Just an idea:
1) if we have a finite closed system , embed ed in some surrounding space, locally we will be able to distinguish at least 2 states divided by a border, so entropy will be:
S=kln2, informational entropy S=log2(2) = 1. There is no need for it to be binary, but just for clarity sake.
2) If we have an infinite perfect solid/absolute void system, there are no borders, so there is only 1 state, and entropy could be
S= kln1 = 0 ; +- imaginary values of logarithm , informational S=0 +- imaginary values of log with base 2.
3) If we find a scale below which we can not discern states, but above which we have integer values of the scale, any further partition of space with such cells will lead to increase in entropy as n>1, S>0.
4) However, if beneath the scale we are at we have the possibility to discern fractions of the scale we are at, fractional states, we will have negative entropy as logarithm of fractions is negative.
5) If we assume there are discrete scales of such type which can be chosen as base , every time we will increase entropy as we make cells with that scale and reduce entropy if we divide cells into smaller fractions - get fractional states relative to the scale we are at. However, it seems that negative entropy produced by fraction states most likely will be balanced or even outbalanced by positive entropy of integer states, leading to totally 0 or increase in entropy.
6) The other way to get negative entropy ON BALANCE is to consider infinitesimals,as their logarithm will be always hugely negative. Actually, if we have a found a scale which can be up scaled only in quanta, by multiplication with integers, and downscaled to infinitesimals, we will get asymmetrical production of negative entropy which will be bigger then increase in positive entropy always since by definition, any integer N always < 1/epsilon, where epsilon is any infinitesimal which is not 0.
The question is, can we find such scale in Nature; if yes, then there could exist structures of infinitesimals below that scale which generate negative entropy. The amount of that negative entropy will depend on the structures of infinitesimals- the more regular structures will be, the less will be the negative contribution since any structure created below quanta scale we have found will use part of the potential negative entropy available in totally disordered infinitesimals. But still, by definition of infinitesimals ( as in non-standard analysis) , it should in most cases give negative total balance.
The other question is about the constant k to be used for entropy of infinitesimal structures. Most likely, since we have not noticed it directly thermodynamically yet, the constant k applicable to ratio J/K in infinitesimal structures is much bigger than Boltzmann constant. Even more so, each level of infinitesimal structures may have its own k value, since negative entropy produced will depend on order level of the structure, and thus, how much of available negative entropy it has absorbed. The temperature notion probably does not change much as even infinitesimals might have some average speed of relocation.only the speed will have to be huge(>c) to make temperature noticeable.
What do You think?
I think one would need to consider the significance of the n th root of n.
I don't know where the k came from, nor the l, nor the n therefore I don't understand the question at all. However, the answer to
That being my standard answer #5 to All Important Questions In The World...
The explanation is far from ready but I suspect that at that level each and every part a numeric "entropy" has direct access to every other part of any and every other numeric "entropy" **because** of transcendentality: It can't both be off (as in below) the quantum scale, and simultaneously NOT qualify as transcendental. If it were so, the mathematical definition of "transcendental" would be wrong.
Pi is it, therefore.(as I said, far from ready...)
Another idea: experimentally only, for a short week, take your pick from either "a point is to a circle as a line is to a hypersphere" or "a point is to a circle as a line is to a hypercube", and see if it gets anywhere. Maybe it won't because it's needlessly complex where simplicity should reign, but it will be a short week!
QUOTE
can we find such scale in Nature
can only be directly derived from pi and from nothing else.That being my standard answer #5 to All Important Questions In The World...
The explanation is far from ready but I suspect that at that level each and every part a numeric "entropy" has direct access to every other part of any and every other numeric "entropy" **because** of transcendentality: It can't both be off (as in below) the quantum scale, and simultaneously NOT qualify as transcendental. If it were so, the mathematical definition of "transcendental" would be wrong.
Pi is it, therefore.(as I said, far from ready...)
Another idea: experimentally only, for a short week, take your pick from either "a point is to a circle as a line is to a hypersphere" or "a point is to a circle as a line is to a hypercube", and see if it gets anywhere. Maybe it won't because it's needlessly complex where simplicity should reign, but it will be a short week!
If You can have infinity at all, you can have it also as pure state, one, no boundaries, no cells.
