tegmark question

[hoola]

I have heard max tegmark say that in the mathematical universe, there is no "stopping point" as to the investigation of physical realities.....there is nothing that cannot come under scrutiny of the maths, since everything is math. That may be true up to a point (TOU), but where did the "maths" come from? That is a valid question to pose if you wish to deal with a true TOE that has no "givens" or at least the minimum amount of them as possible. I certainly agree in his assessment that a mathematical assignment to reality is the way to proceed, but that doesn't say why all the baroque math is "out there" to be used to cobble together this or any other universe....as I have written about in other threads, the maths are not "god given", or a fundamental theoretical entity that had no evolutionary past of it's own. I am not saying that there isn't a fundamental minimum, only that some precursor to the maths seems evident, with an evolution of a certain formulation of logic that led to the maths, originating from the chaos. I see the chaos as the irreducible minimum, if any minimum exists at all....I see the next logical step from wheeler's "why anything?" to.... "why maths?" and ultimately..... "why chaos?" edd

[ajb]

This sounds like a very philosophical question about the nature of mathematics. Pragmatically, I don't see the need to worry too much about if mathematics is discovered or invented, which is really at the root of your questions. Moreover, I don't think there exists a well phrased answer.

[qsa]

I have heard max tegmark say that in the mathematical universe, there is no "stopping point" as to the investigation of physical realities.....there is nothing that cannot come under scrutiny of the maths, since everything is math. That may be true up to a point (TOU), but where did the "maths" come from? That is a valid question to pose if you wish to deal with a true TOE that has no "givens" or at least the minimum amount of them as possible. I certainly agree in his assessment that a mathematical assignment to reality is the way to proceed, but that doesn't say why all the baroque math is "out there" to be used to cobble together this or any other universe....as I have written about in other threads, the maths are not "god given", or a fundamental theoretical entity that had no evolutionary past of it's own. I am not saying that there isn't a fundamental minimum, only that some precursor to the maths seems evident, with an evolution of a certain formulation of logic that led to the maths, originating from the chaos. I see the chaos as the irreducible minimum, if any minimum exists at all....I see the next logical step from wheeler's "why anything?" to.... "why maths?" and ultimately..... "why chaos?" edd

Mathematics philosophers have been debating this for a long time. The ultimate question is, does mathematics exist in an independent way, sometimes called Platonic.

 

Tegmark has a conjecture but not a theory. I do have a theory.

 

Fundamental Theory of Reality

 

Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally.

 

http://www.qsa.netne.net/

 

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

 

So my theory proves that reality is a mathematical structure and hence a proof that mathematics is platonic, we are the proof. You get two birds in one stone, that is profound.

 

 

 

BTW, Tegmark's new book is just out

 

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809/

Edited January 10, 2014 by qsa

[hoola]

when you say that maths are "platonic" does you mean that they are given an origin through a geometric source such as the dodecahedron and other purely theoretical constructs? I see the platonic component coming in later with the sphere, but as only a partner in the origin of complex maths. The formless infinite chaos is what I have in mind as a starting point. The sphere came in later as the singularity, as a necessary component along with logic formulations from the chaos, together leading to a combined effect of what we call the big bang....I see that logic construction must have preceeded any platonic constructions as the complex structure of any platonic device would need a "scaffolding" by logic. The scenario I see is 1) an area of entropy reduction within the chaos leading to 2) rudimentary logic evolving towards formal logic via a pre-mathematical language of unknown sort. 3) separation of logic within chaos creating a "point" (enter platonism). Even though the resultant logic is technically an area within the chaos, since the chaos in of infinite size, any finite area within it is, by comparison, can be considered a point. 4) the simplest form geometrically possible is a point, (singularity) the first "bit" of mathematical information. 5) the parameters of the spherical "bit" contains PI, regardless of size, This leads to creation of baroque maths within the singularity describing all primordial energies and as a final act, describes the dimensions...6) The dimensions allow release from the singularity of all previously described information. That release was the big bang. While this conjecture is almost certainly incorrect, I would hope it is at least "well phrased"...edd

Edited January 11, 2014 by hoola

[qsa]

platonic means that mathematics is discovered, i.e. it is real and it exist on its own. I don't follow the rest.

 

edit: logic is a subfield in mathematics. Chaos word is used in mathematics as in chaos theory which is about nonlinear differential equations. I don't follow your relating of the two words.

Edited January 11, 2014 by qsa

[hoola]

I am using chaos in a non-mathematical way, as more of a common usage general term of maximum entropy of a particular system...not in the specific way it is used in chaos theory. I say this with a limited knowledge of how it is used in chaos theory. The main reason I am using it in a "non-mathematical" way is that I believe that if math is not eternal, then it had a beginning, middle and present condition, just as all things that can exist must have. So I see that math is a sophistcated form of order, so the natural source of maths is something with less order, or no order at all, hence my use of the term "chaos". My long term intention is to determine as much as possible how, why and from what, the maths evolved to their present state of maturity, and if they are not still in a process of evolution. This will require raw logic as we are dealing with things that existed in pre-mathematical states and therefore cannot be addressed by maths.....and therefore may never be provable..edd

[qsa]

Ok, that is what I thought you meant but I was not sure. However, I don't think hardly anybody believes that mathematics is evolving (not clear in what sense you mean that). The whole point about math is that it is amazing as it seems to describe compelling TRUTHS , and truth is by definition is eternal and unchanging. A circle has always existed and it will exist in the future no matter what. It is exactly this property that I used to come up with my theory which describes reality since reality also is a statement of "truth".

 

Philosophers of math have debated and tried to construct a "foundation" for math, but like Putnam for example has declared that there is no foundation for math and it does not need any. This is in regards to things like what are EXACTLY numbers and so on.

 

As for physics, after 400 years of doing physics there is not a shred of evidence that nature cannot be described by math the opposite is fantastically true. My theory is a natural outcome of that.

 

I can tell that you have zipped through my website with your mobile, but I suggest to look at it in a much deeper way. I am not sure about your programming skills, but the programs are so simple, but you also do need to understand modern physics in a proper academic way to follow my theory.

Edited January 15, 2014 by qsa

[hoola]

when I say mathematics is evolving, I say that if anything anywhere is evolving, math is the active element. Sure a circle isn't evolving, but that is a finished standard, like 10 fingers or being a quadra-ped. What I mean is the additional mathematical creatures evolving or extending current families of math's stratagems toward a realization of it's goal, whatever one might ascribe to that. Yes, math describes truth, but not everything it describes is true. All things.... true, false and everything in between are descriptions provided by a melange of required math families to fufill the "equation" of reality, as complex and seemingly self-negating as it is..... A clever thing can tell the truth, and then lie just as convincingly. It is the development of logic and empirical knowledge (memory) that allows successful evolution to take place , mainly by weeding out the less perceptive of a particular species. And if math doesn't "need" any reason to exist, that doesn't mean that at some point in the pre-universe it didn't...... If a need is fulfilled, the need is gone. The thing that needed it isn't. If it turns out that nothing "needs" to exist, so be it....especially if it is "synthetic" in a certain cartoonish sense. If that is so, it is would be difficult to assert it is completely fake..... and it is perhaps evolving toward knowing it's own origin (through sentience), and with that realization, as per Kurt Godel, it will cease to be a mere computer. Why can't need come after the fact of existence via another highly evolved algorithmic sub-program? It is difficult to imagine something as highly evolved a concept as "need" could have preceeded the primitive thing that does the needing. You might even say that a 2+2 "NEEDS" a 4 for completion. Perhaps that is the foundation of need in the mathematical universe and a starting point for more elaborate needs such as expressed by increasingly complex sets of math families. ...edd

