hoola

to say that reality is not mathematics is stating a presumption as fact...there are 2 "regularities" , if I understand your meaning, that do not directly equate from mathematical structures to known physics. Zero and infinity. Math is so vast that one component describes the software (fixed), and another describes the hardware (fluid). Our universe is that hardware being described by the software functions, all based upon the structure of logic that preceeded and formed the entirety of maths. This is not to say that the entire scope of the maths are needed to do the job of describing that hardware...there are other exceptions perhaps, those 2 seem the most obvious...and I am also speculating that gravity is a product of the logic that formed the maths, so the gravity function developed before logic went on to describe the math necessary to cause the BB. That is possibly why gravity is difficult to reconcile with the other 3 forces which developed later. I think gravity may play by slightly different rules than the rest of the physical universe, but close enough to interact with it. This also may explain why gravity seems so weak compared to the other 3...

here is an idea I had a while back when considering a possible gravity mechanism, Suppose gravity is due to random entanglements between various components within matter. If, as an average, all the spins within material constituents occasionally "see" the exact same alignment in materials surrounding them, and they become briefly "entangled", but then quickly lose that, as they are exposed to the random "brownian motion" in the immediate spin state environment. During that brief moment of entanglement, which is going on between a certain proportion of all material objects in the universe continuously, each momentary entanglement allows a component of the gravitation process to engage. Those brief pulses of entanglement "make and break" somehow provide the necessary "communication" between every bit of matter in the universe...the more matter in a large object, the higher number of possible arbitrary entanglements it could have to be "communicated" within itself and to external matter...so the more matter, the more gravitation. If this were to be true, in order to cancel a gravitational field, you would have to shield entanglements from occurring across a specific boundary of a test area. It would have gravity within itself as normal, but would be free from external gravitational influences...if the test area was inside a sphere, it would become gravitationally detached from the rest of the universe...this goes along with the idea that gravity does warp space, but that may be more of a result of the gravitational process, and not a mechanism...as space itself, or virtual particles, may respond to the same make and break mechanism of the arbitrary entanglements to proximate massive objects...

I think reality is mathematics, or a mathematical object. Although some information that math describes is not within physical reality...such as zero and infinity. So to say "why does nature follow mathematics", or "why are there laws-rules in science", is due to nature and science having no choice in the matter. There is no other path (at the moment) to follow...unless and until the substance that delivered the maths can be discovered, with which to probe into details prior to the BB, plus offer insights as to why the math laws that describe out universe have the properties that they do...

Reality follows the laws of nature. The laws of nature are essentially an exposition of mathematics. Mathematics is a derived "thing" from the laws of logic. Logic must have preceded mathematics and is also a "thing" that evolved from simpler forms...from a "thing" with less than logical informational content...

I-try....in the most fundamental basis of reality, do you agree with john wheeler's idea that at the bottom of everything is mathematics? Does your model have anything to infer on what led up to the BB?

I-try....thank you for your kind attention..hoola

I-try.....I have several questions as to gravitational phenomena. The first involves virtual particles. Do you think they act as a partial mechanism of gravitational behavior? Why does gravity seem to ignore individual particles below certain rest masses? If the warpage of space results in gravitation , why does matter warp space? And if matter does warp space, is this warpage a cause of gravitation or a symptom/component of some underlying mechanism? I see a possibility that gravity results from the underpinnings of mathematics, which is logic and therefore described from a source prior to the development of the maths, so slightly incompatible with the maths, which do describe the other fundamental forces so well. Which goes along with my model that logic predates the BB, which generates math, and only after that generated description reaches a certain point, can the BB and the subsequent universe happen...

yes, light cone was a misnomer...I meant extending distant visible observations of the infrared into the visible spectrum, of which were visible to the eye before they were stretched by space...I would think (hope) a gravitational wave based cell phone wouldn't give you brain cancer...or need those awful, ugly blinking antennas...and that any advanced species would have this and be doing a search for us with gravitational waves along with regular emf as part of it's seti program...

it seems that gravity and other forces are expressed within the object of mathematics which is wholly derived from the "object of logic". The separate forces may not have "fractured" from each other...but are deeply related by the specific attributes that logic directs math in describing fundamental forces...and may have been expressed sequentially mathematically, only seeming to have been derived from one another, or of some common force...as the BB unraveled from a state of minimum entropy...

my interests deal strictly with frequency of light, no mention of it's speed. The only speed relevant to any question was of the observer...increasing the frequency of distant light from infrared into the visible, thereby extending the light cone perhaps a bit to a fast observer...I look forward to getting gravity waves to replace traditional radio/microwaves for communications..I presume this is technically possible...

so, a person at position X who is stationary would view the same depth of light cone as a person going at the speed of light as that person also crosses (near) positon X? (Both looking in the same direction)...it seems to me the light cone would be extended somewhat as the infrared and microwave red-shifted light was raised in frequency to become visible to the moving observer only...Actually I am more interested in the question of gravity waves being detectable with long term analysis of quick variations present in red shift measurements of distant galaxies, as a sort of gravity wave weather report for the region containing our galaxy. Presumably it would be an averaged chaotic noisey area due to many sources adding and nulling, but with really big occasional signals due to black hole collapses and such from certain directions...

I do think "it" is stretching, in that virtual particles are a main mechanism of space and when the creation/annilalation orbits get elongated, they persist for longer periods of time. This allows the particle energies to persist longer than normal, so the local environment has more exposure to those energies in a sort of "pulse width modulated" expression...and the longer the pulse width ( caused by the oblongation of orbits) the more intense the gravitational effect seems to develop in the area. After a certain point the elongation is so extreme, as at a black hole horizon, they separate. At this point maximum gravitation is expressed, as a high finite value...this is to say there seems to be a causal relationship between the two things but may be a result of gravity more so than part of it's mechanism...

a space telescope sitting in deep space. Forward of the scope is a galaxy "A" that is redshifted to a certain amount "R". Directly behind the space telescope is a similar galaxy at the same redshift. If the space telescope advances towards galaxy A at 90%C and records the redshift, and then reverses and goes the opposite direction at the same speed, will the same redshift be recorded for galaxy B? Wouldn't a slightly uneven averaged spatial expansion of space cause the two measured redshifts to differ slightly? And wouldn't a stationary telescope measure tiny real time redshift changes in observing galaxy "A", as gravity wave noise randomly shifts the observed spectrum of galaxy "A"?

would a telescope looking forward on a speeding rocket see the distant red shifted galaxies with less shift? If the speed of travel was close to light, would a telescope see previously unseeable galaxies, past the normal light cone limitation? If a ship were to travel at or above light speed, would it be able to see the BB?

it seems as though math theory allows self contained interaction between the constituents of math, while based upon the logic that underlies reality, and can describe objects, and being logical within the confines of math, do not always accurately portray every aspect of physical realities, although largely seem to. A question to me seems, what special things can math provide proof of that do not manifest in the real universe...? Infinites are sometimes needed in finite proofs, but that doesn't mean that infinities are real other than they exist as functional concepts within math itself. I don't think infinity exists outside the realm of the maths...Also the zero seems of similar property. In considerations of "zero", and the nature of the "why anything" question, how did things get started? If there was a void at the beginning, why should anything show up? I say because this void had a default minimum of information, of one "bit". That bit was manifest in the notion that there was a void....and one void only, not 2 or 27. So there was exactly "1 nothing". I refer to this 1 nothing as the virtual bit, or v-bit..I see the v-bit as the genesis model of informational modelling of the universe(s)...when everything is removed from space, then space itself is pulled out, a v-bit remains that cannot be reduced...so only can increase...(the one way arrow of time is an associated effect), and that single virtual bit increased into all this.....and is still increasing and explains the expansion.

