| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dave Snellbach" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2006 01:57:02 PM |
| Object: |
Fractal Universe |
I know that many people will think that these ideas are really crazy, but I
think that this guy is raising some interesting issues.
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/stars2/index.html
While I dont think that he has really proved his claims, he has certainly
assembled some interesting observations which seem to support the Bohr
model.
Coupling those ideas with the ideas found here
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/ could lead to a whole new
view of the universe.
Seems to explain pretty much just about everything.
.
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
15 Oct 2006 03:01:12 PM |
|
|
Dave Snellbach wrote:
I know that many people will think that these ideas are really crazy, but I
think that this guy is raising some interesting issues.
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/stars2/index.html
While I dont think that he has really proved his claims, he has certainly
assembled some interesting observations which seem to support the Bohr
model.
Coupling those ideas with the ideas found here
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/ could lead to a whole new
view of the universe.
Seems to explain pretty much just about everything.
Galaxy Model for the Atom:
What is above is also below
FRACTAL
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
15 Oct 2006 09:10:46 PM |
|
|
Dave Snellbach wrote:
I know that many people will think that these ideas are really crazy,
but I
think that this guy is raising some interesting issues.
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/stars2/index.html
While I dont think that he has really proved his claims, he has
certainly
assembled some interesting observations which seem to support the Bohr
model.
Coupling those ideas with the ideas found here
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/ could lead to a whole
new
view of the universe.
Seems to explain pretty much just about everything.
Galaxy Model for the Atom:
What is above is also below
FRACTAL
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
John
I thought that you would like that one John -
There are still some open minds out there. Still possible that there may be
some truth to it, but the details need to be hammered out before most people
will think of it as factual. Pictures just aint the same as formulas.
If you consider the ideas that are illustrated on my blog, and add one
additional concept. That while quantization is arbitrary on a given scale,
space can be considered as an infinite number of cellular automatas on all
scales all laid on top of each other. Somehow, these different scales are
related by order / disorder, but I cant grasp it. It makes my head spin.
I can understand disorder esaily in 2D. 3D is harder, but still easy.
Disorder in the time regime seems quite difficult to visualize. Then add to
that teh concept of cellular automatas of varying cell size. Your head will
spin too.
Could easily be fractal, or fractal-like in my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
18 Oct 2006 02:26:36 PM |
|
|
Dave are elliptical galaxies (fractals) showing us the look of the
"whole" universe? Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
18 Oct 2006 10:01:03 PM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22632-45367FEC-90@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
Dave are elliptical galaxies (fractals) showing us the look of the
"whole" universe? Bert
Wish I had a nice clean algebraic answer. I think that the easy answer in my
mind is that self-organizing behaviour is much like the rules in cellular
automata, but on various scales. So, whatever it is that causes
self-organization on one scale is very much the same as any other scale.
I dont know that you can really call a galaxy a fractal. It's more like a
portion of fractal which exists across the scale regime. So, a photo of a
galaxy is kind of like a Poincare' section, where the section itself is a
snapshot of a given scale.
I'm still very skeptical because there is no math to back it up, but I think
that it's got alot of potential. Still unproven.
I think that Nottale makes some bold propositions but I think that his
approach needs refinement, clerification, better tools, and some allies who
can add their brain power to try to build in that direction. Is Nottale %100
right ? I doubt it. But is he going in the right direction ? I think very
possibly yes.
I also think that this thing will _never_ fly until order/disorder is well
understood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: All changes are merely virtual. |
19 Oct 2006 12:42:02 AM |
|
|
Hi Dave_Snellbach, The structure of the cosmos is simple,
it's just forever getting less dense, and the less dense it gets
the slower it dissipates.
" Life " is just the enternal consumption of Gibbs_Free_Energy.
There's nothing special about liquid water.
The laws of thermodynamics, and it's finer theory, Quantum Mechanics,
are truly cosmic, infinite and eternal.
The cosmos has no age, no range of denisities... it just is.
The only limits are what we can directly and indirectly observe.
13.7 Giga Years ago the cosmos was infinitely old, wide and hot,
but, currently, we can't observe anything beyond those 13.7 Giga Years.
The cosmos just is... nothing truly changes. All changes are merely virtual.
In the following quotes from Einstein,
he argues that time is pseudo-directional
( i.e. he argues that time is spatial )
because, just as a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom
( i.e. just as it's known to be causal ), all randomness is pseudorandom.
But the scientist is possessed by
the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is
every whit as necessary and determined as the past.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html
and:
People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
SpeakingOfFaith.PublicRadio.ORG/programs/einsteinsgod/unheardcuts.shtml
See also:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time
Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
Title: Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ?
Urgrue.ORG/lib/mysterious-flow.html
Title: That Mysterious Flow
Journal: Scientific American, Sep 2002
Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
Title: 4D View of Time
Consequently, Einstein felt
physical processes determined absolutely everything, including man's desires.
For example, he said:
I do not believe in freedom of the will.
Schopenhauer's words:
“ Man can do what he wants,
but he cannot will what he wills ”
accompany me in all situations throughout my life and
reconcile me with the actions of others
even if they are rather painful to me.
This awareness of the lack of freedom of will
preserves me from taking too seriously myself and
my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and
from losing my temper.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/credo.html
See also: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Physicalism
Einstein thought good theorists should be Logical Positivists,
pushing the border between physics and metaphysics:
I believe that every true theorist is
a kind of tamed metaphysicist,
no matter how pure a " positivist " he may fancy himself.
Leiwen.Tripod.COM/eingra.htm
While Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation was intentionally mute
on metaphysical issues, Einstein thought today's theories and technologies are
not the last word, i.e., if the past is any indicator,
theories and technologies will improve.
Einstein's ability to find once hidden causalities
decades before they were empirically proven exemplified his Logical positivism.
For example, decades before it could be empirically verified
his General Relativity explained exactly how
a clock with 10 ^ -16 second accuracy ticks faster
with a minute increase in altitude. See:
PhysicsToday.ORG/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: All changes are merely virtual. |
19 Oct 2006 07:55:21 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_18_M1wi@Cotse.NET...
Hi Dave_Snellbach, The structure of the cosmos is simple,
it's just forever getting less dense, and the less dense it gets
the slower it dissipates.
