hoola

dematerialization

If we live in a finite universe, it will have a finite life span. This limitation will be a result of the underlying minor flaws (viruses) of it's original informational logic construction, but still allowing reality to exist long enough for sentience to occur, so a way of our surviving this upcoming event is possible. If we were able to determine the conditions that led to this universe appearing in the first place, we may be able to create a new universe, with which to flee into as this one dematerializes. I see a condition of a true void being the main requirement. This would require a negation of the existing matter, energies, fields, and the dimensions themselves to occur within one specific finite region within this universe when the end is calculated to be immenent....Some engine to surround a small but finite space, that can remove all informational content and isolate this synthetic void from the rest of the universe, placed in deep space to access the purest vacuum available with which to have the least amount of information that needs removal. Within this pure void is the unknowable chaos. An "initializer" or amplifier, is needed to exaggerate the entropy fluctuations within this chaotic region, as the fluctuations have a tendency to not express areas of reduced entropy long enough or of the needed logic requirements to create universe-capable logic-sets very often, and we can't wait for another random "super-fluctuation" which created this universe...natural big bangs seem rather rare. This proposed machine must amplify these fluctuations to stimulate logic formation, but this does not necessarily lead to a logic set similar to ours, or even any logic set that would be of a property of creating a universe. If the logic were of the wrong parameter, a universe might result, but be incompatible with ours, and uninhabitable for us. So a refinement would have to be within the machine to not only cause entropy fluctuations, but one of a particular quality so as to cause a logic set that will lead to a universe with the same particle mass relations, constants of energy expressions, and the like. This will require a deep understanding of every knowable pertinent question within physics, as well as a complete understanding of the logic set of this universe. The one unknowable question of "where did he chaos come from" still to be answered, but not pertinent to the machine construction...the chaos is the "ultimate black box" which can be triggered to give a certain output, regardless of lack of knowledge of it's internal composition edd

I am responding primarily to the heading of the thread...."a lingual TOE". I see the rules as sub-title.... (1). Anything or everything will occur if there is no reason for it not to occur. (2) (repeat of line 1), if there is some form of initiaitive for it to occur. (3). If there are reasons for anything not to occur, left to their own devices, the path of least resistance/energy will be followed...but I see a small difference in the original first two rules, as you write "anything I can occur" in line 2.....And "anything can occur" in line one....Is this a typo, Mike? or did you mean to insert an "I" in the second rule? I am presuming it was an inadverdent keystroke error. If not, the confusion level as to how to interpet these rule is slightly higher with the "I" than without it... I see the linguistic TOE thread title as taking precedence over the 3 rules, and these rules, whichever version is correct, are interesting. I can draw some inferences that relate to what I have said, such as no. 1 being related to the reason "the chaos" exists, no 2 related to the reduction of the entropy (the initiative) within the chaos leading to logic, and no. 3 being of the concept that with too many logic errors within a proto- universe's logic construction, as a universe will not materialize by being "left to their own (flawed) devices". Check back with a clarification as to the correct version of line two.....to be truthful, I haven't really thought seriously about the 3 rules as I have seen them as ancillary to the more important lingual issue.....thanks...edd PS. how are those "low resistance" shoes working out? the reason the photon (em bubble) will not go through space forever is that space itself will end, but the photon will continue until then... if you consider the end of the universe as being at some very high but finite date, then the end of the universe is a "defacto" forever, being the longest period of time allowable in this particular universe....again, "just say no to infinities". this brings us to the question of what happens to sentient beings when the universe ends? This is OT, so I will start a new thread.....edd

