A lingual theory of everything

[tar]

Hoola,

 

I think I read that gravity is not instantaneous, but is related to C, or propogates at C. Otherwise, it would not be difficult to conceive of a device with a delicate needle in Chicago, pointing at a large mass suspended over Detroit, that would change its position when the mass was moved, before a radio wave, announcing the movement in Detroit, reached Chicago.

 

Although I have always been perplexed by the fact that the one end of a solenoid shaft moves "at the same time" as the other end. Poking something with a long stick for instance, is somewhat analogous to action at a distance.

 

Not to mention stuff like the curtain on the window moving "at the same time" as the door opens. If this is due to a compression wave moving through the air at the speed of sound, then a hardly stretchable string tied to one curtain and an outward opening door, would move, before the other curtain, when the door was opened. Once you start talking about experiments in space, establishing a baseline time, unrelated to position, is very difficult. Makes me wonder exactly how one determines that a particle over here has changed its state at the same time as a particle over there.

 

Regards, TAR

Water for instance, in a river, is always moving downstream, as per gravity, but standing on the shore the river looks rather stationarily sitting right in front of you. Only if you spy something on its surface floating downstream, are you aware of its movement.

 

Take a pulsar, pulsing every second. The next pulse is only 186 thousand miles away, even though the pulsar is 50 thousand ly away. The next pulse we see, was what the pulsar did 50 thousand years ago.

Do we see a pulse at the same time as it happens? Well sort of, yes. And sort of, no. Depends on "which" pulse you are considering.

The Earth will revolve 50 thousand times around the Sun, before we see what that pulsar is actually doing at the moment.

[hoola]

newton's gravity equations require an instantaneous action at a distance in order for them to function. If you were to have god-like powers for a minute and could lower the speed of gravity's effects to C, then orbits would begin to collapse, as I recall, the planets would spiral into the sun, or fly away, I can't remember which. Either way, you would quickly put gravity speed back to rights if you wanted life on earth to continue........what is confused is the speed of gravity waves, which is held to C and straight line gravity, which isn't....So, the idea that communication cannot occur faster than C seems incorrect. All orbiting bodies "communicate" gravitationaly in a close to infinite manner, or else no stable orbits are be allowed......I have heard it as an analogy of a rope that does not stretch....if you are on the earth holding a taut rope on one end, and the other end is held by someone 100 million miles away, then if you give a pull on the rope it will be felt instantly at the other end...however, if you shake the rope side to side, the lateral motion (or wave) won't reach your friend for nearly 10 minutes, as that is held to a velocity of C........As far as the solenoid shaft....if it were extremely long, the delay would be noticeable.....but it would have to be thousands of miles long to be seen by the naked eye, if that could somehow be arranged....

[tar]

Hoola,

 

Well perhaps if we knew what gravity was, we could have a more sensible conversation. As it is, we know what gravity does, and how masses attract each other by the inverse square law and such, and even have proposed gravity wells and the warping of space and such to explain orbits and all, but we do all this, as models and calculations, that we can use to predict the forces and momentums involved with two nearby masses and their motions in reference to each other. Enough certainly to send a rover to Mars, and hit the moving target, but still, we do it all without knowing what gravity is. How and why it does what it does. Is it a push or a pull? An exchange of some particle or another, or masses just trying to "fit" the space that they themselves are defining?

 

In terms of the lingual theory of everything, we have to make a distinction between the thing as it is, and our descriptions of it. Our descriptions of it, do not make it happen, or change it in anyway. Just allows us to try something mathematically and see if it works, see if it adds up, see if our understanding of the world would allow for something to occur if we would manipulate things just so, in theory, and then try the thing out, and see if our predictions are taking enough into consideration to actually result in a particular new arrangement of a useful sort.

 

It still seems to me that the math follows the rules already physically evident. Not the other way around. For instance you use the term infinite, as if by using it, it must fit reality. And at the same time, you know we have not found a smaller length than a planck. So can something be infinitely small under these circumstances, or is there a physical limit that is reached, which can be broached by thought, but not violated by reality?

 

Quantum theory dictates that there is a smallest amount of energy, that just does not get divided any further. But its not the theory that establishes the limit. It is the way it works, the way it is, the way it already was, before we noticed it to be this way.

