I had a discussion in a forum with a couple of maths guys here , but felt the answer was still somewhat unresolved. I've seen posts on "what is the biggest number?".
I still think infinity (in actuality) is impossible. Here's why.
If infinity existed (in any form) then the outer borders and the inner borders don't exist. Therefore there would be no friction in the middle to create any variance whatsoever. The fact that we can measure at all proves that infinity is false.
thoughts?
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+May 12 2008, 09:23 AM)
If infinity existed (in any form) then the outer borders and the inner borders don't exist. Therefore there would be no friction in the middle to create any variance whatsoever. The fact that we can measure at all proves that infinity is false.
What on earth is this?
Do you mean that if the universe was infinite, there would be no "outside" of the universe? Well, even if the universe is finite there is no outside. If you were able to travel in what you perceived to be a straight line in a closed universe you would eventually come back to where you started, just like on the surface of the earth.
The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist.
What on earth is this?
Do you mean that if the universe was infinite, there would be no "outside" of the universe? Well, even if the universe is finite there is no outside. If you were able to travel in what you perceived to be a straight line in a closed universe you would eventually come back to where you started, just like on the surface of the earth.
The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist.
QUOTE (prometheus+May 12 2008, 10:52 PM)
What on earth is this?
Do you mean that if the universe was infinite, there would be no "outside" of the universe? Well, even if the universe is finite there is no outside. If you were able to travel in what you perceived to be a straight line in a closed universe you would eventually come back to where you started, just like on the surface of the earth.
The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist.
prometheus
Thanks for replying.
Getting away from math. infinity , When used in relation to "infinite universes' or infinite material , Infinite past or future would lead to no variance.
Even if , as you say you would travel in a loop, the variance that causes the loop could not exist in infinity because it would act in an infinite paradox of it's own.
But these are paper arguments. Infinite time, space and energy would itself create the inability to measure itself.
Cheers
Iseason
Do you mean that if the universe was infinite, there would be no "outside" of the universe? Well, even if the universe is finite there is no outside. If you were able to travel in what you perceived to be a straight line in a closed universe you would eventually come back to where you started, just like on the surface of the earth.
The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist.
prometheus
Thanks for replying.
Getting away from math. infinity , When used in relation to "infinite universes' or infinite material , Infinite past or future would lead to no variance.
Even if , as you say you would travel in a loop, the variance that causes the loop could not exist in infinity because it would act in an infinite paradox of it's own.
But these are paper arguments. Infinite time, space and energy would itself create the inability to measure itself.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason, prometheus, Gorgeous et al,
Prometheus has something there. In the end infinities are not just found in the large or the small they are also found in "everything" simply because of the problem of limits. Quantum Barrier penetration is also another limit that is spontaneously broken. Approaching of limit barriers are usually asymptotic. This is because of the geometry or the energy considerations. The barrier can be penetrated through going around it in some way so the act of going around that barrier is then "beyond infinity". The infinity still exists but that did not stop traversing the barrier such as in the problem of the tortoise and the hare... the Zeno Paradox. Optical caustics are another limit that is spontaneously broken in nature. Quantum states of being must exist and movement from one quantum state to the next appears at first sight to be "impossible" but obviously we can "stroll around a room" in virtual continuous motion without any problem. Quantum phenomena and our continuum are irreconcilable but we know that they are part of our experience so it is not an impossibility.
Michio Kaku's New Book called Physics of the Impossible is a potential eye opener to those who are limited by the constraints of theories. We have had theories that have had limits for a very long time but all the limits have been shown to be only limits of our own making and appear to be an attempt to confine us into a "very small room" when all the while we are surrounded by "infinity".
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/006515.html
Cheers
Prometheus has something there. In the end infinities are not just found in the large or the small they are also found in "everything" simply because of the problem of limits. Quantum Barrier penetration is also another limit that is spontaneously broken. Approaching of limit barriers are usually asymptotic. This is because of the geometry or the energy considerations. The barrier can be penetrated through going around it in some way so the act of going around that barrier is then "beyond infinity". The infinity still exists but that did not stop traversing the barrier such as in the problem of the tortoise and the hare... the Zeno Paradox. Optical caustics are another limit that is spontaneously broken in nature. Quantum states of being must exist and movement from one quantum state to the next appears at first sight to be "impossible" but obviously we can "stroll around a room" in virtual continuous motion without any problem. Quantum phenomena and our continuum are irreconcilable but we know that they are part of our experience so it is not an impossibility.
Michio Kaku's New Book called Physics of the Impossible is a potential eye opener to those who are limited by the constraints of theories. We have had theories that have had limits for a very long time but all the limits have been shown to be only limits of our own making and appear to be an attempt to confine us into a "very small room" when all the while we are surrounded by "infinity".
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/006515.html
QUOTE
"To see the World in a Grain of Sand,
And Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
And Eternity in an Hour"
~ William Blake
And Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
And Eternity in an Hour"
~ William Blake
Cheers
Between geometrical spheres can't be friction. Was infinity can be. But how energy? This is unanswered question. Energy and geomtrical spheres was like god 
QUOTE
...all the while we are surrounded by "infinity".
Oh yes! - And there is a very good reason for that; all 'things' being harmonically-accumulated central points of standing spherical wave-structures of Infinite Space. It is necessarily 'infinite' because it is what exists, and existence must be infinite in order to produce that which we observe. Why 'spherical'? - Because it is the only shape formed without 'borders' in a 3-dimensional environment.
Even if you posit a 'big bang', then whatever is considered to be beyond that (whatever Space is 'expanding' into), must also be necessarily infinite. Ultimately, it IS the 'source' of all 'things', and thus to which all things must return.
Imagine this...To pick a point the size of an electron at the 'edge' of the Universe. How many other points would go to make up the entire 'border' of the 'Universal sphere'? ...Because, this is how many 'directions' there are in the Universe! [ .9r, which, as we all know, is equal to One entire existence!
] - Consider also, that this 'amount' is multiplying at an exponential rate, if you posit an 'expansion'.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...all the while we are surrounded by "infinity". |
Oh yes! - And there is a very good reason for that; all 'things' being harmonically-accumulated central points of standing spherical wave-structures of Infinite Space. It is necessarily 'infinite' because it is what exists, and existence must be infinite in order to produce that which we observe. Why 'spherical'? - Because it is the only shape formed without 'borders' in a 3-dimensional environment.
Even if you posit a 'big bang', then whatever is considered to be beyond that (whatever Space is 'expanding' into), must also be necessarily infinite. Ultimately, it IS the 'source' of all 'things', and thus to which all things must return.
Imagine this...To pick a point the size of an electron at the 'edge' of the Universe. How many other points would go to make up the entire 'border' of the 'Universal sphere'? ...Because, this is how many 'directions' there are in the Universe! [ .9r, which, as we all know, is equal to One entire existence!
] - Consider also, that this 'amount' is multiplying at an exponential rate, if you posit an 'expansion'.Someday we'll understand the whole thing as one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we may say to each other; 'Oh, how could we have been so stupid for so long? How could it have been otherwise!' (J. A. Wheeler)
prometheus
QUOTE: "The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist."
Perhaps infinite should be reserved for special "beings" like size of universe - how big is universe ? - as big as needed.
Universe has no well-defined size -
That said - then I imagine that all other "beings" are finite - many of them open, meaning that they have a size at a given moment - but ever increasing.
Let me be a little more concrete.
I imagine that Universe best can be described as a binary system applied on an infinite dimensionality - infinite space - a space without form -
The binary system - the Principle - segregates this infinite space into ratios - and each ratio is the equivalent of a number in mathematical binary system. Universe can be described / defined as such dimensionalities arranged in space - and according to how a binary mathematical system organize itsself according to rules (a few of them that we know today).
This implicate that mathematical numbers are finite but ever growing in number and complexion.
Like numbers have a dimension - they are discrete - so is time - or time units - but with increasing complexion, the time units become smaller and smaller - but never infite small,
Zenons paradoxe(s) has not to do with infinite - they are reflexions of how discreteness is being (wrongly) taken care of.
So I think that infinite shall be reserved for the infinite space (formless-structureless-motionless- adynamic - just the very concept of a space) - and as soon as this space is starting dividing - physical is born, and physical is RATIOS - each ratio with a corresponding dimension - and how all these ratios are configured dynamically - ever oscillating reconfigured - in infinite space. Mathematics is ratios - and math numbers are finite - but constantly growing. open system.
QUOTE: "The concept of infinity is not only perfectly valid, it's necessary for many applications in physics. Think of zeno's paradox: the hare has to catch up with the tortoise an infinite amount of times before the two are in the same place. Think of the numbers: there are infinitely many integers, and there are infinitely many real numbers in any interval. Infinity certainly does exist."
Perhaps infinite should be reserved for special "beings" like size of universe - how big is universe ? - as big as needed.
Universe has no well-defined size -
That said - then I imagine that all other "beings" are finite - many of them open, meaning that they have a size at a given moment - but ever increasing.
Let me be a little more concrete.
I imagine that Universe best can be described as a binary system applied on an infinite dimensionality - infinite space - a space without form -
The binary system - the Principle - segregates this infinite space into ratios - and each ratio is the equivalent of a number in mathematical binary system. Universe can be described / defined as such dimensionalities arranged in space - and according to how a binary mathematical system organize itsself according to rules (a few of them that we know today).
This implicate that mathematical numbers are finite but ever growing in number and complexion.
Like numbers have a dimension - they are discrete - so is time - or time units - but with increasing complexion, the time units become smaller and smaller - but never infite small,
Zenons paradoxe(s) has not to do with infinite - they are reflexions of how discreteness is being (wrongly) taken care of.
So I think that infinite shall be reserved for the infinite space (formless-structureless-motionless- adynamic - just the very concept of a space) - and as soon as this space is starting dividing - physical is born, and physical is RATIOS - each ratio with a corresponding dimension - and how all these ratios are configured dynamically - ever oscillating reconfigured - in infinite space. Mathematics is ratios - and math numbers are finite - but constantly growing. open system.
Wow!
Love the answers. Lots of good stuff to look through there. I was considering the problem of infinity in this way.
Infinite small or infinite big makes no difference. infinite small has no starting point to gain "reality and substance". Infinite big has the same problem. Infinite middle(in any way shape or form becomes either an infinite small or an infinite big. (depends on where you measure from).
to gain substance and mass, we would need at least a period of finite.
NO ! . Now I'm just second guessing myself. In any arena when finite and infinite are involved infinite over ides and destroys any chance of finite anything. And there's no way to shield or separate the two concepts.(while they exist together). One or the other must be said to exist, but infinite cannot be measured .
I humbly disagree, but will go look at more information.
Cheers
Iseason
Love the answers. Lots of good stuff to look through there. I was considering the problem of infinity in this way.
Infinite small or infinite big makes no difference. infinite small has no starting point to gain "reality and substance". Infinite big has the same problem. Infinite middle(in any way shape or form becomes either an infinite small or an infinite big. (depends on where you measure from).
to gain substance and mass, we would need at least a period of finite.
NO ! . Now I'm just second guessing myself. In any arena when finite and infinite are involved infinite over ides and destroys any chance of finite anything. And there's no way to shield or separate the two concepts.(while they exist together). One or the other must be said to exist, but infinite cannot be measured .
I humbly disagree, but will go look at more information.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: "to gain substance and mass, we would need at least a period of finite."
I share the same thinking - and that is why I have difficulties in seeing how continuous can have an existance in the concept of being physical. Physical is intimately bound up on dimensionality - and dimensionality cannot pop out of continuous or dimensionless points - and dynamic cannot live together with continuous.
universe IS ratios - and this gives total relativity - there exists no yardstick for dimension - there exist no yardsticks at all. This necessarily require a space with no set dimension. Universe is as big as needed.
QUOTE: "to gain substance and mass, we would need at least a period of finite."
I share the same thinking - and that is why I have difficulties in seeing how continuous can have an existance in the concept of being physical. Physical is intimately bound up on dimensionality - and dimensionality cannot pop out of continuous or dimensionless points - and dynamic cannot live together with continuous.
universe IS ratios - and this gives total relativity - there exists no yardstick for dimension - there exist no yardsticks at all. This necessarily require a space with no set dimension. Universe is as big as needed.
If you will divide matter into smaller and smaller peases you will find that everything is finity into decreasing direction. And everything what is infinity consist of finity parts. If you dividing cosmos you going into atoms, then nucleons, electrons and so this must be farther... Deviding matter farther you will come to conclusion, that everything consist of geometrical spheres. Those spheres are connected with over spheres with one, infinity small point. Thus for spheres moving directions is most free, than for over geometrical phygures. IF universe would consist of geometrical cubes, then it sould be in not random way, but in most economical way, and thus cubes wouldnt be able to move and nothing would be... If universe will consit of thetraedrs then motions would be limited and with gliches... IF universe would consist of any random phygures, then would be long wall etc with same value, but very long, and unabling to crash... That's would be strange, you flying in space and crash into some wall with thikness of say 1/10^10000 m. But it wall would be uncrashable like all smalles phygures...spheres... So the most freely model is model of many-infinity spheres, which filling each inche of universe. Spheres density must be maximum and thus will not be diference in any inch of universe. IF density will not be maximum then everything will blame into smallest peases without any computation/useful information... Just be many flying inchoerent balls and thus nothing, which exist now unbale will be then to exist. Becouse according to newton laws, there would be only law of some pseudothermodinamic, without any coherence... So when density of sphere is maximum there can become laws acording, which spheres can move. This laws will have random/probabilistic haracter, but in all majority will create spmthing realy coherent like photon/waves and electrons and over particles. Electron is tornado of spheres. All particles and forces are tornados of spheres. Big bang was torando of spheres... Our existance is tornado of geometrical spheres. Superposition is tornado of spheres, colapse is torando projection onto another tornado... All universe is many spheres torandos anomalies, which maybe one time in 10^10000^1000000^1000000 doing somthing realy coherent like becoming our universe... Neutron decay is torando decay into two spheres tornados. All spheres torandos are interconnected with each over and thus it explaining atraction of electric and magnetic forces. All universe, cosmos is just many spherical torandos fluctation. Infinity affecting torandos making them proabilistic in quantum mechanic... Geometrical spheres can be somthing like 10^-35 m radius.
QUOTE
Now I'm just second guessing myself. In any arena when finite and infinite are involved infinite over ides and destroys any chance of finite anything. And there's no way to shield or separate the two concepts.(while they exist together). One or the other must be said to exist, but infinite cannot be measured .
Finite and Infinite are not separate states, but reciprocal states of the same thing. Essentially, this is why we observe things 'changing'. When is rock liquid? Gas solid?
The 'finite' is always in the process of becoming and returning, but contains the original wave-state within it, so it must 'return', dissipate back into 'Infinite-ness', as this is its only true origin. It has nowhere 'else' to go!
g.
I'm not really departing how formations are creates in geometric states or not. The point is that I could not slow infinity because by the nature of the term it has already got everything within it. But because there are no doors on it , infinity cannot compress enough to become measurable via it's parts.
"whole". is a term I understand. While I cannot measure it's boundaries, I can measure it's parts. but only because the doors closed before I started measuring.
Cheers
Iseason
"whole". is a term I understand. While I cannot measure it's boundaries, I can measure it's parts. but only because the doors closed before I started measuring.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: ""whole". is a term I understand. While I cannot measure it's boundaries, I can measure it's parts. but only because the doors closed before I started measuring."
Imagine that you are not measuring a dimension - but you are comparing ratios - ratios of infinite dimension, which has been departed in smaller parts of infinite - so each and any part - or each and any dimension in universe has no finite size - everything is a ratio of something, and as your yardstick, you are using yourself - you are using the yardstick which is the dimension that humans are being "constructed" out from -
and the doors never close - ratios are still being "born" - in the proces of complexion - universe is "expanding inwards" - you will never be able to tell what the total number of dimensions - total number of ratios takes of space - because this space is per definition infinite - so popularly speaking you can say that size does not matter
QUOTE: ""whole". is a term I understand. While I cannot measure it's boundaries, I can measure it's parts. but only because the doors closed before I started measuring."
Imagine that you are not measuring a dimension - but you are comparing ratios - ratios of infinite dimension, which has been departed in smaller parts of infinite - so each and any part - or each and any dimension in universe has no finite size - everything is a ratio of something, and as your yardstick, you are using yourself - you are using the yardstick which is the dimension that humans are being "constructed" out from -
and the doors never close - ratios are still being "born" - in the proces of complexion - universe is "expanding inwards" - you will never be able to tell what the total number of dimensions - total number of ratios takes of space - because this space is per definition infinite - so popularly speaking you can say that size does not matter
Ok. I don't know if it is an appropriate time for a layman to step in but I'm going to.
I've carefully read what's been said here and tried carefully to parse what has been said by those posters to whom English is not their first language. And I have one conclusion (with all due respect) ...
It's mostly a bunch of rubbish. I don't mean that as an insult. But the paradox (and that is a limiting word in this case) of defining infinity the way you people have is clear to me. Here's why I say so using conventional human thinking available to someone like me who just isn't equipped with a mathematical mind:
I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well. I was able to do so by imagining a finite boundary and then extending it. That to me means that if you begin travel in a straight line then eventually returning to the point at which you started is just not possible. Doing so violates the concept and the definition of the word. The idea that space is as big as it needs to be is conceptually valid to me. But that doesn't obviate the infinity that lies beyond. You reach the boundary, take another step. To my mind that is acceptable.
You all seem to be playing games with words. Infinity is infinite. It can be nothing else. Sophistry doesn't make it finite. I'm supposing that somehow Math doesn't allow for "REAL" infinity? Tough luck I say. Math is a useful tool for expressing the geometry of so many things but I guessing that it just doesn't cut it with something that ultimately has NO geometry? And isn't that what infinity really is ... NO geometry?
I've carefully read what's been said here and tried carefully to parse what has been said by those posters to whom English is not their first language. And I have one conclusion (with all due respect) ...
It's mostly a bunch of rubbish. I don't mean that as an insult. But the paradox (and that is a limiting word in this case) of defining infinity the way you people have is clear to me. Here's why I say so using conventional human thinking available to someone like me who just isn't equipped with a mathematical mind:
I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well. I was able to do so by imagining a finite boundary and then extending it. That to me means that if you begin travel in a straight line then eventually returning to the point at which you started is just not possible. Doing so violates the concept and the definition of the word. The idea that space is as big as it needs to be is conceptually valid to me. But that doesn't obviate the infinity that lies beyond. You reach the boundary, take another step. To my mind that is acceptable.
You all seem to be playing games with words. Infinity is infinite. It can be nothing else. Sophistry doesn't make it finite. I'm supposing that somehow Math doesn't allow for "REAL" infinity? Tough luck I say. Math is a useful tool for expressing the geometry of so many things but I guessing that it just doesn't cut it with something that ultimately has NO geometry? And isn't that what infinity really is ... NO geometry?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+May 13 2008, 08:09 PM)
Ok. I don't know if it is an appropriate time for a layman to step in but I'm going to.
I've carefully read what's been said here and tried carefully to parse what has been said by those posters to whom English is not their first language. And I have one conclusion (with all due respect) ...
It's mostly a bunch of rubbish. I don't mean that as an insult. But the paradox (and that is a limiting word in this case) of defining infinity the way you people have is clear to me. Here's why I say so using conventional human thinking available to someone like me who just isn't equipped with a mathematical mind:
I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well. I was able to do so by imagining a finite boundary and then extending it. That to me means that if you begin travel in a straight line then eventually returning to the point at which you started is just not possible. Doing so violates the concept and the definition of the word. The idea that space is as big as it needs to be is conceptually valid to me. But that doesn't obviate the infinity that lies beyond. You reach the boundary, take another step. To my mind that is acceptable.
You all seem to be playing games with words. Infinity is infinite. It can be nothing else. Sophistry doesn't make it finite. I'm supposing that somehow Math doesn't allow for "REAL" infinity? Tough luck I say. Math is a useful tool for expressing the geometry of so many things but I guessing that it just doesn't cut it with something that ultimately has NO geometry? And isn't that what infinity really is ... NO geometry?