I think space has an end, and that is based upon several ideas developed with an informational description of reality as a basis. If a finite quantity of information is responsible for creating and sustaining this finite universe, by simple logic, it should have some boundary limit. In more specific reasoning, space itself is a product of information, with the dark energy expressions held within the vessel of the dimensions, Even the dimensions themselves are built from this same well of information developed from within the original singularity. With only so much information to go around in a finite universe, there should be an end of space itself, with a "hair cut" boundary, of virtual particles, or dark energy at this edge. At the edge, virtual particles behave as near a black hole horizon, but instead of one partner falling into the hole, one partner crosses the boundary where there is no space. There is no space as the dimensions are not there to support physical reality, so they disappear forever from our universe. With the loss of the partner, the universe is evaporating all along it's outer boundary...so this is information loss that continues for the length of the universe's lifespan. But it does seem a minor loss, and shouldn't have any bearing on life expectancy of the universe...so what is "out there"? Nothing observable past an invisible line of demarcation of weak energy flux from the remaining virtual particle partner, hence, the hairy boundary..... beyond that boundary a true void. The boundary should be in continual expansion as the universe expands, as the boundary area increases, so does the energy loss, but in a smaller relation to the overall increase of informational content of the universe....and getting smaller as a proportion as the universe expands. The expansion is at the speed of light, so no going out there to throw a rock across the boundary to see it disappear...If there is any thing that could be considered "infinite" that is this void. This is in keeping with my "just say no to infinities" policy, even in regards to mathematics in our universe. That rule may not apply to a possibly infinite void....edd

seems the gas could be "gettered" out like any normal vacuum tube.....but I guess this is a no-go idea par excellence....edd

as with studies of endangered species, a low population of animals gets more unhealthy as the offspring become more inbred with fewer adults. I have heard that bi-racial children are happier, more intelligent and more emotionally stable than an average child born of ethnically similar parents. The president of the united states, one particular example of a biracial marriage, seems healthy, intelligent, and emotionally stable enough to handle arguably the most demanding job on the planet....

I have an idea related to gravity and tensor force. If the entanglement phenomena is a result of a sort of communication between entangled particles, can a brief entanglement arise spontaneously between 2 remote particles? Imagine two remote groupings of particles A and B. If the spin-state of one particular particle of group A, has a random perfect match of the spin state of a particle in group B....are they not defacto, entangled? And, though they will quickly "untangle", for they are not isolated, for a brief finite period they were entangled, and some information was shared instantaneously, or at "the speed of gravity". So this "make and break" pulsing is a net tensor of gravitational force....or one graviton.....as transmitted between the biefly entangled particles. Since a "perfect" match of spin states is rare, this keeps the resultant force at a certain low level as compared to other forces.....edd

excellent tar.....you say that if the maths aren't complete as I say, then they couldn't build the universe....well, you are built of information...and it doesn't take all the information in the world to build a person, in fact a small physical amount barely visible to the naked eye.....I say that anything of a finite nature has a finite number of smallest components....and if you rule out infinite universes, then, bingo, it can be done with our universe. I say that the amount of math information is vast, bordering on infinite, and is continuing, and that process of continuation, is the sustaining energy that not only supports the reality, but is pushing it apart at the accelerated speeds. This is the language idea...maths are being constructed by a manipulation of the digits, much as new words are being constructed every day in various human languages with just a few symbols of 26 or so...imagine the number of new number combinations that could be juggled with a near infinite number of available symbols at your disposal, and each moment, more relationships are possible with more raw data to work with....With the mere 26 letters, someone might describe how the universe came about.....or write a poem and never running out of new ways to arrange these letters, or altering them to add new meanings. Since most of the matter and energies are "repeats" anyway, there are only so many differing kinds of matter and energies to build this universe.....as an electron is an electron and trillion tons of hydrogen gas are no different informationally than some other trillion tons of hydrogen in the next solar system. That cuts down alot on the information required to build a universe, a kind of efficiency of construction, like an assembly line......if other universes are made from leftover, yet viable maths, then it is worth looking in to them, as they could be the dark matter that affects us with only gravity, Possibly that is "the bearing they have upon us" and that is only the most easily identifiable one, more sensitive tests could be developed to find other evidence of shared characteristics.....I like your anti-doppelganger thinkings. I will be glad to see that idea put to rest....that is a good question as to "where did the chaos come from".....in fact, that is the best question possible in this particular informational universe I have thought out....the answer is.....unknowable. And that unknowability is the driving force of the universe. Doesn't every person or "sentient being" want to know why they are here? Isn't that the test of advanced intellect? I say that the maths are so complex, that they developed an awareness, and a self-examination, and revealed to itself that it had been formulated from logic, just as we were formulated from a sperm and egg....that is the point that you have to ask "who were my parents" if you were raised in an adopted situation. So I see that "orphan status" in the developed universe. The developing maths created enough information to become aware, while still in gestation phase within the singularity, and then subsequent development went ahead and caused the big bang and the follow-up universe, but there is no way the awareness in the maths can know information prior to becoming aware, as there was no observer before hand the initial awareness developed to answer this question of where did the chaos come from. This is the unknowable question, that is the causative "desire" , if you will, that we are here to answer. Since it is impossible to know this answer, and it is the most important answer possible in the universe, a sort of unending quest for knowing was begun. In the animal world this desire is displayed as the evolutionary quest for survival through greater awareness. In human terms it is expressed in the "desire" for enlightenment, and "set completion" in the language of the maths......edd. oh, I forgot to include how the maths are "added to later". Magic numbers like E, square root of 2, PI, and others that go towards an unending conclusion.....plus, the plain old numerals, 1,2,3,4,5,6.....they are still on the treadmill of endless +1s. This is all part of my "just say no to infinites" campaign, even in mathematics.....there is a fundamental limit of the speed of calculation in this universe, as encoded within the framework of logic, that even the maths must obey...if anything were to be truly infinte, then time would have been infinite, as it "held the stopwatch" to any other infinite event, and if time were to be infinite, the universe may have been able to have been constructed, but would have lasted no time.....all the processes from logic expression upwards would have been infinitely fast, and the universe would have been over in the 2nd tick of the infinitely fast proceeding clock. A failed universe...which may have actually happened many times. Any wrong enough parameter could have been enough to spoil a fledgling universe with having insufficient stability to allow "things to interesting"....We could be one of the universes who happened to get the right mix of variables to allow 13.8 billion + years of useful life. I think our universe will end due to minor logic failures of the original construction, but this is getting OT, and I wrote about that on another thread......edd

