The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281400 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1050 on: 22/04/2013 02:12:31 »
You might be able to define it as 'at rest', but then only relative itself. And then you first need to define a scale to it, as I think, to make it meaningful. Because, how can I define something not existing more than in its annihilation (and the symmetry represented from a recoil) as being at rest, with what? With itself possibly..
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1051 on: 22/04/2013 02:43:23 »
But it is a very good point you had there Ethos, one I haven't considered at all :) So i need to think about it. But assuming light to be a clock doesn't define it being at rest. Unless we use a static universe, sheets upon sheets, each sheet locally and globally 'at rest', the arrow and 'c' together with frames of reference defining propagation etc. But from that point of view there is no motion anywhere. So everything is 'at rest', The arrow giving us a illusion of motion and if you want to be strict, free will.

I don't like that one too much, I want my universe to in-cooperate free will, and indeterminism :)
It's so much more elegant :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1052 on: 22/04/2013 02:59:14 »
Maybe it is possible to define it as static under Planck scale, with indeterminism probability and statistics creating free will (locally defined) over Planck scale though? I guess that's what I may be aiming for, thinking of it. But I don't really know what it will lead too. I just know what I prefer :)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1053 on: 22/04/2013 03:58:14 »


I don't like that one too much, I want my universe to in-cooperate free will, and indeterminism :)
It's so much more elegant :)
I too prefer free will and desire the evidence for it's existence. And Quantum theory proposes chaos as the vehicle by which indeterminate outcomes are made possible. I'm not sure how I feel about that because I keep going back to the rule of: Cause and Effect

Nevertheless, I like you would prefer an indeterminate universe where free will can be exercised. And there are other rationales that could fit in with this view.

Say for example, the existence of discrete and separate futures. I should first make it clear, that even though I prefer free will, I tend to gravitate more toward the deterministic view. And truly, I'd prefer to be in error regarding that.

In any case, if the discrete units of quantum measure can be a shadow of the Macro scale, then we may have hope. Consider the unit of Planck time. If as we believe, these units are discrete and singular, why wouldn't this carry over into the reality we observe as passage of time in the familiar world we live in? Because these units are so small and come at us so fast, we might never expect every day experience to parallel such events.






 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1054 on: 22/04/2013 11:08:01 »
There are some nice arguments for free will. Indeterminism is one, HUP another, both of them relating to particles. And there you can use it for a singular view, although defining 'frames of reference' to Planck scale you then need to assume that those frames somehow becomes a multitude at a 'rest mass' scale. Maybe 'free will' is a result of complexity?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1055 on: 22/04/2013 11:12:01 »
Ahh, and superpositions naturally. Although that gets its definition from a probability you still have the idea of 'multi verses'. They representing 'branchings' from the most probable outcome, not realized in this universe, although becoming real expressions in some other 'reality'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1056 on: 22/04/2013 11:16:43 »
Using paths I see nothing forbidding  a further complexity. You can add branches everywhere, some of them relating to what we measure, others relating to what we can't measure. It all becomes a question of relations, constants, and paths defining what we see. I can keep the idea of multi verses existing here and now, in our universe, as well as assume that some of those branches won't be measurable for us. And I do not need to assume that each branch 'creates' its own universe. Because if there is a 'final reality' I would expect that one to represent it all, what we measure and what we can't. And that one would preferably be a static representation, under that mysterious Plank scale as I think.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1057 on: 22/04/2013 11:18:45 »
as I said, speculations is my forte :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1058 on: 22/04/2013 11:34:36 »
There are two ways to consider it. Assuming that 'final reality' you either define it as static, which fits the way I define a arrow at Planck scale, or you define it as it is the outcomes, measurable, that defines the future. It then becomes a very probabilistic universe, like a iceberg, in where this is it. The rest, unmeasurable, is just what we need to allow for this universe to contain our 'free will'. If it always is so that we only get the most probable outcome this universe indeed would be deterministic, but as far as I know this isn't true. We can, and will, find outcomes that's not of a 'highest probability'. So the universe becomes indeterministic in my thoughts, with probability giving us a 'overall direction' that makes for a logic.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1059 on: 22/04/2013 11:38:31 »
You can also use statistics and 'trends' to find the same. On a local level there is no way for me to know what you will do, I can only guess. But over a whole population we will see what we call trends materializing. So locally I can't define it, but over a population it becomes possible to see statistically significant trends. Locality is a nice idea.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1060 on: 23/04/2013 17:18:49 »
You can also use statistics and 'trends' to find the same. On a local level there is no way for me to know what you will do, I can only guess. But over a whole population we will see what we call trends materializing. So locally I can't define it, but over a population it becomes possible to see statistically significant trends. Locality is a nice idea.
There is a fellow named; Bruce Bueno de Mesquita that has produced a statistical algorithm surrounding probability that has been rather successful in predicting coming events. He is keeping the math very secret at the present but I sure wish he would allow someone involved in the physical sciences to play with his formula. Never know what we might discover???