Yes, that is correct, however, the real answer is both yes AND no! Seems 'paradoxical', but that is because we have evolved in a very 'finite' way, without grasping much of how Infinite Space actually works. For instance, if we are talking only in terms of the Infinite aspect of Space, then there is no 'beginning' to anything involved. It is our attempt to measure that creates a semi-imaginary 'beginning'. I say 'semi'-imaginary because, obviously, our 'thoughts' are real things, so this 'beginning', we can say, exists as a finite imaginary state, but not one that is consequently applicable to anything in the rest of Infinite Space.
Something must produce the 'finite' states we observe (and are!). Reality consists of both 'finiteness' and 'infiniteness' at one and the same time, but because of our propensity to measure and label things, we tend to divide these up, and look for 'evidence' for 'the one we have decided is true', and this division leads us away from the necessary properties of Infinite-ness! In fact, Humans do this with almost everything, which is why we seek 'good' over 'bad' when such things do not actually exist in the larger Reality. It is us that divides finite reality up into 'sections', but we then apply this tradition to our understanding of Infinite Space, where the same 'rules' of division do not apply..
I think people are really just trying to understand, but succumbing to the problems of finite conditioning, using divisive language and thought processes to try and understand that which is undivided - hence your 'you all seem to be playing games with words' observation. Another reason why this is also true is because ALL mere words are never the Real thing in itself, but second-hand 'descriptions'.
g.
I've carefully read what's been said here and tried carefully to parse what has been said by those posters to whom English is not their first language. And I have one conclusion (with all due respect) ...
It's mostly a bunch of rubbish. I don't mean that as an insult. But the paradox (and that is a limiting word in this case) of defining infinity the way you people have is clear to me. Here's why I say so using conventional human thinking available to someone like me who just isn't equipped with a mathematical mind:
I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well. I was able to do so by imagining a finite boundary and then extending it. That to me means that if you begin travel in a straight line then eventually returning to the point at which you started is just not possible. Doing so violates the concept and the definition of the word. The idea that space is as big as it needs to be is conceptually valid to me. But that doesn't obviate the infinity that lies beyond. You reach the boundary, take another step. To my mind that is acceptable.
You all seem to be playing games with words. Infinity is infinite. It can be nothing else. Sophistry doesn't make it finite. I'm supposing that somehow Math doesn't allow for "REAL" infinity? Tough luck I say. Math is a useful tool for expressing the geometry of so many things but I guessing that it just doesn't cut it with something that ultimately has NO geometry? And isn't that what infinity really is ... NO geometry?
Yes, that is correct, however, the real answer is both yes AND no! Seems 'paradoxical', but that is because we have evolved in a very 'finite' way, without grasping much of how Infinite Space actually works. For instance, if we are talking only in terms of the Infinite aspect of Space, then there is no 'beginning' to anything involved. It is our attempt to measure that creates a semi-imaginary 'beginning'. I say 'semi'-imaginary because, obviously, our 'thoughts' are real things, so this 'beginning', we can say, exists as a finite imaginary state, but not one that is consequently applicable to anything in the rest of Infinite Space.
Something must produce the 'finite' states we observe (and are!). Reality consists of both 'finiteness' and 'infiniteness' at one and the same time, but because of our propensity to measure and label things, we tend to divide these up, and look for 'evidence' for 'the one we have decided is true', and this division leads us away from the necessary properties of Infinite-ness! In fact, Humans do this with almost everything, which is why we seek 'good' over 'bad' when such things do not actually exist in the larger Reality. It is us that divides finite reality up into 'sections', but we then apply this tradition to our understanding of Infinite Space, where the same 'rules' of division do not apply..
I think people are really just trying to understand, but succumbing to the problems of finite conditioning, using divisive language and thought processes to try and understand that which is undivided - hence your 'you all seem to be playing games with words' observation. Another reason why this is also true is because ALL mere words are never the Real thing in itself, but second-hand 'descriptions'.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 13 2008, 08:56 PM)
Yes, that is correct, however, the real answer is both yes AND no! Seems 'paradoxical', but that is because we have evolved in a very 'finite' way, without grasping much of how Infinite Space actually works. For instance, if we are talking only in terms of the Infinite aspect of Space, then there is no 'beginning' to anything involved. It is our attempt to measure that creates a semi-imaginary 'beginning'. I say 'semi'-imaginary because, obviously, our 'thoughts' are real things, so this 'beginning', we can say, exists as a finite imaginary state, but not one that is consequently applicable to anything in the rest of Infinite Space.
Something must produce the 'finite' states we observe (and are!). Reality consists of both 'finiteness' and 'infiniteness' at one and the same time, but because of our propensity to measure and label things, we tend to divide these up, and look for 'evidence' for 'the one we have decided is true', and this division leads us away from the necessary properties of Infinite-ness! In fact, Humans do this with almost everything, which is why we seek 'good' over 'bad' when such things do not actually exist in the larger Reality. It is us that divides finite reality up into 'sections', but we then apply this tradition to our understanding of Infinite Space, where the same 'rules' of division do not apply..
I think people are really just trying to understand, but succumbing to the problems of finite conditioning, using divisive language and thought processes to try and understand that which is undivided - hence your 'you all seem to be playing games with words' observation. Another reason why this is also true is because ALL mere words are never the Real thing in itself, but second-hand 'descriptions'.
g.
Not to put too "fine" a point on it but first it occurs to me that the "finite" is just a subset of the "infinite". Of course they both exist ... but in that sense only. There seems to me to be an attempt here to link the finite and infinite as an equality. And that just doesn't wash for me.
I'm blaming Math. It is no doubt a "fine" way to quantify things. However in the case of "infinity" such quantification can hardly be defined as quality.
This all of course leads to the issue that in most ways (according to moi) this is just a philosophical question.
Does all this mean I am in the .999.... is not equal to 1 camp?
Something must produce the 'finite' states we observe (and are!). Reality consists of both 'finiteness' and 'infiniteness' at one and the same time, but because of our propensity to measure and label things, we tend to divide these up, and look for 'evidence' for 'the one we have decided is true', and this division leads us away from the necessary properties of Infinite-ness! In fact, Humans do this with almost everything, which is why we seek 'good' over 'bad' when such things do not actually exist in the larger Reality. It is us that divides finite reality up into 'sections', but we then apply this tradition to our understanding of Infinite Space, where the same 'rules' of division do not apply..
I think people are really just trying to understand, but succumbing to the problems of finite conditioning, using divisive language and thought processes to try and understand that which is undivided - hence your 'you all seem to be playing games with words' observation. Another reason why this is also true is because ALL mere words are never the Real thing in itself, but second-hand 'descriptions'.
g.
Not to put too "fine" a point on it but first it occurs to me that the "finite" is just a subset of the "infinite". Of course they both exist ... but in that sense only. There seems to me to be an attempt here to link the finite and infinite as an equality. And that just doesn't wash for me.
I'm blaming Math. It is no doubt a "fine" way to quantify things. However in the case of "infinity" such quantification can hardly be defined as quality.
This all of course leads to the issue that in most ways (according to moi) this is just a philosophical question.
Does all this mean I am in the .999.... is not equal to 1 camp?
uaafanblog
QUOTE: "It's mostly a bunch of rubbish." and "I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well."
Huh - Reality ! - now I am curious as to what that mean ?
Infinity ! and Reality ! how to combine in a simple wording.
QUOTE: "It's mostly a bunch of rubbish." and "I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well."
Huh - Reality ! - now I am curious as to what that mean ?
Infinity ! and Reality ! how to combine in a simple wording.
QUOTE (bukh+May 13 2008, 09:42 PM)
uaafanblog
QUOTE: "It's mostly a bunch of rubbish." and "I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well."
Huh - Reality ! - now I am curious as to what that mean ?
Infinity ! and Reality ! how to combine in a simple wording.
A concept is a thought. Reality is what is.
Many concepts are not reality.
"Infinity" as a concept is not "proven" per se but I accept it (believe) as reality.
QUOTE: "It's mostly a bunch of rubbish." and "I've always accepted infinity. Not only as a concept but as reality as well."
Huh - Reality ! - now I am curious as to what that mean ?
Infinity ! and Reality ! how to combine in a simple wording.
A concept is a thought. Reality is what is.
Many concepts are not reality.
"Infinity" as a concept is not "proven" per se but I accept it (believe) as reality.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+May 13 2008, 09:27 PM)
Not to put too "fine" a point on it but first it occurs to me that the "finite" is just a subset of the "infinite". Of course they both exist ... but in that sense only. There seems to me to be an attempt here to link the finite and infinite as an equality. And that just doesn't wash for me.
Well, that must be true, but both 'states' are as Real as each other. That which we observe as the 'finite' is exactly the same 'stuff' as all other existence, which takes on all of the differing forms. Essentially, ALL things are Space, and Space exists Infinitely. It may take on the appearance of 'matter', or 'physicality', if you like, but all things are still vibrational wave-frequencies of what exists.
The only way to describe the One thing that ultimately exists, is as a 'balanced' state, and that is because 'One Thing' cannot be anything 'other' than balanced, by default. Therefore, the 'finite' and the 'infinite' are, likewise, the same thing. Indeed, this may be reason enough for like-frequencies to 'harmonise', giving us the effect we call 'gravity'.
'Math' is a useful tool for the measurement of the finite, but when it comes to the Reality of Infinite Space, it must be found wanting, by default of 'Infinity' being a measurement that cannot be measured! It simply has limitations, whereas, of course, the Reality of Infinite Space cannot. 'Mathematical infinity' is not the same thing as the Real Spatial Infinity, but the use of the term IS confusing for everyone concerned, I would agree, as would most genuine mathematicians, I would hope!
'Math' is a useful tool for the measurement of the finite, but when it comes to the Reality of Infinite Space, it must be found wanting, by default of 'Infinity' being a measurement that cannot be measured! It simply has limitations, whereas, of course, the Reality of Infinite Space cannot. 'Mathematical infinity' is not the same thing as the Real Spatial Infinity, but the use of the term IS confusing for everyone concerned, I would agree, as would most genuine mathematicians, I would hope!
This all of course leads to the issue that in most ways (according to moi) this is just a philosophical question.
What do you mean 'just' a philosophical question?!!
A semantic one, certainly! 'Infinity' is a necessarily confusing subject. We have evolved within an environment in which we have to differentiate ourselves from our surroundings in order to survive in them. This indoctrinates us into finite-thinking as a fundamental survival method, and is going to be a tough habit to break. Only true understanding can bring this breakthrough, and thus we also evolve the likes of 'philosophy' as a method for attempting to discern the Truth from our observations.
In my opinion, you would be wise to put yourself only in the understanding of Truth 'camp', and not bother too much with where other people think you 'should' be.
g.
Well, that must be true, but both 'states' are as Real as each other. That which we observe as the 'finite' is exactly the same 'stuff' as all other existence, which takes on all of the differing forms. Essentially, ALL things are Space, and Space exists Infinitely. It may take on the appearance of 'matter', or 'physicality', if you like, but all things are still vibrational wave-frequencies of what exists.
The only way to describe the One thing that ultimately exists, is as a 'balanced' state, and that is because 'One Thing' cannot be anything 'other' than balanced, by default. Therefore, the 'finite' and the 'infinite' are, likewise, the same thing. Indeed, this may be reason enough for like-frequencies to 'harmonise', giving us the effect we call 'gravity'.
QUOTE
I'm blaming Math. It is no doubt a "fine" way to quantify things. However in the case of "infinity" such quantification can hardly be defined as quality.
'Math' is a useful tool for the measurement of the finite, but when it comes to the Reality of Infinite Space, it must be found wanting, by default of 'Infinity' being a measurement that cannot be measured! It simply has limitations, whereas, of course, the Reality of Infinite Space cannot. 'Mathematical infinity' is not the same thing as the Real Spatial Infinity, but the use of the term IS confusing for everyone concerned, I would agree, as would most genuine mathematicians, I would hope!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm blaming Math. It is no doubt a "fine" way to quantify things. However in the case of "infinity" such quantification can hardly be defined as quality. |
'Math' is a useful tool for the measurement of the finite, but when it comes to the Reality of Infinite Space, it must be found wanting, by default of 'Infinity' being a measurement that cannot be measured! It simply has limitations, whereas, of course, the Reality of Infinite Space cannot. 'Mathematical infinity' is not the same thing as the Real Spatial Infinity, but the use of the term IS confusing for everyone concerned, I would agree, as would most genuine mathematicians, I would hope!
This all of course leads to the issue that in most ways (according to moi) this is just a philosophical question.
What do you mean 'just' a philosophical question?!!
A semantic one, certainly! 'Infinity' is a necessarily confusing subject. We have evolved within an environment in which we have to differentiate ourselves from our surroundings in order to survive in them. This indoctrinates us into finite-thinking as a fundamental survival method, and is going to be a tough habit to break. Only true understanding can bring this breakthrough, and thus we also evolve the likes of 'philosophy' as a method for attempting to discern the Truth from our observations.QUOTE
Does all this mean I am in the .999.... is not equal to 1 camp?
In my opinion, you would be wise to put yourself only in the understanding of Truth 'camp', and not bother too much with where other people think you 'should' be.
g.
uaafanblog
QUOTE: "Reality is what is."
Perhaps semantics - anyhow - to me reality has connections to what can be percepted - measured by human scale - and that is what normally is being referred to as Physical.
And physical - ??
Now it becomes a bit more demanding - exactly how to define physical - and it is in this mine field that infinity and continuous have a difficult life as I see it -
That's why I am curious about an answer - and perhaps a bit more elaborated than just saying: "Infinity" as a concept is not "proven" per se but I accept it (believe) as reality."
QUOTE: "Reality is what is."
Perhaps semantics - anyhow - to me reality has connections to what can be percepted - measured by human scale - and that is what normally is being referred to as Physical.
And physical - ??
Now it becomes a bit more demanding - exactly how to define physical - and it is in this mine field that infinity and continuous have a difficult life as I see it -
That's why I am curious about an answer - and perhaps a bit more elaborated than just saying: "Infinity" as a concept is not "proven" per se but I accept it (believe) as reality."
QUOTE (bukh+May 13 2008, 10:21 PM)
uaafanblog
QUOTE: "Reality is what is."
Perhaps semantics - anyhow - to me reality has connections to what can be percepted - measured by human scale - and that is what normally is being referred to as Physical.
And physical - ??
Now it becomes a bit more demanding - exactly how to define physical - and it is in this mine field that infinity and continuous have a difficult life as I see it -
That's why I am curious about an answer - and perhaps a bit more elaborated than just saying: "Infinity" as a concept is not "proven" per se but I accept it (believe) as reality."
I'm afraid you've lost me (not blaming "you" though) regarding my definitions. I agree that reality is more than just "is" since it is definitely dependent on perception as you say. I was just trying to be succinct in my definition.
So I'll just try to restate. For me ... The idea of infinity and the realization of a "physical" infinity are compatible.
Perhaps that isn't any better? Perhaps it is because this all seems to be innate in some way. What I mean by that is I think it is something (knowledge?) that most people are just inclined to believe and/or accept. Perhaps it is "elegant"?
Beyond all that any additional supposing about infinity is likely to generate a headache for me! That being the case there is but one thing for me to do ... purchase and enjoy consuming some delicious Nachos. The creamy hot cheese is calling my name.
QUOTE: "Reality is what is."
Perhaps semantics - anyhow - to me reality has connections to what can be percepted - measured by human scale - and that is what normally is being referred to as Physical.
And physical - ??
Now it becomes a bit more demanding - exactly how to define physical - and it is in this mine field that infinity and continuous have a difficult life as I see it -
That's why I am curious about an answer - and perhaps a bit more elaborated than just saying: "Infinity" as a concept is not "proven" per se but I accept it (believe) as reality."
I'm afraid you've lost me (not blaming "you" though) regarding my definitions. I agree that reality is more than just "is" since it is definitely dependent on perception as you say. I was just trying to be succinct in my definition.
So I'll just try to restate. For me ... The idea of infinity and the realization of a "physical" infinity are compatible.
Perhaps that isn't any better? Perhaps it is because this all seems to be innate in some way. What I mean by that is I think it is something (knowledge?) that most people are just inclined to believe and/or accept. Perhaps it is "elegant"?
Beyond all that any additional supposing about infinity is likely to generate a headache for me! That being the case there is but one thing for me to do ... purchase and enjoy consuming some delicious Nachos. The creamy hot cheese is calling my name.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 13 2008, 10:31 PM)
Someone who is truly curious... 
We live in an Electro-magnetic/Plasma-dynamic Universe the extent of which is really only just becoming clear to us humans.
I wish I'd been born a couple of hundred years from now.
We live in an Electro-magnetic/Plasma-dynamic Universe the extent of which is really only just becoming clear to us humans.
I wish I'd been born a couple of hundred years from now.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
The creamy hot cheese is calling my name.
"uaafanblog,"
g.
From:Antropic principle (versions)
I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Albert Einstein)
http://www.archivefreedom.org/
g.
Roger Penrose, in response to commentaries to "Shadows of the Mind"
Beyond the doubting of a Shadow
A different response, advocated by Physicist Max Tegmark (2007), is that physics is so successfully described by mathematics because the physical world is completely mathematical, isomorphic to a mathematical structure, and that we are simply uncovering this bit by bit. In this interpretation, the various approximations that constitute our current physics theories are successful because simple mathematical structures can provide good approximations of certain aspects of more complex mathematical structures. In other words, our successful theories are not mathematics approximating physics, but mathematics approximating mathematics.
G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
Yes, of course. It just had to be the same old drivel at the root of even more.
If you people continue to 'leave a space' for mythic entities to reside in, you will have no chance of ever understanding what is real. You will condemn yourself to a life of pointless argument and disappointment through false expectation, until the very worms prove you wrong!
"Just understand your mind: how it works, how attachment and desire arise, how ignorance arises, and where emotions come from. It is sufficient to know the nature of all that; that alone can bring you happiness and peace. Thus, your life can change completely; everything turns upside down. What you once interpreted as horrible can become beautiful...Think of how sound is simply coming out of another person's mouth, entering your ear, and causing pain in your heart. If you think about this in the right way, it will make you laugh; you will see how ridiculous it is to get upset by something so insubstantial." - Lama Yeshe (Make your mind an ocean).
g.
causality , when married with the current view that energy is not created nor destroyed, leads back to a singular particle or quanta which cannot be reduced.
Incorrect...
'Particle' is a finite structure produced by the Standing Spherical Wave action(motion) of Space. This is the inherent mechanism that determines why 'energy is not created nor destroyed', but in a state of constant motion(change), as the wave forms the 'particle' effect at its spherical centre, and then collapses back into its original wave-state once again, as part of the re-cycling process. Ergo ~ 'energy' is conserved.
The understanding of Space existing in 3-dimensions, Infinitely, helps us to realise how all 'things' also operate as One thing. This is only a 'paradox' to a mind that is concentrating on divisions, where they do not exist in Reality. Essentially, there is nothing 'else' that exists apart from Space and its energetic, vibratory motions (which are also 'us'!).
You cannot uncover truth without letting go of falsity, as they are one and the same action(motion of Space).
g.
Given the Wave Structure of Matter in Space it is now possible to explain what mathematics is, how it can exist in the universe, and thus why it is so well suited for describing physical quantities (mathematical physics).
For mathematics to exist physical reality must;
i) Contain discrete / finite quantities (that can thus be counted / numbered).
ii) These discrete things must be necessarily connected to one another (so they interact in a logical manner).
The Wave Structure of Matter confirms this.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...uth-reality.htm
g.
QUOTE (bukh Posted on Today at 10:21 PM+)
"uaafanblog,"
g.
uaanfanblog
"Beyond all that any additional supposing about infinity is likely to generate a headache for me!"
Enjoy your Nachos.
"Beyond all that any additional supposing about infinity is likely to generate a headache for me!"
Enjoy your Nachos.
Hi everyone.
I'm really enjoying reading your answers as well as the back and forth discussions.