Edited January 15, 2014 by hoola

[hoola]

it is time to make some quick surmises as to the content and character of the chaos. If our universe, via the logic supporting us, and by association, the roots of our universe, were in the chaos and if the chaos is infinite, then any possible universe's particular logic set is in the chaos too. Which means that an infinite number of possible universes is within the chaos, but a finite number have so far been developed from it's parameters, whatever that be. This means that not only is our universe "off and running" and doesn't need any more information from the chaos to exist, a divide between knowledge of how the universe came about and it's current informational content seems apparent. So, if the universe contains no information pertaining to it's pre-bang orgins, that doesn't mean that at some point, via sentient awareness, the issue would'nt be raised, therefore indicating that underlying math is capable of supporting such sophisticated musings to occur within it.....one can only speculate if the universe "knows" or has the pertinent information embedded within math or logic structures to do so. When I say "knows", I mean that the universe "knows" how gravity, fields and energy/matter relationships work, as they seem very well rehearsed these days. I don't think there is a "mind" outside the physical in a sort of "meta-physical" way. I think humans and other sentient beings are the "strange attractors" that have the right form and formulation to do the job...edd

[qsa]

What entity(entities) that made up the universe were in chaos. And why they started out in chaos. And why those entities and not others.

[davidivad]

I have heard max tegmark say that in the mathematical universe, there is no "stopping point" as to the investigation of physical realities.....there is nothing that cannot come under scrutiny of the maths, since everything is math. That may be true up to a point (TOU), but where did the "maths" come from? That is a valid question to pose if you wish to deal with a true TOE that has no "givens" or at least the minimum amount of them as possible. I certainly agree in his assessment that a mathematical assignment to reality is the way to proceed, but that doesn't say why all the baroque math is "out there" to be used to cobble together this or any other universe....as I have written about in other threads, the maths are not "god given", or a fundamental theoretical entity that had no evolutionary past of it's own. I am not saying that there isn't a fundamental minimum, only that some precursor to the maths seems evident, with an evolution of a certain formulation of logic that led to the maths, originating from the chaos. I see the chaos as the irreducible minimum, if any minimum exists at all....I see the next logical step from wheeler's "why anything?" to.... "why maths?" and ultimately..... "why chaos?" edd

math is a language and only appears to do work. it is us who make the rules. it is us that perform the math.

 

fact:

i can make an equation that describes absolutely nothing in the real world and it can still be correct. the question then becomes whether or not it fits observations.

 

chaos comes from order. this can be proven by the observation of the laws of thermodynamics. i suggest a book called order out of chaos written by illya prigogine (hope i spelled that right).

[hoola]

qsa.....the "entities" within the chaos was logic...the supporting rule set that allows information to function in only certain ways, giving stability to a region within the chaos. Where else could logic come from, but from a selected area of the infinite sea of chaos (background noise), where any possibility can occur. At some point a "great attractor" sustains itself of the background noise with a form of "cathodic logic device" in that information of a certain algorithm is allowed through like a semi-permeable membrane, ending the self-negation occuring exterior to the "device". (I say cathodic as the information is neccesarily limited, as in a solid state device or tube cathode, by current (information) mostly flowing in one direction, giving an "output".....) Why these entities, and not others? Well, I set up a few basic requirements and these seem to fit.....and these are only "place-keepers" in the ongoing attempt to formulate a rational TOE david...right, math is a language and you are doing the speaking......but logic made and continues to make the rules.....we can make rules too but only on how to describe discovered information, not on the information itself......that job seems taken.....edd

[qsa]

qsa.....the "entities" within the chaos was logic...the supporting rule set that allows information to function in only certain ways, giving stability to a region within the chaos.

 

 

Please give example.

