disproving einstein and infinites (Page 2)

StuckInTheSixties: I think you're right. Opposite of dark grey would be light grey, and vice versa.

Opposite of brown, I'm guessing would be quite a range, because brown encompasses quite a lot of different shades and hues.

AussieOi: Deep left when I said "@deep so ok infinity can get a run now, tell me of anyone who has any idea of anything unlimited that anyone can prove, . Except for a ranter, spruiker, insane dude or greedy economist hooked on growth"

StuckInTheSixties: I have Windows XP, and one of the accessories is a program called Paint. I opened it up, made a square, painted it brown, and then "inverted" the colors. I experimented with a number of different shades of brown, and got various shades of blue, ranging into aqua.

the real slim DEEPy: "there are 2 things that are infinite, man's stupidity and the universe, and im not sure about the second one..." einstein.

MrSteveA67: There are problems that Calculus (of Infinitesimals) added to mathematics and the way infinities are treated seems rather sloppy to me. That's where a lot of the singularities in physics theories arose.

I also think the idea of continuous fields is wrong (where does anything begin, end or how does anything specific happen?)

To me, the infinities arise from the potential of time to be infinite and the rest is all discrete/quantized "things". The structures of space, matter etc. arise from discrete properties that "things" possess (those properties are yet again "things".

So when you boil it down, it's all discrete units (nouns) and time (the verb), and realistically all those discrete units are detected via. human perceptions so they're fundamentally "qualia".

Something that appears to be a mismatch between what pure logic is capable of constructing and how experiences exist is that for something to be completely defined (something for which we could define a precise model with unknowns or loose ends), it's fundamentally static and unchanging and time is something that theorists have had difficulty working with (also, time arises from memory and the past doesn't physically exist so motions/changes/energies are at least partly subjective). This is reflected in the statistical components of quantum mechanics and fundamentally based on the fact that logic can't determine what comes from nothing and it really gives nothing more than what it's handed.

There's an inherently creative aspect to time and that appears to place limits on what can be determined about the future, and because it's tied to an observer it seems to reinforce that 'free will' exists. This is also where ideas of space time resembling parallel worlds with divergence possibilities arises (that's the interpretation I've been using at least, though most every interpretation of quantum mechanics is similar but just presented from different perspectives).

Finite Calculus (instead of Infinitesimal Calculus) seems closer to what should be occurring in physics, though it's more complex to work with because you can't throw away information as easily by simply taking a limit and ignoring the infinitesimal components.

For example, if you take two formulas generating approximations to pi for a spherical volume and subtract them, normally you'd get pi-pi=0, but if you instead retain all the infinitesimal terms, then you're left with a structure that has many structures of different dimensions and these can even be changing/evolving over time (because pi is actually a series of approximations ... no one has ever calculated what a true numerical value is for pi, instead every computable term in a series is ironically NOT pi! ).

... maybe there are some versions of that last idea that could even look like a planet with trees ... ?! Anyway, it's an interesting idea to consider and it seems possible.

StuckInTheSixties: Here is what I assume to be the correct wording of this quote:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

A search found a few variations, but this wording was used about 80% of the time.

StuckInTheSixties: MrSteve, is there anything ... ANYTHING ... that you don't have a long, pretentious essay about?

MrSteveA67: No

StuckInTheSixties: Quantity does not necessarily equal quality.

MrSteveA67: Lack of content doesn't imply quality either.

Yes, we could toss a sentence or two back and forth but that's just for fun.

AussieOi: Call on me as a gifted yet mortal practiser of einsteins infinite human stupidy, what a noob he was. And the haircut

StuckInTheSixties: Let me state it another way, MrSteve:

Your posts are usually the product of a longwinded, self-absorbed, masturbatory bore.

Have fun!

AussieOi: Mrsteve, pls stay

the real slim DEEPy: if you cant explain something in words that everyone can understand, then you dont really understand it yourself...

MrSteveA67: Thanks, Aussie. I admit having had some fun with pushing his (SITS) 'buttons'.

Actually, I was on another physics site ~12 years ago and realized that pure logic doesn't create anything and I spent years trying to figure out how time works ... it because obvious to me that there's something beyond any conventional form of magic ... it seems impossible that time exists.

It's simply that logic fundamentally describes static structures and is incompatible with change/time.

For example, we could write a program to do most anything conceivable, assuming we have the correct inputs/outputs, but there's no way for a program to describe its own power cord, or determine its clock rate and that was something that was amazing to me because even things that might seem like magic, if we're describing specific types of events and their properties would seem to at least be theoretically possible to at least simulate, but beyond the wildest storylines is simply the impossible ... and it appears even the impossible exists. That's still amazing to me.

Not only that but time is subjective (individually determined) and there are simple everyday examples of this and we don't need complex physical theories to realize it.

That's why quantum mechanics has had to resort to statistical descriptions and found the Uncertainty Principle, but in other ways the Uncertainty Principle doesn't actually apply to experience itself, it only applies when you try to generalize across multiple observers, but a photon itself is never detected as something uncertain but instead a specific thing.

As an example of how, in many ways, there is no Uncertainty Principle, consider the idea that dice roll 'random' numbers. If I roll a die and it comes up 5, is 5 a random number? Actually, no. A die roll comes up with a specific number and not a distribution of numbers. The distribution only arises when attempts are made to describe characteristics across many rolls, but truly past results don't physically exist.

This is where the wave/particle duality is quantum mechanics comes into the picture, but in many ways the wave is also individual and subjectively determined ... you can't really measure the wave function itself, but instead it takes someone to integrate multiple observations in memory to construct a perception of a wave.

