Now,
If we get back to basics, Science is not word that can be used in place of "honesty". Science "is a journey". The sidetracks in such a journey are potentially endless. The results can vary depending on where "absolute truthfulness" begins and ends.
Does it begin at Quantum? Maybe not!.......Was science dishonest before they discovered quantum? In some cases they ignored flaws in behavior which are oh so obvious since it's discovery, but was the emission of behaviors through lack of experience dishonest?....Only the victorious get to jeer the losers...
So are we being truly honest when we talk backwards and forwards in this and other posts........I think it is difficult to put forwards an idea without an expectation that somebody might find the holes that we might be ignoring. I see this in every scientific book I've read as well.
A qualifying statement that is ever present. "to the best of our knowledge"....."as far as we can know"....."by the science which is available".
But each writes with conviction because ,if a seed of doubt is sown, when it comes to discussing "side branch or lateral interpretation" of current scientific thinking, Persons who wish to use sarcasm instead of reason, have a field day.
Lateral thinking is the only way to find the position within the structure of methodology that accepted science kept going forwards because of usefulness instead of truthfulness.
If you don't think this is true then you are ignoring the cottage industries which form alongside new discoveries. Useful science is taken up by industry who have little need , if any, for honesty.
Don't think I have this view because I have anything against science. I also see it in every type of philosophy that you mentioned,whom science claims to have replaced "honestly. To any Christians I see claiming creationism without methodology,I am equally as hard. Today's Christians claim to be somehow different to the Pharisees that were depicted in biblical times.....I see no difference. Today's scientists claim to be less narrow minded than those whose work they follow......I see no difference..
Where did Einstein Prove science wrong?.....at the very base structure. Well before the need to know what existed. He needed to show how it interacted....And that changed everything.Things still existed,planets rotated , stars gave light.But What space was changed . Not through honesty, but a new reflection, which exposed dishonesty in filling the gaps with "as far as we know"....
Science has moved a long way since then , but still clings to the basic assessments that were presented them without revisiting "BEFORE EINSTEIN" enough.
OK. Einstein improved on what many others had proved. But what lies "Beyond Einstein". in other words , Einstein showed Newtonian Mechanics to be true and not true. But No one seems to think that Einstein can be proved to be true and not true...
Viewing the universe as an organism is simply an inescapable honesty. Einstein must be correct because he has been tested in many arenas,so anything that follows must prove him correct as well as prove his work as rather redundant as far as finding really honest answers ......Even if no applications are useful from the outcome.
The simple statement that the universe is "Whole" does not set any limit on what we can see , measure,experience,capture, retain. It does not try to explain time, space, or motion, 3 dimensions, 11 dimensions or any other "reality " in between.
Whatever the experience, be it by many or few. It will be stated by saying it is whole. Gorgeous,you have said "oneness" on many occasions. I take this to mean a similar thing to "we are all on journeys unique to each of us but connected to one another" . this could not be true out of sync with a view of wholeness.
Cheers
Iseason
hej Edward 3
QUOTE: "all this, of course, subject to the correctness of the statement that nothingness is a logical impossibility."
I like to think that Nothingness is being associated with the concept of Physical - and in the physical world nothingness cannot exist. And when saying physical - it is of course not limited to the human scale of physical - it is including the subquantum world -
QUOTE: "all this, of course, subject to the correctness of the statement that nothingness is a logical impossibility."
I like to think that Nothingness is being associated with the concept of Physical - and in the physical world nothingness cannot exist. And when saying physical - it is of course not limited to the human scale of physical - it is including the subquantum world -
hey bukh
What is D and L? I would love to see somewhere Right and Left.
What is D and L? I would love to see somewhere Right and Left.
Now imagine that Origin-Infinity (Pure Space) is being divided in more and more dimensionalities - more and more ratios are being created - then at a certain point there are being created a critical amount of dimensionalities - resulting in the first phase-transition.
Consider this related to jumps over infinity or phase transitions. It comes out linked to DNA but i am not making any further assumptions about it right now.
Take a plait, or bride of 2 ropes. As long as You wind them together, You get increased complexity compared to single rope. Each wind increases that complexity further by integer number. You can continue like this infinitely NEVER reaching higher complexity-so such way to infinity, or single infinity does not bring in any qualitatively new level of complexity. Its boring, but (maybe) infinite.
Now consider there is something (e.g. analogue of elasticity) guiding that process so that at certain stage, the increasing in number of winds stretches the ropes to the limit where they make a loop-You can try it Yourself- it always happens if there is some restriction imposed .
This loop is qualitatively new level of complexity, albeit finite- its only one in the beginning. When You continue, You get more loops, but again, there is no qualitative change until the geometry twists again.
Such process obviously leads to jumps over infinity which seems possible when we look at plait and do not know anything about the fact it will loop, but never reached.
If we knew the plait will loop, we could say that the looped state which comes after enough winds is imaginary before it happens. So simple.
Similarly with rotating spirals closing on center, but here You must have something that can be squeezed up to a certain limit ( also a common theme in creation myths) - so even as spiral could infinitely go towards center squeezing it more and more infinitely it does not since when pressure is big enough, movement begins in direction perpendicular to the plane of spiral- which is also a qualitatively new level of complexation, as this new direction ( again under the guidance of some principle) will tend to turn into spiral etc.
And now I am not saying that the creation of dimensionalities are even all over Pure-Space, one can easily imagine that some "areas" of pure space is being ratio'ed more than other parts, so that the complexion all over universe is uneven.
Finally! Or, obviously
Finally! Or, obviously
I can imagine how pi must be created out from a binary division of a starting dimensionality - in the sense that by creating more and more ratios - "smaller and smaller parts - it is deemed to create a geometry where pi is the characterizing factor.
I think that can not happen if pi is not given in a sense- You would not know what to approach if You would not have it somewhere? From my point of view, pure space=potential space has this Pi geometry,and that influences what complexification processes can happen - and they are ALL rotational when looked at right scale. Nothing else.
Fallen angle
You really do HATE dictionaries, don't you?
g.
To be clear. I don't agree with "jumping over infinity'. And feel that "putting God outside" is a long way from my own concept.
hi Iseason
I do not know what your mathematical likings are, but do you not consider limit taking in math as jumping over infinity?
e.g. lim n-> infinity Sum of 1/n^2 = Pi^2/6 ;
Here one takes infinite number of summands 1/n^2, adds them together, and ends up with pi^2/6 which is irrational, so in some sense infinite, but e.g
lim n->infinity 1/Tr(n) =2
Where Tr(n) are triangular numbers or numbers from Pascal triangle:
Tr(n) = n+n(-1)+(n-2) + ..+ 3+ 2+1
So even though You never reach infinity in n which You are trying to reach, some other parameter like SUM of terms that depends on n ends up with perfectly finite value.
When We start with 1/1+1/2^2+1/3^2 etc as in first sum, we have no idea it must give a finite result, so the fact that it reaches it means that by applying higher level operations like summation, multiplication instead of counting let us jump over infinity of natural numbers and reach a finite result in the space of natural number reciprocal sums ( not all converge, but those who do "jumps" over infinity albeit in "faster" space).
In nature, every phase transition is a jump over infinity, especially the ones who can only be explained by invoking mathematical reality ( whose speed obviously is infinite and smallest piece infinitesimal) , like those based on Quantum mechanics calculations of wave functions.
You sum up infinite number of infinitely fast path integrals over all infinite paths system can theoretically pass through from state a to state b in phase state space of a problem and end up with finite (though not quite since it is probabilistic ) result in ANOTHER space of interference of amplitudes of wave functions.
As to God, that placement was preliminary, more or less based on Platonic version of Demiurge in Timaeus and Laws. Perhaps its not true, but at current stage it is difficult to judge.
QUOTE
And another key to understand the universal system is that each dimensionality - inhabit a yin - or yang soul - or perhaps we can call it D or L - and whenever a configuration is being created - or build - by smaller dimensionalities - the resulting new - and bigger configuration will be either D or L according to the D's and L's that said configuration are made of. This is well in accordance with cellular automaton principles (I think 
)
) What is D and L? I would love to see somewhere Right and Left.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And another key to understand the universal system is that each dimensionality - inhabit a yin - or yang soul - or perhaps we can call it D or L - and whenever a configuration is being created - or build - by smaller dimensionalities - the resulting new - and bigger configuration will be either D or L according to the D's and L's that said configuration are made of. This is well in accordance with cellular automaton principles (I think ) |
What is D and L? I would love to see somewhere Right and Left.
Now imagine that Origin-Infinity (Pure Space) is being divided in more and more dimensionalities - more and more ratios are being created - then at a certain point there are being created a critical amount of dimensionalities - resulting in the first phase-transition.
Consider this related to jumps over infinity or phase transitions. It comes out linked to DNA but i am not making any further assumptions about it right now.
Take a plait, or bride of 2 ropes. As long as You wind them together, You get increased complexity compared to single rope. Each wind increases that complexity further by integer number. You can continue like this infinitely NEVER reaching higher complexity-so such way to infinity, or single infinity does not bring in any qualitatively new level of complexity. Its boring, but (maybe) infinite.
Now consider there is something (e.g. analogue of elasticity) guiding that process so that at certain stage, the increasing in number of winds stretches the ropes to the limit where they make a loop-You can try it Yourself- it always happens if there is some restriction imposed .
This loop is qualitatively new level of complexity, albeit finite- its only one in the beginning. When You continue, You get more loops, but again, there is no qualitative change until the geometry twists again.
Such process obviously leads to jumps over infinity which seems possible when we look at plait and do not know anything about the fact it will loop, but never reached.
If we knew the plait will loop, we could say that the looped state which comes after enough winds is imaginary before it happens. So simple.
Similarly with rotating spirals closing on center, but here You must have something that can be squeezed up to a certain limit ( also a common theme in creation myths) - so even as spiral could infinitely go towards center squeezing it more and more infinitely it does not since when pressure is big enough, movement begins in direction perpendicular to the plane of spiral- which is also a qualitatively new level of complexation, as this new direction ( again under the guidance of some principle) will tend to turn into spiral etc.
QUOTE
And now I am not saying that the creation of dimensionalities are even all over Pure-Space, one can easily imagine that some "areas" of pure space is being ratio'ed more than other parts, so that the complexion all over universe is uneven.
Finally! Or, obviously
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And now I am not saying that the creation of dimensionalities are even all over Pure-Space, one can easily imagine that some "areas" of pure space is being ratio'ed more than other parts, so that the complexion all over universe is uneven. |
Finally! Or, obviously
I can imagine how pi must be created out from a binary division of a starting dimensionality - in the sense that by creating more and more ratios - "smaller and smaller parts - it is deemed to create a geometry where pi is the characterizing factor.
I think that can not happen if pi is not given in a sense- You would not know what to approach if You would not have it somewhere? From my point of view, pure space=potential space has this Pi geometry,and that influences what complexification processes can happen - and they are ALL rotational when looked at right scale. Nothing else.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 31 2008, 09:05 PM)
Hi Ivars,
Thankyou for the reply.
I'm going to suggest a purely hypothetical thought experiment.
Lets assume that 'absolute nothing' is a property or tangible substance.
Lets assume that absolute nothingness (for the sake of argument) is contained in a magical vacuum bottle.
In reality absolute nothingness cannot exist, but this is purely hypothetical.
When we take the lid off the magic bottle, what do you suppose will happen?
Hi SU
I can not very well imagine nothingness in a bottle, but if I should, that bottle would be outside space. Somewhere else. And the plug and walls will be like a plug and walls between space and nothingness.
OK, now when You open it, the space will start to fill it. So instead of nothingness there will appear space.
Question: will it fill it fully or just part of it until it connects, reaches all walls (percolates) , so that we will get kind of a space fractal ( in this case, not fractal in space, but space itself will be fractal ) or will it fill it fully, like a fluid?
The substance is this case would be dimensions of space ( not volumes, but dimensions itself) -just numbers, one can say.
Thankyou for the reply.
I'm going to suggest a purely hypothetical thought experiment.
Lets assume that 'absolute nothing' is a property or tangible substance.
Lets assume that absolute nothingness (for the sake of argument) is contained in a magical vacuum bottle.
In reality absolute nothingness cannot exist, but this is purely hypothetical.
When we take the lid off the magic bottle, what do you suppose will happen?
Hi SU
I can not very well imagine nothingness in a bottle, but if I should, that bottle would be outside space. Somewhere else. And the plug and walls will be like a plug and walls between space and nothingness.
OK, now when You open it, the space will start to fill it. So instead of nothingness there will appear space.
Question: will it fill it fully or just part of it until it connects, reaches all walls (percolates) , so that we will get kind of a space fractal ( in this case, not fractal in space, but space itself will be fractal ) or will it fill it fully, like a fluid?
The substance is this case would be dimensions of space ( not volumes, but dimensions itself) -just numbers, one can say.
QUOTE (Edward 3+May 31 2008, 09:12 PM)
The point that seems to be emerging here is that, because nothingness is a logical impossibility, it creates something out of itself so as to eliminate a condition that is logically unacceptable. Does this not imply that this "something" has always existed? - otherwise we must accept that there was a time for which the illogical condition was able to persist, and if we accept this we must accept the possibility of an eternal nothingness.
hi Edward3
I like this. It will take some time for me to go over it. I think that the answer lies in the fact that we tend to take existence of logical statements atemporally, while existence as such seems temporal to us, so at any moment we can attach/remove logical statements to it. It can not be true at the origin conditions where such advanced ability as we have now to look at things abstractly , self perceptionaly may not have existed.
But let me dwell on this.
hi Edward3
I like this. It will take some time for me to go over it. I think that the answer lies in the fact that we tend to take existence of logical statements atemporally, while existence as such seems temporal to us, so at any moment we can attach/remove logical statements to it. It can not be true at the origin conditions where such advanced ability as we have now to look at things abstractly , self perceptionaly may not have existed.
But let me dwell on this.
I have been considering vacuums for a while , since this seems to be a point of dispute.
Vacuums are not unique evens themselves, but how we create them has a bearing on the explanation........
A singular energy view does not preclude free will. It merely states that what we do here affects what will happen there. The effect of causing a vacuum to be present in the bottle has little consequence to something as large as the universe and all time that exists. So the contribution is minimal to match the event.
If I move a rock from here to there , it is the same cause and effect to the universe. The vacuum I create "here" will mean the volume that would have occurred has been used to balance the energy values elsewhere. This is the case for every event. Kill a person and the adjustments are automatic. No Wrath of God. Just an adjustment based on the necessity to produce a perfectly balanced reality time and again.
Cheers
Iseason
Vacuums are not unique evens themselves, but how we create them has a bearing on the explanation........
A singular energy view does not preclude free will. It merely states that what we do here affects what will happen there. The effect of causing a vacuum to be present in the bottle has little consequence to something as large as the universe and all time that exists. So the contribution is minimal to match the event.
If I move a rock from here to there , it is the same cause and effect to the universe. The vacuum I create "here" will mean the volume that would have occurred has been used to balance the energy values elsewhere. This is the case for every event. Kill a person and the adjustments are automatic. No Wrath of God. Just an adjustment based on the necessity to produce a perfectly balanced reality time and again.
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason
QUOTE: "If I move a rock from here to there , it is the same cause and effect to the universe. The vacuum I create "here" will mean the volume that would have occurred has been used to balance the energy values elsewhere. This is the case for every event. Kill a person and the adjustments are automatic. No Wrath of God. Just an adjustment based on the necessity to produce a perfectly balanced reality time and again."
yes - and if everything is being seen as dynamically changing configurations in space - then it is not possible to make even the slightest change without it having consequences for the next-following re-configuration - not the same as saying that the effect is instantaneous all over - not at-all - it has to be carried - or translated with the speed of re-configuration - with the inertia or the delaying that exist in the system.
QUOTE: "If I move a rock from here to there , it is the same cause and effect to the universe. The vacuum I create "here" will mean the volume that would have occurred has been used to balance the energy values elsewhere. This is the case for every event. Kill a person and the adjustments are automatic. No Wrath of God. Just an adjustment based on the necessity to produce a perfectly balanced reality time and again."
yes - and if everything is being seen as dynamically changing configurations in space - then it is not possible to make even the slightest change without it having consequences for the next-following re-configuration - not the same as saying that the effect is instantaneous all over - not at-all - it has to be carried - or translated with the speed of re-configuration - with the inertia or the delaying that exist in the system.
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "I think that the answer lies in the fact that we tend to take existence of logical statements atemporally, while existence as such seems temporal to us, so at any moment we can attach/remove logical statements to it. It can not be true at the origin conditions where such advanced ability as we have now to look at things abstractly , self perceptionaly may not have existed."
To me it would indicate that we are back into the question about physical existance - origin is somewhat related to time and time IS a physical constituent - and by being extremely exact about the concept of physical - then nothingness and origin becomes meaningless concepts that cannot exist except as opposites to physical.
QUOTE: "I think that the answer lies in the fact that we tend to take existence of logical statements atemporally, while existence as such seems temporal to us, so at any moment we can attach/remove logical statements to it. It can not be true at the origin conditions where such advanced ability as we have now to look at things abstractly , self perceptionaly may not have existed."
To me it would indicate that we are back into the question about physical existance - origin is somewhat related to time and time IS a physical constituent - and by being extremely exact about the concept of physical - then nothingness and origin becomes meaningless concepts that cannot exist except as opposites to physical.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 1 2008, 09:27 AM)
Hi SU
I can not very well imagine nothingness in a bottle, but if I should, that bottle would be outside space. Somewhere else. And the plug and walls will be like a plug and walls between space and nothingness.
OK, now when You open it, the space will start to fill it. So instead of nothingness there will appear space.
Question: will it fill it fully or just part of it until it connects, reaches all walls (percolates) , so that we will get kind of a space fractal ( in this case, not fractal in space, but space itself will be fractal ) or will it fill it fully, like a fluid?
The substance is this case would be dimensions of space ( not volumes, but dimensions itself) -just numbers, one can say.
Hi Ivars and all,
Bear in mind that 'absolute nothingness' and 'existence' are complete opposites.
Our bottle had to be 'magical' for the purpose of the thought experiment because, how could a real bottle contain absolute nothingness - devoid of existence?
What real vessel could contain something which is non-existent?
What material would a real bottle have to be made of to latch on to and contain no property?
our 'magical' bottle can contain it for sake of avoiding paradox.
Inside the bottle would appear black, only because there would be no light, which human eyes require to see colour, but there is no colour, no anything.
When we remove the lid I predict 2 possible outcomes.
1: The nothingness which cannot be contained by anything real would, faster than an instant wipe out all that exists. It would be the most powerful hypothetical nothing. That would be it, the end of everything including existence itself, again what could prevent this?
2: Absolutely nothing happens
thanks for playing
Kind regards
I can not very well imagine nothingness in a bottle, but if I should, that bottle would be outside space. Somewhere else. And the plug and walls will be like a plug and walls between space and nothingness.
OK, now when You open it, the space will start to fill it. So instead of nothingness there will appear space.
Question: will it fill it fully or just part of it until it connects, reaches all walls (percolates) , so that we will get kind of a space fractal ( in this case, not fractal in space, but space itself will be fractal ) or will it fill it fully, like a fluid?
The substance is this case would be dimensions of space ( not volumes, but dimensions itself) -just numbers, one can say.
Hi Ivars and all,
Bear in mind that 'absolute nothingness' and 'existence' are complete opposites.
Our bottle had to be 'magical' for the purpose of the thought experiment because, how could a real bottle contain absolute nothingness - devoid of existence?
What real vessel could contain something which is non-existent?
What material would a real bottle have to be made of to latch on to and contain no property?
our 'magical' bottle can contain it for sake of avoiding paradox.
Inside the bottle would appear black, only because there would be no light, which human eyes require to see colour, but there is no colour, no anything.
When we remove the lid I predict 2 possible outcomes.
1: The nothingness which cannot be contained by anything real would, faster than an instant wipe out all that exists. It would be the most powerful hypothetical nothing. That would be it, the end of everything including existence itself, again what could prevent this?
2: Absolutely nothing happens
thanks for playing
Kind regards
Interestingly SU choose bottle to contain nothingness.
This reminds me of one other contained form of infinity except rotational - Mobius strip, and its one sides. It is kind of infinite rotation in 2D...As You pass along Mobius strip, You make closed spiral trajectory in 3D with one twist per rotation. Full turn returning You in the same shape and direction takes 720 degrees or 4*pi.
And 2 Mobious strips make Klein bottle which can only be embedded in 4D Euclidian space....so travelling along it is like rotation in 4D. It can be immersed in 3D in 2 ways..But to travel continuously on its sides in 3D you have to be able to move through walls, so another option is to exit in 4th dimension at crossings (like flatten Yourself to be able to move inside the wall) and return back after them.
This reminds me of one other contained form of infinity except rotational - Mobius strip, and its one sides. It is kind of infinite rotation in 2D...As You pass along Mobius strip, You make closed spiral trajectory in 3D with one twist per rotation. Full turn returning You in the same shape and direction takes 720 degrees or 4*pi.
And 2 Mobious strips make Klein bottle which can only be embedded in 4D Euclidian space....so travelling along it is like rotation in 4D. It can be immersed in 3D in 2 ways..But to travel continuously on its sides in 3D you have to be able to move through walls, so another option is to exit in 4th dimension at crossings (like flatten Yourself to be able to move inside the wall) and return back after them.