[hoola]

it would difficult to give an "example". My basis is to propose that there was a time period before numbers, and without numbers to "examine itself", I go to the next available structure that I propose is underlying the maths, that being logic. The only way to address logic in this reduced field, is with logic. Theoretically, something of a finer division could do the job, but in this scenario, the chaos is the only thing left. At this stage of weak understanding of chaos, logic is the best device with which to work with...which to begin a bracketing of parameters of the structure of logic, or at least a logical flow chart leading from chaos to formal logic. But, with a crude idea of the structure of the chaos, with a few basic surmises, one could use the last step in a chaos proposal in conjunction with the first step in a logic proposal and see what various candidates make the best fits. So, attacking the problem on each of the nodes within logic, and then between logic and the chaos interface seems an interesting thing to try....the main stumbling block seems to be examining logic as it must have been early on, and deducing it's changes, as change in concepts, using some form of internal communication necessary to any evolution. Here I propose this to be a "logic latin", a pre-math language either discarded or modified when math developed. Perhaps, the logic latin is hidden within formal mathematics, as a sort of "background noise" which at some point could be subtracted out to reveal details....edd

if you want a specific example as to the "detection of a signal" using logic as a signal processor, this would be similar as to a detection stage within a radio. The sine wave information coming into the detector would be self cancelling with it's identical sidebands. With the detection circuit, half of the waveform is in cutoff, giving the analog audio you can hear. I propose logic fufills that function in extracting information from the chaos by the same conceptual premise with the reduction of input, by allowing only certain components to pass through, and rejecting others, hence a "useable signal".....numbers edd

I also propose that the chaos may not entirely isolated from extant reality....it seems gravity is showing the existence of "dark matter", so gravity seems a bit of a commonality to all universes, and perhaps even from what the universes came from.....if we were to know and catalogue all known universes with certainty, based upon dark matter gravity effects, I propose a higher than estimated figure of overall gravity effects would be noted, and the discrepancy would be due to some gravity coming from the chaos itself. If the gravity of chaos is leaking through, perhaps some note of it will be in the CMB....perhaps further, this leakage would give clues to not only the workings of the chaos, but the "pipeline" of logic it came through to get here. This in the fashion of using nuetrinos to examine a stars' inner workings....edd

Edited January 18, 2014 by hoola

[qsa]

how can there be "time" before numbers, do you think no 13 was born in a certain instant of time, that implies that it might not exist in the future. ie. all math is temporary which is against the definition.

 

you said " examining logic as it must have been early on". like what?

[hoola]

yes there was time before numbers if one accepts that time is any change of the informational content of any particular region. Yes, I do think that the number 13 was born at a certain "point" within the singularity, as indicative of a change within said region, time has passed and that "point" is a finite registered point that will someday be determinable with a proper analysis of the number "PI". To say that 13 might not exist in the future, is true, but only if the universe itself somehow disappears along with it. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and might be preventable in the future with a proper grounding in universe construction. To try to conceive of logic "early on", I think of it as information that has some similarities to simple logic, combined with information of the chaos of an unknown spectrum. I arrange the information within the chaos in two broad categories,.....truth and beauty. Truth relates to the finer detail of the proposed spectrum and beauty relates to the overall "surface" energy pattern. Within the chaos, I see truth as doing the supporting structure of chaos and the overall result indicates a form of evolution. The very loss of information that results from the some of the inside information being unexpressed, along to the outside, or surface information (or signal), indicates work being done....hence the beginning of evolution. A "paring down" of information, thus acting as an agent by establishing the simple concept of "something is inside of something else" (....the beginnings of geometry). I see the process continuing from chaos to simple logic to formal logic to maths to singularity to bang to inflation to us. It really seems quite beautiful to think of things this way regardless of the validity of it and amounts to a religion of sorts, albiet a logical one and one that attempts an objective outlook on how we got here and an understanding the physical parmeters of our environment. This allows a certain distancing from standard human logic towards a more "awareness in the universe" objectivity.....edd

