What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
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? |