Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "the form of aggregates may be in harmony with pure space or not."
I would like to think that Universe is never in harmony - Universe is constantly trying to achieve harmony - to get the puzle to add up - and this is the drive - the dynamic - any change - even the smallest and the simplest has an effect on the neighbor and so on - and everything is under correction in all scales - and with each their "local time-ticks of imaginary"
I think that we are very close to the pixel-universe - scale-wise arranged - and everything according to our very early ideas. The most significant newcoming is this concept of lastingness calculated according to TimeunitONE and number of smallest units involved in said expression. According to simple rules and yet very complex resulting "time durations" - such highly exclusive and unique "lastingness's" for a well-defined expression is a very effective mean of arranging everything spatially.
Pure "chaotic" informational world IS being translated into spatial lastingness (physical world) - albeit oscillating in all scales - not synchronized, but with overlapping, so lastingness physically can be maintained and constantly being complexed more and more. And to every physical expression there is a parallel form of consciousness - the more complex the physical expression - the deeper and more complex the related consciousness.
And to smallest things - I simply cannot see how they can be different - that would imply that rearrangements being the basis for all motion - then would be impossible. Simplest - smallest things they have to be composed similarly - they have to serve as the common building block - it is the arrangements of similar smallest forms that create different spatial expressions.
Little "g"
Your impact on this thread is directly proportional to Your capability of making relevant and interesting comments - and till now it would seem that You have not managed to put even the faintest little fingerprint - You are of course very wellcome to continue Your struggle - I wish You all the best in Your efforts -
truthful and honest for the sake of humanity - hep hep.
(spelling control not performed - direct translation from mother tongue into Dinglish)
Your impact on this thread is directly proportional to Your capability of making relevant and interesting comments - and till now it would seem that You have not managed to put even the faintest little fingerprint - You are of course very wellcome to continue Your struggle - I wish You all the best in Your efforts -
truthful and honest for the sake of humanity - hep hep.
(spelling control not performed - direct translation from mother tongue into Dinglish)
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 23 2008, 11:33 AM)
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "the form of aggregates may be in harmony with pure space or not."
I would like to think that Universe is never in harmony - Universe is constantly trying to achieve harmony - to get the puzle to add up - and this is the drive - the dynamic - any change - even the smallest and the simplest has an effect on the neighbor and so on - and everything is under correction in all scales - and with each their "local time-ticks of imaginary"
I think that we are very close to the pixel-universe - scale-wise arranged - and everything according to our very early ideas. The most significant newcoming is this concept of lastingness calculated according to TimeunitONE and number of smallest units involved in said expression. According to simple rules and yet very complex resulting "time durations" - such highly exclusive and unique "lastingness's" for a well-defined expression is a very effective mean of arranging everything spatially.
Pure "chaotic" informational world IS being translated into spatial lastingness (physical world) - albeit oscillating in all scales - not synchronized, but with overlapping, so lastingness physically can be maintained and constantly being complexed more and more. And to every physical expression there is a parallel form of consciousness - the more complex the physical expression - the deeper and more complex the related consciousness.
And to smallest things - I simply cannot see how they can be different - that would imply that rearrangements being the basis for all motion - then would be impossible. Simplest - smallest things they have to be composed similarly - they have to serve as the common building block - it is the arrangements of similar smallest forms that create different spatial expressions.
It is not a question of what 'you' would like to think.
There is no such thing as a 'pixel-universe'.
Also, 'common building block' is just a re-hashed phrase from someone else's mis-guided terminology.
Does this mean anything?
g.
QUOTE: "the form of aggregates may be in harmony with pure space or not."
I would like to think that Universe is never in harmony - Universe is constantly trying to achieve harmony - to get the puzle to add up - and this is the drive - the dynamic - any change - even the smallest and the simplest has an effect on the neighbor and so on - and everything is under correction in all scales - and with each their "local time-ticks of imaginary"
I think that we are very close to the pixel-universe - scale-wise arranged - and everything according to our very early ideas. The most significant newcoming is this concept of lastingness calculated according to TimeunitONE and number of smallest units involved in said expression. According to simple rules and yet very complex resulting "time durations" - such highly exclusive and unique "lastingness's" for a well-defined expression is a very effective mean of arranging everything spatially.
Pure "chaotic" informational world IS being translated into spatial lastingness (physical world) - albeit oscillating in all scales - not synchronized, but with overlapping, so lastingness physically can be maintained and constantly being complexed more and more. And to every physical expression there is a parallel form of consciousness - the more complex the physical expression - the deeper and more complex the related consciousness.
And to smallest things - I simply cannot see how they can be different - that would imply that rearrangements being the basis for all motion - then would be impossible. Simplest - smallest things they have to be composed similarly - they have to serve as the common building block - it is the arrangements of similar smallest forms that create different spatial expressions.
It is not a question of what 'you' would like to think.
There is no such thing as a 'pixel-universe'.
Also, 'common building block' is just a re-hashed phrase from someone else's mis-guided terminology.
QUOTE
TimeunitONE
Does this mean anything?
g.
hi guys
wow. is this place set up for people to just vent thier own nastyness, and pretend that other people have problems? maybe that will prevent you all from sinking into a civil war or something...maybe it will just promote more nastyness.
Do you not know there is enough nastyness in reality already. people do not need any more than is natural. why keep creating more?
wow. is this place set up for people to just vent thier own nastyness, and pretend that other people have problems? maybe that will prevent you all from sinking into a civil war or something...maybe it will just promote more nastyness.
Do you not know there is enough nastyness in reality already. people do not need any more than is natural. why keep creating more?
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 24 2008, 03:44 AM)
hi guys
wow. is this place set up for people to just vent thier own nastyness, and pretend that other people have problems? maybe that will prevent you all from sinking into a civil war or something...maybe it will just promote more nastyness.
Do you not know there is enough nastyness in reality already. people do not need any more than is natural. why keep creating more?
Civil war??
Your correct about the nastyness, so my question to you would be why are you creating more of it?
wow. is this place set up for people to just vent thier own nastyness, and pretend that other people have problems? maybe that will prevent you all from sinking into a civil war or something...maybe it will just promote more nastyness.
Do you not know there is enough nastyness in reality already. people do not need any more than is natural. why keep creating more?
Civil war??
Your correct about the nastyness, so my question to you would be why are you creating more of it?
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 23 2008, 10:33 PM)
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "the form of aggregates may be in harmony with pure space or not."
I would like to think that Universe is never in harmony - Universe is constantly trying to achieve harmony - to get the puzle to add up - and this is the drive - the dynamic - any change - even the smallest and the simplest has an effect on the neighbor and so on - and everything is under correction in all scales - and with each their "local time-ticks of imaginary"
And to smallest things - I simply cannot see how they can be different - that would imply that rearrangements being the basis for all motion - then would be impossible. Simplest - smallest things they have to be composed similarly - they have to serve as the common building block - it is the arrangements of similar smallest forms that create different spatial expressions.
hej bukh
How does Universe knows what harmony is? How does it strive to achieve harmony if in any interaction it would not know what leads to more harmony, what less? How can it steer each interaction of indivisibles with space if it can not connect to each of them e.g via deforming their shapes via space as they appear?
I think what Universe is after is balance of chaos and harmony. Continuing game.
Indivisibles must have many shapes because there does not exist one 2D , 3D shape which would allow to construct all others. Since we can imagine (construct) infinitely many shapes, Universe must be able to do it as well. Since space dimensions is constructed form indivisibles, they must allow to construct any shape. If there is universal finite set of shapes which allows to do it, fine. I do not know that such exists. Plato thougth there has to be 5 most important solids. They seem to be special, but even they are not enough. In my opinion, the shapes of indivisibles can be any.
How are they steered , chosen from this infinity, by whom, what process? I think that the pure space calculates their shapes in such way that if they appear, the result would be maximally close to total harmony (but not reaching it, by far).Lastingness seems to correlate to harmony, so does rotation. On the opposite, chaos calculates which of them should appear which not so that the result would be maximally far from harmony, close to chaos (which it never reaches as well.)
The result of these 2 calculations is then spatial reality in 1 cycle. It is projected on both chaos binary information spheres and pure space information field, who thus become informed about the new position and calculates next moves.
QUOTE: "the form of aggregates may be in harmony with pure space or not."
I would like to think that Universe is never in harmony - Universe is constantly trying to achieve harmony - to get the puzle to add up - and this is the drive - the dynamic - any change - even the smallest and the simplest has an effect on the neighbor and so on - and everything is under correction in all scales - and with each their "local time-ticks of imaginary"
And to smallest things - I simply cannot see how they can be different - that would imply that rearrangements being the basis for all motion - then would be impossible. Simplest - smallest things they have to be composed similarly - they have to serve as the common building block - it is the arrangements of similar smallest forms that create different spatial expressions.
hej bukh
How does Universe knows what harmony is? How does it strive to achieve harmony if in any interaction it would not know what leads to more harmony, what less? How can it steer each interaction of indivisibles with space if it can not connect to each of them e.g via deforming their shapes via space as they appear?
I think what Universe is after is balance of chaos and harmony. Continuing game.
Indivisibles must have many shapes because there does not exist one 2D , 3D shape which would allow to construct all others. Since we can imagine (construct) infinitely many shapes, Universe must be able to do it as well. Since space dimensions is constructed form indivisibles, they must allow to construct any shape. If there is universal finite set of shapes which allows to do it, fine. I do not know that such exists. Plato thougth there has to be 5 most important solids. They seem to be special, but even they are not enough. In my opinion, the shapes of indivisibles can be any.
How are they steered , chosen from this infinity, by whom, what process? I think that the pure space calculates their shapes in such way that if they appear, the result would be maximally close to total harmony (but not reaching it, by far).Lastingness seems to correlate to harmony, so does rotation. On the opposite, chaos calculates which of them should appear which not so that the result would be maximally far from harmony, close to chaos (which it never reaches as well.)
The result of these 2 calculations is then spatial reality in 1 cycle. It is projected on both chaos binary information spheres and pure space information field, who thus become informed about the new position and calculates next moves.
QUOTE
direct translation from mother tongue into Dinglish
Ah, that would explain much!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| direct translation from mother tongue into Dinglish |
Ah, that would explain much!
Your correct about the nastyness, so my question to you would be why are you creating more of it?
That would be for the same reason as creating an 'infinity' thread just to try to convince people it does not exist!
It leaves a 'separate god hypothesis' rather flat and lifeless.However, it matters not, because a whole new forum is being created for those who wish to actually discuss real things. Real people are all welcome, politician/fundies (religious AND 'scientifc') will not be... Stay tuned.
You people think you are in the age of more controlled propaganda (by parroting the word 'crackpot' ~
), but without realising that you simply make knowledge of Truth rarer, and thus more valuable ~ so more sought-after. One truth is that we no longer have time for all this cloak and dagger rubbish. It's truth or bust time. The greedy people will rather die than lose their wealth; that's how crazy greed is; self-destructive. If the people who can see this craziness do nothing about it, they are just as compliant.QUOTE
How does Universe knows what harmony is?
It is the Natural state, being that it operates as One thing at source, so it does not need to 'know'. It just is.
g.
Hej Ivars
Quote: "Indivisibles must have many shapes because there does not exist one 2D , 3D shape which would allow to construct all others. Since we can imagine (construct) infinitely many shapes, Universe must be able to do it as well. Since space dimensions is constructed form indivisibles, they must allow to construct any shape. If there is universal finite set of shapes which allows to do it, fine. I do not know that such exists. Plato thougth there has to be 5 most important solids. They seem to be special, but even they are not enough. In my opinion, the shapes of indivisibles can be any."
The very illusion that we think that we can imagine infinitely many shapes - is not the same that there exist infinitely many.
Universe does not know what harmony is - in that sense - universe is striving for harmony - by trying to fit all shapes in a final harmonious pattern - and it is an ever ongoing rearrangement. And the chaos factor is that new smallest are being born - every time a smaller scale i sbeing born - locally - yes - most likely it is an inhomogenous distribution of deepnes all over universe. And dimensionalities made of smallest cannot - or in most cases cannot be fitted exactly into dimensionalities made of lower generations of smallest. Universe is desperately working to avoid void.
To me the best argument for not having more than one shape / form of smallest dimensionality - is that motion IS rearrangements - and it would not be possible to rearrange to another place if suddenly the building blocks changes.
I think that you are expressing more or less the same slightly differently in the following:
QUOTE: " I think that the pure space calculates their shapes in such way that if they appear, the result would be maximally close to total harmony (but not reaching it, by far).Lastingness seems to correlate to harmony, so does rotation. On the opposite, chaos calculates which of them should appear which not so that the result would be maximally far from harmony, close to chaos (which it never reaches as well.)
Perhaps - eventually - the fit is so close to no void - that the system becomes in near-harmony - and when ideal harmony is achieved - physical universe ceases to exist - because then there is no drive for rearrangements - there wil be no motion - just form - and may be another cycle will start.
The "Principle" is being gowerned and driven by spatial fitting - or lack of same.
Quote: "Indivisibles must have many shapes because there does not exist one 2D , 3D shape which would allow to construct all others. Since we can imagine (construct) infinitely many shapes, Universe must be able to do it as well. Since space dimensions is constructed form indivisibles, they must allow to construct any shape. If there is universal finite set of shapes which allows to do it, fine. I do not know that such exists. Plato thougth there has to be 5 most important solids. They seem to be special, but even they are not enough. In my opinion, the shapes of indivisibles can be any."
The very illusion that we think that we can imagine infinitely many shapes - is not the same that there exist infinitely many.
Universe does not know what harmony is - in that sense - universe is striving for harmony - by trying to fit all shapes in a final harmonious pattern - and it is an ever ongoing rearrangement. And the chaos factor is that new smallest are being born - every time a smaller scale i sbeing born - locally - yes - most likely it is an inhomogenous distribution of deepnes all over universe. And dimensionalities made of smallest cannot - or in most cases cannot be fitted exactly into dimensionalities made of lower generations of smallest. Universe is desperately working to avoid void.
To me the best argument for not having more than one shape / form of smallest dimensionality - is that motion IS rearrangements - and it would not be possible to rearrange to another place if suddenly the building blocks changes.
I think that you are expressing more or less the same slightly differently in the following:
QUOTE: " I think that the pure space calculates their shapes in such way that if they appear, the result would be maximally close to total harmony (but not reaching it, by far).Lastingness seems to correlate to harmony, so does rotation. On the opposite, chaos calculates which of them should appear which not so that the result would be maximally far from harmony, close to chaos (which it never reaches as well.)
Perhaps - eventually - the fit is so close to no void - that the system becomes in near-harmony - and when ideal harmony is achieved - physical universe ceases to exist - because then there is no drive for rearrangements - there wil be no motion - just form - and may be another cycle will start.
The "Principle" is being gowerned and driven by spatial fitting - or lack of same.
QUOTE
Perhaps - eventually - the fit is so close to no void - that the system becomes in near-harmony - and when ideal harmony is achieved - physical universe ceases to exist - because then there is no drive for rearrangements - there wil be no motion - just form - and may be another cycle will start.
Absolutely wrong.
Motion is inherent in all of existence, thus the physical Universe cannot 'cease to exist'. 'Physical Universe' is just a term Humans use to describe what we 'see', or are able to 'sense'. However, as we gather more information we become more able and efficient at sensing more of what exists. In this way, it is our understanding that 'expands'. Eventually, virtually all of what we sense becomes 'physical'. Once we understand that consciousness must come from a 'physical' source, it too becomes part of the 'physicality' of the Universe.
Also, there is no such thing as 'ideal harmony'. 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to.
g.
Little "g"
Ah, that would explain much!
To Whom ?
What do You know about mother tongue and Dinglish - You probably have very limited ability to decode what I am posting - so my best advice is that you do not waste your precious time and talent on such an Odyssey.
Ah, that would explain much!
To Whom ?
What do You know about mother tongue and Dinglish - You probably have very limited ability to decode what I am posting - so my best advice is that you do not waste your precious time and talent on such an Odyssey.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 24 2008, 09:24 AM)
Little "g"
Ah, that would explain much!
To Whom ?
What do You know about mother tongue and Dinglish - You probably have very limited ability to decode what I am posting - so my best advice is that you do not waste your precious time and talent on such an Odyssey.
Ah, it's in CODE, is it?
What about my last post, that was sensible, reasonable and refuted your spurious claims without resorting to the kind of emotional drooling your posts are becoming famous for? Rather get all emotional again, eh?
Come on. Post something that makes sense! I really would like to see it, and I'll even 'pos ya' for it!
g.
Ah, that would explain much!
To Whom ?
What do You know about mother tongue and Dinglish - You probably have very limited ability to decode what I am posting - so my best advice is that you do not waste your precious time and talent on such an Odyssey.
Ah, it's in CODE, is it?
What about my last post, that was sensible, reasonable and refuted your spurious claims without resorting to the kind of emotional drooling your posts are becoming famous for? Rather get all emotional again, eh?
Come on. Post something that makes sense! I really would like to see it, and I'll even 'pos ya' for it!
g.
Quote:
"Absolutely wrong.
Motion is inherent in all of existence, thus the physical Universe cannot 'cease to exist'. 'Physical Universe' is just a term Humans use to describe what we 'see', or are able to 'sense'. However, as we gather more information we become more able and efficient at sensing more of what exists. In this way, it is our understanding that 'expands'. Eventually, virtually all of what we sense becomes 'physical'. Once we understand that consciousness must come from a 'physical' source, it too becomes part of the 'physicality' of the Universe.
Also, there is no such thing as 'ideal harmony'. 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to."
As for a change You have managed - or decided - to come up with a decent comment - thank-you
When I say Physical Universe - it is meant to refer to what is being percepted by us humans. Physical Universe is (probably) one out of (infinite) many ways of expressing "Everything"
Physical Universe IS motion - IS dynamic - IS dimensionalities - (and so are humans) - and as such inherent in all of "Physical Existances" - and I see no reason why it cannot cease to exist in that particular expression - in that particular form.
Instead of saying "absolutely wrong" perhaps it would be better to say that we disagree - or alike - because truth is not something "Objective" - not something rock solid - so in order to have a civilized discussion I always advocate not to be too rigoristic and firm in views.
In a sense You express my views in saying that: " 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to." And same goes for infinity - and nothingness - that is constructs necessary in order to operate with "Physical Universe" - it is not a matter whether or not something exist - it is always a matter of HOW -
"Absolutely wrong.
Motion is inherent in all of existence, thus the physical Universe cannot 'cease to exist'. 'Physical Universe' is just a term Humans use to describe what we 'see', or are able to 'sense'. However, as we gather more information we become more able and efficient at sensing more of what exists. In this way, it is our understanding that 'expands'. Eventually, virtually all of what we sense becomes 'physical'. Once we understand that consciousness must come from a 'physical' source, it too becomes part of the 'physicality' of the Universe.
Also, there is no such thing as 'ideal harmony'. 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to."
As for a change You have managed - or decided - to come up with a decent comment - thank-you
When I say Physical Universe - it is meant to refer to what is being percepted by us humans. Physical Universe is (probably) one out of (infinite) many ways of expressing "Everything"
Physical Universe IS motion - IS dynamic - IS dimensionalities - (and so are humans) - and as such inherent in all of "Physical Existances" - and I see no reason why it cannot cease to exist in that particular expression - in that particular form.
Instead of saying "absolutely wrong" perhaps it would be better to say that we disagree - or alike - because truth is not something "Objective" - not something rock solid - so in order to have a civilized discussion I always advocate not to be too rigoristic and firm in views.
In a sense You express my views in saying that: " 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to." And same goes for infinity - and nothingness - that is constructs necessary in order to operate with "Physical Universe" - it is not a matter whether or not something exist - it is always a matter of HOW -
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 24 2008, 09:51 AM)
Quote:
"Absolutely wrong.
Motion is inherent in all of existence, thus the physical Universe cannot 'cease to exist'. 'Physical Universe' is just a term Humans use to describe what we 'see', or are able to 'sense'. However, as we gather more information we become more able and efficient at sensing more of what exists. In this way, it is our understanding that 'expands'. Eventually, virtually all of what we sense becomes 'physical'. Once we understand that consciousness must come from a 'physical' source, it too becomes part of the 'physicality' of the Universe.
Also, there is no such thing as 'ideal harmony'. 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to."
As for a change You have managed - or decided - to come up with a decent comment - thank-you
When I say Physical Universe - it is meant to refer to what is being percepted by us humans. Physical Universe is (probably) one out of (infinite) many ways of expressing "Everything"
Physical Universe IS motion - IS dynamic - IS dimensionalities - (and so are humans) - and as such inherent in all of "Physical Existances" - and I see no reason why it cannot cease to exist in that particular expression - in that particular form.
Instead of saying "absolutely wrong" perhaps it would be better to say that we disagree - or alike - because truth is not something "Objective" - not something rock solid - so in order to have a civilized discussion I always advocate not to be too rigoristic and firm in views.
In a sense You express my views in saying that: " 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to." And same goes for infinity - and nothingness - that is constructs necessary in order to operate with "Physical Universe" - it is not a matter whether or not something exist - it is always a matter of HOW -
Well there you go. So, it's not too difficult is it?
Just a couple of discrepencies...AND PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT ALL SO PERSONALLY! ~ You'll make me turn into NICK!
...Truth at the level we are discussing IS objective. It is only otherwise when you let your personal bias intervene.
...You are still not fully understanding the implications of what Infinite Space actually means, and so you bring the same errors as before with you. Chief of these is the idea of 'nothingness'. 'Nothing' plays no consideration in the proceedings. This is why you are 'absolutely wrong'. 'Nothingness' IS 'absolutely wrong' ~ you have the chance to become absolutely right by correctly understanding HOW existence must necessarily do the things it does ~ aligning your thoughts with the objective Truth of HOW things actually are.
...Infinite Space is not a Human 'ideal'. In the case of WSM, it has been deduced without emotional bias by eliminating that which is in error, and by utilising the 'scientific method'; the language of our time. However, because it IS objective reality, it CAN also be deduced by any 'method' the truth-seeker sees fit, as long as Truth is the guide. This is why ALL hypotheses (without exception) involve an intuition of an 'infinite element' to them, 'gods', 'voids', whatever the name...
To oppose something is NOT to try and understand it. Only when something is understood can we either accept it or reject it. Until that time, we are simply blind, no matter how much we protest otherwise or align ourselves with the 'dogma' of the day, for political reasons.
g.
"Absolutely wrong.
Motion is inherent in all of existence, thus the physical Universe cannot 'cease to exist'. 'Physical Universe' is just a term Humans use to describe what we 'see', or are able to 'sense'. However, as we gather more information we become more able and efficient at sensing more of what exists. In this way, it is our understanding that 'expands'. Eventually, virtually all of what we sense becomes 'physical'. Once we understand that consciousness must come from a 'physical' source, it too becomes part of the 'physicality' of the Universe.
Also, there is no such thing as 'ideal harmony'. 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to."
As for a change You have managed - or decided - to come up with a decent comment - thank-you
When I say Physical Universe - it is meant to refer to what is being percepted by us humans. Physical Universe is (probably) one out of (infinite) many ways of expressing "Everything"
Physical Universe IS motion - IS dynamic - IS dimensionalities - (and so are humans) - and as such inherent in all of "Physical Existances" - and I see no reason why it cannot cease to exist in that particular expression - in that particular form.