when you say "in one inertial frame an event has a single spatial and temporal coordinate" ...by this do you mean when it appears to stop from the perspective of an outside observer? and when you say..."in another, there are an infinitude of coordinates"...by this do mean to say; as from the perspective of the object as it is rushing toward the singularity ? thanks, edd

As time slows in the trajectory of an object falling into a black hole to an outside observer, the redshift makes the object disappear, but if somehow you were able to still see it, the object continues to fall in a slowing finite manner....not stopping completely, and would continue to fall in it's trajectory for the duration of the universe's existence... and that the object would "see" itself, fall right in...in an increasingly rapid finite manner.....isn't this the ultimate example of time dilation?

I left a long reply in here....not seeing it now...cixe, if you want to talk, PM me. I don't know how to do that in this site as I am new...if you want we can go email....hoola

I agree with the one particle idea...it was, I think as do others, a singularity with which the big bang popped out from,,,,as to it's movement as light speed, possibly, but I see that as unnecessary to a logical argument....as to the idea of reality being illusory, I see "reality" as a description of reality, rather than an actual reality, that is why there is a tendency to say, "if reality isn't 100% real, then it is totally unreal, or completely subjective, everything being illusion"....a video game is portrayed upon a screen as an "illusion within an illusion", but that doesn't mean it isn't of some reality....It has rules and lines of code that require certain inputs for certain outputs, feedback systems of both positive and negative natures...if indeed the universe is not completely real in a classical sense, it is still of use and has a repeatable functioning logic to it, simply put...it works, none the less. And perhaps if this universe were to be 100% logical, it would not take the form it does now, or take no form at all. What you are after is the philosophical underpinnings as to the "why" we are here, or are we really here?...very good. But at this point the best we can do to get to the "whys" is to answers the "hows", and that is physics. My suspicion is that when we find out the "whys" we may be happy it has the illogical anomalies is has, working as viruses in the logic programs that created and sustain the universe and may be necessary catalysts for it's "set completion", causing the big bang. I see the notion of infinites as one of these "bugs". In a few decades we will have a workable TOE, and perhaps then the appearance of an illusory nature of reality , will become an illusion itself... edd

