First, there is no such thing as a Master of Science. We are all Students. I don't carry any credentials, so don't take any of my opinions as facts. I do believe my arguments are strong and I hope you will agree. The following is based on pure logic, so please don't pull this into a battle of semantics.
I don't have a lot of time but I felt that a Rant I delivered in my speculation "What is Gravity?" deserved a bit more attention. I've read some questions like: What was here before the Big Bang? Can our future wrap back to become our past? Where did everything come from? I hope to answer those questions herein.
I'm going to talk about Reality, Existence and Time as these three items are related. I've read a lot of ideas and theories but none have passed muster until I conceived of the following concepts many years ago.
Let's start with some basic rules regarding a "Reality":
1. Paradox's are forbidden.
2. Circular arguments are forbidden.
3. Randomness is forbidden.
Example: I travel back in time and teach an earlier version of me about how to build my own time machine. This begs the question of where the knowledge about my time machine originated.
To avoid circular arguments, one must start with absolutely nothing, as in:
A. No Substance can exist.
B. No Energy can exist.
C. No Spatial distances can exist.
D. No Temporal distances can exist.
In other words, a perfect "Null set".
After elimination of everything measurable, the one thing that can't be eliminated is Truth or Logic.
Example: 10/3 is 3.33333... etc. Simple math functions break none of the above rules.
"So what?" I hear you ask! Ok.. I'm glad you asked. The function 10/3 represents a Question. The Answer is fixed at 3.33333... etc. Note: the answer began with a "3" and is followed by an infinite secession of "3"s. This answer had a beginning and has sequence. It occupies no space, no time, isn't material or energy. It's just a simple answer. But it's an answer that absolutely does exist! And no one is required to ask the question for the answer to exist. That's an important concept, believe it or not.
This (10/3) is a simple function with a simple answer. So I put to you the following question: How complex can a math function be? How complex can the logic question be? I'll answer that for you.. there is no limit on how complex the question can be. There is no special limit on how complex the answers can be either.
Example: Start with an empty grid 1000x1000. Now using PI (3.1415...) begin initialization by placing each digit in sequence into a cell in sequence. Now apply a few rules, such as each cell adds or subtracts from it's neighbors based on it's current value. Wrap 9 to 0 and 0 to 9 for double digits. Replace each number with a color to see this visually on a computer screen. The answer, as it plays out, will look like total Chaos at first. But shortly.. order will prevail with very cool interactive color geometries. Stop the process after so many generations and note the color patterns. This same pattern will be seen no matter how many times you restart it from the same initial state and stop at the same place. Why? Because there is no randomness embedded. Just logical sequence.
Take this question and extend it to trillion(s) of cells and while we are at it, let's bump it from a 2D grid to a 10 dimensional grid. It maintains the same basic features but now we will witness many orders of magnitude greater in interactive geometries or patterns being played out. Make the grid as large as a Universe if you wish. See the patterns form geometries that may take on behaviors like particles and atoms. You may see the atoms merge into molecules, then into stars and planets, into chemistry and into life. If you zoom in and watch the life, it may become intelligent over enough sequences. It's learning about it's world. It may question it's existence. If you want to see what the world looks like, from the perspective of this life form, then just take a quick look around yourself.
This expanded "Question => Answer" is no different than the first one of "10/3 => 3.33333....". Just a more complex question and a more complex answer is involved. Time has become sequence. The whole "Answer", from beginning to end (or infinity), actually occupies no real time, nor space, nor distance, nor material aspects. Yet the occupants sense it as a reality with all the features expected.
Now here is a quick test to see if you follow so far. Suppose you actually ran this as a program on a computer. After seeing a highly intelligent life form embedded in the answer, you pause the computer and go on vacation. When you get back, you hit the continue button. Would the intelligent life form know you had paused the program?
That should give you a better sense of what time actually is and isn't. Keep in mind, the answer will exist whether you run it on a computer or not. The computer tool simply allows you to see inside the existing "Answer".
So I put it to you.. How many rules can be applied to this simulation/question? How many initial starting states can be applied. How many dimensions are allowed? When a character who solely exists inside the solution/answer asks, "What preceded the beginning of my Universe?"... Can you now answer that question for "It" or yourself even? In the value PI.. what came before the first "3".
So.. an infinite number of logical universes do exist, most are trash but some are special.. like this one we live in.
One more parting idea:
Does this mean I've destroyed "God" simply because I've shown how complex systems can exist without intelligent design or tangibility. NOT AT ALL. I am a virtual reality engine. I am hard wired for this function. I have a database of memories to incorporate into my reality, to predict the outcome of my actions before doing them. Input sensors to integrate the outside world into my programmed virtual world, so I may interact with the outside world.
If I am a mathematical being and my body dies.. can the question be asked.. "What would my program have done next, given it's been cut off from this universe". If an answer to this question exists, then I continue to exist apart from this reality. I may get lonely and subdivide myself into separate entities (making a few new friends...lol) and just dream away my time. Or, perhaps, I create a new Universe to suit myself. I do this now as a programmer already. With some practice and no physical limits, I might just become a God myself, in my own Universe.
I guess it depends on how much time I actually have. "Eternity will seem like a very long time, especially towards the end." (Woody Allen)
Best wishes to all..
Dave :^)
Tweet
I haven't had time to read through your full post, but I take issue with assumption 3 here (and possibly assumption 2). Assumption 1 seems too vague to be meaningful, so I can't really object to that one in any kind of coherent way (other than stating that I don't find it to be meaningful; what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be paradoxical?)
Assumption 3 I object to because you cannot simply assume that reality is non-random. There are actually good reasons to think that the universe we inhabit is random, namely from quantum mechanics. Our human intuitions do not sit comfortably with this notion, but there is no reason to believe that nature needs to abide by our intuitions. She just does what she does, whether we like it or not.
Assumption 2 can be objected to if the universe is more properly described by para-consistent logic than with classical logic. Logicians have developed a large number of different logics, all of them internally valid, but which are not necessarily consistent with each other. This isn't really a problem because they are independent systems. Think of it like this -- it's true of a car that it has an engine, but it's not true of a carriage. Yet we don't worry about the carriage/automobile discrepancy as being problematic. Likewise, we needn't worry about our different logics being consistent with each other. What we can worry about is what the most useful logic is for describing our universe. So far as I am aware, the jury is still out on that one, although physicists normally assume that we are safe using classical logic. So it's possible that mainstream physicists are just assuming something like your (2) and will do so until it proves to be problematic.
