[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by JAK It appears that there are three fundamental laws of the universe: #1 Differences Exist. Because of this law, we have objects (dishwashers, refried beans, spirit, etc.). Generally, these are 3D patterns. In communication/grammar, this law is the basis of "nouns". We separate one pattern from another through the use of "not" - a dishwasher is not refried beans, and refried beans is not spirit. This law is also the basis of the law of non-contradiction: "P" cannot equal "not P" (which is controversial - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction). #2 Differences Are Dynamic. Because of this law, we have processes (flying, spinning, multiplying, etc.). This law adds the 4th dimension - time. In communication/grammar, this law is the basis of "verbs". #3 Differences Are Relative. All patterns are deduced through comparison. As a result, this might be the fundamental law from which #1 and #2 are created. Boundaries are frequently fuzzy, so "not" may be less than "crisp". In communication/grammar, this law is the basis of "adjectives and adverbs". Because of the third law, complete absence of any factor might be impossible. Plus, it facilitates concepts such as "oneness of spirit" and the "illusion of separateness". Using a scale for "notness", oneness would be at one end, and seemingly hard boundaries would be at the other (on/off, black/white, etc.).

Differences can be made relative only if they share the same factor(unit) of difference. A dishwasher and spirit may be called different but how are they relative. So the #3 need not be the fundamental law.

[Mohan.C]

And the #2 differences are dynamic is'nt it same as relative. what is the difference.
But you're right if laws #1 and #2 are combined and #3 is analysed. When nouns are executing verb(doing the action) and the relation is drawn between the two nouns. The diffferences are relative is right.

[Mohan.C]

A line cannot be have more than 2 dimension so practically it is a measure of distance between the two points if you don't want to measure it it just connects the two points.Since points are zero dimensional it has no width and height so it cannot possibly be a skinny tube it can most probably be the measure of length between two planar points on the tube.

[futrethink]

---JAK.

I've wondered about "time" being 3 dimensional just like space, which would get me up to 6 dimensions, but as you say, it's all hypothetical.

---Introduction to M-theory It did this by asserting that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane which is vibrating in 11-dimensional space.
M-theory This means that if one studied supergravity on an eleven-dimensional spacetime that looks like the product of a ten-dimensional spacetime with another very small one-dimensional manifold, one gets the Type IIA supergravity theory. (The underlines are mine.)
---Hypothetical, true. But if you have a starting point of a “0” (something that is, isn’t, is both and nothing.), you have to go somewhere and if, like Pi, you have no end, that gives you more than just 1, 2, 3 or 4, doesn’t it?
---And, I have already mentioned; just because, you can only see the one side of ‘what is’, doesn’t eliminate the ‘what it’s not’ from existence, just from a perception. A blind person doesn’t have the visual sense of depth perception, but that doesn’t remove depth perception from reality.

Like the 7 Membranes/dimensions, life in 2D is conceptual. If it is truly alive, then it must be dynamic (by definition).

---True. Dynamic in what perception? We can physically perceive only two dimensions and mentally construct a third dimension, but that doesn’t stop a temporal fourth from existing. Is it really that much of a stretch, to perceive a world that can only physically see/perceive one dimension, mentally construct a second dimension and have a temporal dimension as the third? It is still dynamic, isn’t it?
---Actually, from reading Mohan. C's post above, I can see how it might be impossible to figure it out, from our understandings/beliefs of one dimensional concepts.

That leaves only 1 dimension remaining - a dot or point.

---A singularity or a “0”. Something that can only perceive itself, has nothing else to perceive around it and has nothing else to perceive its existence; it is perceived, it isn’t perceived, it is both and nothing (it doesn’t exist, because it only believes it can perceive itself and a belief is an objectively nonexistent future probability).
---How does it perceive that it has changing/a different time outside of what it believes?

You would need to give me an example of a "nonexistent linear perception" which actually exists! If it doesn't exist, it is not an exception. If it is a mental construct, then it is 4D.

