Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

More notes from my local thinking journal–God’s existence

July 2, 2008

More from my local thinking journal. Here I talk about what the thinking so far seems to imply about the existence of God, and a little about the Bible and what thinking/conclusions could be drawn from it, especially Jesus’s Cruxifiction.

Lets digress for a little while and talk about my current thinking about God. Recently a letter from Einstein was released that indicated that he felt (organized? I can’t remember) religion was childish and superstitious… That God wasn’t needed to explain the properties and behavior of the universe. He seemed to imply (going from memory) that there was possibly a sort of Gaia like existence that could be God, but that the role assigned to God by current religion was not correct. My own thinking is pretty strong that God doesn’t appear to have either directly created or is actively guiding this universe–that the behavior and outcome of what we see does not require a guiding intelligence. However, it is quite possible and almost certainly impossible to determine if God created or guided the infrastructure that allowed this universe to come into being–a sort of second level (or further) up of control. As a result, Einstein’s dismissing of God because the existence does not require Him appears to be incorrect logic–there are levels of creation/interaction that could very well have been very intentional.

What is very clear though is the evidence appears to be very good that God does not want to be detected, and that means that there appears to be no intervention and no sensing evidence that this universe would require an intelligent guide or creator. If God is there, He doesn’t want to be detected at this stage in ham evolution. Of course that presumes that God knows how to present Himself that we could detect him unequivocally.

All of the stuff in the Bible raises a lot of questions, but does not really address whether the Bible is divine, or divinely inspired. There’s enough unusual behavior/activity at the time to make it difficult to discern whether God did intervene or not–earthquake and eclipse at the time of cruxifiction, the adjacent (apparently) accurate depiction of historical events leading up to the cruxifiction, and so on. It’s pretty clear from my reading of the Bible that there was a powerful drive to make prophecies come true, even by Jesus. There’s just too many questions, although my hunch is that many of the events that seem to show divine intervention are actually due to this drive by many of the people of the time to make prior prophecies come true.

So where does this put me in this discussion? Well, really nowhere. God isn’t necessary or apparent in this existence on a first level, but the electron constants and the difficulty of getting 0*infinity concepts (scaleless systems) to actually emerge with a something mean that we can’t write off God either. It’s inconclusive, and in fact I have no hint as to which is the correct answer. There’s pretty plausible points of view either way.

As a result, I think we have to proceed as if God is not there. If he is, but there’s no evidence for Him, it’s a tree that fell in the forest–it does not affect the outcome of whatever conclusions I can draw. The Bible has evidence for Him, but it is entangled with the biblical historical context where ancient prophecies appeared to become self-fulfilling.

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

More notes from my local thinking journal–God frequency of ring, c

July 2, 2008

More thoughts from my local thinking journal. Here I think about the God frequency and whether a scaleless system would give rise to our existence without a Creator.

It is clear to me that only two questions are of interest. Why is the speed of light, the group velocity of waves, what it is, and why is the ring frequency what it is. Actually another question also pops up–are these the same question asked in different ways. It’s quite obvious that far greater thinkers than me have long addressed these questions without satisfactory result, so clearly I have to work outside their box–I have to make some assumptions different than theirs. I choose the following: vector rotation of the F field creates the E and B fields, rings (or other stable topological entities) of this rotation make particles, the magnitude of the F field is unimportant and is constant, that phase information goes at infinite speed, and scaleless system mathematics can be applied.

In this picture, can a logical explanation for a unique ring frequency and speed of light be found?

The thinking now is no. The ring frequency–or what now might be called the “God frequency”, hopefully not too disrespectfully, cannot come from any construction due to the current model. More thought will hopefully reinforce this, but all geometrical aspects covered so far do not produce a uniqueness at any given frequency of rotation. In fact, so far a valid argument could be made that picking *any* frequency would create a system that would create particle structures and life as we know it. The Scaleless system approach clearly shows this to be true, since frequency is a function of time, a scaleless parameter. Thus, it could then be argued that within my model, there is no unique frequency, and thus the frequency set for this universe is NOT due to the construction of the universe. It is selected by a higher order system and imposed on our observed system.

This doesn’t mean there is proof of God–because it would be easy to create a higher order system that sets this frequency, and it seems clear that an intelligent entity is not required to do this. In particular, I suspect that a 4D sphere (not including time) could have an oscillator at its center, and waves propagating from the center would produce a constant stimulating entity within our 3D+T space that would potentially produce the behaviors we see, such as curvature or folding back only if the ring had a resonance with the stimulating frequency. A central source would be able to have several frequencies corresponding to the various particles in our universe. The new question then becomes why are these frequencies chosen, and the answer will just simply be completely beyond our ken unless we are somehow able to explore or create an effective model of the 4D system source.

