Chapter 6
From Andrew Beckwith
Fri Jan 02, 2004 8:31 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
In my opinion, the only meaningful distinction to make in this matter is the one between the logical realm (which is where the pure logical truths of philosophy reside) and the empirical realm ( which contains the knowledge of science). This distinction is very useful because it enables the mind to hone in on the timeless knowledge of the Infinite. |
This is incoherent. It is psychobabble. Honestly, you can do
better than this ! You have all sorts of NON defined
terms. Like 'Timeless knowledge'. God, what are you doing ? It is no
longer funny ! Wake up! Timeless knowledge of the infinite is
a non sequitor if I have ever heard of one!
From David Quinn
Fri Jan 02, 2004 9:07 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
Timeless knowledge of the infinite is a non sequitor if I have ever heard of one! |
It is the greatest knowledge in the world and known only by great
thinkers, who are very rare. It is the province of genius.
The
knowledge is timeless in the sense that it can never change. It
doesn't matter what galaxy or universe or dimension you live in, or
what species you are, or what epoch or era you happen to be born in -
the knowledge is always the same. It is a knowledge which fathoms the
nature of all things, and makes scientific knowledge look very small
and unimportant by comparison.
From Plato
Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:19 am:
|
Quote: |
|
Imagine you are having a dream in which everything behaves very differently from the norm - e.g. gravity pulls things apart instead of pulling things together, energy isn't perfectly conserved in each interaction, motion follows different rules, objects don't follow the law of least resistence, etc. Now imagine a little dream-Plato trying to formulate the scientific laws which govern this strange world; indeed, imagine that he even believes that the laws and principles he is uncovering are universal and absolute |
It took me considerable creative effort to generate the proof
which you so conveniently ignored. The obvious benefit of doing that
is that now I can counter all your "what if" arguments
without hardly expending any effort at all. Take, for example, your
latest one: "what if the physical universe as we know it is a
dream". What is the fallacy of composition here? The fallacy is
that in a dream state we are unconscious and thus not cognitive in
the usual sense. Because we are not cognitive we fail to recognize
numerous paradoxes that are presented to us and thus fail to
discriminate between dream state and reality. Accidentally, this is
also the manner in which any animal experiences the Sensorium. Since
animals are not cognitive, they operate under the belief that the
Sensorium, in whatever way each individual species experiences it, is
the true reality. Needless to say that if man operated under that
assumption, the human species would be long extinct.
Thus,
your inquiry has to be properly re-stated: "what if we exist in
a dream in which we are conscious and cognitive". Apply the
proof that I have presented. Call P the dream world that we
experience and call N a set of principles that we identify based on
our existence in that dream world. Since there is an actual reality
(R) that lies beyond our dream (that we can "experience" if
we could somehow "wake up"), both P and N must be images of
that reality that both exist in R (we physically exist in R, but due
to the evil machines which have enslaved the human race can only
perceive P). At the same time, both P and N must be ontologically
incomplete i.e. there exist objects in R that do not exist in P and
N. Since P is ontologically incomplete, objects in N would map onto P
and we would recognize that our experience of the dream contain
ontological inconsistencies (since we are cognitive). We would then
attempt to resolve these paradoxes by hypothesizing an existence of
some principle in N. However, since objects in R map onto N, N would
also be ontologically inconsistent. Because of that, no matter how
hard we tried to resolve the paradoxes in P by hypothesis, our
efforts would be completely fruitless. Since we are cognitive, we
would recognize that our scientific view of reality is not consistent
and since there is really no way for us to make it consistent we
would probably abandon scientific enterprise altogether and instead
institutionalize mysticism of various sorts in hopes of one day
generating a spell or potion that would enable us to wake up and
experience R directly. As you can see, this does not bear close
resemblance to the world we live in, which means that N = R or the
scientific view of reality is the true reality. No higher reality can
exist.
|
Quote: |
|
It is the greatest knowledge in the world and known only by great thinkers, who are very rare. It is the province of genius. |
You know, in my view, people who have that opinion of themselves
are typically not of foremost mental health. I mean, there is no
question that scientists who praise radical empiricism as if it were
a religious doctrine are deluded. But what you are doing is flipping
the empiricism/rationalism coin to the opposite side, denying
empirical knowledge altogether and praising "rational"
thought that is based on self-evident logical rules. You have been
fooled by Aristotle, who was the foremost trickster of his day.