Sounds like Big Bong theory.
" Life " is just the enternal consumption of Gibbs_Free_Energy.
There's nothing special about liquid water.
Life is turbulence.
The laws of thermodynamics, and it's finer theory, Quantum Mechanics,
are truly cosmic, infinite and eternal.
AFLACK
The cosmos has no age, no range of denisities... it just is.
The only limits are what we can directly and indirectly observe.
13.7 Giga Years ago the cosmos was infinitely old, wide and hot,
but, currently, we can't observe anything beyond those 13.7 Giga Years.
The cosmos just is... nothing truly changes. All changes are merely
virtual.
No.
In the following quotes from Einstein,
he argues that time is pseudo-directional
( i.e. he argues that time is spatial )
because, just as a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom
( i.e. just as it's known to be causal ), all randomness is pseudorandom.
But the scientist is possessed by
the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is
every whit as necessary and determined as the past.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html
I think that there is a disorder which is not a pseudo-disorder, but is in
fact a real disorder. I am also trying to figure out Wolfram's irreversible
cellular automata, and what that implies, but I'm not yet sold that this
really implies disorder just yet. There are lots of mappings which are not
bijective and hence not reversible, but people do not ordinarliy associate
these mappings with disorder in any other context.
Working on that one.
and:
People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
SpeakingOfFaith.PublicRadio.ORG/programs/einsteinsgod/unheardcuts.shtml
Hah. Most physicists would know what he really meant by that, and he's not
saying that time does not exist.
See also:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time
Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
Title: Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ?
Urgrue.ORG/lib/mysterious-flow.html
Title: That Mysterious Flow
Journal: Scientific American, Sep 2002
Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
Title: 4D View of Time
Consequently, Einstein felt
physical processes determined absolutely everything, including man's
desires.
For example, he said:
I do not believe in freedom of the will.
Schopenhauer's words:
" Man can do what he wants,
but he cannot will what he wills "
accompany me in all situations throughout my life and
reconcile me with the actions of others
even if they are rather painful to me.
This awareness of the lack of freedom of will
preserves me from taking too seriously myself and
my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and
from losing my temper.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/credo.html
See also: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Physicalism
Einstein thought good theorists should be Logical Positivists,
pushing the border between physics and metaphysics:
I believe that every true theorist is
a kind of tamed metaphysicist,
no matter how pure a " positivist " he may fancy himself.
Leiwen.Tripod.COM/eingra.htm
While Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation was intentionally mute
on metaphysical issues, Einstein thought today's theories and technologies
are
not the last word, i.e., if the past is any indicator,
theories and technologies will improve.
Einstein's ability to find once hidden causalities
decades before they were empirically proven exemplified his Logical
positivism.
For example, decades before it could be empirically verified
his General Relativity explained exactly how
a clock with 10 ^ -16 second accuracy ticks faster
with a minute increase in altitude. See:
PhysicsToday.ORG/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Surfer" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
16 Oct 2006 01:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:57:02 -0500, "Dave Snellbach" <No@No.No> wrote:
I know that many people will think that these ideas are really crazy, but I
think that this guy is raising some interesting issues.
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/stars2/index.html
Nottale's theory of Scale Relativity involves a concept of fractal
space-time.
FRACTAL SPACE-TIME AND MICROPHYSICS.
http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/ukliwo12.htm
It can account for some of the interesting structures noted on the web
page you referenced.
Eg see:
Gravitational structure formation in scale relativity
http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/DaRochaNottaleL.pdf
Cahill's Process Physics asserts that space is fractal.
Eg:
Dynamical Fractal 3-Space and the Generalised Schrodinger Equation ...
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-04-05.PDF
More here
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Although both the above theories were developed independently, they
both predict and explain the dark matter effect--something that
conventional physics seems unable to do.
This difference may be due to the fact that conventional physics
models space and time as completely smooth. If modelling space time as
non-smooth (eg fractal) is closer to reality, then this would make the
new theories more complete.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
16 Oct 2006 10:04:55 PM |
|
|
"Surfer" <surfer@no.spam.net> wrote in message
news:st56j21mcoinjiqm4n8668e6800ohjfhlv@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:57:02 -0500, "Dave Snellbach" <No@No.No> wrote:
I know that many people will think that these ideas are really crazy, but
I
think that this guy is raising some interesting issues.
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/stars2/index.html
Nottale's theory of Scale Relativity involves a concept of fractal
space-time.
FRACTAL SPACE-TIME AND MICROPHYSICS.
http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/ukliwo12.htm
Nottale states that:
-----------------------
"The understanding of how "order" (better: "organization") emerges from
chaos is the key for the foundation of a future (still not existing) science
of classical complexity. This fundamental problem will be addressed in Secs.
3.2, 5.6, 5.7 and 7.2."
-----------------------
I've been saying the same thing on this group - he is definately right - and
I think that both Nottale and Wolfram are very, very close to something much
more important than anything previously discovered by science bar none, but
they aint quite got it just yet IMO.
Nottale is on the right track here, but no quite on target IMO. He knows
what is missing - he even states it - he is missing a crucial tool and I
think that we know what it is.
It can account for some of the interesting structures noted on the web
page you referenced.
Eg see:
Gravitational structure formation in scale relativity
http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/DaRochaNottaleL.pdf
Cahill's Process Physics asserts that space is fractal.
Eg:
Dynamical Fractal 3-Space and the Generalised Schrodinger Equation ...
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-04-05.PDF
More here
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Although both the above theories were developed independently, they
both predict and explain the dark matter effect--something that
conventional physics seems unable to do.
Completely agree, and then some.
This difference may be due to the fact that conventional physics
models space and time as completely smooth. If modelling space time as
non-smooth (eg fractal) is closer to reality, then this would make the
new theories more complete.
I tend to be a fractal skeptic but acknowledge the very real possibilities.
Are there things which "look like" fractals ? Sure. But are they really ? I
think that speaking of fractals in nature is just as speculative as speaking
of limits and infinity, all the while knowing that there is such a thing as
Planck length. Nottale seems to have some reasons to suspect that it's true.