Because it is unlikely that there will be any upper level system that could not be determined to operate autonomously, no amount of investigation by humanity is likely to ever detect a construction that can unambiguously determine God’s existence.

Further study should be able to create some constructs that narrow down how a central source could stimulate a 3D + T surface of a 4D sphere, and in fact some thinking along these lines is definitely doable and indicated. It may even be possible to come up with a unique construction that would give clues as to the composition of the 4D sphere. But if a higher level system is invoked, it seems unlikely that the God frequency causes are discernable by humans. I suspect the only hope is to think of a way to explore the 4D sphere, or especially the generating source, if indeed this is the best way to construct a system that induces the God Frequency(ies) on our existence.

Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

scaleless systems–the path out of our current thinking box

December 6, 2007

This was the post that was supposed to be the answer to life and everything, the culmination of all this thinking. The post that is the practical limit to what a human being can conclude about this existence and God.

Sorry…

I actually ended up doing a lot of thinking about what I suspect is more important–more important, because it’s a pathway that really is a goldmine that needs to be explored before I can tackle such end-of-the-road subjects as God. The more I think about scaleless systems, the more I realize how important analysis and further development in this area is–in fact, we can’t conclude there is a practical end-of-the-road discussion/thinking yet, because this is clearly a major pathway out of our current knowledge box. Not to say I haven’t done a lot of thinking about who/what God might be, and what I’m pretty sure God isn’t.

If you’ve read any of the previous verbiage, you know I have concluded that a scaleless system almost certainly is a good representation of our existence and most significantly is a system with more degrees of freedom than the Standard Model of physics subscribes to. If you were to bring it down to its simplest representation, it is the realization that a: we have no absolute size in any physical or temporal dimension, nor is there any absolute definition of what a quantity of a substance is that composes a scaleless system–and b: the scales involved are infinite in range, either infinitely small or infinitely large. You could create a system that would fit on the point of a pin or spans a googleplex of our current universes, you could create a system that expands in a big bang and collapses back into a giant black hole in the span of a femtosecond or the lifetime of a googleplex of universe lifetimes, and any one of those systems would be a valid representation of our existence. But scaleless systems go a very important step further–not only is there no absolute length of time or space (one of the principle tenets of the general theory of relativity), but that if there is “absolutely” nothing in space, the infiniteness of that tenet is such that it is possible over some infinitely large or small range of empty space, and over some infinitely large or small range of time, that emptiness cannot exist, at some range there will be a formation of structure. It is provable that something cannot emerge from an empty finite space in a finite amount of time, but it is *not* provable that something cannot emerge from an infinitely large or infinitely small space over an infinitely large or infinitely small amount of time, using an infinite possible range of substance types.

There is the heart of the amazing revelation of scaleless systems. Combine the basic premise that guides general relativity (no absolute time or space in our existence) with the realization that infinities permit the emergence of structures in empty space over some infinite range of time, and a whole new venue is available to explore. I’ve discussed previously that in addition, there is an infinite range of substances that can form our existence, such as a field of electrostatic fields or playdoh or the neural networks inside some being’s mind, it doesn’t matter. There’s no absolute substance, any substance that obeys interactions we see in physics would equivalantly form our existence.

I think you can see how amazing this revelation is, there is a journey that must be taken here, discoveries and analysis to be done. What can we conclude about infinitely scaleless systems? Let’s think a bit on that and see if some theorems and other conclusions can help describe such a system.

agemoz

Tags:
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

existence and me

September 18, 2007

Wow, that last post was a doozy. Summarizing it, I tried to say–dying is less of a big deal than it seems–nothing really gets destroyed, the bag of particles that makes up me, just gets rearranged into a more diffuse distribution. The concept of me is immortal, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no difference between what is real and what isn’t. You say, there is too a difference–I am real, but the idea of me is not… But reread that last sentence, it is really very astonishing. You think you are real, but the death of you is just “your” particles floating about in a different way–you are just the *idea* of particles in a particular order. You are no more real than me defining you as a circle, and then creating a real you by putting a bunch of rocks in a circle. By the same token the idea of the circle, or of you, is just as real as you are.

The utterly profound way to think of reality is that ideas and reality are one and the same. Reality has no more meaning than an idea. When you die, it’s just a shuffling of the deck. The combination of particles and environment that made you, the idea of you, disappears, but no particles will disappear–the only thing that vanishes is that particular order. When we suffer loss of loved ones, we suffer loss of the idea, the particular arrangement of particles will not recur. I know I’m probably sounding rather bizarre here, but to the best of my abilities, I have concluded that this thinking is “true”, that is most likely from a global point of view.

