|
Author
|
Topic: T-Duality Universe
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 05. June 2003 23:26
Chris,
Something interesting comes to mind here. When you referd to logic and non logic it had appeared to me that you used an eliminating process by saying logic is with "non logic" logic! I think this is very sound because when using such dualistic thinking methods of both logic and non logic (deduction and induction and abduction as an example) it's assumed that logic is the only driving force for a general type of understanding. I often see people put the word logic in place of the word thinking. I use the word thinking as a generality and logic as only one particularity of it. I think that people should 1st understand the language based syntatic and semantics problem that creates what is partly behind the mainstream science of complexity. I think they should see that the inevitable inescapability of this influencing pre-order complexity is partly the blame for that if they don't give it a second thought. It is interesting to see that logic and proof is rushed for, when understanding the more fundamental issues arising over what constitutes complex logical systems or even chaotic ones. The problem arises then, when lets say, we consider a hypothesis (an idea by brainstorming or not) that is about the earliest type of construction of scientific thought. When we are at this early stage and have thought about a hypothesis we tend to think that within one intention of sense, of it or after it, we then ought to become involved in logical control and its proof. Although this is one merit to the system in scientific thinking, if it is brought in too soon it could be seen as a hindrance when we use "logic" (VL 3VL etc) as a rational applictaion too soon. Why is this? because we are effectively shortening the hypothesis life span by using jugdemental based thought. One example is when we decide that something is wrong, or it is nonsense or even irrational. When we do decide to use logic as you know, we apply it to science via mathematics. Funnily enough, if we had used that same type of "rushed in" judgmental system of thought too soon say, in pure mathematical hypothesis for instance, we might not have found the irrational number Pi that decribes a multitude of science with its own proof. This type of lesser judgemental thinking could also be applied with a type of asymmetry, within the complex world of logic, or within the logical world of complexity. Now that would be interesting, much like your theory is too Chris.
Claire
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 06. June 2003 00:44
quote:
No, UBT and SCSPL are not defined as "two separate things", any more than a chunk of ice floating in a pond is a "separate thing" from the water in the pond. The water in the pond is where the chunk of ice came from and what it is essentially composed of, but the crystalline lattice structure of the ice does not distribute over the pond, and the water in the pond is not distributively bound by this structure. The molecules in the liquid-phase H20 have more degrees of freedom than those in the ice; they are less constrained, and less bound. All that you need do in order to apply this analogy is to take it to its logical conclusion while generalizing your usual idea of containment, replacing ice with SCSPL, the pond and its molecules of liquid water with UBT, and the crystalline molecular lattice of the ice with an SCSPL logic lattice, and to relax your grip on the tidy little picture of a chunk of ice with extrinsic measure bobbing around "in" the water. Any metric imputed to UBT must be intrinsically derivable within SCSPL domains (e.g., by intrinsic mutual exclusion).
I stand corrected. Thanks Chris Langan for this most excellent analogy. My understanding of the CTMU is greatly increased.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 06. June 2003 19:20
With Chris's latest clarifications, I have to say, "Hm, that's interesting". The structure seems to not be immediately self-contradictory (which is actually saying a lot, since most similar constructs are), and beyond that I'm insufficently familiar with the details of the theory to say much.
Someday when I have more time I'll look at it in more detail. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 12. June 2003 02:50
Of course the possibility of real physical infinity cannot be easily dismissed.
oo represents "infinity".
[1+1/oo]^(oo) is undefined.
Limit x-->oo [1+1/x]^(x) = e , the base of the natural logarithms.
1--->1^2--->1^3--->1^4--->...
2--->2^2--->2^3--->2^4--->...
3--->3^2--->3^3--->3^4--->...
etc...
What is the order of infinity of various objects of different dimension? Are there more points in the plane than on a line? How does the dimension of a mathematical quantity determine the number of dimensions it contains? It seems that the dimension of infinity does not matter.
Cantor discovered that there are the same number of points on a line of length "L" as there are on a square with sides that have the same length "L".
Of course the infinity of the "real" numbers is greater than the infinity of the natural numbers.
There are orders of infinity.
The ..."multiverse" could be a quantum mechanical superposition of all possible universes. Conceptually, represented as ordered stacks of parallel planes, each with a different resonance.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. June 2003 13:32
The poet William Blake wrote:
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry
...
In another forum, Chris Langan has explained that the unbound telesis(UBT) is "beyond symmetry".
This is where the logic of the CTMU fails.
A perfect symmetry is equivalent to "no distinctions can be made". All translations, rotations, operations, etc, are non distinctional for a perfect, or "infinite" symmetry.
UBT is not beyond symmetry.
The CTMU is refuted ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Russ
[ 22. June 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. June 2003 16:33
Chris Langan wrote:
quote:
No, UBT and SCSPL are not defined as "two separate things", any more than a chunk of ice floating in a pond is a "separate thing" from the water in the pond. The water in the pond is where the chunk of ice came from and what it is essentially composed of, but the crystalline lattice structure of the ice does not distribute over the pond, and the water in the pond is not distributively bound by this structure. The molecules in the liquid-phase H20 have more degrees of freedom than those in the ice; they are less constrained, and less bound. All that you need do in order to apply this analogy is to take it to its logical conclusion while generalizing your usual idea of containment, replacing ice with SCSPL, the pond and its molecules of liquid water with UBT, and the crystalline molecular lattice of the ice with an SCSPL logic lattice, and to relax your grip on the tidy little picture of a chunk of ice with extrinsic measure bobbing around "in" the water. Any metric imputed to UBT must be intrinsically derivable within SCSPL domains (e.g., by intrinsic mutual exclusion).
A "phase change" from water to ice, is a transformation from a higher symmetry condition to a lower symmetry condition.
UBT would then have a higher symmetry than the self distributing SCSPL syntax with the crystalline lattice structure.
So how can this enigmatic riddle of riddles called the "UBT" be "beyond symmetry"?
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 05. July 2003 18:39
The best truths are discovered truths. The Frey equation used in Dr. Wiles proof of Fermat's last theorem, appears to be an invented truth. Still true, but invented nonetheless
Fermat Last Theorem:
x^n + y^n = z^n
Here it must be specified that x, y, and z are integers.
A natural Fermat equation?:
z > y > x
[ (x!)/(x-1)! ]^n! + [ (y!)/(y-1)! ]^n! - [(z!)/(z-1)! ]^n! = 0
n = 2
If math corresponds exactly to reality in some fundamental way, it must be a type of natural mathematics. A collection of self evident truths.
A pardox is a statement of the form:
A = not-A
Depending on what A and not-A are, there exists self evident solutions to paradoxes.
For example, let A = X and not-A = -X
The paradox:
X = -X
The solution:
(X)^2 = (-X)^2
Not quite 100% sure yet, but it could be that nature resolves the largest set paradox through something analogous to "T - Duality" as explained in string theory.
This duality is a symmetric identity.
The physics for a circle of radius R is equivalent to the physics for a circle of radius 1/R.
Russell E. Rierson
analog57@yahoo.com
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic