equal to each future sized particle, only one value exists at any point in time and space. Because it is the breaking up of the smallest energy quanta that creates multiple representations of itself, You could look at any interrupted view and not break the "energy cannot be created nor destroyed " law".
By using a methodology that the process causes each new particle to create a unique sized ring around the original position, there can be no chance that two same dimensional variables ever exist, even though they will all(were they not ringed), occupy the same area. So a ring around the outer universe is the same value as a ring second in the order.
If this 'stretching" worries you, Then consider that ANY theory involving time and space will define size as a basic rule, even if we go back to pixels, they must have dimensions.In fact the methodology does not require that the rings are definable at all. Simply that they are ruled by the breaking up of the originating particle.
a law can certainly be coined that space has a defined number of positions based on the number of possible divisible of energy. (that can not be new science). By ensuring that interactions are dictated by that law is in line with a quanta universe. What causes "quanta" is where the argument can come in .
Cheers
Iseason
hi Iseason
If I was to explain it in my words it would be something like this:
Immunization has to do with achieving equilibrium - to minimize gradients - and gradients has to do with potential energy - which is being equalized via kinetic re-arrangements.
This scenario is being executed via the creation of smaller and smaller "objects of sameness" - equivalent to more and more ratios of the Universe - the Whole - and how these objects of sameness re-arrange themselves in better and better overall fit so as minimize and equalize free void.
The process is being driven by Universe's strive for minimal free void, and free void and the uneven distribution of said free void IS the source of energy - and as long as there is into existence unevenly distributed free void - Universe can exert changes.
If I was to explain it in my words it would be something like this:
Immunization has to do with achieving equilibrium - to minimize gradients - and gradients has to do with potential energy - which is being equalized via kinetic re-arrangements.
This scenario is being executed via the creation of smaller and smaller "objects of sameness" - equivalent to more and more ratios of the Universe - the Whole - and how these objects of sameness re-arrange themselves in better and better overall fit so as minimize and equalize free void.
The process is being driven by Universe's strive for minimal free void, and free void and the uneven distribution of said free void IS the source of energy - and as long as there is into existence unevenly distributed free void - Universe can exert changes.
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 23 2009, 05:01 AM)
hi Iseason
If I was to explain it in my words it would be something like this:
Immunization has to do with achieving equilibrium - to minimize gradients - and gradients has to do with potential energy - which is being equalized via kinetic re-arrangements.
This scenario is being executed via the creation of smaller and smaller "objects of sameness" - equivalent to more and more ratios of the Universe - the Whole - and how these objects of sameness re-arrange themselves in better and better overall fit so as minimize and equalize free void.
The process is being driven by Universe's strive for minimal free void, and free void and the uneven distribution of said free void IS the source of energy - and as long as there is into existence unevenly distributed free void - Universe can exert changes.
Hi All,
At the risk of skipping over another important point mentioned earlier, and hopefully in keeping to the current depth of reasoning, and dare I say - where no peers have ever gone before..
Let me refer to the following.. {hoping I don't infect or ruin our pursuit for the utmost beginning where the "Rules" or laws - Or perhaps even before this..} as to how the possible opposed to the impossible came to be..
As usual I will try and constrain definitions that I need to refer too..
Reciprocal,
Ideal state favoured by a system,
Reciprocals unfavourable state,
War,
Symbiosis,
Partnerships,
Immunity,
Available Resources,
Recycling,
Rules of Engagements and or Physics,
Law and Order,
Protocols,
Compliance to ordered logic or Law,
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
If I was to explain it in my words it would be something like this:
Immunization has to do with achieving equilibrium - to minimize gradients - and gradients has to do with potential energy - which is being equalized via kinetic re-arrangements.
This scenario is being executed via the creation of smaller and smaller "objects of sameness" - equivalent to more and more ratios of the Universe - the Whole - and how these objects of sameness re-arrange themselves in better and better overall fit so as minimize and equalize free void.
The process is being driven by Universe's strive for minimal free void, and free void and the uneven distribution of said free void IS the source of energy - and as long as there is into existence unevenly distributed free void - Universe can exert changes.
Hi All,
At the risk of skipping over another important point mentioned earlier, and hopefully in keeping to the current depth of reasoning, and dare I say - where no peers have ever gone before..