The concept of existence as a distinct entity from non-existence becomes in this way of thinking becomes somewhat narrower than we might think. Here we are, full circle from the thinking about something arising from nothing. Existence can readily be defined as something, and non-existence can be defined as nothing. But Existence is really just one particular ordering and non-existence is another. One way to see this is by studying what it means to die–it’s just a different ordering–but you must realize that my statement is true, because we say that in one case we exist and in the other we don’t. There is basically no difference between existing and not existing!! (I need to throw in a caveat here that does not break this analysis but just needs to be mentioned–I am assuming that in one form or another the particles, or the equivalent energy is conserved. Standard physics says the energy-mass of a particular system will be conserved, although in extreme cases such as black holes we might see some odd permutations of this–but the basic concept of the idea is valid in the space-time we “exist” in.

So what the heck does it mean to realize that existence doesn’t really have significance over non-existence? Well, one thing is for sure–philosophizing over the meaning of existence, why we are here, and does God exist, and similar questions, takes on a whole new light when this realization is made. The realm of existence as different from non-existence is intriguingly very small using this analysis. But doggone it, when we are born or die, there is no question a major cataclysm occurs, there is definite change of some sort. We form or lose a particular pattern, an *idea* that has great meaning to us, the pattern that we call the “existence of me”. We really hate it when that idea vanishes.. uh actually I guess we dont hate it once the pattern of our existence vanishes, but we sure hate knowing that the pattern will vanish (that is, knowing we will die), and do everything possible to make the pattern last longer. That’s because that longing to preserve our existence is built into our pattern. You can see that it doesn’t have to be that way, but it is in order that the patterns can be self propagating/reproducing. A pattern that has the ability to produce similar patterns will not decimate itself if this urge to survive is built into the pattern–the Darwinian principle of survival.

What is so cool about this is it starts to answer the question about consciousness. I’ve always wondered why we seem to have that trait but a pile of rocks doesn’t… Does the fact that we have consciousness mean that there is a soul, or some entity separate from our existence (!), ie, the existence of our pattern of life. The answer has got to be no. Rocks dont have consciousness, among other things, that allows propagation, survival, and reproduction. So rocks won’t reproduce, and have no apparent consciousness. *BUT*, that’s only from our perspective when we look at rocks–it might be conscious if we look at the complete earth, or some such subsystem over the appropriate scale of time. Does my toenail have consciousness of itself–no, but the pattern it is part of does.

Now, what does all this say about God?

I suppose you’ll have to wait for the next post for the answer to everything…!

Agemoz

Tags:, ,
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

ideas

July 11, 2007

I’m going to back out of some of this reductionist thinking and take a high level view, because I’ve been thinking that there’s some important lines of thought about *why* I’ve augured into particle physics, or at least something that resembles it.

The problem with physics, especially if you take the time to really study and understand it, is that you can do it thinking you will get insights into how the world works, and then get insight into why we are here, what we are here for, what we should do, etc. But when I dug in deep, and ended up in this journey into how things might work, I began to realize that it may be a red herring, or at least a distraction, from what is really important. I’ve had some truly elegant insights that came from this thinking–what’s so neat about it, is that whether or not this ring hypothesis is right, it points to something I’m much more certain is right. I’ve watched some relatives go through the dying process, and came to a stunning realization–whether you believe standard model physics or my ring theory or anything similar, it has become easy to see that when you die–no particles are destroyed! Sure, there are chemical and biological processes that begin at death–but the *only* thing that truly dies is the *idea* of ones existence. In some sense, particles just go from one highly ordered pattern to another, perhaps significantly less ordered, but just a re-arrangement of particles!

This of course assumes that there’s no magical soul or other non-physical element–if there is such a thing independent of the pattern of my existence, it’s not clear how or what happens to that. Lately, my thinking has been that there isn’t such a thing–our magical soul, self-awareness, etc, comes out of the pattern of particles, so dying, with its destruction of this pattern into more chaotic distributions of particles, destroys this magical soul that constitutes our consciousness. Yeah, kind of discouraging to realize that dying really means termination, sorry no afterlife, guys! But the crucial thing here is that life arises from an arrangement, a pattern, of particles. We are an *idea*.

This raised my thinking all the way out of physics in a hurry, because if this is true, then trying to analyze just how the world is made at the particulate level is a waste of time. It suggests that ANY complex system with some set of requirements could give rise to true life with conscious self awareness. If I think of a world in my head, it is possible that these abstractions, given that certain requirements of systematic stability and some level of abstraction causal interaction is enforced, could truly be alive in the same sense we are.

I think that thinking about ideas is critical to getting closer to transcending the current human understanding of existence. There are two parts to this philosophical way of thinking–an idea can be thought of as a specific abstraction, and the extent to which an idea generates a deterministic result depends on the extent of its implementation within a system. For example, I can think of an idea, and then, as an engineer, I can build that idea–but the fact is, all I did is make a *copy* of that idea within a particular system different than the one in my head. The idea in my head remains, regardless of what I build, and it remains distinct from any implementation of the idea I do with electrons and protons. The one I build can only be an approximation of the one in my head. But from this I got a lightning bolt of inspiration (an idea :-)–there’s nothing magic about electrons and protons, they too are ideas replicated in a deterministic way from fields or rings. Atoms are simply conceptual arrangements of these building blocks, so they too are just ideas, as are molecules, cells, etc.