4. yes the void existed outside space time. It was a dimensionless void, and everything you can describe such as fields, energies, even the dimensions (space) came from there, all mathematically described in the overall process. Time began first with the fragmentation of the chaos. After a long series of descriptions, I see the dimension descriptions as a final (major) action of the IBH, as the expression of these dimensions provided "someplace for things to be"...causing (allowing) the BB. Once the dimensions were expressed, the IBH "evaporated" it's information into the newly created space, in a rough analogy to normal black hole evaporation in contemporary space if they are deprived of fuel for an extended period. The same process was much bigger with the IBH as active element. 5. The ibh idea has't much to say about re-occuring universes, it mostly speaks to this universe, or other possible universes contemporary to ours. The information well may contain other universe descriptions. There is only so much information that can ever be described, adjusted by the rate of descriptions, which is finite, so the number of contemporaneous universes is finite. In a cyclical scenario, all information would have to be removed from a universe before another universe could be allowed to express (BB). Any stray information coming in from a pre-existing universe would skew the results due to the information never falling below a level required to establish a void of the quality needed to allow normal development. I can even imagine there is a "cutoff point" of information flux strength and type, that will allow another universe to form. That gets very complex, as perhaps the previous universe's stray flux affects the baby universe and there is a sort of evolution process, almost a sexual format of mixing the "dna" of the two. I prefer to think about the well making one or several universes similtaneously, and pretty much stopping there. But in consideration of a cyclical set of universes, one could see a mixing of one to the next causing a real evolutionary, sexual mixing of information...leading to perhaps a series of universes with one eventually having the right "adulteration" to allow complexity sufficient to allow life. If the universe(s) had a birth, then odds are they have a death. That seems to logic against cyclical endlessness, but doesnt' prohibit the idea. 6. Yes, the void abides the laws of physics as it created them ! 8. there was no cause for nothing to exist. The void was not a thing, the zen of nothingness...my thinking stops there as stated before only because to do so is pre-informational (pre v-bit). If I have moved the goal post back from the BB to the void, I am temporarily satisfied, and I have only a freakish quasi-anthropomorphic fantasy to go beyond that. The IBH story is more about why stuff is here, not about why stuff wasn't. As to your last question...if there was an "infinite" cycling of universes, at any one point the number would be increasing, and could forever, but at any one point, a theoretical impartial observer of the entire scene could observe the number of universes that has occurred since the first one and tally how many had been. There can always be one more, hence never reaches the illogical statement that there was or ever will be an infinite number of them. Just as PI has been, and still is cranking out new information since the our form of logic created PI, the amount will never be infinite, only big and getting bigger. In that sense, I see that endless string continuing the descriptions from the well, maintaining from chronon to chronon, our existences with constant re-discriptions, with updates of course, which allow movements within the universe . Every point in space (a tiny whirling PI) is a point of expression of the info flux as a residual final component of function for this particular universe, post BB. As the flux continues, the expression continues,(maintenance of the spell)... *that's a lil' joke, son*... allowing for the expansion of space as well as maintenance of what is already there...I see our universe and possibly others, residing within the IBH and all is illusion of reality, or external to the IBH, as a more substantial projection of remote information, but still a bit of a contrivance. I prefer the latter. Better to be more real than less. I see those "tiny whirling PIs" as the source of the dark energy. As they crank out information, that translates as a weak flux coming from everywhere, slightly pushing the universe apart from within local regions..

Lucius.... the IBH scenario does not as of yet suggest if things repeat or not...maybe they do. I can only say with certainty that things happened once. There does seem to be a default minimum of information in our universe. How, or if this was setup to be this way, seems a true unknowable. Descriptive events leading up to the BB may be just as unknowable.......It is pretty hard to imagine the BB simply "just happened" without a whole lot of "prep work". I suppose one could make some anthropomorphic argument that sentient life caused some sort of "a universe will only exist if sentience evolves within it", or some variation of that. I am not a big fan of those sorts of ideas...My best guess is that a void of the type I am describing occurred naturally, perhaps only once in the history of the universe, although I realize that dodges your question, of which I have thought about over the last 2 years or so as I was refining the main thrust of the idea. Thank you so much for your excellent feedback...you have seen through the idea as far as I think it is possible to do so...this type of conversation is what I was waiting for.....edd

