Ark - where are you headed?

[Esote]

What if that which is continuous is that everything is discrete ?

As that which is limitless is that everything is limited
that which is absolute is that everything is relative
that which is universal is that everything is unique
that which is eternal is that everything is impermanent

Now, what is everything

My 2 cents
;)

 

[ana]

Many years ago I read that a couple of Russian scientists had developed an experiment wherein they were able to show time as a force. If they're right then time exists in 3D and we must remember this. The C's have also said Time exists for us.

In other dimensions or densities the C's and others have said that time does not exist.

It seems to me we have to choose what to describe, the Universe With Time or the Universe Without Time. I doubt that any description could encompass both states.

I'm sorry Einstein despaired but I imagine it was because he was able to catch tantalizing glimpses behind the 4D veil. Had he ever been able to move the veil aside he would probably have disappeared into 4D. "Ha, ha, ha, I told you zo Niels"

But the C's didn't say that time does not exist, just that our perception of it is an illusion, that time is selective and variable, that there are many selections, and that they can play with them without the need for sequentiality.

Our illusion lies in not being able to see the entire menu, and in "playing" with time only sequentially.

Now regarding Einstein dilemma, why is it that at quantum level we can quantify?

Is it possible that it is because there, all the menu is available while our reality is just a selection of events that manifests as continuous because of our illusion?

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=ark]It seems that assuming continuity is very efficient, but Nature, when analyzed at the microscopic level, is discrete.[/quote]

Shouldn't this then be our starting point?

Though seemingly in contrast, does continuity by necessity deny discreteness?

Is my understanding correct that at the quantum (fundamental) level, variant characteristics can coexist- even contradictory ones, as at least potentials?

How does what we know about light come into play here?

Just some thoughts.

 

[ark]

Geometry of space

Geometry is about properties of spaces. But what is space? Or, better, what would be the simplest possible space? One could think that it is “our space”. What could be simpler? Well, first of all our space is three dimensional. A plane has one dimension less, and a line has only one dimension. A point is zero-dimensional – too simple! A point has no structure - therefore no geometry can be associated to a point. Yet are we not too constrained in our thinking? Philosophers were contemplating these matters for ages. We all know about the great Greek philosopher Plato . But here, when we are asking about the simplest and most fundamental possible carrier of structure of geometry and of everything else it is Leibniz that needs to be recalled. Leibniz came with the idea of monads.

 

[ana]

I’ve just read The Monadology by Leibniz. It seems that the simplest possible substance is the monad in Leibniz terms, although the monad itself contains or as Leibniz says is pregnant with all possibilities or potencialities.

I’m not sure if we can maybe use 0 to describe the monad, the C’s say that zero is potentially evident everywhere and that it is the self-cancellation factor that allows it.

If we use 0 to represent the monad or a state of potentialities , using a linear concept we see that in the very “instant” number 1,2 and 3 appears 0 gets cancelled, but this is precisely what allows its manifestation.

Now what is puzzling me is that someway the concept of space I had is vanishing, space seems to be intimately related with consciousness, the several spaces described in geometry are just several “configurations” of consciousness, while the point or the monad is the underlying principle veiled in all of them.

 

[mkrnhr]

This is funny because this morning I was asking myself what would be the significance of the concept of distance (and time?) in a universe that contains only two point particles. I'm actually into the idea that in order to exist (relatively to the non_existing state), the thing has to be based upon a minimum division into 3 rather into division into 2 in order to manifest internal properties.

 

[John G]

If we use 0 to represent the monad or a state of potentialities , using a linear concept we see that in the very “instant” number 1,2 and 3 appears 0 gets cancelled, but this is precisely what allows its manifestation.

Now what is puzzling me is that someway the concept of space I had is vanishing, space seems to be intimately related with consciousness...

A single monad point could just be numbers and doesn't even have to go up to a huge number since there aren't a huge number of different particles or a huge number of spacetime dimensions. You need some 3 plus 1 and 7 plus 1, etc. structure and a natural way to connect multiple points in a lattice of sorts but consciousness and physicality could both use the same structure.

 

[ana]

If we use 0 to represent the monad or a state of potentialities , using a linear concept we see that in the very “instant” number 1,2 and 3 appears 0 gets cancelled, but this is precisely what allows its manifestation.

Now what is puzzling me is that someway the concept of space I had is vanishing, space seems to be intimately related with consciousness...

A single monad point could just be numbers and doesn't even have to go up to a huge number since there aren't a huge number of different particles or a huge number of spacetime dimensions. You need some 3 plus 1 and 7 plus 1, etc. structure and a natural way to connect multiple points in a lattice of sorts but consciousness and physicality could both use the same structure.

Sorry I am not understanding what you are trying to tell me, can you please explain it in another way?