It's just a concept isn't it ? i.e. the whole point is that you never reach it. There is no end. infinate. forever.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 2 2008, 01:03 AM)
Hi Ivars and all,
Bear in mind that 'absolute nothingness' and 'existence' are complete opposites.
Our bottle had to be 'magical' for the purpose of the thought experiment because, how could a real bottle contain absolute nothingness - devoid of existence?
What real vessel could contain something which is non-existent?
What material would a real bottle have to be made of to latch on to and contain no property?
our 'magical' bottle can contain it for sake of avoiding paradox.
Inside the bottle would appear black, only because there would be no light, which human eyes require to see colour, but there is no colour, no anything.
When we remove the lid I predict 2 possible outcomes.
1: The nothingness which cannot be contained by anything real would, faster than an instant wipe out all that exists. It would be the most powerful hypothetical nothing. That would be it, the end of everything including existence itself, again what could prevent this?
2: Absolutely nothing happens
thanks for playing
Kind regards
SU
You are correct. Nothingness would indee end in disaster. One Of the reasons that I oppose infinity is that it has similar properties. Nothing and something annihilate each other, but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy.
Cheers
Iseason
Bear in mind that 'absolute nothingness' and 'existence' are complete opposites.
Our bottle had to be 'magical' for the purpose of the thought experiment because, how could a real bottle contain absolute nothingness - devoid of existence?
What real vessel could contain something which is non-existent?
What material would a real bottle have to be made of to latch on to and contain no property?
our 'magical' bottle can contain it for sake of avoiding paradox.
Inside the bottle would appear black, only because there would be no light, which human eyes require to see colour, but there is no colour, no anything.
When we remove the lid I predict 2 possible outcomes.
1: The nothingness which cannot be contained by anything real would, faster than an instant wipe out all that exists. It would be the most powerful hypothetical nothing. That would be it, the end of everything including existence itself, again what could prevent this?
2: Absolutely nothing happens
thanks for playing
Kind regards
SU
You are correct. Nothingness would indee end in disaster. One Of the reasons that I oppose infinity is that it has similar properties. Nothing and something annihilate each other, but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy.
Cheers
Iseason
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "What is D and L? I would love to see somewhere Right and Left."
Ahh - thats just a badly choosen sign saying that each and any dimensionality is either belonging to one or the other type - perhaps better to say black and white - and now I am back in cellular automaton. Once a phasetransistion has been reached with forming a lattice of smallest dimensionalities in said scale, the individual dimensionalities is either black or white - (or perhaps a greyscale there between) according to the ratio of origin-black and whites, respectively, contained in each smallest dimensionality.
QUOTE: "And now I am not saying that the creation of dimensionalities are even all over Pure-Space, one can easily imagine that some "areas" of pure space is being ratio'ed more than other parts, so that the complexion all over universe is uneven.
Finally! Or, obviously"
Well - actually I have been sticking to this idea for some time - I am not that rigid - and even expressed this a few times at earlier occasions - so I think that we are in agreement on this point for the time being. Instead of "obviously" - I think that I prefer "most likely".
QUOTE: "From my point of view, pure space=potential space has this Pi geometry,and that influences what complexification processes can happen - and they are ALL rotational when looked at right scale. Nothing else."
Yes that is the most evident - however I do not like to put a form on pure space - on the other hand if pure space is being characterized by just this being a space - then nature should go for the sphere as the simplest form of pure space.
QUOTE: "What is D and L? I would love to see somewhere Right and Left."
Ahh - thats just a badly choosen sign saying that each and any dimensionality is either belonging to one or the other type - perhaps better to say black and white - and now I am back in cellular automaton. Once a phasetransistion has been reached with forming a lattice of smallest dimensionalities in said scale, the individual dimensionalities is either black or white - (or perhaps a greyscale there between) according to the ratio of origin-black and whites, respectively, contained in each smallest dimensionality.
QUOTE: "And now I am not saying that the creation of dimensionalities are even all over Pure-Space, one can easily imagine that some "areas" of pure space is being ratio'ed more than other parts, so that the complexion all over universe is uneven.
Finally! Or, obviously"
Well - actually I have been sticking to this idea for some time - I am not that rigid - and even expressed this a few times at earlier occasions - so I think that we are in agreement on this point for the time being. Instead of "obviously" - I think that I prefer "most likely".
QUOTE: "From my point of view, pure space=potential space has this Pi geometry,and that influences what complexification processes can happen - and they are ALL rotational when looked at right scale. Nothing else."
Yes that is the most evident - however I do not like to put a form on pure space - on the other hand if pure space is being characterized by just this being a space - then nature should go for the sphere as the simplest form of pure space.
Iseason
QUOTE: "but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy."
But you cannot have a little bottle of nothingness once you have the physical universe.
Physical universe is being created (I postulate) when yin and yang (pure space and pure motion) is being merged - when such two concepts that has no existance each by themselves - actually two concpts that both are nothingness - when such two nothingness is being merged one get the physical universe - and when having physical universe then at the same time one has to give up the idea of nothingness.
QUOTE: "but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy."
But you cannot have a little bottle of nothingness once you have the physical universe.
Physical universe is being created (I postulate) when yin and yang (pure space and pure motion) is being merged - when such two concepts that has no existance each by themselves - actually two concpts that both are nothingness - when such two nothingness is being merged one get the physical universe - and when having physical universe then at the same time one has to give up the idea of nothingness.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 1 2008, 06:09 AM)
Gorgeous
I can honestly say that the only thing I disagree with in your last post is that this is very close to what I have been saying all along. Why then have you CHOSEN to berate my views.
If an education in religion is so much a barrier, I haven't expressed any views in that regard (in science posts) for some time. Yet if a reader were to look back in this thread , they will see quite a few philosophical quotes from learned persons of similar eras. All of them yours.
I cannot help but call it hypocritical to question other peoples ability to view the world honestly when you reserve that ability for yourself alone by the knocking , instead of seeing the similarities in posts other than those with whom you have no beef.
Iseason.
I 'reserve no ability of my own'. Truth is for everyone, and not just people who 'believe' themselves 'true' because they follow someone else's 'religion'.
You annihilate yourself with your erroneous assumptions and wilfull blindness in the face of sheer fact.
g.
I can honestly say that the only thing I disagree with in your last post is that this is very close to what I have been saying all along. Why then have you CHOSEN to berate my views.
If an education in religion is so much a barrier, I haven't expressed any views in that regard (in science posts) for some time. Yet if a reader were to look back in this thread , they will see quite a few philosophical quotes from learned persons of similar eras. All of them yours.
I cannot help but call it hypocritical to question other peoples ability to view the world honestly when you reserve that ability for yourself alone by the knocking , instead of seeing the similarities in posts other than those with whom you have no beef.
Iseason.
I 'reserve no ability of my own'. Truth is for everyone, and not just people who 'believe' themselves 'true' because they follow someone else's 'religion'.
QUOTE
Nothing and something annihilate each other
You annihilate yourself with your erroneous assumptions and wilfull blindness in the face of sheer fact.
g.
QUOTE (novice+Jun 1 2008, 04:30 PM)
It's just a concept isn't it ? i.e. the whole point is that you never reach it. There is no end. infinate. forever.
No. The whole point is that it is everywhere. Even people who argue that it does not exist are made from the same infinitly existing 'stuff' as everything else. We may call this a kind of Cosmological Insanity; the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence of how things, including 'self', really exist.
g.
No. The whole point is that it is everywhere. Even people who argue that it does not exist are made from the same infinitly existing 'stuff' as everything else. We may call this a kind of Cosmological Insanity; the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence of how things, including 'self', really exist.
g.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 1 2008, 10:14 PM)
Iseason
QUOTE: "but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy."
But you cannot have a little bottle of nothingness once you have the physical universe.
Physical universe is being created (I postulate) when yin and yang (pure space and pure motion) is being merged - when such two concepts that has no existance each by themselves - actually two concpts that both are nothingness - when such two nothingness is being merged one get the physical universe - and when having physical universe then at the same time one has to give up the idea of nothingness.
More absolute drivel, designed only to try and deliberately confuse people.
You're not very good at this, are you?
g.
QUOTE: "but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy."
But you cannot have a little bottle of nothingness once you have the physical universe.
Physical universe is being created (I postulate) when yin and yang (pure space and pure motion) is being merged - when such two concepts that has no existance each by themselves - actually two concpts that both are nothingness - when such two nothingness is being merged one get the physical universe - and when having physical universe then at the same time one has to give up the idea of nothingness.
More absolute drivel, designed only to try and deliberately confuse people.
You're not very good at this, are you?
g.
Nothing in true context can never BE nothing. We just can't give it a true measure. All space is either potentially "there" or illusionary. But nothing would still require space to exist and would in itself form an infinity. Hence I don't believe "true nothingness" can exist.
Cheers
Iseason
Cheers
Iseason
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "More absolute drivel, designed only to try and deliberately confuse people"
Are you indicating that I know "The Truth" and now I am DELIBERATELY confusing You ?
I think You deserve to be Diciple G.
QUOTE: "More absolute drivel, designed only to try and deliberately confuse people"
Are you indicating that I know "The Truth" and now I am DELIBERATELY confusing You ?
I think You deserve to be Diciple G.
QUOTE (Edward 3+May 31 2008, 09:12 PM)
The point that seems to be emerging here is that, because nothingness is a logical impossibility, it creates something out of itself so as to eliminate a condition that is logically unacceptable. Does this not imply that this "something" has always existed? - otherwise we must accept that there was a time for which the illogical condition was able to persist, and if we accept this we must accept the possibility of an eternal nothingness.
Hi Edward3,
I think I found answer, perhaps not yet clearly formulated. The answer is hidden in the word time and in the fact we implicitly assign timeliness to existence.
We assume that existence of something is prolonged in time, while the act of adding/removing logical statements to it is atemporal.
In the conditions of origin, low level differentiation, without the presence of self perceptive mind we have, this may not be true; existence is not able to atemporaly add logical statements about its own existence compared to its own lastingness- so either existence does not last in time, or adding qualifying logical qualities to itself ( such that DOES IT EXIST, OR NOT) take as much time as existence itself, so they can not exist both at the same time- there fore oscillations, duality.
For humans, the existence we experience is so much more , perhaps infinitely longer lasting than the time needed to qualify it as existing or non-existing that we extend this ability to first complexations of origin. However, those primitive brains were too simple to be able to think and exist at the same time, so they existed a little, then thought a little, and so on, oscillating.
As space turned more complex, its ability to selfpercept developed so that time needed for perception reduced compared to the time it existed, so oscillations became less obvious- small lapses from existence into thought and fast back.
Very developed space structures has the ability to infinitely distance own existence and thinking (selfperception) - that means, they can do it almost in parallel.
I think this answers Your question- our thinking abilities relative to our existence is not applicable to the thinking abilities of barely differentiated space.
Hi Edward3,
I think I found answer, perhaps not yet clearly formulated. The answer is hidden in the word time and in the fact we implicitly assign timeliness to existence.
We assume that existence of something is prolonged in time, while the act of adding/removing logical statements to it is atemporal.
In the conditions of origin, low level differentiation, without the presence of self perceptive mind we have, this may not be true; existence is not able to atemporaly add logical statements about its own existence compared to its own lastingness- so either existence does not last in time, or adding qualifying logical qualities to itself ( such that DOES IT EXIST, OR NOT) take as much time as existence itself, so they can not exist both at the same time- there fore oscillations, duality.
For humans, the existence we experience is so much more , perhaps infinitely longer lasting than the time needed to qualify it as existing or non-existing that we extend this ability to first complexations of origin. However, those primitive brains were too simple to be able to think and exist at the same time, so they existed a little, then thought a little, and so on, oscillating.
As space turned more complex, its ability to selfpercept developed so that time needed for perception reduced compared to the time it existed, so oscillations became less obvious- small lapses from existence into thought and fast back.
Very developed space structures has the ability to infinitely distance own existence and thinking (selfperception) - that means, they can do it almost in parallel.
I think this answers Your question- our thinking abilities relative to our existence is not applicable to the thinking abilities of barely differentiated space.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 2 2008, 06:40 AM)
Are you indicating that I know "The Truth" and now I am DELIBERATELY confusing You ?
hej bukh
This is my favourite from Albert Einstein :
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
hej bukh
This is my favourite from Albert Einstein :
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 1 2008, 05:19 PM)
This reminds me of one other contained form of infinity except rotational - Mobius strip, and its one sides. It is kind of infinite rotation in 2D...As You pass along Mobius strip, You make closed spiral trajectory in 3D with one twist per rotation. Full turn returning You in the same shape and direction takes 720 degrees or 4*pi.
And 2 Mobious strips make Klein bottle which can only be embedded in 4D Euclidian space....so travelling along it is like rotation in 4D. It can be immersed in 3D in 2 ways..But to travel continuously on its sides in 3D you have to be able to move through walls, so another option is to exit in 4th dimension at crossings (like flatten Yourself to be able to move inside the wall) and return back after them.
You just don't stop posting about things you don't understand, do you?
A Klein bottle is not two Mobius strips. Both are constructed from a 2d plane quotiented out by a lattice equivalence and then the Mobius strip is formed by making two opposite sides of the resultant parallelogram equivalent, but with a twist. You then make that into a Klein bottle by identifying the remaining two sides without a twist. If you put in a twist you generate a projective plane.
And it can be embedded in 3d space, it just has to be self-intersecting.
Stop thinking that because you skimmed through the Wikipedia page on a mathematical topic you understand it.
And 2 Mobious strips make Klein bottle which can only be embedded in 4D Euclidian space....so travelling along it is like rotation in 4D. It can be immersed in 3D in 2 ways..But to travel continuously on its sides in 3D you have to be able to move through walls, so another option is to exit in 4th dimension at crossings (like flatten Yourself to be able to move inside the wall) and return back after them.
You just don't stop posting about things you don't understand, do you?
A Klein bottle is not two Mobius strips. Both are constructed from a 2d plane quotiented out by a lattice equivalence and then the Mobius strip is formed by making two opposite sides of the resultant parallelogram equivalent, but with a twist. You then make that into a Klein bottle by identifying the remaining two sides without a twist. If you put in a twist you generate a projective plane.
And it can be embedded in 3d space, it just has to be self-intersecting.
Stop thinking that because you skimmed through the Wikipedia page on a mathematical topic you understand it.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 2 2008, 06:40 AM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "More absolute drivel, designed only to try and deliberately confuse people"
Are you indicating that I know "The Truth" and now I am DELIBERATELY confusing You ?
I think You deserve to be Diciple G.
I already am. A 'diciple' of Truth/Reality.
You don't seem to like this very much?
g.
QUOTE: "More absolute drivel, designed only to try and deliberately confuse people"
Are you indicating that I know "The Truth" and now I am DELIBERATELY confusing You ?
I think You deserve to be Diciple G.
I already am. A 'diciple' of Truth/Reality.
You don't seem to like this very much?
g.
Ex-Diciple G
QUOTE: "You don't seem to like this very much?"
Fallen angle - if You do not want to be a diciple - fortunately there are so many religions to choose between.
QUOTE: "You don't seem to like this very much?"
Fallen angle - if You do not want to be a diciple - fortunately there are so many religions to choose between.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 1 2008, 09:57 PM)
SU
You are correct. Nothingness would indee end in disaster. One Of the reasons that I oppose infinity is that it has similar properties. Nothing and something annihilate each other, but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy.
Cheers
Iseason
I find it somewhat perplexing that so many try to create reason to accommodate that which does not exist.
You are correct. Nothingness would indee end in disaster. One Of the reasons that I oppose infinity is that it has similar properties. Nothing and something annihilate each other, but a little bottle of nothing would reduce the universal energy quantity to allow a slow(maybe not so slow) degradation of every unit of energy.
Cheers
Iseason
I find it somewhat perplexing that so many try to create reason to accommodate that which does not exist.
Ivars
QUOTE: "We assume that existence of something is prolonged in time, while the act of adding/removing logical statements to it is atemporal.
In the conditions of origin, low level differentiation, without the presence of self perceptive mind we have, this may not be true; existence is not able to atemporaly add logical statements about its own existence compared to its own lastingness- so either existence does not last in time, or adding qualifying logical qualities to itself ( such that DOES IT EXIST, OR NOT) take as much time as existence itself, so they can not exist both at the same time- there fore oscillations, duality."
Yes - and it takes a higher complexion to percept a lower complexion -
It takes a higher scale to create time in a lower scale
QUOTE: "We assume that existence of something is prolonged in time, while the act of adding/removing logical statements to it is atemporal.
In the conditions of origin, low level differentiation, without the presence of self perceptive mind we have, this may not be true; existence is not able to atemporaly add logical statements about its own existence compared to its own lastingness- so either existence does not last in time, or adding qualifying logical qualities to itself ( such that DOES IT EXIST, OR NOT) take as much time as existence itself, so they can not exist both at the same time- there fore oscillations, duality."
Yes - and it takes a higher complexion to percept a lower complexion -
It takes a higher scale to create time in a lower scale
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 2 2008, 02:05 PM)
Fallen angle
You really do HATE dictionaries, don't you?
g.
Gorgeous
How do you spell angle ? no need for a dictionary
How do you spell angle ? no need for a dictionary
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 2 2008, 09:31 PM)
Gorgeous
How do you spell angle ? no need for a dictionary
Yeah, you only say that because you can't read!
g.
How do you spell angle ? no need for a dictionary
Yeah, you only say that because you can't read!
g.
A few observations I find useful are:-
"To thine own self be true and it follows as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man" William Shakespeare
"Man cannot stand too much reality" Aldous Huxley
The Literal Rule (in law)
"....words must be interpreted literally,with assistance of dictionaries and rules of grammar......"
These quotes are from memory so please excuse me if they are not word perfect.
"To thine own self be true and it follows as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man" William Shakespeare
"Man cannot stand too much reality" Aldous Huxley
The Literal Rule (in law)
"....words must be interpreted literally,with assistance of dictionaries and rules of grammar......"
These quotes are from memory so please excuse me if they are not word perfect.
QUOTE (neilrowe+Jun 2 2008, 11:13 PM)
A few observations I find useful are:-
"To thine own self be true and it follows as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man" William Shakespeare
"Man cannot stand too much reality" Aldous Huxley
The Literal Rule (in law)
"....words must be interpreted literally,with assistance of dictionaries and rules of grammar......"
These quotes are from memory so please excuse me if they are not word perfect.
Excused!
Thanks for posting them. Most relevant.
g.
"To thine own self be true and it follows as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man" William Shakespeare
"Man cannot stand too much reality" Aldous Huxley
The Literal Rule (in law)
"....words must be interpreted literally,with assistance of dictionaries and rules of grammar......"
These quotes are from memory so please excuse me if they are not word perfect.
Excused!
Thanks for posting them. Most relevant.
g.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 2 2008, 09:18 PM)
Yes - and it takes a higher complexion to percept a lower complexion -
hej Bukh
Without interrupting own existence significantly. The same complexity may perceive itself- but that means it has to transfer itself form being into observing, which are 2 different states. In observing state, structure is used to display observed information about itself- its informational state. In existence state, structure is used to exist-as normally.
That solves most questions about infinity:
1) the smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existence that is just complex enough to either exist, or percept itself. This state can be considered as jump over infinity ( of infinite divisions)
2) The biggest state is very close to absolute 0, still to be defined more exactly, and again included jump over the infinity of increasing.
3) As we approach smallest state in any infinite scale, the behavior of it gets more and more strange already as we close on the smallest thing - meaning structures of smaller and smaller complexity needs more and more periods of non-existence to perceive themselves- and nothing can exist without self perception, without consciousness.
4) In the end, infinity brings in notion of oscillations firmly, so these terms are not separable
5) as to the biggest infinity ( pure space) the same reasoning leads to the existence of pure mind. The pure mind has no structure, but it is the most complex thing there is in Universe, so to register this complexity it must have the most complex structure- but again, the complexity is such they the structure and self perception can not coexist- so this is like oscillating 0 - where potential space ( pure mind) oscillates to infinite dimensional space representing its complexity in existence, then back to pure mind state etc. - so again we have oscillations on other end of reality.
As some structure approaches complexity of pure mind, its existence in reality becomes shorter and shorter, while "time" spent in pure mind state increases. Finally, if You want to bring in God in this context, he is still outside these things, as these are internally coherent, though complex enough.
Somehow this mechanism that is logically fine by itself needs to be set up. Of course, it may be that mathematically this thing is self sustaining?
hej Bukh
Without interrupting own existence significantly. The same complexity may perceive itself- but that means it has to transfer itself form being into observing, which are 2 different states. In observing state, structure is used to display observed information about itself- its informational state. In existence state, structure is used to exist-as normally.
That solves most questions about infinity:
1) the smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existence that is just complex enough to either exist, or percept itself. This state can be considered as jump over infinity ( of infinite divisions)
2) The biggest state is very close to absolute 0, still to be defined more exactly, and again included jump over the infinity of increasing.
3) As we approach smallest state in any infinite scale, the behavior of it gets more and more strange already as we close on the smallest thing - meaning structures of smaller and smaller complexity needs more and more periods of non-existence to perceive themselves- and nothing can exist without self perception, without consciousness.
4) In the end, infinity brings in notion of oscillations firmly, so these terms are not separable
5) as to the biggest infinity ( pure space) the same reasoning leads to the existence of pure mind. The pure mind has no structure, but it is the most complex thing there is in Universe, so to register this complexity it must have the most complex structure- but again, the complexity is such they the structure and self perception can not coexist- so this is like oscillating 0 - where potential space ( pure mind) oscillates to infinite dimensional space representing its complexity in existence, then back to pure mind state etc. - so again we have oscillations on other end of reality.
