Numbers
Bruno wrote: What can be said about numbers is that it is impossible to explain what numbers are to someone who does not already knows what they are... I will talk about what numbers do, not 'are' ..If a TOE does not implicitly or explicitly presupposes the existetnce of natural numbers, then the natural numbers will not be definable in that TOE, and for this reason that TOE will not be a plausible TOE. - although Hartree Field, if I remember correctly, makes a case for a science without number[s?]. ... Friends, we are closer friends than any others in this world: we share our thoughts, the most intimae of us. So I dare share this one with you all: * As I said above: what numbers do. Well, what DO numbers do? -- -THEY DO NOTHING. - - - This is my fundamental objection to the 'hard' number theory making numbers (and their manipulations) the basis of them all (I don't dare: nature, world, existence, etc. as very loaded words over here). Numbers do NOT add, subtract, etc., WE do it to (by, with) them. Humans, Loebian machines, whatever, but NOT the numbers. Same argument as against the 'Intelligent Design: a design does nothing, it requires an operator (factor) to perform what the design includes. Similarly: Numbers require factors (operating agents) to perform any potential which CAN BE PEFRFORMED with/by them. If there 'are' only numbers - it stays only numbers. That may be a neat world, but without us thinking about it. Do I miss the numberculus (I don't say: himunculus) DOING the operations. Do I need more faith to believe (understand?) the TOE based on numbers? I may choose another TOE (if I have to). John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Projections to the boarder of the universe, an explanation for dark energy?
According to the holographic principle, there is complete equivalence between a set of physical laws on an n-dimensional space and another set of physical laws on a boundary of this space. Based on simple everything considerations, I conjecture that in our universe there is indeed a kind of holographic principle at work, however the equivalence is not complete. The two sets of physical laws are actually describing two different domains of the same universe. Both domains, the n-dimensional space and the boarder space, actually do exist. On the boarder space there may be a superposition of two kinds of physical states. One kind corresponds to the states in the n-dimensional space and one kind of states does not. Instead of the complete two-way equivalence, there is a one-way inference. Every piece of information in the n-dimensional space is almost instantly projected to the boundary or boundaries of that space (projective inference). Physical objects and even phase space objects are projected into the same direction(s). Let me call this kind of projections teleportation projections. The inverse teleportation, back into the original space, is presumably an operation of greater complexity. Therefore, it should be expected to play a minor role in the physical evolution of the universe. Inverse teleportation projection should be extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, the proof of the existence of such transformations may be quite helpful when exploring physical theories. See the articles Information in the Holographic Universe, by Jacob D. Bekenstein; Scientific American, August 2003, and The Illusion of Gravity, by Juan Maldacena; Scientific American, November 2005, for less hypothetical facts about the holographic principle. Think twice before doing a quick trip to Millitime the highly popular restaurant at the spatial end of the universe! Teleportation projection is a one-way teleportation! There is no direct way back. The measure of objects that have been projected to the boundary, will however diffuse back into the n-dimensional space, occupying and passing through areas close to the boundary. Can you see (the energy of) the shadows on the wall of the ancient universe? Do the projective inference and the conditions at the boarder provide an unexpected explanation for the dark energy as well as for the belief in accelerated expansion of the universe? Is energy conserved or does it grow at the end of the universe?? The title of this list / group reads a mailing list for discussion of the idea that all possible universes exists. I admit that I have infinite difficulties to imagine that every possible universe exists. Hope you do not mind that I nevertheless post here. Above conclusions can presumably be justified from an everything algorithm (or everything axiom) without using any true infinities. Bruno, sorry, I still have not really answered your questions. Should read more of your publications first. Should I have written, I am a superposition of persons living in spaces of various dimensions -- a superposition of the n-dimensional me and its shadows? Cheers and greetings, also to Millitime guests! andy --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers
Hi John, Le Mercredi 8 Mars 2006 18:14, John M a écrit : - This is my fundamental objection to the 'hard' number theory making numbers (and their manipulations) the basis of them all (I don't dare: nature, world, existence, etc. as very loaded words over here). Numbers do NOT add, subtract, etc., WE do it to (by, with) them. Humans, Loebian machines, whatever, but NOT the numbers. But whatever you do with numbers can be encoding with numbers, as such assuming platonic existence, numbers are the only requirements, because operation on them, discourse about them, description on them are numbers too. Regards, Quentin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Holographic principles
It seems to me that holographic principles are really stating that the state of some region of the universe is completely determined by the boundary conditions, as would be the case if it were described by a differential equation having a unique solution to the boundary value problem. It does imply a deterministic universe. There are many such equations - eg the wave equation. How does this fit in with the stochastic nature of qunatum mechanics? Or does the holographic principle apply to a spatial region of the Multiverse (which is deterministic)? Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
