On Jul 15, 9:34 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <467063a3-956d-4305-95f9-c226c1547...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 14, 3:15 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.net> wrote: > > > To begin to imagine time, it helps to consider it evidence of > > > information in the formal sense. Information acts upon other > > > information. Time might just be the consequence of the exchange of > > > information that we observe as entropy. > > > Whether one accepts the unification of space and time then becomes an > > issue. This is the beauty of polysign: it presents a unidirectional > > zero dimensional algebra that has been overlooked, just beneath the > > real number. The real number is consistent within polysign as P2, or > > the two-signed numbers. The one-signed numbers P1 match time's seeming > > paradox. They are near to claims of nonexistent time since they have a > > zero dimensional geometry. But this then does allow the spacetime > > paradign to take deeper meaning. Time is not a real number. The real > > number is bidirectional. Time is unidirectional. [...] > > Indeed, polysign is beautiful and heartening, but we disagree upon the > introduction of directionality _at this point_ of the discussion/view. > Can we be certain that entropy is not reversible in special cases? Are > special cases perhaps key to a breakthrough in our maths and > understanding? > > I enjoy your posts. Thanks for being here.
Within polysign there is room for accumulation within any of the domains. I'm not a firm believer in entropy from a thermodynamic point of view because I am not a believer in the thermodynamic interpretation as vibrating atoms. But you use an informational paradigm. I am all for the informational approach, but accept that the situation is ultimately noncomputable, since the quantity of information is so large.
For instance, if we were to measure the gravitational pull at your position and find that it alters when I jump a foot over here then we would be consistent with theory. I admit that this figure is a very small dither, but informationally speaking the law of gravitation of the earth is built as an accumulation of its parts, and this accumulation is an act of summation within the integral. This is likewise true of all of matter, and even going relativistic on Newtonian gravity will not change this.
Somehow we have to admit that much of our attempts at physics require washing out the small perturbations, and it works well. They do wash out, but we have no hope of computing them either. Is this tied into the informational approach? I think so, somehow, but I haven't stated it very clearly. Still, to answer your question I suppose that accumulation is fundamental, which is to say that superposition is fundamental, and that its inverse is not necessary within the fundamentals since it can be defined in terms of superposition, just as subtraction is not a fundamental activity since we can declare it based upon a reversal of addition: 2 + 1 = 3 . (P2)
We do see structures forming within the accumulation, so the interpretation that all must go into a blender and come out less structured is observably false. This may physically have something to do with cooling, so the thermodynamics does seem to be nearby, but I don't accept the modern form as final. We operate in a region of space that is at a triple point, colloidally speaking. We breath gas, our bones are solid, and our blood is liquid. There are other regions of space where this is not possible, and we would be inanimate due to being frozen solid, or completely gaseous to the point of the disorder that seems so close by to your focus. When solids form there are structured results. Sometimes pure crystals do form. Isn't the sole instance of a diamond formation evidence enough against entropy? Or do I have to treat this like the man jumping a foot off the ground?