THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT., 'Complete' T.O.E. construction project.

Something to consider here is that there's a potential difference between 'nothing' and 'nothing specific' or things that are predictable and knowable and things that are unpredictable and unknownable (these would be things that would defy description, or at least likely any description of them would be just as questionably valid as any other description of them).

Imagine a purely flat desert without any landmarks - if you take a step in a single direction, which way are you going? It wouldn't be any specific direction and in a sense, motion has been detached from residing within the same space as direction.

Now imagine instead that you were moving through a landscape with entirely random features. Again, which direction are you heading? If you aligned your motion with some landmarks (which could immediately change for someone else or after you moved past them) and created a detailed map of the exact path you took, it would not correlate with observations you encountered later, if you tried to repeat it or with observations for someone else.

Though this random landscape would still provide detailed landmarks and unique experiences at any moment, it would not relate to anything outside itself and could be seen as informationally detached from relevance to anything other than potentially concepts like motion or landmarks or walking or whatever properties you interpreted the concept of motion through it.

It's interesting to consider that in terms of an objective direction, velocity, position etc. The random landscape and the uniformly flat landscape are effectively identical, yet the two vary in subjective content. Consider that if we possess finite sensory capabilities within a finite period of time, then we can only acquire a finite quantity of information within that. If existance, on a scale larger than the physical universe was potentially infinitely complex, we could only observe a small subset of events within it as the information contained by all would be larger than our ability to perceive it, within a finite period of time.

Obviously objects that closely shared common landmarks and metrics for their interactions would appear closely related and tightly coupled in their properties. This correlates well with objects being close to each other in space, as in the extreme, if two objects shared all properties in common, they could only appear as a single unit and within the context of space, that would be a single point like object (no tolerance for spacial variance would be available and you couldn't "slip" anything between them to make them appear differentiable).

Of course objects that we only weakly correlated in properties would be preferentially biased toward appearing distant, and influences upon one would be unlikely to have a significant correlation in the other and these would be perceived in these respects as physical separate, independent and distant from each other.

Now recognize that in the extreme, for objects approaching a relationship in which nothing is shared in common between them, though we might extrapolate out to something approaching infinite distance, the concept of distance itself is based upon properties of space - an object can only remain distant or two objects can only remain separated to the extent that they both remain consistant to the properties defining locations within space. Objects that were entirely unrelated would not be perceivable as specifically either distant from each other or near each other as they would not share the same space of interactions.

Notice that the Big Bang can be interpreted in two contexts as either representing our observations of very distant objects on a larger scale of space or as a simultaineous juxtaposition of being objects tightly coupled in an unobservable past - in either case we observe no (or little, as technically we should not be able to deterministically prove anything about entirely unrelated objects) relationship between these objects as they approach either an unviewable infinite distance or become dependent upon unobserved properties of an unwitnessed history. You could analogize this similar to looking through more and more stacks of distorted glass and seeing objects appear to blur, spread and become disorganized the further out we're looking, though interestingly enough, in the extreme, these objects are not actually confined to being distant from us but simply that they remain incoherently related to our local references for spacial metrics, and you have a scenario in which there is no specific boundary except incomprehension or growth and learning itself.

I personally assume that in order for me to see a distant star, my observation of it cannot remain entirely independent of myself - the entirity of that star is unwitnessable by me, and from that perspective it's not real within my subjective context of observation, but the photons I see that are representative of such a star can not have arisen from solely a one way trip from there to here, otherwise it could not exist as something at a specific distance relative to me, and there is a bidirectional interaction that localizes each of us to each other. Another analogy here is of a bat using sonar to "see" the contours of objects - it does not accept all audio information as representing objects but instead filters or isolates a subset of audio components that it generates in order to isolate a perspective relative to itself and reject outside interference - though we could still assume outside interference could create aliases and virtual objects for a bat using sonar, it would still be, once again, a matter of the bats subjective capabilities to isolate these, and this could simply be remapped to using a more complex signature emission for "self" so as to reject a larger quantity of "other" from the perception.

This post has been edited by StevenA on Jul 17 2008, 08:03 PM

Hi rondor. I think your reasoning is correct.

But 'heaven' and 'hell' are Human mind-states, not 'places'.




g.

[FONT=Times][SIZE=1][SIZE=7]rondor-still kicking.

the collider at cern,thinking about it and what could happen if there is success for their efforts,as usual my sideways mind wonders if the outcome will shed light to any of our thoughts in the from scratch forum,for me,i have long believed that if matter is taken to its lowest common denominator what remains is vibration,no doubt complex forms,but what then?what, i feel and what i have stated,is that it should then quickly return to space,i have nailed my colours to the mast so to speak,but i suppose i can always claim that no power exists great enough to do this! any port in a storm,but what if, iif all of the mass should disappear and only space increase.

mind boggling, mind boggling?dont mind if i do,just run me through the rules i may be a bit rusty.

best regards, rondor

The only revolutionary outcome at Cern will be the internet. The collider is a huge expensive water balloon experiment that will provide more questions and misguided theories than answers. Such is the circle of life. At least it gives physics professors something to do until aliens start showing up (hahaha).

imagine a universe consisting entirely of entities that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.


thousands of years ago it was common sense that the earth couldnt be round because everyone knew that objects would fall 'down' off the sides. we know now that they had it backwards. 'down' is whatever direction objects happen to be falling.

people say that its common sense that objects require 'space' to exist. what if they've got it backwards. maybe 'space' is just a description of how the objects that exist interact. what if objects could interact in ways that are not space-like? like quantum entanglement for instance.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthr...0176#post460176

This post has been edited by granpa on Jan 13 2009, 11:01 AM

instead of asking 'what is the true fundamental nature of the universe and existence' maybe we should just ask 'how would we program a computer simulation to simulate the universe' assuming that wehad a computer large enough and powerful enough (it MIGHT have to be capable of computing things that are np hard) (or it might not)

the obvious starting point would be to divide space into tiny regions and dedicate one precessor to each region. each processor would communicate with its immediate neighbors.

This post has been edited by granpa on Jan 13 2009, 11:59 AM

.
Hello again, everyone!

I have been ill for some time with my longstanding allergy/asthma/cancer conditions which have had deleterious effects on my optics for some time now (more recently, the swine flu virus reactions/complications haven't helped!).

Currently am well enough to work on my 'real world' projects which have also fallen behind deadlines due to my latest longish bout of illness/recovery.. But soon (hopefully in two weeks time if my optics hold up!) I will try find time to read through much of what has transpired here at Physforum during my extended absence.....and then add my next contribution to this Q&A thread process so as to progress this project's theorising technique/logic flow to the next stage.

AlexG.... Hi Alex!.....sorry that our discussion (ie, about light path/speed/velocity from the source etc) was interrupted by my illness before I was able to provide you with a 'gedanken' which you can perform for yourself that will demonstrate objectively/mathematically the point that free 'emitted' photon follows an absolutely independent path etc once emitted from source. I look forward to doing so and resuming our discussion on that aspect in a couple of weeks. Cheers till then, AlexG!


Everyone.....Good to be back with you; and I look forward once more to constructive/polite scientific/general conversations with you all. Cheerio to all....and 'see' you again in a couple of weeks!

RC
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Oct 26 2009, 11:52 PM