SSDS

Now a next minor upgrade of “The Information as Absolute” paper appeared - http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 , V2. First of all that is the same as the V1, but with Russian translation: English version – pages 1-33, Russian one (Appendix) – pages 33-70. For those, who downloaded the paper earlier - the change is, in fact, the following passage: ----- It seems worthwhile to mention here an additional remark, relating to the Beginning. There are, in principle, no objections to suggest that at the Beginning Matter was firstly created as a huge number of so called hypothetical “Planck Т-particles”, i.e., the particles having masses that are equal to the Planck mass (near 1019 BeV). These particles contain and their algorithm works on the FLEs, which are absolutely symmetrical. Further interactions between these particles resulted in the appearance of observed now Matter. Such particles have at least two, possibly rather interesting, properties: (i) – since the particles interact with anything only by gravity force, they could be the particles, which have not interacted at the extremely hot Beginning totally, and so now can constitute, at least partially, so called “dark matter”, and (ii) – since for absolutely symmetrical algorithms it is impossible to choose a direction in the coordinate time, it is logically permissible to suggest, that they all move in the Matter’s spacetime in the positive temporal direction only. As that was pointed earlier, particles’ algorithms are some closed loop, and therefore all particles should have some inherent angular 4D momentum (what reveals probably as the spin in “usual” particles also), which is oriented specifically in the spacetime. So, if at Beginning only Planck mass particles were created, then in Matter there was no antimatter, when Its total angular 4D momentum, as a sum of PM-particles’ ones, was, let, “positively directed”. Further the conversation of this momentum could result in the absence of the antimatter, at least in the observed now part of Universe. _____ That seems as something that is rather fantastic, but, nonetheless, it is permissible. And it isn’t too more fantastic, then any other existent cosmological suggestion relating to the Beginning… Cheers

As it seems, the discussion goes quite naturally– without some reasonable inferences. That is so since in reality only small part of discussions that are Metaphysical (Meta-biological, etc.) can have some reasonable, at least in a certain extent, sense outside the informational (“The Information as Absolute”) conception, where one can differ, e.g., at least the notions “Matter” and “Consciousness”, material and concise objects/phenomena. More – see the paper “The Information as Absolute” , at least the section 6.2. “Consciousness”, though it would be useful to read the paper as a whole. Now a little upgrade of this [earlier http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712] paper appeared: http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 Cheers

SSDS’s thread “inform physics”, regrettably, was closed a couple days ago. So I re-post next time the post from this thread (SSDS post #24, Posted 7 June 2011 - 09:57 AM) Since – again regrettably - it is necessary to re-post it again (as the 'SSDS', on 09 Jun 2010 - 1:19 PM) now. So – some short version of the post: ******** 'SSDS', on 09 Jun 2010 - 1:19 PM, said: In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post “relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again: ………. And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future. …….. Cheers

-? That is possible, the informational (“The Information as Absolute conception”) conception (Meta-Physical) and the informational model (physical), which follows from the conception, indeed aren’t trivial. But in such a situation one – if (s)he wants to understand - should think enough; if there is a possibility – and here it is – should put corresponding questions. Though if the questions arise that means that something becomes be understandable. Besides for you it would be useful to read other arXiv papers that are pointed out in this thread, first of all (“Space and Time”) http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 and (The Informational Conception and Basic Physics) http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 But you write your posts too quickly… Cheers

Again you write something that doesn’t relate to the tread’s topic. So – and that is possible my last post relating to your posts - I don’t discuss anything with trolls: - You a number of times wrote here about “peer review”, from what probably follows, that you know what that means. So, once again, I ask you to write here something like to a peer review of the paper “ To measure the absolute speed is possible?” that is attached PDF in the SSDS post # 60 22 November 2013 - 08:54 PM. If you aren’t capable to do so, I shall not continue this conversation. Cheers

It seems that you don’t know well also – what is the scientific forum. On the forums members discuss not only “peer reviewed” papers – you can look through, for example, other threads on this forum’s page. Besides - here aren’t prohibitions on – what time a thread should exist. And, besides, you 3-th post already write something that by any means cannot be believed as something scientific. Would you be kind, for example, to write in this thread – what do you think about the paper “ To measure the absolute speed is possible?” that is attached PDF in the SSDS post # 60 22 November 2013 - 08:54 PM? That will be – I hope till now, though there are some doubts already, something scientific and what relates to the thread’s topic. If you cannot, then your posting seems as a trolling. Cheers

To: All - last information relating to the thread’s topic – see the last SSDS post (3-th page), including, certainly, the attached PDF. It seems that you don’t know well – what is the arXiv. So see http://arxiv.org/ . As well for you seems be useful to re-read the SSDS post Yesterday, 04:10 AM once more. Cheers

To: All - last information relating to the thread’s topic – see the last SSDS post (3-th page). There aren’t any publications either about the informational (“the Information as Absolute”) conception or about the informational model; all submissions were rejected by editors, without peer reviews. Including, for example, in a number of philosophical journals, though the papers “the Information as Absolute” http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 and “Space and Time” http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 are evidently new, actual and philosophical. So the authors are forced to walk through the Net scientific forums to info people about the conception and the model. On another hand – in the forums corresponding posts are often commented by some rather active forums’ members in a quite aggressive and senseless manner. It seems that the members of some journals editor boards are humans that are rather similar to those forums’ members. Besides – when I looked through my last post I see that the attached paper “Absolute_speed_measur.pdf” is downloaded only 1 time – when I checked the attachment. Somebody has a difficulties when attempts to download the paper or that the downloading counters is rather strange? Cheers

Attached PDF is – how one can measure the absolute speed of a reference frame in the absolute spacetime – some more detailed consideration of section 2.2. in http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979... Cheers Absolute_speed_measur.pdf

That is re-posting from an other forum (the blog about unifying of quantum mechanics and gravity) Some notions relating to the problem. (1) Space and time are some logical rules/possibilities, which determine – how the concrete informational system, Matter is constructed and how material objects must interact; space and time are absolute, including don’t depend on – what in Matter happens in any "time moment" and/ or in any "pace point". So neither space, nor time can be "quantized". (2) In contrast to the spacetime, motions or any interaction of material objects are "realizations" of a set of rules that control Matter when She changes, but there is fundamental obstacle for any changings, which was formulated by Zeno 2500 years ago in his aporias. "To solve" the aporias Matter was forced to do any changing as some quantized process, when the state of some object between in/out states becomes be uncertainty; what in physics was realized as QM. (3) Any force in Matter has a mediator, including that must be true for gravity force also. Since gravity and electricity are very like, it isn’t impossible that corresponding theory will have some traits analogous to the QE ones. Some (and seems as non-accidental) example of a similarity of gravity and electricity – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 Cheers

Some next re-posting from an other forum ________ How? Again, how? Nimit Let’s go from the end of your post. All “elementary” (don’t consider quarks here, that isn’t principal) are indeed clocks, i.e. some periodical processes. For photons that is well known; they are some clocks that run only in the space, with the speed of light and so are “massless”in the space, i.e. have zero “rest mass”. All “massive particles” at rest in the spacetime run only in the [“coordinate”] time, with the speed of light and so are “massless”, i.e. have zero “rest mass” when moving in the time direction. When, after obtaining of a spatial momentum, they move in the space also, they are the clocks also – that one can observe as the de Broglie waves (in other case Achilles never leave behind a turtle). And, again – since there is for every particle (atom, body, etc.) some fundamental cycle that determines the particles characteristics, and since at movement in the space the particles must spend some (roughly) cycles on the steps in the space - when the speed (i.e. steps’ rate) in the spacetime is always constant – the cycles’ rate in the time becomes be slowed. Or if a human makes from particles a clock with the points and clock-face, the points become go slower through the clock-face. Again, there is no so called “time dilation”, the time is absolute and any clock cannot to do with the time anything. Besides – if for a particle there is some probability of a “bug” at every time step, then, since the time steps’ rate is slower, the particle lives longer. No mysticism besides. Again – the slowing down of the speed in the time is the result of obtaining a speed in the space when some force impacted on the clock (particle, body, etc.), that is some “mechanism”. After the impacting is stopped, and the particle moves in the spacetime inertially, the (dilated) clock’s ticks rate remains be constant, i.e. that becomes be as “kinematical effect”. Again – more see the arXiv links above since the processes here are a little more complex, first of all – since in the reality there are (at least) two times. Cheers

