Mindey,
Hi. I basically agree with you especially about the ball/sphere part
and have posted similar ideas here and elsewhere in the past. The whole
something/nothing/empty-set thing has been discussed here extensively for
probably at least 15 years and was last discussed about 3-4 months ago. I
won't repeat the whole thing, but my view is that:
1. A thing exists if it's a grouping defining what is contained within.
2. If we consider what we've always called the "absolute lack-of-all" or
"nothingness" (no energy/matter, space/volume, time, laws of math/physics,
and no minds to consider this "lack-of-all"), that situation would be the
entirety of all there is; that's it; there's nothing else; it would be the
all.
3. Entirety, all, etc. are groupings defining what is contained within.
Therefore, what we've always considered to be the "absolute lack-of-all"
isn't really the lack of all existent entities because it itself is an
existent entity. In terms of "empty sets", this "lack-of-all" could be
thought of as both the contents of an empty set if looked at from the
traditional "nothingness" point of view and the brackets around
"nothingness" (e.g., the set containing "nothingness") if looked at from
the grouping defining what is contained within point of view. They're both
the same "lack-of-all", just thought about in two different ways.
4. As an existent entity, and in fact the most fundamental of existent
entities, it must have at least 3 dimensions. I can't picture any actually
existing entity having one of it's dimensions be zero. If so, it would be
gone; it would be not there.
4. This existent entity contains no information specifying specific shapes,
corners. Therefore, it would be the same diameter in all directions; that
is, it would be a sphere.
Most people on this list seem to disagree with my rationale because, if
I remember correctly, they think that abstract arithmetical propositions
exist and are the basis of the universe. I don't personally agree, but
everyone here is mostly very nice and everyone's got their own methods of
working on the problem. For me, I'm trying to use the above reasoning
about "non-existence" and "spheres" to build a primitive model of the
universe to try and eventually make testable predictions. It's a long way
off, needless to say. In this area of thought, evidence always speaks
louder than ideas. If you're interested, I've got more on the
"nothingness" and "spheres" stuff at my websites at:
https://sites.google.com/site/whydoesanythingexist/
(4 page summary, but no spheres stuff)
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
(more detail, philosophical background and stuff on spheres in section
called "Use of the proposed solution to build a model of the universe".
Anyways, I think you're on the right track. Thanks!
Roger
On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 5:22:50 AM UTC-4, Mindey wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> so, my background: http://mindey.com/42 -- I always wanted to know its
> origin precisely.
>
> The understanding of the origin of Universe(=Everything, Multiverse,
> and our Life experience included) was likely never fully successful.
> Fundamental obstacle for succeeding in it has been the logical
> inconsistency of the concepts "Origin" and "Universe", because an
> attempt to explain Everything by Something, makes the Something part
> of Everything, which leaves us with "Nothingness", as the only viable
> candidate for "Origin".
>
> Universe to us subjectively appears as a complex and diverse
> experience. In fact, except for some regularity (which we call laws of
> physics), the patterns we see every day appear so complex, that only
> something like a universal computer with large memory could possibly
> generate it. We had recently even done so by creating 3D computer
> games and worlds running on Universal Turing Machines (UTMs) -- our
> computers.
>
> From here, we can conclude:
>
> (1) It follows that, _if_ we could come up with a UTM from
> "Nothingness", we could explain pretty much everything that is
> computable.
>
> Our experiences rely on finite numbers of receptors with limited
> granularity (selectivity), and limited lifespan, which seem to imply
> finite number of possible experiences (as their Cartesian product) by
> a being.
>
> (2) It follows that, our life experience is likely computable.
>
> To come up with a UTM from "Nothingness", let's:
>
> 1. assume "Nothingness"
> 2. conclude "Equidistance"
> (because "Nothingness" means equal absence of information regarding
> any aspect whatsoever)
> 3. see the definition of a ball
> 4. see the computation of Pi number with varying precision, i.e.:
>
> Remember balls from degenerate ones in low-dimensional spaces with
> special coordinate systems and weird distance metrics, to quite
> standard Euclidean ones, to hypersphere, to the most near-perfect
> conceivable ball regading any information aspect whatsoever.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't know if Pi is really equivalent to UTM,
> because we had not yet solved the Normality of Pi conjecture, but
> assuming it is Normal, to understand how your unique experience of
> life could have arisen:
>
> 1. assume that your life experience is a finite number
> 2. conclude that it is in Pi.
>
> However, if Pi is normal, then then the conclusion is not informative
> at all, because we will find any finite string in it many times over.
>
> It would be much more informative, if Pi actually is _not_ normal.
>
> Any comments/errors?
> Thanks,
>
> Mindey
>
> Related: discussion on Halfbakery:
> http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Explanation_20of_20Origin_20of_20Universe
>
--
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/d/optout.