But ultimately, I think that Nottale is chasing the wrong thing. He's after
fractals which "seem" almost certain to exist, while the real prize is
understanding order & disorder. Fractals and chaos are merely ancilliary to
this vastly more important [but not nearly as pretty] area of great
interest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
17 Oct 2006 03:17:20 PM |
|
|
Dave Snellbach wrote:
But ultimately, I think that Nottale is chasing the wrong thing. He's after
fractals which "seem" almost certain to exist, while the real prize is
understanding order & disorder. Fractals and chaos are merely ancilliary to
this vastly more important [but not nearly as pretty] area of great
interest.
You might want to take a closer look at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
This site is devoted to an infinite discrete fractal model of nature.
Carl Sagan called this general type of paradigm (not specifically my
version) : "the most exquisite conjecture I know of in either science
or religion".
The page on comparisons of electron wavefunctions and planetary nebulae
morphologies is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Also, we are having a rousing debate over at sci.astro.research over
whether the Big Bang paradigm or the Infinite Discrete Fractal paradigm
offers a better path towards a 21st century cosmology that can actually
make definitive predictions and explain what we observe in a
comprehensible way. The thread is entitled "Good News for the Big Bang
Model" and so far the moderators have shown a remarkable willingness to
allow both sides to make their cases.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
17 Oct 2006 09:54:50 PM |
|
|
<rloldershaw@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:1161116240.561758.175960@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave Snellbach wrote:
But ultimately, I think that Nottale is chasing the wrong thing. He's
after
fractals which "seem" almost certain to exist, while the real prize is
understanding order & disorder. Fractals and chaos are merely ancilliary
to
this vastly more important [but not nearly as pretty] area of great
interest.
You might want to take a closer look at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
This site is devoted to an infinite discrete fractal model of nature.
Carl Sagan called this general type of paradigm (not specifically my
version) : "the most exquisite conjecture I know of in either science
or religion".
Formally, I am a skeptic. Informally, I love this stuff. One day equations
will probably justify your suspicions and I hope that you are the lucky one
who finds them.
The page on comparisons of electron wavefunctions and planetary nebulae
morphologies is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Also, we are having a rousing debate over at sci.astro.research over
whether the Big Bang paradigm or the Infinite Discrete Fractal paradigm
offers a better path towards a 21st century cosmology that can actually
make definitive predictions and explain what we observe in a
comprehensible way. The thread is entitled "Good News for the Big Bang
Model" and so far the moderators have shown a remarkable willingness to
allow both sides to make their cases.
Rob
I was reading it. I was tempted to toss in my two cents, but I'm kind of
scared to jump into the middle of a crowd like that. I'd probably wind up
with a black eye or bloody nose.
But I do have some big problems with the big bang which are based completely
on considerations relating to order, disorder, and determinism. I think that
it is an exercise in mythology to project backwards that far when we know
quite well that the universe is not completely deterministic, QM suggests
that, and Hawking's work states it explicitly. Just imagine if you tried to
project backwards 10 billion years at a roulette wheel or slot machine. It
is really that bad. Having said that, I agree with many parts of BBC, but
rewinding to within milliseconds of the event seems highly problematic to
me, silly is perhaps a better word IMO.
In my opinion, black holes are a nail in BBC's coffin. Information losses
into a blackhole imply that disorder exists in the universe. Any amount of
disorder, no matter how small, if it is present then the nice Newtonian
deterministic clockwork is broken completely and reversibility is therefore
really damaged quite badly.
Cheers -
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
19 Oct 2006 08:52:39 PM |
|
|
Dave Snellbach wrote:
<rloldershaw@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:1161116240.561758.175960@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave Snellbach wrote:
But ultimately, I think that Nottale is chasing the wrong thing. He's
after
fractals which "seem" almost certain to exist, while the real prize is
understanding order & disorder. Fractals and chaos are merely ancilliary
to
this vastly more important [but not nearly as pretty] area of great
interest.
You might want to take a closer look at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
This site is devoted to an infinite discrete fractal model of nature.
Carl Sagan called this general type of paradigm (not specifically my
version) : "the most exquisite conjecture I know of in either science
or religion".
Formally, I am a skeptic. Informally, I love this stuff. One day equations
will probably justify your suspicions and I hope that you are the lucky one
who finds them.
The page on comparisons of electron wavefunctions and planetary nebulae
morphologies is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Also, we are having a rousing debate over at sci.astro.research over
whether the Big Bang paradigm or the Infinite Discrete Fractal paradigm
offers a better path towards a 21st century cosmology that can actually
make definitive predictions and explain what we observe in a
comprehensible way. The thread is entitled "Good News for the Big Bang
Model" and so far the moderators have shown a remarkable willingness to
allow both sides to make their cases.
Rob
I was reading it. I was tempted to toss in my two cents, but I'm kind of
scared to jump into the middle of a crowd like that. I'd probably wind up
with a black eye or bloody nose.
But I do have some big problems with the big bang which are based completely
on considerations relating to order, disorder, and determinism. I think that
it is an exercise in mythology to project backwards that far when we know
quite well that the universe is not completely deterministic, QM suggests
that, and Hawking's work states it explicitly. Just imagine if you tried to
project backwards 10 billion years at a roulette wheel or slot machine. It
is really that bad. Having said that, I agree with many parts of BBC, but
rewinding to within milliseconds of the event seems highly problematic to
me, silly is perhaps a better word IMO.
In my opinion, black holes are a nail in BBC's coffin. Information losses
into a blackhole imply that disorder exists in the universe. Any amount of
disorder, no matter how small, if it is present then the nice Newtonian
deterministic clockwork is broken completely and reversibility is therefore
really damaged quite badly.
What does reversability have to do with determinism? Time doesn't flow
backwards, so there is no requirement for time symetry in nature. Time
symetry would probably be more likely to defeat determinism than to
solidify it. Without cause and effect there can be no determinism, and
if the unverse runs in both time directions then cause and effect
become illusions. A black hole, if such a thing existed, would very
orderly and deterministically swallow up information.
General relativity is descisively deterministic. This conclusion is
easily derived, namely in the fact that all that exists in your future
already exists in the past of another observer in some other frame of
reference moving at relativistic speeds wrt you. He can't forewarn you
though, because of the information speed-limit, and in any case, many
of those events haven't been observed by him yet, but the information
of those events is already in transit toward him. The only way to break
this determinism is to allow the dissappearance of em waves that are in
transit and to replace them in mid-flight with waves conveying
information of an alternate future, which is quite a far fetched
notion. Indeterminism y is mutually exclusive to GR.
Newton's clockwork is safe. But a virtually infinite complexity can
mimic indeterminism, primarily because indeterminism is a reflection on
our inability to predict rather than a reflection of the
unpredictability of nature. Possibility literally means ignorance of
what "will" be.
Order isn't produced, it is a conserved property.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
19 Oct 2006 09:06:48 PM |
|
|
RP wrote:
Newton's clockwork is safe. But a virtually infinite complexity can
mimic indeterminism, primarily because indeterminism is a reflection on
our inability to predict rather than a reflection of the
unpredictability of nature. Possibility literally means ignorance of
what "will" be.
Order isn't produced, it is a conserved property.
Richard Perry
Consider a recently fertilized human embryo and compare it with the
resulting adult after about 20 years of normal development. Seems to
me that quite a bit of order has been produced.
In physics a few very fundamental things are conserved. Order does not
appear to be one of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
19 Oct 2006 09:19:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
RP wrote:
Newton's clockwork is safe. But a virtually infinite complexity can
mimic indeterminism, primarily because indeterminism is a reflection on
our inability to predict rather than a reflection of the
unpredictability of nature. Possibility literally means ignorance of
what "will" be.
Order isn't produced, it is a conserved property.
Richard Perry
Consider a recently fertilized human embryo and compare it with the
resulting adult after about 20 years of normal development. Seems to
me that quite a bit of order has been produced.
In physics a few very fundamental things are conserved. Order does not
appear to be one of them.
How many other plants and animals were digested in the process?
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
19 Oct 2006 10:00:02 PM |
|
|
RP wrote:
rloldershaw@amherst.edu wrote:
RP wrote:
Newton's clockwork is safe. But a virtually infinite complexity can
mimic indeterminism, primarily because indeterminism is a reflection on
our inability to predict rather than a reflection of the
unpredictability of nature. Possibility literally means ignorance of
what "will" be.
Order isn't produced, it is a conserved property.
Richard Perry
Consider a recently fertilized human embryo and compare it with the
resulting adult after about 20 years of normal development. Seems to
me that quite a bit of order has been produced.
In physics a few very fundamental things are conserved. Order does not
appear to be one of them.
How many other plants and animals were digested in the process?
Richard Perry
Uh, 42?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
19 Oct 2006 10:17:03 PM |
|
|
<rloldershaw@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:1161313202.669836.124520@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
RP wrote:
rloldershaw@amherst.edu wrote:
RP wrote:
Newton's clockwork is safe. But a virtually infinite complexity can
mimic indeterminism, primarily because indeterminism is a reflection
on
our inability to predict rather than a reflection of the
unpredictability of nature. Possibility literally means ignorance
of
what "will" be.
Order isn't produced, it is a conserved property.
Richard Perry
Consider a recently fertilized human embryo and compare it with the
resulting adult after about 20 years of normal development. Seems to
me that quite a bit of order has been produced.
In physics a few very fundamental things are conserved. Order does
not
appear to be one of them.
How many other plants and animals were digested in the process?
Richard Perry
Uh, 42?
Of course you guys know what Feynman said about probabilities. "They are
conserved". It somewhere in 6 Easy Pieces.
I know how to "conserve probabilities", it's on my blog >>>
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/
Reversibility, at least in principle, seems to imply determinism. But if you
introduce randomness or disorder then things are not reversible. If disorder
is an inherent property of space, like on my blog, then this would explain
some things. Still trying to form an opinion on irreversibility of cellular
automatons - not sure if I can consider this genuine disorder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
19 Oct 2006 10:43:17 PM |
|
|
Dave Snellbach wrote:
<rloldershaw@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:1161313202.669836.124520@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
RP wrote:
rloldershaw@amherst.edu wrote:
RP wrote:
Newton's clockwork is safe. But a virtually infinite complexity can
mimic indeterminism, primarily because indeterminism is a reflection
on
our inability to predict rather than a reflection of the
unpredictability of nature. Possibility literally means ignorance
of
what "will" be.
Order isn't produced, it is a conserved property.
Richard Perry
Consider a recently fertilized human embryo and compare it with the
resulting adult after about 20 years of normal development. Seems to
me that quite a bit of order has been produced.
In physics a few very fundamental things are conserved. Order does
not
appear to be one of them.
How many other plants and animals were digested in the process?
Richard Perry
Uh, 42?
Of course you guys know what Feynman said about probabilities. "They are
conserved". It somewhere in 6 Easy Pieces.
I know how to "conserve probabilities", it's on my blog >>>
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/
Reversibility, at least in principle, seems to imply determinism. But if you
introduce randomness or disorder then things are not reversible. If disorder
is an inherent property of space, like on my blog, then this would explain
some things. Still trying to form an opinion on irreversibility of cellular
automatons - not sure if I can consider this genuine disorder.
By the very act of introducing the term "disorder" you are preventing
determinism before even considering the probability of reversability.
There is no logical connection between reversibility and order. It's
possible to pull your car into a parking space without being able to
manuever it back out again. What was disorderly about your initial
manuevers that got you into that fix? A macroscopic example of
non-reversability for you without defeating deteriminsm. I don't know
what else to add, except that order and determinism are synonymous with
each other, reversability notwithstanding.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
20 Oct 2006 12:14:36 AM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161315797.070466.246120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dave Snellbach wrote:
<rloldershaw@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:1161313202.669836.124520@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
RP wrote:
rloldershaw@amherst.edu wrote:
RP wrote:
Newton's clockwork is safe. But a virtually infinite complexity
can
mimic indeterminism, primarily because indeterminism is a
reflection
on
our inability to predict rather than a reflection of the
unpredictability of nature. Possibility literally means
ignorance
of
what "will" be.
Order isn't produced, it is a conserved property.
Richard Perry
Consider a recently fertilized human embryo and compare it with
the
resulting adult after about 20 years of normal development. Seems
to
me that quite a bit of order has been produced.
In physics a few very fundamental things are conserved. Order
does
not
appear to be one of them.
How many other plants and animals were digested in the process?
Richard Perry
Uh, 42?
Of course you guys know what Feynman said about probabilities. "They are
conserved". It somewhere in 6 Easy Pieces.
I know how to "conserve probabilities", it's on my blog >>>
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/
Reversibility, at least in principle, seems to imply determinism. But if
you
introduce randomness or disorder then things are not reversible. If
disorder
is an inherent property of space, like on my blog, then this would
explain
some things. Still trying to form an opinion on irreversibility of
cellular
automatons - not sure if I can consider this genuine disorder.
By the very act of introducing the term "disorder" you are preventing
determinism before even considering the probability of reversability.
There is no logical connection between reversibility and order. It's
possible to pull your car into a parking space without being able to
manuever it back out again. What was disorderly about your initial
manuevers that got you into that fix? A macroscopic example of
non-reversability for you without defeating deteriminsm. I don't know
what else to add, except that order and determinism are synonymous with
each other, reversability notwithstanding.
Richard Perry
I've had so many conversations with myself that I now use my own definitions
without even realizing the potential for obfuscation on my part. Sort of
like when my wife starts talking to me in her native tongue without
realizing it, and I hardly even notice because I ignore most of what she
says anyway : )
I believe in an order-disorder continuum. So, you could have a system which
has a small amount of disorder, or a large amount of disorder, and/or
everything in between. If the amount of disorder is near zero then things
are nice and deterministic, reasonably reversible, and pretty much
Newtonian. But if the proportion of inherent disorder is increased, then you
no longer have real determinism and for sure no reversibility either.
I have abandoned randomness in exchange for an order disorder continuum &
I'm starting to believe my own B.S. But then - one would probably have to.
We do know that Feynman did say that "Probabilities are Conserved". This can
only make sense after reading my blog.
Order and disorder should be able to coexist in various ways depending on
scale and proximity, and I think it can be modelled.
But I'm very reluctant to look at a fractal and say "ah-hah, this is
disorder". Or even a CA. I'm just not convinced that this is genuine
disorder. More like pseudo-disorder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
20 Oct 2006 10:46:48 AM |
|
|
Dave Snellbach wrote:
I have abandoned randomness in exchange for an order disorder continuum &
I'm starting to believe my own B.S. But then - one would probably have to.
We do know that Feynman did say that "Probabilities are Conserved". This can
only make sense after reading my blog.
Order and disorder should be able to coexist in various ways depending on
scale and proximity, and I think it can be modelled.
But I'm very reluctant to look at a fractal and say "ah-hah, this is
disorder". Or even a CA. I'm just not convinced that this is genuine
disorder. More like pseudo-disorder.
Hi Dave,
Re hypocritical yahoo politics on that other thread, right on!
I have a suggestion you might be interested in. At the website
www.motionmountain.net you can download (for free) a large,
contemporary, and very readable book on our current physical
understanding of nature. It is not a standard physics text, but rather
one that emphasizes the conceptual aspects of our understanding. It
also starts simple and builds towards more complex ideas and follows
the development of scientific thought over the last 400 years. Part
III is the usual crock of string theory and QFT blather, but Parts I
and II have provided me with a lot of fun and understanding. Main
themes are motion, in its various forms, and the order/disorder
questions that are important to you. It is not the final word on any
subject, but it is free, and different from the typical dessicated
phyics text, and fascinating.
I have downloaded a copy to my computer and read a few pages per day.
Small investment, big payback!
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
20 Oct 2006 12:44:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dave Snellbach wrote:
I have abandoned randomness in exchange for an order disorder continuum &
I'm starting to believe my own B.S. But then - one would probably have to.
We do know that Feynman did say that "Probabilities are Conserved". This can
only make sense after reading my blog.
Order and disorder should be able to coexist in various ways depending on
scale and proximity, and I think it can be modelled.
But I'm very reluctant to look at a fractal and say "ah-hah, this is
disorder". Or even a CA. I'm just not convinced that this is genuine
disorder. More like pseudo-disorder.
Hi Dave,
Re hypocritical yahoo politics on that other thread, right on!
I have a suggestion you might be interested in. At the website
www.motionmountain.net you can download (for free) a large,
contemporary, and very readable book on our current physical
understanding of nature. It is not a standard physics text, but rather
one that emphasizes the conceptual aspects of our understanding. It
also starts simple and builds towards more complex ideas and follows
the development of scientific thought over the last 400 years. Part
III is the usual crock of string theory and QFT blather, but Parts I
and II have provided me with a lot of fun and understanding. Main
themes are motion, in its various forms, and the order/disorder
questions that are important to you. It is not the final word on any
subject, but it is free, and different from the typical dessicated
phyics text, and fascinating.
I have downloaded a copy to my computer and read a few pages per day.
Small investment, big payback!
Rob
Too many improvments have destroyed the central theme of motion, which
is what made it a great read in the beginning. It's still a great
reference, but the logical flow just isn't there anymore. If you can
download an earlier version I would start with it instead.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
20 Oct 2006 03:17:23 PM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161366252.293184.283540@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
rloldershaw@amherst.edu wrote:
Dave Snellbach wrote:
I have abandoned randomness in exchange for an order disorder
continuum &
I'm starting to believe my own B.S. But then - one would probably have
to.
We do know that Feynman did say that "Probabilities are Conserved".
This can
only make sense after reading my blog.
Order and disorder should be able to coexist in various ways depending
on
scale and proximity, and I think it can be modelled.
But I'm very reluctant to look at a fractal and say "ah-hah, this is
disorder". Or even a CA. I'm just not convinced that this is genuine
disorder. More like pseudo-disorder.
Hi Dave,
Re hypocritical yahoo politics on that other thread, right on!
I have a suggestion you might be interested in. At the website
www.motionmountain.net you can download (for free) a large,
contemporary, and very readable book on our current physical
understanding of nature. It is not a standard physics text, but rather
one that emphasizes the conceptual aspects of our understanding. It
also starts simple and builds towards more complex ideas and follows
the development of scientific thought over the last 400 years. Part
III is the usual crock of string theory and QFT blather, but Parts I
and II have provided me with a lot of fun and understanding. Main
themes are motion, in its various forms, and the order/disorder
questions that are important to you. It is not the final word on any
subject, but it is free, and different from the typical dessicated
phyics text, and fascinating.
I have downloaded a copy to my computer and read a few pages per day.
Small investment, big payback!
Rob
Too many improvments have destroyed the central theme of motion, which
is what made it a great read in the beginning. It's still a great
reference, but the logical flow just isn't there anymore. If you can
download an earlier version I would start with it instead.
Richard Perry
Interesting stuff and very well prepared. It looks nice. I disagree that
motion is an illusion but I'll read the rest of it anyway because it looks
pretty interesting.
According to my view of physics, you have this manifold of probabilities
which describes the probability of the existence of length at a given
location. Deferring discussion of the problems that raises, and assuming
they can be circumvented via a suitable transform, one can try to explain
energy and motion as waves through this probabilistic gradient. An object is
just a waveform in the dimensional fabric, describable in terms of functions
on that probabilistic gradient. Motion is just a change in those
probabilities. All energy is just a disturbance of those probabilities, a
wave, knot, soliton, etc.
So, when Feynman said "Probabilities are Conserved", and did not go into
detail to explain what he meant by that, perhaps this is what he meant,
maybe not. But it seems that this statement can indeed make sense. Can we
think of energy transformations as a balancing of probabilities ? And how
much probability can be twisted up into the nucleus if it has some king of
fractal like "probabilistic" structure ?
It sure is fun to speculate. If I knew any math I'd probably be able to make
it work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
24 Oct 2006 03:07:29 AM |
|
|
"Dave Snellbach" <No@No.No> wrote in message
news:do2dnXEk5vifrqTYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161366252.293184.283540@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
rloldershaw@amherst.edu wrote:
Dave Snellbach wrote:
I have abandoned randomness in exchange for an order disorder
continuum &
I'm starting to believe my own B.S. But then - one would probably
have
to.
We do know that Feynman did say that "Probabilities are Conserved".
This can
only make sense after reading my blog.
Order and disorder should be able to coexist in various ways
depending
on
scale and proximity, and I think it can be modelled.
But I'm very reluctant to look at a fractal and say "ah-hah, this is
disorder". Or even a CA. I'm just not convinced that this is genuine
disorder. More like pseudo-disorder.
Hi Dave,
Re hypocritical yahoo politics on that other thread, right on!
I have a suggestion you might be interested in. At the website
www.motionmountain.net you can download (for free) a large,
contemporary, and very readable book on our current physical
understanding of nature. It is not a standard physics text, but rather
one that emphasizes the conceptual aspects of our understanding. It
also starts simple and builds towards more complex ideas and follows
the development of scientific thought over the last 400 years. Part
III is the usual crock of string theory and QFT blather, but Parts I
and II have provided me with a lot of fun and understanding. Main
themes are motion, in its various forms, and the order/disorder
questions that are important to you. It is not the final word on any
subject, but it is free, and different from the typical dessicated
phyics text, and fascinating.
I have downloaded a copy to my computer and read a few pages per day.
Small investment, big payback!
Rob
Too many improvments have destroyed the central theme of motion, which
is what made it a great read in the beginning. It's still a great
reference, but the logical flow just isn't there anymore. If you can
download an earlier version I would start with it instead.
Richard Perry
Interesting stuff and very well prepared. It looks nice. I disagree that
motion is an illusion but I'll read the rest of it anyway because it looks
pretty interesting.
According to my view of physics, you have this manifold of probabilities
which describes the probability of the existence of length at a given
location. Deferring discussion of the problems that raises, and assuming
they can be circumvented via a suitable transform, one can try to explain
energy and motion as waves through this probabilistic gradient. An object
is
just a waveform in the dimensional fabric, describable in terms of
functions
on that probabilistic gradient. Motion is just a change in those
probabilities. All energy is just a disturbance of those probabilities, a
wave, knot, soliton, etc.
So, when Feynman said "Probabilities are Conserved", and did not go into
detail to explain what he meant by that, perhaps this is what he meant,
maybe not. But it seems that this statement can indeed make sense. Can we
think of energy transformations as a balancing of probabilities ? And how
much probability can be twisted up into the nucleus if it has some king of
fractal like "probabilistic" structure ?
It sure is fun to speculate. If I knew any math I'd probably be able to
make
it work.
It isn't order that is deterministic. Besides which order and disorder are
relative. There can be no such thing as order without disorder, or disorder
without order. What is the arbiter or the gauge of literally the existence
of each? None other than the existence, more particularly the bordering
presence, of the other IN FULL MEASURE! Each will have its full measure
according to nature even if that measure must come from the core of the
other, which it usually will.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
24 Oct 2006 08:14:42 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:i72dncf2460pVKDYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Dave Snellbach" <No@No.No> wrote in message
news:do2dnXEk5vifrqTYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161366252.293184.283540@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
rloldershaw@amherst.edu wrote:
Dave Snellbach wrote:
I have abandoned randomness in exchange for an order disorder
continuum &
I'm starting to believe my own B.S. But then - one would probably
have
to.
We do know that Feynman did say that "Probabilities are Conserved".
This can
only make sense after reading my blog.
Order and disorder should be able to coexist in various ways
depending
on
scale and proximity, and I think it can be modelled.
But I'm very reluctant to look at a fractal and say "ah-hah, this
is
disorder". Or even a CA. I'm just not convinced that this is
genuine
disorder. More like pseudo-disorder.
Hi Dave,
Re hypocritical yahoo politics on that other thread, right on!
I have a suggestion you might be interested in. At the website
www.motionmountain.net you can download (for free) a large,
contemporary, and very readable book on our current physical
understanding of nature. It is not a standard physics text, but
rather
one that emphasizes the conceptual aspects of our understanding. It
also starts simple and builds towards more complex ideas and follows
the development of scientific thought over the last 400 years. Part
III is the usual crock of string theory and QFT blather, but Parts I
and II have provided me with a lot of fun and understanding. Main
themes are motion, in its various forms, and the order/disorder
questions that are important to you. It is not the final word on any
subject, but it is free, and different from the typical dessicated
phyics text, and fascinating.
I have downloaded a copy to my computer and read a few pages per day.
Small investment, big payback!
Rob
Too many improvments have destroyed the central theme of motion, which
is what made it a great read in the beginning. It's still a great
reference, but the logical flow just isn't there anymore. If you can
download an earlier version I would start with it instead.
Richard Perry
Interesting stuff and very well prepared. It looks nice. I disagree that
motion is an illusion but I'll read the rest of it anyway because it
looks
pretty interesting.
According to my view of physics, you have this manifold of probabilities
which describes the probability of the existence of length at a given
location. Deferring discussion of the problems that raises, and assuming
they can be circumvented via a suitable transform, one can try to
explain
energy and motion as waves through this probabilistic gradient. An
object
is
just a waveform in the dimensional fabric, describable in terms of
functions
on that probabilistic gradient. Motion is just a change in those
probabilities. All energy is just a disturbance of those probabilities,
a
wave, knot, soliton, etc.
So, when Feynman said "Probabilities are Conserved", and did not go into
detail to explain what he meant by that, perhaps this is what he meant,
maybe not. But it seems that this statement can indeed make sense. Can
we
think of energy transformations as a balancing of probabilities ? And
how
much probability can be twisted up into the nucleus if it has some king
of
fractal like "probabilistic" structure ?
It sure is fun to speculate. If I knew any math I'd probably be able to
make
it work.
It isn't order that is deterministic. Besides which order and disorder
are
relative. There can be no such thing as order without disorder, or
disorder
without order. What is the arbiter or the gauge of literally the existence
of each? None other than the existence, more particularly the bordering
presence, of the other IN FULL MEASURE! Each will have its full measure
according to nature even if that measure must come from the core of the
other, which it usually will.
GLB
Well, lets say that randomness did not exist whatsoever. No disorder at all.
Then it seems that universe must be deterministic.
If randomness or disorder really does exist somewhere in the universe,
anywhere, then the universe cannot be deterministic because at some point
you will have a random process and your ability to forcast is comprimised.
Kolmogorov complexity, Chaitin compressibility and Wolfram's irreversibility
all seem to make pretty good attempts at understanding order / disorder,
and/or randomness, but I dont think that they've quite nailed it. Even my
own arguments which pivot on triviality may in fact be fundamentally trivial
and therefore meaningless, not sure about that.
Complete order implies determinism. Even a tiny amount of disorder implies
non-determinism. An order/disorder continuum would explain how systems in
nature can exhibit determinism on one scale and non-determinism on another,
all in the same system, across various scales. So, the solar system is quite
predictable, even though it is composed of fundamental particles which
exhibit a high degree of disorder. Also seems to explain radioactive decay
to some extent because on one scale it is impossible to determine precisely
when an individual atom will decay, but on another scale we know that it
will follow in accordance with exponential laws very predictable.
Some people will argue that order can arise from disorder very
simplistically, for example games of chance. You cannot know how a pair of
dice will land, but you know that the house will always win in the long run.
This argument is not quite the same as what I am arguing, because I dont
think that dice are really random. They behave very much like a truly
disordered process, and a dice toss may even contain a high degree of
disorder, but I would disagree that it is really "random".
A black hole, on the other hand, could lead to real disorder. Consider a
small planetary system which is emitting gravity waves. The system gets
sucked into a black hole, and so the source of the waves "ceases to exist".
The waves continue through space, but have become an effect for which there
is no longer a cause. A causeless effect. Yes, it's a bad example, but those
kinds of things become possibel when you play with existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
25 Oct 2006 12:17:24 AM |
|
|
It isn't order that is deterministic. Besides which order and disorder
are
relative. There can be no such thing as order without disorder, or
disorder
without order.
Conceptually, yes. But physically ? Does the physical existence of one
neccesarily imply the physical existence of the other ? I dont think so.
What is the arbiter or the gauge of literally the existence
of each? None other than the existence, more particularly the bordering
presence, of the other IN FULL MEASURE! Each will have its full measure
according to nature even if that measure must come from the core of the
other, which it usually will.
Yes, they seem complementary. Hard to believe that you could find one
without the other. The only tool available at this time is randomness which
does not seem to admit partial order or partial disorder very easily.
Many new ways of thinking are needed if you accept an order disorder
continuum. Partial causality, partial existence, partial certainty, partial
uncertainty, all of these concepts are quite foreign. But, they do make
sense depending on how you think that space is built.
You're right though - seems like order & disorder should be reciporacle or
complimentary or something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
25 Oct 2006 05:27:35 AM |
|
|
"Dave Snellbach" <No@No.No> wrote in message
news:XcGdnekj1soCaqPYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com...
It isn't order that is deterministic. Besides which order and
disorder
are
relative. There can be no such thing as order without disorder, or
disorder
without order.
Conceptually, yes. But physically ? Does the physical existence of one
neccesarily imply the physical existence of the other ? I dont think so.
What is the arbiter or the gauge of literally the existence
of each? None other than the existence, more particularly the bordering
presence, of the other IN FULL MEASURE! Each will have its full measure
according to nature even if that measure must come from the core of the
other, which it usually will.
Yes, they seem complementary. Hard to believe that you could find one
without the other. The only tool available at this time is randomness
which
does not seem to admit partial order or partial disorder very easily.
Many new ways of thinking are needed if you accept an order disorder
continuum. Partial causality, partial existence, partial certainty,
partial
uncertainty, all of these concepts are quite foreign. But, they do make
sense depending on how you think that space is built.
You're right though - seems like order & disorder should be reciporacle or
complimentary or something.
Some physicists have talked about their (I emphasize their!) Universe
eventually spreading out in its disordering so far that it becomes all dead
cold. Even if you don't believe in their Universe as I don't that end is
literally impossible on the face of it when you think about what is at the
[final] bottom of the quantum Universe. It would not be dead cold, it would
be hotter than the pit of Hell, big bang heat. The universal constants all
equal '1' at that point. That is neither cold nor neutral (neutrality being
our temperate zone and the absolute of cold, absolute 'zero', being a
property of our frame since we deal in it all the time). So that is heat
like no other heat. The constant of heat then absolute 'one'.
Yet such heat has been designated "Merger!" Not the end!, but the
beginning! And the Universe has already been designated "flat!" Spread out
FLAT! Not thirty billion or so years from now, but right now. That means not
a cold Universe but a hot Universe, a very hot Universe. But??? that is
direction backward, [as] forward?!?!
Each one us, you, me, all of us, everything extant, has distantly deep
inside every subatomic particle of makeup that heat of all heat, Merger.
It's "Unity," or "Unity = 1." And its flat surface horizon. They got it
exactly backwards. Our everyday frame is the absolute of disorder. It is far
above the Planck frame, relatively speaking. The Planck frame is the
absolute of order. The absolute of order because that is where Unity and the
universal constants all equal 1.
Now there is bound to be someone somewhere who would tell me I can't be
right. The absolute of heat, if I was right anywhere along the line, would
have to be the absolute of disorder, not the absolute of order. That I would
have it backward, our frame being the frame of order. And you know what, I
would not argue with that person. I would grin. I would smile. I would
laugh. Yes, disorder and order are certainly relative.
You ready for this? It takes an awful lot of heat to produce cold. An
awful lot of heat. If heat disappears from the Universe, cold disappears
from the Universe. To have a frigid Universe, it has to be a Universe hotter
than Hell ever thought of being to get that frigidity. And if heat
disappears from the Universe, cold also disappears from the Universe.
Checkmate. Doesn't matter if it takes an awful lot of heat to produce cold,
cold has to be there for heat to even exist. They are then interdependent
for each's existence -- always exact equals. What then would be left?
Neutrality?
The third zone between those two zones already [is] the neutral zone,
a.k.a. temperate zone, a.k.a. the life zone. Our zone. You see, there is no
such thing as neutrality without the existance of the things for which
neutrality exists to be neutral to. Nooowww which is order and which is
disorder? Is neutrality order and the other two disorder? Or is neutrality
disorder and the other two order? Is neutrality the extremity? The end
result?
There is one more thing we're just discovering about that neutral zone.
One more manifestation of that zone besides what I've listed. It is the
superconducting zone. Above the absolute of cold so to speak. Below the
absolute of heat so to speak. Smack in the neutral zone. Neutral zone =
temperate zone = life zone = superconducting zone. This might confuse you a
little but here it is: Also equals "parity." The zone of "parity." Base2
type parity, (1 (0) | 0 (1), infinite (infinitesimal) | infinitesimal
(infinite)). Uni-verse = Self-similarity ('one-metric', 'one-number'), which
doesn't deny Base2, or Base2's third corner, Parity.
"Order" and "disorder" have parity in Universe (in Unity (in
Self-Similarity)) . . . and which is which is purely relative. Primordial
and refined have parity in Universe . . . and which is which is purely
relative. Savagery and civilized have parity in Universe . . . and which is
which is purely relative (because "savagery" has the far greater number of
rules (regulations) -- Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol I (1935)
.. . . confirmed by the "boid" life simulations done in the emerging Science
of Complexity -- M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity: The Emerging Science At
The Edge Of Order And Chaos (1992)).
If savagery has by far the most rules (the most regulations), then do we
have civilization today? If disorder has by far the most rules (the most
regulations (the most tyrannies)), then do we have order today? How far back
did we know what we might no longer know today? The quite ancient Biblical
fable of Babel, All Mankind in one city (one world or one union)? The
ultimate confused, disordered, state of jungle? The state of least fusion,
least order? The highest state of "savagery"?
'_____' and '_____' have parity in Universe (in Unity (in Self-Similarity))
.. . . and which is which is purely relative.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Snellbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Fractal Universe |
27 Oct 2006 07:19:19 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:-6WdnaZg3-LJoaLYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Dave Snellbach" <No@No.No> wrote in message
news:XcGdnekj1soCaqPYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com...
It isn't order that is deterministic. Besides which order and
disorder
are
relative. There can be no such thing as order without disorder, or
disorder
without order.
Conceptually, yes. But physically ? Does the physical existence of one
neccesarily imply the physical existence of the other ? I dont think so.
What is the arbiter or the gauge of literally the existence
of each? None other than the existence, more particularly the
bordering
presence, of the other IN FULL MEASURE! Each will have its full
measure
according to nature even if that measure must come from the core of
the
other, which it usually will.
Yes, they seem complementary. Hard to believe that you could find one
without the other. The only tool available at this time is randomness
which
does not seem to admit partial order or partial disorder very easily.
Many new ways of thinking are needed if you accept an order disorder
continuum. Partial causality, partial existence, partial certainty,
partial
uncertainty, all of these concepts are quite foreign. But, they do make
sense depending on how you think that space is built.
You're right though - seems like order & disorder should be reciporacle
or
complimentary or something.
Some physicists have talked about their (I emphasize their!) Universe
eventually spreading out in its disordering so far that it becomes all
dead
cold. Even if you don't believe in their Universe as I don't that end is
literally impossible on the face of it when you think about what is at the
[final] bottom of the quantum Universe. It would not be dead cold, it
would
be hotter than the pit of Hell, big bang heat. The universal constants all
equal '1' at that point. That is neither cold nor neutral (neutrality
being
our temperate zone and the absolute of cold, absolute 'zero', being a
property of our frame since we deal in it all the time). So that is heat
like no other heat. The constant of heat then absolute 'one'.
Most people think of the expansion of the universe as a kind of stretching.
They never really explain how space could do such a thing, they just claim
that it does, and you are left with this idea that it's like a big sheet of
rubber.
I think of expansion quite differently. I consider expansion to be an
increase in the probability that length exists between two separate
locations. The probabilistic gradient which connects point A to point B is
exhibiting an overall increase in the probability that length will be found
at locations along that path.
This only sounds complicated, it's really quite simple. You will see it
immediately after looking at the explanation toward the middle of my blog.
http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/
Start with nothingness. Add 1 Plancklength, then another, and another, etc,
all of which is being done probabilistically, and you construct the universe
from such a space, expansion can then be seen as a simple expression of this
probabilistic nature of space. QM deals with the probabilistic nature of
particles. If particles are just waves in the dimensional fabric, then
everything jives with my explanation, there is not much difference.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