 

[John G]

If we use 0 to represent the monad or a state of potentialities , using a linear concept we see that in the very “instant” number 1,2 and 3 appears 0 gets cancelled, but this is precisely what allows its manifestation.

Now what is puzzling me is that someway the concept of space I had is vanishing, space seems to be intimately related with consciousness...

A single monad point could just be numbers and doesn't even have to go up to a huge number since there aren't a huge number of different particles or a huge number of spacetime dimensions. You need some 3 plus 1 and 7 plus 1, etc. structure and a natural way to connect multiple points in a lattice of sorts but consciousness and physicality could both use the same structure.

Sorry I am not understanding what you are trying to tell me, can you please explain it in another way?

I'm thinking about foamy (aka lattice of points) spacetime models that I know of that have 78 to 256 or so degrees of freedom at each point and people worry about how to connect the points into a spacetime foam. This kind of model would handle quantum consciousness models too (since they are based on quantum physics). The 3 plus 1 would refer to space plus time and the 7 plus 1 would refer to massive matter/antimatter plus the massless neutrino and there are lots of other patterns you'd like to see in the degrees of freedom (which are based on number patterns).

 

[Buddy]

So, why not start from the middle. Here it goes:

Discrete and continuous. Zeno paradoxes.

There is space and there is time. Both are basic categories of our perception. Both occupied the minds of philosophers since long. The most famous one is probably Zeno, who, according to not exactly reliable sources, lived in an ancient Greek town of Elea some 2500 years ago. Zeno of Elea is famous for using the method of reduction ad absurdum in order to prove that the very concept of motion – a continuous in time change of position in space - is an absurd. For instance, we are told that according to Zeno, the arrow cannot fly, because it cannot change its position in space during each indivisible instant of time, and time consists of such indivisible instants. Zeno’s arrow paradox is the third one narrated by Aristotle in his treatise Physics:

The third is … that the flying arrow is at rest, which result follows from the assumption that time is composed of moments …. he says that if everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always in a now, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. [Cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Physics, Zeno’s paradoxes, online version]

Zeno’s paradoxes occupied the minds of philosophers for a while, were, to some extent, dismissed by Aristotle, then they were dealt with by a few of representatives of the Neoplatonic school (most eminently by Damascius), then, for a long time they were essentially were forgotten, and then, again, formally dismissed by the calculus of infinitesimals developed by Leibniz, Newton, Cauchy and other mathematicians. But the fact that today’s mathematics can deal efficiently with formal description of continuous motions does not mean that that the very essence of Zeno’s paradoxes has been addressed in a way that satisfies us completely.

I guess I'm just curious really, but isn't the 'secret' of the paradox right there in plain sight (the bolded portion above)? Maybe Zeno was being clever by trying to guide us out of our thinking 'box' in order to see that space and time are separate contexts being inappropriately squeezed into one context.

I understand that, in classical physics, space and time are classically 'measurable,' but undefined and apparently undefinable in terms of any notions more fundamental than themselves, so I'm thinking the concepts are only partial descriptions.

What I've found to be remarkable is the idea that, while "Relativity" implies relationships between space and time, when we are working in terms of space (like calculating a distance traveled), space's dimension is real and time's dimension is imaginary. Likewise when we are working in terms of time (like when calculating the age of a traveler as perceived by an observer), time's dimension is real and space's dimension is imaginary. So, it seems we don't have a time and space simultaneously. I think Ana alludes to this phenomena with her puzzlement about her space vanishing.

But what I'm wondering now, is how comes this paradox to be different from any other situation where contradiction and confusion creates a seeming paradox? Magritte shows the trick with his painting: "The Treachery of Images", which, in my interpretation, contrasts 'direct knowing' that comes from simple, direct perceiving and 'conceptual knowing' that comes from intellect's more complex, learned linguistic interpretations - two separate contexts related to 'knowing'. When placed on a single canvas, within a single frame, 'paradox' seems to arise.

Phillip Noyce also shows us the trick with his movie "Rabbit-Proof Fence" which forces together two separate cultural contexts in an attempt to make one cultural context and the suffering that results to the aboriginal children. (That movie was a very emotional experience for me).

There are many more examples, I think. One that is close to home is how Lobaczewski, Hare, Sandra Brown MA, Laura et al show how much paradox, contradictions, confusions, bullying, trans-personification, etc., resolve by exposing (psycho)pathology and how many of our previous errors in relationships can be traced to the mistake of pathological context meeting normative context and attempting to become one context.

Is space, at its very fundamental level, discrete or continuous?

I walked out my backdoor this evening, looked around marveling at so much Nature all around me, took a deep breath of cool, slightly misted air and asked myself..." how in the world could someone 'see' space unless they think of space as an object in itself like all other 'objects'?

