Hello Roger I some time play with the idea of two dimensional objects. These should be a sort of objects which can only admit two parameters, like for instance two reference points. They are of course questioned as separate objects and their existence as such I agree is problematic, although they are indeed vastly used in physics and other scientific disciplines
There are a lot of examples like Temperature, Time, Distance, Speed, and many others. Regardless if Time exists or not as a separate object (Steven Hawking affirms that saying Time is the most inner part of existence, the void. That something which could not be broken into sub elements, and if we could somehow enlarge their tiny... what?, space? it fills, we could travel backwards in Time) This is like fiction of course. And my opinion because of my job is that two dimensional objects indeed exist, but they can only be accessed by language, which is the most important of the said two dimensional objects Someone could say that in the end language is certain neuronal structure, and so the three dimensional rule applies, but that is not. Language to work does not admit a third parameter and has no volume. Expressions regarding volumes of information, language or the like do not refer to language but to its different vehicles. If I say for instance that my pendrive loads 8 GB of....?, that does not mean anything regarding language itself, nor the code used to print that surface, the code is not there. The same applies for instance to DNA, the physic elements which build my cells are not the Code, but its printed effects if I can say that. This apply to all codes as well like in information theories, and there are of course 3 or more dimensions in many forms of developments, but those are just models which cannot escape the boring 001100000011111 sequence. Do you have any position regarding this type of existence. Your thoughts base pretty much if I'm not wrong in the fact that any existent object, even the complete absence of existence, must have 3 dimensions. Mine is that there are objects which can be accessed through language, which have just 2, and they are efficient all around us. In othe words, back to the model of the boundary, the boundary itself is also a two dimensional object, has only two parameters, two hands and nothing in between under this approach. Its mission is just to separate two instances, in and out, if I get it correctly I mean you could even take that boundary as the inner object and to completely define it, but that requires a second boundary surrounding. Thank you for a good conversation Carlos On Aug 23, 2:05 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Carlos, > > Hi. I think I agree with you that we're talking about the same > idea. Also, you're exactly in saying that the complete definition is > the boundary itself. I think where we separate a little, not in our > thinking but in what we're thinking about, is that for what I'm > considering, absolute absence of all that traditionally has been > thought of as existing, there is no stuff inside the boundary. You > can't have subcomponents of what's been traditionally thought of as > non-existence. I think this would be the most fundamental of all > existent states and would have no separable sub-parts. But, if we're > not talking about a single instance of this existent state but are > instead talking about states that exist within a bigger context (or > bigger set of existent states), then I absolutely agree that the > boundary would separate two different environments, what's contained > within and what's outside. > > As someone else mentioned, once we can kind of agree on the > terminology, what's real powerful is figuring out what properties > these existent states have and what can be done with them. I've tried > to do that at my website with the existent state that has > traditionally been called non-existence by using it to build a model > of physical things. It sounds like you may be working on it from a > more computer angle? Hopefully, we can do something with these models > someday! > > Also, thanks for telling me how to say Roger in binary! See you. > > 0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (aka Roger) > > P.S. I checked it out and Carlos is > 0100001101100001011100100110110001101111011100110000110100001010 > > On Aug 22, 2:40 pm, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Roger > > > I think we are tuning somehow the same channel, and may be using > > different words trying to point the same. > > > > o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is > > > equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I > > > think could also be called information in that the complete definition > > > tells what is contained within and thus provides information. > > > I agree with this, so I will switch to "complete definition" instead > > using the word "information", > > Just want to remark that the complete definition should be in this > > model the boundary itself, and regardless what is contained within, > > that boundary is different of the contained package. > > Goes beyond since it needs to separate at least two different > > environments. Defining completely its contents is equivalent to define > > what that content is not. The negative part of that content is as well > > a complete definition, even not being or not existent. > > Is here where I like to use the word "absence", which in no sense > > means not existing but "not here" > > > In binary systems that absence is represented by a zero (0), or better > > said the lack of a signal on any given surface, the lack of that > > signal is filled with language. In reality that 0 mark assumes the > > representation of something which did not show up. That something is > > absent, not here, not within the contained part, although certainly is > > part of the complete definition if I may say. > > > For instance, if I encode "Roger" into a common binary sequence you > > will have your name expressed as: > > 0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (you can play with this > > at:http://www.nickciske.com/tools/binary.php) > > > A computer system would print just a few signals (the 1s), and would > > leave empty spaces represented by the 0s, that empty space is > > meaningful because of its relative position to the only signal (1) > > > I