As some structure approaches complexity of pure mind, its existence in reality becomes shorter and shorter, while "time" spent in pure mind state increases. Finally, if You want to bring in God in this context, he is still outside these things, as these are internally coherent, though complex enough.
Somehow this mechanism that is logically fine by itself needs to be set up. Of course, it may be that mathematically this thing is self sustaining?
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 3 2008, 06:16 PM)
hej Bukh
Without interrupting own existence significantly. The same complexity may perceive itself- but that means it has to transfer itself form being into observing, which are 2 different states. In observing state, structure is used to display observed information about itself- its informational state. In existence state, structure is used to exist-as normally.
That solves most questions about infinity:
1) the smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existence that is just complex enough to either exist, or percept itself. This state can be considered as jump over infinity ( of infinite divisions)
2) The biggest state is very close to absolute 0, still to be defined more exactly, and again included jump over the infinity of increasing.
3) As we approach smallest state in any infinite scale, the behavior of it gets more and more strange already as we close on the smallest thing - meaning structures of smaller and smaller complexity needs more and more periods of non-existence to perceive themselves- and nothing can exist without self perception, without consciousness.
4) In the end, infinity brings in notion of oscillations firmly, so these terms are not separable
5) as to the biggest infinity ( pure space) the same reasoning leads to the existence of pure mind. The pure mind has no structure, but it is the most complex thing there is in Universe, so to register this complexity it must have the most complex structure- but again, the complexity is such they the structure and self perception can not coexist- so this is like oscillating 0 - where potential space ( pure mind) oscillates to infinite dimensional space representing its complexity in existence, then back to pure mind state etc. - so again we have oscillations on other end of reality.
As some structure approaches complexity of pure mind, its existence in reality becomes shorter and shorter, while "time" spent in pure mind state increases. Finally, if You want to bring in God in this context, he is still outside these things, as these are internally coherent, though complex enough.
Somehow this mechanism that is logically fine by itself needs to be set up. Of course, it may be that mathematically this thing is self sustaining?
Hej Ivars
Without agreeing with the concepts you are putting forwards, I can help with thoughts of my own.
To be clear. I don't agree with "jumping over infinity'. And feel that "putting God outside" is a long way from my own concept.
Having said that,The best method for "self-perception" is relativity itself.
I am a finite amount of the greater whole.
So in any time constrained partition, I occupy a relative volume of the whole. In my version of your thought experiment , the number of occurrences which is presented within a time frame (second), measures itself against the other occurrences within the whole in order to both keep in a constant frame in time , both in terms of position (physical space) and time (logical sequence). Self could not be separated in any way from the base cause of reality in order to become self aware.
On the subject of God. This is a term only. God has always been a relative concept. If the universe is created via "the best possible arrangement of the available energy" , then it does not follow that God "created It".....It is far more likely that the universe created God.
The reflection is the inverse result of creation...not creative in itself...So we are on a journey to entrench what already exists (in terms of structure) and the journey itself is what is important.......The result already exists.
Cheers
Iseason
Without interrupting own existence significantly. The same complexity may perceive itself- but that means it has to transfer itself form being into observing, which are 2 different states. In observing state, structure is used to display observed information about itself- its informational state. In existence state, structure is used to exist-as normally.
That solves most questions about infinity:
1) the smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existence that is just complex enough to either exist, or percept itself. This state can be considered as jump over infinity ( of infinite divisions)
2) The biggest state is very close to absolute 0, still to be defined more exactly, and again included jump over the infinity of increasing.
3) As we approach smallest state in any infinite scale, the behavior of it gets more and more strange already as we close on the smallest thing - meaning structures of smaller and smaller complexity needs more and more periods of non-existence to perceive themselves- and nothing can exist without self perception, without consciousness.
4) In the end, infinity brings in notion of oscillations firmly, so these terms are not separable
5) as to the biggest infinity ( pure space) the same reasoning leads to the existence of pure mind. The pure mind has no structure, but it is the most complex thing there is in Universe, so to register this complexity it must have the most complex structure- but again, the complexity is such they the structure and self perception can not coexist- so this is like oscillating 0 - where potential space ( pure mind) oscillates to infinite dimensional space representing its complexity in existence, then back to pure mind state etc. - so again we have oscillations on other end of reality.
As some structure approaches complexity of pure mind, its existence in reality becomes shorter and shorter, while "time" spent in pure mind state increases. Finally, if You want to bring in God in this context, he is still outside these things, as these are internally coherent, though complex enough.
Somehow this mechanism that is logically fine by itself needs to be set up. Of course, it may be that mathematically this thing is self sustaining?
Hej Ivars
Without agreeing with the concepts you are putting forwards, I can help with thoughts of my own.
To be clear. I don't agree with "jumping over infinity'. And feel that "putting God outside" is a long way from my own concept.
Having said that,The best method for "self-perception" is relativity itself.
I am a finite amount of the greater whole.
So in any time constrained partition, I occupy a relative volume of the whole. In my version of your thought experiment , the number of occurrences which is presented within a time frame (second), measures itself against the other occurrences within the whole in order to both keep in a constant frame in time , both in terms of position (physical space) and time (logical sequence). Self could not be separated in any way from the base cause of reality in order to become self aware.
On the subject of God. This is a term only. God has always been a relative concept. If the universe is created via "the best possible arrangement of the available energy" , then it does not follow that God "created It".....It is far more likely that the universe created God.
The reflection is the inverse result of creation...not creative in itself...So we are on a journey to entrench what already exists (in terms of structure) and the journey itself is what is important.......The result already exists.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 3 2008, 07:12 AM)
To be clear. I don't agree with "jumping over infinity'. And feel that "putting God outside" is a long way from my own concept.
hi Iseason
I do not know what your mathematical likings are, but do you not consider limit taking in math as jumping over infinity?
e.g. lim n-> infinity Sum of 1/n^2 = Pi^2/6 ;
Here one takes infinite number of summands 1/n^2, adds them together, and ends up with pi^2/6 which is irrational, so in some sense infinite, but e.g
lim n->infinity 1/Tr(n) =2
Where Tr(n) are triangular numbers or numbers from Pascal triangle:
Tr(n) = n+n(-1)+(n-2) + ..+ 3+ 2+1
So even though You never reach infinity in n which You are trying to reach, some other parameter like SUM of terms that depends on n ends up with perfectly finite value.
When We start with 1/1+1/2^2+1/3^2 etc as in first sum, we have no idea it must give a finite result, so the fact that it reaches it means that by applying higher level operations like summation, multiplication instead of counting let us jump over infinity of natural numbers and reach a finite result in the space of natural number reciprocal sums ( not all converge, but those who do "jumps" over infinity albeit in "faster" space).
In nature, every phase transition is a jump over infinity, especially the ones who can only be explained by invoking mathematical reality ( whose speed obviously is infinite and smallest piece infinitesimal) , like those based on Quantum mechanics calculations of wave functions.
You sum up infinite number of infinitely fast path integrals over all infinite paths system can theoretically pass through from state a to state b in phase state space of a problem and end up with finite (though not quite since it is probabilistic ) result in ANOTHER space of interference of amplitudes of wave functions.
As to God, that placement was preliminary, more or less based on Platonic version of Demiurge in Timaeus and Laws. Perhaps its not true, but at current stage it is difficult to judge.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: " the smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existence that is just complex enough to either exist, or percept itself. This state can be considered as jump over infinity ( of infinite divisions)"
I like to phrase it slightly differently.
The smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existance (everytjing logically is in oscillating existance - Xenons pile) - and existance in this context has to do with sufficiently high complexity to be capable of repeating itsself. Already here we are differentiating between physical existance and pre-physical expressions - if you follow me.
At this stage there exist no self-perception - it takes a higher scale. At this stage there exist physical time - in the sense that there is frozen existances - same as repaeting expressions - but there exist no such thing as percepted time - percepted time takes a higher scale.
And now to the one billion dollar question - is everything going on and on in all scales - infinitely all scales - as in a circle - no start no end - everything according to the scale of "The Percepting Complexity"
QUOTE: "Finally, if You want to bring in God in this context, he is still outside these things, as these are internally coherent, though complex enough."
For G@d's sake - No - God is and has always been a product of what cannot be percepted or cannot be understood by the percepting system.
QUOTE: " the smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existence that is just complex enough to either exist, or percept itself. This state can be considered as jump over infinity ( of infinite divisions)"
I like to phrase it slightly differently.
The smallest infinite divisor of anything is oscillating existance (everytjing logically is in oscillating existance - Xenons pile) - and existance in this context has to do with sufficiently high complexity to be capable of repeating itsself. Already here we are differentiating between physical existance and pre-physical expressions - if you follow me.
At this stage there exist no self-perception - it takes a higher scale. At this stage there exist physical time - in the sense that there is frozen existances - same as repaeting expressions - but there exist no such thing as percepted time - percepted time takes a higher scale.
And now to the one billion dollar question - is everything going on and on in all scales - infinitely all scales - as in a circle - no start no end - everything according to the scale of "The Percepting Complexity"
QUOTE: "Finally, if You want to bring in God in this context, he is still outside these things, as these are internally coherent, though complex enough."
For G@d's sake - No - God is and has always been a product of what cannot be percepted or cannot be understood by the percepting system.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 3 2008, 08:29 AM)
Xenons pile
hej bukh
What is that?
hej bukh
What is that?
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 3 2008, 08:29 AM)
And now to the one billion dollar question - is everything going on and on in all scales - infinitely all scales - as in a circle - no start no end - everything according to the scale of "The Percepting Complexity"
hej bukh
Not quite. The thing that both smallest and biggest selfpercepting complex structures of space has in common is 1/2.
Both of them exist 1/2 of the time in state of existance, 1/2 in state on making an opinion about own existance.
In that sense, if we think of smallest (pur emotion) and biggest (pure space) oscillating existances as ends that balance each other dynamically , then there must exist 3RD "space" where this 1/2 registers since neither the smallest nor the biggest oscillating strucuture can register they spend 1/2 of their time on 2 different states.
Someone, something is registering these ratios of time spent in selfperception and existance in reality of each structure between those 2, including those 2.
From their own point of view, they are unable to see the difference as they think they are the same. However, that external ( external to space, and even to potential space) observer or mind can count these rations, starting from 1/2.
For the sake of Alphanumeric I will mention that in mathematics there exists similar structures, like Riemann Z function, which pops out in many places just to anounce that is has "counted" what is going on.
Some time ago I posted an idea, based on tetration and its generalizations, that there has to be 3 types of mathematics:
1) mathematics of structures
2) mathematics of numbers used to count number of times operations are applied to some number-structure
3) mathematics of operations itselves
There has to be one-to-one correspondence between these 3 mathematics and 3 "existances" - existance, perception and observation.
hej bukh
Not quite. The thing that both smallest and biggest selfpercepting complex structures of space has in common is 1/2.
Both of them exist 1/2 of the time in state of existance, 1/2 in state on making an opinion about own existance.
In that sense, if we think of smallest (pur emotion) and biggest (pure space) oscillating existances as ends that balance each other dynamically , then there must exist 3RD "space" where this 1/2 registers since neither the smallest nor the biggest oscillating strucuture can register they spend 1/2 of their time on 2 different states.
Someone, something is registering these ratios of time spent in selfperception and existance in reality of each structure between those 2, including those 2.
From their own point of view, they are unable to see the difference as they think they are the same. However, that external ( external to space, and even to potential space) observer or mind can count these rations, starting from 1/2.
For the sake of Alphanumeric I will mention that in mathematics there exists similar structures, like Riemann Z function, which pops out in many places just to anounce that is has "counted" what is going on.
Some time ago I posted an idea, based on tetration and its generalizations, that there has to be 3 types of mathematics:
1) mathematics of structures
2) mathematics of numbers used to count number of times operations are applied to some number-structure
3) mathematics of operations itselves
There has to be one-to-one correspondence between these 3 mathematics and 3 "existances" - existance, perception and observation.
Hej Ivars
Oh sorry - Zenons Paradox - just misspelled - in honour of mr "G" - he will be happy
I will revert about the other point
Oh sorry - Zenons Paradox - just misspelled - in honour of mr "G" - he will be happy
I will revert about the other point
I think our differences are based around "filling in the gaps.
I would prefer to establish the boundaries first in the logical behaviours. If , as you say "you are already jumping infinities, " Then you are studying too far ahead of me in terms of behaviours.
I have set the parameters as "smallest(of indivisible)".....and whole. If I do that I create an immedite finite reality..........Just how finite is questionable, because without the middle ground, there is no way of telling how much occurrs. But the parameters show that by being able to measure the middle, as we can, then the "whole " is not infinite.
Therefore unless a behaviour becomes available that uses (whole less one occurrence of energy) The steps down from whole are quite useless. The same problem occurrs in smallest. It must be everything and indivisible, yet it's perception can only come through using the whole as a mirror.
Cheers
iseason
I would prefer to establish the boundaries first in the logical behaviours. If , as you say "you are already jumping infinities, " Then you are studying too far ahead of me in terms of behaviours.
I have set the parameters as "smallest(of indivisible)".....and whole. If I do that I create an immedite finite reality..........Just how finite is questionable, because without the middle ground, there is no way of telling how much occurrs. But the parameters show that by being able to measure the middle, as we can, then the "whole " is not infinite.
Therefore unless a behaviour becomes available that uses (whole less one occurrence of energy) The steps down from whole are quite useless. The same problem occurrs in smallest. It must be everything and indivisible, yet it's perception can only come through using the whole as a mirror.
Cheers
iseason
Hi iseason
Do not worry about differences- otherwise we would have found the truth already if there were none
This corresponds to mine, but I want to find what they are. As You dig deeper, then either the smallest ( biggest ) is oscillating, or there is nothing as we divide/grow infinitely, which can not be true; The definition You give does not reveal enough , I guess, about the nature of these 2 parameters which I call pure motion and pure space, correspondingly. ( and many other nice names).
This corresponds to mine, but I want to find what they are. As You dig deeper, then either the smallest ( biggest ) is oscillating, or there is nothing as we divide/grow infinitely, which can not be true; The definition You give does not reveal enough , I guess, about the nature of these 2 parameters which I call pure motion and pure space, correspondingly. ( and many other nice names).
But the parameters show that by being able to measure the middle, as we can, then the "whole " is not infinite.
Not necessarily , since even infinity can have an exact middle=perfect balance? But I also agree that whole and smallest connect via Observer/counter, otherwise they are indistinguishable.
The smallest can biggest can percept itself only during non-existence. Observation may come as You say via using the whole ( biggest ) as a mirror. Interesting idea since the whole has the most complex mind, it must be able to observe anything else, so if we could tap into it directly, we could use its observations instead of our own.
Which is what our mind does, I guess. Especialy when using mathematics which seem to reside as logical structure in the whole, or pure mind, or other self of pure space.
Do not worry about differences- otherwise we would have found the truth already if there were none
QUOTE
I have set the parameters as "smallest(of indivisible)".....and whole.
This corresponds to mine, but I want to find what they are. As You dig deeper, then either the smallest ( biggest ) is oscillating, or there is nothing as we divide/grow infinitely, which can not be true; The definition You give does not reveal enough , I guess, about the nature of these 2 parameters which I call pure motion and pure space, correspondingly. ( and many other nice names).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have set the parameters as "smallest(of indivisible)".....and whole. |
This corresponds to mine, but I want to find what they are. As You dig deeper, then either the smallest ( biggest ) is oscillating, or there is nothing as we divide/grow infinitely, which can not be true; The definition You give does not reveal enough , I guess, about the nature of these 2 parameters which I call pure motion and pure space, correspondingly. ( and many other nice names).
But the parameters show that by being able to measure the middle, as we can, then the "whole " is not infinite.
Not necessarily , since even infinity can have an exact middle=perfect balance? But I also agree that whole and smallest connect via Observer/counter, otherwise they are indistinguishable.
QUOTE
steps down from whole are quite useless. The same problem occurs in smallest. It must be everything and indivisible, yet it's perception can only come through using the whole as a mirror.
The smallest can biggest can percept itself only during non-existence. Observation may come as You say via using the whole ( biggest ) as a mirror. Interesting idea since the whole has the most complex mind, it must be able to observe anything else, so if we could tap into it directly, we could use its observations instead of our own.
Which is what our mind does, I guess. Especialy when using mathematics which seem to reside as logical structure in the whole, or pure mind, or other self of pure space.
Ok, I'll try another way.
Greetings to all,
Do you not find it somewhat perplexing that so many try to find reason to accommodate that which does not exist?
Greetings to all,
Do you not find it somewhat perplexing that so many try to find reason to accommodate that which does not exist?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 3 2008, 11:30 AM)
Do you not find it somewhat perplexing that so many try to find reason to accommodate that which does not exist?
Hi SU,
Probably its not so obvious to many what exactly does not exist.
What I find is that this subject has not been sufficiently understood and explained and there are too many subjective opinions left for handling infinity -including mine- so many continue to discuss it.
In my view, the decision what exists, what not can only be answered after proper handling of the question of infinity - which I have not seen so far. The mentioning of infinity as such kind of puts fog on peoples minds- while they continue to happily use infinity in mathematics without giving it a second thought.
Hi SU,
Probably its not so obvious to many what exactly does not exist.
What I find is that this subject has not been sufficiently understood and explained and there are too many subjective opinions left for handling infinity -including mine- so many continue to discuss it.
In my view, the decision what exists, what not can only be answered after proper handling of the question of infinity - which I have not seen so far. The mentioning of infinity as such kind of puts fog on peoples minds- while they continue to happily use infinity in mathematics without giving it a second thought.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 3 2008, 12:19 PM)
Hi SU,
Probably its not so obvious to many what exactly does not exist.
What I find is that this subject has not been sufficiently understood and explained and there are too many subjective opinions left for handling infinity -including mine- so many continue to discuss it.
In my view, the decision what exists, what not can only be answered after proper handling of the question of infinity - which I have not seen so far. The mentioning of infinity as such kind of puts fog on peoples minds- while they continue to happily use infinity in mathematics without giving it a second thought.
And here is why...
In my view...
How do you feel justified in even knowing what a 'proper handling' may or may not entail? Do you believe that your subjective opinion is a 'proper handling'?
Why not try a view that is not 'yours' for a change? Just to see if it makes any sense?
g.
I'll have a good guess, if you like?
g.
Probably its not so obvious to many what exactly does not exist.
What I find is that this subject has not been sufficiently understood and explained and there are too many subjective opinions left for handling infinity -including mine- so many continue to discuss it.
In my view, the decision what exists, what not can only be answered after proper handling of the question of infinity - which I have not seen so far. The mentioning of infinity as such kind of puts fog on peoples minds- while they continue to happily use infinity in mathematics without giving it a second thought.
And here is why...
QUOTE
...there are too many subjective opinions left for handling infinity...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...there are too many subjective opinions left for handling infinity... |
In my view...
QUOTE
...proper handling of the question of infinity...
How do you feel justified in even knowing what a 'proper handling' may or may not entail? Do you believe that your subjective opinion is a 'proper handling'?
Why not try a view that is not 'yours' for a change? Just to see if it makes any sense?
g.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (bukh @ Jun 3 2008, 08:29 AM) Xenons pile QUOTE hej bukh What is that? |
I'll have a good guess, if you like?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 3 2008, 02:28 PM)
Why not try a view that is not 'yours' for a change? Just to see if it makes any sense?
Hi Gorgeous
Which one? I am reading Plato, Euler, Aristotle, Lucretius, Newton, Leibniz, Conway, Cantor, Creation myths, can not really cope with all possible ways to discuss infinity since everyone has sometime said something about it. I would be happy to read a meaningful concise discussion of infinity You may direct me to.
I must admit I am not too eager to search for other views as I want to find out all by myself, though usually it turns out that if You commit Yourself to a quality source, its gives valuable ideas.
That is the reason I stick to these thoughts that has come to us via centuries as they have been tested by time to possess something from universal truths.
The older, the better.
Hi Gorgeous
Which one? I am reading Plato, Euler, Aristotle, Lucretius, Newton, Leibniz, Conway, Cantor, Creation myths, can not really cope with all possible ways to discuss infinity since everyone has sometime said something about it. I would be happy to read a meaningful concise discussion of infinity You may direct me to.
I must admit I am not too eager to search for other views as I want to find out all by myself, though usually it turns out that if You commit Yourself to a quality source, its gives valuable ideas.
That is the reason I stick to these thoughts that has come to us via centuries as they have been tested by time to possess something from universal truths.
The older, the better.
Infinity exists because the greatness of measurement is unresolved.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 3 2008, 04:59 PM)
I would be happy to read a meaningful concise discussion of infinity You may direct me to.
An outright lie, as there have been many links posted, including dictionary links, that you have simply ignored. Altogether now....Put a finger in each ear and shout "La la la la la la la la la la la la la la .9r"
Meanwhile, in total contradiction to your above statement....
Ooops, and here comes yet another complete '180'...
Ooops, and here comes yet another complete '180'...
That is the reason I stick to these thoughts that has come to us via centuries as they have been tested by time to possess something from universal truths.
The older, the better.
So, the first step is to stop completely ignoring evidence, and dictionary definitions.
g.
Infinity cannot 'end'.
Why you ask such stupid question, whilst pretending to try and learn about something?