That is re-posting from an other forum (the blog about the crisis in physics) _______________ The crises in mainstream physics is evident – in last 30-40 years nothing essentially new ideas and results occurred. Including, for example, a “new result” – the explanation of the inertial mass nature in the Standard theory as it follows from a particle interactions with the Higgs field. It is evident, that until from a theory doesn’t follow the equivalence inertial and gravitational masses this theory cannot pretend on resolving of the mass problem. One of the brakes – till now all physics is based on the special and general relativity theories, which postulate that real (!) 4D spacetime is the Minkowski spacetime, though nobody observed till now some imaginary space or imaginary time; moreover – in mainstream physics till now there aren’t any constructive understandings in Meta-Physics – what is the space? And what is the time? When the situation in physics is such that without such a understanding nothing new can appear – all, what can be obtain in limits of existent paradigm, is obtained already (moreover – it is obtained erroneous and controversy things, at least the SR). So next physics will start first of all as some re-writing of mainstream physics from Minkowski spacetime to that indeed exists, namely – to 4D Euclidian one with two-faced time. Next – analysis of the results, when it seems as rather possible some new ideas will appear, including new understandings in QM and cosmology; it is possible that some new additional dimensions will be suggested and explored to study the interactions of our Matter and Her environment in the Set “Information”, where Matter is placed; etc. More – see “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) and “The Information as Absolute” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) Cheers

The discussion “why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?” here evokes, for those who lived in the USSR, nothing else then a smile. There wasn’t, of course, so and Darwinism was “official” standard science that was learned in school; Lamarckism was considered first of all nothing else then as some base for religions in the atheistic country. But it would be incorrect to think that Marxism is correct when it is stated as the base of socialism / communism (or something else post-capitalistic), just because of it is the base of the main Marxism’s “historical materialism” dogma that “the human existence determinates the human’s consciousness”. So the main goal of Marxism’s doctrine is a realization of “the great principle” – “for everybody - every need, from everybody - what he can” (possibly in native English texts that sounds a little in other words). When just satisfaction of needs is the main goal of capitalism, and so the “real socialism” in full accordance with Marxism transformed eventually (and inevitably) in capitalism in former socialistic countries. So it turned out experimentally proven that in reality such approach is incorrect. To understand why it does so and what approach should be more correct is necessary to understand, that the humans’ evolution did not start at some mutation of some monkey and it will not end as the biological species “homo sapiens”. The evolution started at combining of some chemical substances into a cell and will continue as a coming of the human (more correct – human’s consciousness) out the subset “human’s Consciousness” to subsets “human’s Consciousness-1”, “human’s Consciousness-2”, etc. The “historical materialism” is true for the humans’ societies up to (including) capitalism only. Next (post-capitalistic) society will not be the society, where “the human existence determinates the human’s consciousness”, but there will be “the human’s consciousness determinates the human existence ”… More - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (paper “The Information as Absolute”) Cheers

To state so is necessary to understand – what is the time? For that seems useful to read http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 (for Matter in our Universe).Besides – if the continuum hypothesis is true, then the cardinalities of the continuum set and of the “discrete” power set of the natural numbers set, 2N, are equal, so the continuous and the discrete are in certain sense equivalent; so the time can be discrete (by some way) also. Cheers