 

Regards, TAR2

What if the universe has never before been in the particular configuration it is currently in, and has not yet done, what it is going to do next? If that is the way it is, then there is nothing and nobody with a memory of the next state, since such a state has never before been possible to achieve, because this state must be the case, for the next state to occur.

 

In this take, there are not maths that define the possibilities. The maths are derived from evidence of past cases, and the current arrangement.

 

There is a tendency we have, to want the world to fit our model of it. I am thinking this is not the proper attitude. More important and realistic to adjust ones model, to fit the place.

 

And if this is a proper take, then there is little to no chance, that a "new" math, will create a "new" universe. Anything we do with math, would have to fit the thing, inorder to work.

 

So, if your focal points of dark energy are "refreshing" the universe, AND there is this speed of light limit to the place...(a very big place)...then what one focal point would do now, would not effect the rest of the universe, completely, until at least 45 billion years from now. Does not seem to me, that such a point, could have much primary control or be of such underlying importance in a universe such as what we appear to be in and of. Just doesn't "add up".

[Popcorn Sutton]

I made that argument a while back about a solid shaft being affected on both end simultaneously. Someone quickly shot me down

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There is a tendency we have, to want the world to fit our model of it. I am thinking this is not the proper attitude.

............................................................................................................................

 

Just doesn't "add up".

I am inclined to agree with you.

 

However, in an attempt to understand the " reality " which appears to surround us and of which we are apart, my attempt at a

" Lingual Theory of Everything " . was to try and identify some nature of reality which can allow EVERYTING to be the way it is .

This to encompass Me, Us, every living thing ,all matter, all energy ,all Universe,all Big bang, All God, ,

 

The only overarching principle ('s) or set of three were the three at the core of this thread. namely

 

 

Quote

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

Edited December 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hoola]

tar, I think we are having a very sensible conversation, so little is known, I can speculate about gravity, time and why anything, and the use the enterprise as a mental workout...like chess. I am sorry about saying infinite, as I don't think there are any infinites, in physical reality or even mathematics....only "approaching" infinity....sorry about that....like the speed of gravity or entanglement being "infinite"....I think they will be determined to great accuracy someday, as a finite speed, just as the speed of light may have seemed infinite centuries ago, but being thousands of times faster than C, therefore being "defacto infinite", or the fastest possible speed attainable in this universe. Take absolute zero for example.....never get to "infinitely" cold, but millikelvins close, as there is no way to achieve it physically...so far anyway, and that seems a pretty safe bet.......as far a dark energy "refreshing" energy and material in space, maintaining their existence, I see that as a local phenomena, in conjunction with the dark force points in the immediate area....so only local matter would be directly affected. But since they seem to give off "free energy" they do have an added allure......as far as math following the rules of what is physically evident, I say the exact opposite.....reality is mathematics in it's evolution from chaos to enlightenment....and physical reality is a stage in this process...

mike....yes, the linguistics of reality is mathematics....that is language the universe speaks....this is a new invention of logic, which used that language to describe the universe....you, me , god, everybody

Edited December 19, 2013 by hoola

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.....as far as math following the rules of what is physically evident, I say the exact opposite.....reality is mathematics in it's evolution from chaos to enlightenment....and physical reality is a stage in this process...

mike....yes, the linguistics of reality is mathematics....that is language the universe speaks....this is a new invention of logic, which used that language to describe the universe....you, me , god, everybody

 

Sorry Hoola we must have been writing and submitting at the same Moment. ( now there is sirendipedy " )

My reply to your and Tar's comments are above ..

 

 

 

mike

Edited December 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hoola]

mike, I am not sure what you mean by "threes at the core of the thread"...but I guess I am OT ? But "linguistics" as a TOE is what the thread is about,. right?... I may be wrong in my interpetation . edd

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

mike, I am not sure what you mean by "threes at the core of the thread"...but I guess I am OT ? But "linguistics" as a TOE is what the thread is about,. right?... I may be wrong in my interpetation . edd

these three principles :-

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything I can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I am not saying Linguistics as such is reality rather a theory about reality or of reality .But I am using language to state and communicate it, as opposed to maths .

 

Any more than I think maths is reality ( though I believe you and Mike Tegmark believe they are, ) .

 

 

What I am saying is :-

 

That I am proposing a theory of everything Given in a language form rather than a mathematical form.

 

Language being more flexible than maths which can get a bit exact.

