simple is not

[AntonioLao]

Simplicity is an easy notion to grapple within the mind. Similar to time, subjectively, one knows it, objectively, one knows not. So everyone knows that both simplicity and time exist but constantly failed to convey the true objective meaning. On the other hand, the abstract concept of equality and inequality are also simple in one’s mind but precisely difficult to verify accurately by experimentations. This difficulty arises from a lack of functionality for many-to-many correspondence relationship as signifies by the independence of each space-time points. A group of space-time points could possibly share the same time domain but not the same space domain. Vice versa, share the same space domain but not the same time domain.

[Guille]

This is very similar to the philosophy of several frenchmen. Bergson, for example, talked about the virtual and the actual as you talk about the temporal and the spatial. I've developed an idea which I find interesting: there are two types of infinities and two types of eternities. There is the absolute form, the space-time form, which is something that exists everywhere (which must be infinite) and at everytime (which must be eternal). There is the temporal form, which is that something exists all the time within a local space. There is the spacechronic form which is that something exists all the time but changing of place, so it's actually in a finite period of time in every place, but cosntantly moving for ever. There is also the spatial form which is that something is infinite but not eternal, so it is infinite in space for a finite period of time. The philosopher Gilles Deleuze was greatly influenced by Bergson, and extended the differentiation: he said that the virtual is qualitative and the spacial is quantitative, the time is expression and the space is representation, the expression is done by attributes and the representation is done by properties... But really I think too much differentiation, even though Deleuze does take us with it to incredibly new ideas. But where do you want to go?

[harmonygirl]

Interesting query Antonio. I agree and would say further that our inclination is to reject the simple and to embrace complexity as the latter contributes to our ego.

[pagan3142]

Us humans have the uncanny ability to see and find exactly what we expect to see.
The mind trick's us into believing what we want to believe or see.
It's kind of an optical illusion for the mind.
The trick is to Believe that what you see is only part of the whole picture.
As we proceed through life we are given choices every day, we make up our mind's on the information available, and from our personal experiences. Now is it a free choice ? or a preordained one ?
I like to think we are all independant thinkers. and that our life "Plan" is ours. Not some pre-destiny.
Therefore am I just seeing exactly what I set out to find ???

And who has the timepiece that measures Spacetime, as we are not the observer just the observed.
What in spacetime led me to write this ???

[AntonioLao]

But where do you want to go?

General relativity has removed the force, I'm trying to put it back into the equations.

[Guille]

General relativity has removed the force, I'm trying to put it back into the equations.

How are you trying to do that? Also, do you think it would be a simple union, that of force and energy in equations, which I would be fascinated to see, or will it be even more complex math that QM, GR, chaos theory...?

[AntonioLao]

How are you trying to do that?

By making an assumption that the orthogonal forces exist only at the local infinitesimal region of space-time.

[hanzoganz]

For simplicity, i would recommend reading A new kind of science, by Wolfram. Th online version is free from his website. The thesis of the book is that simple programs can model complex behaviours.

[AntonioLao]

For simplicity, i would recommend reading A new kind of science, by Wolfram.

Thanks for your recommendation. I have a copy of his book right in front of me as I type these texts. Looking through I noticed that there are loads of fractal computer designs but very little physics. Chapter 12 did mentioned his justifications for a connection to reality as a computational equivalence.

[hanzoganz]

Yes, the book seems to have only nice ilustrations that doesn´t explain much. And not much physics. But it is not that simple. Cellular automata are used to model PDE´s with soliton solutions for discrete integrable systems via ultradiscretizations (Tokihiro). This kind of equations are very important in physics. And curiosly, to do this is not that simple.
About Wolfram´s book, i recommend going to the finla notes, where the hardcore of the subject is explained. The text itself is just an excuse to present this kind of ideas.