- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Devin Harris <webmanager.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:02:59 -0700

I don't know what could be more enjoyable than exploring an ensemble

theory or aggregate model of the Universe. I just want to point out that

it may not be necessary to consider all conceivable mathematical or

physical systems.

Chris Maloney wrote:

<<< The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,

not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but

simply because the structures that do obey physical laws are more

numerous than those that do not, and hence we are likely to find

ourselves in those.

GSLevy wrote:

<< We can find ourselves ONLY in those structures that obey physical

laws because these are the ONLY structures that can support us as

rational beings (SAS). The assumption that worlds with (rational)

physical laws are more more numerous than those without is therefore

unwarranted. In fact I would believe in the opposite. That the worlds

without rational physical laws, (if these could be called worlds at

all), are more numerous than those with rational physical laws.

I just would add that there may not be more than one set of rational

physical laws which apply everywhere. I would not expect multiple

mathematical systems distinct or separate from a single aggregate

mathematical system of nature. Existence I expect has a math itself and

any system, mathematical, physical, or temporal, is sub-content of that

one system or nature.

We might consider the possibility that an extension of mathematical

logic and a sort of extended reality emerges inside unique temporal

frameworks, creating reason or consistency, subject to how each temporal

framework is configured. Still, all such worlds share a common

foundation by existing.

Someone mentioned Descartes, I think therefore I am. Within many ways we

can interpret the phrase, such as the meaning of 'I think' or 'I am', is

the simple recognition that 'something exists'. Any mathematical system,

any set of physical laws, is subject to whatever natural laws govern

basic existence, i.e. the nature of the Universe of universes.

Ultimately I believe the solution is to recognize that what is possible

defines what is actual, or even, what is possible 'is' what is actual. I

would expect those involved in this group to be thinking along those

lines already. So my question is, can there be subsystems where what is

real or where physical laws break the laws of another system? If the

most basic construction or foundational elements of the system are

changed, (i.e. mass, density, number of spatial dimensions in our

system) then systems would only relate in what is common to both. Laws

would change accordingly, as each exists in one ultimate system.

Dr. Russell Standish wrote:

One of the biggest problems is that in Relativity, there is no well

defined concept of "now" - the locus of contemporary events depends on

one's frame of reference.

You've probably seen where Tegmark maps spatial and temporal dimensions

to consider which are possible real systems. Fascinating objective, to

recognize how space-time relates to the set of all possible worlds.

Perhaps, as we remove ourselves from our position in time, working

toward a God's eye view, we need to suspend thinking of time as an

elementary dimension. Said another way, see the universe as if there is

one common moment of "now" for everyone and everything.

So I personally prefer to abandon time and use mass or density as a

dimension. Please let me know, anyone, a good reason not to consider an

ensemble theory, a description of all possible states or worlds, first,

without time as a dimension.

Anyone can imagine the first three dimensions of space without time.

Consider a model of possible states by adding density into each

dimension. Along a plane, or in ONE dimension, the range of value for

density is from zero to infinite (the values of an ordinary mathematical

plane).

Notice two extreme states, infinite density and zero density. There

should be no objection to zero density if you suspend time.

In TWO dimensions we have to keep in mind we are modeling all that is

possible of density and space. Adding a second dimension of space

creates a 2D spectrum of patterns. The diagram below will help:

http://www.everythingforever.com/F-TIME.GIF

At either ends of the spectrum there remains isolated extremes, singular

possible states of infinite and zero density, but at every other measure

of density there is more than one possible pattern or configuration. The

number of states actually diverges away from infinite density, gets fat,

and then it converges toward zero, the two singular patterns.

It might help to imagine a flat network of lights. There are

configurations of 'all on', 'all off', and an infinite number of

variations if the individual lights are variable in intensity. So the

set of all possible 2D patterns is infinite yet bordered by extremes.

Adding a third dimension only further expands the cardinal measure of

unique possible patterns. The model of possible states itself becomes 3D

and is still given shape by two extremes, zero and infinite. This is why

I claim that the set of all possibilities is infinite yet bordered by

extremes.

The next step would be to consider that such spaces actually exist. And

also recognize that within such a set exists all the patterns from which

any possible temporal world would necessarily utilize or possibly even

be constructed from. Any temporal system would be secondary to a

non-temporal existence, that is, if all possible worlds exist.

I myself believe time is actually space, 4D space, or a series of space

worlds, and I believe quantum mechanics is purely the side effect of our

passing through many static spaces as what we call time progresses.

Feynman described time as a direction in space. I describe time as a

direction through spaces. The model reflects this similar to Tegmarks

diagram of possible space/time dimensions.

http://www.everythingforever.com/4Dspace.jpg

Its not really difficult to imagine 4D space. We can imagine all the

directions possible in a 3D space. With a little imagination we can

think of a 3D series of spaces that are bonded together to produce an

added dimension of directions called time (consider that we use frames

or static images in film work to imitate time). As I understand this

aggregate set of spaces, each space is individually defined (finite)

simply existing in nature, yet the set is not otherwise divided apart.

thus there exists a fourth dimension of directions, within each space,

directions that pass through the aggregate set creating time as we know

it. I expect the idea is new to everyone, but the justification for the

theory honestly adds up.

I propose three other related theories, such as a mathematical system

where positive and negative values combine rather than cancel, and a

theory that there isn't simply order and disorder along an axis, but

rather two kinds of order in nature, (relating to infinite density and

zero density) and I show that the order of one is the disorder of the

other.