Instead of saying "absolutely wrong" perhaps it would be better to say that we disagree - or alike - because truth is not something "Objective" - not something rock solid - so in order to have a civilized discussion I always advocate not to be too rigoristic and firm in views.
In a sense You express my views in saying that: " 'Ideals' are for Humans to wish for, not for Reality to provide just because we want it to." And same goes for infinity - and nothingness - that is constructs necessary in order to operate with "Physical Universe" - it is not a matter whether or not something exist - it is always a matter of HOW -
Well there you go. So, it's not too difficult is it?
Just a couple of discrepencies...AND PLEASE DO NOT TAKE IT ALL SO PERSONALLY! ~ You'll make me turn into NICK!
...Truth at the level we are discussing IS objective. It is only otherwise when you let your personal bias intervene.
...You are still not fully understanding the implications of what Infinite Space actually means, and so you bring the same errors as before with you. Chief of these is the idea of 'nothingness'. 'Nothing' plays no consideration in the proceedings. This is why you are 'absolutely wrong'. 'Nothingness' IS 'absolutely wrong' ~ you have the chance to become absolutely right by correctly understanding HOW existence must necessarily do the things it does ~ aligning your thoughts with the objective Truth of HOW things actually are.
...Infinite Space is not a Human 'ideal'. In the case of WSM, it has been deduced without emotional bias by eliminating that which is in error, and by utilising the 'scientific method'; the language of our time. However, because it IS objective reality, it CAN also be deduced by any 'method' the truth-seeker sees fit, as long as Truth is the guide. This is why ALL hypotheses (without exception) involve an intuition of an 'infinite element' to them, 'gods', 'voids', whatever the name...
To oppose something is NOT to try and understand it. Only when something is understood can we either accept it or reject it. Until that time, we are simply blind, no matter how much we protest otherwise or align ourselves with the 'dogma' of the day, for political reasons.
g.
QUOTE: " However, because it IS objective reality, it CAN also be deduced by any 'method' the truth-seeker sees fit, as long as Truth is the guide."
Thank u for Your opinion - unfortunately I am not a religious person
Z & Match
Thank u for Your opinion - unfortunately I am not a religious person
Z & Match
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 24 2008, 10:43 AM)
QUOTE: " However, because it IS objective reality, it CAN also be deduced by any 'method' the truth-seeker sees fit, as long as Truth is the guide."
Thank u for Your opinion - unfortunately I am not a religious person
Z & Match
And now all you do is make me think i've wasted my time.
Why have you felt the need to mention 'religion'?
g.
Thank u for Your opinion - unfortunately I am not a religious person
Z & Match
And now all you do is make me think i've wasted my time.
Why have you felt the need to mention 'religion'?
g.
[QUOTE]That would be for the same reason as creating an 'infinity' thread just to try to convince people it does not exist! It leaves a 'separate god hypothesis' rather flat and lifeless.
However, it matters not, because a whole new forum is being created for those who wish to actually discuss real things. Real people are all welcome, politician/fundies (religious AND 'scientifc') will not be... Stay tuned.
You people think you are in the age of more controlled propaganda (by parroting the word 'crackpot' ~ ), but without realising that you simply make knowledge of Truth rarer, and thus more valuable ~ so more sought-after. [B]One truth is that we no longer have time for all this cloak and dagger rubbish. It's truth or bust time. The greedy people will rather die than lose their wealth; that's how crazy greed is; self-destructive. If the people who can see this craziness do nothing about it, they are just as compliant.
The idea that infinity does not exist is preposterous. It clearly does as a concept. Whether this corresponds to the physical world we will probably never know.(i.e. Does space go on for ever?). I agree with Gorgeous and congratulate his efforts as an "intellectual policeman".
There are much more pressing issues such as the survival of our species.(e.g This rock has a "used by date" and we are not even close to going anywhere else)
However, it matters not, because a whole new forum is being created for those who wish to actually discuss real things. Real people are all welcome, politician/fundies (religious AND 'scientifc') will not be... Stay tuned.
You people think you are in the age of more controlled propaganda (by parroting the word 'crackpot' ~ ), but without realising that you simply make knowledge of Truth rarer, and thus more valuable ~ so more sought-after. [B]One truth is that we no longer have time for all this cloak and dagger rubbish. It's truth or bust time. The greedy people will rather die than lose their wealth; that's how crazy greed is; self-destructive. If the people who can see this craziness do nothing about it, they are just as compliant.
The idea that infinity does not exist is preposterous. It clearly does as a concept. Whether this corresponds to the physical world we will probably never know.(i.e. Does space go on for ever?). I agree with Gorgeous and congratulate his efforts as an "intellectual policeman".
There are much more pressing issues such as the survival of our species.(e.g This rock has a "used by date" and we are not even close to going anywhere else)
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 24 2008, 10:20 PM)
Civil war??
Your correct about the nastyness, so my question to you would be why are you creating more of it?
Hi Si
That was a direct 'cut and paste' from early Gorgeous. I was wanting to see if she/he recognized their own first realizations within this forum. It's one thing to post for all to see. It's quite another to see only what you want to see , as it seems to be the case with G.
It's also very difficult to answer continual accusations about ulterior motives instead of sticking to the topic.Most of this forum is wasted in such folly. G , try not to forget that when you arrived you were aghast at such goings on and please stick to issues and not personalities. because I'm not here for that.
Still trying to keep it on the level.
Iseason
Your correct about the nastyness, so my question to you would be why are you creating more of it?
Hi Si
That was a direct 'cut and paste' from early Gorgeous. I was wanting to see if she/he recognized their own first realizations within this forum. It's one thing to post for all to see. It's quite another to see only what you want to see , as it seems to be the case with G.
It's also very difficult to answer continual accusations about ulterior motives instead of sticking to the topic.Most of this forum is wasted in such folly. G , try not to forget that when you arrived you were aghast at such goings on and please stick to issues and not personalities. because I'm not here for that.
Still trying to keep it on the level.
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: "Another thing to keep in mind is that the laying or the sequence has an order BUT happened without the usage of a measuring /time/motion component and so hap penned as if all at once."
Perhaps one can say that Time is a derived function of "change / motion" - time is being measured against the relevant change that separate one physical expression from the next following, with due respect for locality.
If the change is very subtle the number of Unit One times are few and the lastingness is short - and vice versa when looking at bigger changes.
Rearrangements of smallest units is being ordered scalewise, so each scale got its local time-ticks, and the rearrangements needed for a bigger change will be made in between the Time Ticks in the bigger scale. This means that a change will never occur in the Time Scale "ticking" in the "Size Scale" that is being observed.
QUOTE: "Another thing to keep in mind is that the laying or the sequence has an order BUT happened without the usage of a measuring /time/motion component and so hap penned as if all at once."
Perhaps one can say that Time is a derived function of "change / motion" - time is being measured against the relevant change that separate one physical expression from the next following, with due respect for locality.
If the change is very subtle the number of Unit One times are few and the lastingness is short - and vice versa when looking at bigger changes.
Rearrangements of smallest units is being ordered scalewise, so each scale got its local time-ticks, and the rearrangements needed for a bigger change will be made in between the Time Ticks in the bigger scale. This means that a change will never occur in the Time Scale "ticking" in the "Size Scale" that is being observed.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 24 2008, 08:21 PM)
Motion is inherent in all of existence, thus the physical Universe cannot 'cease to exist'.
Hi gorgeous,
I was asking (and trying to answer) why and how is motion inherent in all of existance.
Hi gorgeous,
I was asking (and trying to answer) why and how is motion inherent in all of existance.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 25 2008, 08:54 AM)
Perhaps one can say that Time is a derived function of "change / motion" - time is being measured against the relevant change that separate one physical expression from the next following, with due respect for locality.
If the change is very subtle the number of Unit One times are few and the lastingness is short - and vice versa when looking at bigger changes.
Rearrangements of smallest units is being ordered scalewise, so each scale got its local time-ticks, and the rearrangements needed for a bigger change will be made in between the Time Ticks in the bigger scale. This means that a change will never occur in the Time Scale "ticking" in the "Size Scale" that is being observed.
hej bukh,
This rings true. This is what we have been saying all along, just we have added smallest unit of time.
Now I would like to explain in detail the mechanism of jump over infinity which happens when upscaling (or downscaling) . I am almost sure that can not be done with indivisibles alone, as that jump involves infinity of them, and infinity of the next scale structures, etc, etc. It inevitably involves rotation ( or, if downscaling, unrotation) - linearly more (less in downscaling ) lasting appearances of indivisibles.
If the change is very subtle the number of Unit One times are few and the lastingness is short - and vice versa when looking at bigger changes.
Rearrangements of smallest units is being ordered scalewise, so each scale got its local time-ticks, and the rearrangements needed for a bigger change will be made in between the Time Ticks in the bigger scale. This means that a change will never occur in the Time Scale "ticking" in the "Size Scale" that is being observed.
hej bukh,
This rings true. This is what we have been saying all along, just we have added smallest unit of time.
Now I would like to explain in detail the mechanism of jump over infinity which happens when upscaling (or downscaling) . I am almost sure that can not be done with indivisibles alone, as that jump involves infinity of them, and infinity of the next scale structures, etc, etc. It inevitably involves rotation ( or, if downscaling, unrotation) - linearly more (less in downscaling ) lasting appearances of indivisibles.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 24 2008, 09:43 PM)
Unfortunately I am not a religious person
hej bukh
But if you aim for a decent TOE, You have to be able to explain most of religious beliefs.
E.g. If You change the name for the oscillating thought the indivisible is having about own spatial existance to SOUL, and than do some thinking about bigger aggregates of indivisibles, You will arrive easily and logically at:
Anything has soul
Soul may outlast body
Soul may reincarnate in simpler forms
Hell or purgatory ( pure chaotic information space that "boils" the souls down to their primitives, first eliminating all most complex aggregate representations) exist
etc. So religions become not only valid, but also logically explainable. And of course most of them have concentrated on one aspect of reality, while the total picture is somewhat broader, but not totally different. And all religions should be treated with due respect as all has carried a piece of most difficult to find (but not impossible) truth to our days.
I do not like word illusion. Each of such illusions must have an explanation, if it has an explanation , it is not illusion, but real process.
hej bukh
But if you aim for a decent TOE, You have to be able to explain most of religious beliefs.
E.g. If You change the name for the oscillating thought the indivisible is having about own spatial existance to SOUL, and than do some thinking about bigger aggregates of indivisibles, You will arrive easily and logically at:
Anything has soul
Soul may outlast body
Soul may reincarnate in simpler forms
Hell or purgatory ( pure chaotic information space that "boils" the souls down to their primitives, first eliminating all most complex aggregate representations) exist
etc. So religions become not only valid, but also logically explainable. And of course most of them have concentrated on one aspect of reality, while the total picture is somewhat broader, but not totally different. And all religions should be treated with due respect as all has carried a piece of most difficult to find (but not impossible) truth to our days.
I do not like word illusion. Each of such illusions must have an explanation, if it has an explanation , it is not illusion, but real process.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 25 2008, 10:00 PM)
Hi gorgeous,
I was asking (and trying to answer) why and how is motion inherent in all of existance.
hi Ivars, Buhk
Time is not part and parcel , nor is it present in setting the order of occurrence. Time is the result of our relativity, via the number of occurrences we use and the order within the whole that they happen to be found.
If I say "space will be filled in , but not in a way we can perceive. It is because equal space is 'there to be filled no matter when you choose to look'. This equals the same amount of 'filled space being relative to as any time we perceive it. It does not mean the our perceptions are refined enough to separate the number or order they present themselves to us .
The lifespan of a human used x number of occurrences. While the universe actually used x times ten billion occurrences(the numbers is arbitrary). These both fall into the time related measurement that we can concern ourselves.....
But in pure occurrence, other times in the future and past are within the order of occurrences as well and although we did not perceive them they are also part of the math. Since we cannot break from a time cycle to look at a true occurrence cycle, there is no way to see anything other than a time line view.
Cheers
Iseason
I was asking (and trying to answer) why and how is motion inherent in all of existance.
hi Ivars, Buhk
Time is not part and parcel , nor is it present in setting the order of occurrence. Time is the result of our relativity, via the number of occurrences we use and the order within the whole that they happen to be found.
If I say "space will be filled in , but not in a way we can perceive. It is because equal space is 'there to be filled no matter when you choose to look'. This equals the same amount of 'filled space being relative to as any time we perceive it. It does not mean the our perceptions are refined enough to separate the number or order they present themselves to us .
The lifespan of a human used x number of occurrences. While the universe actually used x times ten billion occurrences(the numbers is arbitrary). These both fall into the time related measurement that we can concern ourselves.....
But in pure occurrence, other times in the future and past are within the order of occurrences as well and although we did not perceive them they are also part of the math. Since we cannot break from a time cycle to look at a true occurrence cycle, there is no way to see anything other than a time line view.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 24 2008, 10:00 PM)
Hi gorgeous,
I was asking (and trying to answer) why and how is motion inherent in all of existance.
Ivars first, as you appear to be concerned with a legitimate line of reasoning...
There is no 'why', there is only 'how', and this has been deduced using the modern scientific method, specifically the deductions of Milo Wolff based upon the earlier wave equations of Shroedinger and de Broglie.
You will have to try and understand the necessary properties of what MUST BE the result of there being an Infinite Space as the basis for all existence.
The 'why' of Human questioning pertains to Man's OWN quest to understand himself, and his place within the rest of existence, and NOT the entirety of existence itself. Why is MAN the way he is? ~ Because of HOW existence works...
You can only achieve a plausible answer from an equally plausible question. Thus, if there is no ultimate question of 'why' (existence is what exists - no contradiction) then it is a waste of time to look for an answer that cannot be found.
I was asking (and trying to answer) why and how is motion inherent in all of existance.
Ivars first, as you appear to be concerned with a legitimate line of reasoning...
There is no 'why', there is only 'how', and this has been deduced using the modern scientific method, specifically the deductions of Milo Wolff based upon the earlier wave equations of Shroedinger and de Broglie.
You will have to try and understand the necessary properties of what MUST BE the result of there being an Infinite Space as the basis for all existence.
The 'why' of Human questioning pertains to Man's OWN quest to understand himself, and his place within the rest of existence, and NOT the entirety of existence itself. Why is MAN the way he is? ~ Because of HOW existence works...
You can only achieve a plausible answer from an equally plausible question. Thus, if there is no ultimate question of 'why' (existence is what exists - no contradiction) then it is a waste of time to look for an answer that cannot be found.
QUOTE (neilrowe+)
The idea that infinity does not exist is preposterous. It clearly does as a concept. Whether this corresponds to the physical world we will probably never know.(i.e. Does space go on for ever?). I agree with Gorgeous and congratulate his efforts as an "intellectual policeman".
There are much more pressing issues such as the survival of our species.(e.g This rock has a "used by date" and we are not even close to going anywhere else)
What ever exists ultimately MUST BE Infinite/Eternal. Therefore, it is already 'known', but it is little understood. This is because of previous misconceptions in regards to our fanciful ideas having some kind of merit where none should have been given. 'Nothingness' is an example of an erroneous misconception that has led people of true enquiry away from what is Actual; what exists. 'Space' is the One thing that connects all other 'things', and thus 'Space' is the only candidate for the 'Infinite/Eternal thing'. Infinite Space is deduced, necessarily. It would pay people to just spend a little time trying to understand the basics of how philosophy works. Nothing too 'involved' (same with 'psychology'), but enough to stop themselves wandering down the wrong paths.
And I will thank you not to try and put me in your invented 'intellectual policeman' category. We are all capable of 'policing' ourselves, but must be Honest about it. That is all. When people try to post deliberate mis-information for their own political gains, they are really damaging themselves, but not yet grasping this aspect. A 'wider' version of this can be seen in the way we blindly pollute, thinking someone else will come and clear our mess up, only to realise later that we all have to breathe the same air, and our children (the next wave of ourselves) won't thank us for it. This is as true 'intellectually' for the mind, as it is for us 'physically' via the lungs and stomach.
And yet you are able to log on here, at possibly the most corrupt forum on the internet!!
What are YOU pinning a lot of personal interest and integrity on, bm1957?
You could pm Trout or prometheus and ask them to send you the equations. While you're at it, you could ask them why they don't post the very simple refutations they claim to have, and just stop all of the supposed 'nonsense' here and now? ~ It would be so easy, surely, just to put us all out of our misery?
Also, this thread is concerned with 'Infinity'. As soon as there is firm proof that WSM is wrong, I'm sure there will be queues of 'physicist' eager to start an appropriate thread on the subject.
g.
There are much more pressing issues such as the survival of our species.(e.g This rock has a "used by date" and we are not even close to going anywhere else)
What ever exists ultimately MUST BE Infinite/Eternal. Therefore, it is already 'known', but it is little understood. This is because of previous misconceptions in regards to our fanciful ideas having some kind of merit where none should have been given. 'Nothingness' is an example of an erroneous misconception that has led people of true enquiry away from what is Actual; what exists. 'Space' is the One thing that connects all other 'things', and thus 'Space' is the only candidate for the 'Infinite/Eternal thing'. Infinite Space is deduced, necessarily. It would pay people to just spend a little time trying to understand the basics of how philosophy works. Nothing too 'involved' (same with 'psychology'), but enough to stop themselves wandering down the wrong paths.
And I will thank you not to try and put me in your invented 'intellectual policeman' category. We are all capable of 'policing' ourselves, but must be Honest about it. That is all. When people try to post deliberate mis-information for their own political gains, they are really damaging themselves, but not yet grasping this aspect. A 'wider' version of this can be seen in the way we blindly pollute, thinking someone else will come and clear our mess up, only to realise later that we all have to breathe the same air, and our children (the next wave of ourselves) won't thank us for it. This is as true 'intellectually' for the mind, as it is for us 'physically' via the lungs and stomach.
QUOTE (iseason+)
...please stick to issues and not personalities. because I'm not here for that.
A casual look at recently posted history will determine that you are a lying hypocrite.
Many scared pseudo-politicians seem overly concerned with 'morals' and such, but have no qualms about promoting whole Planetary death instead of true understanding!
bukh,
Why will you not answer the question of why you suddenly started talking about 'religion' when religion was not mentioned?
g.
A casual look at recently posted history will determine that you are a lying hypocrite.
Many scared pseudo-politicians seem overly concerned with 'morals' and such, but have no qualms about promoting whole Planetary death instead of true understanding!
bukh,
Why will you not answer the question of why you suddenly started talking about 'religion' when religion was not mentioned?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 18 2008, 03:39 PM)
Posters such as prometheus (the 'trickster' of greek mythology) declare something 'crackpot' without even reading it, and in so doing also call respected Real physicists like Carver Mead and Erwin Shroedinger 'crackpot'. This exposes just one aspect of how much of an actual 'physicist' they are. Does prometheus need you to ask for him? Is his pc also having the same problems as yours? ~ so, it is up to you supposed 'physicists' to show that you really do know anything about text-book standard wave~equations, and apply them using the Doppler shifts, as mentioned. But you won't be doing it for my benefit, it will be for your own benefit, because you truly want to understand, by elimination or acceptance.
And here, on such a 'forum', anyone could be anyone, regardless of whatever they say. Your understanding is your own, therefore it is for you to search for, so that you appreciate your own powers of deduction instead of relying on others to agree with you, or not. Because it is correct that you should not just 'believe' someone from an internet forum. Even me. ~ Oh, unless of course it is YOU who wishes to turn science into some religion?
Your (collective) excuses are becoming rather sad and pathetic, I'm afraid. This is one of the great discoveries of modern science, so it is just a bit alarming that you seem so disinterested, and would rather concentrate on character assassination of people simply trying to pass on information, and willing to let others decide for themselves.
All of the links work. And you have linked to get here, so it is not the fault of your pc. Here are a few relevant ones...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...y.htm#wsm.maths
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-S...ture-Matter.htm
...at the top of these pages you can navigate to all other sections, being that it has NOT been thrown together by some 'crackpot'. If you are serious enough you will not rest until you have found what you are looking for, just like Milo Wolff (a Real physicist) was. This last page is where the Milo Wolff wave~equations and deductions are.
For my own part, it would be an advancement of my understanding, should anyone be able to prove the WSM wrong, and so would be happy to see such an attempt made. This is also the feeling of people concerned with the WSM itself, being as they are NOT 'crackpots', but Real people who are Really seeking a true understanding of how things necessarily exist. Thus, when proven wrong, they are happy to accept it, unlike those who do things for 'other' reasons.
g.
I'm sure the links do work, but I'll repeat, I can't open them. Unfortunately I can only access the internet at work and a fair number of websites are blocked due to the sensitive nature of my work.
'Standard wave equation' and 'doppler effect' is certainly not enough information for any scientist to develop a theory, otherwise it would have been done long ago. If there are other equations which help to shed light on how this theory is structured, please provide them for me.
It's like saying: "the growth of a tree is easy to model using chaos theory and pythagoras." Be that right or wrong, it's certainly not possible to understand how that might be achieved without a point in the right direction.
So, point me in the right direction. Are there any equations? Or is the basis of this theory "Standard wave equation and doppler"? Because if that's all there is to it, you should stop wasting your time with it.
Come on, throw me a line. I've explained why I can't look at the link, just tell me what equations are in there!
EDIT
I've found another page and all I can find is pictures of standing waves, no quantification of the waves or derivations of the exact form of the waves.
As I can see, it just an idea, with no predictive power and nil falsifiability, which makes it useless. That's not to say that with development it can't be right, but you're pinning a lot of personal interest and integrity on something which is completely unsubstantiated, Gorgeous.
And here, on such a 'forum', anyone could be anyone, regardless of whatever they say. Your understanding is your own, therefore it is for you to search for, so that you appreciate your own powers of deduction instead of relying on others to agree with you, or not. Because it is correct that you should not just 'believe' someone from an internet forum. Even me.
~ Oh, unless of course it is YOU who wishes to turn science into some religion? Your (collective) excuses are becoming rather sad and pathetic, I'm afraid. This is one of the great discoveries of modern science, so it is just a bit alarming that you seem so disinterested, and would rather concentrate on character assassination of people simply trying to pass on information, and willing to let others decide for themselves.
All of the links work. And you have linked to get here, so it is not the fault of your pc. Here are a few relevant ones...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...y.htm#wsm.maths
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-S...ture-Matter.htm
...at the top of these pages you can navigate to all other sections, being that it has NOT been thrown together by some 'crackpot'. If you are serious enough you will not rest until you have found what you are looking for, just like Milo Wolff (a Real physicist) was. This last page is where the Milo Wolff wave~equations and deductions are.
For my own part, it would be an advancement of my understanding, should anyone be able to prove the WSM wrong, and so would be happy to see such an attempt made. This is also the feeling of people concerned with the WSM itself, being as they are NOT 'crackpots', but Real people who are Really seeking a true understanding of how things necessarily exist. Thus, when proven wrong, they are happy to accept it, unlike those who do things for 'other' reasons.
g.
I'm sure the links do work, but I'll repeat, I can't open them. Unfortunately I can only access the internet at work and a fair number of websites are blocked due to the sensitive nature of my work.