If You look at the entropy of such 1 state, its ln(1)= 0 , and it does not depend on base of logarithms, so it can contain infinity of information ( with imaginary entropy, in form of imaginary part of logarithm) in any base- binary, trinary, e, 10, 27 - etc. - if there does not exist something else that would restrict the possible combinations of information bases.
If You look at the entropy of such 1 state, its ln(1)= 0 , and it does not depend on base of logarithms, so it can contain infinity of information ( with imaginary entropy, in form of imaginary part of logarithm) in any base- binary, trinary, e, 10, 27 - etc. - if there does not exist something else that would restrict the possible combinations of information bases.
QUOTE (Ivars+Dec 13 2007, 11:57 AM)
If You can have infinity at all, you can have it also as pure state, one, no boundaries, no cells.
The problem with that infinity that you speak of is that no infinity is exhaustive. In fact it can be downright boringly and dully dull, such as 1/3, a point followed by an endless repetition of the digit 3.
Infinity has to be more precisely defined than that, and Cantor was born for that
I am afraid I don't understand the question, mostly because I don't know what "entropy of such state" is supposed to mean, Ivars: what is ln(1) and where did it come from? However, I can only address it linguistically --and I already called it cheating.
An infinity has informational constraints, as in the 1/3 example above.
All infinities must necessarily have an informational constraint because if they didn't, when time became matter, the calculation of whatever "ln(1)" is supposed to mean would be translated into language as a mentally, therefore physically, impossible *thought*. The philosophical basis for that assertion is:
--if it is a building block of the universe, it is a thought;
--if it is a thought, it is translatable into regular language;
--therefore language must *address* physical reality necessarily (because it can't address the extra-universal!);
--now you have a mathematical something called "entropy of such state" that does *not* depend on "logarithms" and therefore belongs to a mysterious X base that can not fit into integer counts;
--X is therefore an exhaustive infinity that allows you to express the extra-universal -if nothing else, then itself(!!!);
--but that is not possible. Therefore X base is NOT infinity. Thus it must be at the other end of the spectrum: a base that is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1. The main point of this invented X base, of course, is not that it is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1, but that it is an "addressing" divisor of the infinity that we *can* address, and that would be a very boring (2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11...) if we were to write it down;
--however, and there is always a however, no number base can go below 2 without reaching the unary because the construction of a base is, and can only be, integer;
--since the base must be informational in order to express the expressible, and since it must be also unary due to spatial requirements (I won't get into that), the base is not expressed with the plane that the smallest base, 2, requires, thus its fractal dimension can agree with neither 2 nor 1;
--but language is thought is number is atom;
--and if a language expresses the inexpressible, that is, if it addresses the extra-universal, then it is more-than-informational, which is the logical opposite of the less-than-informational base X whose existence we are trying to guess at;
--thus an infinitesimal of base X, the unit that makes it addressable, must be between 1 and 2 too;
--however
that unit must cross boundaries between what is and what is not expressible with thought and thus can only be a transcendental when expressed with numbers.
The conclusion is that in the expression "ln(1)", whatever it means, either the 1 is bigger than itself(!!!) or the value of 1 is the wrong starting point.
I am afraid I don't understand the question, mostly because I don't know what "entropy of such state" is supposed to mean, Ivars: what is ln(1) and where did it come from? However, I can only address it linguistically --and I already called it cheating.
An infinity has informational constraints, as in the 1/3 example above.
All infinities must necessarily have an informational constraint because if they didn't, when time became matter, the calculation of whatever "ln(1)" is supposed to mean would be translated into language as a mentally, therefore physically, impossible *thought*. The philosophical basis for that assertion is:
--if it is a building block of the universe, it is a thought;
--if it is a thought, it is translatable into regular language;
--therefore language must *address* physical reality necessarily (because it can't address the extra-universal!);
--now you have a mathematical something called "entropy of such state" that does *not* depend on "logarithms" and therefore belongs to a mysterious X base that can not fit into integer counts;
--X is therefore an exhaustive infinity that allows you to express the extra-universal -if nothing else, then itself(!!!);
--but that is not possible. Therefore X base is NOT infinity. Thus it must be at the other end of the spectrum: a base that is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1. The main point of this invented X base, of course, is not that it is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1, but that it is an "addressing" divisor of the infinity that we *can* address, and that would be a very boring (2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11...) if we were to write it down;
--however, and there is always a however, no number base can go below 2 without reaching the unary because the construction of a base is, and can only be, integer;
--since the base must be informational in order to express the expressible, and since it must be also unary due to spatial requirements (I won't get into that), the base is not expressed with the plane that the smallest base, 2, requires, thus its fractal dimension can agree with neither 2 nor 1;
--but language is thought is number is atom;
--and if a language expresses the inexpressible, that is, if it addresses the extra-universal, then it is more-than-informational, which is the logical opposite of the less-than-informational base X whose existence we are trying to guess at;
--thus an infinitesimal of base X, the unit that makes it addressable, must be between 1 and 2 too;
--however that unit must cross boundaries between what is and what is not expressible with thought and thus can only be a transcendental when expressed with numbers.