Let me refer to the following.. {hoping I don't infect or ruin our pursuit for the utmost beginning where the "Rules" or laws - Or perhaps even before this..} as to how the possible opposed to the impossible came to be..
As usual I will try and constrain definitions that I need to refer too..
Reciprocal,
Ideal state favoured by a system,
Reciprocals unfavourable state,
War,
Symbiosis,
Partnerships,
Immunity,
Available Resources,
Recycling,
Rules of Engagements and or Physics,
Law and Order,
Protocols,
Compliance to ordered logic or Law,
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 23 2009, 08:01 AM)
hi Iseason
If I was to explain it in my words it would be something like this:
Immunization has to do with achieving equilibrium - to minimize gradients - and gradients has to do with potential energy - which is being equalized via kinetic re-arrangements.
This scenario is being executed via the creation of smaller and smaller "objects of sameness" - equivalent to more and more ratios of the Universe - the Whole - and how these objects of sameness re-arrange themselves in better and better overall fit so as minimize and equalize free void.
The process is being driven by Universe's strive for minimal free void, and free void and the uneven distribution of said free void IS the source of energy - and as long as there is into existence unevenly distributed free void - Universe can exert changes.
Hi Bukh and Laidback.
I understand both your points to a degree. What I am defining is a parameter set which removes both 'first cause' and memory as barriers.
If the initial energy already contained a defined number of possible divisions, BUT could only distribute them in a defined order or methodology , then they can allow current scientific objections to be argued. For instance.
1. Can memory be retained via a blueprint particle which is by proportion very small or even only one cell of a mass......We know it can.
If so , is it necessary for the cell to be present in EVERY mass no matter where we find them....Yes it is.
2. Is it necessary for the "infected" material (loose term) to have the same structure as the virus.....No it is not. Part of the unique properties of a virus (blueprint) is to be able to recreate itself USING the host material.
3. Can the virus be prevented from entering a previously infected host....Yes it can (no need for explanation , I'm sure)
So I refer back to "keys".......Whereby there is a master key (particle) and then various other key levels, but only one master key can be present in one 'quanta'. The reasoning that the 'space' should surround the blueprint particle is two fold.
1. it gives each new particle/wave a unique position that cannot be replicated.
2. It follows that as one 'quanta' becomes immunized, the next closest engages the pattern. Since it cannot "get away" from the cause, it must minimize it's exposure , trying to find space that is further away from the cause. It cannot hope to do this since it is surrounded by incompressible (since this behavior is not yet formed) .So first touched = next captured.
The energy division can only hold like volume of 'space' so every ring is exactly the same volume.
There are two distinct ways that the 'rings' can now see each other. One is by a change in the characteristics of the space....the other is by the distribution patterns of the parent particle....going back to Bukh's points....A particle knows another via it's closeness to it's own origin, or it's distance . If the ring was large, then the viewing particle knows where it fits.
If behavior is via multiple particles, then measuring the ingredients can indicate to other multiple particles what is the likely outcome.
To Laidback's points. Where two colliding structures meet, they can exchange ,modify or cancel out other structures by defining themselves via the other structure. It may be that another alliance of structures is created as a result.
A good argument is made for a vortex structure to the design . If each change is one position to the left or right, then interference laws become viable as does spin....And therefore a greater degree of behaviors resultant of "one degree of variation "
If I was to explain it in my words it would be something like this:
Immunization has to do with achieving equilibrium - to minimize gradients - and gradients has to do with potential energy - which is being equalized via kinetic re-arrangements.
This scenario is being executed via the creation of smaller and smaller "objects of sameness" - equivalent to more and more ratios of the Universe - the Whole - and how these objects of sameness re-arrange themselves in better and better overall fit so as minimize and equalize free void.
The process is being driven by Universe's strive for minimal free void, and free void and the uneven distribution of said free void IS the source of energy - and as long as there is into existence unevenly distributed free void - Universe can exert changes.
Hi Bukh and Laidback.
I understand both your points to a degree. What I am defining is a parameter set which removes both 'first cause' and memory as barriers.
If the initial energy already contained a defined number of possible divisions, BUT could only distribute them in a defined order or methodology , then they can allow current scientific objections to be argued. For instance.