believe this is just another way of saying: > > > > The complete absence is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, > > > in and of itself, > > > completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really > > > an existent state." > > > rgds > > > Carlos > > > On Aug 22, 2:26 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Carlos, > > > > Hi. I'm not sure if I completely understand, but what I'd say in > > > response is that: > > > > o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is > > > equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I > > > think could also be called information in that the complete definition > > > tells what is contained within and thus provides information. > > > > o I prefer to not just say "information" without defining what is > > > meant by that. Physicists do this all the time, but what exactly is > > > information? To me, it doesn't matter what you call the fundamental > > > unit of existence (information, mathematical constructs, matter, > > > fundamental particles, etc.), it still exists, and the key is finding > > > out why it exists instead of not existing. I think by saying that a > > > thing exists if what is contained within or meant by that thing is > > > completely defined is at least a mechanism or reason for why things > > > exist. Then, once knowing why the fundamental thing exists, I'd agree > > > with you in saying that this complete definition is equivalent to > > > information. > > > > o I agree completely that the universe is composed of one fundamental > > > kind of existent state (or particle). If physicists and philosophers > > > really want a unified theory of the universe, this is about as unified > > > as you can get. What I'm suggesting is that this fundamental existent > > > state is equivalent to what we've traditionally, and incorrectly, > > > thought of as the complete lack-of-all, or non-existence, because this > > > complete lack-of-all, in and of itself, completely describes the > > > entirety of what is there and is thus a complete definition or an > > > existent state. Whether or not its called the complete lack-of-all > > > or absence-of-information, I think the reason we've always incorrectly > > > thought of it as an absence of something is because we're forced to > > > think of it within our minds, which exist and which have information. > > > Next to our minds, it just looks like a complete absence. But, this > > > complete lack-of-all/absence-of information, and not our mind's > > > conception of it, doesn't face this constraint. The complete absence > > > is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, in and of itself, > > > completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really > > > an existent state. Whether you call this existent state information > > > or something else doesn't matter; it's the fundamental unit of > > > existence. Overall, this sounds very similar to what you're saying > > > that "the absence of information is some kind of information". > > > > So, sorry for such a long-winded reply, and I think I pretty much > > > agree with you. What you call information, I prefer to call a > > > complete definition because it kind of describes more of a mechanism/ > > > reason for what it means. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Roger > > > > On Aug 20, 3:15 pm, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello Roger > > > > > In case that boundary gives substance and existence, would you agree > > > > that information matches as a concept that boundary definition. > > > > And if so, would you agree that that boundary contacts both the inner > > > > and outer components of this model. > > > > And if so, would you also agree that the outer hand of that boundary > > > > somehow is related to the non existent part (non existent to the inner > > > > object). > > > > If we could imagine an universe made of just one particle, the outer > > > > space of that universe being non existent should have at least an > > > > attribute, not having the only particle, would you agree that that > > > > only attribute is enough to completely define the only particle within > > > > its counterpart universe. > > > > In other words, could be that the absence of information is some kind > > > > of information. And if so would you agree that that kind is the only > > > > information possible. > > > > > I would of course. To me information is the absent part of the > > > > equation > > > > > Thank you too > > > > > Carlos > > > > > On Aug 19, 3:32 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Carlos, > > > > > > Hi. Thanks for the comment and for reading my posting! The idea > > > > > that the complete definition of something is a boundary or edge that > > > > > gives substance and existence to a thing seems to make sense to me. > > > > > Also, it sounds similar to stuff physicists are talking about now such > > > > > as string theory (strings seem like boundaries) and that we may be > > > > > holographic projections from a membrane (ie, boundary). Thanks again! > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > On Aug 18, 9:09 am, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I found your post very interesting! > > > > > > > A philosophical engineering is possible yes I'm sure. > > > > > > In other words, to develop certain objects, right through pure > > > > > > speculation, which are able to interact in a third position which is > > > > > > not purely scientific or philosophic. (if I got correctly the > > > > > > expression) > > > > > > > Called my attention what you called here the "boundary" which > > > > > > "gives" > > > > > > substance. > > > > > > > best > > > > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 2:26 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > If anyone is interested, I put some of my ideas on why things > > > > > > > exist, why is there something rather than nothing, and infinite > > > > > > > sets > > > > > > > at the following website: > > > > > > > >https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ > > > > > > > > The abstract of the "Why do things exist and why is there > > > > > > > something rather than nothing?" paper is also below. Thank you! > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > Why Do > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