An analogy I like to use is comparing electrons and protons to the water vapor in clouds. The first system readily forms atoms that build up complex systems, such that in sufficient numbers and in sufficient interaction time they form self aware creatures like us. Water vapor at first glance doesn’t do this in clouds, there appears to be no significant interactions that form deterministic systems. But that’s only because we are looking at too small a scale, ie, insufficient complexity. Eventually, a system of water vapor will form hurricanes, and given sufficiently large scale collections of water vapor (among other things, such as heat, electricity from lightning, etc) would eventually create a live self-aware system as well. A pretty outrageous hypothesis, and it may fail because there may be some system requirement that water vapor doesn’t meet that prevents formation of live entities. Nevertheless, I am increasingly convinced that any sufficiently complex system will form life–which means *it doesn’t really matter what is going on at the lowest levels*. That means that studying physics as a way of touching the mind of God, to use a famous phrase, very likely will not work. What matters is what it means to be an idea. As I mentioned, even electrons and protons could just simply be figments of some entity’s mind, such that the entity is simply applying consistent behavioral rules within his mind. Pretty outrageous, and at this point I don’t think that’s what’s going on, but it’s very clear in my mind that it *could* happen that way–thus reinforcing two things–we are nothing more than a concept that has been realized within a particular system, and our dying means nothing more than a reordering (mostly dispersal) of our constituent components.

Here we come full circle back to the concept of reality. It is becoming increasing clear that the distinction between reality and a concept is non-existent. What is real just means what is an idea, a concept. I’ve taken this journey for a long time, passing through analysis of local and global views of the time and space system, down into particle systems within that environment, along the way finding that the ring theory has a lot going for it in understanding this level of system (in my mind anyway), then as I try to envision how this reality formed at the beginning of time, I headed into a vast new elegant realm of scale-less systems–something arising from an infinitely small or large system, where the entities can be anything at all–and while trying to make a distinction between reality versus concepts we form in our minds about that reality in a scale-less system, now realizing that I am on the threshold of discovering that there is no difference–the reason something arises from nothing is because there isn’t a something there in the first place, there are only concepts, patterns, constructions that have no intrinsic existence. If I derive a causal relationship given a set of starting assumptions, that is just as real as we are. That relationship will always exist, regardless of whether there is a reality based implementation. Similarly, I will always exist given the starting assumptions of a particular pattern of particles, and I will not exist when those patterns morph into something else for any reason. I am an idea that will always exist given the right set of patterns. Does it matter what system I am implemented in, whether it’s electrons and protons, water vapor, or God’s mind? Well, actually yes–because since each of these are ideas in their own right, they form part of the starting assumptions that make up me, the others will be similar but not the true idea of me. But that doesn’t matter, because all you need to do is back up and include the particular idea of electrons and protons, and you will have the true idea of me. In some complex and profound sense, I, because the idea of me will ALWAYS exist given the right set of assumptions, am immortal.

Agemoz

Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

2+2=0!

June 19, 2006

Back from a wonderful vacation–but thought about various permutations of this scaleless system artifice I am building. I want to think on this quite a bit more since it is very clear to me that this is a profound area of study that seems to have drawn very little thinking from the major philosophers and mathematicians of history–yet is pointed right at the very heart of how we came into being. You can get more detail of the artifice from my previous postings, but they can be quickly summarized as thoughts about how to get something from nothing. Several corollaries emerge, such as being careful to specify what it means to have a nothing versus a something, what it means to have spatial and time dimensions, and so on. The crucial degree of freedom for every observable dimension is the property of scalelessness. If there is nothing present in a finite system, you can never get something without an external influence (such as something from another dimension able to morph to the nothing dimension). But as soon as you allow an infinite system of nothing, then the mathematics of infinities permits something to emerge. The property of scalelessness emerges from an infinite system of nothing, so one could imagine that an infinitely slight curvature of some infinitesimal property of the nothing system would actually seem to be a lifesize entity to an observer of the same scale. The thing that was so amazing to me from the last posting was–we don’t even have to know what the property characteristics are, because the same scalelessness could be applied to the entire infinite set of possible properties. *Any* possible property could emerge with any possible scale in both time and space and ultimately form a system from which entities capable of observing the property emerge!

Now, after a fair amount of (somewhat incredulous!) thought, I’ve realized that mathematically the path to something from nothing will always exist (using care to understand what a true nothing is). I’m tempted to then head down the path of what that says about the existence of God.. but I’m really not ready for that. There’s just a whole vista of thinking about scaleless systems I want to do first, to see what properties and characteristics will come forth.