1. Can memory be retained via a blueprint particle which is by proportion very small or even only one cell of a mass......We know it can.
If so , is it necessary for the cell to be present in EVERY mass no matter where we find them....Yes it is.
2. Is it necessary for the "infected" material (loose term) to have the same structure as the virus.....No it is not. Part of the unique properties of a virus (blueprint) is to be able to recreate itself USING the host material.
3. Can the virus be prevented from entering a previously infected host....Yes it can (no need for explanation , I'm sure)
So I refer back to "keys".......Whereby there is a master key (particle) and then various other key levels, but only one master key can be present in one 'quanta'. The reasoning that the 'space' should surround the blueprint particle is two fold.
1. it gives each new particle/wave a unique position that cannot be replicated.
2. It follows that as one 'quanta' becomes immunized, the next closest engages the pattern. Since it cannot "get away" from the cause, it must minimize it's exposure , trying to find space that is further away from the cause. It cannot hope to do this since it is surrounded by incompressible (since this behavior is not yet formed) .So first touched = next captured.
The energy division can only hold like volume of 'space' so every ring is exactly the same volume.
There are two distinct ways that the 'rings' can now see each other. One is by a change in the characteristics of the space....the other is by the distribution patterns of the parent particle....going back to Bukh's points....A particle knows another via it's closeness to it's own origin, or it's distance . If the ring was large, then the viewing particle knows where it fits.
If behavior is via multiple particles, then measuring the ingredients can indicate to other multiple particles what is the likely outcome.
To Laidback's points. Where two colliding structures meet, they can exchange ,modify or cancel out other structures by defining themselves via the other structure. It may be that another alliance of structures is created as a result.
A good argument is made for a vortex structure to the design . If each change is one position to the left or right, then interference laws become viable as does spin....And therefore a greater degree of behaviors resultant of "one degree of variation "
QUOTE (iseason+Mar 23 2009, 05:56 PM)
Hi Bukh and Laidback.
I understand both your points to a degree. What I am defining is a parameter set which removes both 'first cause' and memory as barriers.
If the initial energy already contained a defined number of possible divisions, BUT could only distribute them in a defined order or methodology , then they can allow current scientific objections to be argued. For instance.
1. Can memory be retained via a blueprint particle which is by proportion very small or even only one cell of a mass......We know it can.
If so , is it necessary for the cell to be present in EVERY mass no matter where we find them....Yes it is.
2. Is it necessary for the "infected" material (loose term) to have the same structure as the virus.....No it is not. Part of the unique properties of a virus (blueprint) is to be able to recreate itself USING the host material.
3. Can the virus be prevented from entering a previously infected host....Yes it can (no need for explanation , I'm sure)
So I refer back to "keys".......Whereby there is a master key (particle) and then various other key levels, but only one master key can be present in one 'quanta'. The reasoning that the 'space' should surround the blueprint particle is two fold.
1. it gives each new particle/wave a unique position that cannot be replicated.
2. It follows that as one 'quanta' becomes immunized, the next closest engages the pattern. Since it cannot "get away" from the cause, it must minimize it's exposure , trying to find space that is further away from the cause. It cannot hope to do this since it is surrounded by incompressible (since this behavior is not yet formed) .So first touched = next captured.
The energy division can only hold like volume of 'space' so every ring is exactly the same volume.
There are two distinct ways that the 'rings' can now see each other. One is by a change in the characteristics of the space....the other is by the distribution patterns of the parent particle....going back to Bukh's points....A particle knows another via it's closeness to it's own origin, or it's distance . If the ring was large, then the viewing particle knows where it fits.
If behavior is via multiple particles, then measuring the ingredients can indicate to other multiple particles what is the likely outcome.
To Laidback's points. Where two colliding structures meet, they can exchange ,modify or cancel out other structures by defining themselves via the other structure. It may be that another alliance of structures is created as a result.
A good argument is made for a vortex structure to the design . If each change is one position to the left or right, then interference laws become viable as does spin....And therefore a greater degree of behaviors resultant of "one degree of variation "
Hi Guys,
As I read your post Iseason, The following thoughts sprang to mind..