numbers....an analysis of numbers themselves as constructed by logic.... I see the first "bit" as developed from and earlier concept of the chaos. That is the concept of "there is finite region within the infinite", therefore a sequestering of one thing from the other, or something can exist with a finite boundary....as expressed mathematicaly with a "one finite area" and geometrically with a "point". The point being circular, has the logic given formulae of PI within in, so begins baroque whole number generation. This shows the co-evolution of math and physicality and the close roots that they share....as the whole numbers accumulate, the underlying logic allows the numbers to establish a "framework" of math structure that begins a series of internal mutations, as anything the underlying logic permits, will tend to occur. So divisions between the numbers begins (along with a lot of other stuff) that begins the "filling in" of fractions between whole numbers. This continues to our present day, with increasinly fine points of intemediacies being formulated. This gets around the "infinite point" pardox to movement. Sure, the universe is cooking up new points all the time, and has been doing so for forever, and heading towards the infinte, but never getting there, even at the fastest rate of calculations allowed by formal logic....I think this "fastest rate" limit of calculation speed allows the concept of graduated time to occur, ( keeps everything from happening at once) and is a basis for other fundamental values of the physical universe. ..edd

I have left out this as to my envisioning of the chaos/reality relationship in physical relations, as there is one. The chaos is an infinite background noise containing the slightly overlapping / interacting universes, with a casual physical relationship detectable by dark matter gravity estimates. So, when I talk about the "chaos", I am not talking some remote abstraction, but a real thing which we might measure and gain enough information we can translate into something more understandable. By this have a better understanding of how logic "multiplied" into maths. This is not to say I think the chaos is anything but theoretical, but profoundly theoretical...the first gossamer threads for don juan to climb on.....

I have referred to the singularity being a point geometrically. I should have said, the singularity is the shape that requires the least amount of information to describe it.....what is simplest shape mathematically?

Edited January 19, 2014 by hoola

[hoola]

a

Edited January 20, 2014 by hoola

[qsa]

how did logic came about and at what instant it created no 13, and how?

[hoola]

logic would have been initiated by an area of reduced entropy within the chaos, allowing some arrangements between particular components of the chaos to establish "working relationships". The act of giving a reliable relation between components of the chaos allows information to appear, as the components of information must have a stable internal relationships in order to do "work". Once this information has "appeared" within the chaos, there is a inherent locality being born, or something at a particular region is of a certain quality, and in another area, has a different value....hence the differentiation of space or the beginnings of geometry. Add to this perhaps trillions of years and enough pockets of information accumulate within the chaos, and a "surface" develops with increasing complexity, and that this surface is the combined information of the random arrangements which posess an internal logic "inertia", of differing qualities, adding up to achieve a "completed logic set". This is the rule set that takes the basic geometry established and allows theoretical descriptive "work" to give an identifier to the area as a "point" within the chaos. The first beginnings of the singularity. With the point being described in simplest terms as what is known as a sphere, the rule set describes the parameters of the sphere, which has PI as underlying theoretical constraint. This starts off the 3.14159..... with real numbers (13 included), in a form of theoretical memory, as each new calculation requires a "memory" of the previous tally to engage another calculation. This calculation and retrieval from memory requires time, and that establishes the basic unit of time, and the other values will follow as developed by this initial "quantumization" of time. This explains john wheeler's...."why the quantum"? Why the newly organized area within the chaos would develop a "memory" is one of the more interesting things, explainable only yet as a logic act required to be performed in order to allow a universe to "hang together" and attributable to one of the sub-sets of overall logic formulations. This also has a physical correlation in the concept of "inertia", or a physical memory of movement. I believe that universes are born fairly regularly, but are "still-born" universes, that do not have all the required logic subsets to have a sustainable maturation...but enough components are attributed within the chaos to occaisonally allow a "mini-bang" to appear in the universe in deep space...I see that the odds of getting a "full pallette" of logic subsets under such conditions is quite rare, perhaps only happening once in the history of the universe. I do feel as though more than one universe was born with the bang, a set of universes, with gravity as a commonality, hence the detection of them through dark matter effects....edd ps...and is the sphere the simplest described geometric form?

question...is time slowing down? If time is graduated by the retrieval and recalculation of the next digit in PI, then each recalculation should take a little longer to do, if the entire algorithm must be recalculated in order to get the next digit.....seems I heard about some experiments being done that were to check for such a time anomaly that were thought might exist...I can't remeber the exact details, but it had something to do with measuring a precise distance to the moon....edd

as to the exact instant that 13 was created, I don't know other than to say there was one. Much of it revolves around PI being scale invariant or not...I don't know that yet, but presume it is invariant. Since the simplest scale is base 2, I presume calculations are performed with that scale. It is possible then, that the number 13 was "invented" with the 13th calculation of the algorithm of PI, but that is a yet to be seriously thought about subject...edd.