Cixe, I think you are trying to understand something about these "infinites" that are in a theoretical perfect circle...that is a tough nut, one problem with that is that it has no "real world" example, as the minimums of the quantum keeps a seperation between points, even in space....however, there is the mental concept to be explored and thank you for addressing the interesting subject. I am disappointed that some do indeed seem immature in their purported outrage. Well, they can simply ignore your writings and not respond, if they are offended by the text. I have experienced similar things, but I ignore the ones that have no good input. I don't take it personally, wait until someone comes along who is willing to try to logic out the "illogical" theoretical universe of infinities.....it is worth the aggravation. You mention one neg response as "fear of death"...I say this is insightful.!....as I believe the universe is a mathematically based description of matter/energy born (big bang) from the basic underlying logic that itself arose from the "chaos" or death, if you will.....so as we are beings dependent upon a continuation of sustaining strictures of logic, to have logic ( aka sentience) confronted by illogic, there is an emotional reaction....to me this is quite understandable...I see this further in some sense of logic itself "fearing" the chaos it bubbled up from trillions of years ago, and perhaps will return to, leading to the death of the universe itself......I have a whole scenario from chaos to the present scribbled out in various forums if would care to see it...especially interesting to me is the idea that some components of illogic (infinites included) had to be contained the original logic set for it to functon to cause the development of the maths...like a computer program with viruses, but without those virus "catalysts" there would be an incomplete algorithmic set construction, so no universe.......I have been thinking quite a bit about the question of theoretical infinites and I will come back here for a give an take on any info on the subject.... take care....edd

bill, I read the above link and am thinking that as regards to dark energy and casimir being mostly unrelated, I say that our observation of virtual particles is allowed when the geometrics allow observation of the phenomena here on earth, such as with the casimir experiments....that does not mean that the phenomena goes to zero when restricted, only not currently observable with such an insensitive test as the casimir....and that the dark energy is the virtual particles under question. The casimir test shows that they become readily apparent to us over the certain plate distances, which establishes some information as to their properties, but not all. ....as far as dark energy being apparent in the universe only after a certain time (7 billion years), and had no effect before-hand, I say, it did, but as space expanded and allowed more dark energy to exist, their gradual overall increase became more pronounced, going from slowing down the rates of deceleration of the early universe by countering simple gravity, to bring the deceleration to a halt, then cause an acceleration after the proposed 7 billion year stasis point. More space = more energy, and that is the runaway positive feedback system in charge, as there is an overall cumulative effect universe-wide with this energy......I do agree with the idea of dark energy and dark matter being different....I think dark matter is the gravitational effect of other universes concurrent with ours, that are different from ours, that the only commonality to ours is the gravity they have...this idea being derived from there being other finite numbers of universes sharing the same birth "big bang", and using differing math algorithms that can describe differing realities, that while incompatible (excepting gravity), are self-referencing and have long term stability in their particular logic constructon....edd

as far a linguistics, I have blogged before of the language that described and continues to describe reality or "the maths", with it's (nearing) completed algorithmic set. But that doesn't explain how logic itself, the developer of the maths, acted in such a way so as to evolve itself, not having the benefits of an established system. So I proposed a sort of "logic latin" or precursor language of a simpler form, with which developed at random, also from the sea of chaos, in another subset of reduced entropy withtin the sea. Now, when I said (nearing) completed algorithmic set, I mean that the maths as an entirety are still being created, and will never be fully complete, but was complete enough to create and then maintain this particular universe......it only takes so much information to created this universe, or any universe, so this "finiteness", saves us from this infinite universes idea, with the doppelgangers being a clone of us. I have since the early 80's felt a kinship to the concept of finiteness. An infinite set of universes seems to indicate a pointlessness in an emotional sense, to my existence. This is not to say I think this is the only universe. I think there are others, perhaps less than a hundred. I say this on the estimates of dark matter that is not in our universe, except for their gravity effect on us. Therefore, I conclude that other universes exist from the original pool of information within the singularity, and have other physical, yet mathematically possible arrangements. Our respective maths are close enough, as we would use a common base language, math, with a common "mother logic". This relatedness of origin, like brothers with a common mother, but different fathers, would allow us to be different, yet share some commonalities. In this case, gravity is the commonality. The percentage of dark matter is rather high...I can't remember the estimates on dark matter percentages as a factor towards overall gravitational effects in this universe, but lets take a 75% figure. That means 25% is directly from our own matter. If we start with the idea that each universe contains a roughly similar content, than we each have an equal share of the overall gravity field...it is possible that some universes exist that don't have any gravity effect upon us or even function without gravity....but let us only consider ones that do....and that each universe on average contributes a 25% to overall gravity in toto of the entirety of the universes...then there are 4 universes, each contributing their 25% of overall effect. So we may be in a "local group" of universes...thankfully finite in number .