How can something that does not exist think that it exists?
Infinity means 'boundless', 'no borders'. Why does this cause you such great difficulty to understand?
g.
hi Gorgeous
Language is of ULTIMATE importance for understanding existence and formulating, reinforcing the intuitively caught glimpses of structure that pervades everything.
But ... as for dictionaries- they will need to be reconstructed a bit. But I am not saying I know how to do it- I am just sure that language matters, and good language influences things, but it needs to be constructed, cleaned a bit. Something like Sanskrit, which is at starting point pure mathematics.
Language is of ULTIMATE importance for understanding existence and formulating, reinforcing the intuitively caught glimpses of structure that pervades everything.
But ... as for dictionaries- they will need to be reconstructed a bit. But I am not saying I know how to do it- I am just sure that language matters, and good language influences things, but it needs to be constructed, cleaned a bit. Something like Sanskrit, which is at starting point pure mathematics.
Would you not agree that it is 'Absolute madness' for an entity to render the only environment it has evolved to exist in, useless for further existence? Would this not, in effect, be 'suicide'?
Are these topics linked? I guess they are, once You understand (hopefully) environment You are part of, and what is the direction it would be developing to , You will try to do less harm (or more, depends on what You prefer to be doing in life-good or bad) . So basically agreed, but so far we do not understand what is good or bad for environment or even more so, space we are part of, do we? We have subjective notions about it, don't we. As about infinity.
Not doing anything and blending with space is not an option. If that was the goal, we would never be here.
You sound as if You or someone possesses PERFECT logic of deduction. What a nonsense. Logicians and philosophers themselves can not agree on that, not even close. Sounds a little alarming, as If You have seen the end of reason. Well, look further.
You sound as if You or someone possesses PERFECT logic of deduction. What a nonsense. Logicians and philosophers themselves can not agree on that, not even close. Sounds a little alarming, as If You have seen the end of reason. Well, look further.
You will not be 'correct' until you advance yourself from incorrectness...
With this very concrete advice I proceed. Shall I report from time to time to see if I have gotten more correct than before? In business, we always say what You do not measure You do not get, so somehow You could establish criteria.
Let us say, on day 1 I have to become 2% more correct than before, and it will be measured by the following:
_a).......
_b).......
_c)........
Concrete and achievable , specific targets.
It is really a funny advice
You sound as if You or someone possesses PERFECT logic of deduction. What a nonsense. Logicians and philosophers themselves can not agree on that, not even close. Sounds a little alarming, as If You have seen the end of reason. Well, look further.
With this very concrete advice I proceed. Shall I report from time to time to see if I have gotten more correct than before? In business, we always say what You do not measure You do not get, so somehow You could establish criteria.
Let us say, on day 1 I have to become 2% more correct than before, and it will be measured by the following:
_a).......
_b).......
_c)........
Concrete and achievable , specific targets.
It is really a funny advice
No, you did it again, you 'knee-jerked'!
How things 'sound to you', is not necessarily how they are. Take the time to find out, and you will stop disappointing yourself.
In 'business' you also sometimes say, "Ah f**k it, let's not worry about the poisoned atmosphere 'cos the short-term profits are good!"
g.
Where did You notice me disappointing myself? I missed that, oops.
Yes. You observedly miss an awful lot.
Does this make you happy?
Does it fulfill your 'urge to understand'?
You are currently looking for something that you will never be able to see, with your 'learning' attitude the way it is. This will leave you in a state of almost permanent disappointment, and may go some way to explaining why you choose such an 'insular' profession. You could save a huge amount of brain energy by simply being Honest. I know, you think you already are, but then so does everybody and we know that this is untrue. You already have a 'theory' all of your own, and you are going to stick to it, regardless of fact.
g.
It would be so much more easy to handle the On-Of in respective scales - no strange motion to induce On-signal, but strictly according to cinematographic principles.
hej bukh
Scales is Ok, but we are talking about smallest stuff, and about the principle how it can work in most scales.
What is strange motion? I only speak about existence and information about this existence being written in the same things that exists, so it is the smallest possible structure in each scale, but when we talk about smallest scale, there are no scales below, so it has to be connected to biggest scale.
Other way to say it that it oscillates between information space (when it registers its existence) and reality (when it exists).
How else can we register information about its and aggregate existence then by using its own and aggregate structure? It is a smallest 1 bit structure, no extra capacity.
Speaking in terms of cells, and cellular automata, it is a 1 -cell which comes into existence and disappears. You can attach colors to this existence/non-existence , if You want, but that already presume 3rd, external observer.
I am not sure, but it has to be so that combination of 2 such cells leads to behavior in some way similar to automation 110. But complexity has to be even greater since You add Poisson process statistical behavior to this cellular automate. When I will understand better this model, I will check accurately.
If You dislike probabilities and statistics I mentioned then answer please - how to predict when this thing will aggregate? Poisson statistics is well suited for exactly such events, at least it seams to me.
An outright lie, as there have been many links posted, including dictionary links, that you have simply ignored. Altogether now....Put a finger in each ear and shout "La la la la la la la la la la la la la la .9r"
Meanwhile, in total contradiction to your above statement....
QUOTE
I must admit I am not too eager to search for other views...
Ooops, and here comes yet another complete '180'...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I must admit I am not too eager to search for other views... |
Ooops, and here comes yet another complete '180'...
That is the reason I stick to these thoughts that has come to us via centuries as they have been tested by time to possess something from universal truths.
The older, the better.
So, the first step is to stop completely ignoring evidence, and dictionary definitions.
g.
Following the sound advice from Gorgeous, I typed "infinity" in Google. Very fast I got to the Law of Excluded middle as it was invoked in explanations of infinity so I had to figure out what it is:
Law of Excluded middle
There, it gets very interesting once we read What Russel's/Whiteheads "Principia Mathematica" says about it (my bold):
To put it in my own terms in relation to infinity, when we say :
"This exists" what occurs is a relation of three terms, the mind, and “this”, and “exists“.
Why infinity should end with oscillating existence? Simply because when there is nothing there , there is no "mind" who is complex enough to make observations about "this" and "exists" because, if there is nothing else than "this" the only "mind" available is the "mind of this".
Now since in conditions when "this" is primitive ( the smallest thing obtained by dividing continuum, or alternatively, thing building it up) for "this" to get into relation with his own status ( do I (this) exist or not ) requires to use all of "this" structure to consider this fact, so "this" itself becomes "mind of this" as there is no other place to have "mind of this".
Once this becomes his own "mind" and makes the required relationship with own "exists" states that it exists "this" may become very puzzled since his whole existence has turned into the logical statement of "this" existence and "this" actually does not "exist" any more. But the thought that "this " exists, exists.
It is so bloody simple when we go to smallest, simplest things. They are and can be only things that spend 1/2 of their life existing, 1/2 thinking about their existence.
This provides few interesting conclusions:
1) Everything in Universe has consciousness, but not everything can coexist simultaneously with its consciousness and self perception.
For the smallest thing, neither existence nor consciousness dominates, so it oscillates 1/2 to 1/2.
2) Life most likely is a space structure complex ( in qualitative way) enough that has the ability to coexist with its own consciousness and self perception.
3) At certain stage of complexity, live beings are able to percept (meaning analyze) structures more complex then itselves while still existing.
Basically, the simplest thing follows the law of exluded middle exactly since it :
Either it exists ( and does not think it exists) , or not exists (and thinks it exists) , and or here is non-inclusive (meaning it can not do both simultaneously), but it can alternate between these states.
By the way, simultaneously is at least as interesting concept as infinity:)
Law of Excluded middle
There, it gets very interesting once we read What Russel's/Whiteheads "Principia Mathematica" says about it (my bold):
QUOTE
PM further defines a distinction between a "sense-datum" and a "sensation":
That is, when we judge (say) “this is red”, what occurs is a relation of three terms, the mind, and “this”, and “red“. On the other hand, when we perceive “the redness of this”, there is a relation of two terms, namely the mind and the complex object “the redness of this” (p. 43-44).
That is, when we judge (say) “this is red”, what occurs is a relation of three terms, the mind, and “this”, and “red“. On the other hand, when we perceive “the redness of this”, there is a relation of two terms, namely the mind and the complex object “the redness of this” (p. 43-44).
To put it in my own terms in relation to infinity, when we say :
"This exists" what occurs is a relation of three terms, the mind, and “this”, and “exists“.
Why infinity should end with oscillating existence? Simply because when there is nothing there , there is no "mind" who is complex enough to make observations about "this" and "exists" because, if there is nothing else than "this" the only "mind" available is the "mind of this".
Now since in conditions when "this" is primitive ( the smallest thing obtained by dividing continuum, or alternatively, thing building it up) for "this" to get into relation with his own status ( do I (this) exist or not ) requires to use all of "this" structure to consider this fact, so "this" itself becomes "mind of this" as there is no other place to have "mind of this".
Once this becomes his own "mind" and makes the required relationship with own "exists" states that it exists "this" may become very puzzled since his whole existence has turned into the logical statement of "this" existence and "this" actually does not "exist" any more. But the thought that "this " exists, exists.
It is so bloody simple when we go to smallest, simplest things. They are and can be only things that spend 1/2 of their life existing, 1/2 thinking about their existence.
This provides few interesting conclusions:
1) Everything in Universe has consciousness, but not everything can coexist simultaneously with its consciousness and self perception.
For the smallest thing, neither existence nor consciousness dominates, so it oscillates 1/2 to 1/2.
2) Life most likely is a space structure complex ( in qualitative way) enough that has the ability to coexist with its own consciousness and self perception.
3) At certain stage of complexity, live beings are able to percept (meaning analyze) structures more complex then itselves while still existing.
Basically, the simplest thing follows the law of exluded middle exactly since it :
Either it exists ( and does not think it exists) , or not exists (and thinks it exists) , and or here is non-inclusive (meaning it can not do both simultaneously), but it can alternate between these states.
By the way, simultaneously is at least as interesting concept as infinity:)
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "It is so bloody simple when we go to smallest, simplest things. They are and can be only things that spend 1/2 of their life existing, 1/2 thinking about their existance."
I like to think that physical world include everything that is "into existance" - and as such I would be reluctant to say that simplest things spent half of their existance to think about their existance.
The very act of thinking and the very concept of consciousness I would like to relate to the physical world and its complexion - and it is the complexion that IS the primary existance - and this Primary Existance result in derived concepts like consciousness.
To me "Existance" is related to the very concept of being "physical" and the most essential requirements for the definition of physical is "Dynamic Dimensionalities" - and it is a 100percent anthropocentric foundation. Everything is being defined and percepted and understood out from us humans - or perhaps even more so - out from the individual itsself - fortunately individuals are made of approximately the same stuff - so they can communicate and reach common agreements - and such common agreements build up to "Objectiveness".
Dynamic Dimensionalities IS an anthropocentric view - of course it is and of course it must be so.
Dynamic Dimensionalities is what offer the best fit with the way that we humans percept and understand, and I say that, because I feel that dynamic dimensionalities can be fitted into EVERYTHING that we as humans have been observing and explaining.
In order to get dynamic dimensionalities we need 1) dimension and 2) dynamic
and this is the Origin Condition with 1)pure space and 2) binary system
The next postulate is that it takes a higher complexion to percept a lower complexion
Because a perception involve a kind of interference - where the interference can be frozen into a "lasting" - and in order for something to be interfered with - there must be a minimum lasting of said "object".
And all this has to do with complexion.
The simplest lasting is one flash expression of simplest dimensionality - and this can be defined as pure space divided into two - and the "presence" of such two dimensions in pure space. Such two dimensions have no size - no form - and there is no period of time as to how long they last.
The next following complexion is four dimensions - and by the binary system more and more dimensionalities are being created and defined in space.
And my thirs postulate is that each and any dimensionality when being born - is born as a "black or white" - meaning that any dimensionality wiill be either black or white - and when two or more dimensionalities is being merged as building blocks in a bigger dimensionality - then it is the ratio of blacks and white that determines the color of the bigger dimensionality.
This is strictly according to cellular automaton systems.
It is said that such a system can be made such that it ALWAYS will enter into Repeating Patterns - and repeating patterns is the same as saying "PARTICLE"
Logically this results in a scalewise building up of more and more complex repeating patterns - and that is what physical essentially is about.
Any pattern is a flash-expression of a configuration of dimensionalities, of smallest dimensionalities arranged into particle patterns in said scale that form new particle patterns in higher scales - and irrespective of scale that we are looking at - it is a flash-expression- it is a kind of picture - and any and all dynamic is this illusion of motion we get when one frozen (in its scale) picture is beeing followed by the next. I have been using the expression of movie-strip - and perhaps Cinematographically (word used by Ivars) gives the better idea of the concept.
Frozen will always be in relation to scale that we observe - because there will be a lot of cinematographical re-arrangements in the scale below in order to express the froozen picture in next scale - and this is en never ending process when stepwise down-scaling. This gives a good idea about how everything is absolutely relative. A frozen scale is a reference point out from which a given scale can be percepted.
Human mind has to do with how a higher complexion can interfere with a lower complexion - and how such a frozen image eventually is being seen by an ever higher complexion - probably scalewise in many steps.
QUOTE: "It is so bloody simple when we go to smallest, simplest things. They are and can be only things that spend 1/2 of their life existing, 1/2 thinking about their existance."
I like to think that physical world include everything that is "into existance" - and as such I would be reluctant to say that simplest things spent half of their existance to think about their existance.
The very act of thinking and the very concept of consciousness I would like to relate to the physical world and its complexion - and it is the complexion that IS the primary existance - and this Primary Existance result in derived concepts like consciousness.
To me "Existance" is related to the very concept of being "physical" and the most essential requirements for the definition of physical is "Dynamic Dimensionalities" - and it is a 100percent anthropocentric foundation. Everything is being defined and percepted and understood out from us humans - or perhaps even more so - out from the individual itsself - fortunately individuals are made of approximately the same stuff - so they can communicate and reach common agreements - and such common agreements build up to "Objectiveness".
Dynamic Dimensionalities IS an anthropocentric view - of course it is and of course it must be so.
Dynamic Dimensionalities is what offer the best fit with the way that we humans percept and understand, and I say that, because I feel that dynamic dimensionalities can be fitted into EVERYTHING that we as humans have been observing and explaining.
In order to get dynamic dimensionalities we need 1) dimension and 2) dynamic
and this is the Origin Condition with 1)pure space and 2) binary system
The next postulate is that it takes a higher complexion to percept a lower complexion
Because a perception involve a kind of interference - where the interference can be frozen into a "lasting" - and in order for something to be interfered with - there must be a minimum lasting of said "object".
And all this has to do with complexion.
The simplest lasting is one flash expression of simplest dimensionality - and this can be defined as pure space divided into two - and the "presence" of such two dimensions in pure space. Such two dimensions have no size - no form - and there is no period of time as to how long they last.
The next following complexion is four dimensions - and by the binary system more and more dimensionalities are being created and defined in space.
And my thirs postulate is that each and any dimensionality when being born - is born as a "black or white" - meaning that any dimensionality wiill be either black or white - and when two or more dimensionalities is being merged as building blocks in a bigger dimensionality - then it is the ratio of blacks and white that determines the color of the bigger dimensionality.
This is strictly according to cellular automaton systems.
It is said that such a system can be made such that it ALWAYS will enter into Repeating Patterns - and repeating patterns is the same as saying "PARTICLE"
Logically this results in a scalewise building up of more and more complex repeating patterns - and that is what physical essentially is about.
Any pattern is a flash-expression of a configuration of dimensionalities, of smallest dimensionalities arranged into particle patterns in said scale that form new particle patterns in higher scales - and irrespective of scale that we are looking at - it is a flash-expression- it is a kind of picture - and any and all dynamic is this illusion of motion we get when one frozen (in its scale) picture is beeing followed by the next. I have been using the expression of movie-strip - and perhaps Cinematographically (word used by Ivars) gives the better idea of the concept.
Frozen will always be in relation to scale that we observe - because there will be a lot of cinematographical re-arrangements in the scale below in order to express the froozen picture in next scale - and this is en never ending process when stepwise down-scaling. This gives a good idea about how everything is absolutely relative. A frozen scale is a reference point out from which a given scale can be percepted.
Human mind has to do with how a higher complexion can interfere with a lower complexion - and how such a frozen image eventually is being seen by an ever higher complexion - probably scalewise in many steps.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 4 2008, 11:04 AM)
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "It is so bloody simple when we go to smallest, simplest things. They are and can be only things that spend 1/2 of their life existing, 1/2 thinking about their existence."
I like to think that physical world include everything that is "into existence" - and as such I would be reluctant to say that simplest things spent half of their existence to think about their existence.
So there is a mind which is a result of complexion of space somewhere that can observe this existence of smallest dimensionalities since dimensionalities itself do not do it? And the existence of such mind proves the existence of the smallest oscillating things?
But that is exactly what I have been saying about 1//2. Since all the biggest and smallest oscillating things can say about themselves is that they exist but they have no brainpower, speed to observe the fact that the ratio is 1/2 and that IN FACT, they disappear from existence periodically.
The only one who is able to figure this out is external mind, counter, part of which we share when we discuss things MORE complex than our own emotions, more complex than idea that I exist.
However, this existence of Observer mind needed to define the fact of oscillating existence of space structures does not in anyway interfere with the fact that space structures use the same space capacity for existence and self perception + take a little from observer when speculating about higher ideas.
QUOTE: "It is so bloody simple when we go to smallest, simplest things. They are and can be only things that spend 1/2 of their life existing, 1/2 thinking about their existence."
I like to think that physical world include everything that is "into existence" - and as such I would be reluctant to say that simplest things spent half of their existence to think about their existence.
So there is a mind which is a result of complexion of space somewhere that can observe this existence of smallest dimensionalities since dimensionalities itself do not do it? And the existence of such mind proves the existence of the smallest oscillating things?
But that is exactly what I have been saying about 1//2. Since all the biggest and smallest oscillating things can say about themselves is that they exist but they have no brainpower, speed to observe the fact that the ratio is 1/2 and that IN FACT, they disappear from existence periodically.
The only one who is able to figure this out is external mind, counter, part of which we share when we discuss things MORE complex than our own emotions, more complex than idea that I exist.
However, this existence of Observer mind needed to define the fact of oscillating existence of space structures does not in anyway interfere with the fact that space structures use the same space capacity for existence and self perception + take a little from observer when speculating about higher ideas.
QUOTE
Why infinity should end with oscillating existence?
Infinity cannot 'end'.
Why you ask such stupid question, whilst pretending to try and learn about something?
How can something that does not exist think that it exists?
Infinity means 'boundless', 'no borders'. Why does this cause you such great difficulty to understand?
g.
Dear "G"
QUOTE: "Why does this cause you such great difficulty to understand?"
Why are you insisting spending time and effort in educating people that obviously are beyond therapeutic range -
May I suggest that you instead use all your talents in threads where people are more responding - not that we are not greatful - not at all
QUOTE: "Why does this cause you such great difficulty to understand?"
Why are you insisting spending time and effort in educating people that obviously are beyond therapeutic range -
May I suggest that you instead use all your talents in threads where people are more responding - not that we are not greatful - not at all
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 4 2008, 06:51 PM)
Dear "G"
QUOTE: "Why does this cause you such great difficulty to understand?"
Why are you insisting spending time and effort in educating people that obviously are beyond therapeutic range -
May I suggest that you instead use all your talents in threads where people are more responding - not that we are not greatful - not at all
Ah, another wrong assumption. This time being the wrong assumption that I am actually attempting to converse with YOU! My efforts are for people who are trying to understand. Currently, you have excluded yourself from this group.
May I suggest you use all of your valuable time to consult with dictionaries before trying to advance towards actually thinking about things?
g.
QUOTE: "Why does this cause you such great difficulty to understand?"
Why are you insisting spending time and effort in educating people that obviously are beyond therapeutic range -
May I suggest that you instead use all your talents in threads where people are more responding - not that we are not greatful - not at all
Ah, another wrong assumption. This time being the wrong assumption that I am actually attempting to converse with YOU! My efforts are for people who are trying to understand. Currently, you have excluded yourself from this group.
May I suggest you use all of your valuable time to consult with dictionaries before trying to advance towards actually thinking about things?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 4 2008, 05:21 PM)
Infinity means 'boundless', 'no borders'. Why does this cause you such great difficulty to understand?
hi Gorgeous
1) It is not difficult to understand, it just pointless as it does not lead anywhere. What is boundless? Dictionary page xx? How saying boundless does make things more acceptable and easier to understand then saying infinite?
2) Yes exactly that is the question :
-how can something that does not exist think that it exists?
-How can even that that exists evaluate its own existence?
-Who does evaluate its existence if not that that exists by himself, relating to it an attribute : This things exists, this does not?
-Is it me,You, God or Bertrand Russel? Then, supposedly one of us exists at the same moment as the thing we are trying to relate the attribute of existence to?
I do not understand when things are not explained, very sorry about that.
3) If infinity does not end, what is then the smallest piece when You divide something ( e.g. space) infinitely??
Nothing? or 0? or something infinitely small, which is what? Or space is not infinitely divisible?
-or is this infinity of divisions somehow different from infinity of boundless space? How exactly?
If space is infinite in a sense boundless what would cause it to become so anisotropic as it becomes filled with strange things like matter, humans, etc? Infinite boundless continuous space has no reason to do anything finite at all. It can exist like that, infinite, boundless, forever. Nothing moves , nothing changes. Infinite sink.