With a set quantity, we have some critical restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Example near the lower end of values:
A two {unlike valued} value system is unable to exchange - As in present to each other their existence, unless they both have the capability to divide or multiply themselves to this predetermined lowest value, so as they both present this value to each other, {being mindful of conservation laws} all changes must occur in set increments restricting the whole greater system to its current values and possible sub-Values, unfortunately evolution becomes problematic with such restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As we know - To exist is to change, and as a whole, if the Universe is to exist it must evolve or change, if not it will cease to exist or should I say eventually be stagnant..
My reasoning has that energy has no limiting minimum value, and in fact as I write ERr~ Type... I reason divisions to the Universe is limitless.. ~ this means infinity has to be our first rule and must be possible, if it is not - Then all that is to exist will never be possible.. 
Err~Cheers,
Pete.
I understand both your points to a degree. What I am defining is a parameter set which removes both 'first cause' and memory as barriers.
If the initial energy already contained a defined number of possible divisions, BUT could only distribute them in a defined order or methodology , then they can allow current scientific objections to be argued. For instance.
1. Can memory be retained via a blueprint particle which is by proportion very small or even only one cell of a mass......We know it can.
If so , is it necessary for the cell to be present in EVERY mass no matter where we find them....Yes it is.
2. Is it necessary for the "infected" material (loose term) to have the same structure as the virus.....No it is not. Part of the unique properties of a virus (blueprint) is to be able to recreate itself USING the host material.
3. Can the virus be prevented from entering a previously infected host....Yes it can (no need for explanation , I'm sure)
So I refer back to "keys".......Whereby there is a master key (particle) and then various other key levels, but only one master key can be present in one 'quanta'. The reasoning that the 'space' should surround the blueprint particle is two fold.
1. it gives each new particle/wave a unique position that cannot be replicated.
2. It follows that as one 'quanta' becomes immunized, the next closest engages the pattern. Since it cannot "get away" from the cause, it must minimize it's exposure , trying to find space that is further away from the cause. It cannot hope to do this since it is surrounded by incompressible (since this behavior is not yet formed) .So first touched = next captured.
The energy division can only hold like volume of 'space' so every ring is exactly the same volume.
There are two distinct ways that the 'rings' can now see each other. One is by a change in the characteristics of the space....the other is by the distribution patterns of the parent particle....going back to Bukh's points....A particle knows another via it's closeness to it's own origin, or it's distance . If the ring was large, then the viewing particle knows where it fits.
If behavior is via multiple particles, then measuring the ingredients can indicate to other multiple particles what is the likely outcome.
To Laidback's points. Where two colliding structures meet, they can exchange ,modify or cancel out other structures by defining themselves via the other structure. It may be that another alliance of structures is created as a result.
A good argument is made for a vortex structure to the design . If each change is one position to the left or right, then interference laws become viable as does spin....And therefore a greater degree of behaviors resultant of "one degree of variation "
Hi Guys,
As I read your post Iseason, The following thoughts sprang to mind..
With a set quantity, we have some critical restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Example near the lower end of values:
A two {unlike valued} value system is unable to exchange - As in present to each other their existence, unless they both have the capability to divide or multiply themselves to this predetermined lowest value, so as they both present this value to each other, {being mindful of conservation laws} all changes must occur in set increments restricting the whole greater system to its current values and possible sub-Values, unfortunately evolution becomes problematic with such restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As we know - To exist is to change, and as a whole, if the Universe is to exist it must evolve or change, if not it will cease to exist or should I say eventually be stagnant..
My reasoning has that energy has no limiting minimum value, and in fact as I write ERr~ Type... I reason divisions to the Universe is limitless..
~ this means infinity has to be our first rule and must be possible, if it is not - Then all that is to exist will never be possible.. Err~Cheers,
Pete.
Laidback
"My reasoning has that energy has no limiting minimum value, and in fact as I write ERr~ Type... I reason divisions to the Universe is limitless.. ~ this means infinity has to be our first rule and must be possible, if it is not - Then all that is to exist will never be possible.. "
Physical Universe is bound upon dimension (objects of sameness) - so division is always related to a dimension - a body - "object of sameness" - and infinite is the same as saying non-dimension - non-existence -
However Universe is also bound upon Time - that smallest dimensions are being configured into an existence - and this is INERTIA - and as inertia is into force everything "takes time" -
time is also a potential that is infinitely at hand - can never be used up - so to speak - is being created parallel to re-arrangements - so infinite is not something that can exist - infinite is a never reached possibility as long as we are dealing with physical world.