'Standard wave equation' and 'doppler effect' is certainly not enough information for any scientist to develop a theory, otherwise it would have been done long ago. If there are other equations which help to shed light on how this theory is structured, please provide them for me.
It's like saying: "the growth of a tree is easy to model using chaos theory and pythagoras." Be that right or wrong, it's certainly not possible to understand how that might be achieved without a point in the right direction.
So, point me in the right direction. Are there any equations? Or is the basis of this theory "Standard wave equation and doppler"? Because if that's all there is to it, you should stop wasting your time with it.
Come on, throw me a line. I've explained why I can't look at the link, just tell me what equations are in there!
EDIT
I've found another page and all I can find is pictures of standing waves, no quantification of the waves or derivations of the exact form of the waves.
As I can see, it just an idea, with no predictive power and nil falsifiability, which makes it useless. That's not to say that with development it can't be right, but you're pinning a lot of personal interest and integrity on something which is completely unsubstantiated, Gorgeous.
QUOTE
Unfortunately I can only access the internet at work and a fair number of websites are blocked due to the sensitive nature of my work.
And yet you are able to log on here, at possibly the most corrupt forum on the internet!!
What are YOU pinning a lot of personal interest and integrity on, bm1957?
You could pm Trout or prometheus and ask them to send you the equations. While you're at it, you could ask them why they don't post the very simple refutations they claim to have, and just stop all of the supposed 'nonsense' here and now? ~ It would be so easy, surely, just to put us all out of our misery?
Also, this thread is concerned with 'Infinity'. As soon as there is firm proof that WSM is wrong, I'm sure there will be queues of 'physicist' eager to start an appropriate thread on the subject.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 25 2008, 04:27 PM)
And yet you are able to log on here, at possibly the most corrupt forum on the internet!!
I have a silent chuckle at the irony every time I log on!!!
Not much, except for being true to one's self and honest with others. I am pretty open-minded, all you need to do is provide a little evidence.
Not much, except for being true to one's self and honest with others. I am pretty open-minded, all you need to do is provide a little evidence.
You could pm Trout or prometheus and ask them to send you the equations.
But I'm having this discussion with you, why should anyone else back up your claims?
Where have they made those claims? Oh, hang on... you're trying to change the subject
So how about those equations?
Seriously, from what I've been able to find, I think you believe the theory is more substantial than Milo Wolff himself would try to profess.
I started this discussion to see if your abuse of Prometheus was well-founded, it appears that it was actually a petty snipe because someone would dare question something you believe in. I expected more from you.
If you can't support a belief, should you really be believing it?
~ I thought you couldn't get through?
~ I thought you couldn't get through?
I have a silent chuckle at the irony every time I log on!!!
Yes, I'm sure you people do.
No, the subject was those pesky wave-equations you claim not to be able to see. The other claims were that Milo Wolff, someone commended by NASA, is a 'crackpot'.
Now, I have to ask, why have YOU interjected on this thread, having contributed nothing to the discussion of the thread topic, and are now seemingly defending people who call Real scientists 'crackpot'? Why should I do anything at all for someone like you? If you had any real credibility you would stop at nothing to find out for yourself, instead of asking people you don't trust to provide information for you.
Perhaps, if you can post your biography and credentials, as I have done for Milo Wolff, you may be worthy of further enlightenment.
Until then, I might suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself.
No, the subject was those pesky wave-equations you claim not to be able to see. The other claims were that Milo Wolff, someone commended by NASA, is a 'crackpot'.
Now, I have to ask, why have YOU interjected on this thread, having contributed nothing to the discussion of the thread topic, and are now seemingly defending people who call Real scientists 'crackpot'? Why should I do anything at all for someone like you? If you had any real credibility you would stop at nothing to find out for yourself, instead of asking people you don't trust to provide information for you.
Perhaps, if you can post your biography and credentials, as I have done for Milo Wolff, you may be worthy of further enlightenment.
Until then, I might suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself.
So how about those equations?
Yeah, I was just wondering how they are coming on? A bit slow you lot, aren't you?
You probably expected the same as I did from someone who calls himself a 'physicist' and then claims that people with commendations from NASA are 'crackpot'!
g.
Don't they just!
g.
~ I thought you couldn't get through?
I'm able to use google and wiki, but they didn't throw much up, which speaks volumes in my opinion.
Care to explain what you mean by that? Sounds like a snide ad-hominem to me.
Care to explain what you mean by that? Sounds like a snide ad-hominem to me.
No, the subject was those pesky wave-equations you claim not to be able to see. The other claims were that Milo Wolff, someone commended by NASA, is a 'crackpot'.
Yes, and you claimed that some had claimed 'to have simple refutations', which at the time no-one had, which makes you a liar. Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise.
I'm afraid that's just conjecture and opinion. I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet).
I'm afraid that's just conjecture and opinion. I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet).
Why should I do anything at all for someone like you?
Someone like me? You have quite a vicious tongue, don't you missy?
Do you stop at nothing to find out if Farsight's theory is correct? No. Does that lose you credibility? No. You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you?
Do you stop at nothing to find out if Farsight's theory is correct? No. Does that lose you credibility? No. You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you?
Perhaps, if you can post your biography and credentials, as I have done for Milo Wolff, you may be worthy of further enlightenment.
Enlightenment? Sounds like you're trying to start a cult!
I have at no point denied his credentials or called him a crackpot. I have simply asked for you to provide in a link which I couldn't open. All you've done is been defensive and abusive. If you could get off your high horse perhaps you'd be worthy of a little respect.
You're coming across like one of those old woman who wander along the road cackling to themselves and moaning at the world, so that statement is a little ironic.
I have a silent chuckle at the irony every time I log on!!!
QUOTE
What are YOU pinning a lot of personal interest and integrity on, bm1957?
Not much, except for being true to one's self and honest with others. I am pretty open-minded, all you need to do is provide a little evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What are YOU pinning a lot of personal interest and integrity on, bm1957? |
Not much, except for being true to one's self and honest with others. I am pretty open-minded, all you need to do is provide a little evidence.
You could pm Trout or prometheus and ask them to send you the equations.
But I'm having this discussion with you, why should anyone else back up your claims?
QUOTE
While you're at it, you could ask them why they don't post the very simple refutations they claim to have
Where have they made those claims? Oh, hang on... you're trying to change the subject
So how about those equations?
Seriously, from what I've been able to find, I think you believe the theory is more substantial than Milo Wolff himself would try to profess.
I started this discussion to see if your abuse of Prometheus was well-founded, it appears that it was actually a petty snipe because someone would dare question something you believe in. I expected more from you.
If you can't support a belief, should you really be believing it?
QUOTE
Seriously, from what I've been able to find, I think you believe the theory is more substantial than Milo Wolff himself would try to profess.
~ I thought you couldn't get through? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Seriously, from what I've been able to find, I think you believe the theory is more substantial than Milo Wolff himself would try to profess. |
~ I thought you couldn't get through? I have a silent chuckle at the irony every time I log on!!!
Yes, I'm sure you people do.
QUOTE
Where have they made those claims? Oh, hang on... you're trying to change the subject
No, the subject was those pesky wave-equations you claim not to be able to see. The other claims were that Milo Wolff, someone commended by NASA, is a 'crackpot'.
Now, I have to ask, why have YOU interjected on this thread, having contributed nothing to the discussion of the thread topic, and are now seemingly defending people who call Real scientists 'crackpot'? Why should I do anything at all for someone like you? If you had any real credibility you would stop at nothing to find out for yourself, instead of asking people you don't trust to provide information for you.
Perhaps, if you can post your biography and credentials, as I have done for Milo Wolff, you may be worthy of further enlightenment.
Until then, I might suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where have they made those claims? Oh, hang on... you're trying to change the subject |
No, the subject was those pesky wave-equations you claim not to be able to see. The other claims were that Milo Wolff, someone commended by NASA, is a 'crackpot'.
Now, I have to ask, why have YOU interjected on this thread, having contributed nothing to the discussion of the thread topic, and are now seemingly defending people who call Real scientists 'crackpot'? Why should I do anything at all for someone like you? If you had any real credibility you would stop at nothing to find out for yourself, instead of asking people you don't trust to provide information for you.
Perhaps, if you can post your biography and credentials, as I have done for Milo Wolff, you may be worthy of further enlightenment.
Until then, I might suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself.
So how about those equations?
Yeah, I was just wondering how they are coming on? A bit slow you lot, aren't you?
QUOTE
I started this discussion to see if your abuse of Prometheus was well-founded, it appears that it was actually a petty snipe because someone would dare question something you believe in. I expected more from you.
You probably expected the same as I did from someone who calls himself a 'physicist' and then claims that people with commendations from NASA are 'crackpot'!
g.
Ivars
QUOTE: "QUOTE (bukh @ Jun 24 2008, 09:43 PM)
Unfortunately I am not a religious person
hej bukh
But if you aim for a decent TOE, You have to be able to explain most of religious beliefs."
I would like to be an agnostic.
Sometimes I react a bit negative towards those people who believe that they owe the truth, because that has a bearing to religion - and religion (according to my understanding of the word) tends to be narrow-minded, favouring specific ways of thinking according to dogma, and being strongly antagonistic towards all other alternative ways of thinking.
An agnostic - should be open minded and see everything in its true multiplicity - trying to get an understanding of this very act of being - and rightly including all such things as soul, reincarnation and hell. Accepting and rejecting at the same time all formal religious ideas. Any and all religious ideas can be absorbed in a true agnostic mind. No besserwissen.
QUOTE: "QUOTE (bukh @ Jun 24 2008, 09:43 PM)
Unfortunately I am not a religious person
hej bukh
But if you aim for a decent TOE, You have to be able to explain most of religious beliefs."
I would like to be an agnostic.
Sometimes I react a bit negative towards those people who believe that they owe the truth, because that has a bearing to religion - and religion (according to my understanding of the word) tends to be narrow-minded, favouring specific ways of thinking according to dogma, and being strongly antagonistic towards all other alternative ways of thinking.
An agnostic - should be open minded and see everything in its true multiplicity - trying to get an understanding of this very act of being - and rightly including all such things as soul, reincarnation and hell. Accepting and rejecting at the same time all formal religious ideas. Any and all religious ideas can be absorbed in a true agnostic mind. No besserwissen.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 25 2008, 07:09 AM)
Ivars
QUOTE: "QUOTE (bukh @ Jun 24 2008, 09:43 PM)
Unfortunately I am not a religious person
hej bukh
But if you aim for a decent TOE, You have to be able to explain most of religious beliefs."
I would like to be an agnostic.
Sometimes I react a bit negative towards those people who believe that they owe the truth, because that has a bearing to religion - and religion (according to my understanding of the word) tends to be narrow-minded, favouring specific ways of thinking according to dogma, and being strongly antagonistic towards all other alternative ways of thinking.
An agnostic - should be open minded and see everything in its true multiplicity - trying to get an understanding of this very act of being - and rightly including all such things as soul, reincarnation and hell. Accepting and rejecting at the same time all formal religious ideas. Any and all religious ideas can be absorbed in a true agnostic mind. No besserwissen.
Well, at last I can entirely agree with you!
Which is why I question those who mis-interpret my work as 'religious'. I have never claimed to 'own' the Truth. I have stated time and again that Truth is everywhere, and that it is just a matter of people becoming more receptive to it. Thus, it is accessible to everyone. But this is nothing new. Many older beliefs (Eastern) also state the same thing.
"It is more correct to say that Truth is God, than God is Truth." - M. K. Gandhi
Yes, we must try to understand, and not blindly reject. When we Truly understand, then is the time for a decision of such importance.
g.
QUOTE: "QUOTE (bukh @ Jun 24 2008, 09:43 PM)
Unfortunately I am not a religious person
hej bukh
But if you aim for a decent TOE, You have to be able to explain most of religious beliefs."
I would like to be an agnostic.
Sometimes I react a bit negative towards those people who believe that they owe the truth, because that has a bearing to religion - and religion (according to my understanding of the word) tends to be narrow-minded, favouring specific ways of thinking according to dogma, and being strongly antagonistic towards all other alternative ways of thinking.
An agnostic - should be open minded and see everything in its true multiplicity - trying to get an understanding of this very act of being - and rightly including all such things as soul, reincarnation and hell. Accepting and rejecting at the same time all formal religious ideas. Any and all religious ideas can be absorbed in a true agnostic mind. No besserwissen.
Well, at last I can entirely agree with you!
Which is why I question those who mis-interpret my work as 'religious'. I have never claimed to 'own' the Truth. I have stated time and again that Truth is everywhere, and that it is just a matter of people becoming more receptive to it. Thus, it is accessible to everyone. But this is nothing new. Many older beliefs (Eastern) also state the same thing.
"It is more correct to say that Truth is God, than God is Truth." - M. K. Gandhi
Yes, we must try to understand, and not blindly reject. When we Truly understand, then is the time for a decision of such importance.
g.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "Now I would like to explain in detail the mechanism of jump over infinity which happens when upscaling (or downscaling) . I am almost sure that can not be done with indivisibles alone, as that jump involves infinity of them, and infinity of the next scale structures, etc, etc. It inevitably involves rotation ( or, if downscaling, unrotation) - linearly more (less in downscaling ) lasting appearances of indivisibles."
Yes - that is exactly the trick - that the phase transistion being involved in any downscaling IS this transformation of a potential INFINITE number of non-physical informational bits into lasting smallest PHYSICAL "things" -
There is a translation from non-physical (no lastingness - no repetition) and into physical (lastingness - repetition) -
There will always be an infinite number of non-physicals available - and it will end up in a finite number of physicals - in any scale.
Infinity is related to dimension - and physical is related to number and ratios and orderly arrangements in a 3D dimensional space.
Infinity and continuity is belonging - so to speak - to the non-physical world - finiteness and discreteness is the physical world.
And at each phase-transistion there will be formed a new generation of smallest things - and dimensionalities can be constructed with even higher accuratesse and complexion - so as to be arranged in even more fancy expressions and still fulfilling the requirement to no void (or very little void).
QUOTE: "Now I would like to explain in detail the mechanism of jump over infinity which happens when upscaling (or downscaling) . I am almost sure that can not be done with indivisibles alone, as that jump involves infinity of them, and infinity of the next scale structures, etc, etc. It inevitably involves rotation ( or, if downscaling, unrotation) - linearly more (less in downscaling ) lasting appearances of indivisibles."
Yes - that is exactly the trick - that the phase transistion being involved in any downscaling IS this transformation of a potential INFINITE number of non-physical informational bits into lasting smallest PHYSICAL "things" -
There is a translation from non-physical (no lastingness - no repetition) and into physical (lastingness - repetition) -
There will always be an infinite number of non-physicals available - and it will end up in a finite number of physicals - in any scale.
Infinity is related to dimension - and physical is related to number and ratios and orderly arrangements in a 3D dimensional space.
Infinity and continuity is belonging - so to speak - to the non-physical world - finiteness and discreteness is the physical world.
And at each phase-transistion there will be formed a new generation of smallest things - and dimensionalities can be constructed with even higher accuratesse and complexion - so as to be arranged in even more fancy expressions and still fulfilling the requirement to no void (or very little void).
Hej iseason
QUOTE: "Time is not part and parcel , nor is it present in setting the order of occurrence. Time is the result of our relativity, via the number of occurrences we use and the order within the whole that they happen to be found.
If I say "space will be filled in , but not in a way we can perceive. It is because equal space is 'there to be filled no matter when you choose to look'. This equals the same amount of 'filled space being relative to as any time we perceive it. It does not mean the our perceptions are refined enough to separate the number or order they present themselves to us .
The lifespan of a human used x number of occurrences. While the universe actually used x times ten billion occurrences(the numbers is arbitrary). These both fall into the time related measurement that we can concern ourselves.....
But in pure occurrence, other times in the future and past are within the order of occurrences as well and although we did not perceive them they are also part of the math. Since we cannot break from a time cycle to look at a true occurrence cycle, there is no way to see anything other than a time line view."
I think that Ivars - You and I see time in a very similar manner.
Time is the result of our relativity - Yes - time IS a derived function - and secondary to occurences - it it not time that governs anything -
Let me put it in this way: Information is Everything - and information can express itsself in many different ways - and one way of exporessing itsself is in the form of the PHYSICAL Universe.
And Time is about how information percepts information.
Physical Universe is any expression being characterized by cinematographically ever changing dimensional configurations in 3D space. We humans are part of this world - and we are composed of the very same stuff. And in order for changes to be percepted there must be a "perceptor" - and there must be an Interference between perceptor and the stuff to be percepted. And the interference must be made conscious.
I would like to think that the Perceptor (in this case Homo Sapiens) must be a more complex informational construct than the informational object to be percepted. We humans will never be able to percept smallest changes (and probably not even near to smallest) - but we may be able to think how the system works.
And rightly You say that we cannot break from our time cycle - or our locality - but we can imagine how the time line must work - and we can (sense) the time-line that is working during our physical existance.
QUOTE: "Time is not part and parcel , nor is it present in setting the order of occurrence. Time is the result of our relativity, via the number of occurrences we use and the order within the whole that they happen to be found.
If I say "space will be filled in , but not in a way we can perceive. It is because equal space is 'there to be filled no matter when you choose to look'. This equals the same amount of 'filled space being relative to as any time we perceive it. It does not mean the our perceptions are refined enough to separate the number or order they present themselves to us .
The lifespan of a human used x number of occurrences. While the universe actually used x times ten billion occurrences(the numbers is arbitrary). These both fall into the time related measurement that we can concern ourselves.....
But in pure occurrence, other times in the future and past are within the order of occurrences as well and although we did not perceive them they are also part of the math. Since we cannot break from a time cycle to look at a true occurrence cycle, there is no way to see anything other than a time line view."
I think that Ivars - You and I see time in a very similar manner.
Time is the result of our relativity - Yes - time IS a derived function - and secondary to occurences - it it not time that governs anything -
Let me put it in this way: Information is Everything - and information can express itsself in many different ways - and one way of exporessing itsself is in the form of the PHYSICAL Universe.
And Time is about how information percepts information.
Physical Universe is any expression being characterized by cinematographically ever changing dimensional configurations in 3D space. We humans are part of this world - and we are composed of the very same stuff. And in order for changes to be percepted there must be a "perceptor" - and there must be an Interference between perceptor and the stuff to be percepted. And the interference must be made conscious.
I would like to think that the Perceptor (in this case Homo Sapiens) must be a more complex informational construct than the informational object to be percepted. We humans will never be able to percept smallest changes (and probably not even near to smallest) - but we may be able to think how the system works.
And rightly You say that we cannot break from our time cycle - or our locality - but we can imagine how the time line must work - and we can (sense) the time-line that is working during our physical existance.
Hi Buhk
the similarities between relativity are mightier than Einstein's theory allowed. this was because he added the time component to compensate. had he remained true , the energy would be spread across the time line and not the other way around.
A 'homo sapiens', we have x mass. Over seventy odd years we use x times seventy years. This would be a time line measurement.
In occurrence , we used the same number of occurrences, but equally spread over the breadth of time.This is because "actual mass" only becomes perceptible in the final "pass" . This is as true for events at the beginning of the universe(as measured by a time line)..........It's like having all the parts of a car assembled but no gas . and then everybody gets gas in a given sequence.
Cheers
Iseason
the similarities between relativity are mightier than Einstein's theory allowed. this was because he added the time component to compensate. had he remained true , the energy would be spread across the time line and not the other way around.
A 'homo sapiens', we have x mass. Over seventy odd years we use x times seventy years. This would be a time line measurement.
In occurrence , we used the same number of occurrences, but equally spread over the breadth of time.This is because "actual mass" only becomes perceptible in the final "pass" . This is as true for events at the beginning of the universe(as measured by a time line)..........It's like having all the parts of a car assembled but no gas . and then everybody gets gas in a given sequence.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
and then everybody gets gas in a given sequence.
Don't they just!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 25 2008, 05:27 PM)
~ I thought you couldn't get through? I'm able to use google and wiki, but they didn't throw much up, which speaks volumes in my opinion.
QUOTE
Yes, I'm sure you people do.
Care to explain what you mean by that? Sounds like a snide ad-hominem to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, I'm sure you people do. |
Care to explain what you mean by that? Sounds like a snide ad-hominem to me.
No, the subject was those pesky wave-equations you claim not to be able to see. The other claims were that Milo Wolff, someone commended by NASA, is a 'crackpot'.
Yes, and you claimed that some had claimed 'to have simple refutations', which at the time no-one had, which makes you a liar. Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise.
QUOTE
Now, I have to ask, why have YOU interjected on this thread, having contributed nothing to the discussion of the thread topic, and are now seemingly defending people who call Real scientists 'crackpot'?
I'm afraid that's just conjecture and opinion. I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, I have to ask, why have YOU interjected on this thread, having contributed nothing to the discussion of the thread topic, and are now seemingly defending people who call Real scientists 'crackpot'? |
I'm afraid that's just conjecture and opinion. I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet).
Why should I do anything at all for someone like you?
Someone like me? You have quite a vicious tongue, don't you missy?
QUOTE
If you had any real credibility you would stop at nothing to find out for yourself, instead of asking people you don't trust to provide information for you.
Do you stop at nothing to find out if Farsight's theory is correct? No. Does that lose you credibility? No. You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you had any real credibility you would stop at nothing to find out for yourself, instead of asking people you don't trust to provide information for you. |
Do you stop at nothing to find out if Farsight's theory is correct? No. Does that lose you credibility? No. You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you?
Perhaps, if you can post your biography and credentials, as I have done for Milo Wolff, you may be worthy of further enlightenment.
Enlightenment? Sounds like you're trying to start a cult!
I have at no point denied his credentials or called him a crackpot. I have simply asked for you to provide in a link which I couldn't open. All you've done is been defensive and abusive. If you could get off your high horse perhaps you'd be worthy of a little respect.
QUOTE
Until then, I might suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself.
You're coming across like one of those old woman who wander along the road cackling to themselves and moaning at the world, so that statement is a little ironic.
QUOTE (bm1957+Jun 25 2008, 11:23 PM)
I'm able to use google and wiki, but they didn't throw much up, which speaks volumes in my opinion.
Care to explain what you mean by that? Sounds like a snide ad-hominem to me.
Yes, and you claimed that some had claimed 'to have simple refutations', which at the time no-one had, which makes you a liar. Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise.
I'm afraid that's just conjecture and opinion. I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet).
Someone like me? You have quite a vicious tongue, don't you missy?
Do you stop at nothing to find out if Farsight's theory is correct? No. Does that lose you credibility? No. You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you?
Enlightenment? Sounds like you're trying to start a cult!
I have at no point denied his credentials or called him a crackpot. I have simply asked for you to provide in a link which I couldn't open. All you've done is been defensive and abusive. If you could get off your high horse perhaps you'd be worthy of a little respect.
You're coming across like one of those old woman who wander along the road cackling to themselves and moaning at the world, so that statement is a little ironic.
I take it you do not read your own posts?
Anything at all to contribute to the thread topic?
I take it you do not read your own posts?
Anything at all to contribute to the thread topic?
I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet). [Laughter inserted by myself]
I have at no point denied his credentials or called him a crackpot.
I enjoyed this bit!
g.