Aristotle's whole philosophy is based on this chasm between empirical
and rational thought. In doing so, he divorced that which is united
in the mind, in an attempt to destroy the influence of Platonic
thought. This is sophistry in a chocolate coating. True science is an
art of hypothesis that uses both.
From Andrew Beckwith
Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:15 am:
|
Quote: |
|
You know, in my view, people who have that opinion of themselves are typically not of foremost mental health. I mean, there is no question that scientists who praise radical empiricism as if it were a religious doctrine are deluded. But what you are doing is flipping the empiricism/rationalism coin to the opposite side, denying empirical knowledge altogether and praising "rational" thought that is based on self-evident logical rules. |
Exactly what I feared David Quinn was doing, Plato. Your namesake
wrote out his 'republic' which was a plan for a perfect despotism.
Every time a person comes up with a 'rational' deductive tautology
they wind up with the blue print of something hideous. The Soviet
experience during the Stalinistic phase of the great purge ( 1930s )
lead to over 15 million deaths due to imperfect beings being
sacrificed to a demented idea of a 'Soviet man'. This is partly why I
resisted David Quinns abandonment of empirical knowledge. My own
crucible was seeing Maos China go mad during the cultural revolution
when I was a child on the outskirts looking in. The red Guards raised
hell in Hong Kong riots , puttting bombs on bicycles and terrorizing
millions due to their abandonment of any empirical basis of their
philosophical thought.
I wish Quinn luck with his life. He
will need it. I have some experience with the absolute hideousness
unleashed by those who sever connections with empirical knowlege, and
the picture is not pretty.
From Plato
Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:31 am:
I have recently come across an excellent
discussion led by Chris Langan of the questions raised here on the
ISCID forums. In fact, that thread has the most number of replies on
the forums illustrating just how central the issue of epistemology is
to any basic science. Here's the link:
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000397
Langan seems to be contradicting me in at least two points
regarding the distinction between perceived and cognitive reality and
the self-evidency of logical rules. Langan seems to believe that
there is a universal logical syntax that is distributed over the
universe for which reason CTMU must be a valid model of reality. His
view is that:
|
Quote: |
|
The premises on which Rex bases his arguments are closely related. That cognitive and perceptual reality can be separated even on the logical level, that one can use logical functors and tautologies to show that logic can be inconsistent or that there can be "alternatives" to logic, and that the truth of a logical tautology is somehow subject to empirical confirmation all lean on each other. Because none of these premises stands up, the three of them fall as one. Such argumentation is utterly indebted to logical functors and tautologies for any claim it might have to validity, and logic by definition will not permit these functors and tautologies to be used to subvert it. Only a theory of reality reflecting this incontrovertible fact can yield any amount of certainty. |
My criticism of the CTMU is precisely the point argued by Rex
Kerr, who seems to be in agreement with me on these issues. Kerr
says:
|
Quote: |
|
My take on the irrelevance of the fundamental nature of causality to most/all biological research also leads me to my primary criticism of CTMU: it is entirely too arbitrary, in that it postulates a framework and a host of structures in order to have reality be a certain way without (insofar as I can tell) arguing that reality is or should be that way. It is, to be sure, very difficult to make a comprehensive theory that doesn't immediately fall apart at the seams under inspection, and as near as I can tell CTMU doesn't. However, being internally consistent is not the same thing as being a good model of reality. |
However, it is satisfying that Langan is taking the same basic
mapping approach to ontological arguments as I am doing here and in
general his mode of argumentation seems sufficiently rigorous by my
standards. He also seems to echo some of my concerns pertaining to
biological sciences, namely our failure (or unwillingness) to
conceive of a rigorous lawful basis for biological phenomena. I know
that you know Langan personally, Andy, and are big fan of his work. I
am wondering if you could get Langan to join us at NPU to continue
this discussion. At the very least, he could take a look at my
reasons for separating cognitive and perceived realities in light of
my refutation of existence of any reality higher than cognitive
reality and make a reply as a guest. Personally, I am getting stale
and eager for some real action. What do you think?