Incidentally, it's rare that we can develop a theory about "reality" in physics. In fact, it does not occur that we can do so using pure logic; that's not the way that a science progresses. However, in metaphysics, that is something which is pursued. Like it or not, so far as I can tell, you aren't really doing science here. You're doing something more like philosophy (though I would also want to tell you that any professional philosopher worth a damn would make the same objections to your 3 assumptions that I've already made.)
If you would like to learn how the pros have dealt with metaphysics, here are two texts that I would recommend that you read:
For an intro: http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0415401348/ref=pd_sim_b_2
And when you're feeling more advanced: http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Anthology-Blackwell-Philosophy-Anthologies/dp/063120279X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1289503120&sr=8-6
And another good reference is http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-Metaphysics-Handbooks/dp/0199284229/ref=pd_sim_b_8
That's fine, but it's not science. Like I said, what you are trying to do is really philosophy. In particular, it's metaphysics. Whether you are being successful in that task is an entirely different matter...
This is still too vague. All you did was to give an example of a paradox. You didn't actually give me necessary and sufficient conditions for a given proposition to be paradoxical. And, in fact, there's no reason to a priori rule out the kind of event that you have in mind, other than that you find it counter intuitive or in some way strange. It certainly doesn't necessarily result in a logical contradiction. It could be that there are good reasons to rule out the kinds of things that you have in mind, but you have not named them. Furthermore, given the lack of necessary and sufficient conditions, you haven't been clear enough about what you actually mean.
That's not a circular argument, or at the very least, is not what is usually meant by a circular argument. A circular argument is usually taken to be an argument whose conclusion is already assumed amongst the premises. A circular argument about the universe might go like this:
1. The Universe exists.
2. If the (1) then the Universe exists.
3. Therefore, the Universe exists (by Modus Ponens, from (1) and (2).)
Now, an argument like this is bad because it doesn't actually tell us anything. It is undoubtedly true that if the Universe exists then it exists. There's nothing false in the argument I just gave; nonetheless, the lack of new information is deeply troubling.
To take the idea that the Universe cannot have some kind of cyclic existence actually begs the question against any cosmological theory which posits precisely that. Therefore, not only are you using a non-standard definition of "circular", but you are also begging the question against many other theories. Most would contend that being circular is just as bad as begging the question; why do you think you can take it for granted that other theories must be wrong, without even having argued against them?
Well, that's just patently false. I can certainly construct random variables and then tell you about their properties. If what you claim here were true, then much of modern probability theory would not be possible (and, in fact, I'd be largely out of a job!)
In any event, even if it were true that randomness can't exist in mathematics, we observe true randomness in the Universe in which we inhabit. Sure, you can quote Einstein as saying otherwise (as you proceed to do), but the lesson here is more than even Einstein got some things wrong (actually, he got a lot of things wrong.) In so far as the evidence that we have available to us now, the universe is, at bottom, entirely random (though governed by deterministically evolving probability distributions, except during measurements, when even the distributions fail to evolve deterministically.)
Except that hidden variables have been ruled out by the violation of Bell's Inequalities....
Hartry Field would disagree...
My problem here is that the relationship between the existence of intelligent beings on the one hand, and the existence of complex formulae on the other, is not entirely obvious to me. One might think that one simply does not suffice for the other; that there exist complex formulae without intelligence and vice versa, and that complex formulae are not the things which suffice to produce self aware intelligences. In fact, the precise relationship between the physical world and mathematics is deeply controversial amongst modern philosophers, and has some level of debate amongst philosophically minded mathematicians and physicists. To merely claim, as you do, that complex equations support self aware intelligences is highly dubious; it should take a rather lot of convincing argument to make this point stand (none of which do you actually provide.)
That's not necessarily true. It could be that every formula in your system produces an answer from a finite list of solutions. What you have to prove here is that for an infinite number of equations in your system, you have an infinite number of solutions. The simplest way to do this that I can think of is to show that your formal system is one to one; i.e. for every formula there exists a unique solution.
However, there's a problem here. You have not specified for us what formal system you're working with. You can't just say "mathematics" because that's not sufficiently precise. Mathematics consists of a large number of different formal systems, many of which are distinct and entirely independent of the others. What you need to do is to specify for me which of these formal systems you are using, prove that there exists an infinity of formulae in that system, then prove that the infinity of formulae imply an infinity of solutions. I can think of a number of formal systems for which that is true, and many of them are useful for doing physics, but it seems that you would have to take an extra step. You would have to argue somehow that one of these formal systems (or perhaps some union of them) actually describe the universe precisely and without error (i.e. that reality ultimately just reflects some formal system like that.) You haven't done any of these things.
That's definitely not true. Most people would take 0% of infinity to be 0 (though I have to confess that we're not really being sufficiently precise here. We should be talking about cardinalities or measures on sets and not percentages of infinity, which honestly doesn't really make any sense.)
That's simply not true, and, in any case, you need to argue for this; you can't just accept it.
So because I can encode a representation of an Imp in binary, it is implied that Imps exist? That's just patently absurd. That's a particularly wild eyed brand of Pythagoreanism that I doubt even the staunchest mathematical realist would take seriously.
Just because you combine intelligent sounding words together doesn't make something meaningful or coherent. "For all other realities, there exist an infinity of subjective qualifications." "For all other realities, all other realities are orthogonal to their perpendiculars." Etc. This is just dubious word play.
Actually, I think something like that is true, though I find all of the arguments which you have presented for this to be entirely too vague and, frankly, just outright fallacious.
Except that logic is a branch of philosophy. What you are attempting to do is what is known as formal metaphysics.
Unfortunately, philosophy is a poor reputation, mainly due to what passes colloquially as "philosophy". When people use the word "philosophy" outside of academia, they are usually referring to the kinds of ruminations that 16 year olds have while smoking copious amounts of marijuana. They think of New Age hippy movements and the like. I would like to most emphatically say that this is not what I mean when I say "philosophy". This business of trying to set up a formal system to reason about the nature of reality, which is what I believe you are attempting, is what professional philosophers identify as formal metaphysics. It is not science, and differs quite explicitly from science in a number of ways. However, I think that if you actually read about the other myriad attempts to do what it is that you are attempting, you would be deeply captivated. Therefore, I highly encourage you to pick up the books I recommended in my previous post. At the very least, try checking them out from a local library. What have you really got to lose?
Thank you so much for the consideration, and for your opinion that I need wiki to get to know about the game of life, or complex systems, fractals, cellular automata or artificial intelligence.
No impredictability in the game of life.
Not even a faint shadow of the indeterminacy principle.
No universe there
Hehe. I must admit to having found this similarly confusing, since complex systems is my field of study...
