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: jmfbahciv on 22 Jul 2010 09:43

Huang wrote:
> On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>> [spit a newsgroup]
>>
>> Huang wrote:
>>
>> <snip
>>
>>
>>
>> > Starting with some preliminaries:
>>
>> > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont
>> > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should
>> > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking
>> > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics.
>>
>> You don't have any idea what mathematics is.
>
>
> And you have no idea what an axiom is.
>
> I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities
> or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such
> counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will
> assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is
> really absurd.
>
> If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist
> with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very
> difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is
> quite impossible.

Sigh! Not p.
\
>
> I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol
>

No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor
what it can't do.

>
>> >Futher, I dont
>> > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be
>> > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out.
>>
>> This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All
>> endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet
>> and eating your breakfast.
>>
>> You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor
>> shown how to measure it with a ruler.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> /BAH
>
>
> I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said
> he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and
> that's what I provided.

For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method
of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that
all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong.
If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing
requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment
which will falsify your hypothesis.

You ain't doing science; you're just blowing gas.

/BAH

From: jmfbahciv on 22 Jul 2010 09:43

John Stafford wrote:
> In article <PM00048BE542696AEA(a)aca376f4.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>> [spit a newsgroup]
>>
>> Huang wrote:
>>
>> <snip
>>
>> >
>> > Starting with some preliminaries:
>> >
>> > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont
>> > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should
>> > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking
>> > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics.
>>
>> You don't have any idea what mathematics is.
>
> Perhaps Huang is referring to Godel's theorem

No.

> but ignoring the part that
> states that we can know an axiom is correct but not prove it within its
> own system.

He's using mathematical terms to prove scientifically his philosophy
of existence. No labs, no measurements, lots of word salads using
terms which he's heard. It doesn't even sound like he's read any
of these books.

/BAH

From: bert on 22 Jul 2010 10:35

On Jul 22, 9:43 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Huang wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >> [spit a newsgroup]
>
> >> Huang wrote:
>
> >> <snip
>
> >> > Starting with some preliminaries:
>
> >> > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont
> >> > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should
> >> > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking
> >> > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics.
>
> >> You don't have any idea what mathematics is.
>
> > And you have no idea what an axiom is.
>
> > I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities
> > or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such
> > counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will
> > assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is
> > really absurd.
>
> > If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist
> > with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very
> > difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is
> > quite impossible.
>
> Sigh! Not p.
> \
>
>
>
> > I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol
>
> No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor
> what it can't do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >Futher, I dont
> >> > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be
> >> > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out.
>
> >> This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All
> >> endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet
> >> and eating your breakfast.
>
> >> You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor
> >> shown how to measure it with a ruler.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> /BAH
>
> > I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said
> > he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and
> > that's what I provided.
>
> For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method
> of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that
> all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong.
> If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing
> requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment
> which will falsify your hypothesis.
>
> You ain't doing science; you're just blowing gas.
>
> /BAH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Space and time are two sides to the same coin. Einstein merged them.
It Fits TreBert

From: Huang on 22 Jul 2010 18:34

On Jul 22, 8:43 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Huang wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >> [spit a newsgroup]
>
> >> Huang wrote:
>
> >> <snip
>
> >> > Starting with some preliminaries:
>
> >> > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont
> >> > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should
> >> > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking
> >> > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics.
>
> >> You don't have any idea what mathematics is.
>
> > And you have no idea what an axiom is.
>
> > I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities
> > or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such
> > counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will
> > assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is
> > really absurd.
>
> > If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist
> > with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very
> > difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is
> > quite impossible.
>
> Sigh! Not p.
> \
>
>
>
> > I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol
>
> No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor
> what it can't do.

In mathematics things are proved. The reason you can do this is
because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits
together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That
is mathematics.

Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but
"what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because
they are and must remain conjectural. But you CAN show that
conjectures are consistent, and so all of these conjectures fit
together like Lego building blocks as well. In fact, for every
mathematical statement there is a corresponding conjectural statement
and vice versa. There is no mathematical way to transform back and
forth between the two, such operations are currently under study but
to be sure - I do know what math is and what it is not. I also believe
that there are tools other than math which can accomplish the same
things that math does.

> >> >Futher, I dont
> >> > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be
> >> > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out.
>
> >> This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All
> >> endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet
> >> and eating your breakfast.
>
> >> You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor
> >> shown how to measure it with a ruler.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> /BAH
>
> > I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said
> > he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and
> > that's what I provided.
>
> For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method
> of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that
> all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong.
> If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing
> requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment
> which will falsify your hypothesis.
>
> You ain't doing science; you're just blowing gas.

Define mass in terms of length - eh ?

Ok - there are many ways to do this depending on how precise you want
to make it. If you want an exact derivation you'll never get it
because it's not calculable, would require too much computing power
which does not exist at this time and probably never will.

However, if we allow (for brevity) to model objects more coarsely we
can come up with some decent models. Instead of considering every
individual atom, just consider a planet as a whole and skip all of the
fine structure.

A planet may then be regarded (in my model) as a gradient. The
gradient is comprised of a potential, and to each point in space we
assign a potential that the point exists. That gives rise to this
gradient. Consider that the nucleus of the planet is enriched, and the
areas in it's outer shells are rarified. A planet (or atom) is nothing
more than an imbalance as described. It is composed of nothing more
than dimension. Enriched in it's core, and rarified at the periphery.
It should be obvious that two such bodies which are near to each other
create a "well" between them, and they will naturally be attracted to
each other because that is how space is bent. Objects will tend to
fall into such a depression, and both objects are creating a
depression in the fabric of spacetime because the regions on their
periphery is existentially rarified like a vacuum which decreases
exactly as described elsewhere in physics where orthodox mathematics
is being used, and I repeat that I have used no math here. Only set
the stage for modelling conjecturally.

From: Michael Gordge on 22 Jul 2010 18:55

On Jul 22, 3:56 am, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> Spaceis not
> matter

Space is not theory.

> andtimeis not man made.

In respect of time, there is matter and matter has motion - everything
else about time - is mind dependent (man made), it is a tool.
Time exists in the universe the universe does not exist in time.

> What do you call what exists between matter inspace?

Re-wording your question to ask the exact same thing.

What does man call, what ever it is that exists between matter man has
identified or can identify? Simple, I call it matter / unit /
particle / substance that man has yet to identify.

However, I read a couple of years ago, but cant remember where, that a
group of scientists, I believe from the UK, claim to have identified
the 3D form of matter / particle / substance (you choose) which man
calls "space", they claim to have identified the 3D shape of a
'particle' of space by firing very narrow beams of lazer from many
different locations on earth at the same 'spot' at the same instant
far out into what man calls, 'the vacuum of space' and by measuring
the angles of refraction at the point of intersection etc etc they
claim to have discovered the size and 3D shape of a single unit of
what man calls space.

MG