The conclusion is that in the expression "ln(1)", whatever it means, either the 1 is bigger than itself(!!!) or the value of 1 is the wrong starting point.
If You look at the entropy of such 1 state, its ln(1)= 0 , and it does not depend on base of logarithms, so it **can contain infinity of information** ( with **imaginary entropy**, in form of **imaginary part of logarithm**) in any base- binary, trinary, e, 10, 27 - etc. - if there does not exist something else that would restrict the possible combinations of information bases.
If it can't restrict the possible combinations of informational bases it MUST generate them **informationally**. You are describing a prime base because it "generates" information in units or blocks that are an infinitesimal of itself and yet are not representative of itself, that is, do not address the totality of their creator. Much like light generates information about what is seen without much revealing about the seer.
Am I describing "negative entropy" yet?
The problem with that infinity that you speak of is that no infinity is exhaustive. In fact it can be downright boringly and dully dull, such as 1/3, a point followed by an endless repetition of the digit 3.
Infinity has to be more precisely defined than that, and Cantor was born for that
QUOTE
If You look at the entropy of such 1 state, its ln(1)= 0 , and it does not depend on base of logarithms, so it can contain infinity of information ( with imaginary entropy, in form of imaginary part of logarithm) in any base- binary, trinary, e, 10, 27 - etc. - if there does not exist something else that would restrict the possible combinations of information bases.
I am afraid I don't understand the question, mostly because I don't know what "entropy of such state" is supposed to mean, Ivars: what is ln(1) and where did it come from? However, I can only address it linguistically --and I already called it cheating.
An infinity has informational constraints, as in the 1/3 example above.
All infinities must necessarily have an informational constraint because if they didn't, when time became matter, the calculation of whatever "ln(1)" is supposed to mean would be translated into language as a mentally, therefore physically, impossible *thought*. The philosophical basis for that assertion is:
--if it is a building block of the universe, it is a thought;
--if it is a thought, it is translatable into regular language;
--therefore language must *address* physical reality necessarily (because it can't address the extra-universal!);
--now you have a mathematical something called "entropy of such state" that does *not* depend on "logarithms" and therefore belongs to a mysterious X base that can not fit into integer counts;
--X is therefore an exhaustive infinity that allows you to express the extra-universal -if nothing else, then itself(!!!);
--but that is not possible. Therefore X base is NOT infinity. Thus it must be at the other end of the spectrum: a base that is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1. The main point of this invented X base, of course, is not that it is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1, but that it is an "addressing" divisor of the infinity that we *can* address, and that would be a very boring (2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11...) if we were to write it down;
--however, and there is always a however, no number base can go below 2 without reaching the unary because the construction of a base is, and can only be, integer;
--since the base must be informational in order to express the expressible, and since it must be also unary due to spatial requirements (I won't get into that), the base is not expressed with the plane that the smallest base, 2, requires, thus its fractal dimension can agree with neither 2 nor 1;
--but language is thought is number is atom;
--and if a language expresses the inexpressible, that is, if it addresses the extra-universal, then it is more-than-informational, which is the logical opposite of the less-than-informational base X whose existence we are trying to guess at;
--thus an infinitesimal of base X, the unit that makes it addressable, must be between 1 and 2 too;
--however
that unit must cross boundaries between what is and what is not expressible with thought and thus can only be a transcendental when expressed with numbers.The conclusion is that in the expression "ln(1)", whatever it means, either the 1 is bigger than itself(!!!) or the value of 1 is the wrong starting point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If You look at the entropy of such 1 state, its ln(1)= 0 , and it does not depend on base of logarithms, so it can contain infinity of information ( with imaginary entropy, in form of imaginary part of logarithm) in any base- binary, trinary, e, 10, 27 - etc. - if there does not exist something else that would restrict the possible combinations of information bases. |
I am afraid I don't understand the question, mostly because I don't know what "entropy of such state" is supposed to mean, Ivars: what is ln(1) and where did it come from? However, I can only address it linguistically --and I already called it cheating.