All true.
Paradoxes are out, as there can be no true paradoxes. If backed into a corner, then one is missing something. For example, one might think that existence cannot be produced from nothing; yet, there is no other source for anything; therefore, there is a way to produce existence from nonexistence.
Incomplete notions will not do, such as something was forever. Since this notion has the 'something' not coming from anything, this is exactly the same as from nothing.
The Reality of Time.
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by linford86 on November 11th, 2010, 2:23 pm
Dave_Oblad wrote:Let's start with some basic rules regarding a "Reality":
1. Paradox's are forbidden.
2. Circular arguments are forbidden.
3. Randomness is forbidden.
I haven't had time to read through your full post, but I take issue with assumption 3 here (and possibly assumption 2). Assumption 1 seems too vague to be meaningful, so I can't really object to that one in any kind of coherent way (other than stating that I don't find it to be meaningful; what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be paradoxical?)
Assumption 3 I object to because you cannot simply assume that reality is non-random. There are actually good reasons to think that the universe we inhabit is random, namely from quantum mechanics. Our human intuitions do not sit comfortably with this notion, but there is no reason to believe that nature needs to abide by our intuitions. She just does what she does, whether we like it or not.
Assumption 2 can be objected to if the universe is more properly described by para-consistent logic than with classical logic. Logicians have developed a large number of different logics, all of them internally valid, but which are not necessarily consistent with each other. This isn't really a problem because they are independent systems. Think of it like this -- it's true of a car that it has an engine, but it's not true of a carriage. Yet we don't worry about the carriage/automobile discrepancy as being problematic. Likewise, we needn't worry about our different logics being consistent with each other. What we can worry about is what the most useful logic is for describing our universe. So far as I am aware, the jury is still out on that one, although physicists normally assume that we are safe using classical logic. So it's possible that mainstream physicists are just assuming something like your (2) and will do so until it proves to be problematic.
Incidentally, it's rare that we can develop a theory about "reality" in physics. In fact, it does not occur that we can do so using pure logic; that's not the way that a science progresses. However, in metaphysics, that is something which is pursued. Like it or not, so far as I can tell, you aren't really doing science here. You're doing something more like philosophy (though I would also want to tell you that any professional philosopher worth a damn would make the same objections to your 3 assumptions that I've already made.)
If you would like to learn how the pros have dealt with metaphysics, here are two texts that I would recommend that you read:
For an intro: http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0415401348/ref=pd_sim_b_2
And when you're feeling more advanced: http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Anthology-Blackwell-Philosophy-Anthologies/dp/063120279X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1289503120&sr=8-6
And another good reference is http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-Metaphysics-Handbooks/dp/0199284229/ref=pd_sim_b_8
-
linford86 - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: 14 Apr 2009
- Location: Planet Earth
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by neuro on November 11th, 2010, 5:37 pm
Dave_
I did not understand much of your lengthy theory about gravity. As regard this post, my impression is much more clear: this is an extremely lengthy, useless metaphor.
Your whoile system starts from the idea of a series (numerous as you wish) of discrete values and linear operations.
This may generate an apparently complex universe if your numbers are sufficiently large, but the discreteness and lack of nonlinear relations maintain it in the domain of full predictability and exclude the indeterminacy principle.
So, that is not our universe.
As for the idea that our perception - especially perception of time, causality, beginning, infinity - may be mislead or tricked by something greater than ourselves, I do not feel it as something particularly novel, or exciting.
I have the impression you should generally try and offer more clearly what your point is, and more concisely, if you really wish to receive some feedback.
I did not understand much of your lengthy theory about gravity. As regard this post, my impression is much more clear: this is an extremely lengthy, useless metaphor.
Your whoile system starts from the idea of a series (numerous as you wish) of discrete values and linear operations.
This may generate an apparently complex universe if your numbers are sufficiently large, but the discreteness and lack of nonlinear relations maintain it in the domain of full predictability and exclude the indeterminacy principle.
So, that is not our universe.
As for the idea that our perception - especially perception of time, causality, beginning, infinity - may be mislead or tricked by something greater than ourselves, I do not feel it as something particularly novel, or exciting.
I have the impression you should generally try and offer more clearly what your point is, and more concisely, if you really wish to receive some feedback.
-
neuro - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: 25 Jun 2010
- Location: italy
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by Dave_Oblad on November 11th, 2010, 9:11 pm
Hi Linford86
I set a goal for myself to see if I could find a reality that doesn't depend on anything tangible. A purely logical and mathematical type reality. Hence my first set of rules.
A paradox is self conflicting and denies it's own existence. You can't go back in time and kill your earlier self. If you did manage to perform this task then you would be dealing with branched realities in which case you didn't really kill the original version of you.
A circular argument is like: The universe came from a singularity, which came from a previous universe that collapsed, that came from a singularity, that came from a previous universe.. etc.. forever backwards in time. In other words.. I'm saying all cause/effect functions have a beginning initial state where sequence/time is concerned. I would accept this as an Axiom.
Another Axiom: True Randomness can't exist in a purely mathematical setting.
Proof? You cannot write a mathematical formula or program or statement that produces a random numerical result. You can create pseudo-randomness. A pseudo-random number generator creates what appears to be random numbers in sequence. But if you deny this method any external source of input and all variables are started with the same values.. then the results will always be repeated identically.
Einstein knew this and is somewhat misquoted with: "God doesn't play Dice with the Universe." Given quantum observations this quote might read today as: "God does play Dice with the Universe. But the Dice are loaded." Meaning that for every effect there is a cause. Call them hidden variables if you wish. Since the universe is so purely mechanical, your whole future is already preset and you can't change it. Any attempt to change it merely keeps it on course.
If one wishes to wax philosophical, then one might say we are all characters in some Super Gods Dream. I wouldn't debate this.. as it may be true. In fact, probability favors that we exist in a simulation, like the movie "Matrix", with some higher intelligence pulling the strings or just observing. Who knows.. But whoever is pulling the strings came from somewhere. So my primary goal was to trace all possible realities to a point that doesn't require anything tangible or timely or spatial. To begin and end with a complete blank state.
The one thing that can't be eliminated however, is logic or math. A logical complex formula can produce a complex answer. For every logical formula that has an absolute answer, then an absolute answer exists for that formula. Sounds redundant but is nonetheless true. There is no fixed limit on the complexity of the formula(s) and there is no fixed limit on the complexity of the result(s) for all formulas. If the solution to an equation is complex enough to support self aware intelligences, then those intelligences might debate with each other if they truly exist or not. (Hint: if they can debate.. then they do exist..lol)
Since there are an infinite number of equations.. then there are an infinite number of solutions. The tiniest percentage that spawn intelligences becomes an infinite number because any percentage of infinity... is still infinity.