---This ‘nonexistent linear perception’ concept, involves understanding how time is; past (what was and always has been), present (what is, being created from the mergence of what was and what might be, but doesn’t actually exist, yet) and future (a possibility, that has no subjective existence, except as a belief and no objective existence to a singular(ity) being that does and doesn’t perceive {think of a person in a coma, a deep/black sleep or a trance} and has no thoughts of time or space.)
---Circular time is often shown as a ball. Shove a rod (linear time) from one outside point to another outside point, but don’t go past the finite edges of the exterior of that ball. Hypothetically, mathematically or within a computer model, you can draw an infinite line past the point of the edges of that ball, from each end of that rod, but that finite ball doesn’t exist on that hypothetical line.
---We can think/believe/guess/hypothesize of a future past the point of the edges of circular time, but that will not make that line an objective reality/existent/real thing, because it will not exist outside the ending point and never has existed before the starting point.

Again, "nonexistent" is also a "nonexception". Perceptions and conceptions - even those of imaginary 1D or 2D patterns - are actually 4D critters which are alive and well in the brain and mind. Every exception you are divising is born as a 4D idea in your mind.

---True. They exist as long as an actively perceiving brain and mind exists. A brain and mind that is actively involving perceptions/concepts and inactively involving perceptions/concepts, at the same time, would be the exception, within existence. The different/is and is not perceptions and concepts still exist, but they aren’t being perceived as different, in any way shape or form, by themselves or others; they just are. So, they are, in a way, no different from any other thing and no differences exist.

By definition, "exception" is the embodiment of the 1st law - the existence of "not".

---True, but you first have to have a perception of the concepts that the symbols of ‘exception’ and ‘not’ describe, otherwise, your ‘law’ doesn’t even exist and becomes the exception to the rule.
---No perception=no differences.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Differences can be made relative only if they share the same factor(unit) of difference. A dishwasher and spirit may be called different but how are they relative. So the #3 need not be the fundamental law.

I believe that multiple relations could be made. The spirit was near the dishwasher, the spirit was in the dishwasher, the motor was out of alignment and made the dishwasher bounce around spiritedly, the party glasses which held spirits ended in the dishwasher, spirits are quiet just like new dishwashers, both "spirits" and "dishwashers" are plural words ending in "s".

If two objects/entities exist in the same universe, they will always have at least that relation.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C And the #2 differences are dynamic is'nt it same as relative. what is the difference. But you're right if laws #1 and #2 are combined and #3 is analysed. When nouns are executing verb(doing the action) and the relation is drawn between the two nouns. The diffferences are relative is right.

"Relative" is for adjectives and adverbs. "He walked slowly." "She walked quickly." "They walked on the cold concrete." "They walked on the soft mud."

Fundamentally, if everything in the universe is energy, then it can be described in vectors having magnitude and direction. First, just by existing it satisfies the 1st law. Anything other than "nothing" must be energy and dynamic which satisfies the 2nd law. Magnitude and direction are both "relative" or "scalar" terms which satisfies the 3rd law.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C A line cannot be have more than 2 dimension so practically it is a measure of distance between the two points if you don't want to measure it it just connects the two points.Since points are zero dimensional it has no width and height so it cannot possibly be a skinny tube it can most probably be the measure of length between two planar points on the tube.

The laws are not tied to dimensions even though dimensions are tied to the laws. The 1st law simply states that two things exist and that they are separable. Something is bounded by nothing. If a point is zero dimensional, it is bounded by all things with dimension. It is separate, and it can be separated from other concepts using dimension as the crition - it has none. A point is not a line, it is not a sphere, it is not Niagara Falls. Again, a point is bounded by all that it is "not."

"Not" forms boundaries and separations in our universe. It is through the use of "not" that we create definition. Mathematically, we use zero and not=. In logic, we use the "null set" and not=.

[Mohan.C]

I think a point is mainly the concentration of any distributed mass. So, a point may not be a plane but can still have all the attributes of the plane such as its mass,velocity etc... mathematically.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I think a point is mainly the concentration of any distributed mass. So, a point may not be a plane but can still have all the attributes of the plane such as its mass,velocity etc... mathematically.

Wow, you've lost me here. Though the laws exist and work outside of dimensional space and form the basis of logic and mathematics, once you include dimensional space, there are likely many nuances I have not explored.