Bukh. I'm in a similar place to yourself , I think . Some of the concepts you talk about are near enough to the reason I oppose infinity. The view we have of reality being directly related to a personal position in the dynamic is bang on as far as I'm concerned. So to Gorgeous and others , that's not what I'm saying.
Dimensions is a very much overused and over rated term that clouds any conversation with endless overlapping worlds , so I prefer not to use dimensions because it isn't specific enough.
What I see is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed . Therefore infinity can only thin out what energy is available more and more until it would never be able to interact. This is a one directional slippery slide to nothing ness. However when finite energy is contained in finite space(finite space is Your individual use of the available "Whole")Then I can see how there can be "dimensions"
What I see is one point of difference between each variance. This is all it would take for a change in perspective to enable time and motion to enter reality. There is something less "infinite that I need for all that to be going on . For time to work as it does (in close synchronicity for everyone) the point of difference is the last tiny energy added that moves everything along.
In other words , the snapshots, perspectives, views , relativities, or whatever you want to refer back to activated in a timeline until the last pixel is added in an order that is truly universal. Not ordered by time itself , but with time resulting from the order that this buildup occurred.
Think of your computer not functioning unless one volt of energy was added , then the same for the person next to you and on and on. all the programming was in place , the computer was made , all the chips had been tested , but it wasn't functioning until that final surge of power booted it up. everything that happened before formed the final product, balanced the design , made sure everyone had the same type of computer, that they could network........This is not unlike evolution.........but when the extra surge went through we could now measure each other and the things around us and we created concepts like time , space and motion........
I'm not advocating that "here we were,waiting to be started' But rather that we view evolution along the timeline that we perceive rather than as a balancing act which was much more complex that our simplified view of evolution, and that the entire universe was needed to create our perspective as we view it . Not because we need space, but because perspectives need order . we could not see if energy was ordered differently. Earth sits on the verge of the greatest wasteland you could imagine, and it changes it's order along with us . Never faster and never slower....So we are linked to the universe through time and space , but space also needs it's last volt in the order to exist alongside of us .........good debate...
Cheers
Iseason
I'm really enjoying reading your answers as well as the back and forth discussions.
Bukh. I'm in a similar place to yourself , I think . Some of the concepts you talk about are near enough to the reason I oppose infinity. The view we have of reality being directly related to a personal position in the dynamic is bang on as far as I'm concerned. So to Gorgeous and others , that's not what I'm saying.
Dimensions is a very much overused and over rated term that clouds any conversation with endless overlapping worlds , so I prefer not to use dimensions because it isn't specific enough.
What I see is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed . Therefore infinity can only thin out what energy is available more and more until it would never be able to interact. This is a one directional slippery slide to nothing ness. However when finite energy is contained in finite space(finite space is Your individual use of the available "Whole")Then I can see how there can be "dimensions"
What I see is one point of difference between each variance. This is all it would take for a change in perspective to enable time and motion to enter reality. There is something less "infinite that I need for all that to be going on . For time to work as it does (in close synchronicity for everyone) the point of difference is the last tiny energy added that moves everything along.
In other words , the snapshots, perspectives, views , relativities, or whatever you want to refer back to activated in a timeline until the last pixel is added in an order that is truly universal. Not ordered by time itself , but with time resulting from the order that this buildup occurred.
Think of your computer not functioning unless one volt of energy was added , then the same for the person next to you and on and on. all the programming was in place , the computer was made , all the chips had been tested , but it wasn't functioning until that final surge of power booted it up. everything that happened before formed the final product, balanced the design , made sure everyone had the same type of computer, that they could network........This is not unlike evolution.........but when the extra surge went through we could now measure each other and the things around us and we created concepts like time , space and motion........
I'm not advocating that "here we were,waiting to be started' But rather that we view evolution along the timeline that we perceive rather than as a balancing act which was much more complex that our simplified view of evolution, and that the entire universe was needed to create our perspective as we view it . Not because we need space, but because perspectives need order . we could not see if energy was ordered differently. Earth sits on the verge of the greatest wasteland you could imagine, and it changes it's order along with us . Never faster and never slower....So we are linked to the universe through time and space , but space also needs it's last volt in the order to exist alongside of us .........good debate...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+May 14 2008, 08:53 AM)
Hi everyone.
I'm really enjoying reading your answers as well as the back and forth discussions.
Bukh. I'm in a similar place to yourself , I think . Some of the concepts you talk about are near enough to the reason I oppose infinity. The view we have of reality being directly related to a personal position in the dynamic is bang on as far as I'm concerned. So to Gorgeous and others , that's not what I'm saying.
Dimensions is a very much overused and over rated term that clouds any conversation with endless overlapping worlds , so I prefer not to use dimensions because it isn't specific enough.
What I see is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed . Therefore infinity can only thin out what energy is available more and more until it would never be able to interact. This is a one directional slippery slide to nothing ness. However when finite energy is contained in finite space(finite space is Your individual use of the available "Whole")Then I can see how there can be "dimensions"
What I see is one point of difference between each variance. This is all it would take for a change in perspective to enable time and motion to enter reality. There is something less "infinite that I need for all that to be going on . For time to work as it does (in close synchronicity for everyone) the point of difference is the last tiny energy added that moves everything along.
In other words , the snapshots, perspectives, views , relativities, or whatever you want to refer back to activated in a timeline until the last pixel is added in an order that is truly universal. Not ordered by time itself , but with time resulting from the order that this buildup occurred.
Think of your computer not functioning unless one volt of energy was added , then the same for the person next to you and on and on. all the programming was in place , the computer was made , all the chips had been tested , but it wasn't functioning until that final surge of power booted it up. everything that happened before formed the final product, balanced the design , made sure everyone had the same type of computer, that they could network........This is not unlike evolution.........but when the extra surge went through we could now measure each other and the things around us and we created concepts like time , space and motion........
I'm not advocating that "here we were,waiting to be started' But rather that we view evolution along the timeline that we perceive rather than as a balancing act which was much more complex that our simplified view of evolution, and that the entire universe was needed to create our perspective as we view it . Not because we need space, but because perspectives need order . we could not see if energy was ordered differently. Earth sits on the verge of the greatest wasteland you could imagine, and it changes it's order along with us . Never faster and never slower....So we are linked to the universe through time and space , but space also needs it's last volt in the order to exist alongside of us .........good debate...
Cheers
Iseason
'Dimensions' is an accurate term when applied correctly. There are 3, classic 'Euclidian', dimensions, and no more. Space does not need any more than this as a full description of its 'height, width and depth' - 'beyond' this it just requires motion. This is as 'specific' as it will ever get, as this is what exist, 'Infinitely'.
This is proven by science and intuitively recognised by Humans from all 'methods' of description. If you care to open your eyes, you will see a 3-dimensional world that moves - and if you busy yourself enough to consider the smallest 'thing' possible, you will also realise that there must be an infinite amount of such 'things', for very good reason. 'Science' can only uncover what there actually IS, however elaborate its descriptions may become.
g.
I'm really enjoying reading your answers as well as the back and forth discussions.
Bukh. I'm in a similar place to yourself , I think . Some of the concepts you talk about are near enough to the reason I oppose infinity. The view we have of reality being directly related to a personal position in the dynamic is bang on as far as I'm concerned. So to Gorgeous and others , that's not what I'm saying.
Dimensions is a very much overused and over rated term that clouds any conversation with endless overlapping worlds , so I prefer not to use dimensions because it isn't specific enough.
What I see is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed . Therefore infinity can only thin out what energy is available more and more until it would never be able to interact. This is a one directional slippery slide to nothing ness. However when finite energy is contained in finite space(finite space is Your individual use of the available "Whole")Then I can see how there can be "dimensions"
What I see is one point of difference between each variance. This is all it would take for a change in perspective to enable time and motion to enter reality. There is something less "infinite that I need for all that to be going on . For time to work as it does (in close synchronicity for everyone) the point of difference is the last tiny energy added that moves everything along.
In other words , the snapshots, perspectives, views , relativities, or whatever you want to refer back to activated in a timeline until the last pixel is added in an order that is truly universal. Not ordered by time itself , but with time resulting from the order that this buildup occurred.
Think of your computer not functioning unless one volt of energy was added , then the same for the person next to you and on and on. all the programming was in place , the computer was made , all the chips had been tested , but it wasn't functioning until that final surge of power booted it up. everything that happened before formed the final product, balanced the design , made sure everyone had the same type of computer, that they could network........This is not unlike evolution.........but when the extra surge went through we could now measure each other and the things around us and we created concepts like time , space and motion........
I'm not advocating that "here we were,waiting to be started' But rather that we view evolution along the timeline that we perceive rather than as a balancing act which was much more complex that our simplified view of evolution, and that the entire universe was needed to create our perspective as we view it . Not because we need space, but because perspectives need order . we could not see if energy was ordered differently. Earth sits on the verge of the greatest wasteland you could imagine, and it changes it's order along with us . Never faster and never slower....So we are linked to the universe through time and space , but space also needs it's last volt in the order to exist alongside of us .........good debate...
Cheers
Iseason
'Dimensions' is an accurate term when applied correctly. There are 3, classic 'Euclidian', dimensions, and no more. Space does not need any more than this as a full description of its 'height, width and depth' - 'beyond' this it just requires motion. This is as 'specific' as it will ever get, as this is what exist, 'Infinitely'.
This is proven by science and intuitively recognised by Humans from all 'methods' of description. If you care to open your eyes, you will see a 3-dimensional world that moves - and if you busy yourself enough to consider the smallest 'thing' possible, you will also realise that there must be an infinite amount of such 'things', for very good reason. 'Science' can only uncover what there actually IS, however elaborate its descriptions may become.
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "you will also realise that there must be an infinite amount of such 'things', for very good reason."
Yes - we cannot disagree on Universe best can be described as: "Dynamic Dimensionalities" - and I am also completely in agreement with 3D and no more - the rest is "motion" - OK then I need to get a very accurate definition of motion - anyhow - BUT then I am in total disagreement with your saying that there must exist an INFINITE amount of such "things" for VERY GOOD REASON -
I cannot see such a very good reason - please elaborate
QUOTE: "you will also realise that there must be an infinite amount of such 'things', for very good reason."
Yes - we cannot disagree on Universe best can be described as: "Dynamic Dimensionalities" - and I am also completely in agreement with 3D and no more - the rest is "motion" - OK then I need to get a very accurate definition of motion - anyhow - BUT then I am in total disagreement with your saying that there must exist an INFINITE amount of such "things" for VERY GOOD REASON -
I cannot see such a very good reason - please elaborate
QUOTE (bukh+May 14 2008, 11:46 AM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "you will also realise that there must be an infinite amount of such 'things', for very good reason."
Yes - we cannot disagree on Universe best can be described as: "Dynamic Dimensionalities" - and I am also completely in agreement with 3D and no more - the rest is "motion" - OK then I need to get a very accurate definition of motion - anyhow - BUT then I am in total disagreement with your saying that there must exist an INFINITE amount of such "things" for VERY GOOD REASON -
I cannot see such a very good reason - please elaborate
You need to ask yourself why you are in 'disagreement', then. - Because it is not with 'me', but with Reality!
I have provided numerous links and philosophical insight as to why the Infinity of existence is necessarily so, and you have continually ignored everything, and everyone else, in favour of your own 'theory'. Stop thinking it is all about people 'dualling' with their own particular 'swords' of 'truth', and try to see the larger Reality of what is necessarily so. This will stop you fighting other people, whilst pretending to be 'nice' about it.
g.
QUOTE: "you will also realise that there must be an infinite amount of such 'things', for very good reason."
Yes - we cannot disagree on Universe best can be described as: "Dynamic Dimensionalities" - and I am also completely in agreement with 3D and no more - the rest is "motion" - OK then I need to get a very accurate definition of motion - anyhow - BUT then I am in total disagreement with your saying that there must exist an INFINITE amount of such "things" for VERY GOOD REASON -
I cannot see such a very good reason - please elaborate
You need to ask yourself why you are in 'disagreement', then. - Because it is not with 'me', but with Reality!
I have provided numerous links and philosophical insight as to why the Infinity of existence is necessarily so, and you have continually ignored everything, and everyone else, in favour of your own 'theory'. Stop thinking it is all about people 'dualling' with their own particular 'swords' of 'truth', and try to see the larger Reality of what is necessarily so. This will stop you fighting other people, whilst pretending to be 'nice' about it.
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "I have provided numerous links and philosophical insight as to why the Infinity of existence is necessarily so"
Thank you - I can Google myself -
Waste of your time - back to zero - No need to discuss - end of story
BTW - why ??? are you insisting on this nice-nonsense ??
QUOTE: "I have provided numerous links and philosophical insight as to why the Infinity of existence is necessarily so"
Thank you - I can Google myself -
Waste of your time - back to zero - No need to discuss - end of story
BTW - why ??? are you insisting on this nice-nonsense ??
QUOTE (bukh+May 14 2008, 01:04 PM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "I have provided numerous links and philosophical insight as to why the Infinity of existence is necessarily so"
Thank you - I can Google myself -
Waste of your time - back to zero - No need to discuss - end of story
Perhaps you can explain your request for me to elaborate, then?
Hey, I have a theory for you...Perhaps you are completely pixelated?
- That would explain the end of your story-telling, which is so tragically unfolding live before our eyes.
Seriously, I mean, thanks for the empirical evidence to confirm my psychological theories 'n'all, but you wonder why you have such a hard time on physics forums??????
Please consider some of this, and try to see that some of us are actually trying to help.
g.
QUOTE: "I have provided numerous links and philosophical insight as to why the Infinity of existence is necessarily so"
Thank you - I can Google myself -
Waste of your time - back to zero - No need to discuss - end of story
Perhaps you can explain your request for me to elaborate, then?
QUOTE
bukh Posted on Today at 11:46 AM
Gorgeous...
please elaborate
Gorgeous...
please elaborate
Hey, I have a theory for you...Perhaps you are completely pixelated?
- That would explain the end of your story-telling, which is so tragically unfolding live before our eyes. Seriously, I mean, thanks for the empirical evidence to confirm my psychological theories 'n'all, but you wonder why you have such a hard time on physics forums??????
Please consider some of this, and try to see that some of us are actually trying to help.
g.
Infinity is the word I have fallen in love lately while being against it before.
What exactly is bad about it?
The reason is the potential it contains which allows to hide all unsolved question in infinity. E.g Newton Gravitation works nice, but assume infinite speed of propagation of gravitational interaction, or instant action.
Now, I understand that we may assume that in each scale we only need finite speeds of motion, thus gravitation might be finite speed activity in some scale below ours. But, luckily, we have 2 distinct regions of scaling:
1) division by natural numbers, which never really reaches 0 as natural series diverge as n-> infinity
2) However, this division of scales by natural numbers- infinite amount of them-bounds a region where infinitesimal scales operate (infinitesimal is smaller or equal to 1/ infinity)
3) The way of scope and nature of infinitesimal scales are intuitively perhaps not very pleasant, but in fact absolutely necessary to explain phase transitions , and also have a substance that can create structures that according to your binary principle are different phases- there is always a need for a boundary, or border between 2 phases
4) as I have already noted earlier, this boundary has different properties than phases it divides. If we think of scales as phases, than a boundary between 2 scales necessarily needs to be smaller than smallest of scales
5) If the smallest of scales is already infinitesimal, or , even , 1/n as n-> infinity, the boundary will be always infinitely smaller, thinner than this phase.
6) Thus, the reason of energy depending on v^2, and impulse on v (speed) when applied to scales , becomes clear even at infinite speeds:
mass characterizes the bigger scale
speed links the smaller to the bigger
energy or square of speed links boundary to the biggest scale ( mass)
7) The only place where boundaries and phases disappear is total infinity of infinities away ,it is space divided so many infinities of times that nothing is left, no 2 phases, no boundaries- we hit the bottom- its is pure 0 dimension, (pure motion, imaginary time)
8) the existence of such infinite reservoir of motion (which as we have discussed may interact with similar infinite reservoir of Form, pure structure, no motion) is absolutely necessary to have both logical closure and enough generating creative force to drive complexity we observe.
9) In tetration forum i am participating, we have been looking at 2 interesting notations which so far we have not been able to explain, but they has to do with 0 dimensional space time :
oo[oo]oo = ? this means that infinite operation ( the fastest of all possible mathematical operations where addition have rank 1, multiplication 2, exponetiation 3, tetration 4 etc etc to oo) is aplied to infinitely big number infinitely many times. To me, reciprocal of this 1/oo[oo]oo seems very close to 0 dimension as all possible infinitesimals have been computed away by this .
And i[i]i =? where operation with imaginary rank [i] is applied to imaginary number i imaginary times. To me, this looks like a potential of imaginary creating some value (may be real) by self interaction in a specific way.
Now, since we think mathematics and physics is the same united by dimensionalities &time, as far as i can see, mathematics needs infinity, and so does physics at smallest scales.
Basically it corresponds also to Universe is as big as it is- that is exactly definition of infinity, and ratios/differences between infinite values is what we can perceive.
What exactly is bad about it?
The reason is the potential it contains which allows to hide all unsolved question in infinity. E.g Newton Gravitation works nice, but assume infinite speed of propagation of gravitational interaction, or instant action.
Now, I understand that we may assume that in each scale we only need finite speeds of motion, thus gravitation might be finite speed activity in some scale below ours. But, luckily, we have 2 distinct regions of scaling:
1) division by natural numbers, which never really reaches 0 as natural series diverge as n-> infinity
2) However, this division of scales by natural numbers- infinite amount of them-bounds a region where infinitesimal scales operate (infinitesimal is smaller or equal to 1/ infinity)
3) The way of scope and nature of infinitesimal scales are intuitively perhaps not very pleasant, but in fact absolutely necessary to explain phase transitions , and also have a substance that can create structures that according to your binary principle are different phases- there is always a need for a boundary, or border between 2 phases
4) as I have already noted earlier, this boundary has different properties than phases it divides. If we think of scales as phases, than a boundary between 2 scales necessarily needs to be smaller than smallest of scales
5) If the smallest of scales is already infinitesimal, or , even , 1/n as n-> infinity, the boundary will be always infinitely smaller, thinner than this phase.
6) Thus, the reason of energy depending on v^2, and impulse on v (speed) when applied to scales , becomes clear even at infinite speeds:
mass characterizes the bigger scale
speed links the smaller to the bigger
energy or square of speed links boundary to the biggest scale ( mass)
7) The only place where boundaries and phases disappear is total infinity of infinities away ,it is space divided so many infinities of times that nothing is left, no 2 phases, no boundaries- we hit the bottom- its is pure 0 dimension, (pure motion, imaginary time)
8) the existence of such infinite reservoir of motion (which as we have discussed may interact with similar infinite reservoir of Form, pure structure, no motion) is absolutely necessary to have both logical closure and enough generating creative force to drive complexity we observe.
9) In tetration forum i am participating, we have been looking at 2 interesting notations which so far we have not been able to explain, but they has to do with 0 dimensional space time :
oo[oo]oo = ? this means that infinite operation ( the fastest of all possible mathematical operations where addition have rank 1, multiplication 2, exponetiation 3, tetration 4 etc etc to oo) is aplied to infinitely big number infinitely many times. To me, reciprocal of this 1/oo[oo]oo seems very close to 0 dimension as all possible infinitesimals have been computed away by this .
And i[i]i =? where operation with imaginary rank [i] is applied to imaginary number i imaginary times. To me, this looks like a potential of imaginary creating some value (may be real) by self interaction in a specific way.
Now, since we think mathematics and physics is the same united by dimensionalities &time, as far as i can see, mathematics needs infinity, and so does physics at smallest scales.
Basically it corresponds also to Universe is as big as it is- that is exactly definition of infinity, and ratios/differences between infinite values is what we can perceive.
Hej Ivars
I agree with what you are saying - I think
Infinity has an existance - but according to my definitions - infinity is not part of physical. Infinity is a pre-physical condition. And it is a post-physical condition. And everything in-between is the physical world. Infinity is a potential.