In and out waves- where do they come from? What generates them? They come from boundless infinite part of space to where? How they now where to come and where from to come as there is no direction in such space? Why would they form standing waves as they have no more reason to have one phase difference between them as any other phase difference, nor one direction preferred vs any other, as waves are unbounded so in average there are no standing waves, or, they are all over the place.
These are few of questions that arise about boundless space.
I prefer to hear YOUR arguments not citations and references to dictionaries. If what You think is based only on spaceandmotion.com then thank You. Though there is nice collection of quotations.
hi Gorgeous
1) It is not difficult to understand, it just pointless as it does not lead anywhere. What is boundless? Dictionary page xx? How saying boundless does make things more acceptable and easier to understand then saying infinite?
2) Yes exactly that is the question :
-how can something that does not exist think that it exists?
-How can even that that exists evaluate its own existence?
-Who does evaluate its existence if not that that exists by himself, relating to it an attribute : This things exists, this does not?
-Is it me,You, God or Bertrand Russel? Then, supposedly one of us exists at the same moment as the thing we are trying to relate the attribute of existence to?
I do not understand when things are not explained, very sorry about that.
3) If infinity does not end, what is then the smallest piece when You divide something ( e.g. space) infinitely??
Nothing? or 0? or something infinitely small, which is what? Or space is not infinitely divisible?
-or is this infinity of divisions somehow different from infinity of boundless space? How exactly?
If space is infinite in a sense boundless what would cause it to become so anisotropic as it becomes filled with strange things like matter, humans, etc? Infinite boundless continuous space has no reason to do anything finite at all. It can exist like that, infinite, boundless, forever. Nothing moves , nothing changes. Infinite sink.
In and out waves- where do they come from? What generates them? They come from boundless infinite part of space to where? How they now where to come and where from to come as there is no direction in such space? Why would they form standing waves as they have no more reason to have one phase difference between them as any other phase difference, nor one direction preferred vs any other, as waves are unbounded so in average there are no standing waves, or, they are all over the place.
These are few of questions that arise about boundless space.
I prefer to hear YOUR arguments not citations and references to dictionaries. If what You think is based only on spaceandmotion.com then thank You. Though there is nice collection of quotations.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 4 2008, 09:07 PM)
hi Gorgeous
1) It is not difficult to understand, it just pointless as it does not lead anywhere. What is boundless? Dictionary page xx? How saying boundless does make things more acceptable and easier to understand then saying infinite?
2) Yes exactly that is the question :
-how can something that does not exist think that it exists?
-How can even that that exists evaluate its own existence?
-Who does evaluate its existence if not that that exists by himself, relating to it an attribute : This things exists, this does not?
-Is it me,You, God or Bertrand Russel? Then, supposedly one of us exists at the same moment as the thing we are trying to relate the attribute of existence to?
I do not understand when things are not explained, very sorry about that.
3) If infinity does not end, what is then the smallest piece when You divide something ( e.g. space) infinitely??
Nothing? or 0? or something infinitely small, which is what? Or space is not infinitely divisible?
-or is this infinity of divisions somehow different from infinity of boundless space? How exactly?
If space is infinite in a sense boundless what would cause it to become so anisotropic as it becomes filled with strange things like matter, humans, etc? Infinite boundless continuous space has no reason to do anything finite at all. It can exist like that, infinite, boundless, forever. Nothing moves , nothing changes. Infinite sink.
In and out waves- where do they come from? What generates them? They come from boundless infinite part of space to where? How they now where to come and where from to come as there is no direction in such space? Why would they form standing waves as they have no more reason to have one phase difference between them as any other phase difference, nor one direction preferred vs any other, as waves are unbounded so in average there are no standing waves, or, they are all over the place.
These are few of questions that arise about boundless space.
I prefer to hear YOUR arguments not citations and references to dictionaries. If what You think is based only on spaceandmotion.com then thank You. Though there is nice collection of quotations.
No, 'spaceandmotion' is based around the mathematics of Milo Wolff and the subsequent related philosophical implications of the findings.
The 'physics community' can perform all the tests they like...From the site,
When I first found this information, I had not really considered the implications of an 'Infinite Space' either. So I can sympathise to some extent with those who also have little clue. My reaction was to try to find out why this little word was giving me so many 'problems'. I realised that to blatantly ignore established terms of definition will not get yus very far towards any actual understanding. I realised this, and spent the next few years doing some research. I can highly recommend this method.
I had studied some basic psychology, however, and this has helped me to distinguish when people are being genuine, or not. I wholeheartedly recommend this also, in fact, would like to see it as an integral part of all school curricula for reasons demonstrated throughout this thread.
Your post, above, is barely intelligible. If this is the 'conviction' with which you posit your views, is it not little wonder that you are struggling with understanding of a more precise manner?
The sad thing is, I would really like to have an intelligent conversation with you about that which can be deduced as necessarily true, but you will not even stick to established definitions of words, so there is your pointlessness, well and truly in your own court.
I simply cannot believe that you have such little clue as to what 'infinity' means. You call it 'pointless', so why do you bother to post on an 'infinity' thread? You see? It is not difficult to deduce that you and your little 'team' are simply trying to stop any real conversation happening. This is conducive with the original poster's views that..." I still think infinity (in actuality) is impossible." - 'iseason' - who is another religiously biased disinformationist.
Truth is Eternal...It is NEVER going away. This is why the likes of Gandhi say..."It is more correct to say that Truth is 'god' than God is Truth"
'Problems' only occur when we deny what is Real.
You say, "How can even that that exists evaluate its own existence?" - I say, Why ever should it not? We are parts of this Cosmos, and we evolve to be able to do just that. It's called 'science'.
g.
1) It is not difficult to understand, it just pointless as it does not lead anywhere. What is boundless? Dictionary page xx? How saying boundless does make things more acceptable and easier to understand then saying infinite?
2) Yes exactly that is the question :
-how can something that does not exist think that it exists?
-How can even that that exists evaluate its own existence?
-Who does evaluate its existence if not that that exists by himself, relating to it an attribute : This things exists, this does not?
-Is it me,You, God or Bertrand Russel? Then, supposedly one of us exists at the same moment as the thing we are trying to relate the attribute of existence to?
I do not understand when things are not explained, very sorry about that.
3) If infinity does not end, what is then the smallest piece when You divide something ( e.g. space) infinitely??
Nothing? or 0? or something infinitely small, which is what? Or space is not infinitely divisible?
-or is this infinity of divisions somehow different from infinity of boundless space? How exactly?
If space is infinite in a sense boundless what would cause it to become so anisotropic as it becomes filled with strange things like matter, humans, etc? Infinite boundless continuous space has no reason to do anything finite at all. It can exist like that, infinite, boundless, forever. Nothing moves , nothing changes. Infinite sink.
In and out waves- where do they come from? What generates them? They come from boundless infinite part of space to where? How they now where to come and where from to come as there is no direction in such space? Why would they form standing waves as they have no more reason to have one phase difference between them as any other phase difference, nor one direction preferred vs any other, as waves are unbounded so in average there are no standing waves, or, they are all over the place.
These are few of questions that arise about boundless space.
I prefer to hear YOUR arguments not citations and references to dictionaries. If what You think is based only on spaceandmotion.com then thank You. Though there is nice collection of quotations.
No, 'spaceandmotion' is based around the mathematics of Milo Wolff and the subsequent related philosophical implications of the findings.
The 'physics community' can perform all the tests they like...From the site,
QUOTE
Thus it is very interesting that in the criticism above of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) there is a complete lack of science in the criticism. i.e. There are no reasons given for why the Wave Structure of Matter is wrong - other than to say that it makes no testable predictions.
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).
Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.
Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.
Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube
Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).
Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.
Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.
Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube
Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
When I first found this information, I had not really considered the implications of an 'Infinite Space' either. So I can sympathise to some extent with those who also have little clue. My reaction was to try to find out why this little word was giving me so many 'problems'. I realised that to blatantly ignore established terms of definition will not get yus very far towards any actual understanding. I realised this, and spent the next few years doing some research. I can highly recommend this method.
I had studied some basic psychology, however, and this has helped me to distinguish when people are being genuine, or not. I wholeheartedly recommend this also, in fact, would like to see it as an integral part of all school curricula for reasons demonstrated throughout this thread.
Your post, above, is barely intelligible. If this is the 'conviction' with which you posit your views, is it not little wonder that you are struggling with understanding of a more precise manner?
The sad thing is, I would really like to have an intelligent conversation with you about that which can be deduced as necessarily true, but you will not even stick to established definitions of words, so there is your pointlessness, well and truly in your own court.
I simply cannot believe that you have such little clue as to what 'infinity' means. You call it 'pointless', so why do you bother to post on an 'infinity' thread? You see? It is not difficult to deduce that you and your little 'team' are simply trying to stop any real conversation happening. This is conducive with the original poster's views that..." I still think infinity (in actuality) is impossible." - 'iseason' - who is another religiously biased disinformationist.
Truth is Eternal...It is NEVER going away. This is why the likes of Gandhi say..."It is more correct to say that Truth is 'god' than God is Truth"
'Problems' only occur when we deny what is Real.
You say, "How can even that that exists evaluate its own existence?" - I say, Why ever should it not? We are parts of this Cosmos, and we evolve to be able to do just that. It's called 'science'.
g.
Gorgeous
"Truth is Eternal...It is NEVER going away."
If you prefer to express yourself in such broad and safe and general terms - it is better not to express anything -
I was eagerly waiting for some - just a little kind of explanation - just something saying just a little about this question - how waves originates
You have since long ago made this statement: QUOTE:
"Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your (bukh) propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you seeing the Reality."
I am not not impressed (convinced) by quotations and broad and safe statements - you simply have to come up with something - come up with a kind of explanation that can help in understanding what you are thinking.
I trust that your phycological studies tell you that I am asking out from a genuine interest.
QUOTE: "I would really like to have an intelligent coversation about that which can be deduced as necessarily true"
Yes - that indeed would be an interesting discussion - and I would find it very interesting to know what You think can be deduced as necessary true - and I am sure that you have the guts to open the discussion with your bets.
(spelling check not performed)
"Truth is Eternal...It is NEVER going away."
If you prefer to express yourself in such broad and safe and general terms - it is better not to express anything -
I was eagerly waiting for some - just a little kind of explanation - just something saying just a little about this question - how waves originates
You have since long ago made this statement: QUOTE:
"Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your (bukh) propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you seeing the Reality."
I am not not impressed (convinced) by quotations and broad and safe statements - you simply have to come up with something - come up with a kind of explanation that can help in understanding what you are thinking.
I trust that your phycological studies tell you that I am asking out from a genuine interest.
QUOTE: "I would really like to have an intelligent coversation about that which can be deduced as necessarily true"
Yes - that indeed would be an interesting discussion - and I would find it very interesting to know what You think can be deduced as necessary true - and I am sure that you have the guts to open the discussion with your bets.
(spelling check not performed)
Gorgeous
PS
QUOTE: 'Problems' only occur when we deny what is Real."
Real - what is that - I have tried to Google - do you have some good suggestions ?
PS
QUOTE: 'Problems' only occur when we deny what is Real."
Real - what is that - I have tried to Google - do you have some good suggestions ?
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 4 2008, 10:21 PM)
Gorgeous
"Truth is Eternal...It is NEVER going away."
If you prefer to express yourself in such broad and safe and general terms - it is better not to express anything -
I was eagerly waiting for some - just a little kind of explanation - just something saying just a little about this question - how waves originates
You have since long ago made this statement: QUOTE:
"Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your (bukh) propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you seeing the Reality."
I am not not impressed (convinced) by quotations and broad and safe statements - you simply have to come up with something - come up with a kind of explanation that can help in understanding what you are thinking.
I trust that your phycological studies tell you that I am asking out from a genuine interest.
QUOTE: "I would really like to have an intelligent coversation about that which can be deduced as necessarily true"
Yes - that indeed would be an interesting discussion - and I would find it very interesting to know what You think can be deduced as necessary true - and I am sure that you have the guts to open the discussion with your bets.
(spelling check not performed)
I have been doing nothing but trying to have Real conversation, but alas you won't even look at Real dictionary definitions. What kind of 'conversation' were you thinking of???
I have not done any 'phycological' studies. What I know for certain though is that you are most definitely NOT genuine!
I am not here to 'bet'. This kind of 'throw-away' verbiage tell me an awful lot about your state of mind. The idea is to present information from which we may make calculated deductions, as per the Real scientific method. Now...why is it, do you think, that I have to explain these things to you?
Speaks volumes, doesn't it? It will do to anyone accustomed to using their intelligence.
My best suggestion is to go back to the beginning of the thread, and this time try to click on some of the relevant links and avoid ignoring everything, including the dictionary definitions.
g.
"Truth is Eternal...It is NEVER going away."
If you prefer to express yourself in such broad and safe and general terms - it is better not to express anything -
I was eagerly waiting for some - just a little kind of explanation - just something saying just a little about this question - how waves originates
You have since long ago made this statement: QUOTE:
"Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your (bukh) propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you seeing the Reality."
I am not not impressed (convinced) by quotations and broad and safe statements - you simply have to come up with something - come up with a kind of explanation that can help in understanding what you are thinking.
I trust that your phycological studies tell you that I am asking out from a genuine interest.
QUOTE: "I would really like to have an intelligent coversation about that which can be deduced as necessarily true"
Yes - that indeed would be an interesting discussion - and I would find it very interesting to know what You think can be deduced as necessary true - and I am sure that you have the guts to open the discussion with your bets.
(spelling check not performed)
I have been doing nothing but trying to have Real conversation, but alas you won't even look at Real dictionary definitions. What kind of 'conversation' were you thinking of???
I have not done any 'phycological' studies. What I know for certain though is that you are most definitely NOT genuine!
I am not here to 'bet'. This kind of 'throw-away' verbiage tell me an awful lot about your state of mind. The idea is to present information from which we may make calculated deductions, as per the Real scientific method. Now...why is it, do you think, that I have to explain these things to you?
QUOTE
Real - what is that - I have tried to Google - do you have some good suggestions ?
Speaks volumes, doesn't it? It will do to anyone accustomed to using their intelligence.
My best suggestion is to go back to the beginning of the thread, and this time try to click on some of the relevant links and avoid ignoring everything, including the dictionary definitions.
g.
hi Gorgeous
Thanks for honest reply. I will come back on it, but not immediately since I have to really read the foundational statements of spaceandmotion. It is about the foundations I am worried, not the ability to predict particular physical phenomena or that waves can make matter as obviously any vortex etc. is a standing wave phenomena, and vortexes are omnipresent in nature.
I am not denying infinity either. I am just saying that its definition and place has to be worked out more carefully, much more carefully, since its totally right when You say that if infinity is accepted and understood there is not so much left to understand about basic principles.
As to ONE, I have a different opinion than space and motion, or at least it seems so, and it is on the very basic level:
To me , space and its structures are emergent and dynamic phenomena which are able to percept both less complex, itself,and more complex structures of space albeit via different mechanisms. There is only ONE thing that both can not exist without space and its arrangements and space can not arrange without it. That is the "space" of possible relations, ratios etc between the structures ( including waves of any level, de broglie, EM, surface, sound etc. -but not only waves as they can not be fundamental, as continuous space can not as well ) of space and their perception abilities.
I do not know if it is specified in this way anywhere, but I see analogies with few philosophical definitions ( analogies, not equivalence as most of these philosophical ones are based on different reasoning than mine):
Some times it is called pure consciousness (Husserl) , naked (or bare) awareness' in Tibetan Buddhism , Brahma in Hinduism, Atman sometimes, Holy spirit in Christianity (without much reasoning, though) etc..
But as said, my understanding of this ONE is based on mostly mathematical reasoning, so it can be that it does not include all the properties attributed to it philosophically in various models of being.
Thanks for honest reply. I will come back on it, but not immediately since I have to really read the foundational statements of spaceandmotion. It is about the foundations I am worried, not the ability to predict particular physical phenomena or that waves can make matter as obviously any vortex etc. is a standing wave phenomena, and vortexes are omnipresent in nature.
I am not denying infinity either. I am just saying that its definition and place has to be worked out more carefully, much more carefully, since its totally right when You say that if infinity is accepted and understood there is not so much left to understand about basic principles.
As to ONE, I have a different opinion than space and motion, or at least it seems so, and it is on the very basic level:
To me , space and its structures are emergent and dynamic phenomena which are able to percept both less complex, itself,and more complex structures of space albeit via different mechanisms. There is only ONE thing that both can not exist without space and its arrangements and space can not arrange without it. That is the "space" of possible relations, ratios etc between the structures ( including waves of any level, de broglie, EM, surface, sound etc. -but not only waves as they can not be fundamental, as continuous space can not as well ) of space and their perception abilities.
I do not know if it is specified in this way anywhere, but I see analogies with few philosophical definitions ( analogies, not equivalence as most of these philosophical ones are based on different reasoning than mine):
Some times it is called pure consciousness (Husserl) , naked (or bare) awareness' in Tibetan Buddhism , Brahma in Hinduism, Atman sometimes, Holy spirit in Christianity (without much reasoning, though) etc..
But as said, my understanding of this ONE is based on mostly mathematical reasoning, so it can be that it does not include all the properties attributed to it philosophically in various models of being.
hej bukh
Here is a development in Your direction- see if You can accept it?
Now, if we turn back to Brown motion , instead of collisions of things that move for some reason with infinite speeds in SPACE we can have chaotic appearance of space dimensions itself which can glue together in bigger pieces,and also DEGLUE, so that a moving space dimensionality in a Brownian way would represent different directions into which appearing oscillating space glues to it and deglues.
Now, since if we have 2 smallest things glued together it will exist 2 times (?) longer that 1 smallest thing ( think why -because to register own existence You only need 1 on off cell, the other can exist without disappearing, but to analyze itself fully it has to disappear-or is it then 3/2 the existance time) during this LONGER time of existence it has MORE chances to glue another smallest thing to itself- so in this chaotic world of supreme infinitesimals ( the 1 bit structures able to carry information only about own existence which forces them to stop existing) the bigger ones grow bigger, still exhibiting Brownian character until they loop, but with more inertia, scaled.
These clusters of smallest things can perceive the smaller things ( since they have free capacity of cells to do it) , they can self perceive ( then they disappear - and that is the reason for presence of ONLY Brownian motion only UNTIL emergence of looped, of permanently existing space structures of qualitatively higher complexity), and they are perceived and governed by ONE- the mathematics of possible relations, arrangements etc- which I will work out when I will know more. )
The Brownian motion does not disappear afterwards- it engulfs the looping structures with infinitesimal oscillating space clusters, so they affect and participate ALL also today. Brownian clustering of infinitesimal space dimensionalities IS gravitation, and the probability distributions they have at various scales range from Binomial -Poisson to Gauss, thus including both 1/r gravity ( rotation curves of galaxies, extra weak gravitation ( a la MOND and gravity curves) and 1/r^2 "normal gravity- and all in between)
Here is a development in Your direction- see if You can accept it?
Now, if we turn back to Brown motion , instead of collisions of things that move for some reason with infinite speeds in SPACE we can have chaotic appearance of space dimensions itself which can glue together in bigger pieces,and also DEGLUE, so that a moving space dimensionality in a Brownian way would represent different directions into which appearing oscillating space glues to it and deglues.
Now, since if we have 2 smallest things glued together it will exist 2 times (?) longer that 1 smallest thing ( think why -because to register own existence You only need 1 on off cell, the other can exist without disappearing, but to analyze itself fully it has to disappear-or is it then 3/2 the existance time) during this LONGER time of existence it has MORE chances to glue another smallest thing to itself- so in this chaotic world of supreme infinitesimals ( the 1 bit structures able to carry information only about own existence which forces them to stop existing) the bigger ones grow bigger, still exhibiting Brownian character until they loop, but with more inertia, scaled.
These clusters of smallest things can perceive the smaller things ( since they have free capacity of cells to do it) , they can self perceive ( then they disappear - and that is the reason for presence of ONLY Brownian motion only UNTIL emergence of looped, of permanently existing space structures of qualitatively higher complexity), and they are perceived and governed by ONE- the mathematics of possible relations, arrangements etc- which I will work out when I will know more. )
The Brownian motion does not disappear afterwards- it engulfs the looping structures with infinitesimal oscillating space clusters, so they affect and participate ALL also today. Brownian clustering of infinitesimal space dimensionalities IS gravitation, and the probability distributions they have at various scales range from Binomial -Poisson to Gauss, thus including both 1/r gravity ( rotation curves of galaxies, extra weak gravitation ( a la MOND and gravity curves) and 1/r^2 "normal gravity- and all in between)
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "Now, if we turn back to Brown motion - "
As I see it, the essential feature about physical being, is that a dimensionality knows exactly its relative position.
Position means that any dimensionality (irrespective how complex it is - or popularly how "big" it is - knows its neighbours.
If one start with pure space - it is not crucial how the emptiness or abscense of form is being envisaged - one can say that pure form is filled up with smallest beings - so small that they have no form - no physical dimension. When this pure space is being segregated - this is the same as saying that smallest beings know whether they belong to one or to the other, smallest beings get a precise position relative to each other, are they belonging to this or to that. Apart from that they have no position, meaning that they have no position in the newly formed ratio, they are freely "moving" in their new ratio-dimensionality.
