|
|
Re: What are space and time?
Posted:
Jul 21, 2010 9:56 AM
|
|
On Jul 16, 10:07 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.net> wrote:
> In article
> <60daa7bc-b684-4ed6-a0b5-6e0439abe...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 9:34 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Consider that the information is the computation in progress. IOW, time
> is the information changing, evidence of universe computation. This is
> the means to avoid the problem of requiring an external computer which
> would require every bit of the universe to crunch all the data of the
> universe - an impossible task, as you suggest.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I am suggesting that no such measure needs to be made. Gravity is
> coupled to entropy. Time is coupled to entropy. Look to another means to
> affirm the relationship - mathematics, cellular automata, statistics.
>
> > 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)
>
> Excellent!
>
> > 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?
>
> :) I think that intelligence can be gaseous, light-years wide,
> completely different than skin and bones.
Hmmm... Yes, I've considered this too, especially in those regions of
space with rich gas. It is easy to ponder within those beautiful
photographs. Anyhow, the thermal processes there may be important, and
if something special condenses for a moment or two, well, in an energy
rich environment the processes will be quite energetic. Still, I think
the life within the gas low gravity environment could be flying about
through the gas, taking a semi solid form with great freedom. This
would again be at a weird sort of triple point, where exchanges take
place and the same thing as crystal formation can happen. There can
only be so much chaos in those places, especially at a small scale.
Geeze, is that a paradigm? The quantity of chaos is limited by its
volume. In other words if your throw enough small eddies into a fluid
they will quell each other. Yeah.
- Tim
>
> Diamonds and crystals are fodder for cellular automata simulations. Love
> the idea.
|
|