Definition of physical world is "Information that have taken dimension - so that an informational bit has taken a "size" - express itself via an object of sameness"
Physical world is characterized as being DISCRETE and FINITE - and with the potential of growing more and more complex - and when final complexion is being reached - when infinitely many objects of sameness has been created - at that very instant physical world vanish - because smallest informational bit turns into dimensionlesness - turns into no information - and infinitely many dimensionless objects create a new wholeness of ONE - and division of this new Wholeness of one into new objects of sameness can start again - a new cycle.
Because of inertia it takes time to cycle a whole universe.
One can also say that because of dimension there is time - and because of time there is inertia
Everything is interchangeable. "Please select your favorite metaphor - and the rest is given". I like object of sameness as the most logical and easiest metaphor to suit my mind.
"My reasoning has that energy has no limiting minimum value, and in fact as I write ERr~ Type... I reason divisions to the Universe is limitless.. ~ this means infinity has to be our first rule and must be possible, if it is not - Then all that is to exist will never be possible.. "
Physical Universe is bound upon dimension (objects of sameness) - so division is always related to a dimension - a body - "object of sameness" - and infinite is the same as saying non-dimension - non-existence -
However Universe is also bound upon Time - that smallest dimensions are being configured into an existence - and this is INERTIA - and as inertia is into force everything "takes time" -
time is also a potential that is infinitely at hand - can never be used up - so to speak - is being created parallel to re-arrangements - so infinite is not something that can exist - infinite is a never reached possibility as long as we are dealing with physical world.
Definition of physical world is "Information that have taken dimension - so that an informational bit has taken a "size" - express itself via an object of sameness"
Physical world is characterized as being DISCRETE and FINITE - and with the potential of growing more and more complex - and when final complexion is being reached - when infinitely many objects of sameness has been created - at that very instant physical world vanish - because smallest informational bit turns into dimensionlesness - turns into no information - and infinitely many dimensionless objects create a new wholeness of ONE - and division of this new Wholeness of one into new objects of sameness can start again - a new cycle.
Because of inertia it takes time to cycle a whole universe.
One can also say that because of dimension there is time - and because of time there is inertia
Everything is interchangeable. "Please select your favorite metaphor - and the rest is given". I like object of sameness as the most logical and easiest metaphor to suit my mind.
hi Guys
I wanted to be sure I hadn't said anything that would bite me later.
Two systems CAN become mixed without interaction. A bucket holds water but is made of plastic. The idea I am using is a precursor to a time driven relativity. Where Laidback's objection to interaction is valid comes AFTER the setting of the environment. There might be some confusion as to some of my descriptors however. It is extremely hard not to say things that can only take place in "timed relativity" but are not governed by it.
What I am meaning is an environment where interactions can take place and why it would be found to be so. Two reactors are important 'for anything to happen', but why we find them like this is even more important. So in this thought experiment , duality is crucial, not only to the universal energy environment, but also how well that matches a time driven model.
It's a little funny that we try to look for "neat new ways" to describe the universe , when even that leads us back to much more mundane views. An example is in my last few posts. While looking at how The universe would look without time, I found the best ways are also present in a time described relativity. So when I say"a vortex" is a good descriptive, it"s because 'shape' does play in the base matter.To take it further, when we are using a time line view , we are simply creating the image which has it's base already formed for us.
the key difference is that one explanation (occurrence) hap penned 'as if all at once' and the other is 'via a distinctive tracking system'(time line). These are a duality and cannot be separated out from each other. But If you asked me "what are we actually seeing", I would say that once you filtered out the noise, you are left with very little indeed. And to my mind at least, much less than anybody can even imagine.
You have both mentioned infinity. No need for me to repeat my feelings there, only to reason why it needs to be a single sourced universe.Randomness can only lead to fleeting "sameness", not great big "pockets of sameness". This universe has uniformity which can only be from a blueprint model. For a blueprint to exist, it needs to have completed the cycle which created it. This side of the universe can not be infinite.