An infinity has informational constraints, as in the 1/3 example above.
All infinities must necessarily have an informational constraint because if they didn't, when time became matter, the calculation of whatever "ln(1)" is supposed to mean would be translated into language as a mentally, therefore physically, impossible *thought*. The philosophical basis for that assertion is:
--if it is a building block of the universe, it is a thought;
--if it is a thought, it is translatable into regular language;
--therefore language must *address* physical reality necessarily (because it can't address the extra-universal!);
--now you have a mathematical something called "entropy of such state" that does *not* depend on "logarithms" and therefore belongs to a mysterious X base that can not fit into integer counts;
--X is therefore an exhaustive infinity that allows you to express the extra-universal -if nothing else, then itself(!!!);
--but that is not possible. Therefore X base is NOT infinity. Thus it must be at the other end of the spectrum: a base that is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1. The main point of this invented X base, of course, is not that it is smaller than 2 and bigger than 1, but that it is an "addressing" divisor of the infinity that we *can* address, and that would be a very boring (2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11...) if we were to write it down;
--however, and there is always a however, no number base can go below 2 without reaching the unary because the construction of a base is, and can only be, integer;
--since the base must be informational in order to express the expressible, and since it must be also unary due to spatial requirements (I won't get into that), the base is not expressed with the plane that the smallest base, 2, requires, thus its fractal dimension can agree with neither 2 nor 1;
--but language is thought is number is atom;
--and if a language expresses the inexpressible, that is, if it addresses the extra-universal, then it is more-than-informational, which is the logical opposite of the less-than-informational base X whose existence we are trying to guess at;
--thus an infinitesimal of base X, the unit that makes it addressable, must be between 1 and 2 too;
--however
that unit must cross boundaries between what is and what is not expressible with thought and thus can only be a transcendental when expressed with numbers.The conclusion is that in the expression "ln(1)", whatever it means, either the 1 is bigger than itself(!!!) or the value of 1 is the wrong starting point.
If You look at the entropy of such 1 state, its ln(1)= 0 , and it does not depend on base of logarithms, so it **can contain infinity of information** ( with **imaginary entropy**, in form of **imaginary part of logarithm**) in any base- binary, trinary, e, 10, 27 - etc. - if there does not exist something else that would restrict the possible combinations of information bases.
If it can't restrict the possible combinations of informational bases it MUST generate them **informationally**. You are describing a prime base because it "generates" information in units or blocks that are an infinitesimal of itself and yet are not representative of itself, that is, do not address the totality of their creator. Much like light generates information about what is seen without much revealing about the seer.
Am I describing "negative entropy" yet?
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Dec 13 2007, 06:20 PM)
Am I describing "negative entropy" yet?
hej IAM
Infinity has structure and levels as do infinitesimals. Negative entropy has to be related to infinitesimals and their structures.
Language, as You said in one post, starts from sounds related to processes which lead to verbs. Perhaps verb to be is the starting one. You know it better than me, but the fact that alphabet(s) tend to have 27 sounds is not a coincidence , but a constraint of certain level of information, as are 8 tones in music. 2^3 and 3^3.
Infinitesimals most likely do not operate on the real number line, but in some perpendicular space,or spiral space, or even multidimensional space of currently unknown structure.
The other things You say have intuitive appeal, but I can not read You yet as You can not read me. When you say the number has to be between 1 and 2, can it be between but not on real line? Actually I think that imaginary unit= imaginary time is the starting point which leads to real space 1 only after 4 rotations, but most likely there is something more.
and I have not forgot orbs or K-vortexes ( tether accident) which seem to be built from infinte structures of infinitesimals, but with a clearly finite outcome.
So let us... try harder
hej IAM
Infinity has structure and levels as do infinitesimals. Negative entropy has to be related to infinitesimals and their structures.