This is just another way of defining how pure space is being "divided" in "smaller and smaller" dimensions. Universe is fully out-lived at the point where all infinite dimensionalities know their relative position to smallest -
Once a smallest being in a given ratio-dimensionalityis has been arranged relative to other smallest beings in another ratio dimensionality, this relative positioning cannot ever be changed - it is now an inborn characteristic of said smallest being, and the more and more accurate the relative arrangement is - the less the said smallest being can "move" - the free room for moving becomes smaller and smaller - including fewer and fewer neighbours.
However - if this was the case - then Universe would freeze at a certainn moment, and the trick is that smallest being is infinite in number, it is only a matter how they are being arranged relative to their neighbours - and this is just another way of saying SCALE.
And that is what I meant when I asked this one million dollar question - IS Universe infinitely cycling - where the scales infinitely is being taken one step further - and the Physical Universe as we percept and understand it - is no more than the human scale - where we happen to exist.
A scale is physical when it is percepted and understood in freezed moments - the freezing being accomplished by repetition, but the underlying structure is infinitely deep - will never end -
the medium just happens to be infinite in every respect - irrespective whether we talk dimension or number -
Discreteness is solely accomplished via the mechanism of repetitions, and scalewise arranged - to form what we see as particles - cinematographically.
QUOTE: "Now, if we turn back to Brown motion - "
As I see it, the essential feature about physical being, is that a dimensionality knows exactly its relative position.
Position means that any dimensionality (irrespective how complex it is - or popularly how "big" it is - knows its neighbours.
If one start with pure space - it is not crucial how the emptiness or abscense of form is being envisaged - one can say that pure form is filled up with smallest beings - so small that they have no form - no physical dimension. When this pure space is being segregated - this is the same as saying that smallest beings know whether they belong to one or to the other, smallest beings get a precise position relative to each other, are they belonging to this or to that. Apart from that they have no position, meaning that they have no position in the newly formed ratio, they are freely "moving" in their new ratio-dimensionality.
This is just another way of defining how pure space is being "divided" in "smaller and smaller" dimensions. Universe is fully out-lived at the point where all infinite dimensionalities know their relative position to smallest -
Once a smallest being in a given ratio-dimensionalityis has been arranged relative to other smallest beings in another ratio dimensionality, this relative positioning cannot ever be changed - it is now an inborn characteristic of said smallest being, and the more and more accurate the relative arrangement is - the less the said smallest being can "move" - the free room for moving becomes smaller and smaller - including fewer and fewer neighbours.
However - if this was the case - then Universe would freeze at a certainn moment, and the trick is that smallest being is infinite in number, it is only a matter how they are being arranged relative to their neighbours - and this is just another way of saying SCALE.
And that is what I meant when I asked this one million dollar question - IS Universe infinitely cycling - where the scales infinitely is being taken one step further - and the Physical Universe as we percept and understand it - is no more than the human scale - where we happen to exist.
A scale is physical when it is percepted and understood in freezed moments - the freezing being accomplished by repetition, but the underlying structure is infinitely deep - will never end -
the medium just happens to be infinite in every respect - irrespective whether we talk dimension or number -
Discreteness is solely accomplished via the mechanism of repetitions, and scalewise arranged - to form what we see as particles - cinematographically.
Ivars and Buhk
I can't but notice a shift towards a definition of "space" which intends to preclude "energy". Space can only exist in the presence of energy potential. In other words , without the NECESSITY that something to fill it , space reverts to 'nothing'. If you allow that all space will be filled AT SOME TIME(and I use 'time' in a relative sense) then the problem goes away. No "void", but extremely fixated reasons for space to exist.
To accommodate an "event".
You may see that space may be filled 'over and over'. I disagree. the volume is directly related to the seasons. We move through set patterns in space in time line structure. So each "pixel" in space has a specific reason for being in relation to it's potential. If time and space were not related in this way , then 'empty space ' remains an enigma. This is as true for the atomic space where every position is 'filled at once ' by the electron, and so retaining the structure.
The reason we cannot perceive mass , or the universe as a solid structure is that the staggering by occurrence instead of time line keeps order which cannot be changed ,nor could you affect (in a massive way ) future arrangements of the structure or visit past events unless you can transpose the energy from past or future events. But you cannot do so as "being here' proves the future is as finite as the past..
Cheers
Iseason
I can't but notice a shift towards a definition of "space" which intends to preclude "energy". Space can only exist in the presence of energy potential. In other words , without the NECESSITY that something to fill it , space reverts to 'nothing'. If you allow that all space will be filled AT SOME TIME(and I use 'time' in a relative sense) then the problem goes away. No "void", but extremely fixated reasons for space to exist.
To accommodate an "event".
You may see that space may be filled 'over and over'. I disagree. the volume is directly related to the seasons. We move through set patterns in space in time line structure. So each "pixel" in space has a specific reason for being in relation to it's potential. If time and space were not related in this way , then 'empty space ' remains an enigma. This is as true for the atomic space where every position is 'filled at once ' by the electron, and so retaining the structure.
The reason we cannot perceive mass , or the universe as a solid structure is that the staggering by occurrence instead of time line keeps order which cannot be changed ,nor could you affect (in a massive way ) future arrangements of the structure or visit past events unless you can transpose the energy from past or future events. But you cannot do so as "being here' proves the future is as finite as the past..
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 5 2008, 09:03 AM)
I can't but notice a shift towards a definition of "space" which intends to preclude "energy". Space can only exist in the presence of energy potential.
hi Iseason
Few questions to clarify:
"Energy potential " is what? What is energy when we talk about almost empty space? Why should it have any energy , or energy potential?
What is energy anyway? Please not a physical definition since we are talking about state where particles and EM does not exist-yet. But space does. So where does it get energy?
My understanding is that energy is related to ability to change (and register this change) , so potential energy would mean potential to change, fine, but why should space have such property ? Where does it get it from? How does it notice that change has happened to register that energy has been present? How does it contains, in what form, the potential (presumably inexaustible, (or not? in Your opinion ) to change? Is it like confined, hidden, internal energy ? Confined in what?
hi Iseason
Few questions to clarify:
"Energy potential " is what? What is energy when we talk about almost empty space? Why should it have any energy , or energy potential?
What is energy anyway? Please not a physical definition since we are talking about state where particles and EM does not exist-yet. But space does. So where does it get energy?
My understanding is that energy is related to ability to change (and register this change) , so potential energy would mean potential to change, fine, but why should space have such property ? Where does it get it from? How does it notice that change has happened to register that energy has been present? How does it contains, in what form, the potential (presumably inexaustible, (or not? in Your opinion ) to change? Is it like confined, hidden, internal energy ? Confined in what?
hej bukh
So..? What is the conslusion about how smallest things glue together- randomly or?
So..? What is the conslusion about how smallest things glue together- randomly or?
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 5 2008, 05:21 AM)
hi Gorgeous
Thanks for honest reply. I will come back on it, but not immediately since I have to really read the foundational statements of spaceandmotion. It is about the foundations I am worried, not the ability to predict particular physical phenomena or that waves can make matter as obviously any vortex etc. is a standing wave phenomena, and vortexes are omnipresent in nature.
I am not denying infinity either. I am just saying that its definition and place has to be worked out more carefully, much more carefully, since its totally right when You say that if infinity is accepted and understood there is not so much left to understand about basic principles.
As to ONE, I have a different opinion than space and motion, or at least it seems so, and it is on the very basic level:
To me , space and its structures are emergent and dynamic phenomena which are able to percept both less complex, itself,and more complex structures of space albeit via different mechanisms. There is only ONE thing that both can not exist without space and its arrangements and space can not arrange without it. That is the "space" of possible relations, ratios etc between the structures ( including waves of any level, de broglie, EM, surface, sound etc. -but not only waves as they can not be fundamental, as continuous space can not as well ) of space and their perception abilities.
I do not know if it is specified in this way anywhere, but I see analogies with few philosophical definitions ( analogies, not equivalence as most of these philosophical ones are based on different reasoning than mine):
Some times it is called pure consciousness (Husserl) , naked (or bare) awareness' in Tibetan Buddhism , Brahma in Hinduism, Atman sometimes, Holy spirit in Christianity (without much reasoning, though) etc..
But as said, my understanding of this ONE is based on mostly mathematical reasoning, so it can be that it does not include all the properties attributed to it philosophically in various models of being.
This is why we have to develop an understanding that encompasses all modes of thought, or at least be able to understand how our 'errors' can come about. And this is why a 'smattering' of basic psychology is needed.
You also have to consider that the 'Universe', this existence, is explainable. When it is understood that 'we are also it', the obstacles to further understanding are removed. It is sheer madness to state that Humans are not parts of the rest of existence! This kind of 'reasoning' quite frankly, is the scariest thing I have ever witnessed in my life, as it leads to all the other 'atrocities' that Man has inflicted upon himself and his environment.
The only 'cure' for this insanity is to admit it, and thereby enable ourselves to search for a cure...
You are correct to be skeptical, but you must also be honest, and this means being equally skeptical of your own 'opinions'. WSM is not an 'opinion', it has been deduced using rules of science, which just happen to coincide with many other previous thought processes of Honest Humans from the past, as you would expect from an Honest look at this thing we call 'existence'.
g.
Thanks for honest reply. I will come back on it, but not immediately since I have to really read the foundational statements of spaceandmotion. It is about the foundations I am worried, not the ability to predict particular physical phenomena or that waves can make matter as obviously any vortex etc. is a standing wave phenomena, and vortexes are omnipresent in nature.
I am not denying infinity either. I am just saying that its definition and place has to be worked out more carefully, much more carefully, since its totally right when You say that if infinity is accepted and understood there is not so much left to understand about basic principles.
As to ONE, I have a different opinion than space and motion, or at least it seems so, and it is on the very basic level:
To me , space and its structures are emergent and dynamic phenomena which are able to percept both less complex, itself,and more complex structures of space albeit via different mechanisms. There is only ONE thing that both can not exist without space and its arrangements and space can not arrange without it. That is the "space" of possible relations, ratios etc between the structures ( including waves of any level, de broglie, EM, surface, sound etc. -but not only waves as they can not be fundamental, as continuous space can not as well ) of space and their perception abilities.
I do not know if it is specified in this way anywhere, but I see analogies with few philosophical definitions ( analogies, not equivalence as most of these philosophical ones are based on different reasoning than mine):
Some times it is called pure consciousness (Husserl) , naked (or bare) awareness' in Tibetan Buddhism , Brahma in Hinduism, Atman sometimes, Holy spirit in Christianity (without much reasoning, though) etc..
But as said, my understanding of this ONE is based on mostly mathematical reasoning, so it can be that it does not include all the properties attributed to it philosophically in various models of being.
This is why we have to develop an understanding that encompasses all modes of thought, or at least be able to understand how our 'errors' can come about. And this is why a 'smattering' of basic psychology is needed.
You also have to consider that the 'Universe', this existence, is explainable. When it is understood that 'we are also it', the obstacles to further understanding are removed. It is sheer madness to state that Humans are not parts of the rest of existence! This kind of 'reasoning' quite frankly, is the scariest thing I have ever witnessed in my life, as it leads to all the other 'atrocities' that Man has inflicted upon himself and his environment.
The only 'cure' for this insanity is to admit it, and thereby enable ourselves to search for a cure...
You are correct to be skeptical, but you must also be honest, and this means being equally skeptical of your own 'opinions'. WSM is not an 'opinion', it has been deduced using rules of science, which just happen to coincide with many other previous thought processes of Honest Humans from the past, as you would expect from an Honest look at this thing we call 'existence'.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 5 2008, 10:55 AM)
It is sheer madness to state that Humans are not parts of the rest of existence!
ABSOLUTE MADNESS, I AGREE.
I hope You do not suspect me of THAT
ABSOLUTE MADNESS, I AGREE.
I hope You do not suspect me of THAT
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 5 2008, 11:31 AM)
ABSOLUTE MADNESS, I AGREE.
I hope You do not suspect me of THAT
It is for you to deduce the truth of things for yourself, but you will need to be honest to do so, and accept that we are ALL occasionally just wrong about certain things. 'Understanding' is all about YOUR connection to the rest of existence. HOW do you interconnect with everything else?
So, this Cosmological act of 'interconnection' IS the 'motion' that people refer to. It is thus fundamentally important to existence itself, that interconnection is allowed to happen...(Consequently, we develop such things as the 'internet'!) 'Language' is also a method of interconnection ~ of the ability to communicate understandings between entities ~ so, we can see how 'dictionaries' have importance, because they represent at least an attempt to share common understandings, that we may more efficiently 'interconnect' with.
Would you not agree that it is 'Absolute madness' for an entity to render the only environment it has evolved to exist in, useless for further existence? Would this not, in effect, be 'suicide'?
g.
I hope You do not suspect me of THAT
It is for you to deduce the truth of things for yourself, but you will need to be honest to do so, and accept that we are ALL occasionally just wrong about certain things. 'Understanding' is all about YOUR connection to the rest of existence. HOW do you interconnect with everything else?
So, this Cosmological act of 'interconnection' IS the 'motion' that people refer to. It is thus fundamentally important to existence itself, that interconnection is allowed to happen...(Consequently, we develop such things as the 'internet'!) 'Language' is also a method of interconnection ~ of the ability to communicate understandings between entities ~ so, we can see how 'dictionaries' have importance, because they represent at least an attempt to share common understandings, that we may more efficiently 'interconnect' with.
Would you not agree that it is 'Absolute madness' for an entity to render the only environment it has evolved to exist in, useless for further existence? Would this not, in effect, be 'suicide'?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 5 2008, 11:55 AM)
hi Gorgeous
QUOTE
'Language' is also a method of interconnection ~ of the ability to communicate understandings between entities ~ so, we can see how 'dictionaries' have importance, because they represent at least an attempt to share common understandings, that we may more efficiently 'interconnect' with.
Language is of ULTIMATE importance for understanding existence and formulating, reinforcing the intuitively caught glimpses of structure that pervades everything.
But ... as for dictionaries- they will need to be reconstructed a bit. But I am not saying I know how to do it- I am just sure that language matters, and good language influences things, but it needs to be constructed, cleaned a bit. Something like Sanskrit, which is at starting point pure mathematics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 'Language' is also a method of interconnection ~ of the ability to communicate understandings between entities ~ so, we can see how 'dictionaries' have importance, because they represent at least an attempt to share common understandings, that we may more efficiently 'interconnect' with. |
Language is of ULTIMATE importance for understanding existence and formulating, reinforcing the intuitively caught glimpses of structure that pervades everything.
But ... as for dictionaries- they will need to be reconstructed a bit. But I am not saying I know how to do it- I am just sure that language matters, and good language influences things, but it needs to be constructed, cleaned a bit. Something like Sanskrit, which is at starting point pure mathematics.
Would you not agree that it is 'Absolute madness' for an entity to render the only environment it has evolved to exist in, useless for further existence? Would this not, in effect, be 'suicide'?
Are these topics linked? I guess they are, once You understand (hopefully) environment You are part of, and what is the direction it would be developing to , You will try to do less harm (or more, depends on what You prefer to be doing in life-good or bad) . So basically agreed, but so far we do not understand what is good or bad for environment or even more so, space we are part of, do we? We have subjective notions about it, don't we. As about infinity.
Not doing anything and blending with space is not an option. If that was the goal, we would never be here.
Again, this...
So, instead of just throwing a 'knee-jerk' reply at the screen, why don't you go and study something so that you have a more advanced view of the subjects you are trying to discuss? If you openly admit that you do not know something, why then go on to contradict yourself by insisting that you do? Why not just go and find out, instead of wasting time here trying to merely save 'face'?
You will not be 'correct' until you advance yourself from incorrectness...
g.
QUOTE
Not doing anything and blending with space is not an option. If that was the goal, we would never be here.
...makes no coherent sense whatsoever. And no, 'we' do not have 'subjective opinions on it'. When you understand the difference between an opinion and a necessary deduction you will be 'armed' with the knowledge you require to continue effectively with the discussion.So, instead of just throwing a 'knee-jerk' reply at the screen, why don't you go and study something so that you have a more advanced view of the subjects you are trying to discuss? If you openly admit that you do not know something, why then go on to contradict yourself by insisting that you do? Why not just go and find out, instead of wasting time here trying to merely save 'face'?
You will not be 'correct' until you advance yourself from incorrectness...
g.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "hej bukh
So..? What is the conslusion about how smallest things glue together- randomly or?"
Not randomly - but according to The Principle
And then you ask - what then about chaos - and I think that chaos is being introduced when smallest things merge to form next complexion - and here we have black and white - according to cellular automaton - and it is the color of next complexion that is non-predictable.
QUOTE: "hej bukh
So..? What is the conslusion about how smallest things glue together- randomly or?"
Not randomly - but according to The Principle
And then you ask - what then about chaos - and I think that chaos is being introduced when smallest things merge to form next complexion - and here we have black and white - according to cellular automaton - and it is the color of next complexion that is non-predictable.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 5 2008, 12:39 PM)
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "hej bukh
So..? What is the conslusion about how smallest things glue together- randomly or?"
Not randomly - but according to The Principle
And then you ask - what then about chaos - and I think that chaos is being introduced when smallest things merge to form next complexion - and here we have black and white - according to cellular automaton - and it is the color of next complexion that is non-predictable.
hej bukh
I just gave a principle a little bit more of a thought. It came out quite long and partly connects with information theory and algorithmic complexity,which is interesting. But If You do not mind, read it. I guess the patterns produced by such system might be rather interesting. So here we go:
1) I just thought that if smallest thing exists 1/2 of the time, the combination of 2 oscillating things must exist not 2, but 3 times longer- namely, 3/2 of the same undefined time. Why:
2) If we have 1 bit structure when it exists , it exists, when it gives itself a 1 bit of information which says YES I exist - so Information bit turns to 1- it stops existing as its structure is used to represent this information bit. Since it has stopped existing, it can not anymore apply to itself this registration, so as it registers own existence, it RELEASES itself back into space to exist. OK? so its presence in space is oscillating. 1/2 of the time.
3) When chaotically out of nowhere another smallest 1bit thing during the time it exists suddenly gets joined by another one, similar, so they somehow aggregate, glue together to make the simplest 2 cell structure. It seems quite natural that given the perhaps memory less state of non-existence of the simplest things and independence of each other( they have no idea there are others, since they can not have place to STORE any ideas:) poor things...) their appearance should (may) follow Poisson statistics . ( Read on it in Wikipedia etc, if not familiar). That is the most universal statistic for infinite in number , independent memory less ( not dependent on what happened before with them as they have no memory and there is always infinite number available) .
So , the smallest things popping out of nowhere into existence following Poisson statistics have some probability to appear 2 simultaneously during the time interval 1/2 , so distribution looks like ( tau=1/2) (I will save the math since it may contain mistakes, no use) but:
4) Anyway, there is some probability 2 of them will appear at same period of time 1/2 ( talking about place is meaningless at this stage- if they appear 2 together, they form the first place).
5) So now we have 2 of those oscillating things glued together during the time of their existence which is 1/2.
First, they now have the structure to register their common existence ( not details , but the fact they both exist in as structure) . To register this fact, they need only 1 of them to disappear into thinking mode so the other stays. This leads to the fact that this structure EXISTS in principle and can register it for 2*1/2 ( 1 exists, other thinks) time, or 1.
6) After another 1/2 period of thinking about the existence of the structure of 2 things, the one that has been registering that fact returns to existence, while another may disappear. So another 1/2 passes, and the other thing returns, and still they have existed so far as they had the possibility to register Yes/No of the structure by sharing duties. Now the total structure has existed 3/2 of the time.
7) Now the end comes. They try to register that there are 2 of them in this structure- so besides registering and prolonging existence as such via collective efforts, they would like to establish the fact that their form is more complex than that of bloody poor lonely oscillators. As soon as they realize that, they vanish, as to register this fact they need to use both their structures to carry information , so they can not exist anymore.
So may be this reasoning can be displayed in some other way, but the first conclusion is:
8) If they gather the information about themselves from simplest to more complex sharing efforts they will exists totally 3/2 times- 1/2 both, 1/2 one of them, 1/2 other. After they disappear for 1/2, they will reappear and do the same again, as they are not able to do anything else.
So in totality:
9) They will exist fully 1/2 of the time, disappear partly 2/2 , disappear totally 1/2. The cycle of their existence will be equal to 2 times. Total time of any kind of their existence will be 3/2 of time units , total non-existance 1/2 of time units ( which are undefined) .
10) It may happen with some probability, that during the time they both exist, or one of them exists, another smallest thing pops out and joins either them both ( least likely- 1/3 of probability ) or one of them while the other is thinking( more likely-2/3 of probability) . Depending on various circumstances about these events the scenario of how they may aggregate further may be different.
With a smaller probability, 2 smallest things can pop out and join 2 of them 1 of them another of them. \
With even smaller probability , 3 smallest things may pop out, and join either 1 of the first ( not 2 sorry, because that would equal 5 smallest things popping out of space simultaneously).
QUOTE: "hej bukh
So..? What is the conslusion about how smallest things glue together- randomly or?"