Your last statement, in reference to "absolute nothing" doesn't fit within the IBH concept. The void has the v-bit as an unavoidable consequence of being "one nothing". Time comes into factor as the v-bit fragments into chaos, each fragment represents change, and one erratic tick of the pre-logic clock. Any change represents a tick from thereon just as now. Now that logic has an established clock frequency standard, we have a chronon, or minimum period of quantisized time increments. Everything is finite and possibly repeating but never infinite, only very large and old... If any universe has a life expectancy, since it had a birth, a punctuated series of universes could commence as soon as one de-materializes, for what ever reason. Any establishment of a void minimum will have the same contamination of the single v-bit, giving another beginning to it's evolution, and re-starting time again within that region once chaotic fragmentation begins. The question is...can a void minimum ever be established again, or will once information makes an appearance, has it has poisoned the nascent potential of any new universe, much as opening the sealed container will break symmetry of entangled particles, by introducing external influences..? .My definition on how to build a universe is to first remove all information within a given region. Shield the region from any exterior matter of energies and the conditions will allow a universe to begin to evolve as long as the shield holds, and you were to somehow perform the feat of removing all extraneous information from it in the first place. Paint a big red 1 on the side and then wait patiently for perhaps a trillion years for something to happen.... to re-establish those requirements is all that sentience could do to make a new universe within an existing universe, given the slow speeds of current computer hardware.

free will to me is a composite experience. The IBH I propose has all the information in it and your deterministic "entry" into a novel form of free will expression is a mathematical dictate that is ultimately sourced from there. That is not to say you didn't think of "it", only that we are also a sourced minor component of the IBH well of information, therefore free will is as real as the universe itself...which is to say not really "real" in the generally accepted definition of the term...but real enough to fit a functioning definition of free will. A standard definition to me of free will is from an "unsourced" non-existent theoretical...and perhaps a new entry in the informational universe..but can there be any in the existential condition within the IBH? At is roots is the endless string of PI that has been describing meanings at the fastest rate allowable, for perhaps trillions of years...

the void, is not a true void. This is the key. The default label on a single v-bit tends to eventual growth. Each universe this effect is responsible for depends on the principles of it's perhaps unique form of logic. This is also to imagine another universe still within the IBH, as PI still is ticking off the original "flame"( 3.15159....), new information is being expressed. This should supply new universes with different architechures of material protocols based upon differing logic structure. The void exists no longer as it is now filled up with information and fails to meet the description of void. Time does take place in the void, as any change in the information within it as it evolves signifies change. This rate of time was chaotic also, just as the fragmented unstable v-bit was, until the logic froze out and logic formed. As the logic constructed the maths, a fixed rate of the chronon was established, from a association of the primary (for this universe) logic dictates. This is the fastest thing that can be calculated by any computing device (within this particular universe), and is the processor speed of the IBH. The IBH is an "informational black hole", in that the accumulating information developed advanced interrelationships, and amongst other normal parameters, describes mass mathematically.....that is how I see all fundamentals, as descriptions. The IBH is what the universe is, description-wise. Amongst all this "software" of information of how logic played out in our particular case, was also a description of the hardware to activate the underlying equations of these fundamental description. Our universe is one of the "hardwares", and so is not really real, only a simulation so real, that it falls under any reasonable definition of reality. I could go on to muse on what this could mean as regards to free will of any sentience developing within this universe...(anything you can think, do or say, is in the IBH today). I will explain my reasoning for this if you haven't already read it in a previous entry.....hopefully this answered you time questions....thanks lucius....edd

the void is absence of information. That definition requires a bit of an adjustment though, as I see that a void is by definition never completely empty of information, only at a minimum state. ( the no nothing requirement) That is why it is a "doped void", as it has information which can be described with a simple question....how many voids were there? 13?...77?...2/3?....the answer seems to be one (1) void...that is the original v-bit of quasi information as a theoretical identifier or "label", if you will. The void came to be be with absence of information, other than the default v-bit of there being 1 void. It is not a thing in itself, other than that one v-bit identifier..so nothing created the void. That v-bit signifies the first archaic bit of pre-information.. From this v- bit I go on to construct an imaginary chaos, as the v- bit is a fluctuating theoretical, as logic has not evolved yet to stabilize it's behavior so it becomes a froth of premathematical v-bits of unstable and unknowable value, due to lack of the before mentioned logic. Within this region of theoretical chaos, a region froze out with some v-bits randomly lasting longer than others, eventually leading to a few stable v-bits attaining a certain but stable value. As time proceeded, these seed bits began associations that formulate the underpinning of logic, added to by the randomly stablizing v-bits that are subsumed into the domain of logic with the other seed bits. In this process of accretion they evolve from v-bits to theoretical bits, one step closer to "real" bits of information that we know of today, which in an of themselves are not "real" in the general sense of the word. This shows how ephemeral a concept of the v-bit is...a primitive form of something that is merely theoretical. Yet the current universe is built from such bits. As logic evolved, associations of values allowed a single bit enough "stability" to acquire an additional identifier, a geometric one, the point. This theoretical point has a geometric similarity to any sphere present today, as allowed by the logic that regulates the developing maths, a subset of the developing logic requires that the circumference and diameter of this new point have the relationship of PI. This applies to any true point or macroscopic sphere, theoretical or otherwise...the thing goes on from here to describe the IBH, but I won't go on unless there is some interest from anyone that I do so. It is all spelled out in prior entries over the months, and in better detail than this short description...just search engine my entries...thanks for you interest.

