What are space and time? [Logic]

Prev: NP+complete-problem navigation, search In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC), is a class of problems having two properties: * It is in the set of NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) pr
Next: Continuity and Uncountability

From: John Stafford on 15 Jul 2010 09:34

In article
<467063a3-956d-4305-95f9-c226c1547d58(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 14, 3:15 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote:
> > To begin to imagine time, it helps to consider it evidence of
> > information in the formal sense. Information acts upon other
> > information. Time might just be the consequence of the exchange of
> > information that we observe as entropy.
>
> Whether one accepts the unification of space and time then becomes an
> issue. This is the beauty of polysign: it presents a unidirectional
> zero dimensional algebra that has been overlooked, just beneath the
> real number. The real number is consistent within polysign as P2, or
> the two-signed numbers. The one-signed numbers P1 match time's seeming
> paradox. They are near to claims of nonexistent time since they have a
> zero dimensional geometry. But this then does allow the spacetime
> paradign to take deeper meaning. Time is not a real number. The real
> number is bidirectional. Time is unidirectional. [...]

Indeed, polysign is beautiful and heartening, but we disagree upon the
introduction of directionality _at this point_ of the discussion/view.
Can we be certain that entropy is not reversible in special cases? Are
special cases perhaps key to a breakthrough in our maths and
understanding?

I enjoy your posts. Thanks for being here.

From: spudnik on 15 Jul 2010 13:25

<deletives impleted>

he's not on drugs; language ... or. perhaps,
the minor miracle of polysignosis.

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net

--forsooth, the Queen of the quadrivium!
http://wlym.com

From: Huang on 15 Jul 2010 18:58

On Jul 15, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Huang wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 5:51 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Jul 9, 10:39 pm, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > [spit a newsgroup]
>
> >> > Michael Gordge wrote:
> >> > > On Jul 9, 12:51 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >> > >> >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >What are space and time?
> >> > >> >> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> >> > >> >Space is matter, it exists regardless of man's mind, time is a man
> >> > >> >made mind dependent concept.
>
> >> > >> Hogwash.
>
> >> > > How much were ewe paid to say that?
>
> >> > You still have no ability to learn. Space and time are
> >> > the things you use to avoid getting hit by a semi truck.
>
> >> > /BAH
>
> >> Which says nothing of the meaning of space and time. To avoid a semi
> >> truck you can also use legs, feet, speed, roller skates, etc. so you
> >> need to distinguish between space and roller skates. When ewe can
> >> explain the differences between space and time and roller skates, you
> >> may then on the path to thinking.
>
> >> MG- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > There is no difference between space and time. Any percieved
> > distinction is just an illusion. They are the same.
>
> > You can argue the same thing about length and area if you really
> > wanted to, see : space filling Peano curves. Is it a length ? Is it an
> > area ? It is some type of wierd hybrid.
>
> > Time and length can both be regarded as being probabilistic, and
> > anyone who does not believe me probably eats his own boogers.
>
> ARe you people on drugs?
>
> /BAH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, speaking for myself we ar not on drugs.

I reiterate: Time and length can both be regarded as being
probabilistic.

And I believe that I can demonstrate a reasonable justification for
that position. No drugs, no alcohol.

From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 16 Jul 2010 08:21

On Jul 15, 9:34 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article
> <467063a3-956d-4305-95f9-c226c1547...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 3:15 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote:
> > > To begin to imagine time, it helps to consider it evidence of
> > > information in the formal sense. Information acts upon other
> > > information. Time might just be the consequence of the exchange of
> > > information that we observe as entropy.
>
> > Whether one accepts the unification of space and time then becomes an
> > issue. This is the beauty of polysign: it presents a unidirectional
> > zero dimensional algebra that has been overlooked, just beneath the
> > real number. The real number is consistent within polysign as P2, or
> > the two-signed numbers. The one-signed numbers P1 match time's seeming
> > paradox. They are near to claims of nonexistent time since they have a
> > zero dimensional geometry. But this then does allow the spacetime
> > paradign to take deeper meaning. Time is not a real number. The real
> > number is bidirectional. Time is unidirectional. [...]
>
> Indeed, polysign is beautiful and heartening, but we disagree upon the
> introduction of directionality _at this point_ of the discussion/view.
> Can we be certain that entropy is not reversible in special cases? Are
> special cases perhaps key to a breakthrough in our maths and
> understanding?
>
> I enjoy your posts. Thanks for being here.

Within polysign there is room for accumulation within any of the
domains.
I'm not a firm believer in entropy from a thermodynamic point of view
because I am not a believer in the thermodynamic interpretation as
vibrating atoms. But you use an informational paradigm. I am all for
the informational approach, but accept that the situation is
ultimately noncomputable, since the quantity of information is so
large.

For instance, if we were to measure the gravitational pull at your
position and find that it alters when I jump a foot over here then we
would be consistent with theory. I admit that this figure is a very
small dither, but informationally speaking the law of gravitation of
the earth is built as an accumulation of its parts, and this
accumulation is an act of summation within the integral. This is
likewise true of all of matter, and even going relativistic on
Newtonian gravity will not change this.

Somehow we have to admit that much of our attempts at physics require
washing out the small perturbations, and it works well. They do wash
out, but we have no hope of computing them either. Is this tied into
the informational approach? I think so, somehow, but I haven't stated
it very clearly. Still, to answer your question I suppose that
accumulation is fundamental, which is to say that superposition is
fundamental, and that its inverse is not necessary within the
fundamentals since it can be defined in terms of superposition, just
as subtraction is not a fundamental activity since we can declare it
based upon a reversal of addition:
2 + 1 = 3 . (P2)

We do see structures forming within the accumulation, so the
interpretation that all must go into a blender and come out less
structured is observably false. This may physically have something to
do with cooling, so the thermodynamics does seem to be nearby, but I
don't accept the modern form as final. We operate in a region of space
that is at a triple point, colloidally speaking. We breath gas, our
bones are solid, and our blood is liquid. There are other regions of
space where this is not possible, and we would be inanimate due to
being frozen solid, or completely gaseous to the point of the disorder
that seems so close by to your focus. When solids form there are
structured results. Sometimes pure crystals do form. Isn't the sole
instance of a diamond formation evidence enough against entropy? Or do
I have to treat this like the man jumping a foot off the ground?

- Tim

From: Paul A. Suhler on 16 Jul 2010 10:50

Where and when would you like the answer?