An Idea

[Max™]

I hope I made this clear with the example of the picture. The picture delivers us something from reality, equal to that moment of reality from that one specific direction, and limited to visual data only of the certain kind (film, digital, etc). You see, the question does not disappear, even when they are one and the same, because both are one and the same only based on the restrictions of the media used. In our case, math is the medium, and it is a medium of the abstract kind.

Ah, here we have a perfect way to illustrate what I am describing.

My observations deliver something I can call reality, observed within one specific set of directions, in a particularly structured Universe, and limited to data only of a certain kind (that which is contained within the Universe, it's members and subsets). You can't claim that your observations are "more real" just because you are having them, if you do it leads to issues like the question of why there is a privileged type of existence among a range of possible types which are arbitrarily similar.

Yet, oddly I must be interpreting your last statement incorrectly, saying math is the medium is what I am stating, that our observations are mere abstractions. We are embedded in a single photograph which we call a Universe, and argue is real for lack of the ability to determine otherwise. It is an abstracted perspective, a representation of the true structures we are observing.

I hope I made clear that this addresses not what I am addressing, Max. You deliver examples from within a specific reality, I state something about that specific reality. There is no conflict, this is just a form of ordinary miscommunication.

I am trying to deliver examples from behind that thing which we call reality, to illuminate that we are only getting glimpses at the true structure of things. Holding up a light behind a photograph, if you will.

A theory never contains anything, it describes its subject matters. I hope it does not come as a surprise that we have 3D and we have 2D. The 3D is real, and the 2D is not that real, like a photo. Still, 2D can contain a lot of information that enhances our 3D world a lot. If I were to make a list of everything that is 3D I would have to use either all the words in the universe, or I can use a single word: reality.

Not all 3D spaces are contained within this Universe. There are higher dimensional spaces which are not expressed here as well, if this is real because it is 3+1 dimensional, then all other spaces are as well.

I then state the same, but using just the single word is easier to do to describe 3D. If I desire to make a list of 2D, we actually bump into some problems, because there is no single word possible to describe 2D comprehensively. We cannot state it is unreal, because it is real as well, even to the point it adds to our reality (like a photo can help remember things or catch a thief). Yet, it is unreal as well. It gets tricky to recognize 2D when it appears in our 3D reality. For instance, a statue down the street is 3D, but the person it portrays is not identical to the actual person standing there. We could call that statue a 2D person (real and accurate portrayal, but not the actual person herself). Depending on the perspective 2D contains either more than the truth (the 2D person is made of stone) or less than the truth (the 2D person has a smaller vocabulary than the real person). Math is basically a 2D tool. Photography is a 2D tool. Language is a 2D tool. Money is a 2D tool.

Math is an infinite dimensional tool... >.>, applied mathematics within a Universe is limited due to the inability for a single member of a set to produce statements which contain the overall set, but that does not mean a group of statements couldn't be made which described another set arbitrarily well.

Math does not contain everything; math is about everything.

Math catalogs everything which does not contradict itself.

I do not think names were meant to declare anything about ourselves. They are tools and they come with fallacies. I am glad you consider this problem, because it also means that you have no other problems (you are well-fed, have friends, a place to sleep, money to spend, an intriguing life). Well done, Max Mathis!

I have a friend or two, eat enough to live but would prefer to do without that requirement. I have been willfully homeless and slept in the open in the woods, on a beach, on top of buildings, lived through luck and wit, and enjoyed it. I don't have any money, I manage to get by in roughly similar a manner as a housecat apparently, but the last is true. Life has always intrigued me because I could not reconcile my apparently real observations with my suspicion that it would be much more likely to not find a Universe, than it was to find one woven around me as I did.

I am simply particular about names, never identified with my given names, Max is not the name my mother gave me, though she does agree it suits me well.

I've been talking with the woman though, she's not as fond of Mathis, but she did suggest one which we both favor: Thyme. Max Thyme, I like it.

Will be getting rid of this identity I was handed before we are married anyways, so it is good to reevaluate who I am before sticking with one. It is one of the things I enjoy about the internet, seeing the names people give themselves is a much more interesting experience than seeing the ones they were given.

