An Idea

[SteveA]

... life is cyclic ...

If we talk about life in terms of some finite set of elements and finite set of their rules of actions - then yes, that list has a period at the end, but I don't think it can be cyclic unless the "last thing" can cause the "first thing" again, but what caused that "first thing"?

I'd have to say "something else" caused the "first thing" and the "last thing" will be the cause of change for the "something else" on a different scale (in which case we may then once again have another "first thing" of similar characteristics).

If we count from 0 to 9, is the thing after 9, 0? No. It's just that we didn't want to make a larger alphabet to describe things. The next count is 10, and the 10s digit went from 0 to 1 and the new state is still unique (and it's only from that perspective of the 10s place that the original 0 "repeated" - the original 0 in the 1s column itself had no way of determining whether or not it repeated, but it's also not what's determining when time changes. 0 becomes 1, but when that happens isn't determined - from the perspective of just that 0 and 1, the "next" change will be to the 1, but other things could be busy doing something else in the infinitesimal decimal place at the moment ).

As an analogy for life, space and communication, we have ~ 3 dimensions of space. This is the lowest (least restrictive) number of properties needed to communicate both time and binary information. As an example, we can arrange 3 elements in a triangle and use a clockwise rotation to transmit a 1 and a counter clockwise rotation to transmit a 0.

Now we have the equivalent of a pair of binary numbers as the smallest unit of information in DNA. If we were looking at a transition sequence along a thread of DNA over time, this gives us 2*2=4 possible transitions, of which 3 we could call "rotations" that indicate 1 of 3 properties, as well as the 4th condition, which is staying at the same state (in which case, from that perspective alone, no time occurred - yet relative to other things, there was still a change in the context for subsequent changes).

If we repeat that process again and "differentiate" between those 3 possible transitions, then we have 2 possible transitions along with the stationary state and that can be seen as binary information and time. If we repeated this again on the binary information, we'd only see a continual transition from 0 to 1 and that's similar to just a pure clock reference for time (yet this clock can be at a different rate than the fundamental rate of time - so it's a "virtual reference" for time that has a different length ruler).

To show a more concrete example, imagine there exists a universe with only 4 possible states and the smallest memory possible - only the previous state is remembered. We can just list those states as A, B, C and D.

If all we had was 1 state repeating forever, this would really be impossible in that universe as only 1 state existed and we should have called it the single state universe. Time (at least from our perspective) never would have happened in it (beyond the possibility of that single memory having initially transitioned from some other state to that single state - but, that's something that appears beyond visibility in that single "universe").

Anyway, if we list these 4 "elements" as the corners of a square:

A-B
|X|
D-C

We can have transitions between any of these 4 states, including "remaining" at the current state (notice that a memory of the previous state needs to exist in order that a transition can be determined to have occurred - but this is from a more fundamental perspective, "cheating" if we're to truly try to give a complete representation of the current state, as it would really require us to describe things as pairs of symbols, in order to denote the transitions).

Anyway, we can make a table and count the number of clockwise rotations that occur between symbol transitions to denote which new "transition property" has arisen from a transition between states.

I just had an interesting insight again - we can assume that everything in the universe shares at least a single property in common, yet transitions between things are not qualitatively the same as those things themselves, but still something must hold these all together over time - to put this another way - the event in which a light is turned off or on is not itself comparable to the light being off or on. The spaces in which those transitions between properties occur do not exist with properties matching the original space ... but each space can still have an arbitrary origin and this can allow for at least one state to be "connected" between these spaces!

So imagine we pick some state, similar to a perception of a void, in which no information is present beyond that state and we use that state to "move" into a different space, though in order to do this controllably, some manner to determine which space is "next" would be needed to be retained, otherwise any and all possible spaces connected to that "void" would be possible. We'd need to add an invisible property like inertia.

Now let's go back to the example of transitions between the 4 letters - that space has 4 possible states and 3 transitions between them. The space of those transitions is not a specific letter though but instead pairs of dissimilar letters - i.e. A->B is a transition, but it is not "qualitatively" equal to A or B alone. It has the "element" of time and change.

Well if we took one of these letters and made it "special" in the sense that it appeared perceptually identical to a transition state, then a continuity could occur across these two spaces.

So let's say that we made the D->A transition appear, from some perspective, indistinguishable from A itself (we squint our eyes and don't pay attention to the details ). Now we can have a continuity exist across those two spaces and potentially construct a larger continuous and connected space.

I just had an interesting thought of some analogies to being awake or dreaming here, though you could probably draw the analogies to life and death beyond that and who knows what else?

There are some analogies here with calculus also. When we compute a difference between adjacent points, we're computing a derivative and moving from position to velocity and to acceleration and then jerk etc. It's compliment, integration we're moving along these qualitatively different properties in the other direction. In all these "spaces" there's an unknown quantity and that's the position of the origin or 0.

For example, if we could "shift" everything in the universe a mile in some direction, the universe is left unchanged. Similarly if the velocity of everything was changed by a foot per second in some direction, nothing is altered or if everything undergoes constant acceleration (similar to a continual and uniformly distributed gravitational acceleration) in some direction, once again, nothing changes, etc. It's only the relative changes that are perceived but there can be changes in absolutes that are currently unperceived and influence the evolution of parallel versions of space connected together by a perceptually identical transition.