QUOTE: "7) The only place where boundaries and phases disappear is total infinity of infinities away ,it is space divided so many infinities of times that nothing is left, no 2 phases, no boundaries- we hit the bottom- its is pure 0 dimension, (pure motion, imaginary time)"
If I read you correctly - you would seem to share the view that infinity is not part of physical - physical is in its very essence discrete and finite - and at the very moment where physical is soooo close to reach infinite - it vanish - and everything has to start from scratch. Origin conditions: with pure space which is as big as it is - and the binary principle operating from zero base.
I agree with what you are saying - I think
Infinity has an existance - but according to my definitions - infinity is not part of physical. Infinity is a pre-physical condition. And it is a post-physical condition. And everything in-between is the physical world. Infinity is a potential.
QUOTE: "7) The only place where boundaries and phases disappear is total infinity of infinities away ,it is space divided so many infinities of times that nothing is left, no 2 phases, no boundaries- we hit the bottom- its is pure 0 dimension, (pure motion, imaginary time)"
If I read you correctly - you would seem to share the view that infinity is not part of physical - physical is in its very essence discrete and finite - and at the very moment where physical is soooo close to reach infinite - it vanish - and everything has to start from scratch. Origin conditions: with pure space which is as big as it is - and the binary principle operating from zero base.
QUOTE (bukh+May 14 2008, 08:18 PM)
Hej Ivars
Infinity has an existence - but according to my definitions - infinity is not part of physical. Infinity is a pre-physical condition. And it is a post-physical condition. And everything in-between is the physical world. Infinity is a potential.
hej bukh
This is not so clear since e.g. strength of gravitational attraction between 2 masses is only dependent on the behavior of infinitesimal dimensions of which there is infinity- that is still pre looping stage, I think.
So if we consider gravitation effects physical (?) then infinitesimal dimensions are physical (observable via gravitation) and that means physical involves all infinities except the last one.
I think what You have not paid really attention to (perhaps?) is the existence of infinity of scales between looping (2D) , infinitely divided looping, 1 , fractional and 0 dimension. Between "last" fractional (reachable by infinite division) and 0 dimension there is still an infinity of scales which DO NOT HAVE regular character, as they are kind of not linked, not obtained by division, kind of interrupted and their behavior is chaotic, or probabilistic. Do to their infinite amount the effects upscale are quite deterministic,though, but the distribution of their Infinite speeds (momenta) is carried upscale ( hence Heisenberg uncertainty at quantum scale).
Those are the ones we perceive directly via mind, model and measure by "continuous " mathematics ( as long as the whole next scale is infinitely divisible and bigger than previous, and still all of them are infinitely small from our point of view) , and which are also responsible for gravitational attraction of macroscopic matter > Kolmogorov length scale as they "flow" via this matter. Such infinitesimal scales are the "particles" which carry de broglie or matter waves.
Do we call those physical?
BTW I find it still difficult to imagine dimensionalities of space time AS SUCH without having a 3D space background in which they form . They do not form in 3D space. It is like looking at our space from 4th dimension, and looking at it when it has 0 dimensions, 1 dimension, infinitesimal dimensions- strange picture. Such ability needs to be trained once You understand what to look for.
Infinity has an existence - but according to my definitions - infinity is not part of physical. Infinity is a pre-physical condition. And it is a post-physical condition. And everything in-between is the physical world. Infinity is a potential.
hej bukh
This is not so clear since e.g. strength of gravitational attraction between 2 masses is only dependent on the behavior of infinitesimal dimensions of which there is infinity- that is still pre looping stage, I think.
So if we consider gravitation effects physical (?) then infinitesimal dimensions are physical (observable via gravitation) and that means physical involves all infinities except the last one.
I think what You have not paid really attention to (perhaps?) is the existence of infinity of scales between looping (2D) , infinitely divided looping, 1 , fractional and 0 dimension. Between "last" fractional (reachable by infinite division) and 0 dimension there is still an infinity of scales which DO NOT HAVE regular character, as they are kind of not linked, not obtained by division, kind of interrupted and their behavior is chaotic, or probabilistic. Do to their infinite amount the effects upscale are quite deterministic,though, but the distribution of their Infinite speeds (momenta) is carried upscale ( hence Heisenberg uncertainty at quantum scale).
Those are the ones we perceive directly via mind, model and measure by "continuous " mathematics ( as long as the whole next scale is infinitely divisible and bigger than previous, and still all of them are infinitely small from our point of view) , and which are also responsible for gravitational attraction of macroscopic matter > Kolmogorov length scale as they "flow" via this matter. Such infinitesimal scales are the "particles" which carry de broglie or matter waves.
Do we call those physical?
BTW I find it still difficult to imagine dimensionalities of space time AS SUCH without having a 3D space background in which they form . They do not form in 3D space. It is like looking at our space from 4th dimension, and looking at it when it has 0 dimensions, 1 dimension, infinitesimal dimensions- strange picture. Such ability needs to be trained once You understand what to look for.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "This is not so clear since e.g. strength of gravitational attraction between 2 masses is only dependent on the behavior of infinitesimal dimensions of which there is infinity- that is still pre looping stage, I think."
As I see it - each scale has its loopings, to form the "particlas" that form next scale etc
So in my definition each such scale is physical - sub-quantum is physical - of course - as you rightly state: all scales until last.
And the same must / should apply to 2D, 1, fractional, 0, - why not ?
Here I am a little uncertain about what you are indicating, are we dealing with the completeness of a scale before phase-transistion, and that phase-transistions are occurring on less and less completely "matured" scales ? - and if so - then what - they will still be part of physical, because they involve loopings, and they will still be finite - until the very moment that there is no loopings - and that is for me where physical cease to be into existance. No loopings means that there is no kind of lastingness, and that is the same as no physical, - there may be divisions of dimensionalities - but useless, because no operations can give rise to loopings - and we are in just motion, no form - equal to kinetic information. Without loopings there is no possibility to carry information upwards, so kinetic information has no influence on physical whatsoever.
QUOTE: "BTW I find it still difficult to imagine dimensionalities of space time AS SUCH without having a 3D space background in which they form . They do not form in 3D space. It is like looking at our space from 4th dimension, and looking at it when it has 0 dimensions, 1 dimension, infinitesimal dimensions- strange picture. Such ability needs to be trained once You understand what to look for.
Now I am a little lost - Origin condition IS this 3D space - just motion - no form - just kinetic information, and it is not until we apply the Principle - then we get formed motion - Dynamic Dimensionalities - equal to physical.
1 is equal to this origin 3D space without form - 1 is not into physical existance - 1 is an Origin condition, same for 0, 0 is not physical, it is an Origin condition as well, both 1 and 0 indicate that there are no dimensionalities belonging to physical - because 1 dimension is the very same as saying that there is no physical - because pysical require as a minimum 2 , "either you are with us - or you are against us"
QUOTE: "This is not so clear since e.g. strength of gravitational attraction between 2 masses is only dependent on the behavior of infinitesimal dimensions of which there is infinity- that is still pre looping stage, I think."
As I see it - each scale has its loopings, to form the "particlas" that form next scale etc
So in my definition each such scale is physical - sub-quantum is physical - of course - as you rightly state: all scales until last.
And the same must / should apply to 2D, 1, fractional, 0, - why not ?
Here I am a little uncertain about what you are indicating, are we dealing with the completeness of a scale before phase-transistion, and that phase-transistions are occurring on less and less completely "matured" scales ? - and if so - then what - they will still be part of physical, because they involve loopings, and they will still be finite - until the very moment that there is no loopings - and that is for me where physical cease to be into existance. No loopings means that there is no kind of lastingness, and that is the same as no physical, - there may be divisions of dimensionalities - but useless, because no operations can give rise to loopings - and we are in just motion, no form - equal to kinetic information. Without loopings there is no possibility to carry information upwards, so kinetic information has no influence on physical whatsoever.
QUOTE: "BTW I find it still difficult to imagine dimensionalities of space time AS SUCH without having a 3D space background in which they form . They do not form in 3D space. It is like looking at our space from 4th dimension, and looking at it when it has 0 dimensions, 1 dimension, infinitesimal dimensions- strange picture. Such ability needs to be trained once You understand what to look for.
Now I am a little lost - Origin condition IS this 3D space - just motion - no form - just kinetic information, and it is not until we apply the Principle - then we get formed motion - Dynamic Dimensionalities - equal to physical.
1 is equal to this origin 3D space without form - 1 is not into physical existance - 1 is an Origin condition, same for 0, 0 is not physical, it is an Origin condition as well, both 1 and 0 indicate that there are no dimensionalities belonging to physical - because 1 dimension is the very same as saying that there is no physical - because pysical require as a minimum 2 , "either you are with us - or you are against us"
QUOTE (Ivars+May 14 2008, 07:17 PM)
Infinity is the word I have fallen in love lately while being against it before.
What exactly is bad about it?
Nothing at all!
Problems arise only when people do not understand it, and fear the idea of it for 'other' reasons.
'Infinity' really is a simple case of 'without borders, or boundaries'. The confusion in this case with the 'math' version is that a 'point of origin' is always necessary, which makes any equation 'less than' true Infinity, by definition. It is useful for finishing off 'finite' mathematical problems, but when it comes to a true description of Infinite Space, a 'point of origin' cannot exist within a 3-dimensional Infinity. The concept simply no longer applies.
For me, the more I think about it, the more beautiful it becomes. I sincerely hope you are able to discover the truth of this also.
g.
What exactly is bad about it?
Nothing at all!
Problems arise only when people do not understand it, and fear the idea of it for 'other' reasons.
'Infinity' really is a simple case of 'without borders, or boundaries'. The confusion in this case with the 'math' version is that a 'point of origin' is always necessary, which makes any equation 'less than' true Infinity, by definition. It is useful for finishing off 'finite' mathematical problems, but when it comes to a true description of Infinite Space, a 'point of origin' cannot exist within a 3-dimensional Infinity. The concept simply no longer applies.
For me, the more I think about it, the more beautiful it becomes. I sincerely hope you are able to discover the truth of this also.
g.
Construct / imagine a dimensionality - 3D space - out from points ?
Construct a dynamic / imagine a change without dimensionalities involved ?
Solution: Invent a wave out from pointless / non-discrete / continuous medium !
Construct a dynamic / imagine a change without dimensionalities involved ?
Solution: Invent a wave out from pointless / non-discrete / continuous medium !
QUOTE (bukh+May 14 2008, 10:52 PM)
Solution: Invent a wave out from pointless / non-discrete / continuous medium !
hej bukh
I am afraid notion of wave is not really applicable to the infinitesimal chaotic structures. They can not form a basis for a wave , such dimensions. In best case, something of a wavelet, or chirp, spiral, or localized wave packet (but I am not sure) . They are disunited, fundamentally disjointed infinitesimal spacetime dimensions, they can not sustain infinite waves.
And infinite wave is the only true wave. The rest is just approximations.
As to observing 3D from outside imagine:
There is no 3D space but You are able to imagine/observe this case. That means YOu are not in 3D space as it does not exist. As You can Imagine it ( I am starting to ) You are somewhere ELSE. Let us say in 4th dimension, in imaginary time, for clarity sake ( not YOu but YOur mind is, since YOu do not exist without 3D-perhaps).
So YOur mind sits in this imaginary time and sees no SPACE AT ALL. That is 0 dimension, and the role of true observer is to sit somewhere where he can observe non-existance of space.
Now Imagine there appears infinitesimal spatial dimension- not in 3D, but the whole SPACE is just this infinitesimal spatial dimension- so it is a space with infitesimal D dimension. And You are able to watch it appear. Then another piece of infinitesimal dimension appears. Obviously, as before that existed only observer in 4th dimension, or imaginary time, it must appear out of there.
Is it looping or not I can not really answer yet.
So YOu sit and watch space to acquire more and more dimensions and that is basically all there is. Difficulty lies in being able to stay in 4th dimension and observe the DIMENSIONS of SPACE as they appear, change, etc. and not get involved with them.
hej bukh
I am afraid notion of wave is not really applicable to the infinitesimal chaotic structures. They can not form a basis for a wave , such dimensions. In best case, something of a wavelet, or chirp, spiral, or localized wave packet (but I am not sure) . They are disunited, fundamentally disjointed infinitesimal spacetime dimensions, they can not sustain infinite waves.
And infinite wave is the only true wave. The rest is just approximations.
As to observing 3D from outside imagine:
There is no 3D space but You are able to imagine/observe this case. That means YOu are not in 3D space as it does not exist. As You can Imagine it ( I am starting to ) You are somewhere ELSE. Let us say in 4th dimension, in imaginary time, for clarity sake ( not YOu but YOur mind is, since YOu do not exist without 3D-perhaps).
So YOur mind sits in this imaginary time and sees no SPACE AT ALL. That is 0 dimension, and the role of true observer is to sit somewhere where he can observe non-existance of space.
Now Imagine there appears infinitesimal spatial dimension- not in 3D, but the whole SPACE is just this infinitesimal spatial dimension- so it is a space with infitesimal D dimension. And You are able to watch it appear. Then another piece of infinitesimal dimension appears. Obviously, as before that existed only observer in 4th dimension, or imaginary time, it must appear out of there.
Is it looping or not I can not really answer yet.
So YOu sit and watch space to acquire more and more dimensions and that is basically all there is. Difficulty lies in being able to stay in 4th dimension and observe the DIMENSIONS of SPACE as they appear, change, etc. and not get involved with them.
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "I am afraid notion of wave is not really applicable to the infinitesimal chaotic structures."
Agreed - my post was actually meant as a comment to "G" - and the WSM
QUOTE: "So YOu sit and watch space to acquire more and more dimensions and that is basically all there is. Difficulty lies in being able to stay in 4th dimension and observe the DIMENSIONS of SPACE as they appear, change, etc. and not get involved with them."
I think you are explaining what I have tried to express -
First - by "dimension" - do you mean a dimensionality - do you mean a ratio of infinite space - in my mind, first thing to happen is that infinite space segregates into "this and that" - for the first time it is possible to say if "something" belong to this - or belong to that - and this segregation continues into more and more dimensionalities - more and more ratios of infinite space- according to the binary number system. Like mr homm indicated about "J. H. Conway's number system, called the "surreal numbers." Starting from zero, more and more numbers are created by binary division among the numbers that existed before, eventually creating the entire real number system and much, much more. Every number is defined and located by its relation to the numbers that were created before it."
(re. mr homm - very interestingly about fourier and repetition - looping - supporting the idea that physical IS when binary systems enters into repetitions - scalewise)
And now to me and you - humans and the perception of this system - when dimensionalities reach a complexion in their dynamic arrangement - so high a complexion that the system become self-percepting. (and in this context perception is intimately connected to repetition - lastingness - something that can be kept and re-played - so perception is intimately connected to the very foundation on being physical)
At that very moment where selfperception is born, we get ONE picture about how universe looks - and the one that is strictly connected to human physical senses and mind. (There are probably many other - (perhaps not) - self-percepting systems in universe, getting a totally different perception - a totally different picture about universe)
G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
QUOTE: "I am afraid notion of wave is not really applicable to the infinitesimal chaotic structures."
Agreed - my post was actually meant as a comment to "G" - and the WSM
QUOTE: "So YOu sit and watch space to acquire more and more dimensions and that is basically all there is. Difficulty lies in being able to stay in 4th dimension and observe the DIMENSIONS of SPACE as they appear, change, etc. and not get involved with them."
I think you are explaining what I have tried to express -
First - by "dimension" - do you mean a dimensionality - do you mean a ratio of infinite space - in my mind, first thing to happen is that infinite space segregates into "this and that" - for the first time it is possible to say if "something" belong to this - or belong to that - and this segregation continues into more and more dimensionalities - more and more ratios of infinite space- according to the binary number system. Like mr homm indicated about "J. H. Conway's number system, called the "surreal numbers." Starting from zero, more and more numbers are created by binary division among the numbers that existed before, eventually creating the entire real number system and much, much more. Every number is defined and located by its relation to the numbers that were created before it."
(re. mr homm - very interestingly about fourier and repetition - looping - supporting the idea that physical IS when binary systems enters into repetitions - scalewise)
And now to me and you - humans and the perception of this system - when dimensionalities reach a complexion in their dynamic arrangement - so high a complexion that the system become self-percepting. (and in this context perception is intimately connected to repetition - lastingness - something that can be kept and re-played - so perception is intimately connected to the very foundation on being physical)
At that very moment where selfperception is born, we get ONE picture about how universe looks - and the one that is strictly connected to human physical senses and mind. (There are probably many other - (perhaps not) - self-percepting systems in universe, getting a totally different perception - a totally different picture about universe)
G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
QUOTE (bukh+May 15 2008, 07:56 AM)
First - by "dimension" - do you mean a dimensionality - do you mean a ratio of infinite space - in my mind, first thing to happen is that infinite space segregates into "this and that" - for the first time it is possible to say if "something" belong to this - or belong to that - and this segregation continues into more and more dimensionalities - more and more ratios of infinite space- according to the binary number system.
hej bukh
IS infinite space meaning infinitely dimensional space?
Since infinite space can not be SPATIALLY infinite 3D space, as it does not exist at that stage.
Then we have 2 beginnings:
0 dimensional space or imaginary time - pure motion
Infinitely dimensional space or Potential space = Negative dimension space.
Their interaction brings thing to the middle- Kolmogorov vortex of space time- where Human scale resides, and absolute scale of measure ( radius of Kolmogorov vortex) is introduced.
What could be the content of negative space= infinite dimensional space=potential space - in the light of our recent discussion that must be pure structure= pure boundary between phases of space time which is left over when no phases exist.
The content is reduced to pure motion with no boundaries, while form is reduced (upduced) to pure boundary with no content.
Which is fine with me.
hej bukh
IS infinite space meaning infinitely dimensional space?
Since infinite space can not be SPATIALLY infinite 3D space, as it does not exist at that stage.
Then we have 2 beginnings:
0 dimensional space or imaginary time - pure motion
Infinitely dimensional space or Potential space = Negative dimension space.
Their interaction brings thing to the middle- Kolmogorov vortex of space time- where Human scale resides, and absolute scale of measure ( radius of Kolmogorov vortex) is introduced.
What could be the content of negative space= infinite dimensional space=potential space - in the light of our recent discussion that must be pure structure= pure boundary between phases of space time which is left over when no phases exist.
The content is reduced to pure motion with no boundaries, while form is reduced (upduced) to pure boundary with no content.
Which is fine with me.
QUOTE (Ivars+May 15 2008, 09:32 PM)
hej bukh
IS infinite space meaning infinitely dimensional space?
Since infinite space can not be SPATIALLY infinite 3D space, as it does not exist at that stage.
Then we have 2 beginnings:
0 dimensional space or imaginary time - pure motion
Infinitely dimensional space or Potential space = Negative dimension space.
Their interaction brings thing to the middle- Kolmogorov vortex of space time- where Human scale resides, and absolute scale of measure ( radius of Kolmogorov vortex) is introduced.
What could be the content of negative space= infinite dimensional space=potential space - in the light of our recent discussion that must be pure structure= pure boundary between phases of space time which is left over when no phases exist.
The content is reduced to pure motion with no boundaries, while form is reduced (upduced) to pure boundary with no content.
Which is fine with me.
hey Ivars/ Buhk /G
If we were to examine the dimensions that wikipedia show when I google it .
Dot is 0
Flat line is one dimension
Cube is three directions.
Time is a forth dimension.
The only one that can exist is the first in only two forms . As both the smallest and the largest.... Even then to actually have 0 dimensions it must not have anything to be relative to .
a flat line is impossible. it cannot be there unless it is in three dimensional form . So it could not actually be anywhere.
three dimensions cannot exist without without the measuring action of time AND the measuring of the 0 dimensions that make it up.
For dimensions including time is made up of measuring up the occurrences of the smallest particles and the distance between them. therefore it stil isn't actually anything at all. It doesn't have it's own substance.
Yet we can do this . That is why we do. but it would be best to move the dimensional ranges around a bit.