"For a blueprint to exist, it needs to have completed the cycle which created it."
Evolution is not an example of Base order. If that were so, Electrons/Photons would be continually evolving separately, yet we find them the same where ever we look. we call them "constant", and separated from the macro changes of evolution. Even minor variances such as wavelenght and energy levels are consistent throughout the universe, so they were created from something other than randomness.
Once again the blueprint need not constitute a large part of the make up, but can be a quality of the environment that the electron is "within". This makes more sense in a universal study. 'That the electron gains it's qualities from it's environment'. Since you can only see an electron under certain conditions,but cannot track it is significant in pointing out the nature of "how it is".....not how it acts. These are two distinctive different views.
Cheers
Iseason
I wanted to be sure I hadn't said anything that would bite me later.
Two systems CAN become mixed without interaction. A bucket holds water but is made of plastic. The idea I am using is a precursor to a time driven relativity. Where Laidback's objection to interaction is valid comes AFTER the setting of the environment. There might be some confusion as to some of my descriptors however. It is extremely hard not to say things that can only take place in "timed relativity" but are not governed by it.
What I am meaning is an environment where interactions can take place and why it would be found to be so. Two reactors are important 'for anything to happen', but why we find them like this is even more important. So in this thought experiment , duality is crucial, not only to the universal energy environment, but also how well that matches a time driven model.
It's a little funny that we try to look for "neat new ways" to describe the universe , when even that leads us back to much more mundane views. An example is in my last few posts. While looking at how The universe would look without time, I found the best ways are also present in a time described relativity. So when I say"a vortex" is a good descriptive, it"s because 'shape' does play in the base matter.To take it further, when we are using a time line view , we are simply creating the image which has it's base already formed for us.
the key difference is that one explanation (occurrence) hap penned 'as if all at once' and the other is 'via a distinctive tracking system'(time line). These are a duality and cannot be separated out from each other. But If you asked me "what are we actually seeing", I would say that once you filtered out the noise, you are left with very little indeed. And to my mind at least, much less than anybody can even imagine.
You have both mentioned infinity. No need for me to repeat my feelings there, only to reason why it needs to be a single sourced universe.Randomness can only lead to fleeting "sameness", not great big "pockets of sameness". This universe has uniformity which can only be from a blueprint model. For a blueprint to exist, it needs to have completed the cycle which created it. This side of the universe can not be infinite.
"For a blueprint to exist, it needs to have completed the cycle which created it."
Evolution is not an example of Base order. If that were so, Electrons/Photons would be continually evolving separately, yet we find them the same where ever we look. we call them "constant", and separated from the macro changes of evolution. Even minor variances such as wavelenght and energy levels are consistent throughout the universe, so they were created from something other than randomness.
Once again the blueprint need not constitute a large part of the make up, but can be a quality of the environment that the electron is "within". This makes more sense in a universal study. 'That the electron gains it's qualities from it's environment'. Since you can only see an electron under certain conditions,but cannot track it is significant in pointing out the nature of "how it is".....not how it acts. These are two distinctive different views.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Iseason Laidback
Let me start with Duality - wave-particle - and how it relates to blueprint and time.
And I will continue in the same track as I left - namely that one need to select the metaphor - to select THE "something" - or at least to select something that can serve as the understanding defining and communicating TOOL.
And running the risk of being accused for persevering I gladly repeat thaqt this mtaphor is "object of sameness"
Object of sameness exhibit a Shape and a "Body".
Shape is the blueprint - is the instruction - is the system by which whole universe organize and express itself
"Body" is the foundation for inertia - Time - "Body" secures that everything cannot happen instantaneous -
Having the Origin conditions or requirements defined - it is a question about how to see the logic development of Universe - and identify the underlying mechanisms. First thing to be explained or understood is Energy - what is energy - and how is energy shown to us -
The rest is a repetition of what I have said previously.
The model works in my mind irrespective of whether it is the first cycle - or whether there have been (infinitely) many cycles before.
It starts with "the whole" - "body1" - containing the blueprint - the shape. Universe starts its "life" the very instant that "body1" divides in more similar parts, like division of living cells. And it is the interplay - it is how more and more such similar cells interact together that defines everything - be it dead or living matter.