P.S.
|
Quote: |
|
Your namesake wrote out his 'republic' which was a plan for a perfect despotism |
This is a typical misunderstanding of Plato's work fostered
in universities today. It is not that unusual in light of the damage
done to Platonic thought by people such as the late professor Leo
Strauss, who act as a "trojan horse", inflicting
irreparable damage to Plato's work and reputation, which two millenia
of scholasticism has failed to achieve.
From Andrew Beckwith
Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:08 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
Personally, I am getting stale and eager for some real action. What do you think? |
Chris and Genie did a major relocation and moved to another area
of the country. Actually they are now about four hundred miles south
of where I live. I am waiting for them to finish and then I may be
even invited by them to talk about certain CTMU issues. As it is,
when the dust settles , I can raise the possibility of Chris debating
with you in the NPU forum. It depends upon Chris's mood at the time
and I cannot predict his final decision. In principle I am in favor
of it.
Yes, Chris IS very complete in his logical syntax. I
support his basic idea. However, where I disagree with David Quinn is
that David thinks that having a logical syntax ( whatever it is ) is
sufficient in itself . I view that you HAVE to have a bridge between
it and general science, Plutonius. Contrary to the view Quinn tried
to project upon me, I view Philosophy as extremely important. I see
no difference between good philosophy and good science.
My
wife wants me to eat with her now. I will resume this later.
From David Quinn
Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:07 pm:
Plato wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: Imagine you are having a dream in which everything behaves
very differently from the norm - e.g. gravity pulls things apart
instead of pulling things together, energy isn't perfectly
conserved in each interaction, motion follows different rules,
objects don't follow the law of least resistence, etc. Now
imagine a little dream-Plato trying to formulate the scientific
laws which govern this strange world; indeed, imagine that he
even believes that the laws and principles he is uncovering are
universal and absolute |
You assume a lot of things here which are unproven or unfounded.
Your basic position seems to be that the world cannot be a simulation
because, if it were, we, as highly-conscious beings, would
automatically perceive paradoxes and inconsistencies in the world.
This argument assumes a number of things which are taken on
blind faith, such as:
- That the simulation will necessarilly
be too basic and primitive to fool us. In other words, you are
ignoring the possibility, say, that the simulation has been created
by highly-advanced beings who have ironed out all the inconsistencies
over millions of years.
- That we are conscious and
intelligent enough to perceive any inconsistencies that may exist. In
other words, you are ignoring the possibility that inconsistencies
may exist in the world and yet be be too obscure or too fine to be
observed by us.
You're also ignoring the fact that there are
indeed inconsistencies which we observe in the world via our current
scientific understanding - e.g. the seemingly irreconcilable
inconsistencies between the so-called four forces of Nature, thus
preventing the formulation of a coherent Theory of Everything; the
inconsistencies observed in the Big Bang model; the inconsistencies
which lead to the formulation of imaginary objects such as "dark
matter" and the like.
Now it is normal scientific
practice to treat these observed inconsistencies as products of the
current limitations of science, and not as part of the fabric of the
world itself. Scientists naturally believe these inconsistencies will
disappear when they acquire more observational data and further
refine their theories. But there is no real certainty this will
automatically happen. It may turn out that some of the the observed
inconsistencies will always remain, that they really are part of the
world. Who knows?
What you're doing, Plato, is treating a
blind assumption made by scientists as though it were a bedrock truth
- which, again, is essentially no different to what a fundamentalist
Christian does.
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: It is the greatest knowledge in the world and known only by
great thinkers, who are very rare. It is the province of genius.
|
I've said this many times already, but I do not "deny
empirical knowledge altogether". I am merely putting it in its
proper place.