Not randomly - but according to The Principle
And then you ask - what then about chaos - and I think that chaos is being introduced when smallest things merge to form next complexion - and here we have black and white - according to cellular automaton - and it is the color of next complexion that is non-predictable.
hej bukh
I just gave a principle a little bit more of a thought. It came out quite long and partly connects with information theory and algorithmic complexity,which is interesting. But If You do not mind, read it. I guess the patterns produced by such system might be rather interesting. So here we go:
1) I just thought that if smallest thing exists 1/2 of the time, the combination of 2 oscillating things must exist not 2, but 3 times longer- namely, 3/2 of the same undefined time. Why:
2) If we have 1 bit structure when it exists , it exists, when it gives itself a 1 bit of information which says YES I exist - so Information bit turns to 1- it stops existing as its structure is used to represent this information bit. Since it has stopped existing, it can not anymore apply to itself this registration, so as it registers own existence, it RELEASES itself back into space to exist. OK? so its presence in space is oscillating. 1/2 of the time.
3) When chaotically out of nowhere another smallest 1bit thing during the time it exists suddenly gets joined by another one, similar, so they somehow aggregate, glue together to make the simplest 2 cell structure. It seems quite natural that given the perhaps memory less state of non-existence of the simplest things and independence of each other( they have no idea there are others, since they can not have place to STORE any ideas:) poor things...) their appearance should (may) follow Poisson statistics . ( Read on it in Wikipedia etc, if not familiar). That is the most universal statistic for infinite in number , independent memory less ( not dependent on what happened before with them as they have no memory and there is always infinite number available) .
So , the smallest things popping out of nowhere into existence following Poisson statistics have some probability to appear 2 simultaneously during the time interval 1/2 , so distribution looks like ( tau=1/2) (I will save the math since it may contain mistakes, no use) but:
4) Anyway, there is some probability 2 of them will appear at same period of time 1/2 ( talking about place is meaningless at this stage- if they appear 2 together, they form the first place).
5) So now we have 2 of those oscillating things glued together during the time of their existence which is 1/2.
First, they now have the structure to register their common existence ( not details , but the fact they both exist in as structure) . To register this fact, they need only 1 of them to disappear into thinking mode so the other stays. This leads to the fact that this structure EXISTS in principle and can register it for 2*1/2 ( 1 exists, other thinks) time, or 1.
6) After another 1/2 period of thinking about the existence of the structure of 2 things, the one that has been registering that fact returns to existence, while another may disappear. So another 1/2 passes, and the other thing returns, and still they have existed so far as they had the possibility to register Yes/No of the structure by sharing duties. Now the total structure has existed 3/2 of the time.
7) Now the end comes. They try to register that there are 2 of them in this structure- so besides registering and prolonging existence as such via collective efforts, they would like to establish the fact that their form is more complex than that of bloody poor lonely oscillators. As soon as they realize that, they vanish, as to register this fact they need to use both their structures to carry information , so they can not exist anymore.
So may be this reasoning can be displayed in some other way, but the first conclusion is:
8) If they gather the information about themselves from simplest to more complex sharing efforts they will exists totally 3/2 times- 1/2 both, 1/2 one of them, 1/2 other. After they disappear for 1/2, they will reappear and do the same again, as they are not able to do anything else.
So in totality:
9) They will exist fully 1/2 of the time, disappear partly 2/2 , disappear totally 1/2. The cycle of their existence will be equal to 2 times. Total time of any kind of their existence will be 3/2 of time units , total non-existance 1/2 of time units ( which are undefined) .
10) It may happen with some probability, that during the time they both exist, or one of them exists, another smallest thing pops out and joins either them both ( least likely- 1/3 of probability ) or one of them while the other is thinking( more likely-2/3 of probability) . Depending on various circumstances about these events the scenario of how they may aggregate further may be different.
With a smaller probability, 2 smallest things can pop out and join 2 of them 1 of them another of them. \
With even smaller probability , 3 smallest things may pop out, and join either 1 of the first ( not 2 sorry, because that would equal 5 smallest things popping out of space simultaneously).
QUOTE
When you understand the difference between an opinion and a necessary deduction
You sound as if You or someone possesses PERFECT logic of deduction. What a nonsense. Logicians and philosophers themselves can not agree on that, not even close. Sounds a little alarming, as If You have seen the end of reason. Well, look further.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When you understand the difference between an opinion and a necessary deduction |
You sound as if You or someone possesses PERFECT logic of deduction. What a nonsense. Logicians and philosophers themselves can not agree on that, not even close. Sounds a little alarming, as If You have seen the end of reason. Well, look further.
You will not be 'correct' until you advance yourself from incorrectness...
With this very concrete advice I proceed. Shall I report from time to time to see if I have gotten more correct than before? In business, we always say what You do not measure You do not get, so somehow You could establish criteria.
Let us say, on day 1 I have to become 2% more correct than before, and it will be measured by the following:
_a).......
_b).......
_c)........
Concrete and achievable , specific targets.
It is really a funny advice
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 5 2008, 01:00 PM)
You sound as if You or someone possesses PERFECT logic of deduction. What a nonsense. Logicians and philosophers themselves can not agree on that, not even close. Sounds a little alarming, as If You have seen the end of reason. Well, look further.
With this very concrete advice I proceed. Shall I report from time to time to see if I have gotten more correct than before? In business, we always say what You do not measure You do not get, so somehow You could establish criteria.
Let us say, on day 1 I have to become 2% more correct than before, and it will be measured by the following:
_a).......
_b).......
_c)........
Concrete and achievable , specific targets.
It is really a funny advice
No, you did it again, you 'knee-jerked'!
How things 'sound to you', is not necessarily how they are. Take the time to find out, and you will stop disappointing yourself.
In 'business' you also sometimes say, "Ah f**k it, let's not worry about the poisoned atmosphere 'cos the short-term profits are good!"
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 5 2008, 01:09 PM)
In 'business' you also sometimes say, "Ah f**k it, let's not worry about the poisoned atmosphere 'cos the short-term profits are good!"
hi Gorgeous
NONONO,
I am in INSULATION business. So we net save energy,A LOT. But on cost side, of course You can not be perfect otherwise You stop exixsting , at least in current real business landscape. Have to be practical.
As to short term profits, and their importance , the saying goes, "if You do no have enough cash to survive till tomorrow, long-term dreams will not be Yours anymore, but someones else."
Right balance is what counts.
Where did You notice me disappointing myself? I missed that, oops.
hi Gorgeous
NONONO,
I am in INSULATION business. So we net save energy,A LOT. But on cost side, of course You can not be perfect otherwise You stop exixsting , at least in current real business landscape. Have to be practical.
As to short term profits, and their importance , the saying goes, "if You do no have enough cash to survive till tomorrow, long-term dreams will not be Yours anymore, but someones else."
Right balance is what counts.
Where did You notice me disappointing myself? I missed that, oops.
Hej Ivars
Just had a brief chance to see Your latest - and there is a lot of potential in having this one-to-one relation between lasting and existance , and lasting and complexion
It would be so mouch more easy to handle the On-Of in respective scales - no strange motion to induce On-signal, but strictly according to cinematographic principles.
Just had a brief chance to see Your latest - and there is a lot of potential in having this one-to-one relation between lasting and existance , and lasting and complexion
It would be so mouch more easy to handle the On-Of in respective scales - no strange motion to induce On-signal, but strictly according to cinematographic principles.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 5 2008, 01:21 PM)
Where did You notice me disappointing myself? I missed that, oops.
Yes. You observedly miss an awful lot.
Does this make you happy?
Does it fulfill your 'urge to understand'?
You are currently looking for something that you will never be able to see, with your 'learning' attitude the way it is. This will leave you in a state of almost permanent disappointment, and may go some way to explaining why you choose such an 'insular' profession. You could save a huge amount of brain energy by simply being Honest. I know, you think you already are, but then so does everybody and we know that this is untrue. You already have a 'theory' all of your own, and you are going to stick to it, regardless of fact.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 5 2008, 10:25 PM)
You already have a 'theory' all of your own, and you are going to stick to it, regardless of fact.
Hi Gorgeous,
No, I only have a theory that there can be a theory which equals Reality and thus is the same. And may be even that is wrong. All deviations from that fit is easily adaptable, or disimissable, or rather, interpreted and combined differently since nothing should be omitted.
Hi Gorgeous,
No, I only have a theory that there can be a theory which equals Reality and thus is the same. And may be even that is wrong. All deviations from that fit is easily adaptable, or disimissable, or rather, interpreted and combined differently since nothing should be omitted.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 5 2008, 09:38 PM)
It would be so much more easy to handle the On-Of in respective scales - no strange motion to induce On-signal, but strictly according to cinematographic principles.
hej bukh
Scales is Ok, but we are talking about smallest stuff, and about the principle how it can work in most scales.
What is strange motion? I only speak about existence and information about this existence being written in the same things that exists, so it is the smallest possible structure in each scale, but when we talk about smallest scale, there are no scales below, so it has to be connected to biggest scale.
Other way to say it that it oscillates between information space (when it registers its existence) and reality (when it exists).
How else can we register information about its and aggregate existence then by using its own and aggregate structure? It is a smallest 1 bit structure, no extra capacity.
Speaking in terms of cells, and cellular automata, it is a 1 -cell which comes into existence and disappears. You can attach colors to this existence/non-existence , if You want, but that already presume 3rd, external observer.
I am not sure, but it has to be so that combination of 2 such cells leads to behavior in some way similar to automation 110. But complexity has to be even greater since You add Poisson process statistical behavior to this cellular automate. When I will understand better this model, I will check accurately.
If You dislike probabilities and statistics I mentioned then answer please - how to predict when this thing will aggregate? Poisson statistics is well suited for exactly such events, at least it seams to me.
Hej Ivars
YES - actually that is exactly my reaction to Your suggestion - it IS brilliant to have existance as the Principle. And I agree with EVERY word
And Yes - I totally agree that smallest scale IS smallest scale - and there I would like the sematic that smallest scale is not physical in the sense that smallest scale is a transistion between pre-physical and physical - and existance is reserved for physical universe.
Pure space is filled up with informational matter - and informational matter is smallest informational bits oscillating their on-off existances - and smallest informational bits have no positioning in pure space. And that is the same as saying infinite speed and infinite small.
And they I jusy said that it is nice to get rid of this odd motion previously operated with in order to explain pixel On-Off
And of course black white is being replaced by on-off existance - you may have noticed that I recently commented that consciousness is dependant on that the smallest things "know" what they are - and then I introduced this black/white - D/L - or just something - but obviously their knowledge about ON-Off existance is so logical.
I just had no time to comment - but I can assure You that I see this idea as a very long step in the right direction
YES - actually that is exactly my reaction to Your suggestion - it IS brilliant to have existance as the Principle. And I agree with EVERY word
And Yes - I totally agree that smallest scale IS smallest scale - and there I would like the sematic that smallest scale is not physical in the sense that smallest scale is a transistion between pre-physical and physical - and existance is reserved for physical universe.
Pure space is filled up with informational matter - and informational matter is smallest informational bits oscillating their on-off existances - and smallest informational bits have no positioning in pure space. And that is the same as saying infinite speed and infinite small.
And they I jusy said that it is nice to get rid of this odd motion previously operated with in order to explain pixel On-Off
And of course black white is being replaced by on-off existance - you may have noticed that I recently commented that consciousness is dependant on that the smallest things "know" what they are - and then I introduced this black/white - D/L - or just something - but obviously their knowledge about ON-Off existance is so logical.
I just had no time to comment - but I can assure You that I see this idea as a very long step in the right direction
hej bukh
Nice to hear. Really. I felt this was not a bad idea since it was so simple, and actually, how else could it be?
I do not think smallest things "know". They can not. But something that is based on pure space and smallest things and registers/decides on possible ratios/relations between them and their combinations- knows. Knows more or less everything there is to know.
Nice to hear. Really. I felt this was not a bad idea since it was so simple, and actually, how else could it be?
QUOTE
You may have noticed that I recently commented that consciousness is dependent on that the smallest things "know" what they are - and then I introduced this black/white - D/L - or just something - but obviously their knowledge about ON-Off existence is so logical.
I do not think smallest things "know". They can not. But something that is based on pure space and smallest things and registers/decides on possible ratios/relations between them and their combinations- knows. Knows more or less everything there is to know.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "I do not think smallest things "know". They can not. But something that is based on pure space and smallest things and registers/decides on possible ratios/relations between them and their combinations- knows. Knows more or less everything there is to know."
In a sense I think they "know" - but it is a very primitive knowledge - and I say that because this kind of selfawareness is an essential quality that IS - cannot suddenly pop into existance at a certain complexion-level -
In that case there should be a transistion - a phasetransistion from no selfawareness and to selfawareness -
we have to be very cautious about transistions - a transistion can make quantitative changes but not qualitative in the sense that such an essential quality can be constructed
so my thinking is that they are very very stupid but they know something.
QUOTE: "I do not think smallest things "know". They can not. But something that is based on pure space and smallest things and registers/decides on possible ratios/relations between them and their combinations- knows. Knows more or less everything there is to know."
In a sense I think they "know" - but it is a very primitive knowledge - and I say that because this kind of selfawareness is an essential quality that IS - cannot suddenly pop into existance at a certain complexion-level -
In that case there should be a transistion - a phasetransistion from no selfawareness and to selfawareness -
we have to be very cautious about transistions - a transistion can make quantitative changes but not qualitative in the sense that such an essential quality can be constructed
so my thinking is that they are very very stupid but they know something.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 5 2008, 10:16 PM)
hi Iseason
Few questions to clarify:
"Energy potential " is what? What is energy when we talk about almost empty space? Why should it have any energy , or energy potential?
What is energy anyway? Please not a physical definition since we are talking about state where particles and EM does not exist-yet. But space does. So where does it get energy?
My understanding is that energy is related to ability to change (and register this change) , so potential energy would mean potential to change, fine, but why should space have such property ? Where does it get it from? How does it notice that change has happened to register that energy has been present? How does it contains, in what form, the potential (presumably inexaustible, (or not? in Your opinion ) to change? Is it like confined, hidden, internal energy ? Confined in what?
hi Guys
The answer is not found in space,since it will not be there when we aren't looking.
Your "actual reality" is hidden within the sequence of 'whole'. Evenly distributed ,not across space or time because these are a measuring yardstick,not a reality. If I was painting a picture with dots, and you were an evenly distributed portion of the dots ,then you could not tell, by looking at the completed painting, which dots were you. But if I marked your dots with specific pointers(perhaps florescence) then it would be simple to get a picture of yourself.
If I went further and not only allowed you to see your own dots, but every dot that was placed and put them in an order simple for you to follow, the dots that occurred around your own would be clearer.
But the best way would be to only show the parts of the painting which include your dots. We still need the same size canvas, (because this is the whole picture) but you don't need to use the clutter to find yourself.
Cheers
Iseason
Few questions to clarify:
"Energy potential " is what? What is energy when we talk about almost empty space? Why should it have any energy , or energy potential?
What is energy anyway? Please not a physical definition since we are talking about state where particles and EM does not exist-yet. But space does. So where does it get energy?
My understanding is that energy is related to ability to change (and register this change) , so potential energy would mean potential to change, fine, but why should space have such property ? Where does it get it from? How does it notice that change has happened to register that energy has been present? How does it contains, in what form, the potential (presumably inexaustible, (or not? in Your opinion ) to change? Is it like confined, hidden, internal energy ? Confined in what?
hi Guys
The answer is not found in space,since it will not be there when we aren't looking.
Your "actual reality" is hidden within the sequence of 'whole'. Evenly distributed ,not across space or time because these are a measuring yardstick,not a reality. If I was painting a picture with dots, and you were an evenly distributed portion of the dots ,then you could not tell, by looking at the completed painting, which dots were you. But if I marked your dots with specific pointers(perhaps florescence) then it would be simple to get a picture of yourself.
If I went further and not only allowed you to see your own dots, but every dot that was placed and put them in an order simple for you to follow, the dots that occurred around your own would be clearer.
But the best way would be to only show the parts of the painting which include your dots. We still need the same size canvas, (because this is the whole picture) but you don't need to use the clutter to find yourself.
Cheers
Iseason
Hej Iseason
QUOTE: "hi Guys
The answer is not found in space,since it will not be there when we aren't looking.
Your "actual reality" is hidden within the sequence of 'whole'. Evenly distributed ,not across space or time because these are a measuring yardstick,not a reality. If I was painting a picture with dots, and you were an evenly distributed portion of the dots ,then you could not tell, by looking at the completed painting, which dots were you. But if I marked your dots with specific pointers(perhaps florescence) then it would be simple to get a picture of yourself.
If I went further and not only allowed you to see your own dots, but every dot that was placed and put them in an order simple for you to follow, the dots that occurred around your own would be clearer.
But the best way would be to only show the parts of the painting which include your dots. We still need the same size canvas, (because this is the whole picture) but you don't need to use the clutter to find yourself."
Yes - this peculiar ability of selfawareness is an essential quality - and must be inbuild in the "stuff" that everything is being expressed out from.
QUOTE: "hi Guys
The answer is not found in space,since it will not be there when we aren't looking.
Your "actual reality" is hidden within the sequence of 'whole'. Evenly distributed ,not across space or time because these are a measuring yardstick,not a reality. If I was painting a picture with dots, and you were an evenly distributed portion of the dots ,then you could not tell, by looking at the completed painting, which dots were you. But if I marked your dots with specific pointers(perhaps florescence) then it would be simple to get a picture of yourself.
If I went further and not only allowed you to see your own dots, but every dot that was placed and put them in an order simple for you to follow, the dots that occurred around your own would be clearer.
But the best way would be to only show the parts of the painting which include your dots. We still need the same size canvas, (because this is the whole picture) but you don't need to use the clutter to find yourself."
Yes - this peculiar ability of selfawareness is an essential quality - and must be inbuild in the "stuff" that everything is being expressed out from.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 6 2008, 08:15 AM)
so my thinking is that they are very very stupid but they know something.
hej bukh
Not individually.
hej bukh
Not individually.
hej Ivars
Difficult to ask them - because they do not know what they know.
Difficult to ask them - because they do not know what they know.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 5 2008, 09:15 PM)
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "I do not think smallest things "know". They can not. But something that is based on pure space and smallest things and registers/decides on possible ratios/relations between them and their combinations- knows. Knows more or less everything there is to know."
In a sense I think they "know" - but it is a very primitive knowledge - and I say that because this kind of selfawareness is an essential quality that IS - cannot suddenly pop into existance at a certain complexion-level -
In that case there should be a transistion - a phasetransistion from no selfawareness and to selfawareness -
we have to be very cautious about transistions - a transistion can make quantitative changes but not qualitative in the sense that such an essential quality can be constructed
so my thinking is that they are very very stupid but they know something.
This is better.
The answer is Harmonic wave~frequency. Standing Spherical Waves do not 'know', but they do 'attract', or Harmonise, which is how they form into repetitive motions that gather 'mass' as they come together.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...ating-space.htm
And 'not individually' because nothing exists in a 'discrete' state, all 'things' being interconnected 'parts' of the whole (existence).
g.
QUOTE: "I do not think smallest things "know". They can not. But something that is based on pure space and smallest things and registers/decides on possible ratios/relations between them and their combinations- knows. Knows more or less everything there is to know."
In a sense I think they "know" - but it is a very primitive knowledge - and I say that because this kind of selfawareness is an essential quality that IS - cannot suddenly pop into existance at a certain complexion-level -
In that case there should be a transistion - a phasetransistion from no selfawareness and to selfawareness -
we have to be very cautious about transistions - a transistion can make quantitative changes but not qualitative in the sense that such an essential quality can be constructed
so my thinking is that they are very very stupid but they know something.
This is better.
The answer is Harmonic wave~frequency. Standing Spherical Waves do not 'know', but they do 'attract', or Harmonise, which is how they form into repetitive motions that gather 'mass' as they come together.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...ating-space.htm
And 'not individually' because nothing exists in a 'discrete' state, all 'things' being interconnected 'parts' of the whole (existence).
g.
hej bukh
Now that we have sorted out situation with physical side ( existence) and we know that the ultimate result of all these aggregations and loopings is the world we experience, we may ask what is happening on the other side- the information side, where the similar aggregations of thoughts may happen , based on simplest thought that belongs (=IS) simplest body when it self percepts.
So we get another dynamic world automatically, built from different bricks, but mirroring our EXACTLY on the lowest level= if smallest thing is not existing, its in Information space, and vice versa. On higher levels, the developments might be not so obviously linked, but still maintain some mirroring because of the shared CAUSE.
Now that we have sorted out situation with physical side ( existence) and we know that the ultimate result of all these aggregations and loopings is the world we experience, we may ask what is happening on the other side- the information side, where the similar aggregations of thoughts may happen , based on simplest thought that belongs (=IS) simplest body when it self percepts.
So we get another dynamic world automatically, built from different bricks, but mirroring our EXACTLY on the lowest level= if smallest thing is not existing, its in Information space, and vice versa. On higher levels, the developments might be not so obviously linked, but still maintain some mirroring because of the shared CAUSE.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "but mirroring our EXACTLY on the lowest level"
Yes - smallest thing is an exact mirror - and then I think that we miss the grip.
Physical world is the introduction of The Principle - involving dimensionality and lasting = time, and this results in a unique dynamic timelined combination of informational bits, equivalent to OUR Physical Universe. It is ONE way of expressing EVERYTHING - one of (probably) many.
Do you remember what we discussed more than a year ago - that Physisical Universe was ONE way of expressing Everything -
QUOTE: "but mirroring our EXACTLY on the lowest level"
Yes - smallest thing is an exact mirror - and then I think that we miss the grip.
Physical world is the introduction of The Principle - involving dimensionality and lasting = time, and this results in a unique dynamic timelined combination of informational bits, equivalent to OUR Physical Universe. It is ONE way of expressing EVERYTHING - one of (probably) many.