Similar cells or "objects of sameness" can configure in a multiple of ways - and the organizing principle is shape - they configure according to the principle of least or most evenly distributed free void. A very simple and yet very accurate principle.
Object of sameness has no exact size it is a ratio - and everything is being seen relative to its surroundings - universe has the size that universe has - and shape is a totally hidden dimension for us - we have no idea what so ever about what shape is - because we cannot see shape - we can only perceive shape indirectly via the wave-like quakes generated at each reconfiguration of objects of sameness. The wave-patterns in spacefabric is the closest we get to something "real".
This is the particle-wave duality.
More to follow -
Let me start with Duality - wave-particle - and how it relates to blueprint and time.
And I will continue in the same track as I left - namely that one need to select the metaphor - to select THE "something" - or at least to select something that can serve as the understanding defining and communicating TOOL.
And running the risk of being accused for persevering I gladly repeat thaqt this mtaphor is "object of sameness"
Object of sameness exhibit a Shape and a "Body".
Shape is the blueprint - is the instruction - is the system by which whole universe organize and express itself
"Body" is the foundation for inertia - Time - "Body" secures that everything cannot happen instantaneous -
Having the Origin conditions or requirements defined - it is a question about how to see the logic development of Universe - and identify the underlying mechanisms. First thing to be explained or understood is Energy - what is energy - and how is energy shown to us -
The rest is a repetition of what I have said previously.
The model works in my mind irrespective of whether it is the first cycle - or whether there have been (infinitely) many cycles before.
It starts with "the whole" - "body1" - containing the blueprint - the shape. Universe starts its "life" the very instant that "body1" divides in more similar parts, like division of living cells. And it is the interplay - it is how more and more such similar cells interact together that defines everything - be it dead or living matter.
Similar cells or "objects of sameness" can configure in a multiple of ways - and the organizing principle is shape - they configure according to the principle of least or most evenly distributed free void. A very simple and yet very accurate principle.
Object of sameness has no exact size it is a ratio - and everything is being seen relative to its surroundings - universe has the size that universe has - and shape is a totally hidden dimension for us - we have no idea what so ever about what shape is - because we cannot see shape - we can only perceive shape indirectly via the wave-like quakes generated at each reconfiguration of objects of sameness. The wave-patterns in spacefabric is the closest we get to something "real".
This is the particle-wave duality.
More to follow -
QUOTE (bukh+Mar 25 2009, 09:16 AM)
More to follow -
lucky us...
lucky us...
I know - You must feel like a child before Christmas -
hi Bukh
That is actually my reason for objection. That the "environment" cannot be ever evolving along with the energy. either one or the other evolves, but not both at the same time. If that were the case, we could not expect sameness to be evenly distributed. We would see different whole quarters of the universe which had vastly differing results than others.
The only way for even distribution (even in your own theory) is for the environment to have rules set which are unimpeachable by the actions of the partner. This is a chicken and the egg scenario. Does what happens cause the environment or does the environment cause what happens?
The environment is much more than just the matter that we can perceive. It is the Matter that affects the matter that we can perceive. Since the distribution is throughout "all time", your theory about best fit must also regard that we are not discussing thing in the past or future , but things that "are always there where ever you look". It matters not that you are choosing not to look , in regards to how they affect you, because they affect those that do affect you.
Cheers
Iseason
That is actually my reason for objection. That the "environment" cannot be ever evolving along with the energy. either one or the other evolves, but not both at the same time. If that were the case, we could not expect sameness to be evenly distributed. We would see different whole quarters of the universe which had vastly differing results than others.
The only way for even distribution (even in your own theory) is for the environment to have rules set which are unimpeachable by the actions of the partner. This is a chicken and the egg scenario. Does what happens cause the environment or does the environment cause what happens?
The environment is much more than just the matter that we can perceive. It is the Matter that affects the matter that we can perceive. Since the distribution is throughout "all time", your theory about best fit must also regard that we are not discussing thing in the past or future , but things that "are always there where ever you look". It matters not that you are choosing not to look , in regards to how they affect you, because they affect those that do affect you.
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason
Energy is the equivalent of change - and change is being driven by the mechanism of "free void" or "relative vacuum" - which is synonymous in a system where the end point of smaller and smaller dilutes infinitely.