Care to explain what you mean by that? Sounds like a snide ad-hominem to me.
Yes, and you claimed that some had claimed 'to have simple refutations', which at the time no-one had, which makes you a liar. Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologise.
I'm afraid that's just conjecture and opinion. I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet).
Someone like me? You have quite a vicious tongue, don't you missy?
Do you stop at nothing to find out if Farsight's theory is correct? No. Does that lose you credibility? No. You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you?
Enlightenment? Sounds like you're trying to start a cult!
I have at no point denied his credentials or called him a crackpot. I have simply asked for you to provide in a link which I couldn't open. All you've done is been defensive and abusive. If you could get off your high horse perhaps you'd be worthy of a little respect.
You're coming across like one of those old woman who wander along the road cackling to themselves and moaning at the world, so that statement is a little ironic.
QUOTE
You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you?
I take it you do not read your own posts?
Anything at all to contribute to the thread topic?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You realise that your statements are becoming inane rants, don't you? |
I take it you do not read your own posts?
Anything at all to contribute to the thread topic?
I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet).
[Laughter inserted by myself]I have at no point denied his credentials or called him a crackpot.
I enjoyed this bit!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 26 2008, 11:48 AM)
I take it you do not read your own posts?
Definition, (Inane):
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
I may have been ranting, but the fact that I used argument meant it wasn't inane. Your post was inane because it contained nothing of any value to your position, just like the one I'm replying to now.
You mean, you never understood it? The use of 'could' and 'would' makes the sentence conditional (only true under certain circumstances). My statement that I haven't formed an opinion of whether he is a crackpot or not (regardless of what you may believe) clarifies that the sentence is not strictly true, but merely used as a tool to illustrate that you calling him a true scientist doesn't necessarily make it so.
I may be off-topic, but you've completely lost the plot!
Definition, (Inane):
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
Write your own dictionaries, do you?
Please provide a link to wherever the above definition came from.
I have a very large garden fork you can borrow, if you like?
g.
Definition, (Inane):
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
Write your own dictionaries, do you?
Please provide a link to wherever the above definition came from.
See how easy it can be to provide information for someone when they ask for it?
Funny how you need me to find a definition for you when you could have easily found it yourself and not looked quite so silly, but you refused to post an equation which would have kept me quiet after 1 post in this dialogue.
I guess it's not quite so easy to provide information if it doesn't exist, then you have to start making yourself look silly supporting an unsupportable statement. Wind your neck back in, G, let's leave this one here.
I have a very large tool myself thanks, but I'm assuming you wouldn't even know what to do with it.
See how easy it can be to provide information for someone when they ask for it?
Yes I do. Thank you. And now I must apologise for disbelieving you!
However, please note that the concepts of 'void' and 'empty space' are currently in dispute.
Is that not exactly what you did? ~ And I think you well know that the equations in question are currently being posted on this thread. Anyway, I'm glad you got your connection back. Now you can visit the spaceandmotion site for yourself. You'll love it; there's loads of stuff in there for a discerning mind like yours!
Is that not exactly what you did? ~ And I think you well know that the equations in question are currently being posted on this thread. Anyway, I'm glad you got your connection back. Now you can visit the spaceandmotion site for yourself. You'll love it; there's loads of stuff in there for a discerning mind like yours!
I guess it's not quite so easy to provide information if it doesn't exist, then you have to start making yourself look silly supporting an unsupportable statement. Wind your neck back in, G, let's leave this one here.
Please see above, but before you do that, perhaps you can tell me where the evidence that you have for a 'void' can be found?.
Well, we all assume things from time to time, don't we? Let's just say you're lucky I'm vegetarian!
g.
Definition, (Inane):
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
I may have been ranting, but the fact that I used argument meant it wasn't inane. Your post was inane because it contained nothing of any value to your position, just like the one I'm replying to now.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I could ask you why you are defending a 'crackpot', but that would just be my opinion (not that I've been able to form a proper opinion yet). [Laughter inserted by myself] I have at no point denied his credentials or called him a crackpot. I enjoyed this bit! |
You mean, you never understood it? The use of 'could' and 'would' makes the sentence conditional (only true under certain circumstances). My statement that I haven't formed an opinion of whether he is a crackpot or not (regardless of what you may believe) clarifies that the sentence is not strictly true, but merely used as a tool to illustrate that you calling him a true scientist doesn't necessarily make it so.
I may be off-topic, but you've completely lost the plot!
QUOTE (bm1957
Posted: Today at 12:09 AM+)
Posted: Today at 12:09 AM+)
Definition, (Inane):
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
Write your own dictionaries, do you?
Please provide a link to wherever the above definition came from.
QUOTE
You mean, you never understood it? The use of 'could' and 'would' makes the sentence conditional (only true under certain circumstances). My statement that I haven't formed an opinion of whether he is a crackpot or not (regardless of what you may believe) clarifies that the sentence is not strictly true, but merely used as a tool to illustrate that you calling him a true scientist doesn't necessarily make it so.
I have a very large garden fork you can borrow, if you like?
g.
Hi Gorgeous
I was thinking what I like about Milo Wolf's ideas and suddenly realized it was his assumption that de broglies waves can turn around at "singularity". Actually, at least partly, this leads to the same conclusions I achieved via thining about rotation of oscillating indvisibles.
I mean, if the in and out space (de broglie, I presume) waves cancel each other in phase exactly,at each point of space, that means nothing exists there EXCEPT the paths the waves have taken ( could have taken in Feynmans interpretation) - which equal the infinite number of rotation axis via center of Universe I I was deriving using indivisibles. ALL waves of all wavelengths would cancel at each point, but SO(3) symmetry groups will remain. So Potential space where there are no waves , no interferences, no electrons etc would again have projecting rays with inherent "will" to rotation- but from each "place of indivisible" of 3D space.
Interesting, as that also would define at least part of the 3 D simmetry of pure space- infintie number of rotation axis via each indivisible ( points do not exist permanently in my geometry as they must oscillate in and out of spatial existance which probably is also a solution to Milo Wolfs approach, it should show up as Fourier sum of all possible in-out waves when their phases are cancelled) and infinite number of infinite spherical shells defining each wavelength including transfinite wave lengths (scaled infinities) ones.
Now, if that can somehow be true, than the passage from hidden variables to Standard theory would be relatively easy via these simmetries.
SU(2) is a double covering (topological?) for SO(3) via kernel [I; -I} - imaginary unit. I would love to understand what kernel means in simple words and why it is (I,-I)? Can someone help?
I was thinking what I like about Milo Wolf's ideas and suddenly realized it was his assumption that de broglies waves can turn around at "singularity". Actually, at least partly, this leads to the same conclusions I achieved via thining about rotation of oscillating indvisibles.
I mean, if the in and out space (de broglie, I presume) waves cancel each other in phase exactly,at each point of space, that means nothing exists there EXCEPT the paths the waves have taken ( could have taken in Feynmans interpretation) - which equal the infinite number of rotation axis via center of Universe I I was deriving using indivisibles. ALL waves of all wavelengths would cancel at each point, but SO(3) symmetry groups will remain. So Potential space where there are no waves , no interferences, no electrons etc would again have projecting rays with inherent "will" to rotation- but from each "place of indivisible" of 3D space.
Interesting, as that also would define at least part of the 3 D simmetry of pure space- infintie number of rotation axis via each indivisible ( points do not exist permanently in my geometry as they must oscillate in and out of spatial existance which probably is also a solution to Milo Wolfs approach, it should show up as Fourier sum of all possible in-out waves when their phases are cancelled) and infinite number of infinite spherical shells defining each wavelength including transfinite wave lengths (scaled infinities) ones.
Now, if that can somehow be true, than the passage from hidden variables to Standard theory would be relatively easy via these simmetries.
SU(2) is a double covering (topological?) for SO(3) via kernel [I; -I} - imaginary unit. I would love to understand what kernel means in simple words and why it is (I,-I)? Can someone help?
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 26 2008, 12:45 AM)
Hi Gorgeous
I was thinking what I like about Milo Wolf's ideas and suddenly realized it was his assumption that de broglies waves can turn around at "singularity". Actually, at least partly, this leads to the same conclusions I achieved via thining about rotation of oscillating indvisibles.
I mean, if the in and out space (de broglie, I presume) waves cancel each other in phase exactly,at each point of space, that means nothing exists there EXCEPT the paths the waves have taken ( could have taken in Feynmans interpretation) - which equal the infinite number of rotation axis via center of Universe I I was deriving using indivisibles. ALL waves of all wavelengths would cancel at each point, but SO(3) symmetry groups will remain. So Potential space where there are no waves , no interferences, no electrons etc would again have projecting rays with inherent "will" to rotation- but from each "place of indivisible" of 3D space.
Interesting, as that also would define at least part of the 3 D simmetry of pure space- infintie number of rotation axis via each indivisible ( points do not exist permanently in my geometry as they must oscillate in and out of spatial existance which probably is also a solution to Milo Wolfs approach, it should show up as Fourier sum of all possible in-out waves when their phases are cancelled) and infinite number of infinite spherical shells defining each wavelength including transfinite wave lengths (scaled infinities) ones.
Now, if that can somehow be true, than the passage from hidden variables to Standard theory would be relatively easy via these simmetries.
SU(2) is a double covering (topological?) for SO(3) via kernel [I; -I} - imaginary unit. I would love to understand what kernel means in simple words and why it is (I,-I)? Can someone help?
Ivars,
You are not so far away from understanding it, but you will need to delve into other forms of understanding, so that things 'tie up', so to speak.
Instead of terms such as 'cancelling each other out', try to turn these erroneous past assumptions on their head and see if there are other explanations. For instance, the above also means that they compliment each other; that they interact harmoniously. In 'cancelling each other out', this suggests that 'nothing' is left, where in 'complimentarity' it does not; there remains the One thing that is interconnected, agrees with our observations, and is thus a more plausible explanation of how things actually exist..
g.
I was thinking what I like about Milo Wolf's ideas and suddenly realized it was his assumption that de broglies waves can turn around at "singularity". Actually, at least partly, this leads to the same conclusions I achieved via thining about rotation of oscillating indvisibles.
I mean, if the in and out space (de broglie, I presume) waves cancel each other in phase exactly,at each point of space, that means nothing exists there EXCEPT the paths the waves have taken ( could have taken in Feynmans interpretation) - which equal the infinite number of rotation axis via center of Universe I I was deriving using indivisibles. ALL waves of all wavelengths would cancel at each point, but SO(3) symmetry groups will remain. So Potential space where there are no waves , no interferences, no electrons etc would again have projecting rays with inherent "will" to rotation- but from each "place of indivisible" of 3D space.
Interesting, as that also would define at least part of the 3 D simmetry of pure space- infintie number of rotation axis via each indivisible ( points do not exist permanently in my geometry as they must oscillate in and out of spatial existance which probably is also a solution to Milo Wolfs approach, it should show up as Fourier sum of all possible in-out waves when their phases are cancelled) and infinite number of infinite spherical shells defining each wavelength including transfinite wave lengths (scaled infinities) ones.
Now, if that can somehow be true, than the passage from hidden variables to Standard theory would be relatively easy via these simmetries.
SU(2) is a double covering (topological?) for SO(3) via kernel [I; -I} - imaginary unit. I would love to understand what kernel means in simple words and why it is (I,-I)? Can someone help?
Ivars,
You are not so far away from understanding it, but you will need to delve into other forms of understanding, so that things 'tie up', so to speak.
Instead of terms such as 'cancelling each other out', try to turn these erroneous past assumptions on their head and see if there are other explanations. For instance, the above also means that they compliment each other; that they interact harmoniously. In 'cancelling each other out', this suggests that 'nothing' is left, where in 'complimentarity' it does not; there remains the One thing that is interconnected, agrees with our observations, and is thus a more plausible explanation of how things actually exist..
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 26 2008, 12:37 PM)
QUOTE (bm1957
Posted: Today at 12:09 AM+)
Posted: Today at 12:09 AM+)
Definition, (Inane):
1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
Write your own dictionaries, do you?
Please provide a link to wherever the above definition came from.
See how easy it can be to provide information for someone when they ask for it?
Funny how you need me to find a definition for you when you could have easily found it yourself and not looked quite so silly, but you refused to post an equation which would have kept me quiet after 1 post in this dialogue.
I guess it's not quite so easy to provide information if it doesn't exist, then you have to start making yourself look silly supporting an unsupportable statement. Wind your neck back in, G, let's leave this one here.
QUOTE
I have a very large garden fork you can borrow, if you like?
I have a very large tool myself thanks, but I'm assuming you wouldn't even know what to do with it.
QUOTE (bm1957+Jun 26 2008, 03:11 AM)
See how easy it can be to provide information for someone when they ask for it?
Yes I do. Thank you. And now I must apologise for disbelieving you!
However, please note that the concepts of 'void' and 'empty space' are currently in dispute.
QUOTE
Funny how you need me to find a definition for you when you could have easily found it yourself and not looked quite so silly, but you refused to post an equation which would have kept me quiet after 1 post in this dialogue.
Is that not exactly what you did? ~ And I think you well know that the equations in question are currently being posted on this thread. Anyway, I'm glad you got your connection back. Now you can visit the spaceandmotion site for yourself. You'll love it; there's loads of stuff in there for a discerning mind like yours!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Funny how you need me to find a definition for you when you could have easily found it yourself and not looked quite so silly, but you refused to post an equation which would have kept me quiet after 1 post in this dialogue. |
Is that not exactly what you did? ~ And I think you well know that the equations in question are currently being posted on this thread. Anyway, I'm glad you got your connection back. Now you can visit the spaceandmotion site for yourself. You'll love it; there's loads of stuff in there for a discerning mind like yours!
I guess it's not quite so easy to provide information if it doesn't exist, then you have to start making yourself look silly supporting an unsupportable statement. Wind your neck back in, G, let's leave this one here.
Please see above, but before you do that, perhaps you can tell me where the evidence that you have for a 'void' can be found?.
QUOTE
I have a very large tool myself thanks, but I'm assuming you wouldn't even know what to do with it.
Well, we all assume things from time to time, don't we? Let's just say you're lucky I'm vegetarian!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 26 2008, 06:45 PM)
However, please note that the concepts of 'void' and 'empty space' are currently in dispute.
Please note how a dictionary works; a word can have a number of different definitions. It should be obvious that I was using the word with the definition #1 proivided above. This does not make implications about my thoughts on any of the other definitions, in particular, it does mean that I am necessarily endorsing that a void exists.
Yes. The point being that I did not have a problem providing you with the information (even though you implied that my claim was false), but you got abusive and defensive when I asked you to back up claims with information.
Yes. The point being that I did not have a problem providing you with the information (even though you implied that my claim was false), but you got abusive and defensive when I asked you to back up claims with information.
And I think you well know that the equations in question are currently being posted on this thread.
Yes, and I think you well know that I asked before they were posted there, and I am no longer asking for the information now I've seen it!
I'll explain again... I never lost any connection, my workplace blocks that website for some reason. I will however look at it when I get a chance from another connection.
I'll explain again... I never lost any connection, my workplace blocks that website for some reason. I will however look at it when I get a chance from another connection.
Please see above, but before you do that, perhaps you can tell me where the evidence that you have for a 'void' can be found?.
Please see above regards the void. The point still remains that you never provided the information, you had to wait for Trout to provide it. That makes me think that you didn't know which bit of information was relevant and that your understanding of it is lacking (as is mine). So why do you support so vehemently something which you don't understand. Asking questions about something you don't understand (as I have done) should be the only way to form an opinion. Your support is unsubstantiated belief and veers on religion. (Note that I am still not stating explicitly that it is false, but on the balance of what I have seen it does not seem to be well backed up by math.)
Your change of tone is much appreciated.
I would like to think that these hyperfast reactions are being executed WITHIN smallest shapes. Infinite speed is the same as saying "not definable" speed - because there exist nothing to hold these infinitely fast "calculations" up against. So everything in "not yet born smallest scale" is equivalent to what can be called true void - and that is the same as saying nothing physical - only kinetic information exists "WITHIN" smallest things, - meaning nothing of physical bearing exists wihin smallest shapes. - But smallest shapes - they are made up by even smaller things that have engaged themselves into repetitions and as such they can make "particles" - and by defining true void as the non-physical "content" of smallest shapes - we have removed these infinite speeds from physical space.
.
hej bukh, iseason
It seems we will be ready to move furhther quite soon.
@bukh
What happens INSIDE indivisibles when they are spatially present in their oscillation becomes OUTSIDE indivisibles when they are present in infomation or thought space.
What is inside them then?
@iseason
1)That information space is the same as Your (and Democritis, I suppose) VOID.
2)I agree infinity is unreachable, but has as symbol, with which we can operate, if we know how .
g.
This is more like it, but what does it all mean? ~ Surely, it means that what you call 'physical' and 'pure space' are actually manifestations of the same thing? Just like it takes a body AND a mind to make up 'us', so it is the same with all 'things' because the source from which they manifest operates in this way.
g.
If this is true at source, it must also be true for all subsequent things. Thus, our forms of communication are no exception. We must therefore endeavour to agree on terms of description. The current method of description is the scientific method, therefore we must use the terms of the scientific method in order to attempt a plausible description, on a 'science' forum.
So, inventing terms for yourself and then declaring them 'true', or working with them as a basis of subsequent deduction, is not conducive to the above premise, endorsed by yourself.
Ultimately, the true understanding of whatever is Real of this existence, rests firmly upon the shoulders of the individual. We are all unique aspects of what exists, and this uniqueness must be taken into consideration, if we are to make an attempt at describing the 'all'. I consider that we may know it because we ARE 'it', so we are talking about a form of self-realisation. This will necessarily mean delving into aspects of ourselves that we are not entirely happy with, and are as yet currently oblivious to, so it is not for the faint-hearted. "Here be 'dragons'!", as they used to say.
g.
Both aspects are true.
It is your failure to understand this that keeps you going round in circles.
Infinite Space produces all that we observe and are. Thus the 'finite' is an aspect of Space, which exists infinitely (is everywhere ~ is 'what exists'). It is NOT one or the other, but both, and all things that appear to be 'finite' are in fact aspects of Infinite Space, constantly changing.
g.
This is wrong.
The 'finite' is an aspect of Infinite Space; what exists, and is therefore 'Real'. Thus, 'the infinite' is all that IS, as it must be, existing as it does 'everywhere'.
It is an error to try to separate the 'finite' from the Infinite. This illusion of separate state is the Real 'abstraction'.
g.
In/out wave motion of Space. Not too complex. More like 'Beautifully simple', if it's an opinion you're after.
g.
Instead of Infinity -I prefer the concept of Non-defined.
Instead I advocate this non-defined - meaning no definition with respect to size - so size in a sense can be said to be as big as needed - or as big as it should be -
Size in the context of physical is absolutely relative - actually EVERYTHING in physical universe is about relative ratios - always something in relation to something.
hej guys
Yes I think as well non-defined , ill-defined, partially defined has broader and more correct meaning.
And size is relative all over the place- true.
However, there must be something that is not relative in Universe but is invariant as size and place changes in a certain ways- it can be e.g. shape, form, symmetry. The possible properties of space as they can be determine these shapes.
Undefined size and place together with invariant forms should be enough to create Universe.
Any suggestions ?
Have you tried gargling with your own mixture of sperm and piss?
Please note how a dictionary works; a word can have a number of different definitions. It should be obvious that I was using the word with the definition #1 proivided above. This does not make implications about my thoughts on any of the other definitions, in particular, it does mean that I am necessarily endorsing that a void exists.
QUOTE
Is that not exactly what you did?
Yes. The point being that I did not have a problem providing you with the information (even though you implied that my claim was false), but you got abusive and defensive when I asked you to back up claims with information.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is that not exactly what you did? |
Yes. The point being that I did not have a problem providing you with the information (even though you implied that my claim was false), but you got abusive and defensive when I asked you to back up claims with information.
And I think you well know that the equations in question are currently being posted on this thread.
Yes, and I think you well know that I asked before they were posted there, and I am no longer asking for the information now I've seen it!
QUOTE
Anyway, I'm glad you got your connection back. Now you can visit the spaceandmotion site for yourself. You'll love it; there's loads of stuff in there for a discerning mind like yours!
I'll explain again... I never lost any connection, my workplace blocks that website for some reason. I will however look at it when I get a chance from another connection.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyway, I'm glad you got your connection back. Now you can visit the spaceandmotion site for yourself. You'll love it; there's loads of stuff in there for a discerning mind like yours! |
I'll explain again... I never lost any connection, my workplace blocks that website for some reason. I will however look at it when I get a chance from another connection.
Please see above, but before you do that, perhaps you can tell me where the evidence that you have for a 'void' can be found?.
Please see above regards the void. The point still remains that you never provided the information, you had to wait for Trout to provide it. That makes me think that you didn't know which bit of information was relevant and that your understanding of it is lacking (as is mine). So why do you support so vehemently something which you don't understand. Asking questions about something you don't understand (as I have done) should be the only way to form an opinion. Your support is unsubstantiated belief and veers on religion. (Note that I am still not stating explicitly that it is false, but on the balance of what I have seen it does not seem to be well backed up by math.)
Your change of tone is much appreciated.
Hej bukh
The spatial presence of the smallest (indivisible) oscillates as divided space can not contain information about divisions-self percept.
The spatial presence of the biggest-infinity- oscillates as well since infinity is not reachable, so can not self percept as well .
Since smallest and biggest are opposites, I have a strong feeling they oscillate either in opposite tacts ( So that when one clears imaginary information space to become spatially present, the other fills it ) or there is some more complex phase relation between them, or they totally use 4 tacts :
Indivisibles present spatially
Infinity present spatially
Indivisibles present in information space (pure motion, chaos)
Infinity present in information space (pure space, harmony)
?
The spatial presence of the smallest (indivisible) oscillates as divided space can not contain information about divisions-self percept.
The spatial presence of the biggest-infinity- oscillates as well since infinity is not reachable, so can not self percept as well .
Since smallest and biggest are opposites, I have a strong feeling they oscillate either in opposite tacts ( So that when one clears imaginary information space to become spatially present, the other fills it ) or there is some more complex phase relation between them, or they totally use 4 tacts :
Indivisibles present spatially
Infinity present spatially
Indivisibles present in information space (pure motion, chaos)
Infinity present in information space (pure space, harmony)
?
hi Gorgoeus
I have 2 questions regarding Milo Wolf solutions so far:
1) How do waves turn around at origin to interfere with themselves?
This is very interesting, since obviously, in general case , we may have waves of all wavelengths approaching origin
or, leaving it.
In second case, they have to turn around at infinity.
How does that happen? How do they know )=where is the information stored) that they have to turn around exactly?
Does that mean that origin, earlier considered as mathematical point ( obviously it is not in this case) somehow contains that information? Does that mean that de broglie wave enters the origin, goes into some hyperspace ( e.g imaginary) , calculates what it shall do and gets out of origin in 3D space in opposite direction it came from?
I can accept that, I am just asking what mechanism Milo Wolf has in mind. Or is it just equations that should make us happy about why and how?
2) Please still consider the case where waves cancel out EXACTLY. It is just one case of all possible, nothing special, do not worry.
