Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: Jacko on 9 Aug 2010 09:32 On 9 Aug, 03:43, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 3:38 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I have a tendency of considering words and ideas separated to the > > > point that any words neccesary to sculpt an understanding in another > > > persons mind are fair game in order to convey an idea, but you're > > > right - we cannot have multiple definitions for the same word. I'm a > > > big abuser of standard nomenclature to be sure. > > > This is a dictum error. the crystalization of language to country > > borders and the resulting wars are all based around the > > 'standardization' of language. Which although a fine objective, has > > the problem of multiple standard authorities. It also opens abuse of > > understanding, by say detatching people from the meaning of words, by > > the process of assuming that no questions have to be passed to get the > > point spoken, and also by the process of purposefully hiding the > > origin of words for a population control gain by 'respelling' to the > > authorities request a.k.a. NewSpeak of the modern politician. > > > Yes just 1 isomorphic form for the equations (containing the logic of > > the common goal) but words are as free as the birds, until shot that > > is. > > > Cheers Jacko > > Any probabilistic problem can be restated in terms of existential > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. Yes to existensial indeterminacy. Conservation of existential potential, well something like it, but I'd go for something different. Think along the lines of locally existant statics, and 'low temperature' effects. Highly disordered (high temp in the analog) statics become dynamic. The universe may be set in it's ways in the local context, but this does not mean it can not be 'melted'. Hence some apparent conservational existentials are just solid existensials, instead of liquid or fluxing existentials. You see that I think mass oscillates. Hence how can mgh or 1/2(mv^2) be part of a conserved static existential? The peak amplitude of the mass oscillation may be conserved, but ... ... after all energy comes out as per second units (happenings per second?) If you can find any easier way to explain uncertainty consistant with relativity then good one. Cheers Jacko http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring - Uncertain Geometry
From: Huang on 9 Aug 2010 10:11 On Aug 9, 8:32 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Aug, 03:43, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 3:38 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I have a tendency of considering words and ideas separated to the > > > > point that any words neccesary to sculpt an understanding in another > > > > persons mind are fair game in order to convey an idea, but you're > > > > right - we cannot have multiple definitions for the same word. I'm a > > > > big abuser of standard nomenclature to be sure. > > > > This is a dictum error. the crystalization of language to country > > > borders and the resulting wars are all based around the > > > 'standardization' of language. Which although a fine objective, has > > > the problem of multiple standard authorities. It also opens abuse of > > > understanding, by say detatching people from the meaning of words, by > > > the process of assuming that no questions have to be passed to get the > > > point spoken, and also by the process of purposefully hiding the > > > origin of words for a population control gain by 'respelling' to the > > > authorities request a.k.a. NewSpeak of the modern politician. > > > > Yes just 1 isomorphic form for the equations (containing the logic of > > > the common goal) but words are as free as the birds, until shot that > > > is. > > > > Cheers Jacko > > > Any probabilistic problem can be restated in terms of existential > > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. > > Yes to existensial indeterminacy. > > Conservation of existential potential, well something like it, but I'd > go for something different. > > Think along the lines of locally existant statics, and 'low > temperature' effects. Highly disordered (high temp in the analog) > statics become dynamic. The universe may be set in it's ways in the > local context, but this does not mean it can not be 'melted'. Hence > some apparent conservational existentials are just solid existensials, > instead of liquid or fluxing existentials. You see that I think mass > oscillates. Hence how can mgh or 1/2(mv^2) be part of a conserved > static existential? The peak amplitude of the mass oscillation may be > conserved, but ... ... after all energy comes out as per second units > (happenings per second?) > > If you can find any easier way to explain uncertainty consistant with > relativity then good one. > > Cheers Jacko > > http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring- Uncertain Geometry- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think that if you say that points in space are "existentially indeterminate", then it's tempting to say that "each point exists with probability 0<p<1" . Unfortunately, it also seems that formal probability theory is impossible to utilize because the existentially indeterminate transcends mathematics. So instead of "probability p" I prefer to use the word "potential p". So, if you have a region of space where the points exist with say "potential 1/2", then it's the same thing as existing with probability 1/2, but avoids using the actual theory of probability. Everything else is identical algebraically except the underlying fundamental philosophical assumptions. I dont think you can call this probability theory because in probability you have statements which are proveable, and when existence is made indeterminate you lose the ability to prove things. All you can do is demonstrate consistency. It's a kind of all or nothing situation. If you are modelling with mathematics, then you must use math everywhere. And if you are modelling with this tool I call "conjecture", then everything must be conjectural in order to be self-consistent. Recalling....any conjecture becomes a mathematical statement under the assumption of existence. So there are easy ways to check for consistency, but I dont know that these things can be called "proofs".