Language, as You said in one post, starts from sounds related to processes which lead to verbs. Perhaps verb to be is the starting one. You know it better than me, but the fact that alphabet(s) tend to have 27 sounds is not a coincidence , but a constraint of certain level of information, as are 8 tones in music. 2^3 and 3^3.
Infinitesimals most likely do not operate on the real number line, but in some perpendicular space,or spiral space, or even multidimensional space of currently unknown structure.
The other things You say have intuitive appeal, but I can not read You yet as You can not read me. When you say the number has to be between 1 and 2, can it be between but not on real line? Actually I think that imaginary unit= imaginary time is the starting point which leads to real space 1 only after 4 rotations, but most likely there is something more.
and I have not forgot orbs or K-vortexes ( tether accident) which seem to be built from infinte structures of infinitesimals, but with a clearly finite outcome.
So let us... try harder
QUOTE (Ivars+Dec 13 2007, 04:48 PM)
Infinity has structure and levels as do infinitesimals. Negative entropy has to be related to infinitesimals and their structures.
Infinitesimals most likely do not operate on the real number line, but in some perpendicular space,or spiral space, or even multidimensional space of currently unknown structure
Agreed. I am unsure as to whether or not I said something wrong in the previous post because of this second graph above.
For the sake of the argument, let's pretend that all infinitesimals are exactly the same as integers, and that all integers are infinities: nothing would change in the sense that there would be always a space between an infinity and another where an extra infinity would fit; the same for infinitesimals, which would become related to a number line... integers on a line.
The "number" or "thought" that describes this relationship between infinitesimals and infinities would be outside of the realm of both our collections, infinities and integers because if it could be placed on a line it would be either rational or irrational and therefore would be limited, useless, to describe the infinities that are missing and the integers that are missing.
You will at once notice what seems to be no more than a linguistic trick: I just blew up in size a whole system so that infinitesimal became integer and integer became infinity. I assumed a spherical expansion with no distortion at all, which is a useless, completely useless close-up of the "system" because I have in other posts stated that infinitesimal *is* integer turned sideways out of space, and that infinity *is* integer turned sideways out of space.
I call it a linguistic "trick" because a lot would change if you mistook infinitesimals for integers and integers for infinities.
The way we build a number line is by writing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
Or... we can write an equation for each and every one of those digits. Then we calculate a "value" for the whole line.
But the integer line IS made up of points, and IS spotty according to Cantor. Am I to suppose that the "number" that we are searching for is spiral to justify the spottiness? If so, then the spots on the line that represent each individual digit --the "truths" that make up the number we are searching for-- can NOT have a "regular" relationship with the next one, as we see in the number line, because we would only be rebuilding a number line with another name. That is, if infinitesimals, blown up, only gave us a line that can be placed on a 1-1 relationship with the integers... there would be no spottiness, because there is NO spottiness in the integer line and a simple addition of 1 to the previous value will give you the next one for each and every occupied spot of an integer number line. (That is what people used to assume before Cantor.)
So I am taking into consideration that the number line is Cantorian-ly spotty AND making sure that I am not taken by a ride by assuming that I don't know and can't possibly know the degree of spottiness of a line. That said, it is perfectly obvious to me that the Cantorian spottiness between 1 and 2 is different than the spottiness between 2 and 3, and between 3 and 4, etc.
By coming to the realization that the between-integer spottinesses are rigorously different for each pair of consecutive integers, we also conclude that the first is bigger than the second, which is bigger than the third, which is bigger than the fourth, etc. The Cantorian spottiness between 9 and 10 is significantly different, because less populated, than the Cantorian spottiness between 1 and 2. That would mean that the spottiness between 1 and 2 directly addresses the aleph beyond that of the integers.
Thus, Cantorian spottiness decreases as it moves away from an eternal observer at point zero, and decreases as the observer moves away from the same point. That is for a single observer, if you have two you get... relativity
I am at a loss as to how to continue and will spend a few months thinking it over!
I may be worng only 40 times a day, and probably am in this case, but the problem you are dealing with, so far, doesn't mention Cantorian spottiness! I may be imagining stuff but... it should be.
Am I describing "negative entropy" yet?
Well, back to the point:
A line that stretched from infinitesimal to infinity without crossing integer space would cut it and slice it at "random" places... But it would remain hidden from view!
A line that stretched from infinitesimal to infinity without crossing integer space would cut it and slice it at "random" places... But it would remain hidden from view!