Anyway, if we go back "up" the other way, a set of 5 symbols allows transitions between 4 over time to occur and similarly transitions between 6 results in 5 + time etc.

Now there's another interesting way in which these spaces can be layered together in a spectrum. If we had, for example, transitions between 5 symbols as 4 symbols + time, we could then represent those 4 symbols as pairs of binary values and construct the equivalent of 2 separate spaces simultaineously. If we look at the complexity of the possible manners of evolution of such parallel spaces it's extremely complex and chaotic - I think it's really the single subject that most areas of science are currently exploring. I'm rather certain that this is at least the beginning of the structure that most the current research in physics and mathematics is working on - in my opinion, it's what "logic" and science are all about and it ties in with consciousness, life and other universes etc. There could be other things out there in some other direction, but if so, at least for me, I don't think I could tell you much of anything about it - all the unknowns appear to lie along that pathway of logic (which in a way makes sense - it's only relative to something known that something else could appear unknown - if you're even to determine some direction to explore, then you need a compass to tell you what direction you're heading and I don't even think death is directionless in that sense - there's still some "next" thing. So you'd likely have to go beyond any form of time, causation or determinism if there's something beyond that - consciousness is still on that time line and it appears quite likely that at least most forms of unconsciousness are similar - but then again that could be a bias made from a perspective along that time line - that's a good question though it's tough to think of anyway of even having a thought in time, of anything beyond it ... not that I wouldn't try, but I can't (currently) think of anything beyond that (and it would appear a paradox that time should cause any thought beyond itself) - so anything else would appear to have to be time less, not simply from the perspective of a life time, but the perspective of any sort of deterministic time line).

[melanie]

Steve your post is far too complex - I cannot understand it.

As for reality being cyclic, it is.


You can't get there from here. -- for one very simple reason ..

It's a closed loop - mobius strip.

[melanie]

Thats what I want to state. Science has no space for emotions or feelings unlike religion which has no space for reason.

Does this conceptual universe need a reason to be here ?

[SteveA]

Steve your post is far too complex - I cannot understand it.

You innately understand it and pointed it out to me. Your posts are even more complex than mine.

You can't get there from here.

Logic is confined by its own rules. We can always play a different game though

[melanie]

You innately understand it and taught it to me.

What was it I taught you?

Logic is confined by its own rules. We can always play a different game though

I don't know what you mean?

[melanie]

We can always play a different game though

You can't get there from here....for one very good reason?

[Profpat]

Thats what I want to state. Science has no space for emotions or feelings unlike religion which has no space for reason.

Hi Dipayankar;

I think you may be confusing religion with faith. My Faith transcends reason or logic. It is very personal and is applicable to me alone.

Religion is a system usually based on faith but has a lot of this and thats, do's and don't do's. They try to defend it on reason and logic but it's condemned to failure because ultimately it's based on faith which again is not based on reason or logic.

This is where I believe Melanie makes her BIG mistake. She takes her faith and converts it into a religion which she attempts to justify by reason or logic. In other words she tries to convert you to her faith, which can't be done. (Sorry Mel this is my opinion)

Best,

Pat

[SteveA]

I actually changed my previous comment from "taught" to "pointed out" (the properties already existed and in that sense you didn't give them to me, but instead you highlighted the subject for me) and I added that the subjects you're talking about are actually more complex than mine and they are in the sense that it's much easier to describe the logic a single transistor performs, than it is to describe all the mechanical properties of walking.

You pointed out that it's all connected together - though in some senses things can seem unrelated, in the long run they're not and there's a rigid structure underlying it all.

My posts are in many ways detailed and algorithmic - they're just steps on a pathway, but they don't describe the experience of dancing, though in some ways they show how dancing can exist along with other such experiences and still all be connected together into a single logical structure.

I don't know what you mean?

There's nothing that I can describe beyond that pathway because there's no way to show something infinite except as just a direction where the unknowns lie.

On the other hand, every step along the way is effectively a new space that operates by different rules - still logically attached to everything else.

The point you're at in that progression is effectively the same as the rules by which you're interacting with everything else. Selecting a different point is the same as acting differently.

My comment was really just to point out that playing by any set of rules and even potentially trying to select to play by different sets or even trying to be "random" is really just playing by a different set of rules (and in this case that "different set" would really just be the same set, but unknown), which in many ways is still just a single point on that line. There's really nothing that can be done outside it.

On one hand, we could say that this logical structure is "confining", but on the other hand there's no action that would lie outside it. It doesn't describe the qualitative properties (i.e. what it "feels like" to dance) of experience of those points, but it describes a manner in which they can all be connected with a "realistic" first person perspective of things (i.e. why eating and dancing can both occur in the same space and how these can become other things and still interact with specific rules over time in many diverse areas of conscious qualities).

[melanie]

This is where I believe Melanie makes her BIG mistake. She takes her fauth and converts it into a religion which she attempts to justify by reason or logic. In other words she tries to convert you to her faith, which can't be done. (Sorry Mel this is my opinion)

Best,

Pat

Your opinion is accepted.

As for your opinion.


No comment.

This is your misery self - not mine.

Go do your own homework.

[melanie]

You can't get there from here....for one very good reason?

I am simple coming from the other side of the equation

the side you cannot see, but it is there, for without there

there could not be here

so don't get all pissy about it Pat just because i choose to not see it your way

just as you choose to not see it my way - duh!!