Science > Outer Space and "Inner Space" Sciences
Ark - where are you headed?
Guardian:
--- Quote from: ark on March 16, 2012, 11:45:01 AM ---This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question,
How come existence?
No escape is evident from four conclusions:
1. The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any preestablished continuum physical law.
2. There is no such thing at the microscopical level as space or time or spacetime continuum.
3. The familiar probability function or functional, and wave equation, of standard quantum theory provide mere continuum idealizations and by reason of this circumstance conceal the information theoretic source from which they derive.
4. No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon, that is device-intermediated act of posing a yes-no physical question and eliciting an answer or, in brief, the elementary act of observer-participancy. Otherwise stated, every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications, a conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase, it from bit.
--- End quote ---
Hmmm I have the same thought about all 4 "conclusions". Just 'cause ya can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
eoste:
--- Quote from: Bluelamp on March 16, 2012, 10:09:34 PM ---If you try to use a black hole equation on an electron you actually get a radius described by a complex not real number. Some gravity models (like Ark's) may be able to handle that in both a classical and quantum way. There are certainly models where the information for your next universe "now" state preexists.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: ark on March 17, 2012, 11:59:44 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Simply put, is there a possibility (as you seem to be engaged in) that models of preexisting information and archetypal objects (ur-alternatives or monads) could have some true structure, not only a virtual one ?
I know I'm way below the surface of your practical research, and it's uncomfortable to grasp concepts like a complex not real number, the entropy of a proton falling into a black hole and so on.
I try to think pin (instead of spin), but so far I didn't reach any relief (may be messing around by trying to dot every i and cross every t :nuts:).
Only I'm glad "Some gravity models (like Ark's) may be able to handle that in both a classical and quantum way"...
Crossing the frontier beyond physics and bringing back a fundamental on and off (non) structural information, what a quest !!!
Thanks for sharing a it from bit of your knowledge :grad:
ark:
Groupoid – an easy concept
As my atom of action, a fundamental MONAD, I take the simplest non-trivial groupoid. It is an easy concept, yet it requires some serious contemplation. It will take us a while to get used to it. I will discuss it, show it from several angles, talk about its "esoteric meaning" as well. So, prepare for some little pain, like when a nurse injects the needle into your body! But the pain will pass. And do not worry if you do not get it the first time. You will get it with your second or third pass!
As it was noticed by Alain Connes, even professional mathematicians despise groupoids. But, in fact, groupoids can be tamed easily, like hamsters. Let us see how it can be done on an example. In fact, as we will see this example will play an important role in our story. A groupoid consists of points and of arrows. Points represent the static aspect, arrows represent the dynamic aspect. Arrows connect points. It will be enough for us to concentrate on transformation groupoids. In this case each arrow represents a transformation of an underlying set. The simplest (but not too trivial) transformation groupoid can be depicted as follows:
(Try to imagine this picture in 3D, play with it in your imagination, see what comes out - I will come back to this subject later on)
We have two points. One denoted by 0, the other one by 1. We also have two transformations. The first one is the identity transformation, that transforms 0 into 0, and 1 into 1 – a “do nothing” transformation. The second transformation transforms 0 into “do nothing” transformation is also denoted by 0, the “exchange transformation” is denoted by 1. At first it may look confusing to denote points and transformations of point by the same symbols, but, in fact, such a notation, in this case, makes sense. If we think, for example, that there are only two integer numbers, one called “even” and denoted by 0, the other one called “odd” and denoted by 1, then even+even=even, even+odd=odd, and even+odd=odd. Or, in symbols: 0+0=0, 0+1=1, 1+0=1, 1+1=0 as in the binary modulo 2 calculus. Thus, for example, transformation 1 (odd) transforms the point 0 (even) in the same 1 (odd), etc. On our picture above the circle with and arrow, on the left, depicts the transformation 0 (“do nothing”) acting on the point 0. The arrow-circle on the right, depicts transformation 0 acting on the point 1 – it goes back to the point 1. The upper arrow of the central circle, denoted (0,1), represents transformation 1 acting on the point 0, while the lower arrow, denoted (1,1), depicts transformation 1 acting on the point 0 (and transforming it into 0).
ark:
--- Quote from: Esote on March 17, 2012, 06:46:55 PM ---Simply put, is there a possibility (as you seem to be engaged in) that models of preexisting information and archetypal objects (ur-alternatives or monads) could have some true structure, not only a virtual one ?
--- End quote ---
I don't know. Good question. What is "real"? Something that kicks back when we kick it? Well, I think monads may be able to kick back. Only these kicks are rather weak.... In this sense a group of monads, or a whole army of them, may have more reality than just one.
ark:
--- Quote from: Guardian on March 17, 2012, 06:34:38 PM ---Just 'cause ya can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
--- End quote ---
On the other hand not all we "see" IS there. Sometimes our senses and our mind deceive us, and we make a little cat into a huge lion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version