I can not read You yet as You can not read me. When you say the number has to be between 1 and 2, can it be between but not on real line?
I don't have enough at this point to assume that the addressing value we are looking for will be represented by a line that has a definite spirality of such and such, but do say that it lies outside of our regular computational space and thus would have (indeterminate) spirality. (that is just one more reason I call the value a "transcendental").
As far as people not understanding one another because of private languages: sorry, I thought it was a requirement here!
(SSU and RC, if you have a chance please check for errors.)
Infinitesimals most likely do not operate on the real number line, but in some perpendicular space,or spiral space, or even multidimensional space of currently unknown structure
Agreed. I am unsure as to whether or not I said something wrong in the previous post because of this second graph above.
For the sake of the argument, let's pretend that all infinitesimals are exactly the same as integers, and that all integers are infinities: nothing would change in the sense that there would be always a space between an infinity and another where an extra infinity would fit; the same for infinitesimals, which would become related to a number line... integers on a line.
The "number" or "thought" that describes this relationship between infinitesimals and infinities would be outside of the realm of both our collections, infinities and integers because if it could be placed on a line it would be either rational or irrational and therefore would be limited, useless, to describe the infinities that are missing and the integers that are missing.
You will at once notice what seems to be no more than a linguistic trick: I just blew up in size a whole system so that infinitesimal became integer and integer became infinity. I assumed a spherical expansion with no distortion at all, which is a useless, completely useless close-up of the "system" because I have in other posts stated that infinitesimal *is* integer turned sideways out of space, and that infinity *is* integer turned sideways out of space.
I call it a linguistic "trick" because a lot would change if you mistook infinitesimals for integers and integers for infinities.
The way we build a number line is by writing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
Or... we can write an equation for each and every one of those digits. Then we calculate a "value" for the whole line.
But the integer line IS made up of points, and IS spotty according to Cantor. Am I to suppose that the "number" that we are searching for is spiral to justify the spottiness? If so, then the spots on the line that represent each individual digit --the "truths" that make up the number we are searching for-- can NOT have a "regular" relationship with the next one, as we see in the number line, because we would only be rebuilding a number line with another name. That is, if infinitesimals, blown up, only gave us a line that can be placed on a 1-1 relationship with the integers... there would be no spottiness, because there is NO spottiness in the integer line and a simple addition of 1 to the previous value will give you the next one for each and every occupied spot of an integer number line. (That is what people used to assume before Cantor.)
So I am taking into consideration that the number line is Cantorian-ly spotty AND making sure that I am not taken by a ride by assuming that I don't know and can't possibly know the degree of spottiness of a line. That said, it is perfectly obvious to me that the Cantorian spottiness between 1 and 2 is different than the spottiness between 2 and 3, and between 3 and 4, etc.
By coming to the realization that the between-integer spottinesses are rigorously different for each pair of consecutive integers, we also conclude that the first is bigger than the second, which is bigger than the third, which is bigger than the fourth, etc. The Cantorian spottiness between 9 and 10 is significantly different, because less populated, than the Cantorian spottiness between 1 and 2. That would mean that the spottiness between 1 and 2 directly addresses the aleph beyond that of the integers.
Thus, Cantorian spottiness decreases as it moves away from an eternal observer at point zero, and decreases as the observer moves away from the same point. That is for a single observer, if you have two you get... relativity
I am at a loss as to how to continue and will spend a few months thinking it over!
I may be worng
only 40 times a day, and probably am in this case, but the problem you are dealing with, so far, doesn't mention Cantorian spottiness! I may be imagining stuff but... it should be.Am I describing "negative entropy" yet?
Well, back to the point:
QUOTE
Infinitesimals most likely do not operate on the real number line, but in some perpendicular space,or spiral space, or even multidimensional space of currently unknown structure.
A line that stretched from infinitesimal to infinity without crossing integer space would cut it and slice it at "random" places... But it would remain hidden from view!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Infinitesimals most likely do not operate on the real number line, but in some perpendicular space,or spiral space, or even multidimensional space of currently unknown structure. |
A line that stretched from infinitesimal to infinity without crossing integer space would cut it and slice it at "random" places... But it would remain hidden from view!
I can not read You yet as You can not read me. When you say the number has to be between 1 and 2, can it be between but not on real line?