To answer on “How did everything really begin” is desirable to answer previously on: What is the everything? What is “begin”? And so – what is the “time”? In reality the everything is an absolutely infinite Set “Information”, which exists always, “in absolutely long time”; and where all has happened absolutely long time ago. If more specifically, our Universe exists and evolves in absolutely long time – as well as it has evolved absolutely long time ago. At that our Universe is only infinitesimal – though a huge enough for humans - (dynamical, evolving) informational subset of the Set; there are possible an infinite number of other “Universes” in the Set, which are some informational systems also, possibly with another – or the same - logical rules (Nature and society laws) that govern the evolution. There isn’t anything surprising in such a reality; including – in that all universes (an “non-universes”) very possibly interact by some ways. Our Universe consists of three main subsets “Matter”, “Alive” and (at least human’s) “Consciousness” – something like the human, which consists of material substances, some rules that make the substances “alive” and the human’s consciousness (the men was made “in the image and likeness of” -?). Since the cause and the way of Beginning, as well as all what will happen at the Evolution, was known “absolutely long time ago”, formally there isn’t a problem – how that was (is, will be); anything, including the fate of any human, every her/his thought was known and is now realizing as always existing scenario. Though it is interesting to attempt to know this scenario – thus the sciences exist… More see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 Cheers

Now a little upgrade of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 Though possibly it is worthwhile to correct the text (last sentence in the paper) a little. It now is: “…the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any straight line in the 3D space.” It should be, e.g., as: “……the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any spatial axis; and to any other line in the 3D space also, though.” Cheers

A couple of preliminary remarks. As that is pointed out in the paper “The Information as Absolute” all/ any existent philosophical doctrines have common flaw: they study “the problems that both – non-provable and non-testable”. Besides (or consequently) so any doctrine has the problem of existence of something more fundamental. For example in Platonism also a question arises – what is something where “the World of Ideas” and “inert Matter” are? From what they “are made”? So inevitably any such a logical construction (including, e.g., the mathematical universe hypothesis) has this problem. As to the MUH more specifically – it seems also that isn’t some neoplatonism, that is some next version of the Pythagorean “everything from a digit” doctrine. And so has natural flaw – it reduces everything to mathematics, when that isn’t true, since for math is critical the validity relations and so, for example, the math isn’t capable to descript all processes in Consciousness. And – since (e.g., MUH) existent philosophical doctrines have the flaws above, their practical output is, as a rule, rather poor. Besides that they always remain be hypotheses, which have no proof, for example – what inferences follows from them besides that they “explain Nature”? Such problems become be resolved only in the informational conception. Including, e.g., in the conception become be more clear – what are space and time; from what follows, e.g., the explanation – why the special relativity theory isn’t correct and a reasonable model for basic physical principles; now philosophy obtains for study ultimately fundamental subject – the set “Information”, etc. – see the arXiv links above. Cheers

Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” paper. Cheers

The answer is very simple – because of those, who works in arXiv , at least in Gen-phys section team and at least till now, are intelligent, ethical (and bold, though) people. Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” paper. Cheers

It seems that for discussion in this thread would be useful to read the paper “Space and Time”, http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2 Cheers

