Carlos,
Hi. I still think we're a little closer in our thinking than
you, but we may need to agree to disagree on some things. I was
trying to get at in the previous posting that I'm okay with having 2D
objects exist in an abstract, language type way. All I was saying was
that for actual physical, non-abstract, objects, I think these have to
have 3 dimensions. In the physical sense, if an object really had one
of its dimensions be zero, not just approaching zero, but zero itself,
I think that object wouldn't be there just by the definition of zero,
at least in a physical sense. This is one of the reasons I get
frustrated with physicists who speak of some particles as being point
particles with no actual size. If a physical particle has zero size,
it's not there. From what I can see, I think physicists are a little
loose and careless with their language and reasoning sometimes. I
think you kind of pointed this out with the Hawking quote, too.
On the code idea, I'm fine with this being 2D in an abstract
sense, but in a physical sense, the code is a set of concepts and
meanings in the mind, and the mind, or brain, exists, which means it
has 3 dimensions, at least in a physical sense. But, I'll accept your
point that in an abstract way, the code is 2D.
Even if we disagree, what I think is even more important is how we
build on our respective philosophical models and use them to do things
like transition into science/physics and computing.
You're one of the few who actually read, thought about and
understood the model I'd proposed at the website, so I really
appreciate that and your feedback even if we disagree a little!
Thanks! The world needs more serious, rational thinkers!
Roger
On Aug 24, 2:09 pm, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