Anyone interested can find him on Wikipedia, just type in the name.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1061 on: 24/04/2013 01:23:00 »
Hmm

"Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a master of game theory, which is a fancy label for a simple idea: People compete, and they always do what they think is in their own best interest. Bueno de Mesquita uses game theory and its insights into human behavior to predict and even engineer political, financial, and personal events. His forecasts, which have been employed by everyone from the CIA to major business firms, have an amazing 90 percent accuracy rate, and in this dazzling and revelatory book he shares his startling methods and lets you play along in a range of high-stakes negotiations and conflicts.

Revealing the origins of game theory and the advances made by John Nash, the Nobel PrizeŚwinning scientist perhaps best known from A Beautiful Mind, Bueno de Mesquita details the controversial and cold-eyed system of calculation that he has since created, one that allows individuals to think strategically about what their opponents want, how much they want it, and how they might react to every move. "

Reminds me of some other predictions made, that worked until the bottom fell out. Not saying that it won't work, it sounds very behavioristic, and those setting the courses for a country are usually people living up to his description, as a guess. Pragmatists and canon boat politicians, if they can get away with it. Those not so forceful will still be pragmatists I guess. A very male approach to reality, one hand at your gun :) but that one time it won't work, depending on how much one trust the prediction made, can make for a really big mistake.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1062 on: 24/04/2013 01:33:34 »
If everyone use his model we may have ourselves world peace.
Based on strength, power, and greed.
But they better not deviate.
=

although It's not as simple as that review made it sound. It has also to do with personal values, and they change the game. But what it builds on is a amount of greed existing, even in a altruistic person. although the greed may be for something else than what one commonly think of as a personal winning. Assume you're a saint, at least that you consider yourself to be one. Then what you might want for is not yourself but the world. That I can use for my strategy, and place you in such a situation that I will get what I want, and you will find yourself without options, depending on how the game is set up and what rules we give it. So it's a weird blend between psychology and mathematics it seems.

you might say that it is mathematics, but based on assumptions of what you value, relative what I value. But not as simple as greed, although that depends on how one define it. Is it greedy to want freedom of speech, for example?

And for every new individual you introduce the difficulties must rise. Either you find a way to set defined rules, to minimize interactions from and with new individuals, or you need to find some statistical factor by which you can assume it to work, as in equalizing out, as it seems to me. That must be some weird equation, if it now is a set one. But I don't believe it can be myself. There are most probably coefficients to it that change with what the situation is. What I mean there is that you 'weight' the numbers depending on situation.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2013 02:24:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1063 on: 24/04/2013 02:32:01 »
In a 'best world scenario' it reminds me of that definition of a compromise.

I don't get what I want, and you don't get what you want, but after we're done we both go away, thinking that "the other fella at least got it worse than me" :)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1064 on: 24/04/2013 03:28:33 »
but after we're done we both go away, thinking that "the other fella at least got it worse than me" :)
Ha, ha, ha, good one yor_on, that is sooooo very true. I had a real chuckle reading that.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1065 on: 24/04/2013 04:20:26 »
If you remember, I sent you a message a while back concerning the formula;...
(6/pi)^.5

I've been doing some calculations regarding the relationship between phi and pi. And after careful examination, I feel confident now to post the results.

The equivalence between both sides of the equation are correct to the fourth decimal. Not outstanding, but, after looking somewhat deeper, I have seen the equivalence narrowing and converging as both the figures for pi and phi extend out to more decimal places.