Along those lines, I had a very interesting discussion about spatial dimensions recently–and while I’ve discussed my thinking about the appearance of three dimensions in previous postings, I’d like to restate it here as a summary, because it helps one see the potential power of the enormous degree of freedom a scaleless system gives us. It was (and is) my contention that the desire of mathematicians to establish the three space dimensions is an illusion. It’s a common question to ask why are there three, why not 4 or some other number. Physicists are clamoring for ten or more to resolve the relativity versus quantum mathematics. But the reality (at least as it appears to me) is there is only one–and that includes time, I think. Dimensions are set up to create a system whereby unique points in space or time or both have a unique identity. Practically any system of dimensions that covers the space will do this, but we happen to choose one that specifies dimensions that are orthogonal and straight, and thus come up with three. It can successfully be argued that a single dimension path that winds its way through every point in space uniquely is sufficient (think a spiral in two dimensions, you can locate every point with a unique value that is the length along the spiral). Yes, we can ask questions as to why there aren’t four spatial dimensions that are straight and orthogonal–and I would rebut that the spiral is a single dimension that is straight and orthogonal, since there are no other dimensions–to a snake lying on the spiral! We see three dimensions because of how our sensors are imposed within our space, not because there really are three!

Why does this relate to scaleless systems? Because an important question in characterizing scaleless systems is did the dimensions come first, or are they an intrinsic development of something from nothing. I argue that they develop from a nothing system that is scaleless–and that the number of dimensions an observer sees is a direct result of his formation along with the something formation!!

One exciting development related to this is about one of my first corollaries, the one that says that a system is scaleless if there is nothing in it or if there is only one entity in it, that no comparisons are possible. But I discovered that the system is *still* scaleless even when there are two somethings. Yes, you can compare the two somethings and call one bigger than the other, but you still have no way of knowing how big or tiny either one “really” is. So, a new corollary: a system retains its scalelessness even if it is not a nothing system. Now if you think just a bit I’ll bet you’ll hit upon a shocking revelation (look at the title if you need a hint!): there is no difference (in an infinite scale, ie scaleless, system) between a nothing system and a something system….!!

agemoz

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

Digging deeper into Nothing. Will I get Somewhere?

May 22, 2006

I’ve been doing some rather unfocused thinking about setting up an architecture for scaleless systems. I have gotten to this point by analyzing what we can conclude about our common global reality, and discovering the critical question–could this global reality have arisen from nothing? Once you dig into this question, new ones pop up, like what is nothing, and how could we go from a nothing to a something. Then a bunch more questions pop up–is it possible to go from a something to a nothing, and could a something border a nothing. And still further, are dimensions something that pop up from nothing, or does nothing include the concept of dimensions. And–are the rules for time dimensions different from space dimensions (both time and space are scaleless systems, whether they are nothing or not). But if dimensions form from nothing systems, then why haven’t more dimensions, time or space, apparently formed from nothing?

Obviously, this is a whole rich vein of thinking that requires a systematic analysis in order to get decent answers. I’m guessing that these questions and analysis fall into some branch of philosophy and it would be worthwhile to do a little research here. In the meantime, I’ll continue to create corollaries for my scaleless system artifice. As I dig into the methodologies used to create a new mathematics for scaleless systems, it’s becoming obvious that careful thinking and rigorous methods will be necessary–one misstep will head into a jungle of thought that has no connection to reality.

Before I dig in, and try to approach this somewhat rigorously by setting up a system of rules, I think it would be valuable to think–just what parameters configure a scaleless system. Kind of a stupid question in a way–“I have a non-existent system. Obviously it has no scale. What are the parameters of this system”! It’s ok. You can think I’m being stupid. But I really think this is a rich gold mine of new ideas. I have absolutely nothing in this system. What parameters in this system are scaleless? Can this system have boundaries? It may sound silly for a nothing system to have boundaries, but both questions are fascinating in its own right if you realize that a nothing system is nothing more than a scaleless system. For example–what parameters are scaleless in this system is really amazing the more you think of it, because it sheds a very new light on our something system (ie, a system that is not nothing, it has at least a measurable something in it). We’ve already seen that both space and time are scaleless in this system–but I suddenly realized something else is scaleless–scaleless in a very profound sense. When we have a something system, we have entities in it, such as a field of electrostatic potential. This potential has magnitude and direction–both of which could be scaleless parameters in a nothing system. But far more important is the realization that the very entity itself is a scaleless parameter. My amazement at this may be very hard to see if this is your first exposure to my thinking about scaleless systems, but I think if you think about this a bit, you’ll see where I’m headed. I’m not in the cave full of treasure yet, but I do get the sense that I’m near something very big here… I also realized that even though a something system has stuff in it, it is STILL SCALELESS, the rules that formed something from nothing are still here, which means that more new somethings can emerge–which might explain why the universe is so vast. Just because some somethings appeared, doesn’t prevent more nothing getting turned into something.