I'd say the only 'thing' homogeneous (uniform, continuous) is that thought and language style of 'classical' thinking methods. But that's my two pence.

 

[ark]

Where I am heading? Let's see ...

Geometry of space

Geometry is about properties of spaces. But what is space? Or, better, what would be the simplest possible space? One could think that it is “our space”. What could be simpler? Well, first of all our space is three dimensional. A plane has one dimension less, and a line has only one dimension. A point is zero-dimensional – too simple! A point has no structure - therefore no geometry can be associated to a point. Yet are we not too constrained in our thinking? Philosophers were contemplating these matters for ages. We all know about the great Greek philosopher Plato . But here, when we are asking about the simplest and most fundamental possible carrier of structure of geometry and of everything else it is Leibniz that needs to be recalled. Leibniz came with the idea of monads. A monad must be not continuous, must be discrete. And the simplest nontrivial discrete structure that came to his mind was a pair of numbers: 0 and 1. In fact it was Leibniz who invented binary number system! In his article “Explication de l’Arithmétique binaire, qui se sert des seuls caractères 0 et 1, avec des remarques sur son utilité, et sur ce qu’elle donne le sens des anciennes figures chinoises de Fohy”, published in in 1703 (Leibniz, 5 Mai, 1703), Leibniz introduced the simplest possible number system and invented the rules of calculating with this system.

 

[kenlee]

At a very young age I remember seeing these scintillating moving lines (appearing to move in both directions simultaneously) that appeared to crisscross like a web in EVERY conceivable direction filling all of space. Actually is was more like a sensing. Or maybe the seeing of them and the sensing of them were one and the same thing or something like that. I could even see them with my eyes closed. As I got older (including up to the present day) the "living" lines kind of retreated into the background so for me to see them now I have to concentrate but they still appear to be there. It could be my imagination of course (and probably is)! Anyway, the lines appear to blink off and on which might have made them appear to scintillate, or maybe they do both, don't know though (assuming they exist of course). But I often wondered if the entire universe, as a totality (containing everything that's possible and impossible, actual and potential, and all like that) actually blinks on and off too like those apparent lines do, in a binary way, and maybe existence shares itself with non existence with the on/off switching between the two? Then I wondered if this same blinking on and off, in some way, reflected itself on the micro scale as well as (assuming) it might do with the totality. Well that's it, enough theoretical speculation for now so that's a big FWIW on all the above!

 

[SeekinTruth]

I've been reading this fascinating thread with great interest. Although, I don't have much of substance to add, kenlee's post reminded me of a couple of things. Didn't the C's say something about the whole (containing all and everything) something like "all that exists and doesn't exist" in one of the older transcripts? That's always remained in my mind, though I don't remember the exact context now, and I had always been fascinating with this idea of all that exists and doesn't exist long before I found the Cass material. Part of the fascination being that in Armenian, fables and fairy tales almost always start with something that would approximately translate to: "There once was and was not...." Like in English "Once upon a time..." begins many fables and fairy tales. Just thought I'd share, FWIW.

 

[SoCurious]

Geometry is about properties of spaces. But what is space? Or, better, what would be the simplest possible space?

So do you feel that space should be described by using a binary geometry? (I have no idea if this is relevant as no matter what base we use it always reverts to binary when processed by computer) Or are you perhaps saying that the basic property of space is that it "is" and "is not"? (as in on and off). I don't have a problem with the latter as when we think how so many frames per minute in a movie gives us the illusion of smooth movement, so the pace of on and off would similarly fool us into seeing movement.

Maybe we're all stuck in one place and the Universe is doing the moving whilst flickering on and off? In this case every child would be right. The universe does revolve around me. ;)

Stop me now!

 

[ana]

Leibniz came with the idea of monads. A monad must be not continuous, must be discrete. And the simplest nontrivial discrete structure that came to his mind was a pair of numbers: 0 and 1. In fact it was Leibniz who invented binary number system! In his article “Explication de l’Arithmétique binaire, qui se sert des seuls caractères 0 et 1, avec des remarques sur son utilité, et sur ce qu’elle donne le sens des anciennes figures chinoises de Fohy”, published in in 1703 (Leibniz, 5 Mai, 1703), Leibniz introduced the simplest possible number system and invented the rules of calculating with this system.

And that makes sense, I was struggling to find which 0 or 1 would better symbolize it, but taking into account that the monad is also “created” then the 1 is also necessary.

I have now learned to convert a decimal number to a binary one, still have difficulty in playing with them and in understanding the implications of it in relation to geometry, I’m expectant and excited to know.

What I’ve found is that the I ching also uses a kind of binary system, and it seems Leibniz was pretty interested in the Chinese concept and use of numbers.