Maths, indespensible, very useful at times for structure, but very inflexible and not conducive to life conciousness, development and a host of other 'goodies' that fill the Cosmos ! Remembering that maths itself is only a model of reality ,not reality itself. ( unless of course you hold that MATHS is the reality which I am very apprehensive to believe it is. )?

 

 

We can discuss and debate meaning in Language, but it

gets a bit exacting and argumentative in maths. ( useful for structure though . maths I mean )

 

Now " Is Language itself reality ? " That is a whole different Ball game and not one I am bringing to play in this thread or discussing here ! ( interesting , but would muddy the water here,I think ! )

 

mike

Edited December 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hoola]

interesting....you point to what I think was a part of the process of the emergence of logic from chaos...in a pre-mathematical realm of reduced of areas of entropy in the sea of chaos.....allowing brief periods of logic to appear...our universe is one of these prolonged appearances.....that held together long enough for interesting things to happen....your questions point back to a period before physics and are of the realm of philosophy....edd

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

interesting....you point to what I think was a part of the process of the emergence of logic from chaos...in a pre-mathematical realm of reduced of areas of entropy in the sea of chaos.....allowing brief periods of logic to appear...our universe is one of these prolonged appearances.....that held together long enough for interesting things to happen....your questions point back to a period before physics and are of the realm of philosophy....edd

 

I need to go into " Think " mode, as well as go and buy myself a pair of shoes . Catch you later . Mike

[hoola]

as far a linguistics, I have blogged before of the language that described and continues to describe reality or "the maths", with it's (nearing) completed algorithmic set. But that doesn't explain how logic itself, the developer of the maths, acted in such a way so as to evolve itself, not having the benefits of an established system. So I proposed a sort of "logic latin" or precursor language of a simpler form, with which developed at random, also from the sea of chaos, in another subset of reduced entropy withtin the sea. Now, when I said (nearing) completed algorithmic set, I mean that the maths as an entirety are still being created, and will never be fully complete, but was complete enough to create and then maintain this particular universe......it only takes so much information to created this universe, or any universe, so this "finiteness", saves us from this infinite universes idea, with the doppelgangers being a clone of us. I have since the early 80's felt a kinship to the concept of finiteness. An infinite set of universes seems to indicate a pointlessness in an emotional sense, to my existence. This is not to say I think this is the only universe. I think there are others, perhaps less than a hundred. I say this on the estimates of dark matter that is not in our universe, except for their gravity effect on us. Therefore, I conclude that other universes exist from the original pool of information within the singularity, and have other physical, yet mathematically possible arrangements. Our respective maths are close enough, as we would use a common base language, math, with a common "mother logic". This relatedness of origin, like brothers with a common mother, but different fathers, would allow us to be different, yet share some commonalities. In this case, gravity is the commonality. The percentage of dark matter is rather high...I can't remember the estimates on dark matter percentages as a factor towards overall gravitational effects in this universe, but lets take a 75% figure. That means 25% is directly from our own matter. If we start with the idea that each universe contains a roughly similar content, than we each have an equal share of the overall gravity field...it is possible that some universes exist that don't have any gravity effect upon us or even function without gravity....but let us only consider ones that do....and that each universe on average contributes a 25% to overall gravity in toto of the entirety of the universes...then there are 4 universes, each contributing their 25% of overall effect. So we may be in a "local group" of universes...thankfully finite in number .

Edited December 19, 2013 by hoola

[tar]

Hoola,

 

Well wait a minute. If maths evolve, then they can't be the basis.

 

Might as well stick with particle evolution, and just use math to describe it.

 

On the other universe topic, I am of the opinion that other universes have no bearing on this one. If they did, then they would be part of this one's past, present or future. If they have no bearing on this one, in any way at all, then there is no need for comparison, no reason for comparison, and most importantly no way to ever know even the slightest thing about any "other" universe. If there was a way to see the results of, or effects of "another" universe on this one, then it would have bearing on this one, and therefore be an aspect of this one. So...other universes are not worth talking about, because there is nothing to say about them.

 

Regards, TAR2

On the duppelganger thing, I am of the opinion that if there was another me somewhere in the universe, it would not be exactly me, because if we were to point at each other we would not be pointing at the same part of the universe. For instance, he would be pointing at the Milkyway, and I would be pointing at Andromeda. Making us not the same, at all, but two different beings inhabiting the same universe, in different places, in it. And since inorder to be me, he would have to have my mother and father, the U.S. the Earth and the Milky Way to be in and of, it is impossible for an exact me to be anybody else, anywhere else, but me, here.

