1x0

"1x0: Hmmm. The whole discussion is about reference points. I say that space(time) itself contains fundamental information about mathematically recognizable reference point" "Swansont: Please provide evidence that this is the case." There is the sense of nothing suggested by expanding space and evolving time. Space expands meaning it has been smaller before and the end of a backwards journey on this timeline we reach the smallest space possible: when it did not exist. The same has to be true for time. Nothing. This sense could not be perceived if space and time or energy and matter would not exist. This sense is a physical reference point (could have been existed) which can be perceived today almost the same: the lack of energy-matter and information in a given spacetime moment - when the puppy recognizes the absence of the bitch. She is not there, her value is 0 in that moment and note the pups biophysical reacting on the information s/he cries. We are able to recognize the absence of energy-matter and information and this recognition by definition can happen just in/with space(time)! Every energy, matter, and information recognized can be observed by definition in/with spacetime. So the sense of Nothing which we express with our mathematical realization 0 is perceivable even you will never ever be able to physically observe it. Ever since anything exists nothing cannot be again. It always will be just information. (maybe about space and time) This is the main reason (without we would pull this thread here) why I have a problem how 1*0 can be 0 or how we could not yet determine what 1/0 is. Can we say what nothing is? I went to a business school in the past 2 years with access to philosophy, mathematics, and cognitive sciences. They had a hard time to determine or express what nothing is. Interesting experience.... As far as I am able to recognize or understand the sense of nothing is a basic information. A reference point to reality. Even it cannot exist it is perceivable. If it has never been existing how could we perceive it? If it is Impossible that such a space, time, energy, matter, information-free state existed, then does not that indicate infinity? Would not infinity mean infinite energy, matter, and information as well? Should not the universe has a different presentation if that would be true (everywhere Gods around in absolute energy....) Why and How could infinity be finite so we can recognize something in it?

I hope I will be able to keep this thread open. I try my best not to pull it off topic, although as information is everywhere so there are plenty of examples what we can play with trying to deny or approve: does information is physical or not. Here is a practical application why the question can appear from a different point of view maybe than physics but still existing. I am a veterinary surgeon and I work on a medical data managing software for my praxis and my patients. The software collects medically relevant information (signalment, symptoms, physical examination findings, laboratory results) helping the veterinarians work with statistical data comes from the uploaded medical information and the previously crafted medical database. The database is based on the scientific results of our profession, extracted from medical books. So I have a set of information recognizable during an examination: fewer, vomiting, cough and by bringing it in to the system, that is able to give the answer, that from all the diagnosis existing in our medical database which differential diagnosis could it be and how high is the chance of a certain diagnose to occur. With this information, the system further can support my examination process by telling which laboratory examination(blood test, x-ray, ultrasonography etc..) belonging to most of the most likely possible diagnoses and so should be executed to narrow down the list of differential diagnoses. The information I received shorten my examination process saving time for me and unnecessary costly examination for the owner i.e it has a recognizable economic benefit. These information I originally do not have but because the software can handle data physically recognizable I can have extra information which is basically transforming reality itself (i.e: the process of examination is different than it would be without the information) So even the information is originally in the system ( i.e: from all possible medical problems how many contain the signalments had been possible to recognize with the examination, and how high is the possibility for that medical condition to occur if we see all diseases) because the lack of awareness of this information I execute examintation differently. So this previously unrecognizable information existing because we are able to perceive it mathematically get physical presented through a computer which digitally recognizes, visualizes and maintain this information in perpetuity. This information created time (even we count it as physical or not) for me (I still recognize the time I won as I can be more with my family) and economic benefits (lower veterinary costs) for the owner. So the information which would not exist without the mathematical calculation now present and has impacted the physical reality itself.

The laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference). The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source. As far as I realize my own statements, they are supporting these postulates. Actually, it feels like they are exactly about this. If this statement would be true it would harm both postulates. Because we perceive the speed and of light and the distance it covers the same from anywhere the universe. If the second notion is true than what makes you say the perception and the measurement itself can differ? It feels like I am the one here trying to protect the rigidity what the first notion recognizes I do not see why relativity would exclude a fine start. If nothing else exists than information based space-time, its perception, as this simple space-time basically would be everything that is existing in that moment of the observation, so it could be recognized as a singular event. Then would the appearance of energy and matter be a singular event 0.000....01 sec after space appeared? If space appeared with velocity it will start to expand and by definition has to have time (information) about its existence. Time gives spaces its radius it feels like.... So that is why the question arose can I count information(time) as a physical entity. Could energy and matter creation (evolution) be based on such a correlation? Why the theory of relativity exclude such correlation? If cause and causality based fine evolution is not possible than on what the existence of energy and matter is based on? What made a singularity (infinite dense entity in infinite small space) expand? Which force can that be? The question is which part of Einstein's theory against a step by step the fine start? What makes scientists say that reality is absolutely infinite?