[labelwench]

One of the loveliest versions of this song, by Don Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je3bb4V-uUc&feature=fvw

Oh, the summer time is coming,
And the trees are sweetly blooming,
And the wild mountain thyme
Grows around the blooming heather.
Will you go, lassie, will you go?
And we'll all go together
To pull wild mountain thyme
All around the blooming heather,
Will you go, lassie, go?

I will build my love a bower
By yon clear and crystal fountain,
And all around the bower,
I'll pile flowers from the mountain.

I will roam the country o'er
Through that dark land so dreary;
And all the spoils I find,
I'll bring to my darling dearie.

If my true love, she won't have me,
I will surely find another
To pull wild mountain thyme
All around the blooming heather.

Oh, the summertime is coming
And the trees are blooming
And the wild mountain thyme
Grows around the blooming heather.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi Prof.

This is from the 'Atoms and the Void' list and mentions strings and dimensions…


Holographic Induced Gravity

A paper by Erik Verlinde is causing some excitement in the Physics world. Notable physicists such as DR t'Hooft have expressed interest in the Verlinde's proposal. As it turns out Verlinde's proposal follows along the same path as the recent posts I did on the Holographic principle and gravity, making this particularly interesting for me.


Verlinde has proposed that Gravity rather being a fundamental force in nature is an emergent property of the information content of space time. The basic idea is related to the M Theory formulation of the Ads/CFT correspondence , which defines M theory as essentially a Holographic theory of nature. Based on this model, both gravity and space time (dimensionality) are emergent properties of nature. Because of this, the Verlinde model is not in conflict with the Weinberg Witten Theorem. ( Genius Lubros Motl take note) Because General Relativity unites geometry and gravity any emergent model of gravity must also be an emergent model of space time.

The Verlinde proposal has it roots in the Ads/ CFT Correspondence which was first proposed by the Argentine American Physicist Juan Maldacena This proposal is also known as the Maldacena Duality, a duality between open and closed strings related by a boundary. The Ads/CFT correspondence is essentially the string theory realization of Sakharov's Induced Gravity theory which models gravity as the sum over the action density of the vacuum state. In the Ads/CFT correspondence , integrating over the open string states on a boundary is equivalent as the exchange of closed string states. Therefore integrating over the open strings on a boundary projects closed strings into a D+1 space, where D is the number of dimensions of the boundary. This leads naturally to the emergence of gravity and space. In this way the open/closed string duality supports the interpretation of gravity as an emergent property of nature resulting from the statistical tendency for physical systems to evolve to a maximal entropy state. Therefore gravity is revealed to be an Entropic Force, rather than a fundamental force of nature.


Entropic forces are effective macroscopic forces which originates by the statistical tendency for many degrees of freedom to increases their entropy to a maximum value, i.e. the Bekenstein bound.( This has implication for the source of Dark Energy which might be viewed as the realization of a comoving patch of space time at a maximum entropy. We know that in the comoving patch of space time we inhabit the value of vacuum energy density assures a saturated Bekenstein bound. )


Entropic forces are often invoked to model colloid physical systems, a fact which again seems to relate to the basic approach Sakharov applied to model gravity. An Entropic force points in the direction of increased entropy and is proportional to temperature. We can write the basic equation for this;


F= div[S]*k*T

Where S is entropy, k is the Boltzmann's constant and T is temperature.


This basic relationship allows us to derive both inertia and the gravity field, resulting in the unity of gravitational and inertial mass, the equivalence principle. We can easily derive the Newtonian equations directly from the Bekenstein bound.

Given that;

E=hbar*c*S/(2*pi*R)

and

dE/dS= k*T = hbar*c/(2*pi*R)

Incorporating the Horizon

R=c^2/a

we get

dE/dT=k*T=a*hbar/(2*pi*c)

If we consider a Holographic screen, a particle of mass m that approaches from the side at which space time has emerged will effect the entropy content of the screen. This is essentially the analysis used by Bekenstein in deriving his entropy bound.