It's not a difficult point to comprehend - even
people with average IQs can comprehend it - and yet the pair of you
are making an absolute meal of it. I put it down to the fact that you
are very attached to your religion and thus feel a need to
caricaturize and demonize anyone who challenges it. Just the fact
that you interpret my challenge to the status of science in
the larger scheme of things as a complete rejection of science
altogether illustrates this. You feel a need to paint me as a
kind of insane, out-of-touch-with-reality, anti-scientific, mentally
disturbed fellow. It is no different to the way that the medieval
Christians used to paint the couragous scientists and philosphers who
challenged the central tenets of the Church as completely immoral,
devil-possessed monsters.
|
Quote: |
|
You have been fooled by Aristotle, who was the foremost trickster of his day. |
To be honest, I've never given Aristotle a single thought in my
life. He's always seemed just another tedious academic to me.
From Andrew Beckwith
Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:43 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
I've said this many times already, but I do not "deny empirical knowledge altogether". I am merely putting it in its proper place. |
Please do not lie. You denied its importance all together.
|
Quote: |
|
Now it is normal scientific practice to treat these observed inconsistencies as products of the current limitations of science, and not as part of the fabric of the world itself. Scientists naturally believe these inconsistencies will disappear when they acquire more observational data and further refine their theories. But there is no real certainty this will automatically happen. It may turn out that some of the the observed inconsistencies will always remain, that they really are part of the world. Who knows? |
You just blew off casuality. Beautiful, David. I KNEW you had it
in you to do this! Create a total straw man issue which denies the
fact that philosophy AND science come from the same root of human
cognitive endeavors and then throw out scientific contributions to
our world view. I take off my hat to you in creating a consistent
picture of philosophical schizophrenia for NPU to enjoy.
|
Quote: |
|
What you're doing, Plato, is treating a blind assumption made by scientists as though it were a bedrock truth - which, again, is essentially no different to what a fundamentalist Christian does. |
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000397
Read it if you have the guts, David. I doubt you do. Please don't
cry too hard if you have your assumptions cave in on you some day in
the near future with you feeling very, very foolish after you denied
what was obvious to the rest of the NPU board. Saying it ( what you
dislike so much) is not possibly true will not make the issue go
away.
From Plato
Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:38 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
- That the simulation will necessarilly be too basic and
primitive to fool us. In other words, you are ignoring the
possibility, say, that the simulation has been created by
highly-advanced beings who have ironed out all the
inconsistencies over millions of years. |
David, with all due respect, this is becoming ridiculous. I have
patiently entertained all your queries, no matter how ridiculous,
with a rigorous proof that admits no assumptions. Makes me wonder
whether a rigorous proof means anything to you.
With respect
to you first inquiry, I have explained the origin of inconsistencies
in sense-perceived reality. We are dealing with a map from reality
onto our senses (R->P). Since P is ontologically incomplete, i.e.
there are objects in R that do not exist in P, but P is still
coherent, it must be the case that more than one object in R is
mapped or projected onto the exact same object in P. This is called
an ontological inconsistency of the type A exists and A
does not exist. For example, imagine you have to map a flat
surface onto a sphere. Try doing this at home, give yourself a little
sense of what it means to live in reality. A sphere contains an
existence which the surface does not contain, namely curvature.
Thus, no matter how hard you try to make it "fit", there
will always be places where it won't align and form wrinkles. These
are, in essence, the inconsistencies that I am referring to. It
makes no difference who the designer of the simulation is. Even
God would be unable to make the sphere fit perfectly onto a flat
plane.
With respect to your latter inquiry, the method by
which we detect these inconsistencies involves formulating a set of
assumptions based on the empirical data and then extending the
assumptions into a theorem lattice via deduction until we come across
an undecideable proposition which signals incompleteness.
Incompleteness is, obviously, not caused by the deduction itself, but
by the empirical assumptions which are carried over at each step. The
degree of extension of the theorem lattice is directly related to the
"resolution" factor or the scale at which we can detect
inconsistencies. Since any theorem lattice can be extended
indefinitely by deduction, any inconsistency can be detected.
This is also a good way of judging how close to truth any formal
system is. Given a set of assumptions and a set of differential
equations describing a physical system empirically, how many
successive derivations are necessary to generate an inconsistency?