In this case the phase shift between IN and OUT waves will have to be exactly Pi for ALL wavelengths. So the "mechanism " inside the origin has to perform that shift- or does it just happen because space is ONE and infinite? Somehow I would like a more detailed explanation HOW the wave is turned around because it effectively equals reflection of de broglie waves from ideal conductor of debroglie waves.
So is origin in this model a point of/entry into a hyperspace that is ideal reflector of De Broglie waves?
If it is so, what is the mechanism of reflection? It must happen INSIDE the origin, as reason for other IDEAL conductors reflecting EM waves is inside them, not on surface.
3) The solution that cancels all de Broglie waves leaving space with NO matter still consists of :
ALL in and OUT waves
Mechanism inside origin that turns phase of all de Broglie waves by Pi.
Can these in/out waves somehow get separated by placing a direction filter of matter waves? What could it be?
If no interference pictures are present since they cancel out, the phase turnign mechanism inside origin IS present and fully engaged. What is IT?
I have 2 questions regarding Milo Wolf solutions so far:
1) How do waves turn around at origin to interfere with themselves?
This is very interesting, since obviously, in general case , we may have waves of all wavelengths approaching origin
or, leaving it.
In second case, they have to turn around at infinity.
How does that happen? How do they know )=where is the information stored) that they have to turn around exactly?
Does that mean that origin, earlier considered as mathematical point ( obviously it is not in this case) somehow contains that information? Does that mean that de broglie wave enters the origin, goes into some hyperspace ( e.g imaginary) , calculates what it shall do and gets out of origin in 3D space in opposite direction it came from?
I can accept that, I am just asking what mechanism Milo Wolf has in mind. Or is it just equations that should make us happy about why and how?
2) Please still consider the case where waves cancel out EXACTLY. It is just one case of all possible, nothing special, do not worry.
In this case the phase shift between IN and OUT waves will have to be exactly Pi for ALL wavelengths. So the "mechanism " inside the origin has to perform that shift- or does it just happen because space is ONE and infinite? Somehow I would like a more detailed explanation HOW the wave is turned around because it effectively equals reflection of de broglie waves from ideal conductor of debroglie waves.
So is origin in this model a point of/entry into a hyperspace that is ideal reflector of De Broglie waves?
If it is so, what is the mechanism of reflection? It must happen INSIDE the origin, as reason for other IDEAL conductors reflecting EM waves is inside them, not on surface.
3) The solution that cancels all de Broglie waves leaving space with NO matter still consists of :
ALL in and OUT waves
Mechanism inside origin that turns phase of all de Broglie waves by Pi.
Can these in/out waves somehow get separated by placing a direction filter of matter waves? What could it be?
If no interference pictures are present since they cancel out, the phase turnign mechanism inside origin IS present and fully engaged. What is IT?
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 28 2008, 07:42 PM)
Hej bukh
The spatial presence of the smallest (indivisible) oscillates as divided space can not contain information about divisions-self percept.
The spatial presence of the biggest-infinity- oscillates as well since infinity is not reachable, so can not self percept as well .
Since smallest and biggest are opposites, I have a strong feeling they oscillate either in opposite tacts ( So that when one clears imaginary information space to become spatially present, the other fills it ) or there is some more complex phase relation between them, or they totally use 4 tacts :
Indivisibles present spatially
Infinity present spatially
Indivisibles present in information space (pure motion, chaos)
Infinity present in information space (pure space, harmony)
?
Hi Ivars
I have gone into this area as well. it could be written for example .
100=(99+1) One being the physical energy while one is the available number of variables. The problem is still that this is a time related adjustment/behavior. The change over from one state to another "takes time" . In other words, cause becomes inherent within the process.
The only solution is to remove space, which also removes time and motion from the process. Otherwise a remnant of the indivisible one must be present for 'reaction'.Once a decision to theorize a singular measure of energy is decided, that can not be put aside under any circumstance. This includes any behavior that needs reaction with itself.
One possible solution is that the time factor is the culmination of all possible outcomes. In other words "chaos" gives way to order ....at the point..... where time begins. All other possibilities have indeed been used . What we can measure (with time/motion) is the final run through of the process. What time measures as 'the beginning ' is as if it was the end. The process changes not at all.It's really there that space is "used",when one and only one correct singularity is available.Space is left over void from the chaotic dispersion. It is then reclaimed in a time/motion order which prevents return to chaos by occupying it absolutely , one dot at a time.
A way of seeing this is void being 'removed' , rather than energy being added. If you think about these two terms, they are direct opposites. If energy is first removed and compartmentalized, it has the capacity to then re-absorb the previously void. But in a given order. Big bang has set the model. It just doesn't give the process an ability to stop because it is expanding into infinite space. But that is not so since there is not an infinite amount of energy to fill it (even under it's own theory).
Cheers
Iseason
The spatial presence of the smallest (indivisible) oscillates as divided space can not contain information about divisions-self percept.
The spatial presence of the biggest-infinity- oscillates as well since infinity is not reachable, so can not self percept as well .
Since smallest and biggest are opposites, I have a strong feeling they oscillate either in opposite tacts ( So that when one clears imaginary information space to become spatially present, the other fills it ) or there is some more complex phase relation between them, or they totally use 4 tacts :
Indivisibles present spatially
Infinity present spatially
Indivisibles present in information space (pure motion, chaos)
Infinity present in information space (pure space, harmony)
?
Hi Ivars
I have gone into this area as well. it could be written for example .
100=(99+1) One being the physical energy while one is the available number of variables. The problem is still that this is a time related adjustment/behavior. The change over from one state to another "takes time" . In other words, cause becomes inherent within the process.
The only solution is to remove space, which also removes time and motion from the process. Otherwise a remnant of the indivisible one must be present for 'reaction'.Once a decision to theorize a singular measure of energy is decided, that can not be put aside under any circumstance. This includes any behavior that needs reaction with itself.
One possible solution is that the time factor is the culmination of all possible outcomes. In other words "chaos" gives way to order ....at the point..... where time begins. All other possibilities have indeed been used . What we can measure (with time/motion) is the final run through of the process. What time measures as 'the beginning ' is as if it was the end. The process changes not at all.It's really there that space is "used",when one and only one correct singularity is available.Space is left over void from the chaotic dispersion. It is then reclaimed in a time/motion order which prevents return to chaos by occupying it absolutely , one dot at a time.
A way of seeing this is void being 'removed' , rather than energy being added. If you think about these two terms, they are direct opposites. If energy is first removed and compartmentalized, it has the capacity to then re-absorb the previously void. But in a given order. Big bang has set the model. It just doesn't give the process an ability to stop because it is expanding into infinite space. But that is not so since there is not an infinite amount of energy to fill it (even under it's own theory).
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 28 2008, 07:57 AM)
The only solution is to remove space, which also removes time and motion from the process.
Space is left over void from the chaotic dispersion. It is then reclaimed in a time/motion order which prevents return to chaos by occupying it absolutely , one dot at a time.
Hi iseason,
Energy seems to be kind of analogous information. I do not like using energy since it implies that energy is always the same within the respect of ability to do work on macro objects and temperature via Boltzmann constant. Well there has to be energy that is so close to information and so far from our scale that it can not move electrons as we would expect giving the number of joules.
Why do we need to call something energy if it is just information? The less terms are used , the easier picture becomes.
Time. The changes in imaginary information space shared by chaos and pure space is imaginary. That is not a problem. This time figures in QM equations and other where infinitely fast information transfers happen via mathematical equations, so that the result of inteference of sums over all paths is available when we complete the calculation.
The time in spatial space they share as well is real, and measurable as spatial configurations of space changes. That is the physical time. That is also not a problem.
So yes, for these processes to happen with infinite speed as they do, space has to be removed, or, more likely, they have to be removed from space.
Space is left over void from the chaotic dispersion. It is then reclaimed in a time/motion order which prevents return to chaos by occupying it absolutely , one dot at a time.
Hi iseason,
Energy seems to be kind of analogous information. I do not like using energy since it implies that energy is always the same within the respect of ability to do work on macro objects and temperature via Boltzmann constant. Well there has to be energy that is so close to information and so far from our scale that it can not move electrons as we would expect giving the number of joules.
Why do we need to call something energy if it is just information? The less terms are used , the easier picture becomes.
Time. The changes in imaginary information space shared by chaos and pure space is imaginary. That is not a problem. This time figures in QM equations and other where infinitely fast information transfers happen via mathematical equations, so that the result of inteference of sums over all paths is available when we complete the calculation.
The time in spatial space they share as well is real, and measurable as spatial configurations of space changes. That is the physical time. That is also not a problem.
So yes, for these processes to happen with infinite speed as they do, space has to be removed, or, more likely, they have to be removed from space.
Ivars Iseason
QUOTE: "So yes, for these processes to happen with infinite speed as they do, space has to be removed, or, more likely, they have to be removed from space."
Exactly.
I would like to think that these hyperfast reactions are being executed WITHIN smallest shapes. Infinite speed is the same as saying "not definable" speed - because there exist nothing to hold these infinitely fast "calculations" up against. So everything in "not yet born smallest scale" is equivalent to what can be called true void - and that is the same as saying nothing physical - only kinetic information exists "WITHIN" smallest things, - meaning nothing of physical bearing exists wihin smallest shapes. - But smallest shapes - they are made up by even smaller things that have engaged themselves into repetitions and as such they can make "particles" - and by defining true void as the non-physical "content" of smallest shapes - we have removed these infinite speeds from physical space.
This could be an explanation about how continuous infinite space translates into "particles" - into waves - into Physical Universe.
True void is what fill infinite space (dimensionality one) - and true void is being gradually replaced by lasting physicalities - as Universe develops, so everything is about:
complexion/repetition/lastingness -
The only thing that has and always will be into existance is infinite space "filled up" with infinite number of infinitely small informational bits. Physical Universe is about how such infinitely small informational bits starts to arrange themselves spatially so that it is possible to say whether they belong to this or to that - and according to the binary principle - oh I'am afraid that I repeat myself now.
QUOTE: "So yes, for these processes to happen with infinite speed as they do, space has to be removed, or, more likely, they have to be removed from space."
Exactly.
I would like to think that these hyperfast reactions are being executed WITHIN smallest shapes. Infinite speed is the same as saying "not definable" speed - because there exist nothing to hold these infinitely fast "calculations" up against. So everything in "not yet born smallest scale" is equivalent to what can be called true void - and that is the same as saying nothing physical - only kinetic information exists "WITHIN" smallest things, - meaning nothing of physical bearing exists wihin smallest shapes. - But smallest shapes - they are made up by even smaller things that have engaged themselves into repetitions and as such they can make "particles" - and by defining true void as the non-physical "content" of smallest shapes - we have removed these infinite speeds from physical space.
This could be an explanation about how continuous infinite space translates into "particles" - into waves - into Physical Universe.
True void is what fill infinite space (dimensionality one) - and true void is being gradually replaced by lasting physicalities - as Universe develops, so everything is about:
complexion/repetition/lastingness -
The only thing that has and always will be into existance is infinite space "filled up" with infinite number of infinitely small informational bits. Physical Universe is about how such infinitely small informational bits starts to arrange themselves spatially so that it is possible to say whether they belong to this or to that - and according to the binary principle - oh I'am afraid that I repeat myself now.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 29 2008, 08:42 AM)
Ivars Iseason
QUOTE: "So yes, for these processes to happen with infinite speed as they do, space has to be removed, or, more likely, they have to be removed from space."
Exactly.
I would like to think that these hyperfast reactions are being executed WITHIN smallest shapes. Infinite speed is the same as saying "not definable" speed - because there exist nothing to hold these infinitely fast "calculations" up against. So everything in "not yet born smallest scale" is equivalent to what can be called true void - and that is the same as saying nothing physical - only kinetic information exists "WITHIN" smallest things, - meaning nothing of physical bearing exists wihin smallest shapes. - But smallest shapes - they are made up by even smaller things that have engaged themselves into repetitions and as such they can make "particles" - and by defining true void as the non-physical "content" of smallest shapes - we have removed these infinite speeds from physical space.
This could be an explanation about how continuous infinite space translates into "particles" - into waves - into Physical Universe.
True void is what fill infinite space (dimensionality one) - and true void is being gradually replaced by lasting physicalities - as Universe develops, so everything is about:
complexion/repetition/lastingness -
The only thing that has and always will be into existance is infinite space "filled up" with infinite number of infinitely small informational bits. Physical Universe is about how such infinitely small informational bits starts to arrange themselves spatially so that it is possible to say whether they belong to this or to that - and according to the binary principle - oh I'am afraid that I repeat myself now.
Hi Buhk/Ivars
I agree if your concept which states "infinity" means not measurable. If it means "it never ends" then I can't agree.
We cannot , while trapped within this time line structure "measure the beginning or the end". this means the although we can be sure they exist and make allowance for it , the true measure will not be found.
We can still , by assuming they are present say that the measure of actual information(your term) that exists is written as such.
Example:-Universal spacial dispersion , compressed into smallest physicality equals one unit of information.
This information unit never alters in it's configuration, since it is it's own purest form. In order for the universal void to be recaptured, expansion 'Back' into the void is orderly with the pathways protected by time, which must always be forwards. This does not mean that the information follows time , but time follows information, since the order has already been set before time began.
Eventually the re dispersion will be achieved and time will cease. At that stage the order is correct in the complete universe as it should be.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE: "So yes, for these processes to happen with infinite speed as they do, space has to be removed, or, more likely, they have to be removed from space."
Exactly.
I would like to think that these hyperfast reactions are being executed WITHIN smallest shapes. Infinite speed is the same as saying "not definable" speed - because there exist nothing to hold these infinitely fast "calculations" up against. So everything in "not yet born smallest scale" is equivalent to what can be called true void - and that is the same as saying nothing physical - only kinetic information exists "WITHIN" smallest things, - meaning nothing of physical bearing exists wihin smallest shapes. - But smallest shapes - they are made up by even smaller things that have engaged themselves into repetitions and as such they can make "particles" - and by defining true void as the non-physical "content" of smallest shapes - we have removed these infinite speeds from physical space.
This could be an explanation about how continuous infinite space translates into "particles" - into waves - into Physical Universe.
True void is what fill infinite space (dimensionality one) - and true void is being gradually replaced by lasting physicalities - as Universe develops, so everything is about:
complexion/repetition/lastingness -
The only thing that has and always will be into existance is infinite space "filled up" with infinite number of infinitely small informational bits. Physical Universe is about how such infinitely small informational bits starts to arrange themselves spatially so that it is possible to say whether they belong to this or to that - and according to the binary principle - oh I'am afraid that I repeat myself now.
Hi Buhk/Ivars
I agree if your concept which states "infinity" means not measurable. If it means "it never ends" then I can't agree.
We cannot , while trapped within this time line structure "measure the beginning or the end". this means the although we can be sure they exist and make allowance for it , the true measure will not be found.
We can still , by assuming they are present say that the measure of actual information(your term) that exists is written as such.
Example:-Universal spacial dispersion , compressed into smallest physicality equals one unit of information.
This information unit never alters in it's configuration, since it is it's own purest form. In order for the universal void to be recaptured, expansion 'Back' into the void is orderly with the pathways protected by time, which must always be forwards. This does not mean that the information follows time , but time follows information, since the order has already been set before time began.
Eventually the re dispersion will be achieved and time will cease. At that stage the order is correct in the complete universe as it should be.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 28 2008, 07:42 PM)
I would like to think that these hyperfast reactions are being executed WITHIN smallest shapes. Infinite speed is the same as saying "not definable" speed - because there exist nothing to hold these infinitely fast "calculations" up against. So everything in "not yet born smallest scale" is equivalent to what can be called true void - and that is the same as saying nothing physical - only kinetic information exists "WITHIN" smallest things, - meaning nothing of physical bearing exists wihin smallest shapes. - But smallest shapes - they are made up by even smaller things that have engaged themselves into repetitions and as such they can make "particles" - and by defining true void as the non-physical "content" of smallest shapes - we have removed these infinite speeds from physical space.
.
hej bukh, iseason
It seems we will be ready to move furhther quite soon.
@bukh
What happens INSIDE indivisibles when they are spatially present in their oscillation becomes OUTSIDE indivisibles when they are present in infomation or thought space.
What is inside them then?
@iseason
1)That information space is the same as Your (and Democritis, I suppose) VOID.
2)I agree infinity is unreachable, but has as symbol, with which we can operate, if we know how .
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 28 2008, 06:21 PM)
Hi iseason,
Energy seems to be kind of analogous information. I do not like using energy since it implies that energy is always the same within the respect of ability to do work on macro objects and temperature via Boltzmann constant. Well there has to be energy that is so close to information [...]
Dear Ivars,
A book recommended by RPenner that I have almost finished that I will in turn recommend to you...
===========================================================
Decoding the Universe: How the New Science of Information Is Explaining Everything in the Cosmos, from Our Brains to Black Holes (Hardcover)
by Charles Seife (Author)
From Booklist
Bit by bit, cutting-edge physicists are acclimatizing themselves to the notion that the universe is like a computer, its events akin to information processing. Seife treks through the thinking that implies humanity's final demotion from emanation of godhead to binary digits. An excellent popular science author (Alpha and Omega, 2003), Seife opens with the history of thermodynamics and the equation of entropy. This equation is the foundation of information theory, which was formalized in 1948 by Claude Shannon, who also coined the term bit. The author then delves into why the idea of the universe-as-information appeals to theorists, resting his presentation on the weirdness of wave-particle duality. Challenging but rewarding fare for attentive general science readers, who might also be interested in Programming the Universe (2006), by information theorist Seth Lloyd. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
http://www.amazon.com/Decoding-Universe-In...g/dp/067003441X
===========================================================
Seife specifically discusses Boltzmann and speaks of thermodynamics as being, at least in a sense, a special case of information theory.
Best,
Raphie
Energy seems to be kind of analogous information. I do not like using energy since it implies that energy is always the same within the respect of ability to do work on macro objects and temperature via Boltzmann constant. Well there has to be energy that is so close to information [...]
Dear Ivars,
A book recommended by RPenner that I have almost finished that I will in turn recommend to you...
===========================================================
Decoding the Universe: How the New Science of Information Is Explaining Everything in the Cosmos, from Our Brains to Black Holes (Hardcover)
by Charles Seife (Author)
From Booklist
Bit by bit, cutting-edge physicists are acclimatizing themselves to the notion that the universe is like a computer, its events akin to information processing. Seife treks through the thinking that implies humanity's final demotion from emanation of godhead to binary digits. An excellent popular science author (Alpha and Omega, 2003), Seife opens with the history of thermodynamics and the equation of entropy. This equation is the foundation of information theory, which was formalized in 1948 by Claude Shannon, who also coined the term bit. The author then delves into why the idea of the universe-as-information appeals to theorists, resting his presentation on the weirdness of wave-particle duality. Challenging but rewarding fare for attentive general science readers, who might also be interested in Programming the Universe (2006), by information theorist Seth Lloyd. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
http://www.amazon.com/Decoding-Universe-In...g/dp/067003441X
===========================================================
Seife specifically discusses Boltzmann and speaks of thermodynamics as being, at least in a sense, a special case of information theory.
Best,
Raphie
This one is simple. EVERYTHING HAS A FINITE ENDING!!!!!!!!! Nothing is infinite.
Nothing is infinite.
hi Guys
I'm a bit annoyed actually. I postulated somewhere on this very forum (some time ago) the part of singular energy theory which dealt with this very behavior. Only I saw it as re-occurring.
that lead to two states, expanded(universal) and compacted(singular unit). These two states(I proposed) re-occurred for each 'occurrence of the energy'. This seems not to be the case for my way of thinking now that we've moved along. It had a few gaps that could not be explained anyway. But seemed to ring truest of the behaviors.
Now I can see how The compression From universal space is a one time event. The recapturing via occurrence being on equal footing with big bang and is more logical than moving between biggest and smallest continually. "Compression" may not be the best term though as it gives the impression of something being squeezed. This is not the case. It is a matter of "order" rather than compression.
Disorder or Chaos was the original state before the big bang. Not in the way that we view disorder, but "with no synchronicity". At the big bang stage, order was complete. Information could be shared with no time lag, disruption or dispute. However one thing still remained, Space was now empty and a threat to harmony. (Gorgeous term). The only way to ensure that harmony was ensured was to structure space in a manner which was itself binding and "lawful".
Time is a manner of confining energy to parameters(pathways) that cannot be crossed.It still means that the "actual amount" of spacial energy is equal to the smallest quantity that can be measured.
The universal quantity is this amount divided into the complete area available for space to expand into . So my instinct is correct (despite what critics will make of this). The reason space seems empty is because of the strictness of the available pathways that can be used in a time line relativity. Because every pathway of space will eventually be crossed in the time line, no free or "chaotic " space will remain.
The end result is that at the big bang , the information sharing was universally constant, and when time finally ends (which is a given) the same state will return. We can see portions of this in the constants that do exist in science today.
Cheers
Iseason
I'm a bit annoyed actually. I postulated somewhere on this very forum (some time ago) the part of singular energy theory which dealt with this very behavior. Only I saw it as re-occurring.
that lead to two states, expanded(universal) and compacted(singular unit). These two states(I proposed) re-occurred for each 'occurrence of the energy'. This seems not to be the case for my way of thinking now that we've moved along. It had a few gaps that could not be explained anyway. But seemed to ring truest of the behaviors.
Now I can see how The compression From universal space is a one time event. The recapturing via occurrence being on equal footing with big bang and is more logical than moving between biggest and smallest continually. "Compression" may not be the best term though as it gives the impression of something being squeezed. This is not the case. It is a matter of "order" rather than compression.
Disorder or Chaos was the original state before the big bang. Not in the way that we view disorder, but "with no synchronicity". At the big bang stage, order was complete. Information could be shared with no time lag, disruption or dispute. However one thing still remained, Space was now empty and a threat to harmony. (Gorgeous term). The only way to ensure that harmony was ensured was to structure space in a manner which was itself binding and "lawful".
Time is a manner of confining energy to parameters(pathways) that cannot be crossed.It still means that the "actual amount" of spacial energy is equal to the smallest quantity that can be measured.
The universal quantity is this amount divided into the complete area available for space to expand into . So my instinct is correct (despite what critics will make of this). The reason space seems empty is because of the strictness of the available pathways that can be used in a time line relativity. Because every pathway of space will eventually be crossed in the time line, no free or "chaotic " space will remain.
The end result is that at the big bang , the information sharing was universally constant, and when time finally ends (which is a given) the same state will return. We can see portions of this in the constants that do exist in science today.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
The only way to ensure that harmony was ensured was to structure space in a manner which was itself binding and "lawful".
g.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "What happens INSIDE indivisibles when they are spatially present in their oscillation becomes OUTSIDE indivisibles when they are present in infomation or thought space.
What is inside them then?"
Wel, see if the logic holds:
Smallest things - are defined as what is smallest at the time when we decide to look at Universe. So I am saying that smallest is not well defined except when related to the time axis. And smallest is dynamically turned into smaller and smaller.
Smallest thing IS a physical concept - and in order to be physical there must be a certain lastingness - and a lastingness is the same as saying repetition of something - and now the good question is ! repetition of what ?