Hmmm. The whole discussion is about reference points. I say that space(time) itself contains fundamental information about mathematically recognizable reference point (presented as information like the sense of Nothing(the beginning). Or is it everything at the beginning and science now says that yes the all mighty all energetic singularity is there at the beginning? Where is it coming from? I think if we are able to determine the time of no existence: Nothing and apply what our observations from the physical reality suggest to the consequences of existence (information) presented fundamentally as space and time.... So if I am aware of the beginning, and I would be aware of the velocity of the expansion of space(time) I would be able to determine any points exact whereabouts in the system. I would have the "original" reference point 0 to coordinate. *Nothing: The common physical, mathematical, I dare philosophical reference point, the sense what any physical entity - like an ant - can perceive too, what expending space-time suggests: the lowest possible physical state.

No. Such fact that zero information by definition can not exist. At least I know they are possible or not. Calculatable or not. Relevant or not. They can give mathematical results. They can have functions we not yet recognized but that does not make them unexistent... Such equations cannot contain zero information. I wonder how would you express the right side of the equation? What that 0 is meaning?

How can they move relative to one another? There is an exact distance between them at the moment of observation. Even they have the different physical environments they exist in (person 1 in a black hole, person 2 between two galaxies in the interstellar space) the distance between them, the actual spatial distance is real and determinable. Even they move in proportion to one another by time, since they have a same moment of existence (independent from the observer) the changes in the spatial distance could be determined. From which point of the Universe I would not be able to determine the distance between the 2 people? It might be that the perception of space is relative to the observers in the different physical environments but would that change the actual physical reality: distance? For example, here we have the 2 people, one in the black hole and one in the interstellar space, and I am able to recognize with Hubble that their distance is 1 million light year. This is my perception. Then we have a second observer who is a mighty Giant (100 000 lightyear in size) nearby the original observation of our persons and for this Giant, the distance which I recognize as 1 million lightyear long is what is 20 meter for me. So does the relative perception of space and time change the actual facts of reality? What can happen that We (as observers try to figure out how much time it would take to cover the distance) are not aware of every impact the observed would "suffer" during the journey. This would not change the fact that we measured and by that we estimated wrong the time and distance of the journey but do not change the exact distance and time between the 2 at the moment of the observation. The forces of nature impact the velocity of the person covering the distance recognizable but how relativity impact reality? There must be just one distance with an exact time it can be covered with. Does reality changes by the relative recognitions you mean? How those perceptions differ when you say they move relative to one another? How can I perceive it as a 3rd party?

If an equation cannot describe a part of physical reality than does the equation is wrong or the observed reality? Do certain alignments between the solution of the equation and reality makes the whole equation true and complete? It achieves physical embodiment as you will remember on the result (its written in reality stored in your brain (organized atoms in work). Yes. The equation could be wrong and you still can have a perceivable result. Yes. The subjective understanding never will be able to describe reality as it is, although many points of it can be originating from and attached to reality.

For this to answer I would need to know what the equation is meaning and what is it based on.

Sadly I am not able to make sense of the left side of the equation. Could you express its content in worlds? Just like you would do to a limitedly intelligent high school student. I play with the thought of a finite but constantly evolving universe and yes I suggest that information could achieve physical embodiment (originating fundamentally from space(time)) and presented through time and evolution as different levels and kinds of energy and matter...(waves, photons, electrons, protons, gravity, gravitational wave...) If space expands it should give a fundamental "pull" to the content is in it especially if that content would be created in proportion to the evolution of space itself (meaning as big space is as many energy and matter is in it). This would explain the precise fine balance of the observable reality and the rigidness of the Laws of Nature applied in the Universe.

How do you mean this? If I am the observer in which part of the Universe time did not pass or what was outside of space and how?

Why continuousness exclude the lowest unit of measurement? (recognized by Shannon but maybe not fully applied)

Sorry. If I am aware of the velocity of space(time) at the first moment and eventually the changes in that velocity by time if that could be possible. Knowing this information I would be able to recognize every points exact whereabout in spacetime. I would not need more information. Please Swantont. I just try to think. I am not writing my Ph.D. and this is the philosophy section where we discuss a topic where our mainstream science cannot give a clear answer meaning philosophy has some space to play around. I do not wanna harm, I do not want to change anything, I am aware of my primitivity and lack of knowledge which I could not collect if I would live a 1000 years. I just want to understand some of the questions I am interested in and discuss it with intelligent human beings. How can I prove that everything is existing in spacetime? My learned knowledge and observations suggest that. Isn't it true? My thought is: if we are able to recognize information as far from as 13.8 billion lightyears, that should mean that the recognized photon has traveled in the same realm we exist in, as we are able to observe it here with Hubble, and that the space-time realm makes it possible to exist there and here as well for that photon. As the physical attributes of that observed photon do not seem to changes during this journey I think it suggests that the fundamentally applied physical laws are the same there and here. Those physical laws seem to be applied in/through space(time) appearing as spacetime would give a fundamental ground for existence, meaning the physically determined attributes of the observed physical entity (photon) maintained throughout the realm.