I only think it as one possible alternative to something that seems even less likely. Ok, so a quantum fluctuation starts this universe, and will infinitely times...then why hasn't more BBs occurred, creating quite a spectacular mess in this existing universe? Futhermore this is like saying a "standard working component" of this universe was responsible for the creation of the universe, but there is no reason to think it existed prior to the universe itself...you can't logically say the universe called itself into existence by something that exists after it's own birth....the baby doesn't create itself.....or is responsible for it's parents getting together....I only want to start a conversation about possible scenarios that attempt to describe a heirarcy of information evolution that started with the void, went through an identifiable number of stages, culminating in the maths, which as a factoring of the endless algorithm PI, describe the universe...sure, the idea is silly, but no sillier than anything else I have read.. actually krauss's idea is pretty good, and the math may point in that direction, but the formulae you described has an infinity sign in it....a sure sign that an illogical anomaly is more likely to show up...rather than a universe. My IBH scenario posits a universe or multiverse of finite number, with no "nothings" and no "infinites" of theoretical or real things...including time. I do see a linear pathway from the void, which has a default informational content of precisely one v-bit, as a "doped void", and that is the origin of the flow of things. I have posted before on the IBH idea of mine, and have stopped directly mentioning it as it is not well received, nor should it be....if anyone has an alternative idea of the "why anything" question, I would love to hear it...but it must propose an origination that is external to any known artifact or device known to exist within the current universe...

I say no to the laurence krauss style of creation...a quantum fluctuation is a very complex juggling of particular informational components....a long series of events must have proceeded prior to the quantum, or even the mathematics with which to support it. Math and/or the quantum are not originators....they arose from simpler elements in a long evolution of pre - BB era events...reaching back to the "pure" void. Mathematics is hitting a wall nearing the BB time frame because it didn't exist in it's present form much before that...but something existed that cannot be calculated with standard maths, hence currently unmeasurable. Once math has been deduced to earlier steps, that problem should be addressable by calculating in those "dead languages" of early informational structures...

I see this universe as the information of PI which will be repeated again after this particular expression gets done and is informationally "cleared away". If another universe developed later with the same parameters of PI, (and the underlying logic demands the same algorithm), then the information that describes you will exist again within the math object. That doesn't mean the information will ever get expressed, and if expressed in any way, certainly seems unlikely to repeat itself with the doppelganger type of similar existence to each individual as in the infinite multiverse concept. I do see each new universe beginning with the same mathematical object, which is drawn upon to construct realities, both materially and (eventually) personally, and will become more randomized as time proceeds from the big bang of any particular universe. That randomness will assure an overall "same but different" effect on gross appearances similar to a wave pattern within a region of the ocean...but that randomness may push the coordinates for a particular construct back from a more random condition to a state of less randomness, bringing about a momentary alignment of two disparate entities within two separate universes...like a phase cancellation within a wave structure relationship causing transitions through "null points" of similar values between two separated tanks of wavy water...

I don't think an advanced species would need to physically travel anywhere, let alone earth...informationally, they could observe us and be aware of us. I think that if they exist, and were aware of us, they would be pulling for our survival, as we are a new species of thinking beings. They would know that they evolved from the same primitive beginning all life forms are forced to endure. They would hope for us as we would hope for a deer trying to run through a busy hiway would make it. I suspect they have seen many attempts fail, more so than succeed to "get across", if indeed any species has ever made it across the busy hiway of evolution...which is a component of the fermi paradox I presume...