No universe/reality can mathematically exist with an initial state that includes an infinity. This makes the initial state imprecise and thus no true solution can exist.
Example in programming:
A = 1 to Infinity. (Ok.. as in Case: A=A+1)
A = Infinity to 1. (Bogus, imprecise initial state)
You can take any Virtual Reality Video Game (like "Doom") and convert it entirely (Program, Cpu, Memory, AI, etc) to a pure Boolean form of math. Call this an equation or formula if you like. But in this form.. real monsters do roam the halls.
Time doesn't truly exist either. For all realities, all other realities are simultaneous with a duration of instantaneous.
I know some folks have a hard time wrapping their minds around these concepts.. especially when they are convinced that the reality they exist inside of is somehow more real than just mere mathematics and logic.
This is not philosophy, it's absolute logic. One can argue semantics until the cows come home.. but the truth is inescapable.
As I said in my other post on Gravity, I'm a bit pinched for time right now.. but I will be back in a few weeks to continue.. if anyone wants more clarification.
Best wishes..
Dave :^)
I set a goal for myself to see if I could find a reality that doesn't depend on anything tangible. A purely logical and mathematical type reality. Hence my first set of rules.
A paradox is self conflicting and denies it's own existence. You can't go back in time and kill your earlier self. If you did manage to perform this task then you would be dealing with branched realities in which case you didn't really kill the original version of you.
A circular argument is like: The universe came from a singularity, which came from a previous universe that collapsed, that came from a singularity, that came from a previous universe.. etc.. forever backwards in time. In other words.. I'm saying all cause/effect functions have a beginning initial state where sequence/time is concerned. I would accept this as an Axiom.
Another Axiom: True Randomness can't exist in a purely mathematical setting.
Proof? You cannot write a mathematical formula or program or statement that produces a random numerical result. You can create pseudo-randomness. A pseudo-random number generator creates what appears to be random numbers in sequence. But if you deny this method any external source of input and all variables are started with the same values.. then the results will always be repeated identically.
Einstein knew this and is somewhat misquoted with: "God doesn't play Dice with the Universe." Given quantum observations this quote might read today as: "God does play Dice with the Universe. But the Dice are loaded." Meaning that for every effect there is a cause. Call them hidden variables if you wish. Since the universe is so purely mechanical, your whole future is already preset and you can't change it. Any attempt to change it merely keeps it on course.
If one wishes to wax philosophical, then one might say we are all characters in some Super Gods Dream. I wouldn't debate this.. as it may be true. In fact, probability favors that we exist in a simulation, like the movie "Matrix", with some higher intelligence pulling the strings or just observing. Who knows.. But whoever is pulling the strings came from somewhere. So my primary goal was to trace all possible realities to a point that doesn't require anything tangible or timely or spatial. To begin and end with a complete blank state.
The one thing that can't be eliminated however, is logic or math. A logical complex formula can produce a complex answer. For every logical formula that has an absolute answer, then an absolute answer exists for that formula. Sounds redundant but is nonetheless true. There is no fixed limit on the complexity of the formula(s) and there is no fixed limit on the complexity of the result(s) for all formulas. If the solution to an equation is complex enough to support self aware intelligences, then those intelligences might debate with each other if they truly exist or not. (Hint: if they can debate.. then they do exist..lol)
Since there are an infinite number of equations.. then there are an infinite number of solutions. The tiniest percentage that spawn intelligences becomes an infinite number because any percentage of infinity... is still infinity.
No universe/reality can mathematically exist with an initial state that includes an infinity. This makes the initial state imprecise and thus no true solution can exist.
Example in programming:
A = 1 to Infinity. (Ok.. as in Case: A=A+1)
A = Infinity to 1. (Bogus, imprecise initial state)
You can take any Virtual Reality Video Game (like "Doom") and convert it entirely (Program, Cpu, Memory, AI, etc) to a pure Boolean form of math. Call this an equation or formula if you like. But in this form.. real monsters do roam the halls.
Time doesn't truly exist either. For all realities, all other realities are simultaneous with a duration of instantaneous.
I know some folks have a hard time wrapping their minds around these concepts.. especially when they are convinced that the reality they exist inside of is somehow more real than just mere mathematics and logic.
This is not philosophy, it's absolute logic. One can argue semantics until the cows come home.. but the truth is inescapable.
As I said in my other post on Gravity, I'm a bit pinched for time right now.. but I will be back in a few weeks to continue.. if anyone wants more clarification.
Best wishes..
Dave :^)
-
Dave_Oblad - Member
- Posts: 610
- Joined: 08 Sep 2010
- Blog: View Blog (3)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by Dave_Oblad on November 11th, 2010, 10:30 pm
Hi Neuro, happy to see you drop by.
Your opinion of "lengthy".. perhaps. I thought it rather short, considering the volumes that have been written by philosophers regarding the nature of our existence.
But "useless metaphor"? Since the dawn of man, we have searched for the meaning of existence. I offer one rather obvious answer. It may not apply to our reality, but it definitely applies to an infinite set of realities that just might include ours.
As for using floating point math in a reality formula.. I don't see why not as long as the numbers have a fixed resolution. It must be precise to exist. But actually, the logical reality I see is more Boolean. A good example can be found on the Net or Wiki. Search for "John Conway, Game of Life". On Wikpedia we see a simple example of what can exist in a simple form of this type of logical reality.
You should see some of the patterns that can exist inside this simple version. Now imagine adding another dozen dimensions and far more complex interactive rules. There is basically no limit to what this form of logic can produce, including a fully workable universe.
Anyway.. got to run.. Back in a few weeks..
Best wishes,
Dave :^)
Your opinion of "lengthy".. perhaps. I thought it rather short, considering the volumes that have been written by philosophers regarding the nature of our existence.
But "useless metaphor"? Since the dawn of man, we have searched for the meaning of existence. I offer one rather obvious answer. It may not apply to our reality, but it definitely applies to an infinite set of realities that just might include ours.
As for using floating point math in a reality formula.. I don't see why not as long as the numbers have a fixed resolution. It must be precise to exist. But actually, the logical reality I see is more Boolean. A good example can be found on the Net or Wiki. Search for "John Conway, Game of Life". On Wikpedia we see a simple example of what can exist in a simple form of this type of logical reality.
You should see some of the patterns that can exist inside this simple version. Now imagine adding another dozen dimensions and far more complex interactive rules. There is basically no limit to what this form of logic can produce, including a fully workable universe.