Edited January 20, 2014 by hoola

[qsa]

logic would have been initiated by an area of reduced entropy within the chaos

How big is this "area of reduced entropy", and how is this area defined. and what was in it that had entropy and then got reduced?

[hoola]

the "area" in question would no doubt be large, or at least the accumulations of areas within the chaos would be, considering the amount of information required to build a rudimentary logic "device". Regardless of size of the area or areas within, the finite area size in comparison to the chaos, which I define as infinite, would be a dimensionless point. Any finite area in comparison to an infinte area is effectively a point. What gets extracted is the particular random areas of whatever the chaos is made from....if it has "no rules of order", but still contains information, then the information must be of a constantly changing form and value, never allowing form or shape to appear within it. No consistencies. However, if by random events, some order developed, and was self-sustaining in it's ability to isolate itself within the chaos for sustained periods, then things might progress in a specific area to a long term order, or agglomerations of areas of reduced entropy. The main thing here is that there is information within the chaos, but the values are indeterminate and in constant flux. With determinant values being "attached" to particular math structures by the constraints of logic, the first stable math relationships can occur. This begins with the first "bit" of information that remains at a fixed value. We would call this a "one". The theoretical physical analogue is spherical, of which I talked about already...as with the "shape" leading to a numerical output....the regions of chaos outside the "special areas" allowed by logic would have no stability. What offers stability to chaos?.... Logic. So, first the chaos, then logic, then maths....one could ask, well, where did this "discordant chaos" come from.....good question. Seems one has to consider the case of a....."6 turning out to be a 9"......until it forced to appear as one or the other by logic restraints, it seems "free" to do both or neither.....so as information has to be "organized" to do math, components within the chaos have to held to specific values to do "logic". One can only say at this point that the chaos is proto-information en-route to being evolved to become "real" , or stably measurable information....and once the process begins, under at least one circumstance, things got interesting...edd.

Edited January 21, 2014 by hoola

[hoola]

thoughts as to chaos and wave duality. I see the issue of forcing a photon to "decide" if it shows itself as a wave or particle as with the 2 slit experiment, having a foundation within properties of the chaos. What decides if the photon shows up as a particular form seems to be as it is "observed", it has to "decide" which way to appear. As strange as that seems, (and if that is a good understanding of what the experiment actually means), let me say that the chaos is of a similar format, in that the information within it doesn't have to "decide" which parameter it is as there is no "observer", that is until logic appears in brief random areas. That does the job as defacto "observer". This would cause associated internal and nearby regions within the chaos to "have to decide" what value they have of the information present within the region in question. The states of normal matter when being broken down in accelerators is a similar concept. If a particular thing, such as a proton is broken with collisions, the resultant particle is changed to a number of intermediate briefly appearing particles, which they themselves break down until some stable end result is produced. I imagine the chaos as a sea of these "intermediates" never being allowed to stabilize at one particular value, so long term arrangements can't be done, until a seed of logic acts as a catalyst to produce a region of "observer determined stability". The observer causes a substantially fixed value to the information by, in the words of modern quantum mechanics, causing a "collapse of the wavefront", or making the cat either dead or alive, by opening the box,so to speak. In the case of the chaos, which seems logical to presume is a base 2 schematic, a bit remains of bit and a no bit remains a no bit, giving the "inertial stability" instead of the self-negating degeneracies of indeterminism.....edd