Space. Time. Entity. Connections between scaleless systems. What scaleless properties are preserved from nothing to something, and what symmetry breaks when something is created.

Either you think I’m a totally blathering idiot–or you are as excited as I am as I travel into this bizarre world..

agemoz

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

Rules for Nothing!

April 11, 2006

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the search for reality, in particular the surmised global reality that encompasses all of us, needs to come from nothing. As mentioned before, space and time, as well as the energy within and the photons that form stable states (rings), appear to require a formation stage–from nothing. This gets tricky because nothing needs to be carefully defined, and that is hard to do when all we have sensed is something. We have no experience with what nothing is (I can hear you laughing there!). But seriously–the reason there is a problem is because what we think of as nothing, probably really isn’t. The zero-point state is not the lowest energy state possible, so spontaneous electron-positron pair production gets more likely the emptier our space! I have wondered if our vacuum is really just a state where no particles exist, but that’s not necessarily the same thing as nothing. You see why this gets hard? We really have no way of determining what nothing is. But, as long as we are aware of this, there’s nothing wrong with exploring nothing and trying to determine what models of nothing would give rise to this something we are all in. In the last post, I headed down the path of assuming that there is a type of nothing that has no rings, just linear photons. No particles, no mass, no time, and no spatial dimension. The interesting properties of a system of infinite scale allows me to envision that great complexity can emerge from tiny perturbations of a huge system. But that begs a couple of questions–what caused the perturbations, and why did identical/undifferentiable particles form, which appear to be a violation of systems of infinite scale (because all electrons appear to have exactly the same mass and size).

As I’ve thought about this over the last couple of days, it’s become very clear that a new mathematics is needed. We could call it the algebra of infinite systems. What kinds of rules can we make, what kinds of mathematical tools can we make that will allow us to handle systems with infinite possible range, dimensional capacity, and time. Can the concepts of motion, particles, and even the appearance of three dimensions and the coupling factor between electrostatic and magnetic fields be derived from rules of infinite systems? Could quantum dual-slit behavior or Aharonov experiment behavior come from such rules?

It’s easy to say no if we think of finite systems–no finite scale in either space or time will cause anything to emerge. And, we might be able to say the same about a system with infinite range, both in time and space–which brings us right around back to nothing. When there truly is nothing, it appears that you then have a system of infinite range both in time and space. Any finite perturbation cannot arise from a finite system without there being a something in or out of the system to trigger it. But a system of infinite range, which should include the class of nothing systems, may permit the existence of infinitely small perturbations–and our existence will form over a scale that can be thought of as zooming in, either large or small, to make the perturbations huge. This is possible only in a system with infinite range–we can become infinitely small (or infinitely big) and all of a sudden, we have a non-nothing system. A very hard idea to convey, which is why I want to formalize discovery of establishable rules for an infinite-range system such as a nothing. As I mentioned in the last post, there are two possible infinite-range systems, one that is truly nothing, including dimensionally, and another level which has photons, but no time or space because there is only one frame of reference. I actually can envision the second level emerging or perhaps being identical to the first. But what would it take for a perturbation (necessary for ring formation that then causes relative (to light travel) spatial and time dimensions) to emerge?

Right now, I don’t have any idea. Gravity? would that do something to the single frame of reference that would create a new dimension normal to the direction of travel? I am glossing over another question too, that is the first level is made of photons, lots of them, with no spatial displacement (since the first level has no space or time dimension). But how then does the interchange of electrostatic and magnetic fields work in such an infinite-range system? Darn, but that’s a challenging question. Perhaps the answer will become clear when we work out a set of rules for infinite-range systems. But be aware–it’s not clear that adding infinite range to a system means anything will emerge on its own. Maybe God must be here to trigger the Big Bang. But there’s no question–we should be able to start formulating a rigorous approach to analyzing systems of infinite range. We should be able to create at least a few rules about what *can* happen in such a system–and our existence, along with quantum mechanics and relativity and particle physics should be able to provide some directed analysis of how the existence came to be.

So: now, the time has come to ask–if there really is nothing, no dimensions, no energy, whatever, and infinite range, both in space, time, and in dimension, is possible–what rules can be derived? As always, we have to start by carefully forming our assumptions. And that is what I will try next.

Agemoz

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

back out of science for a bit

April 8, 2006

Hello again. A long delay as I’ve had to put the thinking journal aside for a while. School, work, performances, and some intense work on another big project of mine have swallowed up all of my time! But I’ve started back into thinking about things and have a few things I want to say now.

