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

Plato: 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.


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.

Plato: 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.


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.
- 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.


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?





Previous Contents Next

End of Chapter 6