the whole idea of an observer making a real difference in the 2 slit experiment is a most ludicrous thing.....the very idea of observation does tend to make one think of.... what other "observers" can do the job of a person who observes the experiment in question?? Could a sentient robot cause the same collapse of wavefront? A monkey with it's eyes tricked into focusing on the salient readout? Is the very appearance of a logic driven observer the only requirement, and at what order of logic is the minimum required to do the job? Could the very appearance of logic be a sufficient causative factor in the chaos to cause changes? I say yes, but not in the "real world" as it has evloved to a fairly stable value-set, with enough stability to allow reality to persist. It in effect is "observing itself" in broad terms. But the chaos, not having any logic within is much more sensitive to any minor observer effects, as primitive logic must have been. So, it seems there is a default minimum value of logic in the chaos, that agglomeration or accumulation of logic sub-structures that crossed a threshold value to cause an observer effect to take place. That observer effect could be of a catalytic nature once it got established and would perhaps be a bit of a runaway process leading to expanding regions within the chaos giving way to large areas of logic-ruled information.....our universe, except on very small scales in which information still shows a remnant of it's "rebellious" past and must be forced to decide something it normally doesn't have to. This "lawlessness" at the heart of reality seems kinda scary, thank goodness on the macro scale, things seems to be rather obediant in the command to remain largely as they are....as the unexamined life isn't worth living, the unobserved universe cannot exist....edd

I have read of the "anthropromorphic" (sp) universe as a universe not being in existence unless life exists within it....I see an association to this idea, with the caveat that life does not need to exist, only logic....and logic is not life, or alive itself. So, my idea of a logic catalytic action causing the universe to exist doesn't mean that any advanced thinking machines, such as ourselves need to exist....and that humans may be a rare and unnecessary curiousity to anything but ourselves....and only the default minimum level of logic "density" needs to exist in order to bring about universe construction from the chaos....edd

Edited January 21, 2014 by hoola

[qsa]

I still don't get the area that you are talking about. In your theory there is logic making up chaos. logic is not a "thing"(or is it, you never gave an example). We understand area as having a perimeter, what is this perimeter made of. Or is this area a sort of make believe or just a figure of speech.

 

edit:anyway there is no way to define a space(infinite or not) without material thing which is the whole exercise to figure out its origin.

 

Can you also please tell me if you looked at my theory in post #3. If so, what did you understand from it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by qsa

[hoola]

the areas I am talking about ?..OK.....2 basic areas, one I call the chaos of infinite area with unstable parameters of whatever it consists of. Since the values are unstable, the content cannot be described. The second area is a region or regions that occaisionally develop stable values within them, subsisting within the chaos, due to random fluctuations. Statistics demands that once in a while, a particular parameter might remain fixed as to it informational content. I say, that if enough value stable content persists past a certain time limit, and if those particular stable descriptions are in a proximate state (density), a symbiotic relationship can take place, as to cause an expanding region to maintain a long term area of stable value parameters within it. This long term stable parameter is a sort of ''freezing out" of all possible values to some more fixed value....... It is this stability property of any value appearing within the universe that describes a "logic" to have occured if more than one content stable component develops a long-term symbiotic mathematical relationship with partners........ I use this term in perhaps a novel way, in that the chaos is "illogical" with it's meandering values and the small areas within have a stable single value or finite value set, or "logical"....I did try to read both web sites, I just went back and tried to read the upper one, and it still won't open. The lower one did and I have read it before, but concerns what happened after the bang, with the heavy math I don't understand well enough to have an opinion on. I stick to the lead up to the bang and therefore use apollonian pure logic, and stay away from the briar patch of complex maths...which did "burst forth" from the confinement of the singularity to describe reality....if that is what you are saying, I am in complete agreement in a foundational sense. I am attempting to learn complex maths, and will be playing catch-up for years to come....the universe needs to be reverse engineered with math, but at some point, (the pre-bang I think), math will be unuseable for a further exploration back in time to the point in which something comes from nothing....that of course includes the chaos as I define it as a "real thing" which itself came from a previous state. So, still no end in sight, but the ball has been kicked down the road a bit...if only in my own mind.....edd

Edited January 22, 2014 by hoola

[qsa]

Unfortunately you did not address my question directly. I was asking about the perimeter of the area. Also you never gave an example of "logic".