Brent, The "elements of the set" are the information encoding the current state of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that may be needs to be further clarified. I've put forth a whole list of likely possibilities on this group over the past week or so including several today which I'm not going to repeat here.
The equations you present are not nearer or farther, they don't even exist in computational reality. What exists is actual code computing actual data, not abstract static equations absent actual real data. What is computationally 'nearer' is data that will interact to compute actual interactions of say elemental particles. Computational nearness produces dimensional nearness as dimensionality emerges from the computations. That's how we know what is computationally nearer. There is no topology of this non-dimensional computational space. It's all logical connections and associations, nearness is what interacts computationally. And as a bonus, GR emerges automatically if we take mass-energy as the relative scale of the dimensionality that emerges. That automatically dilates spacetime around mass-energy. Visualize this as a GR rubber sheet model in which the depression around a mass is caused by a dilation of the grid cells of the surrounding rubber sheet and you'll see how this works. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:29:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 6:14 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > Aren't you familiar with the concept of a logical or mathematical or > computational space that is non-dimensional? Simply stated it's just the > locus or association of some set of elements. There is no necessary > physical dimensionality associated with the concept. > > > So it is a set with a topology, a concept of nearness. But it's not > metric. OK, what are the elements of the set? Computations? Is 2+2->4 an > element? And what's the definition of nearby? Is 2+2->4 nearer 2+3->5 > than it is to 2-1->1? > > Brent > > > > Edgar > > > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:09:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> On 1/13/2014 5:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> > Liz, >> > >> > There is no FTL because this is not a physical dimensional space, it's >> a computational >> > space. The notion of 'together' is computational interaction rather >> than dimensional >> > co-location. >> >> OK, it's not dimensional, which I take to mean it's not a Riemannian >> manifold. So what is >> it, and what makes it "a space". Does it have a topology, a definition >> of "next to"? Is >> it Hausdorf? "Space" is very general, but it must have some structure, >> beyond just being >> a set of computations, to count as being a space. >> >> Brent >> >> > >> > Clock time doesn't produce the processor cycles because clock times are >> computed by >> > those cycles. Only a separate Present moment P-time can provide >> processor cycles that >> > clock time can be computed within. >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