From: Jacko on 9 Aug 2010 12:19 On 9 Aug, 15:11, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 9, 8:32 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 9 Aug, 03:43, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 7, 3:38 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I have a tendency of considering words and ideas separated to the > > > > > point that any words neccesary to sculpt an understanding in another > > > > > persons mind are fair game in order to convey an idea, but you're > > > > > right - we cannot have multiple definitions for the same word. I'm a > > > > > big abuser of standard nomenclature to be sure. > > > > > This is a dictum error. the crystalization of language to country > > > > borders and the resulting wars are all based around the > > > > 'standardization' of language. Which although a fine objective, has > > > > the problem of multiple standard authorities. It also opens abuse of > > > > understanding, by say detatching people from the meaning of words, by > > > > the process of assuming that no questions have to be passed to get the > > > > point spoken, and also by the process of purposefully hiding the > > > > origin of words for a population control gain by 'respelling' to the > > > > authorities request a.k.a. NewSpeak of the modern politician. > > > > > Yes just 1 isomorphic form for the equations (containing the logic of > > > > the common goal) but words are as free as the birds, until shot that > > > > is. > > > > > Cheers Jacko > > > > Any probabilistic problem can be restated in terms of existential > > > indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. > > > Yes to existensial indeterminacy. > > > Conservation of existential potential, well something like it, but I'd > > go for something different. > > > Think along the lines of locally existant statics, and 'low > > temperature' effects. Highly disordered (high temp in the analog) > > statics become dynamic. The universe may be set in it's ways in the > > local context, but this does not mean it can not be 'melted'. Hence > > some apparent conservational existentials are just solid existensials, > > instead of liquid or fluxing existentials. You see that I think mass > > oscillates. Hence how can mgh or 1/2(mv^2) be part of a conserved > > static existential? The peak amplitude of the mass oscillation may be > > conserved, but ... ... after all energy comes out as per second units > > (happenings per second?) > > > If you can find any easier way to explain uncertainty consistant with > > relativity then good one. > > > Cheers Jacko > > >http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring-Uncertain Geometry- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think that if you say that points in space are "existentially > indeterminate", then it's tempting to say that "each point exists with > probability 0<p<1" . Umm, points in relative space. Space going in and out of existance. This would lead to instantanious moment of being issues. Maybe an occupational conduction model is better. > Unfortunately, it also seems that formal probability theory is > impossible to utilize because the existentially indeterminate > transcends mathematics. So instead of "probability p" I prefer to use > the word "potential p". Impedance p. Potentials are measure across two points. > So, if you have a region of space where the points exist with say > "potential 1/2", then it's the same thing as existing with probability > 1/2, but avoids using the actual theory of probability. Everything > else is identical algebraically except the underlying fundamental > philosophical assumptions. Metaphysical. > I dont think you can call this probability theory because in > probability you have statements which are proveable, and when > existence is made indeterminate you lose the ability to prove things. > All you can do is demonstrate consistency. Existance is digital in mode. > It's a kind of all or nothing situation. If you are modelling with > mathematics, then you must use math everywhere. And if you are > modelling with this tool I call "conjecture", then everything must be > conjectural in order to be self-consistent. Theory*Conjecture->Conjecture Conjecture is the dominant binding of the two. > Recalling....any conjecture becomes a mathematical statement under the > assumption of existence. So there are easy ways to check for > consistency, but I dont know that these things can be called "proofs". 'assumption of correct interpretation of existence' 'So there are easy ways to check for inconsistency (spacetime limits on proofs done)' Cheers Jacko http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring p.s. You may like the small paper on spacetime power available for download from my site (P=I^2.R) but for mass and speed etc.
From: Jacko on 9 Aug 2010 13:51
In the modern quantum world why is probability, probably and probs in general long words for slower use? PBL, probly, probably So probly changing them to probly, problaty and posibility going to posble, then conditionals can find a place in fast thinking. |