Div[S] = 2*pi*E*/(hbar/c)= 2*pi*m*c/hbar

Applying this in the direction of travel

dS/dx= 2*pi*m*c/hbar


Given the one dimension Entropic force equation;

F= dS/dx*K*T


It is simple to derive the Newton inertial equation;

F=m*a


We can also apply the Entropic equation to a mass within a boundary. We have;

N=A*c^3/(G*hbar)

Where N is the information content.

Based on the equipartion rule;


E=(1/2)*N*k*T


Allowing us to easily derive the Newtonian equation for gravity;

a=G*M/R^2


Based on this we can also relate the Hawking Temperature to the gravity force of a black hole.


F=k*T_H*(dS(bh)/dR)


Of course all this is a somewhat heuristic formalism. But in my view the work of Verlinde and others who have applied the Holographic principle to gravity are getting at something very profound. The ideas described here are beautiful in their simplicity and unity. Time will tell if this idea is the paradigm change that some suspect it is.

Bob Zannelli



On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton
Authors: Erik P. Verlinde
(Submitted on 6 Jan 2010)

Abstract: Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...001.0785v1.pdf

[austintorn@aol.com]

Undecipherable illusion:

http://www.switched.com/2009/06/10/a...low-your-mind/

[Fredrick]

G = åf/f * Õf = åUF

Here Fredrick, this is the universal formula for your theory of generality, of interpreting all parts and the whole, without losing any meaning, or creating undue complexity…

It reads; ‘Genericity’ equals the sum of all functions, divided by all functions(differentiation), times the product of all functions(integrality), equals the sum of the Universal Form(Totality)…

This formula applies to everything in A Universe__It is ‘The Genericity Law of Form Follows Function’, expressed universally mathematically…

Btw, I first posted this idea HERE in my ‘False & True Philosophical Utopias’ thread, and HERE in my ‘East Meets West Logic’ thread, back in September…

"...It’ll be from a universal standpoint of eclectic genericity."(quote from first link above...)
"The dyadic 'Docens' can not capture the triadic 'Utens', except by universal eclectic genericity."(quote from second link above...)

Enjoy…

"Since eternity and infinity equate; Time, of eternity, is a scaler function of infinity..."

The Fundamental Triadic Particle-Wave-Motion, Can Not Be Further Reduced...

(from another post...)"Throw away Aristotle, W.James and J.Dewey, they are f**ls. Pick up on all the early and late pragmatic Pythagorean Greeks, and Ibn Sina, Kant, Peirce, Veblen and J.M.Keynes, the intelligent mathematical pragmatists. Re-found all your thinking on this new principle: The Mathematical Theorem of Genericity: "Mathematical genericity is absolutely required to sensibly understand reality, simply...", and its clearer explanation: "Truth is eternally limited to genericity, due to the fact that the manifold of interpretation is infinitely extendable__X/X=1+IEE, eternally..." These general facts just make it an easier standpoint, to see the greater Universal/eclectic picture."

Thank you, Lloyd. I appreciate your formula, and I have to admit, it looks like my pyramid, but I do have some problems with immediately understanding the words you are using (the devil is in the details). Because of the abstraction of the formula, I have no immediate clarity on what is shown. I believe the problem lies in the word function, which is itself a general abstraction; it is blinding me somewhat.

Will you do me a pleasure and put in something (that can be put in the formula) and walk me through it. For instance, I can use the pyramid to place the four forces of E, M, SN, and WN and see how they fit. I do not place gravity in there, I consider it part of the pyramid's center, found within the collective outcome of the forces. You do not have to use 'forces' as the central general entity (generentity); you may use an example of your own. I would appreciate that.

[Profpat]

A solution of the wave equation in two dimensions with a zero-displacement boundary condition along the entire outer edge.

AND there you are a 1 and 2 dimensional waves and a 3 dimensional wave function (probablity patter). Reaility matching math concepts. There are REAL 1 and 2 dimensional entities, strings, waves. fields, membranes. So on this thread this is a given. No more redundant discussions as to whether they exist or not.


A pulse traveling through a string with fixed endpoints as modeled by the wave equation.


Spherical waves coming from a point source.

P.S That the universe expands into the void is also a given on this thread unless somebody can tell me and provide an image as to where this universe is expanding.