First, I’m going to back out of that heavy duty science analysis for a bit. I augured in deep–and while I’d like to show you the math, that really is a detail for another time. I suppose if I were trying to convince you that what I say is true, I need to do that. But I’m not. I’m just describing and organizing my thought processes here, you can choose whether it’s worth your time or not. I’m pretty sure it’s true, yet it runs into a problem–why do particle accelerators not show evidence of these rings? They seem to show that electrons are infinitely small points. I think I know why this is happening, and want to write about that–but not now. Let’s rise above this particular cluster of ideas and see where the concept goes. After all, as I’ve mentioned before–science is all about digging deep and verifying every detail so that you can build a rock-solid foundation on what you have concluded. The trouble is, that takes so long and requires so much heavy duty work that I’d like to just do some thinking on what this all means for now.

The most interesting question that emerge from all this science is the lack of absolute indexes on our scale, either in time or space. From this apparent lack of scale emerges points (sub-atomic particles) that seem to be characterizable as photons bent into a self-sustaining loop (the rings I’ve described in detail previously). In the hypothesis I am chewing on right now, I am focusing on the very initial transition of existence at the Big Bang. Here, let’s say there was a linear photon symmetry, that is there were only linear moving phtotons that arrive at the same time as when they were emitted and have no separation in space. This is true because in the frame of reference of photons, using the Lorentz equations, photons have no time to their existence and cover no distance. This is tenable because in this frame of reference, the only one possible right now, there is also no energy (no time or distance presupposes no ability to transition to another state, so there cannot be an energy to do so). It is only in the frame of reference of our current existence that a propagation time and distance comes into existence.

In that very initial phase of the Big Bang of universe formation, only that dimensionless array of photons exists, which should be proposed as existing without time or distance. I’m positing that this initial energy takes the form of photons only, no particles–objects that have no space or time element in its frame of reference. I think the initial configuration would have to be “traveling” all in the same direction, otherwise dimensions would already be present and I’m positing that dimensions emerge with the formation of particles. This “travel” would have no time component, since otherwise there would also be a pre-existing time component, and in any case, photons, in their own frame of reference, do not experience a time interval.

Note that this hypothesized beginning has no scale, hence no predefined energy, even possibly no energy, thus providing a path for how the something from nothing conundrum might be resolved. We’ve previously examined how a scale-less system has rules due to infinite range, and these rules may permit emergence (something to augur in on later). Now, let’s suppose that two of this array of photons all traveling in the same direction somehow interact. Yeah, I know, pretty speculative and handwavy and all that. I’m just thinking, abstracting, seeing if something emerges from this line of thought (what a weird thing to say given that that is exactly what I’m try to describe as the initial moments of the Big Bang. Could it be, that the Big Bang is nothing more than some great entity’s, say God’s, ideas taking root, and then getting flushed out into reality as we know it? See the previous early discussions on what global reality might really be). In this interaction, the photons fold on each other and form a particle, thus forming something that has a different frame of reference than the original array of particles. In fact, such an interaction *forms* the concept of a frame of reference, since prior to this there was none (actually there is only one frame of reference, and this is equivalent to saying there are *no* frames of reference). All the spacetime entities emerge at once: space, time, energy, and frames of reference.

Yow. I don’t feel like I’ve described the amazing level of what I am thinking very well here. When you think of a traveling array of photons taking no time or distance to reach their “destination”, there is no space and no time (and no energy levels). There is only a single frame of reference, so nothing exists outside of this dimensionless, timeless array. When a single pair of photons interact, all of a sudden, a second frame of reference appears that is not traveling with the rest of them, and this emergence of a frame of reference defines the dimensions that then come into being. I see a clear way how space, time, and energy can emerge if that happens. What I don’t see yet is how the emergence of a perturbation could happen–but if it does, the whole rest of the Big Bang seems clear. Somewhere in the rules of infinite scale is the ability for things to emerge–I need to spend time thinking about that, because once I have that, all the rest of the pieces make sense, I think. So I need to examine the concept of existence within a system of infinite scales. Time and space and particles emerge from that. How? Here is the key to our existence, if I can see this correctly. It all comes down to answering Aristotle’s question of how something can emerge from nothing.

Agemoz

Tags:
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »

the rings of reality

December 28, 2005

OK, I,m back. Illness, then a family vacation, so I was out for a while.

I left off about a month ago with my study and analysis of reality. I began with a set of guidelines for this thinking journal, and then worked out a basic set of assumptions. From there, I spent a bit of time on the concept of truth (truth is not all that useful a concept) and meaning of life (even less useful a concept unless we realize that we have the freedom to define it). Then I got down to business and started to work on the concept of reality. It became useful to me to break that down to local reality (the only “real” reality, sensory input) and the implied global reality. The goal, at least for now, is to make statements about our common global reality. Most people go through life thinking we all share reality, but the fact is that none of us really do, and as a result, what that global reality is is much tougher to define than it appears.