I don't have enough at this point to assume that the addressing value we are looking for will be represented by a line that has a definite spirality of such and such, but do say that it lies outside of our regular computational space and thus would have (indeterminate) spirality. (that is just one more reason I call the value a "transcendental").
As far as people not understanding one another because of private languages: sorry, I thought it was a requirement here!
(SSU and RC, if you have a chance please check for errors.)
hi Ivars
I admit - I understand very little - if anything of your math - but my gut feeling is that you cannot transfere entropy from one scale system to another scale system. Therefore entropy is always a positive. If it is totally irrelevant - just ignore:)
I admit - I understand very little - if anything of your math - but my gut feeling is that you cannot transfere entropy from one scale system to another scale system. Therefore entropy is always a positive. If it is totally irrelevant - just ignore:)
QUOTE (bukh+Dec 13 2007, 07:58 PM)
I admit - I understand very little - if anything of your math - but my gut feeling is that you cannot transfere entropy from one scale system to another scale system. Therefore entropy is always a positive. If it is totally irrelevant - just ignore:)
Hi, Bukh, I think what everyone is attempting to reach is exactly this scale transference. It is barely understandable all-around, in multiple contexts and with multiple speakers... because it is not ready yet.
I also admit it, I don't understand it: that is not "irrelevant" at all! It's our primordial starting point.
Hi, Bukh, I think what everyone is attempting to reach is exactly this scale transference. It is barely understandable all-around, in multiple contexts and with multiple speakers... because it is not ready yet.
I also admit it, I don't understand it: that is not "irrelevant" at all! It's our primordial starting point.
QUOTE (bukh+Dec 13 2007, 11:58 PM)
hi Ivars
I admit - I understand very little - if anything of your math - but my gut feeling is that you cannot transfere entropy from one scale system to another scale system. Therefore entropy is always a positive. If it is totally irrelevant - just ignore:)
hej bukh
I think You can. Via links between scales of infinitesimals as they are graded. The link most likely is speed, or rather, scale/time ration. Why?
As a simple expample, let us assume E=mc^2
now, Energy is finite. If we speak about energy of infinitesimals, then either mass is infinitesimal, or infinite, or speed is infinitesimal or infinite to get finite energy, but speed SQUARED.
most likely mass or inertia of infinitesimals is infinitesimal, while speed is infinite, but graded infinity, according to scales- the smaller scale You are in, the higher the infinite grade of speed.
So in fact, speed is in the different scale than mass of infinitesimal to give finite energy- it is speed from ONE level higher ( smaller infinity).
We know that at limit, when information is expressed in quanta, this speed is c. This speed is ONE level of scale higher than smallest mass . That means that mass or inertia of first level of strucutres below quantum level is FINITE as c as finite.
OK?
I admit - I understand very little - if anything of your math - but my gut feeling is that you cannot transfere entropy from one scale system to another scale system. Therefore entropy is always a positive. If it is totally irrelevant - just ignore:)
hej bukh
I think You can. Via links between scales of infinitesimals as they are graded. The link most likely is speed, or rather, scale/time ration. Why?
As a simple expample, let us assume E=mc^2
now, Energy is finite. If we speak about energy of infinitesimals, then either mass is infinitesimal, or infinite, or speed is infinitesimal or infinite to get finite energy, but speed SQUARED.
most likely mass or inertia of infinitesimals is infinitesimal, while speed is infinite, but graded infinity, according to scales- the smaller scale You are in, the higher the infinite grade of speed.
So in fact, speed is in the different scale than mass of infinitesimal to give finite energy- it is speed from ONE level higher ( smaller infinity).
We know that at limit, when information is expressed in quanta, this speed is c. This speed is ONE level of scale higher than smallest mass . That means that mass or inertia of first level of strucutres below quantum level is FINITE as c as finite.
OK?
I think the commonly accepted theory of Entropy was conceived on a false paradigm of knowledge.
Gravity is not the main force in the Universe. Electricity is.
Read my topic "Cosmic Science" and I believe you will understand a bit better. Entropy cannot exist within the Natural processes of Creation.
May you always find the Truth you seek Within.
Gravity is not the main force in the Universe. Electricity is.
Read my topic "Cosmic Science" and I believe you will understand a bit better. Entropy cannot exist within the Natural processes of Creation.
May you always find the Truth you seek Within.
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.