You will quickly find that with scientific progress the degree of
required extension increases to the point where in some cases today,
it might take a generation of scientists to pinpoint exactly where
the inconsistency is, another generation for everyone to accept that
there is a problem, then a another for some genius to figure out how
to resolve it by hypothesis of principle, then another for it to be
tested experimentally and then one more for everyone to finally
accept it as fact (then there is a further generation when historians
finally decide to call it a scientific revolution and start giving
out Nobel Prizes). This means that a) our system of knowledge is
becoming increasingly more perfect and b) as time goes on we are
capable of dealing with and addressing more and more minor
inconsistencies.
|
Quote: |
|
You're also ignoring the fact that there are indeed inconsistencies which we observe in the world via our current scientific understanding - e.g. the seemingly irreconcilable inconsistencies between the so-called four forces of Nature, thus preventing the formulation of a coherent Theory of Everything; the inconsistencies observed in the Big Bang model; the inconsistencies which lead to the formulation of imaginary objects such "dark matter" and the like. |
That's precisely what I was referring to in the above paragraph.
Noetic reality (N) is incomplete and will never be complete because
there will always be more and more principles that we can discover.
However, noetic reality is ontologically complete, i.e. any
object that exists in true reality can be potentially
represented as a universal physical principle in N. I have showed
that in my last post, but you keep confusing the two concepts.
Incompleteness means there are objects of exact same type outside of
N that we just don't know about yet. For example, there are 10
mushrooms growing somehere in the forest, but we have picked only 5
of them so far. Ontological inconsistency means there are objects of
different type outside of N that we cannot possibly know about
because they are not graspable by cognition. For example, there are
10 mushrooms and 10 magic mushrooms growing in the forest, but we
don't know how to find the magic mushrooms (heh this is not a joke
about drugs, don't get any ideas!). If N was ontologically
incomplete, no scientific theory or formal system would be
completeable at any moment in time i.e. no matter what
principle you hypothesized, the inconsistencies could never be
resolved. Scientific method would essentially be useless. I
explained that quite clearly in the previous post.
|
Quote: |
|
What you're doing, Plutonius, is treating a blind assumption made by scientists as though it were a bedrock truth - which, again, is essentially no different to what a fundamentalist Christian does. |
I have addressed and can address every single "what if"
from a unified standpoint of rigorous proof. You can "what if"
until you get tired of being made into an idiot in front of everyone
who is reading this. I am standing on the shoulders of giants who
have made scientific progress possible throughout human history,
which in the long run is the only thing responsible for
improvement of man's condition. Anything that does not have to do
with science is a waste of time with respect to our continued
survival and prosperity. Either go back to school, learn a few things
and then we can continue this discussion or stop wasting wasting my
time and detracting me from this mission with your idle banter.
With warmest regards,
Sergei R. Doulatov
From Andrew Beckwith
Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:24 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
David, with all due respect, this is becoming ridiculous. I have patiently entertained all your queries, no matter how ridiculous, with a rigorous proof that admits no assumptions. Makes me wonder whether a rigorous proof means anything to you. |
The obvious answer is that it does not. Sergei, you have done
your best and this is becoming hopeless.
From CJFreeman
Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:49 am:
With all due respect, gentlemen, after 7 pages, and a quiver full of semantic bantering, what have you accomplished?
From analog57
Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:14 am:
A point without another "reference" does not exist; the
opposite of a thing distinguishes it from the thing itself. What is
the dynamic of space-time? Is it a ratio?
When space is taken
as a measure of length, space/time is the speed of light in vacuum
for a photon of light:
space/time = c
Where,
length = perception of separation between two reference points.
E
= mc^2
E/momentum = E/p = c
energy/momentum =
space/time
What is the EPR "superluminal?"
connection? A shortcut through configuration space? Phase space?
A
point can be defined as an "infinitesimal". The Topological
spaces are defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting
cotangent bundles[manifolds] are the set of all possible
configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the
system.
Potential infinity is defined as a limit via Newton's
calculus, while actual infinity is a Cantorian Cardinal number, which
is a Platonic form, which is also a type of potential.
[abstract
representation]--->[semantic mapping]--->[represented system]
[axiomatic]--->[Isomorphism]<---[Induction]
An
abstract representation is exactly that, "abstract". It is
not a space, or time, but is instead a product of consciousness, or a
mental construct; topologically it is equivalent to a "point".