 

So if math is the underlying influence that you are going to start with, where did the chaos come from, in the first place? And how can the math be "added" later...if it was what you are proposing to begin with?

Edited December 20, 2013 by tar

[hoola]

excellent tar.....you say that if the maths aren't complete as I say, then they couldn't build the universe....well, you are built of information...and it doesn't take all the information in the world to build a person, in fact a small physical amount barely visible to the naked eye.....I say that anything of a finite nature has a finite number of smallest components....and if you rule out infinite universes, then, bingo, it can be done with our universe. I say that the amount of math information is vast, bordering on infinite, and is continuing, and that process of continuation, is the sustaining energy that not only supports the reality, but is pushing it apart at the accelerated speeds. This is the language idea...maths are being constructed by a manipulation of the digits, much as new words are being constructed every day in various human languages with just a few symbols of 26 or so...imagine the number of new number combinations that could be juggled with a near infinite number of available symbols at your disposal, and each moment, more relationships are possible with more raw data to work with....With the mere 26 letters, someone might describe how the universe came about.....or write a poem and never running out of new ways to arrange these letters, or altering them to add new meanings. Since most of the matter and energies are "repeats" anyway, there are only so many differing kinds of matter and energies to build this universe.....as an electron is an electron and trillion tons of hydrogen gas are no different informationally than some other trillion tons of hydrogen in the next solar system. That cuts down alot on the information required to build a universe, a kind of efficiency of construction, like an assembly line......if other universes are made from leftover, yet viable maths, then it is worth looking in to them, as they could be the dark matter that affects us with only gravity, Possibly that is "the bearing they have upon us" and that is only the most easily identifiable one, more sensitive tests could be developed to find other evidence of shared characteristics.....I like your anti-doppelganger thinkings. I will be glad to see that idea put to rest....that is a good question as to "where did the chaos come from".....in fact, that is the best question possible in this particular informational universe I have thought out....the answer is.....unknowable. And that unknowability is the driving force of the universe. Doesn't every person or "sentient being" want to know why they are here? Isn't that the test of advanced intellect? I say that the maths are so complex, that they developed an awareness, and a self-examination, and revealed to itself that it had been formulated from logic, just as we were formulated from a sperm and egg....that is the point that you have to ask "who were my parents" if you were raised in an adopted situation. So I see that "orphan status" in the developed universe. The developing maths created enough information to become aware, while still in gestation phase within the singularity, and then subsequent development went ahead and caused the big bang and the follow-up universe, but there is no way the awareness in the maths can know information prior to becoming aware, as there was no observer before hand the initial awareness developed to answer this question of where did the chaos come from. This is the unknowable question, that is the causative "desire" , if you will, that we are here to answer. Since it is impossible to know this answer, and it is the most important answer possible in the universe, a sort of unending quest for knowing was begun. In the animal world this desire is displayed as the evolutionary quest for survival through greater awareness. In human terms it is expressed in the "desire" for enlightenment, and "set completion" in the language of the maths......edd.

oh, I forgot to include how the maths are "added to later". Magic numbers like E, square root of 2, PI, and others that go towards an unending conclusion.....plus, the plain old numerals, 1,2,3,4,5,6.....they are still on the treadmill of endless +1s. This is all part of my "just say no to infinites" campaign, even in mathematics.....there is a fundamental limit of the speed of calculation in this universe, as encoded within the framework of logic, that even the maths must obey...if anything were to be truly infinte, then time would have been infinite, as it "held the stopwatch" to any other infinite event, and if time were to be infinite, the universe may have been able to have been constructed, but would have lasted no time.....all the processes from logic expression upwards would have been infinitely fast, and the universe would have been over in the 2nd tick of the infinitely fast proceeding clock. A failed universe...which may have actually happened many times. Any wrong enough parameter could have been enough to spoil a fledgling universe with having insufficient stability to allow "things to interesting"....We could be one of the universes who happened to get the right mix of variables to allow 13.8 billion + years of useful life. I think our universe will end due to minor logic failures of the original construction, but this is getting OT, and I wrote about that on another thread......edd

Edited December 21, 2013 by hoola

[tar]

Hoola,

 

Well, speaking of getting back on topic.