Devin Harris

http://www.everythingforever.com/

Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 11:06:15 PDT

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:02:59 -0700

I don't know what could be more enjoyable than exploring an ensemble

theory or aggregate model of the Universe. I just want to point out that

it may not be necessary to consider all conceivable mathematical or

physical systems.

Chris Maloney wrote:

<<< The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,

not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but

simply because the structures that do obey physical laws are more

numerous than those that do not, and hence we are likely to find

ourselves in those.

GSLevy wrote:

<< We can find ourselves ONLY in those structures that obey physical

laws because these are the ONLY structures that can support us as

rational beings (SAS). The assumption that worlds with (rational)

physical laws are more more numerous than those without is therefore

unwarranted. In fact I would believe in the opposite. That the worlds

without rational physical laws, (if these could be called worlds at

all), are more numerous than those with rational physical laws.

I just would add that there may not be more than one set of rational

physical laws which apply everywhere. I would not expect multiple

mathematical systems distinct or separate from a single aggregate

mathematical system of nature. Existence I expect has a math itself and

any system, mathematical, physical, or temporal, is sub-content of that

one system or nature.

We might consider the possibility that an extension of mathematical

logic and a sort of extended reality emerges inside unique temporal

frameworks, creating reason or consistency, subject to how each temporal

framework is configured. Still, all such worlds share a common

foundation by existing.

Someone mentioned Descartes, I think therefore I am. Within many ways we

can interpret the phrase, such as the meaning of 'I think' or 'I am', is

the simple recognition that 'something exists'. Any mathematical system,

any set of physical laws, is subject to whatever natural laws govern

basic existence, i.e. the nature of the Universe of universes.

Ultimately I believe the solution is to recognize that what is possible

defines what is actual, or even, what is possible 'is' what is actual. I

would expect those involved in this group to be thinking along those

lines already. So my question is, can there be subsystems where what is

real or where physical laws break the laws of another system? If the

most basic construction or foundational elements of the system are

changed, (i.e. mass, density, number of spatial dimensions in our

system) then systems would only relate in what is common to both. Laws

would change accordingly, as each exists in one ultimate system.

Dr. Russell Standish wrote:

One of the biggest problems is that in Relativity, there is no well

defined concept of "now" - the locus of contemporary events depends on

one's frame of reference.

You've probably seen where Tegmark maps spatial and temporal dimensions

to consider which are possible real systems. Fascinating objective, to

recognize how space-time relates to the set of all possible worlds.

Perhaps, as we remove ourselves from our position in time, working

toward a God's eye view, we need to suspend thinking of time as an

elementary dimension. Said another way, see the universe as if there is

one common moment of "now" for everyone and everything.

So I personally prefer to abandon time and use mass or density as a

dimension. Please let me know, anyone, a good reason not to consider an

ensemble theory, a description of all possible states or worlds, first,

without time as a dimension.

Anyone can imagine the first three dimensions of space without time.

Consider a model of possible states by adding density into each

dimension. Along a plane, or in ONE dimension, the range of value for

density is from zero to infinite (the values of an ordinary mathematical

plane).

Notice two extreme states, infinite density and zero density. There

should be no objection to zero density if you suspend time.

In TWO dimensions we have to keep in mind we are modeling all that is

possible of density and space. Adding a second dimension of space

creates a 2D spectrum of patterns. The diagram below will help:

http://www.everythingforever.com/F-TIME.GIF

At either ends of the spectrum there remains isolated extremes, singular

possible states of infinite and zero density, but at every other measure

of density there is more than one possible pattern or configuration. The

number of states actually diverges away from infinite density, gets fat,

and then it converges toward zero, the two singular patterns.

It might help to imagine a flat network of lights. There are

configurations of 'all on', 'all off', and an infinite number of

variations if the individual lights are variable in intensity. So the

set of all possible 2D patterns is infinite yet bordered by extremes.

Adding a third dimension only further expands the cardinal measure of

unique possible patterns. The model of possible states itself becomes 3D

and is still given shape by two extremes, zero and infinite. This is why

I claim that the set of all possibilities is infinite yet bordered by

extremes.

The next step would be to consider that such spaces actually exist. And

also recognize that within such a set exists all the patterns from which

any possible temporal world would necessarily utilize or possibly even

be constructed from. Any temporal system would be secondary to a

non-temporal existence, that is, if all possible worlds exist.

I myself believe time is actually space, 4D space, or a series of space

worlds, and I believe quantum mechanics is purely the side effect of our

passing through many static spaces as what we call time progresses.

Feynman described time as a direction in space. I describe time as a

direction through spaces. The model reflects this similar to Tegmarks

diagram of possible space/time dimensions.

http://www.everythingforever.com/4Dspace.jpg

Its not really difficult to imagine 4D space. We can imagine all the

directions possible in a 3D space. With a little imagination we can

think of a 3D series of spaces that are bonded together to produce an

added dimension of directions called time (consider that we use frames

or static images in film work to imitate time). As I understand this

aggregate set of spaces, each space is individually defined (finite)

simply existing in nature, yet the set is not otherwise divided apart.

thus there exists a fourth dimension of directions, within each space,

directions that pass through the aggregate set creating time as we know

it. I expect the idea is new to everyone, but the justification for the

theory honestly adds up.

I propose three other related theories, such as a mathematical system

where positive and negative values combine rather than cancel, and a

theory that there isn't simply order and disorder along an axis, but

rather two kinds of order in nature, (relating to infinite density and

zero density) and I show that the order of one is the disorder of the

other.

Devin Harris

http://www.everythingforever.com/

Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 11:06:15 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*