The abstract description contains the concrete topology. Likewise,
the concrete contains the abstract.
A duality?
A
point contains an infinite expanse of space and time?
Could
it be, that the "absolute" infinity, is actually a
dimensionless point?
[point]/[set of points] = point ?
0/N
= 0
Since it is possible for a "computation" to
be self aware, there must be platonic forms that are types of self
aware algorithms:
The description of any entity inside
the real universe can only be with reference to other things in the
universe. Space is then relational, and the universe, self
referential. For example, if an object has a momentum, that momentum
can only be explained with respect to another object within the
universe. Space then becomes an aspect of the relationships between
things in reality. It becomes analogous to a sentence, and it is
absurd to say that a sentence has no words in it. So the grammatical
structure of each sentence[space] is defined by the relationships
that hold between the words in it. For example, relationships like
object-subject or adjective-noun. So there are many different
grammatical structures composed of different arrangements of words,
and the varied relationships between them.
Language describes
the universe, because the universe is isomorphic to a description on
some level, and reality can only refer to itself, because, there is
nothing outside of ..."total existence" which becomes
equivalent to a self referential system, which must be a self aware
system. Since descriptions make distinctions, or references to other
entities, and distinctions are tautologically logical, [A or ~A],
reality is logical, in that its contents can be described by a
language. The contents within reality are distinctive entities,
individually different from the others, yet consisting of the same
foundational substance.
[<-[->[<-[U]->]<-]->]
Universe = Zero
On one level of
stratification, two photons are separate. On another level, of
stratification, the photons have zero separation.
Instantaneous
communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval,
is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two
objects.
According to the book "Gravitation",
chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter
telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic.
Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way,
as to guarantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein
tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this
relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's
"boundary of a boundary equals zero."
Einstein's
equation basically says
Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy
Tensor [T]
[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's
path] = geodesic.
[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime
geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.
.
Conservation of
momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero
boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means
no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of
spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e.
the integral of
d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is
required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy.
The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation
laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.
[spacetime
tells mass]<===[geodesic path for particle]===>[mass tells
spacetime]
Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein
explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are
vibrations of spacetime itself, if, mass-energy is a form of
condensed space-time.
As the ripples intersect with each
other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually
increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it
as an iterative sequence.
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...
2^n
Since the ripples are increasing in density they are
"compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is
re-configured as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and
accelerations are perceived as they presently are.
[<->[<->[<->[U]<->]<->]<->]
The increasing spacetime density must be background
independent.
Actually, spacetime does not really need to be
"sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet,
still be continuous.
[density 1]--->[density
2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]
A
quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur
Eddington:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All change is relative. The universe is expanding
relatively to our common standards; our common standards are
shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the
"expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the
"shrinking atom" .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that
all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In
a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves
exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never
decreases.
The analogy with black holes is an interesting one
but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be
radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be.
So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the
universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information
processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible
information.
Quantum field theory calculations where
imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to
statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The
periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be
at standing wave resonance, giving the action.
Periodicity is
a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have
real
numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
vertical
axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
along
both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the
complex
variable "z" is changed.
f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)
Where the elements a,b,c,d,
are arranged as a matrix, forming an
algebraic group. An infinite
number of possible variations that
commute with each other as the
function f, is invariant under group
transformations. These
functions are known as "automorphic forms".
Topologically
speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
invariant with
regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
backwards in
time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
created.
So when spacetime tears and a wormhole is
created, it must obey
certain transformative rules, which
probably appear to be
discontinuities from a "3-D"
perspective, but really, these
transformations are continuous?
[v1+v2]/[1+ v1v2/c^2]
c+c = c
aleph_0 +
aleph_0 = aleph_0
0 + 0 = 0
Gravity exists because
the information density of space-time is increasing. This creates a
"pressure force" where processed space, compresses
mass-energy, and mass-energy reacts by compressing space. The process
is "time", which becomes dilated due to the increased
information density of massive objects.
Stephen Hawking's
excellent book, "Universe in a Nutshell", explains
holography as a phenomenon of interference of wave patterns. Light
from a laser is split into two separate beams, one bounces off the
object and gets reflected onto a photo-sensitized plate. The other
beam is reflected into a lens and collides with the reflected light
of the object. When a laser is shone through the developed plate, a
fully three dimensional image of the original object is created.