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

 

"left to their own devices" is an interesting conundrum. As a universe, we really don't have anywhere else to turn. That is, any "device" we have at our disposal is already ours, and we don't have the luxury of going for an "outside" opinion. We can not use some other universe's device. If the device can be constructed out of this universe's devices, then it would be immediately one of our own devices.

 

Besides, "left to" would require there to be an "outside this universe" decision maker, which would not be consistent with the thought that the theory included everything. So we should be able to agree that the universe is solely responsible for its own devices, and we are unquestionably left to them, as there is no other way it could be, and still be THIS universe, this particular universe, that there is only one of.

 

If there are "other" aspects of this reality, that we have not yet noticed or considered, then they are still members of the set of our devices, and belong only to this one reality that we have.

 

There is not "another" reality to consider.

 

Here is where I find fault with your (Hoola) thought that everything is information. On two counts. One, "information" is more of an activity than a substance that a universe can be built from, and two, you actually need the whole universe to form any particle of it.

 

Consider Kant's two apriori intuitions. That of space, and that of time. You can not have a "here" without having a "there", and you can not have a "now" without a "before" and a "next"...so any "piece" of information requires the setting of the universe in which to occur.

 

The form needs to exist, to have had occured, before the internalization of that form, or the modeling of that form, or the remembering of that form, can take place. Information, remains, in my opinion, a secondary, reactionary type of thing, not the primary consideration of the whole form, in all its complexity and immense extent, already being the case.

 

You say that one mass of hydrogen atoms over here, has the same informational content as an identical mass, over there. This is not true. Because the one mass is over there, and the other one is over here, giving them each a different position in reference to the rest of the universe.

 

Electrons, may be interchangable and indistiguishable from each other, in the sense that there is not a different thing you can say about one holding a position in your wire, and the next one to hold that position. But you can say there is an electon holding that position, and that position itself, makes that a unique electron, in reference to the universe, because it is the only one that holds that position.

 

So the informational content of an entity is not limited to its contents, but includes its position in time and space. So you cannot build a universe from information about it. Because there is no information without a form to consider. Saying something about something, is different than the thing, as it is.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Popcorn Sutton]

I might chime in if I may. Now that mikes three laws have been engraved in my brain, I'd like to put a spin on them philosophically speaking.

 

1. Anything or everything can occur if it has occurred or is occurring anywhere, at any time, in any number of universi, including, but not limited to, past, present, and future configurations of our own universe.

 

2. Anything or everything can occur only if it is prompted to occur spatiotemporally.

 

3. If there are reasons for something not to occur, the path of least resistance will be followed.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

as far a linguistics, I have blogged before of do.. .

Even though it could be constrewed a trivial case, " I am going to buy of shoes" was within the area of everything, also I had a desire and initiative to buy a pair of shoes (not the least of it , because my current shoes had developed a slit, and we're letting dampness in. With the warning of rain,hail,snow and other flooding )

 

I coined the INITIATIVE " I want/need to buy a pair of shoes. "

 

Quite unconsciously I dropped into the third category of the lingual theory of everything. The universe was not geared up to drop a pair of shoes out of the sky, also there existed a certain small resistance " left to their own devices" I might have been inclined to leave the purchase for a while further. Financial resistance being what it is ( shoes are b... Expensive ). My wife was not a resistance as she has been pestering me for some time ( " go and get yourselves a decent pair of shoes..."). My initiative was endorsed by grabbing my shoulder bag and wallet and jumped on a bus. Resistance came in the form of oodles of Christmas shoppers, oodles of choice, shoes that did no fit, prices that were some astronomical, ones I liked, but like Cinderella's ugly sisters would not fit on my feet. The course led me along a path of least resistance and I purchased a pair ( course of least resistance) that were in the sale so not too expensive £35 or 50 US dollars , did up easily, looked kind of cute and above all did not let the water in .

 

Thus fulfilling that third theory .."............

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_12_2013/msg-33514-0-99522400-1387526908.jpg

 

 

Now were I an e-m wave some 20feet from an antenna pointing into outer space, having been given an initiative by some collapsing electrical current in a coil of wire connected to an antenna.