1. The smallest particle occurrence or quanta
2. The smallest particle occurrences in the order they occur
3. the complete number of occurrences of the particle. or "whole"
4. The relative perspective from differing orders of occurrence...Time,space and motion.
Cheers
Iseason
IS infinite space meaning infinitely dimensional space?
Since infinite space can not be SPATIALLY infinite 3D space, as it does not exist at that stage.
Then we have 2 beginnings:
0 dimensional space or imaginary time - pure motion
Infinitely dimensional space or Potential space = Negative dimension space.
Their interaction brings thing to the middle- Kolmogorov vortex of space time- where Human scale resides, and absolute scale of measure ( radius of Kolmogorov vortex) is introduced.
What could be the content of negative space= infinite dimensional space=potential space - in the light of our recent discussion that must be pure structure= pure boundary between phases of space time which is left over when no phases exist.
The content is reduced to pure motion with no boundaries, while form is reduced (upduced) to pure boundary with no content.
Which is fine with me.
hey Ivars/ Buhk /G
If we were to examine the dimensions that wikipedia show when I google it .
Dot is 0
Flat line is one dimension
Cube is three directions.
Time is a forth dimension.
The only one that can exist is the first in only two forms . As both the smallest and the largest.... Even then to actually have 0 dimensions it must not have anything to be relative to .
a flat line is impossible. it cannot be there unless it is in three dimensional form . So it could not actually be anywhere.
three dimensions cannot exist without without the measuring action of time AND the measuring of the 0 dimensions that make it up.
For dimensions including time is made up of measuring up the occurrences of the smallest particles and the distance between them. therefore it stil isn't actually anything at all. It doesn't have it's own substance.
Yet we can do this . That is why we do. but it would be best to move the dimensional ranges around a bit.
1. The smallest particle occurrence or quanta
2. The smallest particle occurrences in the order they occur
3. the complete number of occurrences of the particle. or "whole"
4. The relative perspective from differing orders of occurrence...Time,space and motion.
Cheers
Iseason
If we ponder over the questions as to how the universe (space), considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density. (Einstein, 1954)
g.
g.
QUOTE
According to Plato, the world is rationally understandable because it has structure. And the universe has structure, because it is a work of art created by a God who is a mathematician. Or, more abstractly, the structure of the world consists of God's thoughts, which are mathematical. The fabric of reality is built out of eternal mathematical truth. [Brisson, Meyerstein, Inventer l'Univers, 1991]
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it." - Richard Dawkins
g.
g.
QUOTE
The fabric of reality is built out of eternal mathematical truth
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins
g.
g.
Mathematical knowledge is, in fact, merely verbal knowledge. "3" means "2+1", and "4" means "3+1". Hence it follows (though the proof is long) that "4" means the same as "2+2". Thus mathematical knowledge ceases to be mysterious. (Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy)
g.
g.
Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation. (Richard P. Feynman)
g.
g.
QUOTE
Wheeler calls this the principle of ‘observership’. It is an extension of the quantum idea that without an observer there is no subatomic physics. For Wheeler we live in an observer-dependent, participatory universe. All physical laws are dependent upon the presence of an observer to formulate them.
In fact, he has suggested that this principle leads to the idea that the laws of physics are themselves a counter to the primordial nothing — total entropy. A universe without an observer is not a universe at all.
In fact, he has suggested that this principle leads to the idea that the laws of physics are themselves a counter to the primordial nothing — total entropy. A universe without an observer is not a universe at all.
From:Antropic principle (versions)
The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)
g.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)
g.
Mind is as legitimate instrument for measuring reality and experiencing without interference of experimental machinery as is this machinery itself. Mind and experimental machinery are just proper instruments for different parts of united reality.
Myself
Myself
I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Albert Einstein)
http://www.archivefreedom.org/
g.
QUOTE
There is, however, a somewhat related issue that has also been raised with me by other people: how could one actually tell, by observational means alone, whether or not the physical world behaves non-computably? (Here, I am leaving aside the question of the behaviour of extremely highly sophisticated physical objects like human beings; I am concerned with direct physical experiments and the like.) It seems to me that this issue is quite comparable to a somewhat related one, namely that of determinism. How could one tell by direct physical experiment whether or not the physical world is deterministic? Of course, one cannot tell - not just like that. Yet there is the common assertion that the classical behaviour of physical objects is indeed deterministic. What this means is that Newtonian theory (or Maxwell's theory or Einstein's theory) is deterministic; that can be shown mathematically. What one does is to design sophisticated experiments or observations to test the theory in other respects, and if the expectations of the theory are borne out, we conclude that various other things about that theory, such as the fact that it is indeed deterministic, ought also to hold for the behaviour of the universe (to the appropriate degree of approximation as is implied by the limits within which the theory has been shown to be valid). And so it will be with the new theory of physics that unites the classical and quantum levels and which, I maintain, will turn out to be a non-computable theory.
Roger Penrose, in response to commentaries to "Shadows of the Mind"
Beyond the doubting of a Shadow
Pythagoras, .. was intellectually one of the most important men that ever lived, both when he was wise, and when he was unwise. Mathematics, in the sense of demonstrative deductive argument, begins with him, and in him is intimately connected with a peculiar form of mysticism. The influence of mathematics on philosophy, partly owing to him, has, ever since his time, been both profound and unfortunate. (Bertrand Russell)
g.
g.
QUOTE
How can it be that mathematics, being after all product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? -- Albert Einstein
A different response, advocated by Physicist Max Tegmark (2007), is that physics is so successfully described by mathematics because the physical world is completely mathematical, isomorphic to a mathematical structure, and that we are simply uncovering this bit by bit. In this interpretation, the various approximations that constitute our current physics theories are successful because simple mathematical structures can provide good approximations of certain aspects of more complex mathematical structures. In other words, our successful theories are not mathematics approximating physics, but mathematics approximating mathematics.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Albert Einstein)
g.
g.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)
g.
g.
Myself again:
Mathematics of today only include stepwise, discrete reasoning, like a computer. It does not have to remain so. Continuous parallel reasoning must be included in mathematics since humans are capable of it while computers are not.
Well this is a bit wishful thinking and vague formulation, I admit, but also reasonably challenging goal.
Mathematics of today only include stepwise, discrete reasoning, like a computer. It does not have to remain so. Continuous parallel reasoning must be included in mathematics since humans are capable of it while computers are not.
Well this is a bit wishful thinking and vague formulation, I admit, but also reasonably challenging goal.
Me,
Mathematics is an attempt at some kind of non-contradictory language, invented because our 'everyday' language proves to be inadequate (contradictory). Thus, we do not exist in a 'mathematical universe', but use the advanced 'tool' of mathematics to try and describe how things (we) exist. This is not disputed even by real mathematicians!
Modern Buddhist psychology understands more about how Reality 'works' than 'mathematics' does.
"...all you have to know is what you are, how you exist. You don't have to believe in anything." - Lama Yeshe
g.
Mathematics is an attempt at some kind of non-contradictory language, invented because our 'everyday' language proves to be inadequate (contradictory). Thus, we do not exist in a 'mathematical universe', but use the advanced 'tool' of mathematics to try and describe how things (we) exist. This is not disputed even by real mathematicians!
Modern Buddhist psychology understands more about how Reality 'works' than 'mathematics' does.
"...all you have to know is what you are, how you exist. You don't have to believe in anything." - Lama Yeshe
g.
Me
I do not claim current mathematics are capable of it. I think mathematics has internal eternal structure that, once discovered (which may mean totally different math than today but including what has been discovered so far) will have also 100% physical interpretation.
All religions that explain Reality so well include mathematical creation myths and mathematical philosophies ( Tao, I Ching, numbers and Gods in Bible, Greek mythology, Yin-Yang, Egyptian creation myths (These are pure mathematical texts almost, Mahabharata, Indian Gods and Cosmology, Rig Vedas, Odgoad/Enead , Kabala etc etc ) that we do not understand but which aim at simple, clearly ( for me) mathematical foundational truths.
In my opinion, the clarity these religions or their subparts give is partly linked to the ability of founders either transfer from earlier sources, or perceive SIMPLE harmonious mathematical relations permeating every process in Universe, the universal truths. And the role of chaos, flow etc etc.
Take TAO. That is obvious reference to Aether, and imaginary time as flow of it. The philosophical conclusions of TAO author would also follow from mathematical properties of Aether if we knew them well enough and could describe with todays symbols instead of ancient words and poetry.
But there is no need to believe or deny.There is still time to develop such mathematics, and connect it both with physical experiments, life, consciousness and moral truths. Then it will be clear if they work or not.
I do not claim current mathematics are capable of it. I think mathematics has internal eternal structure that, once discovered (which may mean totally different math than today but including what has been discovered so far) will have also 100% physical interpretation.
All religions that explain Reality so well include mathematical creation myths and mathematical philosophies ( Tao, I Ching, numbers and Gods in Bible, Greek mythology, Yin-Yang, Egyptian creation myths (These are pure mathematical texts almost, Mahabharata, Indian Gods and Cosmology, Rig Vedas, Odgoad/Enead , Kabala etc etc ) that we do not understand but which aim at simple, clearly ( for me) mathematical foundational truths.
In my opinion, the clarity these religions or their subparts give is partly linked to the ability of founders either transfer from earlier sources, or perceive SIMPLE harmonious mathematical relations permeating every process in Universe, the universal truths. And the role of chaos, flow etc etc.
Take TAO. That is obvious reference to Aether, and imaginary time as flow of it. The philosophical conclusions of TAO author would also follow from mathematical properties of Aether if we knew them well enough and could describe with todays symbols instead of ancient words and poetry.
But there is no need to believe or deny.There is still time to develop such mathematics, and connect it both with physical experiments, life, consciousness and moral truths. Then it will be clear if they work or not.
QUOTE (bukh+May 15 2008, 07:56 AM)
G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
Yes, of course. It just had to be the same old drivel at the root of even more.
If you people continue to 'leave a space' for mythic entities to reside in, you will have no chance of ever understanding what is real. You will condemn yourself to a life of pointless argument and disappointment through false expectation, until the very worms prove you wrong!
"Just understand your mind: how it works, how attachment and desire arise, how ignorance arises, and where emotions come from. It is sufficient to know the nature of all that; that alone can bring you happiness and peace. Thus, your life can change completely; everything turns upside down. What you once interpreted as horrible can become beautiful...Think of how sound is simply coming out of another person's mouth, entering your ear, and causing pain in your heart. If you think about this in the right way, it will make you laugh; you will see how ridiculous it is to get upset by something so insubstantial." - Lama Yeshe (Make your mind an ocean).
g.
QUOTE (Ivars+May 15 2008, 09:12 PM)
Me
I do not claim current mathematics are capable of it. I think mathematics has internal eternal structure that, once discovered (which may mean totally different math than today but including what has been discovered so far) will have also 100% physical interpretation.
All religions that explain Reality so well include mathematical creation myths and mathematical philosophies ( Tao, I Ching, numbers and Gods in Bible, Greek mythology, Yin-Yang, Egyptian creation myths (These are pure mathematical texts almost, Mahabharata, Indian Gods and Cosmology, Rig Vedas, Odgoad/Enead , Kabala etc etc ) that we do not understand but which aim at simple, clearly ( for me) mathematical foundational truths.
In my opinion, the clarity these religions or their subparts give is partly linked to the ability of founders either transfer from earlier sources, or perceive SIMPLE harmonious mathematical relations permeating every process in Universe, the universal truths. And the role of chaos, flow etc etc.
Take TAO. That is obvious reference to Aether, and imaginary time as flow of it. The philosophical conclusions of TAO author would also follow from mathematical properties of Aether if we knew them well enough and could describe with todays symbols instead of ancient words and poetry.
But there is no need to believe or deny.There is still time to develop such mathematics, and connect it both with physical experiments, life, consciousness and moral truths. Then it will be clear if they work or not.
No, it is YOU who does not understand these things, and you assume others do not either. An error, I can assure you! - But this is for you to find out. The 'tradition' is to be told how and what to think, and if you knew much of the reality of the things you talk about in the above, you would also be realising how erroneous your descriptions are.
You must firstly understand that all of these old dogmatic philosophies are only relevant to their time, and will thus contain a certain amount of error due to lack of information, and degradation of moral structure. It is NOW that we have other language, the 'scientific method', and increased knowledge (accumulated through evolution). Some of the old 'traditions' remain relevant only at certain 'levels', things that are Universally true, and were hit on by intuition, which comes in the shape of 'metaphor'. 'Metaphor' is always a subjective attempt at communication, but only the direct experience will give you a direct result. The 'best' of the above are aware of the 'time' factor, and move accordingly, thus 'karma' and 'reincarnation' are old metaphors for the intuition of evolution, which was not fully understood by the old Buddhists as they did not have the 'physical' science to accompany the intuitive...
Enough of that, as it becomes off topic...
Infinity is the measurement that cannot itself be measured! (Lao Tzu refers to this as the 'nameless' and 'formless' Tao - but we can now deduce this, and name it as the 'Standing Spherical Wave Motion of Infinite Space' - in the same way that we can now name and understand 'Evolution'). How do you suppose that 'mathematics' will one day find a way to measure Infinity? - An astute mind will realise from all this that 'mystery' is preserved, and always will be! - There will never be a time when all of Infinite Space can be 'known'. This is not in dispute. It can only be deduced to be necessarily so, by observance of other factors that must also be necessarily so! (If we go outside and see a very damp world, we can logically assume that it has been raining! - So it is with all other forms of deduction, and this method can be elaborated to extremes barely dreamed of by the 'lay public', and of course, 'advanced', as we do through evolution; accumulation of further Cosmological understandings).
Hope this helps, as I perceive you to be a person of genuine enquiry, and this is the intention. Of course, I could be wrong in this regard.
g.
I do not claim current mathematics are capable of it. I think mathematics has internal eternal structure that, once discovered (which may mean totally different math than today but including what has been discovered so far) will have also 100% physical interpretation.
All religions that explain Reality so well include mathematical creation myths and mathematical philosophies ( Tao, I Ching, numbers and Gods in Bible, Greek mythology, Yin-Yang, Egyptian creation myths (These are pure mathematical texts almost, Mahabharata, Indian Gods and Cosmology, Rig Vedas, Odgoad/Enead , Kabala etc etc ) that we do not understand but which aim at simple, clearly ( for me) mathematical foundational truths.
In my opinion, the clarity these religions or their subparts give is partly linked to the ability of founders either transfer from earlier sources, or perceive SIMPLE harmonious mathematical relations permeating every process in Universe, the universal truths. And the role of chaos, flow etc etc.
Take TAO. That is obvious reference to Aether, and imaginary time as flow of it. The philosophical conclusions of TAO author would also follow from mathematical properties of Aether if we knew them well enough and could describe with todays symbols instead of ancient words and poetry.
But there is no need to believe or deny.There is still time to develop such mathematics, and connect it both with physical experiments, life, consciousness and moral truths. Then it will be clear if they work or not.
No, it is YOU who does not understand these things, and you assume others do not either. An error, I can assure you! - But this is for you to find out. The 'tradition' is to be told how and what to think, and if you knew much of the reality of the things you talk about in the above, you would also be realising how erroneous your descriptions are.
You must firstly understand that all of these old dogmatic philosophies are only relevant to their time, and will thus contain a certain amount of error due to lack of information, and degradation of moral structure. It is NOW that we have other language, the 'scientific method', and increased knowledge (accumulated through evolution). Some of the old 'traditions' remain relevant only at certain 'levels', things that are Universally true, and were hit on by intuition, which comes in the shape of 'metaphor'. 'Metaphor' is always a subjective attempt at communication, but only the direct experience will give you a direct result. The 'best' of the above are aware of the 'time' factor, and move accordingly, thus 'karma' and 'reincarnation' are old metaphors for the intuition of evolution, which was not fully understood by the old Buddhists as they did not have the 'physical' science to accompany the intuitive...
Enough of that, as it becomes off topic...
Infinity is the measurement that cannot itself be measured! (Lao Tzu refers to this as the 'nameless' and 'formless' Tao - but we can now deduce this, and name it as the 'Standing Spherical Wave Motion of Infinite Space' - in the same way that we can now name and understand 'Evolution'). How do you suppose that 'mathematics' will one day find a way to measure Infinity? - An astute mind will realise from all this that 'mystery' is preserved, and always will be! - There will never be a time when all of Infinite Space can be 'known'. This is not in dispute. It can only be deduced to be necessarily so, by observance of other factors that must also be necessarily so! (If we go outside and see a very damp world, we can logically assume that it has been raining! - So it is with all other forms of deduction, and this method can be elaborated to extremes barely dreamed of by the 'lay public', and of course, 'advanced', as we do through evolution; accumulation of further Cosmological understandings).
Hope this helps, as I perceive you to be a person of genuine enquiry, and this is the intention. Of course, I could be wrong in this regard.
g.
Diciple "G"
bukh "G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
QUOTE: "Yes, of course. It just had to be the same old drivel at the root of even more.
If you people continue to 'leave a space' for mythic entities to reside in, you will have no chance of ever understanding what is real. You will condemn yourself to a life of pointless argument and disappointment through false expectation, until the very worms prove you wrong!"
Oh my dear - your sense of humour - Uops -
QUOTE: "Infinity is the measurement that cannot itself be measured! (Lao Tzu refers to this as the 'nameless' and 'formless' Tao - but we can now deduce this, and name it as the 'Standing Spherical Wave Motion of Infinite Space')."
Thank you - your insight - your personal view (shared by some others - by all means)
Let's see how a future world will look back at this insight - as you market as the REAL - and the TRUTH -
peace -
bukh "G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
QUOTE: "Yes, of course. It just had to be the same old drivel at the root of even more.
If you people continue to 'leave a space' for mythic entities to reside in, you will have no chance of ever understanding what is real. You will condemn yourself to a life of pointless argument and disappointment through false expectation, until the very worms prove you wrong!"
Oh my dear - your sense of humour - Uops -
QUOTE: "Infinity is the measurement that cannot itself be measured! (Lao Tzu refers to this as the 'nameless' and 'formless' Tao - but we can now deduce this, and name it as the 'Standing Spherical Wave Motion of Infinite Space')."
Thank you - your insight - your personal view (shared by some others - by all means)
Let's see how a future world will look back at this insight - as you market as the REAL - and the TRUTH -
peace -
Ivars
QUOTE:
"0 dimensional space or imaginary time - pure motion
Infinitely dimensional space or Potential space = Negative dimension space.
Their interaction brings thing to the middle- Kolmogorov vortex of space time- where Human scale resides, and absolute scale of measure ( radius of Kolmogorov vortex) is introduced.
What could be the content of negative space= infinite dimensional space=potential space - in the light of our recent discussion that must be pure structure= pure boundary between phases of space time which is left over when no phases exist.
The content is reduced to pure motion with no boundaries, while form is reduced (upduced) to pure boundary with no content.
Which is fine with me."
Fine with me as well -
except that I would prefer not to talk about "content" of this pure space or potential space - but rather like to see this as "the principle" - the binary system
mr homm directed me towards "J. H. Conway's number system, called the "surreal numbers." which lead me furter to cellular automatum from where this is quoted:
"In two dimensions, with no threshold and the von Neumann neighborhood or Moore neighborhood, this cellular automaton generates three general types of patterns sequentially, from random initial conditions on sufficiently large grids, regardless of n.[1] At first, the field is purely random. As cells consume their neighbors and get within range to be consumed by higher-ranking cells, the automaton goes to the consuming phase, where there are blocks of color advancing against remaining blocks of randomness. Important in further development are objects called demons, which are cycles of adjacent cells containing one cell of each state, in the cyclic order; these cycles continuously rotate and generate waves that spread out in a spiral pattern centered at the cells of the demon. The third stage, the demon stage, is dominated by these cycles. Almost surely, every cell of the automaton eventually enters a repeating cycle of states, where the period of the repetition is either n or (for automata with n odd and the von Neumann neighborhood) n + 1. The same eventually-period behavior occurs also in higher dimensions. It is also possible to construct small structures with any even period between n and 3n/2. Merging these structures then makes it possible to construct configurations with a global super-polynomial period.[2]
For larger neighborhoods, similar spiraling behavior occurs for low thresholds, but for sufficiently high thresholds the automaton stabilizes in the block of color stage without forming spirals. At intermediate values of the threshold, a complex mix of color blocks and partial spirals, called turbulence, can form.[3] For appropriate choices of the number of states and the size of the neighborhood, the spiral patterns formed by this automaton can be made to resemble those of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction in chemistry, although other cellular automata more accurately model the excitable medium that leads to this reaction."