When I say free void, this concept can be defined either as total amount of free void or as the relative distribution of free void - the same as the unevenness of free void. In either case this will give rise to a gradient. The system will strive after diminishing the gradient. This implicate that energy is not the same all over the life-cycle of Universe. Energy is a consumable - at each re-configuration of smallest objects there will be a better fit - and energy will be consumed.
Universe is like a clock being winded up at start, and with inertia, so at each tick a little bit of energy is being lost.
Energy is unevenly spread all over Universe, objects of sameness are spread evenly - energy is dynamic in the sense that it can change position - the free void is ever floating around in the system.
It is the playing of the objects of sameness - it is the way they re-configure - that determines the wave-like quakes that is the information we receive, and is being de-coded by our brain and translated into our reality. Physical matter is quake-like waves in the space-fabric that is being translated into our reality.
The particle-wave duality is a reflection about this strangeness - that our reality is being based upon something which is a sense in less real than the reconfiguring objects of sameness - namely the waves in space-fabric that such rearrangements cause. We will never be in a position to touch or get insight into the objects of sameness - they are in another world.
Every time that objects of sameness re-configure they at the same time emit a wave-pattern of free void being re-distributed -being emitted out in the surroundings. In our scale - one can say that photon is the carrier of free void - photon is the wave-like emission of free void to the surroundings. Photon become the carrier of energy in the sense that photon is the mechanism by which free void is taken from one place to another, and free void is taken in well-defined quants, because each re-configuration involves a very well defined number of objects of sameness - namely the number that is being involved in a "circuit", involved in a stable repeating circuit from neighbor to neighbor in a fixed pattern until the circuit is fully repeated. A stable repeating standing wave.
Each and any change in the space-fabric is via such standing wave-patterns, and they present themselves in all scales and in all sizes. Small patterns constitute small "particle-patterns" that define small particles - which together define larger patterns and so on. So universe is exhibiting a very high order of inertia - a very high order of memory - and re-configuration is smallest has to pass through all scales.
Energy is the equivalent of change - and change is being driven by the mechanism of "free void" or "relative vacuum" - which is synonymous in a system where the end point of smaller and smaller dilutes infinitely.
When I say free void, this concept can be defined either as total amount of free void or as the relative distribution of free void - the same as the unevenness of free void. In either case this will give rise to a gradient. The system will strive after diminishing the gradient. This implicate that energy is not the same all over the life-cycle of Universe. Energy is a consumable - at each re-configuration of smallest objects there will be a better fit - and energy will be consumed.
Universe is like a clock being winded up at start, and with inertia, so at each tick a little bit of energy is being lost.
Energy is unevenly spread all over Universe, objects of sameness are spread evenly - energy is dynamic in the sense that it can change position - the free void is ever floating around in the system.
It is the playing of the objects of sameness - it is the way they re-configure - that determines the wave-like quakes that is the information we receive, and is being de-coded by our brain and translated into our reality. Physical matter is quake-like waves in the space-fabric that is being translated into our reality.
The particle-wave duality is a reflection about this strangeness - that our reality is being based upon something which is a sense in less real than the reconfiguring objects of sameness - namely the waves in space-fabric that such rearrangements cause. We will never be in a position to touch or get insight into the objects of sameness - they are in another world.
Every time that objects of sameness re-configure they at the same time emit a wave-pattern of free void being re-distributed -being emitted out in the surroundings. In our scale - one can say that photon is the carrier of free void - photon is the wave-like emission of free void to the surroundings. Photon become the carrier of energy in the sense that photon is the mechanism by which free void is taken from one place to another, and free void is taken in well-defined quants, because each re-configuration involves a very well defined number of objects of sameness - namely the number that is being involved in a "circuit", involved in a stable repeating circuit from neighbor to neighbor in a fixed pattern until the circuit is fully repeated. A stable repeating standing wave.
Each and any change in the space-fabric is via such standing wave-patterns, and they present themselves in all scales and in all sizes. Small patterns constitute small "particle-patterns" that define small particles - which together define larger patterns and so on. So universe is exhibiting a very high order of inertia - a very high order of memory - and re-configuration is smallest has to pass through all scales.
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.