existence without space

[north]

these entities wouldnt have that property. stop trying to visualize it. you cant visualize it because it isnt visual. its a concept. you conceive of it.

 

visualizing is important though

 

it is through visualizing that you see how they work

 

that is where you can see your mistakes

 

to suggest there is no space is a mistake

[throng]

Well, it's worth a try, I guess. Any ideas what the type of rules that could be used to achieve this, though? it's such a vast phenomena...

 

It makes perfect sence that there is a minimum space, uncertainty, and that Planck expresses length (more than other things), because it is only possible to make volume between a minimum of four locations.

 

Of course space only exists between locations.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

visualizing is important though

 

it is through visualizing that you see how they work

 

that is where you can see your mistakes

 

to suggest there is no space is a mistake

 

 

Absolutely! Visualising math working as geometry is a real key to the core of real fundamentals, visualizing is understanding the whys of the thing.

[mooeypoo]

It makes perfect sence that there is a minimum space, uncertainty, and that Planck expresses length (more than other things), because it is only possible to make volume between a minimum of four locations.

I understand your desire to post again, throng, but other than being meaningless, your above paragraph lacks definitions, explanations (what is "minimum space"?) And it is not answering my question.

 

if you mean to reopen a relatively dying thread, you will have to do a bit better than that.

[throng]

I understand your desire to post again, throng, but other than being meaningless, your above paragraph lacks definitions, explanations (what is "minimum space"?) And it is not answering my question.

 

if you mean to reopen a relatively dying thread, you will have to do a bit better than that.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with the logic behind a 'substance' of space. Volume has to be a finite size because it can't exist in a single location.

 

Since volume requires four locations to exist between, there is no absolute spacial location.

 

I can't see why that isn't logical, and it is just a coherant simplification of what finite space means.

 

[mooeypoo]

There's nothing wrong with the logic behind a 'substance' of space. Volume has to be a finite size because it can't exist in a single location.

 

Since volume requires four locations to exist between, there is no absolute spacial location.

 

I can't see why that isn't logical, and it is just a coherant simplification of what finite space means.

 

 

Volume requires four locations? what does that mean? Last I checked, volume is defined in three dimensions.. what do you mean 'four locations'?

 

 

Logic means you EXPLAIN your statements. That was the first attempt, good. Now make sure you keep doing that every time you state something new, otherwise it's no more than a subjective interpretation that means nothing for a scientific inquiry.

[throng]

Volume requires four locations? what does that mean? Last I checked, volume is defined in three dimensions.. what do you mean 'four locations'?

 

 

Logic means you EXPLAIN your statements. That was the first attempt, good. Now make sure you keep doing that every time you state something new, otherwise it's no more than a subjective interpretation that means nothing for a scientific inquiry.

 

Thanks for that, I'm sure I can't communicate effectively so apologies for lack of explanation.

 

A volume can't exist between three points, only a plane, a tetrahedron having four points (vertexs or corners) is the first simplex that contains volume.

 

Therefore it is actually between four 'locations' (points) that contains the smallest possible 3D space.

 

I hope This is better, thanks for allowing me to elaborate.

[granpa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Notable_Life_programs

 

I can personally vouch for 'life32'. its fast and the field isnt limited in size.

[throng]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Notable_Life_programs

 

I can personally vouch for 'life32'. its fast and the field isnt limited in size.

 

 

 

Does it have a minimum size?

[granpa]

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawsofform/messages

 

the latest posts seem to relate to what i've been saying in this thread

 

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawsofform/message/1993

 

 

"It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or why the

world conceives a desire, and discovers an ability, to see itself, and appears

to suffer the process. That it does so is sometimes called the original

mystery. Perhaps in view of the form in which we presently take ourselves to

exist, the mystery arises from our insistence on framing a question when there

is, in reality, nothing to question."

 

in other words, the question itself is meaningless. like what is the sound of one hand clapping.

Edited April 8, 2009 by granpa

[Sayonara]

like what is the sound of one hand clapping.

You can clap with one hand.

[granpa]

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

we normally speak of a chain of events as A causes B which causes C which couses D and so on. but then we have to ask what caused the first event? maybe (when discussing the ultimate nature of reality at a deep quantum level) we should just say instead that later events are influenced (not caused) by earlier events.

[granpa]

heres something called box arithmetic that is apparently identical to 'laws of form'.

 

http://www2.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Arithmetic.htm

[throng]

To me it depends on conceptual properties. Nothing is purely conceptual and can't be imagined as a state. It is also absolute by definition and so is existance.

 

We have two purely conceptual constructs absolute existance/absolute nothing.

 

Of course, absolute nothing has no relative influence on existance, so it's irrelevent.

 

We merely use the concept to define existance as a singular, but the universe is relative and not singularily existant.

[granpa]

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

here is something else I just found. Its not exactly what I'm talking about but it seems to be related if only in the most general way.

[throng]

here is something else I just found. Its not exactly what I'm talking about but it seems to be related if only in the most general way.

 

Off/on - is/isn't - possibility/impossible - infinite space/0D point - It seems to me that completely opposite concepts are needed to define existance as singular, because existance is relative not singular.

 

The problem is singularity existance has no relative.

[granpa]

lol. I forgot the link and now I cant remember what it was.

 

anyway here is something on digital physics:

http://www.mtnmath.com/digital.html

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/Home/Papers/TOC/tabid/63/Default.aspx

 

 

even simple rules can generate endlessly complex fractals. is existence (as described in the op) some kind of fractal?

Edited June 8, 2009 by granpa

[morp]

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

 

 

You should start by a new definition of EXISTENCE

Now we believe existence implies SPACE

[throng]

If you have a dual relationship they are either complete opposites (off/on) or exactly the same on/on.

 

I think on/on is realistic because then relationship could be on/off (opposites), both on (the same) , both off (nothing) or off/on. Hence probability.

 

If it was off or on then it is just saying is/isn't. These bear no relation to eachother and describe no possibility.

[granpa]

post 1:

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

post 7:

I've been meaning for some time to link to these 2 posts but figured nobody would read it

whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

 

 

it just occurred to me that if all the particles are the same then it would be meaningless to say that there was more than one. the very idea of dividing into 2 particles requires that they be different in some way.

 

in our universe a particle could divide into 2 identical particles. but they wouldnt really be identical because they would have different positions. in such a universe as described above there is no such thing as 'position'. so it would be meaningless to say that a particle had divided into 2 if the 2 resulting particles were not distinguishable in some way.

 

I only just realized that 'distiction' is what 'laws of form' is all about. I'm not sure that laws of form is the whole answer but it might be worth looking into the basic idea.