Science > Outer Space and "Inner Space" Sciences
Ark - where are you headed?
Buddy:
--- Quote from: Laura on March 16, 2012, 12:02:58 PM ---... Buddy, we are talking about physics here where "classical" has a very specific mathematical meaning that is not related to what you are talking about.
--- End quote ---
That's good enough for me to justify diving back into the subject with my learning cap on. I'll try harder to stay with the line of force and, if possible, move self out of the picture.
--------------------------------
Edit: clarification of intent
Buddy:
Ark, revisiting the question about the Monad and Geometry, I examined your posts a bit closer and also looked at my impressions from them. I'm thinking we might be talking about a fractal structure. It's motion might be measured as pulsation or frequency oscillation of some sort? Perhaps in a similar way to how computers (and neural nets in the field of Artificial Intelligence) trigger and time oscillation by clock signals on silicon chips, Planck time and aggregates of same are quantum reality's time keepers for the 'vibrancy' of this unit of structure?
Also, if the Geometry is Euclidean and we speak of 3 dimensional Euclidean space, we might then be speaking of an n-sphere. As binary, it would be 2-sphere? I think there is an alternative as well, but not exactly sure of my impressions yet.
ark:
There were Greek pre-Socratic philosophers, like the legendary Zeno of Elea, and the followers of the Pythagorean school, that were apparently not very happy with the idea of a continuum. Some of these concepts are described by Plato and also by Aristotle in his Metaphysics. Then, we have German philosopher and mathematician, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) with his own idea of fundamental, indivisible monads. Lebniz’s monads are not made of matter. It is rather matter that owes its existence to these primitive units of the organization of everything that exists. In my own speculations I am also, to some extent, influenced by the thoughts of a German physicist and philosopher, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912-2007, Known also for his work, in Germany, with Werner Heisenberg, on nuclear reactions during the World War II) who developed his theory of constructing space and time out of, what he called ur-alternatives – elementary binary quantum units.
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker
From Wikipedia:
Theory of ur-alternatives
Weizsäcker developed the theory of ur-alternatives (archetypal objects), publicized in his book Einheit der Natur (1971)[21] and further developed through the 1990s,[22][23] which axiomatically construct quantum physics from the distinction between empirically observable, binary alternatives. Weizsäcker used his theory, a form of digital physics, to derive the 3-dimensionality of space and to estimate the entropy of a proton falling into a black hole.
---------
From his monograph "The Structure of Physics"
10 The stream of information .................................297
10.1 The quest for substance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
10.2 The stream of information in quantum theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
10.3 Mind and form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
11 Beyond quantum theory ...................................311
11.1 Crossing the frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
11.2 Facticity of the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
11.3 Possibility of the past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
11.4 Comprehensive present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
11.5 Beyond physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
ark:
--- Quote from: Buddy on March 17, 2012, 04:41:27 AM ---Also, if the Geometry is Euclidean and we speak of 3 dimensional Euclidean space, we might then be speaking of an n-sphere. As binary, it would be 2-sphere? I think there is an alternative as well, but not exactly sure of my impressions yet.
--- End quote ---
Possible. I will come to this kind of problems later on.
kenlee:
--- Quote from: ark on March 17, 2012, 11:59:44 AM ---Then, we have German philosopher and mathematician, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) with his own idea of fundamental, indivisible monads. Lebniz’s monads are not made of matter. It is rather matter that owes its existence to these primitive units of the organization of everything that exists. In my own speculations I am also, to some extent, influenced by the thoughts of a German physicist and philosopher, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912-2007, Known also for his work, in Germany, with Werner Heisenberg, on nuclear reactions during the World War II) who developed his theory of constructing space and time out of, what he called ur-alternatives – elementary binary quantum units.
--- End quote ---
Just some thoughts on this. This is interesting since if we look at lowest level of existence from the point of view of "these primitive units of the organization of everything that exists" then I think these units might be a form of basic information at that very fundamental level. Maybe there won't be an exchange of information at this basic level because of a lack of complexity but the information I get from the recognition of the possibility that these basic units can be a workable hypothesis is that they would meet the fundamental requirements of something (or maybe making a framework for something) to exist. So the 'information' that may be being expressed here, at this basic level, is that something either exists or doesn't exist. It's like there's an on and off, binary, kind of thing going on there Something either exists (by meeting the basic requirements of existence) or it doesn't exist. Then maybe at higher levels of complexity you have exchanges of information (via a kind of switching and exchange of higher/lower energy states) for more complex information exchanges or something like that.
For example, the sun (or a cell, planet, galaxy, etc), stays the sun as long as it meets the basic requirements of what a sun is. Even though at higher levels of existence and organization there are very complex energy exchanges going on between the sun and the surrounding universe, the sun still maintains its integrity as being the sun, within space over time, so as to meet the definition and requirement of what a sun is. So at the most basic level the sun meets the basic requirement of existence. In other words the sun exists because it meets the fundamental requirement of something that exists, just like the "primitive units of organization " do.
So at the most fundamental level with the sun, there's a most basic information right there being expressed which says " The sun exists because it maintains itself being the sun, in space, and over a period of time just as the primitive units of information do." They both meet the requirements of something that exist. They are the same in that respect. Then from that basic requirement of existence things can get more complex with the sun and perhaps this complexity would reflect itself in the quality of information being exchanged between more complex existing entities that all have their basis in these primitive units of information from the ground of existence which says "something either exists or it doesn't exist." Ok stop me now, just some wild thoughts and speculating going on here!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version