Do you remember what we discussed more than a year ago - that Physisical Universe was ONE way of expressing Everything -
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "This is better."
Well perhaps one can say that You like it better - remember there exists no such thing as the truth
QUOTE: "This is better."
Well perhaps one can say that You like it better
- remember there exists no such thing as the truth
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 6 2008, 03:00 AM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "This is better."
Well perhaps one can say that You like it better - remember there exists no such thing as the truth
How can I remember something that is not true, and therefore does not exist? Or are you requesting that I remember another one of your lies? ~ I'll pass on that, if you don't mind.
Clearly, you even wish to find compliments offensive. That's fine, I can work with this kind of 'logic'; I shall try to offend you as much as possible, in the hope that you take it as a compliment!
But it was my mistake. I should have said that it 'correlates with observed Reality more accurately'. I rarely make the same mistake twice, so thanks for helping me tighten my stance further.
g.
QUOTE: "This is better."
Well perhaps one can say that You like it better
- remember there exists no such thing as the truth How can I remember something that is not true, and therefore does not exist?
Or are you requesting that I remember another one of your lies? ~ I'll pass on that, if you don't mind. Clearly, you even wish to find compliments offensive. That's fine, I can work with this kind of 'logic'; I shall try to offend you as much as possible, in the hope that you take it as a compliment!
But it was my mistake. I should have said that it 'correlates with observed Reality more accurately'. I rarely make the same mistake twice, so thanks for helping me tighten my stance further.
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "Clearly, you even wish to find compliments offensive. That's fine, I can work with this kind of 'logic'; I shall try to offend you as much as possible, in the hope that you take it as a compliment! "
- No, no, no. You have it all wrong, dear fellow. In fact, it seems like you already have a negative opinion of yourself, and are looking for someone else to blame for it!
It was not so much an 'attack' of 'you', but merely an observation of what us poor little things are really like. I do this as well, and have observed that my contradictions are what cause me the greatest trouble! A sane fellow, such as yourself, my be able to take this to heart and learn something of value from it.
No one is saying that 'religion must be ripped apart'! We Romans are far more sophisticated nowadays, don't you know? - It is all about people. People created the 'religions' and the 'sciences', and so it is the core reasons why people do the mad things that they do, which interests me. Now I observe contradictions, and you may be surprised to learn that they are absolutely eveywhere! - But no one likes it when they are pointed out, and now we have evolved 'pretence', which is a further straying into the realm of falsity. The 'cure' for this is to check for contradictions before emitting them...
Change is a necessary element to all things that exist. Stagnating by trying to avoid the necessary is no 'answer' to anything exept your own demise.
Please try not to be so angry, otherwise, where is the 'improvement'? --
QUOTE: "Clearly, you even wish to find compliments offensive. That's fine, I can work with this kind of 'logic'; I shall try to offend you as much as possible, in the hope that you take it as a compliment! "
- No, no, no. You have it all wrong, dear fellow. In fact, it seems like you already have a negative opinion of yourself, and are looking for someone else to blame for it!
It was not so much an 'attack' of 'you', but merely an observation of what us poor little things are really like. I do this as well, and have observed that my contradictions are what cause me the greatest trouble! A sane fellow, such as yourself, my be able to take this to heart and learn something of value from it.
No one is saying that 'religion must be ripped apart'! We Romans are far more sophisticated nowadays, don't you know? - It is all about people. People created the 'religions' and the 'sciences', and so it is the core reasons why people do the mad things that they do, which interests me. Now I observe contradictions, and you may be surprised to learn that they are absolutely eveywhere! - But no one likes it when they are pointed out, and now we have evolved 'pretence', which is a further straying into the realm of falsity. The 'cure' for this is to check for contradictions before emitting them...
Change is a necessary element to all things that exist. Stagnating by trying to avoid the necessary is no 'answer' to anything exept your own demise.
Please try not to be so angry, otherwise, where is the 'improvement'? --
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 6 2008, 09:34 AM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "Clearly, you even wish to find compliments offensive. That's fine, I can work with this kind of 'logic'; I shall try to offend you as much as possible, in the hope that you take it as a compliment! "
- No, no, no. You have it all wrong, dear fellow. In fact, it seems like you already have a negative opinion of yourself, and are looking for someone else to blame for it!
It was not so much an 'attack' of 'you', but merely an observation of what us poor little things are really like. I do this as well, and have observed that my contradictions are what cause me the greatest trouble! A sane fellow, such as yourself, my be able to take this to heart and learn something of value from it.
No one is saying that 'religion must be ripped apart'! We Romans are far more sophisticated nowadays, don't you know? - It is all about people. People created the 'religions' and the 'sciences', and so it is the core reasons why people do the mad things that they do, which interests me. Now I observe contradictions, and you may be surprised to learn that they are absolutely eveywhere! - But no one likes it when they are pointed out, and now we have evolved 'pretence', which is a further straying into the realm of falsity. The 'cure' for this is to check for contradictions before emitting them...
Change is a necessary element to all things that exist. Stagnating by trying to avoid the necessary is no 'answer' to anything exept your own demise.
Please try not to be so angry, otherwise, where is the 'improvement'? --
Well that's the best post you've ever made! See? You CAN do it, if you try.
Now you've learned 'cut and paste', the next thing is to actually read the words. Then, we can move on to 'meaning'...
bukh Posted: May 6 2008, 09:12 AM
Negative Please free me from your so called pos. - I am always happy to receive negs from the right people smile.gif
g.
QUOTE: "Clearly, you even wish to find compliments offensive. That's fine, I can work with this kind of 'logic'; I shall try to offend you as much as possible, in the hope that you take it as a compliment! "
- No, no, no. You have it all wrong, dear fellow. In fact, it seems like you already have a negative opinion of yourself, and are looking for someone else to blame for it!
It was not so much an 'attack' of 'you', but merely an observation of what us poor little things are really like. I do this as well, and have observed that my contradictions are what cause me the greatest trouble! A sane fellow, such as yourself, my be able to take this to heart and learn something of value from it.
No one is saying that 'religion must be ripped apart'! We Romans are far more sophisticated nowadays, don't you know? - It is all about people. People created the 'religions' and the 'sciences', and so it is the core reasons why people do the mad things that they do, which interests me. Now I observe contradictions, and you may be surprised to learn that they are absolutely eveywhere! - But no one likes it when they are pointed out, and now we have evolved 'pretence', which is a further straying into the realm of falsity. The 'cure' for this is to check for contradictions before emitting them...
Change is a necessary element to all things that exist. Stagnating by trying to avoid the necessary is no 'answer' to anything exept your own demise.
Please try not to be so angry, otherwise, where is the 'improvement'? --
Well that's the best post you've ever made! See? You CAN do it, if you try.
Now you've learned 'cut and paste', the next thing is to actually read the words. Then, we can move on to 'meaning'...
QUOTE
bukh Posted: Apr 19 2008, 11:19 AM
Negative downplay this nitty gritty - itchy bitchy tiny winy commenting.
Negative downplay this nitty gritty - itchy bitchy tiny winy commenting.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| bukh Posted: Apr 19 2008, 11:19 AM Negative downplay this nitty gritty - itchy bitchy tiny winy commenting. |
bukh Posted: May 6 2008, 09:12 AM
Negative Please free me from your so called pos. - I am always happy to receive negs from the right people smile.gif
g.
hej bukh, gorgeous?
It seems that somewhat independently we have reached the notion of indivisibles, or infinitesimals, or stoicheia, giving them and oscillating character and clear informational content as smallest (oscillatory) existing spatial thing able to represent a bit. Not bad
Stoichia greeks
Indivisibles of Cavalieri
The next question is also , not suprisingly , Platonic: when looking for aggregates of such things, we speak about them
1) appearing/dissappearing stohastically
2) gluing ( or not ) together
Obviosuly, both these happenings involve knowledge, or information indivisibles can not possess, since they only store 1 bit about own existance which places them in infortmation space (pure space) denying their existance for the 1/2 of the "time" they self percept.
So this knowledge is stored/comes from space EXTERNAL to the space built from smallest things, most likely, the observer space, or perhaps pure consciousness, but connected to both matter (space) and information side of indivisibles.
First, I would like to adress gluing together: how could they glue together? That is tricky, since they are smallest dimensions of space, infinitesimal. However, to glue, that need surfaces, if they have surfaces, they might have volumes, but are these space volumes or ideal volumes? Plato goes a long way in this direction in his Timaeus, and its obvious that some ideal Geometry may be required.
So that gives a new direction- we are no where near end:)
And that is GOOD.
P.S. Gorgeuos, oscillating nature obviouly as it should implies waves are present somewhere on the path we are discussing. Once we have them originated, we are free to study their properties.
It seems that somewhat independently we have reached the notion of indivisibles, or infinitesimals, or stoicheia, giving them and oscillating character and clear informational content as smallest (oscillatory) existing spatial thing able to represent a bit. Not bad
Stoichia greeks
Indivisibles of Cavalieri
The next question is also , not suprisingly , Platonic: when looking for aggregates of such things, we speak about them
1) appearing/dissappearing stohastically
2) gluing ( or not ) together
Obviosuly, both these happenings involve knowledge, or information indivisibles can not possess, since they only store 1 bit about own existance which places them in infortmation space (pure space) denying their existance for the 1/2 of the "time" they self percept.
So this knowledge is stored/comes from space EXTERNAL to the space built from smallest things, most likely, the observer space, or perhaps pure consciousness, but connected to both matter (space) and information side of indivisibles.
First, I would like to adress gluing together: how could they glue together? That is tricky, since they are smallest dimensions of space, infinitesimal. However, to glue, that need surfaces, if they have surfaces, they might have volumes, but are these space volumes or ideal volumes? Plato goes a long way in this direction in his Timaeus, and its obvious that some ideal Geometry may be required.
So that gives a new direction- we are no where near end:)
And that is GOOD.
P.S. Gorgeuos, oscillating nature obviouly as it should implies waves are present somewhere on the path we are discussing. Once we have them originated, we are free to study their properties.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 7 2008, 09:13 PM)
hej bukh, gorgeous?
It seems that somewhat independently we have reached the notion of indivisibles, or infinitesimals, or stoicheia, giving them and oscillating character and clear informational content as smallest (oscillatory) existing spatial thing able to represent a bit. Not bad
Stoichia greeks
Indivisibles of Cavalieri
The next question is also , not suprisingly , Platonic: when looking for aggregates of such things, we speak about them
1) appearing/dissappearing stohastically
2) gluing ( or not ) together
Obviosuly, both these happenings involve knowledge, or information indivisibles can not possess, since they only store 1 bit about own existance which places them in infortmation space (pure space) denying their existance for the 1/2 of the "time" they self percept.
So this knowledge is stored/comes from space EXTERNAL to the space built from smallest things, most likely, the observer space, or perhaps pure consciousness, but connected to both matter (space) and information side of indivisibles.
First, I would like to adress gluing together: how could they glue together? That is tricky, since they are smallest dimensions of space, infinitesimal. However, to glue, that need surfaces, if they have surfaces, they might have volumes, but are these space volumes or ideal volumes? Plato goes a long way in this direction in his Timaeus, and its obvious that some ideal Geometry may be required.
So that gives a new direction- we are no where near end:)
And that is GOOD.
P.S. Gorgeuos, oscillating nature obviouly as it should implies waves are present somewhere on the path we are discussing. Once we have them originated, we are free to study their properties.
Hey Ivars , Buhk
It appears that all roads lead to Rome when looking at this problem. I'm pleased to see some partial repeat of the causality journey that I embarked upon.
You will find motion to be an impossible obstacle and hence first step or "cause". The only other side of your 'mirror' that will involve that every bit of energy or change will come from the same source. Since you have reasoned that an indivisible state might exist, and that it is 'one', then unless you wish to break thermodynamics and conservative laws , a single unit of energy was first , last and always.
There is also the issue of "other" realities. It is true to say that ,when using a singularity , EVERY possible event may be true. But. And this is a very big BUT. Reality is shared by at least every human on earth , particularly according to a time line structure.So although every event may be "possible", a single reality(with the allowance of relatively) is much more 'probable'.
Cheers
Iseason
It seems that somewhat independently we have reached the notion of indivisibles, or infinitesimals, or stoicheia, giving them and oscillating character and clear informational content as smallest (oscillatory) existing spatial thing able to represent a bit. Not bad
Stoichia greeks
Indivisibles of Cavalieri
The next question is also , not suprisingly , Platonic: when looking for aggregates of such things, we speak about them
1) appearing/dissappearing stohastically
2) gluing ( or not ) together
Obviosuly, both these happenings involve knowledge, or information indivisibles can not possess, since they only store 1 bit about own existance which places them in infortmation space (pure space) denying their existance for the 1/2 of the "time" they self percept.
So this knowledge is stored/comes from space EXTERNAL to the space built from smallest things, most likely, the observer space, or perhaps pure consciousness, but connected to both matter (space) and information side of indivisibles.
First, I would like to adress gluing together: how could they glue together? That is tricky, since they are smallest dimensions of space, infinitesimal. However, to glue, that need surfaces, if they have surfaces, they might have volumes, but are these space volumes or ideal volumes? Plato goes a long way in this direction in his Timaeus, and its obvious that some ideal Geometry may be required.
So that gives a new direction- we are no where near end:)
And that is GOOD.
P.S. Gorgeuos, oscillating nature obviouly as it should implies waves are present somewhere on the path we are discussing. Once we have them originated, we are free to study their properties.
Hey Ivars , Buhk
It appears that all roads lead to Rome when looking at this problem. I'm pleased to see some partial repeat of the causality journey that I embarked upon.
You will find motion to be an impossible obstacle and hence first step or "cause". The only other side of your 'mirror' that will involve that every bit of energy or change will come from the same source. Since you have reasoned that an indivisible state might exist, and that it is 'one', then unless you wish to break thermodynamics and conservative laws , a single unit of energy was first , last and always.
There is also the issue of "other" realities. It is true to say that ,when using a singularity , EVERY possible event may be true. But. And this is a very big BUT. Reality is shared by at least every human on earth , particularly according to a time line structure.So although every event may be "possible", a single reality(with the allowance of relatively) is much more 'probable'.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason
Voicing and equations mathematics should go hand in hand- only meaning mathematics needs to be voiced, or, given intuitive "live" content. And improving dictionary of voicing (vocabulary, grammar etc. ) as well, parallel.
For example, take the mirroring property of indivisibles in spatial and information(time) spaces. At smallest level , mirroring is exact, but result is totally stochastic, or probabilistic given the random appearance of disconnected indivisible .
As levels of aggregation increase, ultimately, at high enough level aggregates (relatively big masses) this property together with somewhat independent aggregation rules in each of these spaces should lead to Einsteins General Relativity equations, connecting space, time and mass.
As a side note, perhaps here we may get waves of indivisible appearance/disappearance if there is some correlation of the appearance of one divisible on the probability of appearance of neighbors. Sounds good, but I would not take wave nature of matter too far at this stage since stochastic nature , chaos contains the promise of eternal source of energy, which deterministic waves can not produce.
So waves are still a question mark, unless they are not stochastic themselves, that is having totally Poisson or similarly distributed phases.
In this case they could be some kind of Fourier transform of spatial frequencies of appearing/disappearing indivisibles.
Ultimately philosophy, mathematics and language should converge in one knowledge.
Voicing and equations mathematics should go hand in hand- only meaning mathematics needs to be voiced, or, given intuitive "live" content. And improving dictionary of voicing (vocabulary, grammar etc. ) as well, parallel.
For example, take the mirroring property of indivisibles in spatial and information(time) spaces. At smallest level , mirroring is exact, but result is totally stochastic, or probabilistic given the random appearance of disconnected indivisible .
As levels of aggregation increase, ultimately, at high enough level aggregates (relatively big masses) this property together with somewhat independent aggregation rules in each of these spaces should lead to Einsteins General Relativity equations, connecting space, time and mass.
As a side note, perhaps here we may get waves of indivisible appearance/disappearance if there is some correlation of the appearance of one divisible on the probability of appearance of neighbors. Sounds good, but I would not take wave nature of matter too far at this stage since stochastic nature , chaos contains the promise of eternal source of energy, which deterministic waves can not produce.
So waves are still a question mark, unless they are not stochastic themselves, that is having totally Poisson or similarly distributed phases.
In this case they could be some kind of Fourier transform of spatial frequencies of appearing/disappearing indivisibles.
Ultimately philosophy, mathematics and language should converge in one knowledge.
Summary
The rules of science (simplicity) and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) force us to conclude that matter is formed from spherical standing wave motions of Space (rather than Newton's particles, or Einstein's continuous fields). This is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all matter (in the observable universe) is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out waves.
The Wave Center causes the discrete 'particle' effect of matter that we see and interact with.
The spherical in and out waves cause the field effects, but in a slightly different way than Einstein imagined because they are discrete standing wave effects, rather than his continuous field effects. i.e. Einstein's continuous field theory of mater does not explain discrete properties of light and matter as determined by quantum theory - whereas standing wave interactions (resonant coupling) only occur at discrete wavelengths / frequencies thus explaining the discrete properties of light quanta 'photons'.
The above arguments all seem true to me, none of it is my opinion, they simply state common scientific knowledge combined with our common experience of existing in Space.
And I should add that Erwin Schrodinger actually proposed a wave structure of matter 80 years ago (unfortunately his wave equations were used by Max Born as probability waves to find the location of the particle, rather than treating them as real waves in Space). As Schrodinger explains;
Erwin Schrodinger on quantum physicsWhat we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.)
So now we must see if this Spherical Wave Structure of Matter works - does it correctly deduce the fundamentals of modern physics?
Well thanks to the work of retired Professor of Maths Physics, Dr Milo Wolff, we can show with mathematical / logical precision that it works perfectly.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-...ory-Reality.htm
g.
The rules of science (simplicity) and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) force us to conclude that matter is formed from spherical standing wave motions of Space (rather than Newton's particles, or Einstein's continuous fields). This is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all matter (in the observable universe) is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out waves.
The Wave Center causes the discrete 'particle' effect of matter that we see and interact with.
The spherical in and out waves cause the field effects, but in a slightly different way than Einstein imagined because they are discrete standing wave effects, rather than his continuous field effects. i.e. Einstein's continuous field theory of mater does not explain discrete properties of light and matter as determined by quantum theory - whereas standing wave interactions (resonant coupling) only occur at discrete wavelengths / frequencies thus explaining the discrete properties of light quanta 'photons'.
The above arguments all seem true to me, none of it is my opinion, they simply state common scientific knowledge combined with our common experience of existing in Space.
And I should add that Erwin Schrodinger actually proposed a wave structure of matter 80 years ago (unfortunately his wave equations were used by Max Born as probability waves to find the location of the particle, rather than treating them as real waves in Space). As Schrodinger explains;
Erwin Schrodinger on quantum physicsWhat we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.)
So now we must see if this Spherical Wave Structure of Matter works - does it correctly deduce the fundamentals of modern physics?
Well thanks to the work of retired Professor of Maths Physics, Dr Milo Wolff, we can show with mathematical / logical precision that it works perfectly.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-...ory-Reality.htm
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 7 2008, 11:49 AM)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-...ory-Reality.htm
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jun 7 2008, 05:27 AM)
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
How so?
g.
How so?
g.
Hej Ivars
Quote: "As a side note, perhaps here we may get waves of indivisible appearance/disappearance"
Now I am a little lost - because everything according to my mind is an oscillating presentation or expression of configurations, and the configurations are increasingly bigger aggregations of smallest dimensions - until we reach first phasetransition, and at this point smallest dimension increase one scale upwards - but the oscillating existance is the same.
Quote: "As a side note, perhaps here we may get waves of indivisible appearance/disappearance"
Now I am a little lost - because everything according to my mind is an oscillating presentation or expression of configurations, and the configurations are increasingly bigger aggregations of smallest dimensions - until we reach first phasetransition, and at this point smallest dimension increase one scale upwards - but the oscillating existance is the same.
Hej Iseason
QUOTE: "You will find motion to be an impossible obstacle and hence first step or "cause"."
Happy to see your notion about motion -
In my mind motion IS impossible in the sense that something cannot move relative to something else - because there is no void - no free room to move around in.
Motion IS the illusion created cinematographically by oscillating changing dimensional expressions in space - created by aggregations of smallest things, and the gowerning mechanism is lastingness - lastingness defined by how long a period such a dimensionality is expressed at said location when calculated in number of smallest time-ticks - a completely relative measurement as any universal measurement, everything is being expressed in ratios of smallest (or biggest) from 0 to 1.
The transistion into physical happens when smallest things express themselves in a dimensionality positioned in space - exactly according to Ivars idea about lastingness correlated to complexion.
QUOTE: "You will find motion to be an impossible obstacle and hence first step or "cause"."
Happy to see your notion about motion -
In my mind motion IS impossible in the sense that something cannot move relative to something else - because there is no void - no free room to move around in.
Motion IS the illusion created cinematographically by oscillating changing dimensional expressions in space - created by aggregations of smallest things, and the gowerning mechanism is lastingness - lastingness defined by how long a period such a dimensionality is expressed at said location when calculated in number of smallest time-ticks - a completely relative measurement as any universal measurement, everything is being expressed in ratios of smallest (or biggest) from 0 to 1.
The transistion into physical happens when smallest things express themselves in a dimensionality positioned in space - exactly according to Ivars idea about lastingness correlated to complexion.
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.