Anyway.. got to run.. Back in a few weeks..
Best wishes,
Dave :^)
-
Dave_Oblad - Member
- Posts: 610
- Joined: 08 Sep 2010
- Blog: View Blog (3)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by linford86 on November 12th, 2010, 8:54 am
Dave_Oblad wrote:I set a goal for myself to see if I could find a reality that doesn't depend on anything tangible. A purely logical and mathematical type reality. Hence my first set of rules.
That's fine, but it's not science. Like I said, what you are trying to do is really philosophy. In particular, it's metaphysics. Whether you are being successful in that task is an entirely different matter...
Dave_Oblad wrote:A paradox is self conflicting and denies it's own existence. You can't go back in time and kill your earlier self. If you did manage to perform this task then you would be dealing with branched realities in which case you didn't really kill the original version of you.
This is still too vague. All you did was to give an example of a paradox. You didn't actually give me necessary and sufficient conditions for a given proposition to be paradoxical. And, in fact, there's no reason to a priori rule out the kind of event that you have in mind, other than that you find it counter intuitive or in some way strange. It certainly doesn't necessarily result in a logical contradiction. It could be that there are good reasons to rule out the kinds of things that you have in mind, but you have not named them. Furthermore, given the lack of necessary and sufficient conditions, you haven't been clear enough about what you actually mean.
Dave_Oblad wrote:A circular argument is like: The universe came from a singularity, which came from a previous universe that collapsed, that came from a singularity, that came from a previous universe.. etc.. forever backwards in time. In other words.. I'm saying all cause/effect functions have a beginning initial state where sequence/time is concerned. I would accept this as an Axiom.
That's not a circular argument, or at the very least, is not what is usually meant by a circular argument. A circular argument is usually taken to be an argument whose conclusion is already assumed amongst the premises. A circular argument about the universe might go like this:
1. The Universe exists.
2. If the (1) then the Universe exists.
3. Therefore, the Universe exists (by Modus Ponens, from (1) and (2).)
Now, an argument like this is bad because it doesn't actually tell us anything. It is undoubtedly true that if the Universe exists then it exists. There's nothing false in the argument I just gave; nonetheless, the lack of new information is deeply troubling.
To take the idea that the Universe cannot have some kind of cyclic existence actually begs the question against any cosmological theory which posits precisely that. Therefore, not only are you using a non-standard definition of "circular", but you are also begging the question against many other theories. Most would contend that being circular is just as bad as begging the question; why do you think you can take it for granted that other theories must be wrong, without even having argued against them?
Dave_Oblad wrote:Another Axiom: True Randomness can't exist in a purely mathematical setting.
Proof? You cannot write a mathematical formula or program or statement that produces a random numerical result.
Well, that's just patently false. I can certainly construct random variables and then tell you about their properties. If what you claim here were true, then much of modern probability theory would not be possible (and, in fact, I'd be largely out of a job!)
In any event, even if it were true that randomness can't exist in mathematics, we observe true randomness in the Universe in which we inhabit. Sure, you can quote Einstein as saying otherwise (as you proceed to do), but the lesson here is more than even Einstein got some things wrong (actually, he got a lot of things wrong.) In so far as the evidence that we have available to us now, the universe is, at bottom, entirely random (though governed by deterministically evolving probability distributions, except during measurements, when even the distributions fail to evolve deterministically.)
Dave_Oblad wrote:Call them hidden variables if you wish.
Except that hidden variables have been ruled out by the violation of Bell's Inequalities....
Dave_Oblad wrote:The one thing that can't be eliminated however, is logic or math.
Hartry Field would disagree...
Dave_Oblad wrote:A logical complex formula can produce a complex answer. For every logical formula that has an absolute answer, then an absolute answer exists for that formula. Sounds redundant but is nonetheless true. There is no fixed limit on the complexity of the formula(s) and there is no fixed limit on the complexity of the result(s) for all formulas. If the solution to an equation is complex enough to support self aware intelligences, then those intelligences might debate with each other if they truly exist or not. (Hint: if they can debate.. then they do exist..lol)
My problem here is that the relationship between the existence of intelligent beings on the one hand, and the existence of complex formulae on the other, is not entirely obvious to me. One might think that one simply does not suffice for the other; that there exist complex formulae without intelligence and vice versa, and that complex formulae are not the things which suffice to produce self aware intelligences. In fact, the precise relationship between the physical world and mathematics is deeply controversial amongst modern philosophers, and has some level of debate amongst philosophically minded mathematicians and physicists. To merely claim, as you do, that complex equations support self aware intelligences is highly dubious; it should take a rather lot of convincing argument to make this point stand (none of which do you actually provide.)
Dave_Oblad wrote:Since there are an infinite number of equations.. then there are an infinite number of solutions.
That's not necessarily true. It could be that every formula in your system produces an answer from a finite list of solutions. What you have to prove here is that for an infinite number of equations in your system, you have an infinite number of solutions. The simplest way to do this that I can think of is to show that your formal system is one to one; i.e. for every formula there exists a unique solution.
However, there's a problem here. You have not specified for us what formal system you're working with. You can't just say "mathematics" because that's not sufficiently precise. Mathematics consists of a large number of different formal systems, many of which are distinct and entirely independent of the others. What you need to do is to specify for me which of these formal systems you are using, prove that there exists an infinity of formulae in that system, then prove that the infinity of formulae imply an infinity of solutions. I can think of a number of formal systems for which that is true, and many of them are useful for doing physics, but it seems that you would have to take an extra step. You would have to argue somehow that one of these formal systems (or perhaps some union of them) actually describe the universe precisely and without error (i.e. that reality ultimately just reflects some formal system like that.) You haven't done any of these things.
Dave_Oblad wrote:The tiniest percentage that spawn intelligences becomes an infinite number because any percentage of infinity... is still infinity.
That's definitely not true. Most people would take 0% of infinity to be 0 (though I have to confess that we're not really being sufficiently precise here. We should be talking about cardinalities or measures on sets and not percentages of infinity, which honestly doesn't really make any sense.)
Dave_Oblad wrote:No universe/reality can mathematically exist with an initial state that includes an infinity. This makes the initial state imprecise and thus no true solution can exist.
Example in programming:
A = 1 to Infinity. (Ok.. as in Case: A=A+1)
A = Infinity to 1. (Bogus, imprecise initial state)
That's simply not true, and, in any case, you need to argue for this; you can't just accept it.
Dave_Oblad wrote:You can take any Virtual Reality Video Game (like "Doom") and convert it entirely (Program, Cpu, Memory, AI, etc) to a pure Boolean form of math. Call this an equation or formula if you like. But in this form.. real monsters do roam the halls.