cixe, I am sorry if I am OT, as I was referring to a physical set of points, in an imperfect world, not a mathematically perfect circle, which may indeed have an infinite set of points in it's circumference. When considering such things, I thought that even in mathematics there were no infinites....only very large numbers...but, I am here to learn....edd

interesting....you point to what I think was a part of the process of the emergence of logic from chaos...in a pre-mathematical realm of reduced of areas of entropy in the sea of chaos.....allowing brief periods of logic to appear...our universe is one of these prolonged appearances.....that held together long enough for interesting things to happen....your questions point back to a period before physics and are of the realm of philosophy....edd

dekan, the line (1D)would go to a plane(2D) like a rectangle, then the rectangle would go cubical form(3D), expanding out at inflation speed (superliminal) then settled down to light speed rate expansion as the universe cooled.....and tegmark has claimed a line or "equator" in his CMB survey map ......edd

mike, I am not sure what you mean by "threes at the core of the thread"...but I guess I am OT ? But "linguistics" as a TOE is what the thread is about,. right?... I may be wrong in my interpetation . edd

tar, I think we are having a very sensible conversation, so little is known, I can speculate about gravity, time and why anything, and the use the enterprise as a mental workout...like chess. I am sorry about saying infinite, as I don't think there are any infinites, in physical reality or even mathematics....only "approaching" infinity....sorry about that....like the speed of gravity or entanglement being "infinite"....I think they will be determined to great accuracy someday, as a finite speed, just as the speed of light may have seemed infinite centuries ago, but being thousands of times faster than C, therefore being "defacto infinite", or the fastest possible speed attainable in this universe. Take absolute zero for example.....never get to "infinitely" cold, but millikelvins close, as there is no way to achieve it physically...so far anyway, and that seems a pretty safe bet.......as far a dark energy "refreshing" energy and material in space, maintaining their existence, I see that as a local phenomena, in conjunction with the dark force points in the immediate area....so only local matter would be directly affected. But since they seem to give off "free energy" they do have an added allure......as far as math following the rules of what is physically evident, I say the exact opposite.....reality is mathematics in it's evolution from chaos to enlightenment....and physical reality is a stage in this process... mike....yes, the linguistics of reality is mathematics....that is language the universe speaks....this is a new invention of logic, which used that language to describe the universe....you, me , god, everybody

newton's gravity equations require an instantaneous action at a distance in order for them to function. If you were to have god-like powers for a minute and could lower the speed of gravity's effects to C, then orbits would begin to collapse, as I recall, the planets would spiral into the sun, or fly away, I can't remember which. Either way, you would quickly put gravity speed back to rights if you wanted life on earth to continue........what is confused is the speed of gravity waves, which is held to C and straight line gravity, which isn't....So, the idea that communication cannot occur faster than C seems incorrect. All orbiting bodies "communicate" gravitationaly in a close to infinite manner, or else no stable orbits are be allowed......I have heard it as an analogy of a rope that does not stretch....if you are on the earth holding a taut rope on one end, and the other end is held by someone 100 million miles away, then if you give a pull on the rope it will be felt instantly at the other end...however, if you shake the rope side to side, the lateral motion (or wave) won't reach your friend for nearly 10 minutes, as that is held to a velocity of C........As far as the solenoid shaft....if it were extremely long, the delay would be noticeable.....but it would have to be thousands of miles long to be seen by the naked eye, if that could somehow be arranged....

never saw contact or stargate.....too busy, nor the matrix for that matter....trailer seemed superficial. I suppose most of what I said was said years ago in these movies...as to entanglement, the first use in practical a sense would be communications, as that seems fairly straightforward....like the "sub-space" comm system on star trek....much later with the movement of material objects.

