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: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 25 Jul 2010 10:37

On Jul 24, 10:18 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article
> <f1aa9214-a7ca-4553-a7fb-db1c437b1...(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 11:29 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote:
>
> > > There is a strange outlier in crystal formation. Perhaps it is best to
> > > call it a quasi-crystalline structure that has a tiling pattern that
> > > cannot possibly be built in the traditional atom-to-atom, linear manner
> > > (symmetric translation). See the work of Dany Shechtman, 1984.
>
> > > The point illustrated by this quasi-crystal is that in order to form its
> > > five-fold symmetry, all the atoms in the solution would have to
> > > simultaneously organize. It's a non-local action. Spooky stuff, as the
> > > man said.
>
> > I found a SIAM article covering Shechtman's discovery. Pretty neat.
> > I've got a copy of Kittel's solid state physics which specifically
> > rules out the 5-fold symmetry. I do have a hard time with the Bravais
> > breakdown because it seems so cartesian based. I do have an
> > alternative lattice style in polysign:
> > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html.
>
> > How much of a space can we actually have? Some work that I've done
> > exposes that we can have more or less than tradition will allow:
> > http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html
> > Perhaps there is a way around the simultaneous organization
> > requirement here.
>
> > I've never fully followed the crystallographic X-ray patterning, which
> > is supposed to be the boon of analysis, even under the Shechtman
> > discovery, but am happy to consider that there could be some
> > electromagnetics in diffraction that is being overlooked too
> > conveniently. We don't see any photograph of the aluminum and
> > manganese alloy, which I suppose does not look very impressive. Should
> > there be some attempt to grow one of these and see if there is some
> > growth pattern? I couldn't find any photos of the material, or even a
> > name for it. Didn't work too hard at it though.
>
> > - Tim
>
> I found a photo in Roger Penrose's _ Emperor's New Mind_, page 564 in
> our library copy. It is early, and different from the later
> representations. If you surf for "penrose aluminum-manganese alloy"
> (sans quotes), you should come up with some good information.
>
> I struggle to follow Penrose, but that's my shortcoming. He's a very
> good instructor and writer.

I have an old copy, but it is from 1989, and I guess he's added this
in a later edition.
My copy has only 466 pages so he's added quite alot. I didn't realize
such a book could go stale.

Googling for your phrase in quotes I've come to
http://intendo.net/penrose/info_4.html
whose last figure reminds me of the signon packing pattern.
Ah. Here is your reference in a google book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oI0grArWHUMC&pg=PA564
I think its a bit dubious to overlook the rise in freedom in 3D from a
2D model like the tiling. According to polysign a natural five-fold
will be in 4D. We can simply project back down to 2D or 3D and have a
five-based symmetry, though in terms of depth the lattice is going to
look very complicated, except at carefully chosen angles where the
lattice will overlap. Also the actual packing arrangement will be
packing
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/P5Signon.gif
so that this object centered at the origin has adjacent copies
centered on
[| 2,0,1,1,1]
within the simplex coordinate system, where the bar indicates
permutations of this coordinate. So that's alot more than five
adjacent neighbors, but projections of this should contain some five-
fold kaleidoscopic patterning.

There is an issue embedded in these considerations of traversing
dimensions that is not well addressed. The very way that we construct
multiple dimensions is problematic. There may be places within
existing theory where such dimensional manipulations are going on
without being fully addressed.

One simple catch: when we claim to have constructed a two dimensional
space (x,y) we accept that x is independent of y, yet we place a
dependence on their orientation of being orthogonal to each other in
order to claim independence of their values. This marriage of two one
dimensional spaces to construct a two dimensional space can be
investigated for consistency. I am not in doubt that the positions on
the face of a piece of paper can be uniquely addressed this way, but I
do find that the formal construction of the cartesian product is not
necessary, and so I cast doubt on that construction. At this level of
fundamental inquiry even the word 'dimension' deserves careful
consideration, and its marriage to the real number is always the
context that I use it in, which is important to the discussion I
believe.

- Tim

From: John Stafford on 25 Jul 2010 12:06

In article <PM00048C36830E5A2E(a)aca211af.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above(a)aol.com> wrote:

> [spit a newsgroup]
>
> John Stafford wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I found a photo in Roger Penrose's _ Emperor's New Mind_, page 564 in
> > our library copy. It is early, and different from the later
> > representations. If you surf for "penrose aluminum-manganese alloy"
> > (sans quotes), you should come up with some good information.
> >
> > I struggle to follow Penrose, but that's my shortcoming. He's a very
> > good instructor and writer.
>
> I never made it through the third chapter of that book; it always
> ended up being thrown against the wall. Some day I'll try to
> read it again.
>
> /BAH

I had a similar reaction to Tipler's _Omega Point_. Somewhere past the
center of the book he wrote, "Now I ask the reader to suspend
disbelief". I threw it out on the lawn and emptied a shotgun into it,
and followed with 7 .45 ACP rounds. Then I sent the book to my Brother
(a publisher) as a review. He sent it back to be signed!

(No worries folks, I lived so far from civilization nobody heard the
shots - so just imagine they never occurred.)

From: Day Brown on 25 Jul 2010 14:49

On 07/23/2010 05:42 PM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> Correspondence to observed behavior is the crux. We really do observe
> three dimensional space, from within a cartesian mathematical system
> of real valued coordinates. Somehow within these higher theories they
> need to yield this. Most string theory as I understand it only does
> this manually, rather than deriving it. Some quantum gravity folks
> want an emergent spacetime.
>
> Ordinary theory does not pose the problem
> Why spacetime?
> and instead manually doles it out. The idea that there should be a
> reason why has gone unaddressed within most analyses. Standard (x,y,z)
> physics is not arbitrarily chosen. The addition to time- well, it is
> not symmetrical to x,y,and z so the 4D tensor representation is
> slightly wrong.
That certainly makes sense to my mind. But I dunno that it will apply to
minds, intelligence networks, or whatever, whose powers are greater.

I've also seen reports of minds that simply cannot entertain certain
ideas; most obvious with the neurotically delusional, but also in group
think such as partisan politics. I cant preclude the Hand of Fate from
manipulating the string theory in my mind, pulling some to bring certain
ideas up from the depths, or breaking some to let others sink into oblivion.

Just cause I cant deal with more than 3 dimensions dont mean there is
not an integrative power which could, and when it does, Murphy's laws is
one of the results as is de Jevu. I spoze there may be other effects I
am not aware of.

From: Vladimir Kirov on 25 Jul 2010 15:36

jmfbahciv:
> [spit a newsgroup]
>
> Vladimir Kirov wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I consider that space - nonconstant ensemble.
> > Term a space-time is error since space bound with time and time is
> > part of space. Nonpossible to visualize the space without time and
> > time without space.
> >
> > With respekt!
> >
> Oh, good grief. The term space-time implies a geometry which is
> not Euclidean.
>
> /BAH

If space to separate of time that this will already non space, but
statistical ensemble, to which possible add time.

From: John Stafford on 25 Jul 2010 16:24

In article <4c4c88f2$0$14477$ec3e2dad(a)news.usenetmonster.com>,
Day Brown <dayhbrown(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I've also seen reports of minds that simply cannot entertain certain
> ideas; most obvious with the neurotically delusional, but also in group
> think such as partisan politics.

And in your case, raging racism.