QUOTE:
"0 dimensional space or imaginary time - pure motion
Infinitely dimensional space or Potential space = Negative dimension space.
Their interaction brings thing to the middle- Kolmogorov vortex of space time- where Human scale resides, and absolute scale of measure ( radius of Kolmogorov vortex) is introduced.
What could be the content of negative space= infinite dimensional space=potential space - in the light of our recent discussion that must be pure structure= pure boundary between phases of space time which is left over when no phases exist.
The content is reduced to pure motion with no boundaries, while form is reduced (upduced) to pure boundary with no content.
Which is fine with me."
Fine with me as well -
except that I would prefer not to talk about "content" of this pure space or potential space - but rather like to see this as "the principle" - the binary system
mr homm directed me towards "J. H. Conway's number system, called the "surreal numbers." which lead me furter to cellular automatum from where this is quoted:
"In two dimensions, with no threshold and the von Neumann neighborhood or Moore neighborhood, this cellular automaton generates three general types of patterns sequentially, from random initial conditions on sufficiently large grids, regardless of n.[1] At first, the field is purely random. As cells consume their neighbors and get within range to be consumed by higher-ranking cells, the automaton goes to the consuming phase, where there are blocks of color advancing against remaining blocks of randomness. Important in further development are objects called demons, which are cycles of adjacent cells containing one cell of each state, in the cyclic order; these cycles continuously rotate and generate waves that spread out in a spiral pattern centered at the cells of the demon. The third stage, the demon stage, is dominated by these cycles. Almost surely, every cell of the automaton eventually enters a repeating cycle of states, where the period of the repetition is either n or (for automata with n odd and the von Neumann neighborhood) n + 1. The same eventually-period behavior occurs also in higher dimensions. It is also possible to construct small structures with any even period between n and 3n/2. Merging these structures then makes it possible to construct configurations with a global super-polynomial period.[2]
For larger neighborhoods, similar spiraling behavior occurs for low thresholds, but for sufficiently high thresholds the automaton stabilizes in the block of color stage without forming spirals. At intermediate values of the threshold, a complex mix of color blocks and partial spirals, called turbulence, can form.[3] For appropriate choices of the number of states and the size of the neighborhood, the spiral patterns formed by this automaton can be made to resemble those of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction in chemistry, although other cellular automata more accurately model the excitable medium that leads to this reaction."
QUOTE (bukh+May 15 2008, 10:19 PM)
Diciple "G"
bukh "G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
QUOTE: "Yes, of course. It just had to be the same old drivel at the root of even more.
If you people continue to 'leave a space' for mythic entities to reside in, you will have no chance of ever understanding what is real. You will condemn yourself to a life of pointless argument and disappointment through false expectation, until the very worms prove you wrong!"
Oh my dear - your sense of humour - Uops -
QUOTE: "Infinity is the measurement that cannot itself be measured! (Lao Tzu refers to this as the 'nameless' and 'formless' Tao - but we can now deduce this, and name it as the 'Standing Spherical Wave Motion of Infinite Space')."
Thank you - your insight - your personal view (shared by some others - by all means)
Let's see how a future world will look back at this insight - as you market as the REAL - and the TRUTH -
peace -
It has nothing to do with me.
Reality will be whatever it is, regardless of whatever we describe it as. 'WSM' is thus but another metaphor, and its truth can only be realised by those who are actually looking for something real.
When you understand this you will be allowing yourself to move 'forwards'.
g.
bukh "G*d can look at all this from a position "outside" -
QUOTE: "Yes, of course. It just had to be the same old drivel at the root of even more.
If you people continue to 'leave a space' for mythic entities to reside in, you will have no chance of ever understanding what is real. You will condemn yourself to a life of pointless argument and disappointment through false expectation, until the very worms prove you wrong!"
Oh my dear - your sense of humour - Uops -
QUOTE: "Infinity is the measurement that cannot itself be measured! (Lao Tzu refers to this as the 'nameless' and 'formless' Tao - but we can now deduce this, and name it as the 'Standing Spherical Wave Motion of Infinite Space')."
Thank you - your insight - your personal view (shared by some others - by all means)
Let's see how a future world will look back at this insight - as you market as the REAL - and the TRUTH -
peace -
It has nothing to do with me.
Reality will be whatever it is, regardless of whatever we describe it as. 'WSM' is thus but another metaphor, and its truth can only be realised by those who are actually looking for something real.
When you understand this you will be allowing yourself to move 'forwards'.
g.
Let us not assume that at the top of what appear to be steps we will find a step maker. We can believe that the step maker might be there but to assert it before ascending would be to negate the necessity to climb.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 15 2008, 10:38 PM)
Let us not assume that at the top of what appear to be steps we will find a step maker. We can believe that the step maker might be there but to assert it before ascending would be to negate the necessity to climb.
Nice!
g.
Nice!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 15 2008, 10:00 PM)
How do you suppose that 'mathematics' will one day find a way to measure Infinity? - An astute mind will realize from all this that 'mystery' is preserved, and always will be! - There will never be a time when all of Infinite Space can be 'known'. This is not in dispute. It can only be deduced to be necessarily so, by observance of other factors that must also be necessarily so!
hej Gorgeous
Yes but we should not give up to early. We have to strip down things to the LAST and FIRST infinity (-es) ( there are 2 of them, actually, not much more I think). Today we hide too many things in one infinity.
As to rational scientific method, it has its limitations by definition since it is too rational , and the whole picture of how Universe works can be only deducted via ONLY possible interpolation and correlation of ALL what happens and is.From mind, and observations, not direct experiments on foundations. And mind must not necessarily follow step wise rational logic when doing it- at some stage- most likely it should not.
But we have to discern where that stage is, consciously. And that might require different thinking methods, ways, less deterministic, little fuzzy? intuitivist?-I am not familiar with terms in todays logic science but i like to call it continuous reasoning vs. discrete.
As to my drive for knowledge , I experiment with and observe the effects and knowledge gained experimental ideas based on correlations between seemingly unrelated things create. I think it is a most powerful shortcut, and mathematics and especially numbers, being omnipresent, is another very powerful one ( with need to improve the understanding of math structure dramatically, of course, not just as they are).
hej Gorgeous
Yes but we should not give up to early. We have to strip down things to the LAST and FIRST infinity (-es) ( there are 2 of them, actually, not much more I think). Today we hide too many things in one infinity.
As to rational scientific method, it has its limitations by definition since it is too rational , and the whole picture of how Universe works can be only deducted via ONLY possible interpolation and correlation of ALL what happens and is.From mind, and observations, not direct experiments on foundations. And mind must not necessarily follow step wise rational logic when doing it- at some stage- most likely it should not.
But we have to discern where that stage is, consciously. And that might require different thinking methods, ways, less deterministic, little fuzzy? intuitivist?-I am not familiar with terms in todays logic science but i like to call it continuous reasoning vs. discrete.
As to my drive for knowledge , I experiment with and observe the effects and knowledge gained experimental ideas based on correlations between seemingly unrelated things create. I think it is a most powerful shortcut, and mathematics and especially numbers, being omnipresent, is another very powerful one ( with need to improve the understanding of math structure dramatically, of course, not just as they are).
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 16 2008, 11:38 AM)
Let us not assume that at the top of what appear to be steps we will find a step maker. We can believe that the step maker might be there but to assert it before ascending would be to negate the necessity to climb.
But isn't this exactly what has been going on in accelerators for years.If base elements are not truthfully represented , then how can the rest of science credibly make claims in support of 'larger views'.
Wouldn't the argument be that much better if we were to accept what must be, as well as knowing that we couldn't hope to get to that level of scrutiny. I find it bazaar that science proposes that energy cannot be created nor destroyed , but advocates realms of infinite depth that also must require infinite energy.
My understanding of the term "infinite" means without limits,borders, checks and or balances. That surely means that if energy is simply reproduced in another form , that eventually all forms of energy would be infinitely separated.
Now. I'm using 'eventually' quite wrongly because there could not be an eventually. With no constraints, energy would not have "time" to measure it because infinity isn't a progression , but a state........You cannot become infinite. And if you are infinite , how could you possibly interact with anything finite(required for measuring) , without instantly partitioning everything that was finite.
I've heard that quantum circumstances are exceptional , but when you consider that we as macro overshadow quantum (as objects of quantum reality) , infinite, held prisoner via finite is finite.
I think the idiocies inherent in an infinite view have not been allowed to affect the applications that are available when using statistical numbers rather than what can actually be correct. and generations are following suit. But advocating infinite is only provable to a degree leaving outer limits as well as inner limits aside.
It's really very simple. finite or infinite the energy base is one or whole. Finite or infinite the energy limit is one or whole. Only when you are measuring it's parts can you use other portional comparisons. Even then it is critical to dictate the parameters via 4 dimensional methodology. I don't need to be "outside" to say the universe is whole. I also don't need to know the size of the originating energy to say it is singular. this is why I can see order where others see chaos. The balance , since it is the same for everyone via relativity, is not time constrained but occurrence dictated , with the end of time and the beginning being no more "distant" from each other than a particle which under a time/space structure would appear as the next second.
Cheers
Iseason
But isn't this exactly what has been going on in accelerators for years.If base elements are not truthfully represented , then how can the rest of science credibly make claims in support of 'larger views'.
Wouldn't the argument be that much better if we were to accept what must be, as well as knowing that we couldn't hope to get to that level of scrutiny. I find it bazaar that science proposes that energy cannot be created nor destroyed , but advocates realms of infinite depth that also must require infinite energy.
My understanding of the term "infinite" means without limits,borders, checks and or balances. That surely means that if energy is simply reproduced in another form , that eventually all forms of energy would be infinitely separated.
Now. I'm using 'eventually' quite wrongly because there could not be an eventually. With no constraints, energy would not have "time" to measure it because infinity isn't a progression , but a state........You cannot become infinite. And if you are infinite , how could you possibly interact with anything finite(required for measuring) , without instantly partitioning everything that was finite.
I've heard that quantum circumstances are exceptional , but when you consider that we as macro overshadow quantum (as objects of quantum reality) , infinite, held prisoner via finite is finite.
I think the idiocies inherent in an infinite view have not been allowed to affect the applications that are available when using statistical numbers rather than what can actually be correct. and generations are following suit. But advocating infinite is only provable to a degree leaving outer limits as well as inner limits aside.
It's really very simple. finite or infinite the energy base is one or whole. Finite or infinite the energy limit is one or whole. Only when you are measuring it's parts can you use other portional comparisons. Even then it is critical to dictate the parameters via 4 dimensional methodology. I don't need to be "outside" to say the universe is whole. I also don't need to know the size of the originating energy to say it is singular. this is why I can see order where others see chaos. The balance , since it is the same for everyone via relativity, is not time constrained but occurrence dictated , with the end of time and the beginning being no more "distant" from each other than a particle which under a time/space structure would appear as the next second.
Cheers
Iseason
Hej Ivars
Just a follow up on cellular automatum -
Imagine that infinite pure space - potential space is being ratio'ed via the binary systm - AND a division is into ying and yang - D and L - pos and neg - male and female - call it what we like - black and white - AND it is a 3D arrangement
This is the perfect cellular automatum - the system by itsself SHOW its organization because every newcoming cell is characterized by being ying or yang - and every cell (irrespective size and complexion and scale) is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions - super dynamic - influenced from the deepest complexion layers -
Origin of Universe is potential space being divided in one ying and one yang and everything develops according to simple rules about how a cell is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions -
Just a follow up on cellular automatum -
Imagine that infinite pure space - potential space is being ratio'ed via the binary systm - AND a division is into ying and yang - D and L - pos and neg - male and female - call it what we like - black and white - AND it is a 3D arrangement
This is the perfect cellular automatum - the system by itsself SHOW its organization because every newcoming cell is characterized by being ying or yang - and every cell (irrespective size and complexion and scale) is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions - super dynamic - influenced from the deepest complexion layers -
Origin of Universe is potential space being divided in one ying and one yang and everything develops according to simple rules about how a cell is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions -
QUOTE (bukh+May 16 2008, 09:07 AM)
Hej Ivars
Just a follow up on cellular automatum -
Imagine that infinite pure space - potential space is being ratio'ed via the binary systm - AND a division is into ying and yang - D and L - pos and neg - male and female - call it what we like - black and white - AND it is a 3D arrangement
This is the perfect cellular automatum - the system by itsself SHOW its organization because every newcoming cell is characterized by being ying or yang - and every cell (irrespective size and complexion and scale) is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions - super dynamic - influenced from the deepest complexion layers -
Origin of Universe is potential space being divided in one ying and one yang and everything develops according to simple rules about how a cell is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions -
hej bukh
Sounds plausible. But not every automaton will do. There is one ( 110) which has ability to create all You want, and perhaps more.
I was also looking for input to Automaton with Steven A , and perhaps this is rigth place to stop looking since by default there has to be 2 balanced beginnings- YOu can not start with one (though ONE may comprise these both).
How did You come to Yin Yang???
This is from e-mail I sent to Neil Yesterday evening:
The content is reduced to pure motion with no structures ( boundaries) , while form is reduced (upduced:)) to pure boundary with no content. Pure motion (pure content, no boundary) is the most lively of 2 - male principle- Yang; pure structure( pure boundary) is most stable of 2 - female principle -Yin.
Or : Yang- Imaginary time, 0 dimensional space
Yin- infinitely dimensional space, negative space, potential space.
I would be careful though with 3D arrangement over all space, but may be I am wrong.
You start with infinitedimensional space and eat away its dimensionalities ending with 3D as percolation not with 3D which is than divided.
3D infinite space DOES not exist. Infinitedimensional does- what it means is that each spatial dimension is infinitely small, so it is not noticeable. It is like a seed of dimensionality which needs to be brought into life by division via interaction with Pure motion-Yang.
Also, simplest automaton has 3 cells as input? What is 3rd quality needed to construct Universe? Some ratio between first 2? Pi?
Just a follow up on cellular automatum -
Imagine that infinite pure space - potential space is being ratio'ed via the binary systm - AND a division is into ying and yang - D and L - pos and neg - male and female - call it what we like - black and white - AND it is a 3D arrangement
This is the perfect cellular automatum - the system by itsself SHOW its organization because every newcoming cell is characterized by being ying or yang - and every cell (irrespective size and complexion and scale) is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions - super dynamic - influenced from the deepest complexion layers -
Origin of Universe is potential space being divided in one ying and one yang and everything develops according to simple rules about how a cell is ying or yang according to neighboring conditions -
hej bukh
Sounds plausible. But not every automaton will do. There is one ( 110) which has ability to create all You want, and perhaps more.
I was also looking for input to Automaton with Steven A , and perhaps this is rigth place to stop looking since by default there has to be 2 balanced beginnings- YOu can not start with one (though ONE may comprise these both).
How did You come to Yin Yang???
This is from e-mail I sent to Neil Yesterday evening:
The content is reduced to pure motion with no structures ( boundaries) , while form is reduced (upduced:)) to pure boundary with no content. Pure motion (pure content, no boundary) is the most lively of 2 - male principle- Yang; pure structure( pure boundary) is most stable of 2 - female principle -Yin.
Or : Yang- Imaginary time, 0 dimensional space
Yin- infinitely dimensional space, negative space, potential space.
I would be careful though with 3D arrangement over all space, but may be I am wrong.
You start with infinitedimensional space and eat away its dimensionalities ending with 3D as percolation not with 3D which is than divided.
3D infinite space DOES not exist. Infinitedimensional does- what it means is that each spatial dimension is infinitely small, so it is not noticeable. It is like a seed of dimensionality which needs to be brought into life by division via interaction with Pure motion-Yang.
Also, simplest automaton has 3 cells as input? What is 3rd quality needed to construct Universe? Some ratio between first 2? Pi?
QUOTE (Ivars+May 16 2008, 05:22 AM)
hej Gorgeous
Yes but we should not give up to early. We have to strip down things to the LAST and FIRST infinity (-es) ( there are 2 of them, actually, not much more I think). Today we hide too many things in one infinity.
As to rational scientific method, it has its limitations by definition since it is too rational , and the whole picture of how Universe works can be only deducted via ONLY possible interpolation and correlation of ALL what happens and is.From mind, and observations, not direct experiments on foundations. And mind must not necessarily follow step wise rational logic when doing it- at some stage- most likely it should not.
But we have to discern where that stage is, consciously. And that might require different thinking methods, ways, less deterministic, little fuzzy? intuitivist?-I am not familiar with terms in todays logic science but i like to call it continuous reasoning vs. discrete.
As to my drive for knowledge , I experiment with and observe the effects and knowledge gained experimental ideas based on correlations between seemingly unrelated things create. I think it is a most powerful shortcut, and mathematics and especially numbers, being omnipresent, is another very powerful one ( with need to improve the understanding of math structure dramatically, of course, not just as they are).
Who is talking about 'giving anything up'?
It is not about what we personally think, but about what is necessarily true. It is the failure to distinguish between the real and the made-up that produces the confusion. Thus, if you are always trying to compensate for something that does not exist, you will remain confused, or 'pixelated'.
Mr. bukh has a very small maggot and a very short fly!
g.
Yes but we should not give up to early. We have to strip down things to the LAST and FIRST infinity (-es) ( there are 2 of them, actually, not much more I think). Today we hide too many things in one infinity.
As to rational scientific method, it has its limitations by definition since it is too rational , and the whole picture of how Universe works can be only deducted via ONLY possible interpolation and correlation of ALL what happens and is.From mind, and observations, not direct experiments on foundations. And mind must not necessarily follow step wise rational logic when doing it- at some stage- most likely it should not.
But we have to discern where that stage is, consciously. And that might require different thinking methods, ways, less deterministic, little fuzzy? intuitivist?-I am not familiar with terms in todays logic science but i like to call it continuous reasoning vs. discrete.
As to my drive for knowledge , I experiment with and observe the effects and knowledge gained experimental ideas based on correlations between seemingly unrelated things create. I think it is a most powerful shortcut, and mathematics and especially numbers, being omnipresent, is another very powerful one ( with need to improve the understanding of math structure dramatically, of course, not just as they are).
Who is talking about 'giving anything up'?
It is not about what we personally think, but about what is necessarily true. It is the failure to distinguish between the real and the made-up that produces the confusion. Thus, if you are always trying to compensate for something that does not exist, you will remain confused, or 'pixelated'.
Mr. bukh has a very small maggot and a very short fly!
g.
QUOTE (iseason+May 16 2008, 09:00 AM)
But isn't this exactly what has been going on in accelerators for years.If base elements are not truthfully represented , then how can the rest of science credibly make claims in support of 'larger views'.
Wouldn't the argument be that much better if we were to accept what must be, as well as knowing that we couldn't hope to get to that level of scrutiny. I find it bazaar that science proposes that energy cannot be created nor destroyed , but advocates realms of infinite depth that also must require infinite energy.
My understanding of the term "infinite" means without limits,borders, checks and or balances. That surely means that if energy is simply reproduced in another form , that eventually all forms of energy would be infinitely separated.
Now. I'm using 'eventually' quite wrongly because there could not be an eventually. With no constraints, energy would not have "time" to measure it because infinity isn't a progression , but a state........You cannot become infinite. And if you are infinite , how could you possibly interact with anything finite(required for measuring) , without instantly partitioning everything that was finite.
I've heard that quantum circumstances are exceptional , but when you consider that we as macro overshadow quantum (as objects of quantum reality) , infinite, held prisoner via finite is finite.