For me, I initially envision a photon "wave packet" with attibutes of direction, frequency, and negligible mass. This is as close to a point as I usually conceive in physics.

Are you suggesting the photon is a spherical wave eminating from its source? As a growing sphere, it is a "wave packet", and it would seem to have distributed mass, but it doesn't seem to fit the idea of a point anymore.

Subatomic particles and quarks might fit your description in that they appear to be localized points, but I'm not sure where "distributed mass" fits in.

Where do I go from my limited knowledge to get to your "distributed mass" concept?

Thanks!

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink ---JAK. ---Introduction to M-theory It did this by asserting that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane which is vibrating in 11-dimensional space. M-theory This means that if one studied supergravity on an eleven-dimensional spacetime that looks like the product of a ten-dimensional spacetime with another very small one-dimensional manifold, one gets the Type IIA supergravity theory. (The underlines are mine.) ---Is it really that much of a stretch, to perceive a world that can only physically see/perceive one dimension, mentally construct a second dimension and have a temporal dimension as the third? It is still dynamic, isn’t it? ---Actually, from reading Mohan. C's post above, I can see how it might be impossible to figure it out, from our understandings/beliefs of one dimensional concepts. ---A singularity or a “0”. Something that can only perceive itself, has nothing else to perceive around it and has nothing else to perceive its existence; it is perceived, it isn’t perceived, it is both and nothing (it doesn’t exist, because it only believes it can perceive itself and a belief is an objectively nonexistent future probability). ---How does it perceive that it has changing/a different time outside of what it believes? ---This ‘nonexistent linear perception’ concept, involves understanding how time is; past (what was and always has been), present (what is, being created from the mergence of what was and what might be, but doesn’t actually exist, yet) and future (a possibility, that has no subjective existence, except as a belief and no objective existence to a singular(ity) being that does and doesn’t perceive {think of a person in a coma, a deep/black sleep or a trance} and has no thoughts of time or space.) ---Circular time is often shown as a ball. Shove a rod (linear time) from one outside point to another outside point, but don’t go past the finite edges of the exterior of that ball. Hypothetically, mathematically or within a computer model, you can draw an infinite line past the point of the edges of that ball, from each end of that rod, but that finite ball doesn’t exist on that hypothetical line. ---We can think/believe/guess/hypothesize of a future past the point of the edges of circular time, but that will not make that line an objective reality/existent/real thing, because it will not exist outside the ending point and never has existed before the starting point.

You and Mohan. C are trying to suck me into "dimensions". I understand it's importance to a ToE, but I may not be as knowledgable or useful in that arena. I'll try to keep up!

[Mohan.C]

I was not talking about distributed mass in any complicated mathematical physical way. I meant for all purposes of calculation we consider a plane for example as a point with no physical dimension but still having the same mass of the plane, a point object. We do this to simplify to calculate say the time taken to reach a destination, different parts of the plane should arrive at a destination at different times like the nose reaches first and then the tail of the plane follows. We don't calculate the time taken for every part of the plane and then integrate the result. We consider it as a point object and calculate... that is as in classical physics i'm ot very good with the modren physics so i was not speakig in quarks or photons....
So a point would be the point of concentration of the whole plane mathematically that is.....


A photon cannot again be a point, a point has no dimensions. A photon as a wave has attributes such as its amplitude and wavelength which are measurable. A point is as small as we can get like zero.

[futrethink]

Mohan.C.

A line cannot be have more than 2 dimension so practically it is a measure of distance between the two points if you don't want to measure it it just connects the two points.

---Hypothetical experiment: if a line of two dimensions was to pass through your body, from one side to the other, what would happen to you?

Since points are zero dimensional it has no width and height so it cannot possibly be a skinny tube it can most probably be the measure of length between two planar points on the tube.

---Mathematically perceived points are indeed of zero dimension and yet, we can conceive of them. To have zero dimensions would be to have a nonexistent existence. There is something to show the existence of a point, even if it is simply an effect that results from a perception of the effect that it affects or as you said

A point is as small as we can get like zero.

.
---It is like zero, but it is not zero dimensionally.
---Take a perception of a two dimensional line and the edge view/perception of a plane, without knowing and with no clues as to which is which, tell me the difference.