So because I can encode a representation of an Imp in binary, it is implied that Imps exist? That's just patently absurd. That's a particularly wild eyed brand of Pythagoreanism that I doubt even the staunchest mathematical realist would take seriously.
Dave_Oblad wrote:Time doesn't truly exist either. For all realities, all other realities are simultaneous with a duration of instantaneous.
Just because you combine intelligent sounding words together doesn't make something meaningful or coherent. "For all other realities, there exist an infinity of subjective qualifications." "For all other realities, all other realities are orthogonal to their perpendiculars." Etc. This is just dubious word play.
Dave_Oblad wrote:I know some folks have a hard time wrapping their minds around these concepts.. especially when they are convinced that the reality they exist inside of is somehow more real than just mere mathematics and logic.
Actually, I think something like that is true, though I find all of the arguments which you have presented for this to be entirely too vague and, frankly, just outright fallacious.
Dave_Oblad wrote:This is not philosophy, it's absolute logic.
Except that logic is a branch of philosophy. What you are attempting to do is what is known as formal metaphysics.
Unfortunately, philosophy is a poor reputation, mainly due to what passes colloquially as "philosophy". When people use the word "philosophy" outside of academia, they are usually referring to the kinds of ruminations that 16 year olds have while smoking copious amounts of marijuana. They think of New Age hippy movements and the like. I would like to most emphatically say that this is not what I mean when I say "philosophy". This business of trying to set up a formal system to reason about the nature of reality, which is what I believe you are attempting, is what professional philosophers identify as formal metaphysics. It is not science, and differs quite explicitly from science in a number of ways. However, I think that if you actually read about the other myriad attempts to do what it is that you are attempting, you would be deeply captivated. Therefore, I highly encourage you to pick up the books I recommended in my previous post. At the very least, try checking them out from a local library. What have you really got to lose?
-
linford86 - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: 14 Apr 2009
- Location: Planet Earth
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by neuro on November 14th, 2010, 2:57 pm
Dave_Oblad wrote:A good example can be found on the Net or Wiki. Search for "John Conway, Game of Life". On Wikpedia we see a simple example of what can exist in a simple form of this type of logical reality.
Thank you so much for the consideration, and for your opinion that I need wiki to get to know about the game of life, or complex systems, fractals, cellular automata or artificial intelligence.
No impredictability in the game of life.
Not even a faint shadow of the indeterminacy principle.
No universe there
-
neuro - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: 25 Jun 2010
- Location: italy
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by linford86 on November 14th, 2010, 4:45 pm
neuro wrote:Thank you so much for the consideration, and for your opinion that I need wiki to get to know about the game of life, or complex systems, fractals, cellular automata or artificial intelligence.
Hehe. I must admit to having found this similarly confusing, since complex systems is my field of study...
-
linford86 - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: 14 Apr 2009
- Location: Planet Earth
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by Dave_Oblad on March 7th, 2011, 11:44 pm
Howdy folks.. Back again.
I'll pick up where I left off and talk about time first.
I'm probably going to come off as a complete fool now because I ain't had much book learnin, but here goes: Being an Engineer and Programmer, I tend to see the world in purely mechanical terms. Please excuse my lack of sophisticated terms, but I really like to keep things simple. True, I've been accused of being mundane and stating the obvious, but I do this so as to not exclude the larger part of the audience who might be unfamiliar with certain ideas. So here goes the obvious: We live in 4 dimensions (minimum). All 4 are just directions. Up-Down, Left-Right, Closer-Further and Before-After. So that's called 3D space with Time, or Space-Time.
So let's start here with just 2D space only. Imagine a super thin canvas, so thin it has no real thickness. But it has height and width. So I cast a shadow on it of a ball. The flat view (shadow) would be a simple circle. Now imagine the shadow is of a person. This person's shadow has height and width only. I tell him I can reach inside his body and grab his heart without breaking his skin. He says that's impossible. So I walk up to the canvas and give his heart a squeeze. I can do this because I can come at him from an angle that he can't understand. I tell him I am going to pass a ball in front of his face and push the ball through the canvas. He told me that he saw a circle, but it started out small and got bigger and bigger, then got small again and disappeared. He asked where the ball went and I said it's just a few inches from his face. But he can't reach it because it's not touching the canvas and he can't leave the surface of the canvas.
Ok, so that's two dimensions and he's flat. Not too hard to understand. Now, and I'm sorry for this, I gave him an extra dimension I shouldn't have, just for the sake of this previous example. I gave him Time. So let's take back Time and give him another dimension. I take the thin canvas and make copies of it and push them together. Now that circle looks like a cylinder to me and he looks 3D to me, but I see no motion anymore.
When he bounces the circle up and down like a ball, I only see a cylinder that looks like a roller coaster track. The cylinder bends up and down as I float along and look at it. But it's not moving. I gave him "Time" as a dimension of Depth. When I added Time to his dimension, to take him from 2D to 3D, I still don't get the impression of "Time" as we think of it. Just a long stretched out statue that, like the cylinder, goes back as far as I can see and forward as far as I can see, depth wise.
If that's hard to imagine then think about when a cartoon character runs through a wall and leaves a hole with his shape. Now imagine it's a very thick wall, such that the hole looks more like a long tunnel. A very, very long tunnel. Now fill this tunnel with cement and get rid of the wall. I now have a long cast, or sort of stretched out statue, in the shape of the cartoon character. If the cartoon guy was flapping his arms as he went through the wall, then imagine how this would affect the shape on the caste part of his arms. Now you may have some idea of how this flat guy looks to me, now that I have given him depth. It's not moving but I can see where the cylinder rises to his hands and falls to the floor, over and over, and realize he was bouncing this circle (ball) at that point in his life.
If I follow his cast all the way back to one end, I see him being born. If I go all the way to the other end, then I see him getting buried because he died of old age. So this 3D world has time, at least as far as the flat guy is concerned, but to me the whole place has no motion. Nothing moves, it's all frozen still. Like it's all one solid piece of geometry.
We are exactly the same here in our 4D world. We have 3 dimensions of space and another dimension that is just like the other 3 but we call it Time. If a creature from one dimension higher than ours were to visit here, it would have the same impression of our world. It could reach into and grab your heart, without breaking your skin, just like we could with the flat guy. It could hold a ball (hyper-sphere) two inches from your nose but you couldn't see it or reach for it. If it passed the ball through our dimensions, we would see a small ball appear in mid air, grow bigger and shrink back down to just disappear. It was passed through our dimensions. And lastly, because it's sense of time is the 5th dimension, we would all look like motionless 4D casts. Just stationary geometry.