 

THEN It would be in category 2 . "Anything is possible if there is no reason for it not to occur. "

 

There is likely to be no reason why that photon of e-m bubble , should not go its way through space ,

forever. ....

 

Unless there is a reason ( like the moon in the way, or a star ) then it would drop into category 3 ( ..there is a reason for it not to occur...)

 

Mike

Edited December 21, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hoola]

I am responding primarily to the heading of the thread...."a lingual TOE". I see the rules as sub-title.... (1). Anything or everything will occur if there is no reason for it not to occur. (2) (repeat of line 1), if there is some form of initiaitive for it to occur. (3). If there are reasons for anything not to occur, left to their own devices, the path of least resistance/energy will be followed...but I see a small difference in the original first two rules, as you write "anything I can occur" in line 2.....And "anything can occur" in line one....Is this a typo, Mike? or did you mean to insert an "I" in the second rule? I am presuming it was an inadverdent keystroke error. If not, the confusion level as to how to interpet these rule is slightly higher with the "I" than without it... I see the linguistic TOE thread title as taking precedence over the 3 rules, and these rules, whichever version is correct, are interesting. I can draw some inferences that relate to what I have said, such as no. 1 being related to the reason "the chaos" exists, no 2 related to the reduction of the entropy (the initiative) within the chaos leading to logic, and no. 3 being of the concept that with too many logic errors within a proto- universe's logic construction, as a universe will not materialize by being "left to their own (flawed) devices". Check back with a clarification as to the correct version of line two.....to be truthful, I haven't really thought seriously about the 3 rules as I have seen them as ancillary to the more important lingual issue.....thanks...edd PS. how are those "low resistance" shoes working out?

the reason the photon (em bubble) will not go through space forever is that space itself will end, but the photon will continue until then... if you consider the end of the universe as being at some very high but finite date, then the end of the universe is a "defacto" forever, being the longest period of time allowable in this particular universe....again, "just say no to infinities".

this brings us to the question of what happens to sentient beings when the universe ends? This is OT, so I will start a new thread.....edd

Edited December 21, 2013 by hoola

[hoola]

in keeping with the linguistic TOE thread topic, does this qualify?......1. There are reasons for a thing to happen and reasons for a thing not to happen. 2. If there are more reasons for a thing to happen than to not happen, it will happen. 3. If there are more reasons for a thing to not happen, than for it to happen, it won't happen........ have a happenin christmas.....edd

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

in keeping with the linguistic TOE thread topic, does this qualify?......1. There are reasons for a thing to happen and reasons for a thing not to happen. 2. If there are more reasons for a thing to happen than to not happen, it will happen. 3. If there are more reasons for a thing to not happen, than for it to happen, it won't happen........ have a happenin christmas.....edd

 

I get the distinct feeling " you are extracting the Michael " !

 

Mike

 

Anyway, I bought the 2014 edition of Max Tegmark Book entitled

 

. Our Mathematical Universe .

. My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality .

 

He is the Scientist who believes like you that it is maths at the root. ! Guess that is my brain screwed up for Christmas !

 

 

 

.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

 

The 2014 edition of Max Tegmark Book entitled

 

. Our Mathematical Universe .

. My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality .

 

 

 

 

. He states his coverage is :-

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally am not too keen on the idea that Maths is at bedrock, but I will be interested in his reasoning. He does say it is only his opinion .

Edited December 23, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[hoola]

excellent !! I will troupe up to my favorite bookstore and get the Tegmark book. Looks like the stolen greek columns haven't been washed away yet, figuratively or literally......edd

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

excellent !! I will troupe up to my favorite bookstore and get the Tegmark book. Looks like the stolen greek columns haven't been washed away yet, figuratively or literally......edd

or the new shoes .

 

Enjoy the Book we can compare thoughts, Although I imagine it will send you even further onto the dark side. ( Maths the root of everything indeed ) Humbug !

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

excellent !! I will troupe up to my favorite bookstore and get the Tegmark book. Looks like the stolen greek columns haven't been washed away yet, figuratively or literally......edd

This is where the maths resides in one of these black boxes.

 

Which one though ?

 

 

.

 

Mike

[hoola]

I think the "dark side" you may fear with the math's being the > ALL < is misplaced. The fear is the unknowable preceedings to the maths....do not shoot the messenger for a while yet.....his is the only way to illuminate this "darkness" ...edd