Finally the big bang theory is also a given, far to much evidence to deny it.

Best,

Pat

[gunnar]

hi pat,

just thinking out loud here...

one dimensional requires only one coordinate to specify a point and two dimensional two coordinates...point to point references.

unable to find any evidence of force carriers or matter having anything other than three dimensions in isolation.

even representations of two dimensional images are mediums completely produced by three dimensional structures.

the big bang theory has problems...

gunnar

[Profpat]

Hi gunnar;

Well the photon a force carrier is a 2 DIMENSIONAL transverse wave and I believe the gluon is a 1 dimensional force carrier.
There is a 1 dimensional wave equation and a 2 dimensional wave equation, there are no 3 dimensional wave equations only probability patterns for 3D entities.. WAVES are not 3 dimensional, most of our visible universe are waves and fields, 2 dimensional surface area only. In fact I have some real doubt that 3D actually exist in our universe other than through illusion. ALL MASS is interactions, REALITY is an illusion. Even the photon started as a POINT, which became a LINE which went perpendicular creating AREA, just as math says which is necessary to create higher dimensions.

BTW where do you think the universe is expanding into and if not the Void could you provide an image. My challenge to anybody who doesn't think it's the Void.

Best,

Pat

[SB_UK]

Well the photon a force carrier is a 2 DIMENSIONAL transverse wave and I believe the gluon is a 1 dimensional force carrier.

good post.



'The wind beneath her sails'
'The 1wind ben:eath her2

space : time
2 : 1

--- the repeating motif.

QUOTE=Lloyd
/ | \
and
QUOTE=ProfPat
1of2/ |1| \2of2

... ... makes 3.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Simple Basis of Being

As for forces, which is just a prelude here,
We note that two of them are transitional,
The Electric and the Magnetic,
Each giving rise to the other;

And that two others are oppositional,
The Weak and the Strong,
The Weak promoting changeability,
The Strong promoting stability.

Gravity is then left as a blend of all.

( Strong vs. Weak ) [Gravity] ( Electro <—> Magnetic )

(Above ideas from Fredrick's 'Forces' Pyramid)


So, would oppositional and transitional pairs
Work for our human being as well?


For us humans, all is of the
Movement of Appearances,
These Movements giving rise
To notions of time…

(Past into Future,
Or the Then to When through the Now),
Transitional in only one direction;

While Appearances beget notions of
Matter lumps in a place of Space…

(Matter and Space, or the What and Where),
A kind of an opposition in that
The knots of matter are separate
From the gaps of space in between;

Or, in short, all seems to be the
Movement through time/distance
Of Matter in Space.

( Matter vs. Space ) [Being] ( Past —> Future )


We will see that our being is composed
From these simple notions begun,

For movement grants time—
The Then and the When
Of the Past and the Future,
Via change;

While Matter is the What,
And Space is the Where,
Via ‘clumps’.

The blend of all these would be
A kind of spirit of life.


These fields then further combine:
The What/Matter + When/Future field
Becoming the Progression
Of matter into the future,

And the What/Matter + Then/Past field
Being the History
Of the matter past—what has occurred.

The When/Future of Where/Space field
Makes for Wishes, hopes and dreams
In the future place of space;

While the Then/Past + Where/Space field—
Begets Remembrance of memories
In the past space.


The emergent fields then further combine:
Learning becomes of Remembrance and History;
A Change of Outlook becomes of Remembrance and Wishes;
A Change in Structure is Progress from History;
And Vision is of Wishes and Progress.


Then at the next higher stage,
Being Creative is brought forth
From Learning combined with a Change in Structure;
Direction results from Learning and a Change of Outlook;
Growth is the Vision for a Change of Outlook;
Planning is the Vision for a Change in Structure.


Finally, Creating, Direction, Growth, and Planning
Compose one’s being—The Who.


(summary):

No Nothing (Why) —> Possibility (How)

!
V

{ [ Space(Where) <— Appearances —> Matter(What) ]

+

[ Past(was Then) —> Movement —> Future(will be When) ] }


!
V

… Fields further and further combine …

!
V

Being (the Who)