And here I would like to propose that the lastingness is created by a repetitive PATTERN - not until there is "something" repeating themselves in a spatial pattern - playing a 3D cinematographic dimensionality - not until this happens we can talk about a physical expression. Physical expression IS a dimensionality cinematographically expressed in 3 D.
And such smallest things are being presented / played by on-off oscillations of "non-dimensional" informational bits from pure space.
So according to this definition: PHYSICAL is born at the very moment that a dimensionality is being defined / played cinematographically by non-dimensional oscillating spots.
And when next scale is being born it is (of course) accordingto same principle and so on - and that is how continuous is being translated into discreteness.
Physical is the harmonious oscillation of pure space according to wave-like equations. We are getting closer to Milo.
QUOTE: "What happens INSIDE indivisibles when they are spatially present in their oscillation becomes OUTSIDE indivisibles when they are present in infomation or thought space.
What is inside them then?"
Wel, see if the logic holds:
Smallest things - are defined as what is smallest at the time when we decide to look at Universe. So I am saying that smallest is not well defined except when related to the time axis. And smallest is dynamically turned into smaller and smaller.
Smallest thing IS a physical concept - and in order to be physical there must be a certain lastingness - and a lastingness is the same as saying repetition of something - and now the good question is ! repetition of what ?
And here I would like to propose that the lastingness is created by a repetitive PATTERN - not until there is "something" repeating themselves in a spatial pattern - playing a 3D cinematographic dimensionality - not until this happens we can talk about a physical expression. Physical expression IS a dimensionality cinematographically expressed in 3 D.
And such smallest things are being presented / played by on-off oscillations of "non-dimensional" informational bits from pure space.
So according to this definition: PHYSICAL is born at the very moment that a dimensionality is being defined / played cinematographically by non-dimensional oscillating spots.
And when next scale is being born it is (of course) accordingto same principle and so on - and that is how continuous is being translated into discreteness.
Physical is the harmonious oscillation of pure space according to wave-like equations. We are getting closer to Milo.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 30 2008, 08:08 AM)
I'm a bit annoyed actually. I postulated somewhere on this very forum (some time ago) the part of singular energy theory which dealt with this very behavior. Only I saw it as re-occurring.
that lead to two states, expanded(universal) and compacted(singular unit). These two states(I proposed) re-occurred for
Disorder or Chaos was the original state before the big bang. Not in the way that we view disorder, but "with no synchronicity". At the big bang stage, order was complete. Information could be shared with no time lag, disruption or dispute. However one thing still remained, Space was now empty and a threat to harmony. (Gorgeous term).
The only way to ensure that harmony was ensured was to structure space in a manner which was itself binding and "lawful".
Hi Iseason
If You feel anoyed what about Epicurus, Democritus ? They posted impossibility of infinite division, existence of void (khaos in Greek) and other truthful things long ago
But I agree none of them seems to have brought together oscillations of smallest and biggest, which is what You seem to be doing, and that is the only way I can imagine it can work.
Both (or EACH) spatial and informational Infinity and correspondingly infinite divisions can not exist in time and space simultaneously. That is obvious, so they should be drawing from the same SUM of ALL what is .
Informational infinity must disappear to become spatial "point" endowed with certain symmetries
Spatial infinity must disappear to become informational "point"
These "points" are correspondingly Spatial and Informational indivisibles.
Again, it seems to me that there is a need to have in total 4 atemporal tacts to perform this appearances/disappearances on the smallest and biggest level. But I am not sure.
It may be, as IAMoraes says, that phase shifts between appearances in both spaces get smaller as aggregates get bigger, so that more and more occurrences are lasting in the same space or in both spaces simultaneously.
that lead to two states, expanded(universal) and compacted(singular unit). These two states(I proposed) re-occurred for
Disorder or Chaos was the original state before the big bang. Not in the way that we view disorder, but "with no synchronicity". At the big bang stage, order was complete. Information could be shared with no time lag, disruption or dispute. However one thing still remained, Space was now empty and a threat to harmony. (Gorgeous term).
The only way to ensure that harmony was ensured was to structure space in a manner which was itself binding and "lawful".
Hi Iseason
If You feel anoyed what about Epicurus, Democritus ? They posted impossibility of infinite division, existence of void (khaos in Greek) and other truthful things long ago
But I agree none of them seems to have brought together oscillations of smallest and biggest, which is what You seem to be doing, and that is the only way I can imagine it can work.
Both (or EACH) spatial and informational Infinity and correspondingly infinite divisions can not exist in time and space simultaneously. That is obvious, so they should be drawing from the same SUM of ALL what is .
Informational infinity must disappear to become spatial "point" endowed with certain symmetries
Spatial infinity must disappear to become informational "point"
These "points" are correspondingly Spatial and Informational indivisibles.
Again, it seems to me that there is a need to have in total 4 atemporal tacts to perform this appearances/disappearances on the smallest and biggest level. But I am not sure.
It may be, as IAMoraes says, that phase shifts between appearances in both spaces get smaller as aggregates get bigger, so that more and more occurrences are lasting in the same space or in both spaces simultaneously.
QUOTE
Physical is the harmonious oscillation of pure space according to wave-like equations.
This is more like it, but what does it all mean? ~ Surely, it means that what you call 'physical' and 'pure space' are actually manifestations of the same thing? Just like it takes a body AND a mind to make up 'us', so it is the same with all 'things' because the source from which they manifest operates in this way.
g.
No G
It's Much more simple than that.
Once all the energy in space is gathered into "order", re-expansion into space COULD be instant. Time gives order a methodology that never existed before the big bang.
Energy can now extend into space without the disruption of running into anything. Doing so on specific pathways only (within the order which is held at big bang compression) ensures that the extension into space will, although contain no more mass than before , do so more effectively.
There is not a number of cycles, but a single cycle which is an opposite to the original compression into big bang.. Disorder= first state, order=big bang state, universal orderly dispersion=time/motion.
That's it.
Cheers
Iseason
It's Much more simple than that.
Once all the energy in space is gathered into "order", re-expansion into space COULD be instant. Time gives order a methodology that never existed before the big bang.
Energy can now extend into space without the disruption of running into anything. Doing so on specific pathways only (within the order which is held at big bang compression) ensures that the extension into space will, although contain no more mass than before , do so more effectively.
There is not a number of cycles, but a single cycle which is an opposite to the original compression into big bang.. Disorder= first state, order=big bang state, universal orderly dispersion=time/motion.
That's it.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 30 2008, 10:16 AM)
No G
It's Much more simple than that.
Once all the energy in space is gathered into "order", re-expansion into space COULD be instant. Time gives order a methodology that never existed before the big bang.
Energy can now extend into space without the disruption of running into anything. Doing so on specific pathways only (within the order which is held at big bang compression) ensures that the extension into space will, although contain no more mass than before , do so more effectively.
There is not a number of cycles, but a single cycle which is an opposite to the original compression into big bang.. Disorder= first state, order=big bang state, universal orderly dispersion=time/motion.
That's it.
Cheers
Iseason
No, that's more drivel. It resembles nothing either living or dead!
g.
It's Much more simple than that.
Once all the energy in space is gathered into "order", re-expansion into space COULD be instant. Time gives order a methodology that never existed before the big bang.
Energy can now extend into space without the disruption of running into anything. Doing so on specific pathways only (within the order which is held at big bang compression) ensures that the extension into space will, although contain no more mass than before , do so more effectively.
There is not a number of cycles, but a single cycle which is an opposite to the original compression into big bang.. Disorder= first state, order=big bang state, universal orderly dispersion=time/motion.
That's it.
Cheers
Iseason
No, that's more drivel. It resembles nothing either living or dead!
g.
G
QUOTE: "Surely, it means that what you call 'physical' and 'pure space' are actually manifestations of the same thing? Just like it takes a body AND a mind to make up 'us', so it is the same with all 'things' because the source from which they manifest operates in this way."
yes of course - has to be manifestations of the same thing - that's what I have been saying all the time -
the puzzle is how to think the organization of everything - everything = information = infinitely small bits - filling pure space - and that would logically be scalewise with sharp transistions - no motion - but rearrangements - and with human scale being expressed via smallest units in our scale - pixels - and the pixel-grid being frozen in order to give a relative frame out from which we humans can envisage what we see as motion. And time as a truely derived function of change - first we have change - and then out from said change we can define time - time is secondary - time is strictly local - time is strictly one directional - and changes are taking place in imaginary time as seen from human perspective.
QUOTE: "Surely, it means that what you call 'physical' and 'pure space' are actually manifestations of the same thing? Just like it takes a body AND a mind to make up 'us', so it is the same with all 'things' because the source from which they manifest operates in this way."
yes of course - has to be manifestations of the same thing - that's what I have been saying all the time -
the puzzle is how to think the organization of everything - everything = information = infinitely small bits - filling pure space - and that would logically be scalewise with sharp transistions - no motion - but rearrangements - and with human scale being expressed via smallest units in our scale - pixels - and the pixel-grid being frozen in order to give a relative frame out from which we humans can envisage what we see as motion. And time as a truely derived function of change - first we have change - and then out from said change we can define time - time is secondary - time is strictly local - time is strictly one directional - and changes are taking place in imaginary time as seen from human perspective.
QUOTE
yes of course - has to be manifestations of the same thing
If this is true at source, it must also be true for all subsequent things. Thus, our forms of communication are no exception. We must therefore endeavour to agree on terms of description. The current method of description is the scientific method, therefore we must use the terms of the scientific method in order to attempt a plausible description, on a 'science' forum.
So, inventing terms for yourself and then declaring them 'true', or working with them as a basis of subsequent deduction, is not conducive to the above premise, endorsed by yourself.
Ultimately, the true understanding of whatever is Real of this existence, rests firmly upon the shoulders of the individual. We are all unique aspects of what exists, and this uniqueness must be taken into consideration, if we are to make an attempt at describing the 'all'. I consider that we may know it because we ARE 'it', so we are talking about a form of self-realisation. This will necessarily mean delving into aspects of ourselves that we are not entirely happy with, and are as yet currently oblivious to, so it is not for the faint-hearted. "Here be 'dragons'!", as they used to say.
g.
everybody -
As long as we are dealing with scales there will always be a possibility to make everything smaller until we reach infinitely small - and that is another way of saying that by the very acceptance of scales - we at the same time have to accept that there exist no "spectrum of scales" from smallest to biggest - any scale is to be viewed in its total relativity - and that also imply that complexion is deemed to be the same in each scale - we cannot say that a smaller scale involves less complexion - and that the "smallest scale" is without complexion - we have to accept that infinitely small is infinitely complex.
And that is my logic for proposing the model that "Physical" is being expressed via informational (dimensionless points) bits, which is playing cinematographically a repetition - a pattern, that defines a "particle". A "Particle" irrespective of its (relative) dimension, will always be uncertain - in the sense that a "flash expression" will never give full information about position and size and momentum.
The "Principle" that gowerns a scale has to be universal for all scales and it is important to realize that infinitely small (and infinitely big) is a totally relative concept - and its validity is solely defined out from the said scale that has been choosen - out from the scale that has been choosen for observation.
As long as we are dealing with scales there will always be a possibility to make everything smaller until we reach infinitely small - and that is another way of saying that by the very acceptance of scales - we at the same time have to accept that there exist no "spectrum of scales" from smallest to biggest - any scale is to be viewed in its total relativity - and that also imply that complexion is deemed to be the same in each scale - we cannot say that a smaller scale involves less complexion - and that the "smallest scale" is without complexion - we have to accept that infinitely small is infinitely complex.
And that is my logic for proposing the model that "Physical" is being expressed via informational (dimensionless points) bits, which is playing cinematographically a repetition - a pattern, that defines a "particle". A "Particle" irrespective of its (relative) dimension, will always be uncertain - in the sense that a "flash expression" will never give full information about position and size and momentum.
The "Principle" that gowerns a scale has to be universal for all scales and it is important to realize that infinitely small (and infinitely big) is a totally relative concept - and its validity is solely defined out from the said scale that has been choosen - out from the scale that has been choosen for observation.
A lot of understanding hangs on the true grasping of what 'Infinity' means, in Reality...'Infinitely small' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.
Infinite in the three 'classical' dimensions means that it exists everywhere; it IS existence itself. Thus, all 'things' are 'parts' of what is One infinite existence. This explains why there is such an aspect as interconnection to that which we observe and are.
g.
Infinite in the three 'classical' dimensions means that it exists everywhere; it IS existence itself. Thus, all 'things' are 'parts' of what is One infinite existence. This explains why there is such an aspect as interconnection to that which we observe and are.
g.
g
QUOTE: "A lot of understanding hangs on the true grasping of what 'Infinity' means, in Reality...'Infinitely small' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.
Infinite in the three 'classical' dimensions means that it exists everywhere; it IS existence itself. Thus, all 'things' are 'parts' of what is One infinite existence. This explains why there is such an aspect as interconnection to that which we observe and are."
Are You indicating that You are in agreement with what I am saying ? - or do You have difficulties with my terms ?
QUOTE: "A lot of understanding hangs on the true grasping of what 'Infinity' means, in Reality...'Infinitely small' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.
Infinite in the three 'classical' dimensions means that it exists everywhere; it IS existence itself. Thus, all 'things' are 'parts' of what is One infinite existence. This explains why there is such an aspect as interconnection to that which we observe and are."
Are You indicating that You are in agreement with what I am saying ? - or do You have difficulties with my terms ?
[QUOTE]A lot of understanding hangs on the true grasping of what 'Infinity' means, in Reality...'Infinitely small' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.
Infinite in the three 'classical' dimensions means that it exists everywhere; it IS existence itself. Thus, all 'things' are 'parts' of what is One infinite existence. This explains why there is such an aspect as interconnection to that which we observe and are.
Maybe its just semantics but I would think 0.00000.........1 with an infinite number of zeros between the decimal point and the 1 is infinitely small. The transmission of light (a wave) through a vacuum (ether) suggest that there is something in a vacuum that our science is unable to detect. Alternatively if light is shone on a black surface and light is some sort of particle as has been suggested in order to explain its behaviour then the black object would increase in mass.
Infinite in the three 'classical' dimensions means that it exists everywhere; it IS existence itself. Thus, all 'things' are 'parts' of what is One infinite existence. This explains why there is such an aspect as interconnection to that which we observe and are.
Maybe its just semantics but I would think 0.00000.........1 with an infinite number of zeros between the decimal point and the 1 is infinitely small. The transmission of light (a wave) through a vacuum (ether) suggest that there is something in a vacuum that our science is unable to detect. Alternatively if light is shone on a black surface and light is some sort of particle as has been suggested in order to explain its behaviour then the black object would increase in mass.
What you guy really mean by "infinitely small" is an infinitesimal, which is defined to be smaller than any real number but greater than zero. 0.00...01 where ... represents infinitely many zeros is equal to zero so is not an infinitesimal. If there are infinite zeros you'll never get to the 1!
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 1 2008, 08:51 AM)
And that is my logic for proposing the model that "Physical" is being expressed via informational (dimensionless points) bits, which is playing cinematographically a repetition - a pattern, that defines a "particle". A "Particle" irrespective of its (relative) dimension, will always be uncertain - in the sense that a "flash expression" will never give full information about position and size and momentum.
The "Principle" that governs a scale has to be universal for all scales and it is important to realize that infinitely small (and infinitely big) is a totally relative concept - and its validity is solely defined out from the said scale that has been chosen - out from the scale that has been chosen for observation.
hej bukh
Do You mean something like circular reference place which, as moved along scales, changes also the complexity of each scale as perceived, so that even the phase transform physical ( external to spatial indivisible in space) - informational ( internal to spatial indivisible in space) is relative, based on human perception?
But then what would fix us at the place we are? And then somehow going along the scales in information space ( inside indivisible ) should lead us back to spatial, physical scales.
I am almost sure that physical ends with smallest indivisible volume, while informational is about form, or shape it can have.
Anyway , it is interesting idea. Obviously, You are right that smallest indivisible we can imagine as being there, oscillating, has to informationally most complex. I would not use infinitely there, since it may turn out finite as well.
Other thing is to look it from another, Informational side- may be some help there?
Obviously what is internal to smallest spatial oscillating indivisible as it appears in space is external to it as it appears in information space. So in information space such spatial indivisible is very complex, and CAN NOT be perceived as smallest indivisible of information, but rather , quite big information spanning all information space, superimposed with information contained in other spatial indivisibles.
That leads to a question to be answered- what is the smallest oscillating ( and also later, what is the biggest) indivisible in information space? Obviously, it is not the same as informational content of spatial indivisible, which is big. Is it a binary bit? Obviously not, since e.g if one takes number Pi , writes it in binary form and then ask how much information each bit represents ? In fact, it represents an infinitesimal, or, perhaps, smallest indivisible portion of information, since Pi is a finite symbol containing infinite amount of bits.
If there exist such smallest information indivisible, by analogy, it must also oscillate and appear spatially as something very big, superimposing with appearances of other informational indivisibles.
Then, still, there can be a third, discrete informational space which registers existence/non-existence in every scale of aggregates-both spatial and informational - and that may be binary, since to register existence You need only 2 values- is present/is not.
Would it be that Epicurus was right and practical result of all infinities is a spatially finite Universe? Then it would be characterized by a single number of smallest parts involved spatially? I am not sure.
The "Principle" that governs a scale has to be universal for all scales and it is important to realize that infinitely small (and infinitely big) is a totally relative concept - and its validity is solely defined out from the said scale that has been chosen - out from the scale that has been chosen for observation.
hej bukh
Do You mean something like circular reference place which, as moved along scales, changes also the complexity of each scale as perceived, so that even the phase transform physical ( external to spatial indivisible in space) - informational ( internal to spatial indivisible in space) is relative, based on human perception?
But then what would fix us at the place we are? And then somehow going along the scales in information space ( inside indivisible ) should lead us back to spatial, physical scales.
I am almost sure that physical ends with smallest indivisible volume, while informational is about form, or shape it can have.
Anyway , it is interesting idea. Obviously, You are right that smallest indivisible we can imagine as being there, oscillating, has to informationally most complex. I would not use infinitely there, since it may turn out finite as well.
Other thing is to look it from another, Informational side- may be some help there?
Obviously what is internal to smallest spatial oscillating indivisible as it appears in space is external to it as it appears in information space. So in information space such spatial indivisible is very complex, and CAN NOT be perceived as smallest indivisible of information, but rather , quite big information spanning all information space, superimposed with information contained in other spatial indivisibles.
That leads to a question to be answered- what is the smallest oscillating ( and also later, what is the biggest) indivisible in information space? Obviously, it is not the same as informational content of spatial indivisible, which is big. Is it a binary bit? Obviously not, since e.g if one takes number Pi , writes it in binary form and then ask how much information each bit represents ? In fact, it represents an infinitesimal, or, perhaps, smallest indivisible portion of information, since Pi is a finite symbol containing infinite amount of bits.
If there exist such smallest information indivisible, by analogy, it must also oscillate and appear spatially as something very big, superimposing with appearances of other informational indivisibles.
Then, still, there can be a third, discrete informational space which registers existence/non-existence in every scale of aggregates-both spatial and informational - and that may be binary, since to register existence You need only 2 values- is present/is not.
Would it be that Epicurus was right and practical result of all infinities is a spatially finite Universe? Then it would be characterized by a single number of smallest parts involved spatially? I am not sure.
hej bukh
it can also be that spatial indivisible disappears into informational space by leeking information it contains continuosly, turning itself inside out so that its spatial presence in reduced over all included dimensionalities while informational increased in opposite way.
This is to say that between spatial existance and non-existance there are continuous (?) states which philosphically means that spatial indivisible neither exists, nor not exists- exists partially.
This idea corresponds also partly to qubits that can be used to measure such infinitesimal parts of bit{0;1} as a mix of 2 states.
I think that sequential disappearance of spatial physical indivisible is related to the fact that at small (infinitesimal) scales volume disappear first, than area, than size, than the rest. ( it is a simple consequence of dx^3 infinitely smaller than <dx^2 infinitely smaller than<dx).
First part of its disappearance could be the reduction of volume to some regular form, than shrinking of all possible shapes ( now without volume) to sphere as the simplest shape, than shrinking of perimeter (1D)- now without area- to disc etc.
At the same time, the vanishing quantities (volume, shape, area) may reapper in opposite sequence in information space as corrsepondingly imaginary volume, negative area etc.
???
it can also be that spatial indivisible disappears into informational space by leeking information it contains continuosly, turning itself inside out so that its spatial presence in reduced over all included dimensionalities while informational increased in opposite way.
This is to say that between spatial existance and non-existance there are continuous (?) states which philosphically means that spatial indivisible neither exists, nor not exists- exists partially.
This idea corresponds also partly to qubits that can be used to measure such infinitesimal parts of bit{0;1} as a mix of 2 states.
I think that sequential disappearance of spatial physical indivisible is related to the fact that at small (infinitesimal) scales volume disappear first, than area, than size, than the rest. ( it is a simple consequence of dx^3 infinitely smaller than <dx^2 infinitely smaller than<dx).
First part of its disappearance could be the reduction of volume to some regular form, than shrinking of all possible shapes ( now without volume) to sphere as the simplest shape, than shrinking of perimeter (1D)- now without area- to disc etc.
At the same time, the vanishing quantities (volume, shape, area) may reapper in opposite sequence in information space as corrsepondingly imaginary volume, negative area etc.
???
QUOTE
I would not use infinitely there, since it may turn out finite as well.
Both aspects are true.
It is your failure to understand this that keeps you going round in circles.
Infinite Space produces all that we observe and are. Thus the 'finite' is an aspect of Space, which exists infinitely (is everywhere ~ is 'what exists'). It is NOT one or the other, but both, and all things that appear to be 'finite' are in fact aspects of Infinite Space, constantly changing.
g.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "Do You mean something like circular reference place which, as moved along scales, changes also the complexity of each scale as perceived, so that even the phase transform physical ( external to spatial indivisible in space) - informational ( internal to spatial indivisible in space) is relative, based on human perception?"
Transformation in respective scales are absolutes - but perception is relative as to scale from which it is being percepted.
QUOTE: "But then what would fix us at the place we are? And then somehow going along the scales in information space ( inside indivisible ) should lead us back to spatial, physical scales."
Faint intuitions - gut feelings - are the most we get from distant scales - and it is a rather indirect influence we get on physical scales to get awareness - feelings about such deep information.
QUOTE: "I am almost sure that physical ends with smallest indivisible volume, while informational is about form, or shape it can have."
I have the same feeling about form and shape, but I am more reluctant about a final smallest volume - I think that volume is dynamically changing and that physical world is developing "smaller and smaller" volumes in the ever ongoing complexion. It is not an even development - it is higly uneven and with smallest volumes naturally occuring where complexion is highest - and a high local complexion exerts a dynamic effect on the neighboring complexion - because complexion induce a different "fit" and with different looking "voids" to be adapted - so whenever there is another scale developed at a certain location it immediately creates a "gradient" towards more complexion in the neighboring areas.
But it is very important to have a "system" that allows for increasing complexion with increasing smallness. And that is only possible if complexion can be made out from something which is always smaller that what is being build - and infinitely small could be dimensionless informational points - perhaps qubits as You suggest - but still I favour the concept of "dimensionlessness"
QUOTE: "Obviously not, since e.g if one takes number Pi , writes it in binary form and then ask how much information each bit represents ? In fact, it represents an infinitesimal, or, perhaps, smallest indivisible portion of information, since Pi is a finite symbol containing infinite amount of bits."
This is indeed a good question - namely is Pi into existance in informational world - OR is Pi something which is being gradually developed in physical world as a result of an increasingly better and better fit when tested in real physical world ?
QUOTE: "Would it be that Epicurus was right and practical result of all infinities is a spatially finite Universe? Then it would be characterized by a single number of smallest parts involved spatially? I am not sure."
I like to imagine that informational world is without dimension - and this dimensionless world translates into dimensions - and smallest dimension is not a uniform definition - smallness is exclusively being defined out from the complexity at said locality - and smallness is a ratio not a size. This implicate that physical world is being made up of a FINITE NUMBER of dimensionalities - but the size of Universe is not measurable - size is infinite or not measurable - it is the same - and size will always be something absolutely relative - any dimension including entire Universe is as big as needed. But AMOUNT is a very precise measure - and so is ratios - and therefore physical is measurable. Spatially finite Universe is not possible.
QUOTE: "This is to say that between spatial existance and non-existance there are continuous (?) states which philosphically means that spatial indivisible neither exists, nor not exists- exists partially."
You can say that. The idea that spatial dimension is being defined out from dimensionless informational bits means that one can freely decide the grade of accuracy one want to define said spatial dimension. You can define the expression of spatial dynamic dimension till the border of continuity because informational points are dimensionless. There is no problem with the translation from continuous and into dicreteness !!!! AND a spatial dimension is never into full existance - nor is it into no existance - because it is being dynamically expressed - cinematographically - so it solves the dilemma with how motion can occur in a system which is founded on continuity (dimensionlessness) and translates itsself into "particles" which have an oscillating existance. And the oscillations in next scale is being defined out from the "time" needed in order to express the full particle - a full movie strip. And so on as scales "increases"
QUOTE: "Do You mean something like circular reference place which, as moved along scales, changes also the complexity of each scale as perceived, so that even the phase transform physical ( external to spatial indivisible in space) - informational ( internal to spatial indivisible in space) is relative, based on human perception?"
Transformation in respective scales are absolutes - but perception is relative as to scale from which it is being percepted.
QUOTE: "But then what would fix us at the place we are? And then somehow going along the scales in information space ( inside indivisible ) should lead us back to spatial, physical scales."
Faint intuitions - gut feelings - are the most we get from distant scales - and it is a rather indirect influence we get on physical scales to get awareness - feelings about such deep information.
QUOTE: "I am almost sure that physical ends with smallest indivisible volume, while informational is about form, or shape it can have."
I have the same feeling about form and shape, but I am more reluctant about a final smallest volume - I think that volume is dynamically changing and that physical world is developing "smaller and smaller" volumes in the ever ongoing complexion. It is not an even development - it is higly uneven and with smallest volumes naturally occuring where complexion is highest - and a high local complexion exerts a dynamic effect on the neighboring complexion - because complexion induce a different "fit" and with different looking "voids" to be adapted - so whenever there is another scale developed at a certain location it immediately creates a "gradient" towards more complexion in the neighboring areas.
But it is very important to have a "system" that allows for increasing complexion with increasing smallness. And that is only possible if complexion can be made out from something which is always smaller that what is being build - and infinitely small could be dimensionless informational points - perhaps qubits as You suggest - but still I favour the concept of "dimensionlessness"
QUOTE: "Obviously not, since e.g if one takes number Pi , writes it in binary form and then ask how much information each bit represents ? In fact, it represents an infinitesimal, or, perhaps, smallest indivisible portion of information, since Pi is a finite symbol containing infinite amount of bits."
This is indeed a good question - namely is Pi into existance in informational world - OR is Pi something which is being gradually developed in physical world as a result of an increasingly better and better fit when tested in real physical world ?
QUOTE: "Would it be that Epicurus was right and practical result of all infinities is a spatially finite Universe? Then it would be characterized by a single number of smallest parts involved spatially? I am not sure."
I like to imagine that informational world is without dimension - and this dimensionless world translates into dimensions - and smallest dimension is not a uniform definition - smallness is exclusively being defined out from the complexity at said locality - and smallness is a ratio not a size. This implicate that physical world is being made up of a FINITE NUMBER of dimensionalities - but the size of Universe is not measurable - size is infinite or not measurable - it is the same - and size will always be something absolutely relative - any dimension including entire Universe is as big as needed. But AMOUNT is a very precise measure - and so is ratios - and therefore physical is measurable. Spatially finite Universe is not possible.
QUOTE: "This is to say that between spatial existance and non-existance there are continuous (?) states which philosphically means that spatial indivisible neither exists, nor not exists- exists partially."
You can say that. The idea that spatial dimension is being defined out from dimensionless informational bits means that one can freely decide the grade of accuracy one want to define said spatial dimension. You can define the expression of spatial dynamic dimension till the border of continuity because informational points are dimensionless. There is no problem with the translation from continuous and into dicreteness !!!! AND a spatial dimension is never into full existance - nor is it into no existance - because it is being dynamically expressed - cinematographically - so it solves the dilemma with how motion can occur in a system which is founded on continuity (dimensionlessness) and translates itsself into "particles" which have an oscillating existance. And the oscillations in next scale is being defined out from the "time" needed in order to express the full particle - a full movie strip. And so on as scales "increases"
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 2 2008, 11:06 PM)
QUOTE: "I am almost sure that physical ends with smallest indivisible volume, while informational is about form, or shape it can have."
I have the same feeling about form and shape, but I am more reluctant about a final smallest volume - I think that volume is dynamically changing and that physical world is developing "smaller and smaller" volumes in the ever ongoing complexion. It is not an even development - it is higly uneven and with smallest volumes naturally occuring where complexion is highest - and a high local complexion exerts a dynamic effect on the neighboring complexion - because complexion induce a different "fit" and with different looking "voids" to be adapted - so whenever there is another scale developed at a certain location it immediately creates a "gradient" towards more complexion in the neighboring areas.
But it is very important to have a "system" that allows for increasing complexion with increasing smallness. And that is only possible if complexion can be made out from something which is always smaller that what is being build - and infinitely small could be dimensionless informational points - perhaps qubits as You suggest - but still I favour the concept of "dimensionlessness"
QUOTE: "This is to say that between spatial existance and non-existance there are continuous (?) states which philosphically means that spatial indivisible neither exists, nor not exists- exists partially."
You can say that. The idea that spatial dimension is being defined out from dimensionless informational bits means that one can freely decide the grade of accuracy one want to define said spatial dimension. You can define the expression of spatial dynamic dimension till the border of continuity because informational points are dimensionless. There is no problem with the translation from continuous and into dicreteness !!!! AND a spatial dimension is never into full existance - nor is it into no existance - because it is being dynamically expressed - cinematographically - so it solves the dilemma with how motion can occur in a system which is founded on continuity (dimensionlessness) and translates itsself into "particles" which have an oscillating existance. And the oscillations in next scale is being defined out from the "time" needed in order to express the full particle - a full movie strip. And so on as scales "increases"
hej bukh
Good
As to smallest indivisible, could it be there exist smallest indivisible with exactly 3 spatial dimensions? As I have noted in my previous post, dimensionality of spatial indivisible can be peeled off by first reducing its highest dimensions. That would mean that spatial existance equals 1 if it is having exactly 3 dimensions, and thus volume in 3 Dimensions. But if its having still more than 3 dimensions, its spatial existance is >1? 2? continuous logic with all numbers > 1 as defined from perspective of a 3D observer - human?
That begs question of how many shapes spatial indivisible can have in exactly 3 dimensions. And if space filling has meaning in this context, we again have 5 Platonic solids. Or is this K-vortex- i still think no, vortexes are next stage of spatial complexion, when dimensionalities loop.
Also, we have to remember that we are 3D observers, and that makes 3D unique ( or can we perceive 3,1 D? definitely 4D is not our natural mental habitat).
As indivisibles spatial existence is reduced , its volume exists in less then 3 dimensions, and so on continuously until it becomes continuously area, then continuosly line, then less than line if that is possible - to me less then 1D is little difficult to imagine, its seems to be somehow discrete-I have to check.
But before indivisible reaches spatial 3D volume, it may have infinite dimensional spatial presence, which is beyond our direct perception, but can exist. So fully present indivisible will have >n-dimensions, or infinite, perhaps bigger than any integer, Cantors cardinal numbers . Now, if there would be an observer for whom n-dimensions is natural place, he would easily exist in them, and observe all smaller n things like we are observing plane and line dimensions.
At the same time the information about these shapes and forms reduced spatially grows , is represented in imaginary information space. There has to be this law of conservation that information never gets lost -it is either spatially or informationally ( imaginary) expressed?
This leads to an interesting, Mobius type symmetry between spatial and informational spaces, or even double Mobious since both of them are turned inside out at the same time.
Since in information space what has been internal becomes external, the influence of each n- dimensional spatial indivisible on others via imaginary (spatially dimensionless obviuously?) information space they share becomes clearer.
I have the same feeling about form and shape, but I am more reluctant about a final smallest volume - I think that volume is dynamically changing and that physical world is developing "smaller and smaller" volumes in the ever ongoing complexion. It is not an even development - it is higly uneven and with smallest volumes naturally occuring where complexion is highest - and a high local complexion exerts a dynamic effect on the neighboring complexion - because complexion induce a different "fit" and with different looking "voids" to be adapted - so whenever there is another scale developed at a certain location it immediately creates a "gradient" towards more complexion in the neighboring areas.
But it is very important to have a "system" that allows for increasing complexion with increasing smallness. And that is only possible if complexion can be made out from something which is always smaller that what is being build - and infinitely small could be dimensionless informational points - perhaps qubits as You suggest - but still I favour the concept of "dimensionlessness"
QUOTE: "This is to say that between spatial existance and non-existance there are continuous (?) states which philosphically means that spatial indivisible neither exists, nor not exists- exists partially."
You can say that. The idea that spatial dimension is being defined out from dimensionless informational bits means that one can freely decide the grade of accuracy one want to define said spatial dimension. You can define the expression of spatial dynamic dimension till the border of continuity because informational points are dimensionless. There is no problem with the translation from continuous and into dicreteness !!!! AND a spatial dimension is never into full existance - nor is it into no existance - because it is being dynamically expressed - cinematographically - so it solves the dilemma with how motion can occur in a system which is founded on continuity (dimensionlessness) and translates itsself into "particles" which have an oscillating existance. And the oscillations in next scale is being defined out from the "time" needed in order to express the full particle - a full movie strip. And so on as scales "increases"
hej bukh
Good
As to smallest indivisible, could it be there exist smallest indivisible with exactly 3 spatial dimensions? As I have noted in my previous post, dimensionality of spatial indivisible can be peeled off by first reducing its highest dimensions. That would mean that spatial existance equals 1 if it is having exactly 3 dimensions, and thus volume in 3 Dimensions. But if its having still more than 3 dimensions, its spatial existance is >1? 2? continuous logic with all numbers > 1 as defined from perspective of a 3D observer - human?
That begs question of how many shapes spatial indivisible can have in exactly 3 dimensions. And if space filling has meaning in this context, we again have 5 Platonic solids. Or is this K-vortex- i still think no, vortexes are next stage of spatial complexion, when dimensionalities loop.
Also, we have to remember that we are 3D observers, and that makes 3D unique ( or can we perceive 3,1 D? definitely 4D is not our natural mental habitat).
As indivisibles spatial existence is reduced , its volume exists in less then 3 dimensions, and so on continuously until it becomes continuously area, then continuosly line, then less than line if that is possible - to me less then 1D is little difficult to imagine, its seems to be somehow discrete-I have to check.
But before indivisible reaches spatial 3D volume, it may have infinite dimensional spatial presence, which is beyond our direct perception, but can exist. So fully present indivisible will have >n-dimensions, or infinite, perhaps bigger than any integer, Cantors cardinal numbers . Now, if there would be an observer for whom n-dimensions is natural place, he would easily exist in them, and observe all smaller n things like we are observing plane and line dimensions.
At the same time the information about these shapes and forms reduced spatially grows , is represented in imaginary information space. There has to be this law of conservation that information never gets lost -it is either spatially or informationally ( imaginary) expressed?
This leads to an interesting, Mobius type symmetry between spatial and informational spaces, or even double Mobious since both of them are turned inside out at the same time.
Since in information space what has been internal becomes external, the influence of each n- dimensional spatial indivisible on others via imaginary (spatially dimensionless obviuously?) information space they share becomes clearer.
If the source is 3-dimensional (exists everywhere), so must everything that it produces be, seeing as all of the 'parts' make up the Whole (Infinite Space), and they are therefore the same thing.
g.
g.
Hej Ivars
What exactly do you mean when saying "smallest indivisibles" - ?
What exactly do you mean when saying "smallest indivisibles" - ?
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 3 2008, 01:02 PM)
Hej Ivars
What exactly do you mean when saying "smallest indivisibles" - ?
hej bukh
I thought like this:
Given the dimensionality of space, at each dimension x there exists a smallest indivisible which can not be divided further. Further division can happen only by reducing its dimensionality, i.e. x.
Since we are used to work in 3D space, the smallest spatial indivisible could be found as a thing when dimensionality of space is x=3 which still has 3D shape but 0 volume in 3D- it would have volume in space with less than 3D , but not in 3D. As such, since its volume in 3D is 0, it is not further divisible spatially, but it can be divided further only by reducing space dimensionality.
The reasoning why this should be possible is based on fact that if You reduce small volume of space in 3D to infinitesimal, its volume ( since it is a cube of edge, roughly) reduces to 0 infinitely faster than its area, which in turn reduces to zero infinitely faster than edge. So at each dimensionality, there has to be an smallest indivisible just on border between previous and next smaller dimensionality.
In information space, dimensionalities are (seems to be) negative, so things happen in opposite order.
What exactly do you mean when saying "smallest indivisibles" - ?
hej bukh
I thought like this:
Given the dimensionality of space, at each dimension x there exists a smallest indivisible which can not be divided further. Further division can happen only by reducing its dimensionality, i.e. x.
Since we are used to work in 3D space, the smallest spatial indivisible could be found as a thing when dimensionality of space is x=3 which still has 3D shape but 0 volume in 3D- it would have volume in space with less than 3D , but not in 3D. As such, since its volume in 3D is 0, it is not further divisible spatially, but it can be divided further only by reducing space dimensionality.
The reasoning why this should be possible is based on fact that if You reduce small volume of space in 3D to infinitesimal, its volume ( since it is a cube of edge, roughly) reduces to 0 infinitely faster than its area, which in turn reduces to zero infinitely faster than edge. So at each dimensionality, there has to be an smallest indivisible just on border between previous and next smaller dimensionality.
In information space, dimensionalities are (seems to be) negative, so things happen in opposite order.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jul 3 2008, 03:09 AM)
hej bukh
I thought like this:
Given the dimensionality of space, at each dimension x there exists a smallest indivisible which can not be divided further. Further division can happen only by reducing its dimensionality, i.e. x.
Since we are used to work in 3D space, the smallest spatial indivisible could be found as a thing when dimensionality of space is x=3 which still has 3D shape but 0 volume in 3D- it would have volume in space with less than 3D , but not in 3D. As such, since its volume in 3D is 0, it is not further divisible spatially, but it can be divided further only by reducing space dimensionality.
The reasoning why this should be possible is based on fact that if You reduce small volume of space in 3D to infinitesimal, its volume ( since it is a cube of edge, roughly) reduces to 0 infinitely faster than its area, which in turn reduces to zero infinitely faster than edge. So at each dimensionality, there has to be an smallest indivisible just on border between previous and next smaller dimensionality.
In information space, dimensionalities are (seems to be) negative, so things happen in opposite order.
So, nothing based on anything remotely Real, then?
g.
I thought like this:
Given the dimensionality of space, at each dimension x there exists a smallest indivisible which can not be divided further. Further division can happen only by reducing its dimensionality, i.e. x.
Since we are used to work in 3D space, the smallest spatial indivisible could be found as a thing when dimensionality of space is x=3 which still has 3D shape but 0 volume in 3D- it would have volume in space with less than 3D , but not in 3D. As such, since its volume in 3D is 0, it is not further divisible spatially, but it can be divided further only by reducing space dimensionality.
The reasoning why this should be possible is based on fact that if You reduce small volume of space in 3D to infinitesimal, its volume ( since it is a cube of edge, roughly) reduces to 0 infinitely faster than its area, which in turn reduces to zero infinitely faster than edge. So at each dimensionality, there has to be an smallest indivisible just on border between previous and next smaller dimensionality.
In information space, dimensionalities are (seems to be) negative, so things happen in opposite order.
So, nothing based on anything remotely Real, then?
g.
g
QUOTE: "So, nothing based on anything remotely Real, then?"
Well - : - How do You define Real ?
QUOTE: "So, nothing based on anything remotely Real, then?"
Well - : - How do You define Real ?
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "The reasoning why this should be possible is based on fact that if You reduce small volume of space in 3D to infinitesimal, its volume ( since it is a cube of edge, roughly) reduces to 0 infinitely faster than its area, which in turn reduces to zero infinitely faster than edge. So at each dimensionality, there has to be an smallest indivisible just on border between previous and next smaller dimensionality.
In information space, dimensionalities are (seems to be) negative, so things happen in opposite order."
Good -
Somehow it makes sense to have the opposite order in Informational space in that this gives an opportunity to "calculate" or to compose an informational bit just big enough to be presented in Physical space.
QUOTE: "The reasoning why this should be possible is based on fact that if You reduce small volume of space in 3D to infinitesimal, its volume ( since it is a cube of edge, roughly) reduces to 0 infinitely faster than its area, which in turn reduces to zero infinitely faster than edge. So at each dimensionality, there has to be an smallest indivisible just on border between previous and next smaller dimensionality.
In information space, dimensionalities are (seems to be) negative, so things happen in opposite order."
Good -
Somehow it makes sense to have the opposite order in Informational space in that this gives an opportunity to "calculate" or to compose an informational bit just big enough to be presented in Physical space.
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 3 2008, 04:04 AM)
g
QUOTE: "So, nothing based on anything remotely Real, then?"
Well - : - How do You define Real ?
Something along the lines of Albert...
"The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions (a priori/logical truths) by sense experiences (a posteriori/empirical truths). ... Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically." (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936)
How about you?
g.
QUOTE: "So, nothing based on anything remotely Real, then?"
Well - : - How do You define Real ?
Something along the lines of Albert...
"The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions (a priori/logical truths) by sense experiences (a posteriori/empirical truths). ... Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically." (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936)
How about you?
g.
Hello, ALL
As it seems for your discussion it may be useful to read the paper "The Information and the Matter" in http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1).
Briefly:
You use the terms / notions as "information space" , "infinity", "Real", etc.
Yes, in custom "Real" (including our Universe) we don’t meet with the infinity – that’s an "abstract" concept. But the point is that all/anything, are subset of the fundamental set "Information" which is for one hand – fundamentally real, from another – is "abstract".
This set has very unique and "unusual" properties – see the link – but here I note only one: (very!) roughly speaking, the set Information one can imagine as some "infinite information space" (an analogue of the Space) where every "infinitesimal" point of the space contains all space as a whole in any space ’s state in "past", "present, and "future".
This set is simultaneously "static" and "dynamic" , at that in this set can to be created and further – exist - some "stable dynamic" subsets – e.g. our Universe; in such a sub-sets some cause-effect relation also can be created what follows to appear the Time.
Etc…
Cheers
As it seems for your discussion it may be useful to read the paper "The Information and the Matter" in http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1).
Briefly:
You use the terms / notions as "information space" , "infinity", "Real", etc.
Yes, in custom "Real" (including our Universe) we don’t meet with the infinity – that’s an "abstract" concept. But the point is that all/anything, are subset of the fundamental set "Information" which is for one hand – fundamentally real, from another – is "abstract".
This set has very unique and "unusual" properties – see the link – but here I note only one: (very!) roughly speaking, the set Information one can imagine as some "infinite information space" (an analogue of the Space) where every "infinitesimal" point of the space contains all space as a whole in any space ’s state in "past", "present, and "future".
This set is simultaneously "static" and "dynamic" , at that in this set can to be created and further – exist - some "stable dynamic" subsets – e.g. our Universe; in such a sub-sets some cause-effect relation also can be created what follows to appear the Time.
Etc…
Cheers
QUOTE
Yes, in custom "Real" (including our Universe) we don’t meet with the infinity – that’s an "abstract" concept.
This is wrong.
The 'finite' is an aspect of Infinite Space; what exists, and is therefore 'Real'. Thus, 'the infinite' is all that IS, as it must be, existing as it does 'everywhere'.
It is an error to try to separate the 'finite' from the Infinite. This illusion of separate state is the Real 'abstraction'.
g.
Hej Ivars
Physical world IS 3D, and this put some restrictions on how physical world can express itsself - perhaps equivalence and time are such restrictions.
Informational world is not 3D, so informational world can be much more complex - and thanks for that - because informational world MUST be much more complex in order to be in a position where it can express everything - physical world just being one expression out of many ?
The rules that gowerns informational world has (probably) very little to do with the rules that gowerns physical world - so neither time nor volume can be used as ordering principles. The translation from informational into physical is (perhaps) irreversible.
Physical world IS 3D, and this put some restrictions on how physical world can express itsself - perhaps equivalence and time are such restrictions.
Informational world is not 3D, so informational world can be much more complex - and thanks for that - because informational world MUST be much more complex in order to be in a position where it can express everything - physical world just being one expression out of many ?
The rules that gowerns informational world has (probably) very little to do with the rules that gowerns physical world - so neither time nor volume can be used as ordering principles. The translation from informational into physical is (perhaps) irreversible.
QUOTE
...informational world MUST be much more complex in order to be in a position where it can express everything
In/out wave motion of Space. Not too complex. More like 'Beautifully simple', if it's an opinion you're after.
g.
hej bukh
Please read my posts in Puzzling questions. It seems these things will be possible to describe mathematically and geometrically. It is difficult for me to operate with opinions before the implications of hyperoperation geometric intepretation are analyzed, especially about the uniqueness of 3D- in should be clear from math in what sense it is unique, and what it means for its physicality.
This math is still easy and possible to learn from scratch, as I told You earlier.
Please read my posts in Puzzling questions. It seems these things will be possible to describe mathematically and geometrically. It is difficult for me to operate with opinions before the implications of hyperoperation geometric intepretation are analyzed, especially about the uniqueness of 3D- in should be clear from math in what sense it is unique, and what it means for its physicality.
This math is still easy and possible to learn from scratch, as I told You earlier.
QUOTE (bukh+Jul 5 2008, 08:19 PM)
Hej Ivars
Physical world IS 3D, and this put some restrictions on how physical world can express itsself - perhaps equivalence and time are such restrictions.
Informational world is not 3D, so informational world can be much more complex - and thanks for that - because informational world MUST be much more complex in order to be in a position where it can express everything - physical world just being one expression out of many ?
The rules that gowerns informational world has (probably) very little to do with the rules that gowerns physical world - so neither time nor volume can be used as ordering principles. The translation from informational into physical is (perhaps) irreversible.
Hey Ivars Buhk
The information may be allowed to have changes that we, in another sense give macro bodies.(by macro, I am referring to photon,electron).