I think the idiocies inherent in an infinite view have not been allowed to affect the applications that are available when using statistical numbers rather than what can actually be correct. and generations are following suit. But advocating infinite is only provable to a degree leaving outer limits as well as inner limits aside.
It's really very simple. finite or infinite the energy base is one or whole. Finite or infinite the energy limit is one or whole. Only when you are measuring it's parts can you use other portional comparisons. Even then it is critical to dictate the parameters via 4 dimensional methodology. I don't need to be "outside" to say the universe is whole. I also don't need to know the size of the originating energy to say it is singular. this is why I can see order where others see chaos. The balance , since it is the same for everyone via relativity, is not time constrained but occurrence dictated , with the end of time and the beginning being no more "distant" from each other than a particle which under a time/space structure would appear as the next second.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason,
Good to converse with you again!
OK, The quote from me was more concerned with a leveling off of expectation in regards to the Divine in response to some of the quoted interactions between Gorgeous and Ivars. Just poking my nose in.
In regards to infinity and particularly what I can establish is your view of it, then I believe you make a good point.
However I believe the concept of infinity you propose appears to only include that which
must separate away infinitely. Have you also considered that which must collide infinitely?
Wouldn't the argument be that much better if we were to accept what must be, as well as knowing that we couldn't hope to get to that level of scrutiny. I find it bazaar that science proposes that energy cannot be created nor destroyed , but advocates realms of infinite depth that also must require infinite energy.
My understanding of the term "infinite" means without limits,borders, checks and or balances. That surely means that if energy is simply reproduced in another form , that eventually all forms of energy would be infinitely separated.
Now. I'm using 'eventually' quite wrongly because there could not be an eventually. With no constraints, energy would not have "time" to measure it because infinity isn't a progression , but a state........You cannot become infinite. And if you are infinite , how could you possibly interact with anything finite(required for measuring) , without instantly partitioning everything that was finite.
I've heard that quantum circumstances are exceptional , but when you consider that we as macro overshadow quantum (as objects of quantum reality) , infinite, held prisoner via finite is finite.
I think the idiocies inherent in an infinite view have not been allowed to affect the applications that are available when using statistical numbers rather than what can actually be correct. and generations are following suit. But advocating infinite is only provable to a degree leaving outer limits as well as inner limits aside.
It's really very simple. finite or infinite the energy base is one or whole. Finite or infinite the energy limit is one or whole. Only when you are measuring it's parts can you use other portional comparisons. Even then it is critical to dictate the parameters via 4 dimensional methodology. I don't need to be "outside" to say the universe is whole. I also don't need to know the size of the originating energy to say it is singular. this is why I can see order where others see chaos. The balance , since it is the same for everyone via relativity, is not time constrained but occurrence dictated , with the end of time and the beginning being no more "distant" from each other than a particle which under a time/space structure would appear as the next second.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason,
Good to converse with you again!
OK, The quote from me was more concerned with a leveling off of expectation in regards to the Divine in response to some of the quoted interactions between Gorgeous and Ivars. Just poking my nose in.
In regards to infinity and particularly what I can establish is your view of it, then I believe you make a good point.
However I believe the concept of infinity you propose appears to only include that which
must separate away infinitely. Have you also considered that which must collide infinitely?
hej bukh, iseason, gorgeous, Sinister Utopia, Giordano Bruno et al
I have a feeling that we have reached a very good philosophical conclusion about the unity, balance of eternal opposites and its possible relation to infinitedimensional potential (Hilbert) space and imaginary time. I think the model has a nice "organic" touch, giving a "lifelike" interaction to seemingly "inorganic" notions of space and time. That I consider (look at my 2 year old interests field - General Theory of Organisms or organic TOE) a step in right direction.
The idea that there may be overwhelming organized infinite intelligence in Imaginary time that has as one of its projections Spatial Universe remains for me as an interesting hypothesis. (to Gorgeous especially): I am no believer, and do not have any authorities in any field, so will work through it myself until I understand how it may or may not work.
But for better footing I have to dive in mathematics now to back it up with some symbols to see what the relations to known and unknown mathematics might be.
The direction I will be taking is infinitedimensional (Hilbert) space as potential space of infinitesimal dimensions and its relation and interaction with imaginary and complex mathematics, especially imaginary frequencies. I will try to see also are there way to see any correlation to mathematics of hyperoperations which has the necessary speed for phase transitions current slow function (sub-exponential) calculus is missing. Infinitedimensional spaces has to have more than one infinity , perhaps described by Cantor ordinal numbers , but most likely needing even faster and higher function growth speeds. (See Conway, Guy).
BTW, infinite tetration (power tower) has already so fast growth that it turns pure real numbers into complex, thus making an interesting phase transition in mathematics.
h(e^(pi/2)) = h( i^1/i) = (e^(pi/2))[4]oo= i
h(e^(pi/2)) = h( (1/i)^i) = (e^(pi/2))[4]oo=- i
For more information of fast operations, see:
Tetration-Wikipedia-updated page
I have a feeling that we have reached a very good philosophical conclusion about the unity, balance of eternal opposites and its possible relation to infinitedimensional potential (Hilbert) space and imaginary time. I think the model has a nice "organic" touch, giving a "lifelike" interaction to seemingly "inorganic" notions of space and time. That I consider (look at my 2 year old interests field - General Theory of Organisms or organic TOE) a step in right direction.
The idea that there may be overwhelming organized infinite intelligence in Imaginary time that has as one of its projections Spatial Universe remains for me as an interesting hypothesis. (to Gorgeous especially): I am no believer, and do not have any authorities in any field, so will work through it myself until I understand how it may or may not work.
But for better footing I have to dive in mathematics now to back it up with some symbols to see what the relations to known and unknown mathematics might be.
The direction I will be taking is infinitedimensional (Hilbert) space as potential space of infinitesimal dimensions and its relation and interaction with imaginary and complex mathematics, especially imaginary frequencies. I will try to see also are there way to see any correlation to mathematics of hyperoperations which has the necessary speed for phase transitions current slow function (sub-exponential) calculus is missing. Infinitedimensional spaces has to have more than one infinity , perhaps described by Cantor ordinal numbers , but most likely needing even faster and higher function growth speeds. (See Conway, Guy).
BTW, infinite tetration (power tower) has already so fast growth that it turns pure real numbers into complex, thus making an interesting phase transition in mathematics.
h(e^(pi/2)) = h( i^1/i) = (e^(pi/2))[4]oo= i
h(e^(pi/2)) = h( (1/i)^i) = (e^(pi/2))[4]oo=- i
For more information of fast operations, see:
Tetration-Wikipedia-updated page
Ivars,
If you have to wade through this stuff to get where you need to be, that is cool. This is why I gave you my time.
Best of luck with your understanding.
g.
If you have to wade through this stuff to get where you need to be, that is cool. This is why I gave you my time.
Best of luck with your understanding.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 16 2008, 04:46 PM)
Ivars,
If you have to wade through this stuff to get where you need to be, that is cool. This is why I gave you my time.
Best of luck with your understanding.
g.
hi Gorgeous,
Thank You. I will be back if anything new pops out.
If you have to wade through this stuff to get where you need to be, that is cool. This is why I gave you my time.
Best of luck with your understanding.
g.
hi Gorgeous,
Thank You. I will be back if anything new pops out.
Sinister utopia
hi there
Unfortunately , I cannot leave behind one logical truth in order to accept another. Either the first was wrong, in which case I am happy to. At this point I have no realistic reason to reject what was found as a result of careful consideration.
causality , when married with the current view that energy is not created nor destroyed, leads back to a singular particle or quanta which cannot be reduced. The arguments against it (made after many like minded searches by others) are second guessing the logical track. When we are looking for cause, if two "things" exist then something has already happened.
This has been ignored because it is harder to answer this peculiarity than to address it. But it persists as logical. Funnily enough , the best argument against it is causality. It seems an impossible leap to go from one object to the very complex universe that we are studying. I looked long and hard at methodology that could change one energy into clones of itself and found each to be flawed, until I changed to a view of "whole". Once again a much ignored absolute which, with the same vigor as the smallest particle proves to get in the way of a good theory rather than benefiting it.
but they both must exist.
The methodology is less easy to explain, however I can state emphatically that "bouncing off each other" in the way you have asked is a physical impossibility since they would be bouncing off themselves.
But in a way there is the same behavior if they cannot occupy the same time/space. Even better they must balance every point of time and space in a particular sequence that needs be absolutely as distant as is possible . Bouncing off each other may not be correct, but the behavior is seen as quite similarly occurring in "action at a distance" and "not being able to measure position and size at the same time". You cannot measure twice in a time line that which isn't there.So to Good Elf and others , I am not questioning "what has been seen to occur". In most cases the sciences I have read are quite accurate in measuring energies and behaviors. It is what is discarded or simply ignored that flaws the picture.
Cheers
Iseason
hi there
Unfortunately , I cannot leave behind one logical truth in order to accept another. Either the first was wrong, in which case I am happy to. At this point I have no realistic reason to reject what was found as a result of careful consideration.
causality , when married with the current view that energy is not created nor destroyed, leads back to a singular particle or quanta which cannot be reduced. The arguments against it (made after many like minded searches by others) are second guessing the logical track. When we are looking for cause, if two "things" exist then something has already happened.
This has been ignored because it is harder to answer this peculiarity than to address it. But it persists as logical. Funnily enough , the best argument against it is causality. It seems an impossible leap to go from one object to the very complex universe that we are studying. I looked long and hard at methodology that could change one energy into clones of itself and found each to be flawed, until I changed to a view of "whole". Once again a much ignored absolute which, with the same vigor as the smallest particle proves to get in the way of a good theory rather than benefiting it.
but they both must exist.
The methodology is less easy to explain, however I can state emphatically that "bouncing off each other" in the way you have asked is a physical impossibility since they would be bouncing off themselves.
But in a way there is the same behavior if they cannot occupy the same time/space. Even better they must balance every point of time and space in a particular sequence that needs be absolutely as distant as is possible . Bouncing off each other may not be correct, but the behavior is seen as quite similarly occurring in "action at a distance" and "not being able to measure position and size at the same time". You cannot measure twice in a time line that which isn't there.So to Good Elf and others , I am not questioning "what has been seen to occur". In most cases the sciences I have read are quite accurate in measuring energies and behaviors. It is what is discarded or simply ignored that flaws the picture.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+May 17 2008, 08:52 AM)
causality , when married with the current view that energy is not created nor destroyed, leads back to a singular particle or quanta which cannot be reduced.
Incorrect...
'Particle' is a finite structure produced by the Standing Spherical Wave action(motion) of Space. This is the inherent mechanism that determines why 'energy is not created nor destroyed', but in a state of constant motion(change), as the wave forms the 'particle' effect at its spherical centre, and then collapses back into its original wave-state once again, as part of the re-cycling process. Ergo ~ 'energy' is conserved.
The understanding of Space existing in 3-dimensions, Infinitely, helps us to realise how all 'things' also operate as One thing. This is only a 'paradox' to a mind that is concentrating on divisions, where they do not exist in Reality. Essentially, there is nothing 'else' that exists apart from Space and its energetic, vibratory motions (which are also 'us'!).
QUOTE
I cannot leave behind one logical truth in order to accept another. Either the first was wrong, in which case I am happy to. At this point I have no realistic reason to reject what was found as a result of careful consideration.
You cannot uncover truth without letting go of falsity, as they are one and the same action(motion of Space).
g.
QUOTE (Ivars+May 16 2008, 05:37 PM)
The direction I will be taking is infinitedimensional (Hilbert) space as potential space of infinitesimal dimensions and its relation and interaction with imaginary and complex mathematics, especially imaginary frequencies. I will try to see also are there way to see any correlation to mathematics of hyperoperations which has the necessary speed for phase transitions current slow function (sub-exponential) calculus is missing. Infinitedimensional spaces has to have more than one infinity , perhaps described by Cantor ordinal numbers , but most likely needing even faster and higher function growth speeds. (See Conway, Guy).
Please stop mentioning mathematical concepts you don't have a clue about as if you work with them every day. Just because Wiki and Google allow you to quickly look up what the difference between a Banach space and a Hilbert space is doesn't mean that you understand either of them. It certainly doesn't mean you can use them in your 'work'.
All it does is just make it more and more obvious you're like StevenA, desperate to be thought of as clever and mathematically adept but inactuality too lazy/stupid to learn even high school mathematics and naive to think what amounts to little more than putting numbers into a calculator is equivalent to understanding stuff like Hilbert spaces.
Please stop mentioning mathematical concepts you don't have a clue about as if you work with them every day. Just because Wiki and Google allow you to quickly look up what the difference between a Banach space and a Hilbert space is doesn't mean that you understand either of them. It certainly doesn't mean you can use them in your 'work'.
All it does is just make it more and more obvious you're like StevenA, desperate to be thought of as clever and mathematically adept but inactuality too lazy/stupid to learn even high school mathematics and naive to think what amounts to little more than putting numbers into a calculator is equivalent to understanding stuff like Hilbert spaces.
QUOTE
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description of something more complex? - Paul Dirac
Given the Wave Structure of Matter in Space it is now possible to explain what mathematics is, how it can exist in the universe, and thus why it is so well suited for describing physical quantities (mathematical physics).
For mathematics to exist physical reality must;
i) Contain discrete / finite quantities (that can thus be counted / numbered).
ii) These discrete things must be necessarily connected to one another (so they interact in a logical manner).
The Wave Structure of Matter confirms this.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...uth-reality.htm
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 18 2008, 12:41 AM)
Incorrect...
'Particle' is a finite structure produced by the Standing Spherical Wave action(motion) of Space. This is the inherent mechanism that determines why 'energy is not created nor destroyed', but in a state of constant motion(change), as the wave forms the 'particle' effect at its spherical centre, and then collapses back into its original wave-state once again, as part of the re-cycling process. Ergo ~ 'energy' is conserved.
The understanding of Space existing in 3-dimensions, Infinitely, helps us to realise how all 'things' also operate as One thing. This is only a 'paradox' to a mind that is concentrating on divisions, where they do not exist in Reality. Essentially, there is nothing 'else' that exists apart from Space and its energetic, vibratory motions (which are also 'us'!).
You cannot uncover truth without letting go of falsity, as they are one and the same action(motion of Space).
g.
It's difficult to feel corrected when such an obvious flaw exists in you response. you advocate that energy is created via a standing wave. Well, the wave needs to be made up of something smaller than it's parts or the whole of space is one object. When either of these are considered , I am not wrong, but have a differing view.
if space is all there is , it is at some point "whole" ,evenly distributed,pasteurized , synthesized and uni sized (I made that word up) , changed state. Added to the strangeness is a lack of belief by everyone I've
Even allowing that energy is just a disturbance of the whole , there will be a first disturbance which caused all other disturbances. Infinite energy waves is no different from first particle, quanta, top 40 hit. Science is very interested in where energy will eventually collapse back on itself and so must understand that although the process is mindbogglingly big, because it reverses in this way, it is a contained state.
cheers
Iseason
'Particle' is a finite structure produced by the Standing Spherical Wave action(motion) of Space. This is the inherent mechanism that determines why 'energy is not created nor destroyed', but in a state of constant motion(change), as the wave forms the 'particle' effect at its spherical centre, and then collapses back into its original wave-state once again, as part of the re-cycling process. Ergo ~ 'energy' is conserved.
The understanding of Space existing in 3-dimensions, Infinitely, helps us to realise how all 'things' also operate as One thing. This is only a 'paradox' to a mind that is concentrating on divisions, where they do not exist in Reality. Essentially, there is nothing 'else' that exists apart from Space and its energetic, vibratory motions (which are also 'us'!).
You cannot uncover truth without letting go of falsity, as they are one and the same action(motion of Space).
g.
It's difficult to feel corrected when such an obvious flaw exists in you response. you advocate that energy is created via a standing wave. Well, the wave needs to be made up of something smaller than it's parts or the whole of space is one object. When either of these are considered , I am not wrong, but have a differing view.
if space is all there is , it is at some point "whole" ,evenly distributed,pasteurized , synthesized and uni sized (I made that word up) , changed state. Added to the strangeness is a lack of belief by everyone I've
Even allowing that energy is just a disturbance of the whole , there will be a first disturbance which caused all other disturbances. Infinite energy waves is no different from first particle, quanta, top 40 hit. Science is very interested in where energy will eventually collapse back on itself and so must understand that although the process is mindbogglingly big, because it reverses in this way, it is a contained state.
cheers
Iseason
"Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how is it possible to expect a correct description of something more complex? - Paul Dirac"
Thank you Dirac, and now:
QUOTE Gorgeous:
"Given the Wave Structure of Matter in Space it is now possible to explain what mathematics is, how it can exist in the universe, and thus why it is so well suited for describing physical quantities (mathematical physics).
For mathematics to exist physical reality must;
i) Contain discrete / finite quantities (that can thus be counted / numbered).
ii) These discrete things must be necessarily connected to one another (so they interact in a logical manner).
The Wave Structure of Matter confirms this.
This is interesting - at least to me - not what Gorgeous is stating - but more why he is making this statemenet now - because:
For a long period I have consistently said that physical reality is made up of smallest dimensionalities - and that point particles is not into physical existance.
Recently Gorgeous characterized this my point of view as "a sack of nonsense" and further qualified this by the following statement: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your ("bukh") propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you ("bukh") seeing the Reality."
Allow me to cite what I said a few days ago in another thread
" - but in as much that mathematical and physical is the same - mathematics cannot be based upon points - because it is not possible to construct a space out from points. Perhaps it is a much too simplistic way of thinking - but mathematical points - any math number must therefore have a corresponding space aquainted.
So a wave - irrespective how we look at a wave and irrespective how small the wave may be - which scale it is looked at - then a wave is expressed out from discrete spacious "particles".
Have Gorgeous changed his mind - now seeing everything differently - or am i consistently misinterpreting - misunderstanding what Gorgeous tries to express ?
Thank you Dirac, and now:
QUOTE Gorgeous:
"Given the Wave Structure of Matter in Space it is now possible to explain what mathematics is, how it can exist in the universe, and thus why it is so well suited for describing physical quantities (mathematical physics).
For mathematics to exist physical reality must;
i) Contain discrete / finite quantities (that can thus be counted / numbered).
ii) These discrete things must be necessarily connected to one another (so they interact in a logical manner).
The Wave Structure of Matter confirms this.
This is interesting - at least to me - not what Gorgeous is stating - but more why he is making this statemenet now - because:
For a long period I have consistently said that physical reality is made up of smallest dimensionalities - and that point particles is not into physical existance.
Recently Gorgeous characterized this my point of view as "a sack of nonsense" and further qualified this by the following statement: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your ("bukh") propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you ("bukh") seeing the Reality."
Allow me to cite what I said a few days ago in another thread
" - but in as much that mathematical and physical is the same - mathematics cannot be based upon points - because it is not possible to construct a space out from points. Perhaps it is a much too simplistic way of thinking - but mathematical points - any math number must therefore have a corresponding space aquainted.
So a wave - irrespective how we look at a wave and irrespective how small the wave may be - which scale it is looked at - then a wave is expressed out from discrete spacious "particles".
Have Gorgeous changed his mind - now seeing everything differently - or am i consistently misinterpreting - misunderstanding what Gorgeous tries to express ?
Hi AlphaNumeric
I will be fine. Details will come in later-first the total picture- roughly where everything should be placed and how it relates to each other.
Better roughly right than exactly wrong.
I will be fine. Details will come in later-first the total picture- roughly where everything should be placed and how it relates to each other.
Better roughly right than exactly wrong.
All it does is just make it more and more obvious you're like StevenA, desperate to be thought of as clever and mathematically adept but inactuality too lazy/stupid to learn even high school mathematics
No, I post "experimental ideas" because I need feedback. That is the way I work through the maze. Even Your feedback here gives me something to think about.
I am pleased to say that today even mr. homm, dawn, and Good Elf has been responding to my experimental ideas. Earleir they did not. I consider it a progress.
