Hello Roger We have here a basic difference regarding language and other codes. I understand your point when saying that in the extreme logic we come down to certain kind of mass, but in the case of 2D objects that is not possible. And even if they live in the abstract world, that does not mean they don live, if you allow me the expression.
> take up volume. The molecules in air that carry spoken language are > 3D. This is correct, but note that language is not the molecules in the air, but that thing they carry on in your expression, that physic component is not language but its vehicle >The electrons that carry binary code in computers are 3D. Same with this, electrons has nothing to do with the binary code, they are 3D but they are not the code, two sets can even be the same and yet to mean a totally different thing depending the tool which will decode > So, I don't think we're really in disagreement, we're just > thinking in different reference frames. For me, I'm more interested > in the 3D "physical" and concrete existent states and how they might > relate to physics, and it sounds like you might be more interested in > the 2D objects that can be accessed via language and computing? Oh yes I know we are just focusing into different components of your model, if I understood your concepts, you are trying to give reason to the origin, namely the Big Bang. And also if I got it correctly you are saying that even in the total absence there is a sort of existence (which is 3D and has some kind of mass) which is able to expand and able to fill the "empty" instance. I picked up the concept of boundary, with which I adhere completely, and which needs to be of a different nature, since the model claims the complete definition of the total absence of existence. If we admit that extreme object, we need to sustain that its definition cannot be of the same nature. That complete definition IMO can only be a 2D object, like "code" "language", whatever. Of course there is no code at the beginning (that idea is reserved I believe to a religious position), but most certainly there is yes Temperature. The absolute zero continues to be 2D, and should be interesting if we think that the absolute zero T could define completely some kind of physic existence able to give reason to the expansion. rgds Carlos -- 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.