Since there aren’t some questions/ comments on the thread’s topic, consider the two-clock experiment. So, let there is some system that consists of a rod having the length L and two clocks on the rod. The system moves along the rod’s axes with constant speed V in some other RF, for example – on some Earth’ orbit. It is well known from the special relativity that one can synchronize clocks when they are in a point, and further, using a slow transport with a clock speed v<<V, move clocks on the rod’s front and back ends. In the RF the clocks showings will be at that different, on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement (front clock is slower) –VL/c^2. If the clocks are slowly moved to one point on the rod (let – front clock is moved to back rod’s end), the showings must become equal again. In the special relativity the clocks “show time” and so there is no difference – moved clock constitutes, or not, a rigid system with the rod, in both cases the result is one – the showings’ identity. In informational model spacetime is absolute and the clocks’ difference is “material” kinematic effect, when only the rod turns in a plain “[coordinate] time, a spatial direction” (tau, X). So in the case when moved clock constitutes all time a rigid system with the rod, then the showings will be identical. But if there is a free motion (e.g., moved clock has an engine), then the difference will conserve. The orbital speed of international cosmic station is near V ~7.6 km/s, the Voigt-Lorentz decrement, VL/c^2 ~ 8.4.10^(-14) s*L. For a rod having L=25 m the decrement is 2. 10^(-12)s – now such a precision isn’t a problem. For 250m rod the decrement is 2. 10^(-11)s, clocks such a precision have sizes as a matchbox. But so long rod isn’t possibly necessary. After first synchronization the process can be repeated any times with a small rod. E.g., if one uses 10 cycles “put ahead on the rod – free return” with 25m rod, the result will be as when using 250 m rod. It is evident, that by using measured data on the VL-decrement is possible to measure the speed V – when that is impossible in framework of special relativity. However, it is impossible in this case to measure the Earth’s speed in space relating to absolute reference frame, because of in Earth’s gravity is impossible to make a free clocks system. But if one launches a couple of clocks far enough away from the solar system, then such a measurement would be possible. Cheers

And some addition to the SSDS post above. In contrast to the “simulation hypothesis”, the informational conception/ model haven’t too much PR, moreover, quite the contrary something other things happen. A couple examples – the paper “Space and Time” a month ago was rejected by “Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics” journal (earlier was rejected by two other journal), though it is evidently new, actual and metaphysical. And – it even seems make one laugh: I info about next iteration of the conception in so called “Cosmocoffee” WEB forum, http://cosmocoffee.info/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=fde5d7a362949ac8f842304d92cd8f0a as an anonymous, in the thread “Crackpots”. As well as I placed the info about the next version of the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2. At evening the info existed, at next morning it disappeared… Cheers

“(Nick Bostrom “famously hypothesized”) … that our very existence may be nothing more than the algorithmic results of a computer simulation. in a holographic universe constructed by vastly superior beings? I know -- it sounds like the basis for good science fiction, but...” - The “simulation hypothesis”, is in reality, the basis for a science fiction only, since it have a number of evident problems. For example – it is practically impossible to make corresponding simulation of Matter, e.g., every particle interacts with every other particle in Universe, at least by gravity; besides now it is known 3 fundamental forces besides gravity. Even “to simulate”, e.g., a real flight of a stone is necessary to simulate every impact of every air molecule, which, in turn, are dependent on wind, temperature, dust, etc., etc., etc. It seems very probable, that some “vastly superior beings” could find much more useful business, then to game in some puppet-show. As well as “…The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time...” – isn’t by any means required by the “simulation hypothesis” only, there are a lot of much more physically based hypotheses, where space-time is discreet. As well as, for example, the discreet space time is in the informational physical model; the difference – in this case the discreetness of space-time is rigorously grounded; from the model follow a number of experimentally tested rather important physical results – see arXiv:1110.0003 , arXiv:1004.3712 , arXiv:0707.4657 , arXiv:0706.3979 . Though the “simulation hypothesis” have, by some unknown reasons, very good PR, for example – in May 2011 the info "you’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it" (e.g., http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-computer-simulation-and-math-proves-it ) was in a week widely spread through Web – there were more then 100 000 links. At that – the info was at least twice incorrect, besides the “hypothesis” itself, the statement that “math proves something” is nonsense. Math cannot prove anything, all what can math, that it guarantees that the math results are consistent with the corresponding initial suggestions/ conditions. So if the suggestions were rubbish, then math results will be rubbish also, and nothing more Cheers

For this topic it may be useful to read arXiv:1110.0003v2, V2. Cheers

Now a little modification (mainly – some editing and something relating to the “twin paradox”) of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2. Cheers