I've actually got some ideas of how to generalize any form of deterministic (non-random) computation into the equivalent of a resonant system with all objects within that system existing similar to harmonics of a fundamental wavelength (this is similar to resonance and has correlations with music). From there when comparisons are made between these harmonics over time, they can appear to be synchronized in time and 'oscillate' together. I used some of these ideas (close to computing the greatest common divisor between two numbers) to generate some images that I posted on my page.

I've found a lot of structures that look like landscapes, seascapes with clouds and even the Sun reflecting of the ocean, pyramids and various phase transitions of matter and these ideas agree with concepts of a holographic universe ... though these images don't include time, the 'waves' don't move, the fire doesn't flicker, the clouds don't blow etc.

The only way to add time appears to be to add a statistically creative energy (basically 'free will' and then these waves become closer to resembling quantum wavefunctions instead.

Check out some of the images on my page.

I'm satisfied I have the basic foundation figured out even though there are still a ton of question marks and areas where it appears things can be of unbounded complexity.

My focus now is instead on a "(Solution to the) Theory of Everything that Matters" ... that seems like something worth investing some energy into. What else should one be doing? I can't think of anything better to work on

the real slim DEEPy: a hologram projection from a universe being sucked into a black hole, or 10-31 dimensions, those are the current grand unified theory contenders.

AussieOi: MrSteve you are not a noob for sits pleasure. I think music has been a teaching tool for millenia but what the hell make a new tune

Deep whats real? Lol.

MrSteveA67: The hologram version appears a natural interpretation when you consider that the senses interact with a 2-D surface in space.

Though space is often referred to as 3 dimensional, that's not very accurate as physical information lies along a surface of interaction that could be mapped to a 2-D surface. It's time that reveals properties of depth, hence conventional "spacetime" should be reconsidered to be 3-D and not 4-D. (For example, if someone could truly see in 3 dimensions, they could see the interiors of objects. Even something like an MRI scan only transfers information along a 2-D surface).

The way I see it, since space is something with properties that are learned, the first dimension that builds the rest is really time (as sequences of interactions and experiences), from their higher dimensional concepts are learned.

Higher dimensional theories arise from the diversity of perceived properties of experience, but the natural structure should be that there's a single largest fundamental dimension (which appears to have to be assumed to be infinite) and then other dimensions are relatively smaller and dependent upon it as a common foundation.

My ideas are based largely on the concept of a string of quanta (which exist as conscious properties of experience) and you could almost consider it to be a number line. Depending upon the properties detected/experienced at any point, one can take repetitions and fold them into loops (for example, experiencing two states A and B repeativitely naturally gives rise to the interpretation of a motion between two points in a space).

Realistically, there's no way for us to verify the existence of or reference a truly infinite thing nor a continuous field, except as discrete 'things' over time and the potentially of a field to act as something continuous arises from our ability to consider things to be inserted between other things, but fundamentally time always goes forward.

Tachyons (faster than light objects) are theoretically possible in Relativity but supposedly haven't been found. A bit of a close inspection shows that it's actually thought processes that operate similar to Tachyonic processes.

How is it possible that known universe is billions of light years across if we've really only been able to make measurements within time periods of recorded history? It's the mind that extrapolates at velocities faster than light speed and intelligence can construct time reversed interpretations of events (also a property of Tachyonic processes).

There are many simple day to day examples of these phenomenon as well and it appears (as it should) that many of properties claimed to be possessed by physical particles arise from properties of the observer involved.

Consider this, for theorists trying to work on a "Theory of Everything", what are they really doing? If you had to try to describe everything, you'd simply end up describing things out to your own limits, so it appears natural that a "Theory of Everything" from any specific perspective simply reflects the limits of that perspective (and isn't necessarily describing anything truly "out there" ... the closest things to a "real out there" from my perspective appears to be unknowns in the future ... wherever the infinite's going and it also seems like logic can't constrain it precisely but instead simply provide some rules by which coherent growth occurs. Life is on the boundary somewhere between perfect order and complete randomness).

MrSteveA67: Thanks SITS. Yep, I'm working on a new tune (almost literally). I've even got some interesting ideas for music synthesis algorithms, though I'd like to figure out some new and unique style of music too.

I assume musical styles are at least partially learned or acquired and so I don't expect a new style of music to necessarily be enjoyed by everyone, but then again there is some method to the madness of music and it's possible that some musical structures could be recognized by most people (there is a lot of mathematics and structure behind music that tends to be shared across cultures).

StuckInTheSixties: I calls 'em like I sees 'em, MrSteve.

AussieOi: I'm not sits

MrSteveA67: I know you're not SITS and hopefully you didn't misinterpret my comment. I'd intended to say that I've had some fun messing around with him.

StuckInTheSixties: You write all that crap ... for me?!?!

AussieOi: Sits you should be chuffed at the efforts of mr steve, I'm yet to have the mental rigour to apply thought to it all.

the real slim DEEPy: we have an 8 note musical scale, based upon the modes of greek musical theory. in the orient, they have a 13 note scale- hardly universal. the steps and half-steps are the same intervals, however, the chineese use mostly penatonic (every interval is a note), whereas we use major, monor melodic monor, diminished and/or harmonic monor scales (with which 8 of the 13 possible intervals are notes) and the 7 classical greek 8 not modes.

due to this major discrepency, chineese music sounds like "spoons falling down stairs" to westerners- we cannot hear the harmony in the abscence of the familiar scales and greek modes.

qas far as 3d being 2d, we WOULD be ablke to see through objects, thuys see them 3 dimensionally, if it werent for light refraction, absorbtion reflection and such. we DO see in 3d, because we can use triangulation, through 2 eyes, to produce a 3-d image. the posession of 2 eyes gives us depth perception- the 3rd dimension, and time, of course, is the 4th dimension.