Next, I take a super microscope and examine the makeup of this cylinders material. As I zoom in, I eventually find a point where I'm seeing a grid like structure. Within this grid I see the smallest particles. Each particle occupies a single grid, much like a chess piece on a chess board. As I examine the grid in the depth or time direction, I see the pieces changing positions on the vertical and horizontal plane, such that the grid is cubic and that each iteration in the time direction puts the pieces into another form of geometry based on some sort of rules. The grid is symmetrical in all three axis. This grid is Space-Time. As to what the particles actually look like isn't relevant to this next part. Personally, I see them as a set of rules with no substance, but that's for another thread.
Ok.. now we return to normal size and we play a bit of magic on the 2D circle. We instill in it the prerogative to accelerate in the vertical direction, away from the ground. So, our cylinder begins to bend upwards as it goes faster and faster. Close examination of the particles indicate the original geometric dance is changing shape. At this point we become more concerned about the geometry of the particle movement and how it's forced to juxtapose depth movement of pieces with movement on the remaining 2 axis, especially the vertical axis.
Example: If we took a cross section sample of the cylinder for a length of 1 second's worth of depth grids, we see a perfect cylinder when at rest. Now, at half the speed of light, a cross section of the same time duration would show the cylinder is distorted. It has become thicker in the vertical direction. Or if we limit ourselves to the same amount of mass in our sample, we find the vertical stretching was had at the sacrifice of length in the time direction. At near the speed of light, we find almost all the mass is focused on vertical movement with very little in the geometrical direction of time or depth. At some point a limit is reached where the geometry cannot be maintained in the vertical direction without sacrificing any more depth (time) geometry. I presume this is at or near the speed of light.
Now, if this view has any merit, it tells me that complex matter will dissolve or break down into simpler elements as ultra high speed is forced on it. If true, it seems that mass accelerated to ultra high speed would not be returned as the same element it started out as. Any ideas about this... anyone?
Anyway, the point here is that space-time is pure geometry and that "Time" doesn't exist in the conventional sense. That space-time has structure that controls the behavior of matter and that the speed of light is the limit because of the geometrical structure of time.
Ok.. blast away at this poor idiot (me).
Best wishes.. Dave :^)
I'll pick up where I left off and talk about time first.
I'm probably going to come off as a complete fool now because I ain't had much book learnin, but here goes: Being an Engineer and Programmer, I tend to see the world in purely mechanical terms. Please excuse my lack of sophisticated terms, but I really like to keep things simple. True, I've been accused of being mundane and stating the obvious, but I do this so as to not exclude the larger part of the audience who might be unfamiliar with certain ideas. So here goes the obvious: We live in 4 dimensions (minimum). All 4 are just directions. Up-Down, Left-Right, Closer-Further and Before-After. So that's called 3D space with Time, or Space-Time.
So let's start here with just 2D space only. Imagine a super thin canvas, so thin it has no real thickness. But it has height and width. So I cast a shadow on it of a ball. The flat view (shadow) would be a simple circle. Now imagine the shadow is of a person. This person's shadow has height and width only. I tell him I can reach inside his body and grab his heart without breaking his skin. He says that's impossible. So I walk up to the canvas and give his heart a squeeze. I can do this because I can come at him from an angle that he can't understand. I tell him I am going to pass a ball in front of his face and push the ball through the canvas. He told me that he saw a circle, but it started out small and got bigger and bigger, then got small again and disappeared. He asked where the ball went and I said it's just a few inches from his face. But he can't reach it because it's not touching the canvas and he can't leave the surface of the canvas.
Ok, so that's two dimensions and he's flat. Not too hard to understand. Now, and I'm sorry for this, I gave him an extra dimension I shouldn't have, just for the sake of this previous example. I gave him Time. So let's take back Time and give him another dimension. I take the thin canvas and make copies of it and push them together. Now that circle looks like a cylinder to me and he looks 3D to me, but I see no motion anymore.
When he bounces the circle up and down like a ball, I only see a cylinder that looks like a roller coaster track. The cylinder bends up and down as I float along and look at it. But it's not moving. I gave him "Time" as a dimension of Depth. When I added Time to his dimension, to take him from 2D to 3D, I still don't get the impression of "Time" as we think of it. Just a long stretched out statue that, like the cylinder, goes back as far as I can see and forward as far as I can see, depth wise.
If that's hard to imagine then think about when a cartoon character runs through a wall and leaves a hole with his shape. Now imagine it's a very thick wall, such that the hole looks more like a long tunnel. A very, very long tunnel. Now fill this tunnel with cement and get rid of the wall. I now have a long cast, or sort of stretched out statue, in the shape of the cartoon character. If the cartoon guy was flapping his arms as he went through the wall, then imagine how this would affect the shape on the caste part of his arms. Now you may have some idea of how this flat guy looks to me, now that I have given him depth. It's not moving but I can see where the cylinder rises to his hands and falls to the floor, over and over, and realize he was bouncing this circle (ball) at that point in his life.
If I follow his cast all the way back to one end, I see him being born. If I go all the way to the other end, then I see him getting buried because he died of old age. So this 3D world has time, at least as far as the flat guy is concerned, but to me the whole place has no motion. Nothing moves, it's all frozen still. Like it's all one solid piece of geometry.
We are exactly the same here in our 4D world. We have 3 dimensions of space and another dimension that is just like the other 3 but we call it Time. If a creature from one dimension higher than ours were to visit here, it would have the same impression of our world. It could reach into and grab your heart, without breaking your skin, just like we could with the flat guy. It could hold a ball (hyper-sphere) two inches from your nose but you couldn't see it or reach for it. If it passed the ball through our dimensions, we would see a small ball appear in mid air, grow bigger and shrink back down to just disappear. It was passed through our dimensions. And lastly, because it's sense of time is the 5th dimension, we would all look like motionless 4D casts. Just stationary geometry.
Next, I take a super microscope and examine the makeup of this cylinders material. As I zoom in, I eventually find a point where I'm seeing a grid like structure. Within this grid I see the smallest particles. Each particle occupies a single grid, much like a chess piece on a chess board. As I examine the grid in the depth or time direction, I see the pieces changing positions on the vertical and horizontal plane, such that the grid is cubic and that each iteration in the time direction puts the pieces into another form of geometry based on some sort of rules. The grid is symmetrical in all three axis. This grid is Space-Time. As to what the particles actually look like isn't relevant to this next part. Personally, I see them as a set of rules with no substance, but that's for another thread.