not too sure as to the taste of left handed sugar, only what I read, it does seem like a good idea........if (and a very big if) everything is information, then this can be produced by a computer, as that is what computers do, so therefore, with knowledge of how matter is described by the universe, we will learn the routine of making our own. Possibly neither the universe or us will have to "maintain" matter with a constant refreshing by dark energies....perhaps it can stand on it's own once created. It does seem like a cumbersome idea and I am liking it less and less as I think about it........Sure there is dark energy here... it's everywhere isn't it ? I say this as I see dark energy being exactly this "virtual particles" phenomena as detected in the casimir effect experiments.....which seem to be everywhere as long as there is no "confinement" beneath a certain physical size so as to suppress their expression. That is one more reason to not like the "refreshing" idea...if dark energy (virtual particles) expression is only apparent without being constrained physically, that is ok for energy floating through space, or a single bit of matter floating about freely, but what about all the matter in the earth, or some solid material? There wouldn't be "room" for the energy to do it's job.. I can see a partial case for energy such as magnetic fields, light, and etc. free of encumberments in space being refreshed moment to moment by dark energy, but not matter....so I am restricting any thought of "maintenance by dark energy" scheme to energy only........as far as the "setup" - are you referring to entanglement enabled instant communications ? I was writing on another forum about that. I really have to get out pencil and paper and write down what I said and where so I can refer to it in cases like this...but on that subject, doesn't entanglement supposedly cause an instantaneous reaction between 2 entangled particles if one is disturbed, regardless of distances involved? And isn't the speed of gravity (not gravity waves) have to be near infinite in order to get newtonian equations to function correctly?.It seems that there are two superluminal speeds here and I have been trying to get a response from someone as to their possible relationship, if any. I would love to hear speculation on that one...it sure seems like a fertile field with regards to gravity having some "resettable casual entanglement" property between every material object in the universe...of which entanglement is constantly breaking, then resetting somehow, providing an on, then off again condition at a particular "clock frequency", and this pulsing of entanglement make and break, is gravity and each pulse of on and off is a "graviton"...just a starting thought which is pretty silly, but might give a few days of interest. Are there any other superluminal speeds in the universe? That seems a safe question....lets start there .....anyway.....do you still think cows have no logic? I feel that is the only subject we have talked about that I may be on the winning side of......later tar..hoola

no problem with thinking about using worm-holes or teleportation devices....but the next step in the "faster horse" idea is going to be literally, a faster horse....as a step such as the automobile being faster than the horse, plane being faster than a car...etc. If we want a technological evolution, we must go through all the steps, it seems..and teleportation seems several steps away before we can eliminate "the horse" and simply appear somewhere else, with perhaps a super-entanglement transceivers set up at various points within the universe, which seems the most likely scenario of getting rid of "the horse". In my thinking, we would still need the horse to set up the send-receive stations, say from earth to various points in the solar system, and once established, could transport quickly around....so if we wanted to transport to a distant interstellar point, then we would have to ride our fastest horse to get there, then once an entanglement transceiver is established, could pop in and out of and established system at will, from earth to alpha centauri, if desired. Unless some sort of communications could be established with an intelligence at remote distances, then an entanglement transceiver could be built in cooperation with the other intelligence, in both locations,and we wouldn't have to go there in a fast horse first, not they to ours.

in keeping with my thinking that the universe evolved from simpler to more complex, a 2D generation of a 3D state does fit the requirements But, if you are talking origin theory....I see the universe having come from a zero-dimension singularity, and the dimensions being described mathematically within the void. This is to say it went through a phase of a sort of hologram projected from a 2D surface, as a maturation process of universe as it went through the various stages of description of energy/mass to actual reality. I see the dimensions as the final set of algorithms developed within the singularity, and with the expression of these dimensions, the big bang was produced by liberating previously described primordial energy . So, in getting from zero dimensions to 3 ( or beyond), I have no problem with moving through a 2D temporary phase.... I envision the expression of the dimensions with....first a single line intersecting the singularity, then the line becoming a plane, then the plane becoming the universe. In this scenario, a 3D universe is projected from the 2D plane...and at that stage goes from description to reality. A possible validation of this idea of progression of dimension expression is an effect on the shape of the universe today, and be evident in the CMB maps, perhaps in the "line" Tegmark shows in his map.