I would love to read mathematics step by step but:
a) I do not find it interesting without understanding bigger picture
I am bad at engineering and step by step derivations.
So, have to stick to my guns. It will come out OK.
One day we will converse as well as obviously You are not satisfied with how the things are in physics as well as You keep looking for new ideas in forums
BTW, finally I have understood that I wont be able to avoid sets, but now I understand why I need them- to understand ordinal and cardinal numbers , enumeration, at least. So Cantors work is on my reading list.
Then you have misinterpreted the response.
Energy is neither 'created' nor 'destroyed', so you also misinterpret the laws of physics...no surprise there, then!
The other zilchoid is in an even worse psychological state - probably from snorting too much pixiedust, by the looks of it!
Then you have misinterpreted the response.
Energy is neither 'created' nor 'destroyed', so you also misinterpret the laws of physics...no surprise there, then!
The other zilchoid is in an even worse psychological state - probably from snorting too much pixiedust, by the looks of it!
For a long period I have consistently said that physical reality is made up of smallest dimensionalities - and that point particles is not into physical existance.
Yes, you do make it rather easy!
g.
to upset you ?
Well, there is the self-confessed motivation for posting your nonsense on a physics forum. You are just here to try and upset people...How did I guess! Fortunately, this is something else you are extremely inept at!
One can only presume you have nothing whatsoever to say about the subject of Infinity, so here, have some wise words about being 'upset', from someone else...
"I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping
Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know why nobody told you
how to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
they bought and sold you
I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know how you were diverted
you were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
no one alerted you
I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at you all
Still my guitar gently weeps " - George
g.
QUOTE
Please stop mentioning mathematical concepts you don't have a clue about as if you work with them every day
I will be fine. Details will come in later-first the total picture- roughly where everything should be placed and how it relates to each other.
Better roughly right than exactly wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please stop mentioning mathematical concepts you don't have a clue about as if you work with them every day |
I will be fine. Details will come in later-first the total picture- roughly where everything should be placed and how it relates to each other.
Better roughly right than exactly wrong.
All it does is just make it more and more obvious you're like StevenA, desperate to be thought of as clever and mathematically adept but inactuality too lazy/stupid to learn even high school mathematics
No, I post "experimental ideas" because I need feedback. That is the way I work through the maze. Even Your feedback here gives me something to think about.
I am pleased to say that today even mr. homm, dawn, and Good Elf has been responding to my experimental ideas. Earleir they did not. I consider it a progress.
I would love to read mathematics step by step but:
a) I do not find it interesting without understanding bigger picture
I am bad at engineering and step by step derivations.So, have to stick to my guns. It will come out OK.
One day we will converse as well as obviously You are not satisfied with how the things are in physics as well as You keep looking for new ideas in forums
BTW, finally I have understood that I wont be able to avoid sets, but now I understand why I need them- to understand ordinal and cardinal numbers , enumeration, at least. So Cantors work is on my reading list.
iseason
Quoting Georgous: It's difficult to feel corrected when such an obvious flaw exists in you response. you advocate that energy is created via a standing wave. Well, the wave needs to be made up of something smaller than it's parts or the whole of space is one object. When either of these are considered , I am not wrong, but have a differing view."
Thank you - I totally agree - and I have for some time been discussing this point with Gorgeous - in vain unfortunately
Therefore I was a bit surprised when I read the latest opus to day from "G" - so I am eagerly waiting next moove -
Quoting Georgous: It's difficult to feel corrected when such an obvious flaw exists in you response. you advocate that energy is created via a standing wave. Well, the wave needs to be made up of something smaller than it's parts or the whole of space is one object. When either of these are considered , I am not wrong, but have a differing view."
Thank you - I totally agree - and I have for some time been discussing this point with Gorgeous - in vain unfortunately
Therefore I was a bit surprised when I read the latest opus to day from "G" - so I am eagerly waiting next moove -
QUOTE
It's difficult to feel corrected when such an obvious flaw exists in you response. you advocate that energy is created via a standing wave.
Then you have misinterpreted the response.
Energy is neither 'created' nor 'destroyed', so you also misinterpret the laws of physics...no surprise there, then!
The other zilchoid is in an even worse psychological state - probably from snorting too much pixiedust, by the looks of it!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's difficult to feel corrected when such an obvious flaw exists in you response. you advocate that energy is created via a standing wave. |
Then you have misinterpreted the response.
Energy is neither 'created' nor 'destroyed', so you also misinterpret the laws of physics...no surprise there, then!
The other zilchoid is in an even worse psychological state - probably from snorting too much pixiedust, by the looks of it!
For a long period I have consistently said that physical reality is made up of smallest dimensionalities - and that point particles is not into physical existance.
...quite simply incoherent.
Please stop following me around waving your little hairy maggot - I'm not impressed! Maybe you could give it a tidy up with occam's razor?
g.
Please stop following me around waving your little hairy maggot - I'm not impressed!
Maybe you could give it a tidy up with occam's razor? g.
Hi folks,
From my friend's three-year-old girl, after watching the second hand tick around a clock face for about 20 seconds:
"There is no biggest number, is there Mum?"
Apparently she was counting the seconds but lost track, realised the seconds would never stop ticking, and therefore - if only she knew what numbers came after 20 - she could theoretically keep counting forever. Ergo: no biggest number.
This argument did presume time is infinite, but that's fair enough. Trying to explain that 'time might actually stop one day, we don't know' resulted in two small raised eyebrows and a crushing snort of derision. It is not an argument I will ever make again.
From my friend's three-year-old girl, after watching the second hand tick around a clock face for about 20 seconds:
"There is no biggest number, is there Mum?"
Apparently she was counting the seconds but lost track, realised the seconds would never stop ticking, and therefore - if only she knew what numbers came after 20 - she could theoretically keep counting forever. Ergo: no biggest number.
This argument did presume time is infinite, but that's fair enough. Trying to explain that 'time might actually stop one day, we don't know' resulted in two small raised eyebrows and a crushing snort of derision. It is not an argument I will ever make again.
QUOTE (Mux+May 19 2008, 03:52 PM)
Hi folks,
From my friend's three-year-old girl, after watching the second hand tick around a clock face for about 20 seconds:
"There is no biggest number, is there Mum?"
Apparently she was counting the seconds but lost track, realised the seconds would never stop ticking, and therefore - if only she knew what numbers came after 20 - she could theoretically keep counting forever. Ergo: no biggest number.
This argument did presume time is infinite, but that's fair enough. Trying to explain that 'time might actually stop one day, we don't know' resulted in two small raised eyebrows and a crushing snort of derision. It is not an argument I will ever make again.
Children are often very wise, until we 'teach' them how not to be!
g.
From my friend's three-year-old girl, after watching the second hand tick around a clock face for about 20 seconds:
"There is no biggest number, is there Mum?"
Apparently she was counting the seconds but lost track, realised the seconds would never stop ticking, and therefore - if only she knew what numbers came after 20 - she could theoretically keep counting forever. Ergo: no biggest number.
This argument did presume time is infinite, but that's fair enough. Trying to explain that 'time might actually stop one day, we don't know' resulted in two small raised eyebrows and a crushing snort of derision. It is not an argument I will ever make again.
Children are often very wise, until we 'teach' them how not to be!
g.
Gorgeous
"your little hairy maggot" !
easy easy , this is a friendly discussion site - no war - do not let you upset by sound reasoning, I am not saying that I am right - just saying that you are wrong
peace -
"your little hairy maggot" !
easy easy , this is a friendly discussion site - no war - do not let you upset by sound reasoning, I am not saying that I am right - just saying that you are wrong
peace -
QUOTE
..do not let you upset by sound reasoning..
Yes, you do make it rather easy!
g.
to upset you ?
QUOTE (bukh Posted on Today at 6:38 PM+)
to upset you ?
Well, there is the self-confessed motivation for posting your nonsense on a physics forum. You are just here to try and upset people...How did I guess!
Fortunately, this is something else you are extremely inept at! One can only presume you have nothing whatsoever to say about the subject of Infinity, so here, have some wise words about being 'upset', from someone else...
"I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping
Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know why nobody told you
how to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
they bought and sold you
I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know how you were diverted
you were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
no one alerted you
I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at you all
Still my guitar gently weeps " - George
g.
Hi all
I've been having a little trouble with my network and so have been a little late in responding.
I would say that in the end the concept of infinity is close to a belief in the face of an obvious fact. I have stated it before and will do so again.
"If Infinity exists in any form , it cannot be seen to be 'over here or over there' . "
The nature of the term is all encompassing. I will concede to .9999999 repeating which , by the look of things , many consider in lieu of infinity to be it's equal. The type of effect at a localized level needn't be .9999 repeating , but can be distributed unevenly without creating an unending "sameness".
If true infinity existed , then no margin would exist that could be measured. But with this tiny variation you could create enough variation (space,vacuum then mass including space) to see what we can see. Cheers
Iseason
I've been having a little trouble with my network and so have been a little late in responding.
I would say that in the end the concept of infinity is close to a belief in the face of an obvious fact. I have stated it before and will do so again.
"If Infinity exists in any form , it cannot be seen to be 'over here or over there' . "
The nature of the term is all encompassing. I will concede to .9999999 repeating which , by the look of things , many consider in lieu of infinity to be it's equal. The type of effect at a localized level needn't be .9999 repeating , but can be distributed unevenly without creating an unending "sameness".
If true infinity existed , then no margin would exist that could be measured. But with this tiny variation you could create enough variation (space,vacuum then mass including space) to see what we can see. Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+May 20 2008, 08:01 AM)
Hi all
I've been having a little trouble with my network and so have been a little late in responding.
I would say that in the end the concept of infinity is close to a belief in the face of an obvious fact. I have stated it before and will do so again.
"If Infinity exists in any form , it cannot be seen to be 'over here or over there' . "
The nature of the term is all encompassing. I will concede to .9999999 repeating which , by the look of things , many consider in lieu of infinity to be it's equal. The type of effect at a localized level needn't be .9999 repeating , but can be distributed unevenly without creating an unending "sameness".
If true infinity existed , then no margin would exist that could be measured. But with this tiny variation you could create enough variation (space,vacuum then mass including space) to see what we can see. Cheers
Iseason
If the Universe is not Infinite, then where does it end? Where does the boundary that presumably contains the Universe end?
Even if what we consider to be the known Universe ends, then there would surely only be the unknown Universe beyond, no?
Even by assuming the Universe is finite, you still have to consider what is beyond by definition. Your creating an unnecessary problem by insisting on a finite Universe.
I've been having a little trouble with my network and so have been a little late in responding.
I would say that in the end the concept of infinity is close to a belief in the face of an obvious fact. I have stated it before and will do so again.
"If Infinity exists in any form , it cannot be seen to be 'over here or over there' . "
The nature of the term is all encompassing. I will concede to .9999999 repeating which , by the look of things , many consider in lieu of infinity to be it's equal. The type of effect at a localized level needn't be .9999 repeating , but can be distributed unevenly without creating an unending "sameness".
If true infinity existed , then no margin would exist that could be measured. But with this tiny variation you could create enough variation (space,vacuum then mass including space) to see what we can see. Cheers
Iseason
If the Universe is not Infinite, then where does it end? Where does the boundary that presumably contains the Universe end?
Even if what we consider to be the known Universe ends, then there would surely only be the unknown Universe beyond, no?
Even by assuming the Universe is finite, you still have to consider what is beyond by definition. Your creating an unnecessary problem by insisting on a finite Universe.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 20 2008, 08:28 AM)
If the Universe is not Infinite, then where does it end? Where does the boundary that presumably contains the Universe end?
Even if what we consider to be the known Universe ends, then there would surely only be the unknown Universe beyond, no?
Even by assuming the Universe is finite, you still have to consider what is beyond by definition. Your creating an unnecessary problem by insisting on a finite Universe.
This is the problem of trying to make room for things that do not exist. One error begets another, and buildings fall because of loose foundations.
Infinite Space is the only stable foundation, which is able to explain all the things we observe (and those we do not!).
g.
Even if what we consider to be the known Universe ends, then there would surely only be the unknown Universe beyond, no?
Even by assuming the Universe is finite, you still have to consider what is beyond by definition. Your creating an unnecessary problem by insisting on a finite Universe.
This is the problem of trying to make room for things that do not exist. One error begets another, and buildings fall because of loose foundations.
Infinite Space is the only stable foundation, which is able to explain all the things we observe (and those we do not!).
g.
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE: "If the Universe is not Infinite, then where does it end? Where does the boundary that presumably contains the Universe end?
Even if what we consider to be the known Universe ends, then there would surely only be the unknown Universe beyond, no?
Even by assuming the Universe is finite, you still have to consider what is beyond by definition. Your creating an unnecessary problem by insisting on a finite Universe."
I would like to think that space is infinite - and then I am thinking of the very concept of SPACE - dimensionality -
BUT dimension - dimensions as we think of as physical entities - all dimensions are ratios of infinite space - and ratios are relating to the very concept of physical - and thus physical is related to finite ratios - finite number of dynamic dimensionalities.
QUOTE: "If the Universe is not Infinite, then where does it end? Where does the boundary that presumably contains the Universe end?
Even if what we consider to be the known Universe ends, then there would surely only be the unknown Universe beyond, no?
Even by assuming the Universe is finite, you still have to consider what is beyond by definition. Your creating an unnecessary problem by insisting on a finite Universe."
I would like to think that space is infinite - and then I am thinking of the very concept of SPACE - dimensionality -
BUT dimension - dimensions as we think of as physical entities - all dimensions are ratios of infinite space - and ratios are relating to the very concept of physical - and thus physical is related to finite ratios - finite number of dynamic dimensionalities.
#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
============..
1.
The Third Law of Thermodynamics says that we cannot
reach the Absolute temperature of Vacuum T=0K.
This temperature is a border for us.
Classic physics says that all particles in T=0K will stop their
movement. But Quantum theory doesn't agree with this statement.
Dirac and other his colleagues said that in the sea of
vacuum " virtual, negative, imaginary (i^2=-1) " particles live.
So, the Third Law says that the border between infinity universe
and the " finite world" is marked by Kelvin temperature T=0K.
In another words in the infinity universe T=0K another
objects with finite " inner borders " can exist. The question is:
How can the infinity universe interact with the " finite world" ?
======...
2.
What is a geometrical and physical parameters of particles
in Vacuum, in Nothing , in T=0K?
Can we know anything about this "soup of virtual particles" in vacuum?
The physicists think about the " virtual, negative, imaginary
(i^2=-1) " particles as about of a " point". They are mistaken.
Because, there are physical laws which forbid such opinion.
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the
temperature falls down on 1 degree the volume decreases
on 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degrees
the volume disappears.
Because, as consequence from the Third Law
( W. Nernst-1906, M. Planck-1911, A.Einstein-1925)
when it is closer to zero T=0K the particles lose more
their volume, density, pressure. The volume of these
particles aspires to infinity. And when this “ infinity”
comes nobody knows what to do with the infinity.
But, according to the
" Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
the particles cannot disappear. So, they can only change
its geometrical form and its kinetic energy and become
“flat particles” with potential energy. These flat particles
must have geometrical form of a circle C/D=pi.
So, it is mistaken to think about elementary particle
as about a point.
3.
And from another side we know that photon is a real particle
and can fly with constant speed c=1.
In this movement its form is a compressing circle.
4.
etc.
====================...
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
============..
1.
The Third Law of Thermodynamics says that we cannot
reach the Absolute temperature of Vacuum T=0K.
This temperature is a border for us.
Classic physics says that all particles in T=0K will stop their
movement. But Quantum theory doesn't agree with this statement.
Dirac and other his colleagues said that in the sea of
vacuum " virtual, negative, imaginary (i^2=-1) " particles live.
So, the Third Law says that the border between infinity universe
and the " finite world" is marked by Kelvin temperature T=0K.
In another words in the infinity universe T=0K another
objects with finite " inner borders " can exist. The question is:
How can the infinity universe interact with the " finite world" ?
======...
2.
What is a geometrical and physical parameters of particles
in Vacuum, in Nothing , in T=0K?
Can we know anything about this "soup of virtual particles" in vacuum?
The physicists think about the " virtual, negative, imaginary
(i^2=-1) " particles as about of a " point". They are mistaken.
Because, there are physical laws which forbid such opinion.
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the
temperature falls down on 1 degree the volume decreases
on 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degrees
the volume disappears.
Because, as consequence from the Third Law
( W. Nernst-1906, M. Planck-1911, A.Einstein-1925)
when it is closer to zero T=0K the particles lose more
their volume, density, pressure. The volume of these
particles aspires to infinity. And when this “ infinity”
comes nobody knows what to do with the infinity.
But, according to the
" Law of conservation and transformation of energy"
the particles cannot disappear. So, they can only change
its geometrical form and its kinetic energy and become
“flat particles” with potential energy. These flat particles
must have geometrical form of a circle C/D=pi.
So, it is mistaken to think about elementary particle
as about a point.
3.
And from another side we know that photon is a real particle
and can fly with constant speed c=1.
In this movement its form is a compressing circle.
4.
etc.
====================...
QUOTE (bukh+May 20 2008, 10:08 AM)
I would like to think that space is infinite - and then I am thinking of the very concept of SPACE - dimensionality -
BUT dimension - dimensions as we think of as physical entities - all dimensions are ratios of infinite space - and ratios are relating to the very concept of physical - and thus physical is related to finite ratios - finite number of dynamic dimensionalities.
How the Universe (whole) is compartmentalized is there for us to categorize, mark, measure etc However despite dimensions, states, appearances etc the one category that accounts for all of it is the term 'Universe' Perhaps we have to extend the term to account for Multiverse's if that's what we discover, however I am inclined to stick to Universe as the entirety. So if it is finite then where does it end?, Regardless of how it works or how many dimensions there may be etc
BUT dimension - dimensions as we think of as physical entities - all dimensions are ratios of infinite space - and ratios are relating to the very concept of physical - and thus physical is related to finite ratios - finite number of dynamic dimensionalities.
How the Universe (whole) is compartmentalized is there for us to categorize, mark, measure etc However despite dimensions, states, appearances etc the one category that accounts for all of it is the term 'Universe' Perhaps we have to extend the term to account for Multiverse's if that's what we discover, however I am inclined to stick to Universe as the entirety. So if it is finite then where does it end?, Regardless of how it works or how many dimensions there may be etc
On my opinion, the Vacuum is the flat Pseudo-Euclid's space,
the Vacuum is the Minkowski 4-D continuum of space/time.
=========..
Minkowski tried to understand SRT using 4-D space.
Now we say :
" that it is impossible to see the fourth dimension.. ." Why?
Maybe because: we are in a "special kind of intelligence
is variably called schizophrenia. "
What is the reason of this illness?
The reason is hidden in abstract thinking about :
abstract ideal gas, abstract black body,
abstract inertial systems, abstract virtual particles,
abstract zoo of antiparticles, abstract
Schrödinger’s cat in a dark matter ,
abstract 4D, 5D, 11D, 27D , and etc......
Is there a medicine for this illness?
Of course.
On the one recipe is written " Vacuum: T=0K",
On the other recipe is written " Light quanta".
If we don’t take this medicine our human society
will remain in the state of "schizophrenia". Save us God.
=======================.
the Vacuum is the Minkowski 4-D continuum of space/time.
=========..
Minkowski tried to understand SRT using 4-D space.
Now we say :
" that it is impossible to see the fourth dimension.. ." Why?
Maybe because: we are in a "special kind of intelligence
is variably called schizophrenia. "
What is the reason of this illness?
The reason is hidden in abstract thinking about :
abstract ideal gas, abstract black body,
abstract inertial systems, abstract virtual particles,
abstract zoo of antiparticles, abstract
Schrödinger’s cat in a dark matter ,
abstract 4D, 5D, 11D, 27D , and etc......
Is there a medicine for this illness?
Of course.
On the one recipe is written " Vacuum: T=0K",
On the other recipe is written " Light quanta".
If we don’t take this medicine our human society
will remain in the state of "schizophrenia". Save us God.
=======================.
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.