Ok.. now we return to normal size and we play a bit of magic on the 2D circle. We instill in it the prerogative to accelerate in the vertical direction, away from the ground. So, our cylinder begins to bend upwards as it goes faster and faster. Close examination of the particles indicate the original geometric dance is changing shape. At this point we become more concerned about the geometry of the particle movement and how it's forced to juxtapose depth movement of pieces with movement on the remaining 2 axis, especially the vertical axis.
Example: If we took a cross section sample of the cylinder for a length of 1 second's worth of depth grids, we see a perfect cylinder when at rest. Now, at half the speed of light, a cross section of the same time duration would show the cylinder is distorted. It has become thicker in the vertical direction. Or if we limit ourselves to the same amount of mass in our sample, we find the vertical stretching was had at the sacrifice of length in the time direction. At near the speed of light, we find almost all the mass is focused on vertical movement with very little in the geometrical direction of time or depth. At some point a limit is reached where the geometry cannot be maintained in the vertical direction without sacrificing any more depth (time) geometry. I presume this is at or near the speed of light.
Now, if this view has any merit, it tells me that complex matter will dissolve or break down into simpler elements as ultra high speed is forced on it. If true, it seems that mass accelerated to ultra high speed would not be returned as the same element it started out as. Any ideas about this... anyone?
Anyway, the point here is that space-time is pure geometry and that "Time" doesn't exist in the conventional sense. That space-time has structure that controls the behavior of matter and that the speed of light is the limit because of the geometrical structure of time.
Ok.. blast away at this poor idiot (me).
Best wishes.. Dave :^)
-
Dave_Oblad - Member
- Posts: 610
- Joined: 08 Sep 2010
- Blog: View Blog (3)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by Positor on April 23rd, 2012, 4:20 pm
Dave_Oblad,
I have been looking at this thread again, and I note that Linford made a number of specific criticisms of your argument in his post of November 12th 2010. If you have time, perhaps you could look at these and give a point-by-point response. In particular, there seems to be a sharp difference of opinion about mathematical randomness.
I don't understand why Linford thinks that going back in time and killing one's earlier self "doesn't necessarily result in a logical contradiction". Unless we introduce branched realities as you say, the idea seems contradictory to me, because it involves two different scenarios in what is supposed to be the same part of spacetime.
Do you accept Linford's assertion that your argument is "formal metaphysics" and not science?
Also, I have some questions of my own. Firstly, how do negative numbers (arising as solutions to equations) relate to physical reality? Do they correspond to antimatter, or is that too simplistic? Secondly, how does zero fit into your theory? Does division by zero create any problems?
I have been looking at this thread again, and I note that Linford made a number of specific criticisms of your argument in his post of November 12th 2010. If you have time, perhaps you could look at these and give a point-by-point response. In particular, there seems to be a sharp difference of opinion about mathematical randomness.
I don't understand why Linford thinks that going back in time and killing one's earlier self "doesn't necessarily result in a logical contradiction". Unless we introduce branched realities as you say, the idea seems contradictory to me, because it involves two different scenarios in what is supposed to be the same part of spacetime.
Do you accept Linford's assertion that your argument is "formal metaphysics" and not science?
Also, I have some questions of my own. Firstly, how do negative numbers (arising as solutions to equations) relate to physical reality? Do they correspond to antimatter, or is that too simplistic? Secondly, how does zero fit into your theory? Does division by zero create any problems?
- Positor
- Member
- Posts: 519
- Joined: 05 Feb 2010
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by Gregorygregg1 on May 21st, 2012, 10:44 am
.
it sounds like you're into fractals. my favorite is Z=Z^2+C. It seems to me that your mathematical universe must start with both 0 and infinity, or you have nowhere to go from 0. It is only as you approach infinity that the interesting stuff happens.
Dave_Oblad wrote:Let's start with some basic rules regarding a "Reality":
1. Paradox's are forbidden.
2. Circular arguments are forbidden.
3. Randomness is forbidden.
Example: I travel back in time and teach an earlier version of me about how to build my own time machine. This begs the question of where the knowledge about my time machine originated.
To avoid circular arguments, one must start with absolutely nothing, as in:
A. No Substance can exist.
B. No Energy can exist.
C. No Spatial distances can exist.
D. No Temporal distances can exist.
In other words, a perfect "Null set".
it sounds like you're into fractals. my favorite is Z=Z^2+C. It seems to me that your mathematical universe must start with both 0 and infinity, or you have nowhere to go from 0. It is only as you approach infinity that the interesting stuff happens.
-
Gregorygregg1 - Active Member
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: 16 May 2012
- Location: The center of the universe
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by Gregorygregg1 on May 21st, 2012, 11:10 am
Dave,
I really liked the substitution game. replacing depth with time gives a new and interesting point of view. I am always intrigued by novel points of view. I'm not sure how this will affect my brain, but I'm definitely going to play with it.
Thanks.
GGregg
I really liked the substitution game. replacing depth with time gives a new and interesting point of view. I am always intrigued by novel points of view. I'm not sure how this will affect my brain, but I'm definitely going to play with it.
Thanks.
GGregg
-
Gregorygregg1 - Active Member
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: 16 May 2012
- Location: The center of the universe
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by DragonFly on August 30th, 2012, 12:02 pm
Dave_Oblad wrote:Let's start with some basic rules regarding a "Reality":
1. Paradox's are forbidden.
2. Circular arguments are forbidden.
3. Randomness is forbidden.
Example: I travel back in time and teach an earlier version of me about how to build my own time machine. This begs the question of where the knowledge about my time machine originated.
To avoid circular arguments, one must start with absolutely nothing, as in:
A. No Substance can exist.
B. No Energy can exist.
C. No Spatial distances can exist.
D. No Temporal distances can exist.
In other words, a perfect "Null set".
All true.
Paradoxes are out, as there can be no true paradoxes. If backed into a corner, then one is missing something. For example, one might think that existence cannot be produced from nothing; yet, there is no other source for anything; therefore, there is a way to produce existence from nonexistence.
Incomplete notions will not do, such as something was forever. Since this notion has the 'something' not coming from anything, this is exactly the same as from nothing.
-
DragonFly - Active Member
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: 04 Aug 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: The Reality of Time.
by Michaeljohn on May 16th, 2013, 1:07 am
one must start with absolutely nothing
- Michaeljohn
- Forum Neophyte
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 16 May 2013
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Alternative Theories & MythBusters
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
The Science & Philosophy Forums are aimed at providing an open and effective online medium for
information exchange between professionals, academics, and amateurs.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group