They have the biophysical structure (brain) the imagination has happened in. Physically presented. You will remember on the imaginary picture meaning that it is saved in reality. Physically presented. You can recall and even visualize it on a picture we call art for example. Then is it existing now?

I do not think so. Does the conscious observer change the physical reality? On the other hand, if we count space-time as an unconscious entity, which basically not just "observes" reality but even more maintains every bit of it, than the unconscious "observer" has a significant impact. Has to be counted. It looks like that space(time) has a fundamental impact on the evolution of the Universe.

Space(time) seems Universal. We have to recognize the rate of its evolution. (the velocity with which it expands) and its impact on energy and matter. Do you think that expanding space-time can have an impact on the amount of energy and matter presented in the Universe?

They are presented, measurable and the functional changes observable.

My understanding of information is starting with the fundamental bits of space(time), physically presented, mathematically recognizable and digitally expressible. Shannons approach to information seems similar braking down information to its fundamental elements. It is important as the recognition of information requires clear reference points during the recognition. That is the space-time moment of the observation and the energy, matter, and information the observation sought to study. This space-time moment is Universal. It cannot be exactly the same way anywhere else. If it would be possible what we would be speaking infinity and that is meaning infinite energy, matter, and information. Are there any signs of that? A set in spacetime observed never again can happen exactly the same way. as it had be during the observation. How can I express this recognition mathematically that it is Universally true?

Could you express something whose I cannot realize mathematically recognizable or statistically expressible value? Let it be the fundamental space and time of the observation or the observer. We can observe the changes in the physical reality (brainwaves) while an information is processed.

The question is here how information is saved in the physical reality. Could energy and matter be responsible to maintain information?

The information seems physical as the observer can not impact the observed entities fundamental, physically determined and then information guided functions. Like the functions of a hydrogen atom in a blood cell in your body. With simple observation, you can not change its physically determined functions (you can not force it to behave like a Silicon atom) or impact its any other information based, chemically determined functions while it is participating in the structure of the blood cell. Information guides function.

Or does spacetime has information? Every point of observation will result in information and every observation will happen in space-time. Space-time itself has a fundamental level of information giving the exact coordinates of the observer, the observation and the result (conclusion) of the observation in the Universe. So every observed entity has a certain level of physically recognizable information. Space, Time, Waves, Photons, electrons, atoms......

Space and time. Statistically.

1. How and why would be infinite? You can observe its beginning with a good approximation. How can it be infinite if it has a beginning? The observable evolution is guided by physical laws applied since the beginning. The only thing can happen you(we) are not aware (looking from inside of the box) its functions. It is there. Observable reality. 2. The observers does not change the fundamental laws of physics with their observation. They can impact physical reality by their existence but the fundamental laws of Nature won't change by the perception of the different observers in different physical conditions. 3. Exactly. You sense what you have or not. That is why I call it relative primitivity. 4. So it has a limit? The primitivity I meant on our capabilities to recognize reality. See extraterrestrial life. I guess that is due to our relative primitivity rather than the universe would be intelligence free. As I do not chat much with butterflies about the functions of the internet because it is missing the physically required organs to include that information, so I guess the higher intelligence would have some problems to communicate with us based on the same reasons. Our relative primitivity you can recognize, as we cannot yet determine clear our scientific grounds. 1/0, infinite or not etc... The result obviously our the observer's responsibility, depending on the capabilities, which can vary a lot. This variation and the individual perception does not change reality.

- Yes, because.... - No, because.... Can mass fundamentally impact space and time itself?

Here is a question: Can I say that the Universe is infinite if I know that there is an exact moment when space with basic information (time) started to evolve? We have a current moment of now throughout the universe (meaning everywhere happening something even the perception of time and space can be relative based on the physical environment.) This is meaning that time has an exact moment countable and space has to have an exact size. That indicates that there is an exact amount of energy, matter, and information in a common space-time realm (which we can observe precisely, measure, count, recognize, manipulate). Note that we are not yet able to sense the whole system as it is, because we are relatively primitive and that our limited capability to sense reality does not mean that it is not there, or that would be absolute infinite. We can very precisely recognize reality in our environment. If infinite would be possible than in every moment every possible variant of existence should happen from every aspect of every point in space(time). Infinite weight with infinite energy with absolute infinite information in infinite space(time). We do not have the signs of that. We have one common reality where both of my ears exist in the same moment in different places in space. So the only infinite is the forward pointing potential for evolution of space and time can be with an exact moment of existence. - False - Can be true - True Note! The idea, that gravitational constant can exist meaning that gravity, and by that the amount of matter countable in the Universe has to rise if we can observe that in expanding space (if it would not raise we would experience that the gravitational constant decreases). I would suggest that the two has a correlation Space(time) - Matter