According to conventional theories, the surface area of the
horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy
is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the
black hole can be in without looking different to an outside
observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge. This leads
to another theory which states that the maximum entropy of any closed
region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the
circumscribing surface, with the entropy being the measure of the
total information contained by the system. So the theorists came to
realize that the information associated with all phenomena in the
three dimensional world, can be stored on its two dimensional
boundary, like a holographic image.
S' = S_m + A/4
Since
entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a region
of space, and the entropy of the universe must always increase, the
next logical step is to realize that the spacetime density, i.e. the
information encoded within a circumscribed region of space, must be
increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time.
Yes Plato,
entropy of thermodynamics and entropy of Shannon, are equivalent
concepts, because the number of arrangements that are counted by
Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information needed
to implement any particular combination, or arrangement. The two
entropies also appear to have differences, superficially.
Thermodynamic entropy interpreted in units of energy divided by
temperature, while, the Shannon entropy is interpreted in terms of
bits, being essentially dimensionless. The difference is a matter of
convention.
From Andrew Beckwith
Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:46 am:
|
analog57 wrote: |
|
A point without another "reference" does not exist; the opposite of a thing distinguishes it from the thing itself. What is the dynamic of space-time? Is it a ratio? |
Russell. You have 100 times the basic insight of David Quinn. You
can talk to you are blue in the face and the donkey will not lower
himself by HIS standards to even bother to conceive that you as a
person becoming literate in science have anything worth while to say.
Use your prodigeous energy toward new topics. You have some
promising ideas in your last post. Put them where they do not
intersect with David Quinns 'world'. I guarantee you this, Russell,
that if you actually got the Nobel prize that our David Quinn would
deride it as philosophically trivial. I would get the same rubarb.
Given this, it really is not worth your time, mine, or Platos time to
try to educate a man who is convinced by his own ignorance that he is
a 'genius'.
Take care, Russell. Why don't you, I , and
Plutonius find a new thread to kill and burn down to bed rock? We can
have fun and forget this hopeless endeavor with our self anointed
philosopher king .
From Andrew Beckwith
Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:49 am:
|
CJFreeman wrote: |
|
With all due respect, gentlemen, after 7 pages, and a quiver full of semantic bantering, what have you accomplished? |
Nothing. Nada, zero. And I am preparing to punt. I am quite
content to let David Quinn be his own self annointed philosophy king
in his own self made hell.
From David Quinn
Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:42 pm:
CJFreeman wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
With all due respect, gentlemen, after 7 pages, and a quiver full of semantic bantering, what have you accomplished? |
It depends on your perspective. If you're an academic, and thus
regard all knowledge as a form of intellectual entertainment and all
debate as a kind of sport, , then yes, all you will see in this
discussion is "semantic bantering". Similarly if you're a
non-intellectual who considers any kind of cerebral discussion as a
form of sementic bantering. However, if you are a thinker who cares
about understanding the fundamentals of existence, and who knows how
to reason simply and deeply, then the discussion has accomplished at
least two things:
(a) It has successfully demonstrated that
"scientific materialism" - the belief that science is the
highest pinnacle of human thought - has become the dominant religion
of our times, and its adherents have effectively become priests and
theologians.
(b) It has successsfully demonstrated that
fundamentalism renders all people equally stupid, regardless of their
IQ. It doesn't matter how fantastic your intellect is, if you attach
yourself to beliefs that have no foundations and are taken on blind
faith, then your mind will automatically start to create mental
blocks, blind spots, scripted responses, evasive manouvres, etc - and
you effectively become no different to a Mormon or a Jehova's
Witness.
I believe it is important to publicize these facts
so that young intelligent people can have some idea of what they are
getting into before they decide to waste their lives joining the
scientific or academic priesthoods. They need to be informed that
there is a superior form of intellectualism which does lead to
genuine knowledge and great wisdom. Hence my presence here.
I
wonder, is there anyone on this forum who isn't a
fundamentalist?
End of Chapter 6