To work on global reality, it is necessary to analyze our local reality and to see the limitations of our view of it. Traditionally, science has presupposed three dimensions and time, but these are assumptions with heavy baggage. I try to show that the only thing we are fairly certain of is that there are sensed objects that move. From here, we can choose to create three dimensions, but that is an arbitrary choice–we could assume that reality exists on an outward spherical spiral (reality is one dimensional) or consists of outward circular spirals (reality is two dimensional), or an infinity of other possibilities. Realizing that, I spend some time with space and time, trying not to head down these pre-arranged assumptions of science in an effort to see our local reality more clearly and to make better conclusions about our global reality.

I then describe the conflicting science views of the causal and quantum nature of global reality, the current most significant controversy/paradox of physics today. I gave a basic description of the special relativity transforms of frames of reference and of the quantum principle of entanglement. I want to assume that these views are both accurate descriptions of our global reality, so I prepared you for a circular line of thought (ahem, that’s a pun)– that circles, or rings, seem to show a way out of the paradox and simultaneously show a clearer picture of what our global reality is.

Let’s start by making a single assumption that I will call the founding assumption. All elements of the global reality travel at the speed of light.

Whoopy doo, you say. We already know that the speed of light (ignoring quantum perturbations for now) is the maximum speed for any real particle. Wait. Read that more carefully. All elements travel AT the speed of light! Not any slower, not stopped! First, let me define element as a basic building block of our reality, and for the time being I will assume that that field element is an electromagnetic entity. I really should be more rigorous but I don’t want to get bogged down with that now, I want you to see the power of the overall concept before trying to fill in the details. To help visualize this abstraction, recognize that aggregate combinations of these elements can easily be seen to form a photon, a massless particle with momentum that moves at the speed of light.

If an aggregate can be formed in a ring, the elements move at the speed of light around the ring. The founding assumption is still being met, but the aggregate now is free to move at any speed less than the speed of light (at the speed of light, it’s easy to use geometry to see that there’s no way to meet the founding assumption, a ring requires transverse motion such that a field element would have to be moving at greater than the speed of light). Here’s the amazing thing about this idea–if you move this aggregate ring, the founding assumption requires that the aggregate particle obeys the Lorentz Transforms! Not only that, but it requires that the aggregate particle obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics! It also gives the particle mass (by converting the field entities momentum into ring distortion when a force is applied) and computes both electrostatic attraction and repulsion (a current problem in physics is electrostatic attraction, which has a momentum problem–shooting photons at another particle should not cause attraction because momentum is not conserved). There’s another very interesting aspect to this idea–the dichtomy between “free” particles such as photons, and “bound” particles such as electrons. Both sets of elements travel at the speed of light, with no apparent time passing over the time of their travel, and no mass, only momentum, in the frame of reference of their direction of travel. By folding the path of motion into a ring, a symmetry breaking occurs, and sublight speed, sublight lengths, and particle mass all emerge.

It does many other things as well, and I want to auger in a bit to detail why I can make such a bold set of statements. In the end, I believe that the founding assumption will allow us to create a model of the global reality that resolves the paradox between causality and quantum entanglement, and much more important, will give us a guiding light into the very deep waters of our global reality. Let’s start with the Lorentz transforms. If you recall, these transforms describe how space and time distort when an observer looks at something (say, a clock) that is moving at high speeds relative to himself. I ask you to look at this clock as if it were composed of these aggregate particles. In fact, it is probably easiest to visualize the clock as a single aggregate particle obeying the founding assumption. Now. Use geometry to describe how this clock changes when you accelerate it to high speeds. Use the time for the particle elements to complete a single loop from the observer’s perspective to determine the apparent time of the clock. If you do the geometry, you will discover (and be a bit shocked like I was) to discover that this founding assumption leads to the Lorentz transforms of special relativity! All you need is the founding assumption (all elements go AT the speed of light) and rings. If you need a hint, note that in space time, a ring will form a spiral or a cycloid (or a combination of the two, depending on the ring’s orientation). Unroll the spiral, enforce the speed of the ring entities, and see what happens to the aggregate component dimensions and the time to cycle around the spiral.

Is that astonishing or what! Next time, I’ll derive it a bit, then go into why the property of mass and inertia fall out of this.

You may wonder, when will we ever get to the heavy duty stuff, like “Is God there” and “Why am I here, what is my purpose”, etc–All I can say is, be patient with me, I’ll get there–trust that this foray into some pretty deep science is necessary to set a valid foundation for those questions. If I don’t do that, the chance of my finding a valid path (the truth, if you wish) is much, much smaller. Global reality is incredibly deep and the number of false paths are so many.

agemoz

Tags:
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »