Science > Physics > Independent/Dependent Phases 18.2: The Universe Discovers 0, 1, 2, 3
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
12 Oct 2005 02:16:49 PM |
| Object: |
Independent/Dependent Phases 18.2: The Universe Discovers 0, 1, 2, 3 |
From Osher Doctorow
Depending on one's school of cosmology, the smallest object is a point
or a particle (dimension 0) or a little string (dimension 1). Whether
the Universe began with a Big Bang or a Neo-Cyclic Big Bang
(Steinhardt, Turok, Seiberg) or something like a point or little string
that then gave rise to a pre-observer time loop, the Universe arguably
"started" with dimension 0 or 1, after which it began expanding into
dimensions 1, 2, and 3.
What happened then? Well, in the standard Superstring/Brane/M-Theory
or the Supersymmetry/Supergravity pictures or just the rather more
restricted Kaluza-Klein picture, other dimensions appeared. I don't
think that anybody is quite sure whether they all appeared together or
sequentially, but from our "integer counting or square root counting"
viewpoint (see previous postings in this thread) they arguably appeared
sequentially.
Since we are talking about a Universe that discovered magnitude with 1
and angle with 2 and sqrt(3) and 1 and sqrt(2) (see previous postings
in this thread), and which expanding from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 dimensions,
it was oriented toward counting with 0, 1, 2, 3 and sqrt(2) and
sqrt(3), so it's arguable that it continued counting with 2s and 3s
which led to the genetic and "univeral" codes comprised of doubles and
triples of codons including the genetic on-off double mechanism
described in my earlier threads. The "universal" code is either
L1L2L3M1M2M3T1T2T3F1F2 or the same with just F replacing F1 and F2, so
that after "splitting" or "growing" into 3 length (Li) dimensions, the
Universe grew or split into 3 time and 3 mass dimensions and so on. I
omit positive or negative integers exponents in the above 10 or 11
letter universal code.
I might as well add here that if only one force dimension is correct,
then from the last few postings we could arguably replace force F with
angle A (which as I've pointed out is dimensional in certain contexts
in measurement theory) and move force to replace some less plausible
dimension among the others. For example, T3 as transfer of causation
might well be composed of T2 (causation) and T1 (time as duration) or
T2 and some Li (i = 1 to 3) dimension, so "time as force" could replace
the symbol T3 as a third time dimension, especially since the length of
time during which a force persists is of considerable importance both
in and out of control theory. Also, force as time rate of change of
momentum suggests that time is more fundamental to force than to
several of the other dimensions, and this time may well be "uniquely"
associated with force as a somewhat different "picture" of time.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Independent/Dependent Phases 18.2: The Universe Discovers 0, 1, 2, 3 |
12 Oct 2005 02:35:36 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I have indicated in the last few sections of this thread that counting
in the integer sense appears to be one of the most fundamental
operations in the Universe, even if it is only a discrete approximation
to continuity and a "generator" in a rather special sense of rational
numbers (ratios of integers) which in turn clearly approximate
irrational numbers.
I think that this is related to the nature of codes from a syntactic
information viewpoint. Although analog computers can provide what is
arguably "continuous Knowledge/information", and there is certainly
continuity in almost every branch of mathematics and physics, algebraic
codes involve discrete symbols, and even computers at present usually
approximate the continuous by the discrete.
This has relevance to my basic difference with the two schools of
algebraic geometry and algebraic topology. These basically algebraic
schools share with most algebra outside coding a lack of
reality-orientation, unlike geometry, analysis, differential equations,
probability-statistics and even logic either in the inductive sense or
in the extension of "(abstract) truth" to include "experimental/real
truth in the physical Universe".
We see in the above paragraphs and postings that counting by integers
has an extremely "real" and "reality-oriented" quality. It arguably
starts with our early age counting of objects as we learn numbers -
there are even widespread VCR tapes to teach children counting by
enumerating types of objects in their environments or by their fingers
or toes or limbs or sensory receptors. Objects in the real world at
least at the human earth level are very usually countable and
enumerable as to "how many of them there are", even if internally there
are uncountable parts or subsets of objects.
I would go as far as to say that number theory and arithmetic are not
basically algebraic because of their extremely close connection to the
real world objects as described. And I think that this would be
accepted by Pierre de Fermat of the 1600s who invented modern number
theory, although some number theorists today are algebraically
obsessed.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Independent/Dependent Phases 18.2: The Universe Discovers 0, 1, 2, 3 |
12 Oct 2005 02:47:53 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
In fact, Pierre de Fermat not only invented modern number theory but
codiscovered probability with Pascal and pioneered in calculus beyond
Archimedes and before Sir Isaac Newton and Leibniz and pioneered in
optics before Sir Isaac and discovered analytic/Cartesian geometry
before Descartes.
As for transcendental arithmetic/numbers, I discussed those quite a bit
in my earlier threads here and in sci.stat.math and geometry.research
and elsewhere, and I think that they are motivated by the same type of
counting as with integers and the connection of the latter with
physical reality. They are also very much in the line of research of
measure and integration, especially measure theory in real analysis
which in a way "counts the size" of very often continuous sets and
includes probability which technically branched off mostly as a
separate field. The arguments about whether a computer can "reproduce"
infinite cardinals or ordinals is mostly irrelevant to this. We can't
reproduce all the phases in the Universe (including black holes as
arguably a phase!). But we study them. Needless to say, we don't
reproduce consciousness and cognition and intuition in computers, but
who will cast the first stone against intuition for example in physics?
Not I.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