Say the place , reference to position and time are inferred as a pattern. Rather than larger patterns driving where events occur, the pattern within the information is a key that only fits one lock. Once unlocked, it is always open,and never closes. That doesn't mean it continues to play any active part , but creates a law which inhibits a copying into the same pattern or information grid.
Cheers
Iseason
Physical world IS 3D, and this put some restrictions on how physical world can express itsself - perhaps equivalence and time are such restrictions.
Informational world is not 3D, so informational world can be much more complex - and thanks for that - because informational world MUST be much more complex in order to be in a position where it can express everything - physical world just being one expression out of many ?
The rules that gowerns informational world has (probably) very little to do with the rules that gowerns physical world - so neither time nor volume can be used as ordering principles. The translation from informational into physical is (perhaps) irreversible.
Hey Ivars Buhk
The information may be allowed to have changes that we, in another sense give macro bodies.(by macro, I am referring to photon,electron).
Say the place , reference to position and time are inferred as a pattern. Rather than larger patterns driving where events occur, the pattern within the information is a key that only fits one lock. Once unlocked, it is always open,and never closes. That doesn't mean it continues to play any active part , but creates a law which inhibits a copying into the same pattern or information grid.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Guys .
Just reviving this thread as an alternative discussion medium.
Cheers
Iseason
Just reviving this thread as an alternative discussion medium.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi all
Summing up on the latest (Jul 5 Post) is a good starting point as I see it
To me physical best can be described via DIMENSION - dimension is the key to understand describe and communicate physical.
Dimension is a kind of translation of information into a kind of qubit - that inhabits all the necessary in order to communicate this qubit into the physical room - to translate this qubit into all the relevant information in a "physical language" - and physical language is shape.
Now - how can shape be the physical language - well this is possible by using void as the mind-concept.
One a shape is introduced in the physical room - equivalent to "SPACE" said shape takes a ratio of Space - and like any other such informational qubits - they are all taking a unique position and volume and shape - so to speak.
Because of this axiomatic strive for least void - all the shapes/dimensions/ratioofspace - call them what we like - will dynamically arrange and re-arrange themselves in order to achieve the best fit.
And any and all such re-arrangements will be seen as a domino-like wave-pattern spreading like spherical waves out in the universal space - and entering into interferences with all kind of from outside coming domino-like wavepatterns originationg from alike re-arrangements in order to achieve likewise least void.
Georgeous say: "In/out wave motion of Space. Not too complex. More like 'Beautifully simple', if it's an opinion you're after." and that is true - but not ignoring the probably extreme complexion that is bound in the shape. The extreme amount of information that is bound in the shape.
And also I like to re-emphasize another statement by Georgeous : "The 'finite' is an aspect of Infinite Space; what exists, and is therefore 'Real'. Thus, 'the infinite' is all that IS, as it must be, existing as it does 'everywhere'.
It is an error to try to separate the 'finite' from the Infinite. This illusion of separate state is the Real 'abstraction'."
And I agree that space is infinite - but the way that space organize is finite - and it is this finite expressions / patterns that define physical world.
So lets' take it from here -
Summing up on the latest (Jul 5 Post) is a good starting point as I see it
To me physical best can be described via DIMENSION - dimension is the key to understand describe and communicate physical.
Dimension is a kind of translation of information into a kind of qubit - that inhabits all the necessary in order to communicate this qubit into the physical room - to translate this qubit into all the relevant information in a "physical language" - and physical language is shape.
Now - how can shape be the physical language - well this is possible by using void as the mind-concept.
One a shape is introduced in the physical room - equivalent to "SPACE" said shape takes a ratio of Space - and like any other such informational qubits - they are all taking a unique position and volume and shape - so to speak.
Because of this axiomatic strive for least void - all the shapes/dimensions/ratioofspace - call them what we like - will dynamically arrange and re-arrange themselves in order to achieve the best fit.
And any and all such re-arrangements will be seen as a domino-like wave-pattern spreading like spherical waves out in the universal space - and entering into interferences with all kind of from outside coming domino-like wavepatterns originationg from alike re-arrangements in order to achieve likewise least void.
Georgeous say: "In/out wave motion of Space. Not too complex. More like 'Beautifully simple', if it's an opinion you're after." and that is true - but not ignoring the probably extreme complexion that is bound in the shape. The extreme amount of information that is bound in the shape.
And also I like to re-emphasize another statement by Georgeous : "The 'finite' is an aspect of Infinite Space; what exists, and is therefore 'Real'. Thus, 'the infinite' is all that IS, as it must be, existing as it does 'everywhere'.
It is an error to try to separate the 'finite' from the Infinite. This illusion of separate state is the Real 'abstraction'."
And I agree that space is infinite - but the way that space organize is finite - and it is this finite expressions / patterns that define physical world.
So lets' take it from here -
hej Laidback
QUOTE: "So I would suggest a step back to consider why all these divisions when less divisions already point out change within a tolerance that is quite acceptable?
Is it the pursuit for declaration of the coldest temperature and or least Kinetic energy in a system and or area? Or perhaps is it via a theory of point origin and or the troublesome Big-Bang theory?"
Well - I am totally happy with how you explain it - namely exactly that it is up to us to define the accuratesse we want to deal with - not saying that nature fundamentally is not deeper - but who cares -
And as long as we respect that non-dimensions and infinity is not existing in a physical context - and as long as we accept that singularities have dimensions - and that any dimension can be further sub-divided - and that pure math based upon dimensionless points is no good way of trying to express physical world - as long as we accept that, then everything become a bit more sensible to my thinking.
And that we fundamentally accept that forces are opposing forces as you have been proposing since long - and I have entirely agreed upon since long.
QUOTE: "So I would suggest a step back to consider why all these divisions when less divisions already point out change within a tolerance that is quite acceptable?
Is it the pursuit for declaration of the coldest temperature and or least Kinetic energy in a system and or area? Or perhaps is it via a theory of point origin and or the troublesome Big-Bang theory?"
Well - I am totally happy with how you explain it - namely exactly that it is up to us to define the accuratesse we want to deal with - not saying that nature fundamentally is not deeper - but who cares -
And as long as we respect that non-dimensions and infinity is not existing in a physical context - and as long as we accept that singularities have dimensions - and that any dimension can be further sub-divided - and that pure math based upon dimensionless points is no good way of trying to express physical world - as long as we accept that, then everything become a bit more sensible to my thinking.
And that we fundamentally accept that forces are opposing forces as you have been proposing since long - and I have entirely agreed upon since long.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 1 2008, 07:40 PM)
Hi Guys .
OK a change of tact..
Here is a single smallest dimension that is truth..
1
That's it! we can refer to it and we can rely on it as a truth statement as that's all we got.. its our smallest inference.. this is because if we refer to it as any less then in reality we are not referring to truth! as we have many pieces rather than just one unchangeable piece that is closed to change. that's CLOSED to change mind you..
There is no smaller number than one! so keep this in mind..
Besides It does not change with respects to anything else because there IS or has to be nothing else like it.. and if there were then one is not a truth statement.. so our first step is to consider "1" as a reference to a closed system.
Now..
There is only one Universe as it consists of everything so - It is a closed system.
Its a ONE of deal..
Now if it were an open system then what we need do is to consider what is it open to?
Another alike system? So our next question would be what separates the two sub-systems from each other? after all if there are more then we are not considering all of the system as yet..
But what is more of a concern is that if the two are alike then we don't have one but we have two or dawg forbid more!.. so one thus far would not be a truth statement..
so lets treat the two or more as one so now we have one system, and it is now a closed system, but we should note here, our one system is with two or more sub-systems that are either closed or open to the other sub-system/s.
At this point each sub-system if briefly frozen should always be with a ratio of quantity that equates to the whole systems quantity.. IMPORTANTLY no fraction of either should exist separately unless our intention is deception..
If we had a two sub-system system - and one subsystem is closed then in reality for a truth statement to be possible we have to have the other closed as well..
This means our whole system is with no apparent change to its quantity, hardly a system if no changes are evident to us - is it? so in reality there is no point in further divisions.. as that's it!
of course the two sub-systems simply may be with change in reference to each other, so lets propose each system is far to great in magnitude for us to work with, so we divide and divide and divide and divide until we come to what seems no perceivable change is evident to one of our divisions, although if we are to refer to all previous divisions change is most definite, the only problem is we simply cant detect and or perceive any change with such a small division, this is to some degree what most physicists refer to as uncertainty as change can not be equated as change may occur at any given moment, but here's the thing.. if we remove all time constructs, so in effect changes become redundant, we can then equate all of our divisions AT ALL LEVELS - so that every division or sub-system thus far should equate back to our master and or single system and once this is done we should remove all uncertainty..
Put simply one can delve into as much complexity as one wishes, for what ever reason, but when all is said and done, and the numbers don't express as a truth statement then the whole exercise was a waste of time!
Mathematical expressions should never present as anything else other than as truth statement..
In short I have an inkling of what you are trying to consider, and I have a feeling this was and or is the result of the above mentioned uncertainty that can creep in what with all those unnecessary divisions..
So I would suggest a step back to consider why all these divisions when less divisions already point out change within a tolerance that is quite acceptable?
Is it the pursuit for declaration of the coldest temperature and or least Kinetic energy in a system and or area? Or perhaps is it via a theory of point origin and or the troublesome Big-Bang theory?
Or perhaps was and or is it the pursuit of some exotic physical explanation that will never really be of any real and practical use? Even billions of years from now where every change no matter how insignificant has and will be explained by super duper computers?
Hi all
This quotes me, but I copied Laidbacks post across. I agree with this post, however we need to map the universe via one "truth at a time.
So rather than go into details which cloud things. Can we reach agreement on them one.
"that the universe CAN be given a value". that 1 can /must be that value, into which we can derive function and form. "1" assumes wholeness, a closed system regardless of whether there are multiple versions of our universe or extensions to which we cannot really measure.
If we allow for everything that exists or ever will exist, we can give it the value of 1. This could also be referred to as whole for clarity.
Cheers
Iseason
OK a change of tact..
Here is a single smallest dimension that is truth..
1
That's it! we can refer to it and we can rely on it as a truth statement as that's all we got.. its our smallest inference.. this is because if we refer to it as any less then in reality we are not referring to truth! as we have many pieces rather than just one unchangeable piece that is closed to change. that's CLOSED to change mind you..
There is no smaller number than one! so keep this in mind..
Besides It does not change with respects to anything else because there IS or has to be nothing else like it.. and if there were then one is not a truth statement.. so our first step is to consider "1" as a reference to a closed system.
Now..
There is only one Universe as it consists of everything so - It is a closed system.
Its a ONE of deal..
Now if it were an open system then what we need do is to consider what is it open to?
Another alike system? So our next question would be what separates the two sub-systems from each other? after all if there are more then we are not considering all of the system as yet..
But what is more of a concern is that if the two are alike then we don't have one but we have two or dawg forbid more!.. so one thus far would not be a truth statement..
so lets treat the two or more as one so now we have one system, and it is now a closed system, but we should note here, our one system is with two or more sub-systems that are either closed or open to the other sub-system/s.
At this point each sub-system if briefly frozen should always be with a ratio of quantity that equates to the whole systems quantity.. IMPORTANTLY no fraction of either should exist separately unless our intention is deception..
If we had a two sub-system system - and one subsystem is closed then in reality for a truth statement to be possible we have to have the other closed as well..
This means our whole system is with no apparent change to its quantity, hardly a system if no changes are evident to us - is it? so in reality there is no point in further divisions.. as that's it!
of course the two sub-systems simply may be with change in reference to each other, so lets propose each system is far to great in magnitude for us to work with, so we divide and divide and divide and divide until we come to what seems no perceivable change is evident to one of our divisions, although if we are to refer to all previous divisions change is most definite, the only problem is we simply cant detect and or perceive any change with such a small division, this is to some degree what most physicists refer to as uncertainty as change can not be equated as change may occur at any given moment, but here's the thing.. if we remove all time constructs, so in effect changes become redundant, we can then equate all of our divisions AT ALL LEVELS - so that every division or sub-system thus far should equate back to our master and or single system and once this is done we should remove all uncertainty..
Put simply one can delve into as much complexity as one wishes, for what ever reason, but when all is said and done, and the numbers don't express as a truth statement then the whole exercise was a waste of time!
Mathematical expressions should never present as anything else other than as truth statement..
In short I have an inkling of what you are trying to consider, and I have a feeling this was and or is the result of the above mentioned uncertainty that can creep in what with all those unnecessary divisions..
So I would suggest a step back to consider why all these divisions when less divisions already point out change within a tolerance that is quite acceptable?
Is it the pursuit for declaration of the coldest temperature and or least Kinetic energy in a system and or area? Or perhaps is it via a theory of point origin and or the troublesome Big-Bang theory?
Or perhaps was and or is it the pursuit of some exotic physical explanation that will never really be of any real and practical use? Even billions of years from now where every change no matter how insignificant has and will be explained by super duper computers?
Hi all
This quotes me, but I copied Laidbacks post across. I agree with this post, however we need to map the universe via one "truth at a time.
So rather than go into details which cloud things. Can we reach agreement on them one.
"that the universe CAN be given a value". that 1 can /must be that value, into which we can derive function and form. "1" assumes wholeness, a closed system regardless of whether there are multiple versions of our universe or extensions to which we cannot really measure.
If we allow for everything that exists or ever will exist, we can give it the value of 1. This could also be referred to as whole for clarity.
Cheers
Iseason
hi all
"1" - is OK to define the "Everything" - with the little suffix that we are restricting this "one" to what we define as Physical Universe -
"1" - is OK to define the "Everything" - with the little suffix that we are restricting this "one" to what we define as Physical Universe -
With a new found respect,
Permission to enter the forum?
Peter J Schoen..
Permission to enter the forum?
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 2 2008, 01:10 PM)
With a new found respect,
Permission to enter the forum?
Peter J Schoen..
Welcome Laidback, all
As you can see there has been a lot of discussion on the subjects we were taking up in the gravity thread. This was one reason It was relevant to the thread. A displacement universe has a parallel to this discussion.
I have trouble with ANY study of the internal workings of the parameters until we decide on a container. It's not that I want to limit the universe in either direction, but rather, that I cannot agree with infinity .
Having said that , I am content to discuss reasons other DO see infinity as this can lead to behavioral considerations that I may have not considered. Conversely, I expect that others will honestly consider the points I make against infinity and not simply gloss over the facts.
Welcome Back guys.
Cheers
Iseason
Permission to enter the forum?
Peter J Schoen..
Welcome Laidback, all
As you can see there has been a lot of discussion on the subjects we were taking up in the gravity thread. This was one reason It was relevant to the thread. A displacement universe has a parallel to this discussion.
I have trouble with ANY study of the internal workings of the parameters until we decide on a container. It's not that I want to limit the universe in either direction, but rather, that I cannot agree with infinity .
Having said that , I am content to discuss reasons other DO see infinity as this can lead to behavioral considerations that I may have not considered. Conversely, I expect that others will honestly consider the points I make against infinity and not simply gloss over the facts.
Welcome Back guys.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: "Having said that , I am content to discuss reasons other DO see infinity as this can lead to behavioral considerations that I may have not considered. Conversely, I expect that others will honestly consider the points I make against infinity and not simply gloss over the facts."
Instead of Infinity -I prefer the concept of Non-defined.
When considering Container - this cannot be well defined according to my liking - because that involves a kind of borderline considerations - if a container is defined is must certainly have a border - and ----!!!
Instead I advocate this non-defined - meaning no definition with respect to size - so size in a sense can be said to be as big as needed - or as big as it should be -
But what we can define is the ratio of this container - ratio is a finite and well defined term - and everything in physical universe can be explained out from ratio - and it is fairly easy to see that size in the sense of absolute has no meaning or no necessity - size in the context of physical is absolutely relative - actually EVERYTHING in physical universe is about relative ratios - always something in relation to something.
QUOTE: "Having said that , I am content to discuss reasons other DO see infinity as this can lead to behavioral considerations that I may have not considered. Conversely, I expect that others will honestly consider the points I make against infinity and not simply gloss over the facts."
Instead of Infinity -I prefer the concept of Non-defined.
When considering Container - this cannot be well defined according to my liking - because that involves a kind of borderline considerations - if a container is defined is must certainly have a border - and ----!!!
Instead I advocate this non-defined - meaning no definition with respect to size - so size in a sense can be said to be as big as needed - or as big as it should be -
But what we can define is the ratio of this container - ratio is a finite and well defined term - and everything in physical universe can be explained out from ratio - and it is fairly easy to see that size in the sense of absolute has no meaning or no necessity - size in the context of physical is absolutely relative - actually EVERYTHING in physical universe is about relative ratios - always something in relation to something.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 2 2008, 09:21 AM)
Instead of Infinity -I prefer the concept of Non-defined.
Instead I advocate this non-defined - meaning no definition with respect to size - so size in a sense can be said to be as big as needed - or as big as it should be -
Size in the context of physical is absolutely relative - actually EVERYTHING in physical universe is about relative ratios - always something in relation to something.
hej guys
Yes I think as well non-defined , ill-defined, partially defined has broader and more correct meaning.
And size is relative all over the place- true.
However, there must be something that is not relative in Universe but is invariant as size and place changes in a certain ways- it can be e.g. shape, form, symmetry. The possible properties of space as they can be determine these shapes.
Undefined size and place together with invariant forms should be enough to create Universe.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "Undefined size and place together with invariant forms should be enough to create Universe."
Yep - However - once shape is being introduced - physical enter into existance and then we have to deal with position and "time"
QUOTE: "Undefined size and place together with invariant forms should be enough to create Universe."
Yep - However - once shape is being introduced - physical enter into existance and then we have to deal with position and "time"
QUOTE (BigFairy+Oct 2 2008, 11:42 AM)
MONEY CONVERSIONS
U FAIL
U FAIL
Hi Bukh,Ivars
Let me give you my definition of container.
The container will be where we justify all other considerations. Currently, I can see that Bukh has ratios as his container. Ivars has said that it can be shape,form.
I see the two parameters in the extremes, smallest and largest. For me How big or how small is irrelevant and I have no expectation that we will ever be able to actually reach either , and don't necessarily see them as an actual physical point.
Both have their justification within the middle ground. Or a time/space relativity and do not represent a physical container like a spacial dimension such as a border that we can travel to.
Bukh. You like ratios. I agree with the concept and agree with many ratios being present that work in every aspect of our lives. This level affects that level in the same way all over the universe. Yes I agree.
However, the governing factor which creates the ability that even one ratio should exist is that there exist a GREATEST ratio. Each internal ratio is interlinked, harmonized, constantly changing, yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact.
Cheers
Iseason
Let me give you my definition of container.
The container will be where we justify all other considerations. Currently, I can see that Bukh has ratios as his container. Ivars has said that it can be shape,form.
I see the two parameters in the extremes, smallest and largest. For me How big or how small is irrelevant and I have no expectation that we will ever be able to actually reach either , and don't necessarily see them as an actual physical point.
Both have their justification within the middle ground. Or a time/space relativity and do not represent a physical container like a spacial dimension such as a border that we can travel to.
Bukh. You like ratios. I agree with the concept and agree with many ratios being present that work in every aspect of our lives. This level affects that level in the same way all over the universe. Yes I agree.
However, the governing factor which creates the ability that even one ratio should exist is that there exist a GREATEST ratio. Each internal ratio is interlinked, harmonized, constantly changing, yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason -
QUOTE: "yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact."
Yes, - Container is both shape and form - and the non-defined size out from which ratios are being segregated.
That is what we "know" about container - fortunately we do not need to know size - and as to form/shape I am afraid that this is a true mission impossiple to hope that we will know its shape - because shape is the deepest and innermost secret of universe -
We tend to belive that dimensionality is what we see - that dimensionality is a reflection of shapes that we see them in universe - but shape is a quality that is hidden to us - we percept / understand universe via the re-arranging patterns that dimensionalities play - and such patterns are secondary - derived functions of the shapes - how they constantly re-arrange in order to achieve the best overall fit to fill out container in the most optimal way - with as little free void or as little vacuum gradient - which ever of the two definitions one prefer to use - .
I would like to propose that we delve a little on this very concept of dimensionality - how can we define - describe a dimensionality -
And I say that it takes a dimensionality to describe a dimensionality - it is not possible to use mainstream mathematics - irrespective how much mathematic we may have at hand - no mainstream mathematics can describe a dimension. In order to describe a dimension in a meaningful way - one need to map the dimension in a kind of space - and in order to map - one need a kind of ordinate - and in order to have an ordinate one need a kind of discreteness - a yardstick - and it is not possible to construct or define a yardstick out from dimensionless points - it is not possible to transform dimensionless points and continuity into discreteness.
Any suggestions ?
QUOTE: "yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact."
Yes, - Container is both shape and form - and the non-defined size out from which ratios are being segregated.
That is what we "know" about container - fortunately we do not need to know size - and as to form/shape I am afraid that this is a true mission impossiple to hope that we will know its shape - because shape is the deepest and innermost secret of universe -
We tend to belive that dimensionality is what we see - that dimensionality is a reflection of shapes that we see them in universe - but shape is a quality that is hidden to us - we percept / understand universe via the re-arranging patterns that dimensionalities play - and such patterns are secondary - derived functions of the shapes - how they constantly re-arrange in order to achieve the best overall fit to fill out container in the most optimal way - with as little free void or as little vacuum gradient - which ever of the two definitions one prefer to use - .
I would like to propose that we delve a little on this very concept of dimensionality - how can we define - describe a dimensionality -
And I say that it takes a dimensionality to describe a dimensionality - it is not possible to use mainstream mathematics - irrespective how much mathematic we may have at hand - no mainstream mathematics can describe a dimension. In order to describe a dimension in a meaningful way - one need to map the dimension in a kind of space - and in order to map - one need a kind of ordinate - and in order to have an ordinate one need a kind of discreteness - a yardstick - and it is not possible to construct or define a yardstick out from dimensionless points - it is not possible to transform dimensionless points and continuity into discreteness.
Any suggestions ?
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 2 2008, 06:57 PM)
Any suggestions ?
Have you tried gargling with your own mixture of sperm and piss?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Oct 2 2008, 01:52 PM)
Have you tried gargling with your own mixture of sperm and piss?
....Another setback in neonumbskull's lengthy and arduous trek though his puberty.
....Another setback in neonumbskull's lengthy and arduous trek though his puberty.
QUOTE (Bloy+Oct 2 2008, 07:57 PM)
....Another setback in neonumbskull's lengthy and arduous trek though his puberty.
You should try it BloyFairy, it may cure your insecurity problems.
You should try it BloyFairy, it may cure your insecurity problems.
neonom
Oh - a very elegant - insightsfull one-liner. I am glad you spend your talent on this thread.
I think you summarize everything nicely - and I will definitely consider to give it a try - and see what comes out. I'm already a lot more optimistic that we will achieve a lot in this thread - please stay in presence.
Oh - a very elegant - insightsfull one-liner. I am glad you spend your talent on this thread.
I think you summarize everything nicely - and I will definitely consider to give it a try - and see what comes out. I'm already a lot more optimistic that we will achieve a lot in this thread - please stay in presence.
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.