At any rate, here is the very simple equation:

..........[(phi)^2 times 6 equals pi time 5]

..........(1.6180339)^2 * 6 = 3.141592654 * 5

When figuring (6/3.141593) * 2.618034: 6/pi * phi^2 = 5.0000875
When figuring (6/3.1415926) * 2.6180339: 6/pi * phi^2 = 5.0000765

Because both pi an phi are transcendental, both pi and phi decimals continue theoretically to infinity. Resulting in a convergence on the integer (5).

This all relates to the suspicion we've had concerning fractals being a very important issue surrounding reality. I'll need more time to construct the whole idea but it appears to me like spheres play a central role.

Truly, I wish I could post graphics here because it would go a long way in simplifying these thoughts.




« Last Edit: 24/04/2013 04:21:59 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1066 on: 24/04/2013 11:42:33 »
Well, as far as I know you can, post graphics I mean? You want a fractal reality based on spheres then? One of the simplest fractals I know is to use a set of numbers, then taking the result and lift it into your equation. The Mandelbrot series for example. I haven't even started to wonder about what geometry a fractal universe needs myself :) although I presume that it should be related to the shapes we observe. Nature is not about angular lines, as far as I know, but about broken 'fractal' lines that you can magnify into infinity. But that is a guess from my side.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1067 on: 24/04/2013 11:47:02 »
But I found the reasoning around game theory to be very interesting. Because its assumption is a somewhat mechanical one, to me, behavioristic in a very set way of thinking. You might say that it will break down into quanta. Let us assume a world ruled by simple behavioristics, a set amount of local rules, same for us all. Does that mean that ethics have no place in it? Or would ethics be what makes those rules change?
=

And what would ethics represent in such a equation, a sub-set or a new set , making the first equation its sub-set. If you look on how I define a arrow I'm using a defined 'speed' and from that I go out, redefining it into a clock. So which one is the sub-set there? Myself I don't think of it that way as both representations are there, side by side, simultaneously, to me that is.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2013 11:57:56 by yor_on »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1068 on: 24/04/2013 14:04:37 »
Well, as far as I know you can, post graphics I mean? You want a fractal reality based on spheres then?

I'm sure that is true, what I should have said is; I just don't know how to post these graphics myself. One could say that I'm still computer stupid. I haven't been at this computer stuff very long. 

And yes, the graphics I've composed involve spheres. If you are familiar with the phi spiral, one can draw a circle representing a sphere expanding outward from Planck length with each successive sphere surrounding the first. And the progression of spheres spirals according to the phi spiral.

This representation of reality is not as much about the actual shape of things as it is about the reason we have 3 spatial dimensions and one of time. As the spheres spiral, at 45 degree increments, it shows what I understand as Planck like units of freedom along with the expansion which shows the progression of time.

Do you know whether an AutoCAD file will post here, if so, maybe I can upload this file if I can figure out how to do it????
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1069 on: 24/04/2013 15:02:56 »
you can take a screen shot (Prnt Scrn) of it, then change it into a 'jpeg' image, to post. And that should work. When it comes to what a reality is, to me, then I find it useful to use both sets of imagining. The arrow 'stopping' at Planck scale as our descriptions break down, with a simultaneous image of the universe as we normally describe it, using the speed of light in a vacuum. Because doing so it becomes more understandable to me that something as big as a universe might fit my pocket. It's dimensions again, but from another point of view. And we do become a sorts of projection, depending on how you look at it, from that.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1070 on: 24/04/2013 16:11:29 »
you can take a screen shot (Prnt Scrn) of it, then change it into a 'jpeg' image, to post.
I'm afraid now my ignorance will show itself. I don't understand (Prnt Scrn) or what a 'jpeg' image is. However, my sister in law is a computer expert. As soon as I can get her help, I will post these graphics.

Quote from: yor_on

The arrow 'stopping' at Planck scale as our descriptions break down, with a simultaneous image of the universe as we normally describe it, using the speed of light in a vacuum.
Yes, ...........In this graph, the first sphere is one of Planck dia. As each discrete unit of Planck time ticks, as it were, another sphere will emerge surrounding it with a dia. increased by the factor of phi. The second sphere will not only be expanded by the factor of phi, it will also be twisted by 45 degrees. As this spiral extends thru one complete revolution, we see 4 discrete moments of dimensional position. Three physical dimensions expanding to complete one full rotation giving us our interpretation of passing moments.........."Time".
Quote from: yor_on
Because doing so it becomes more understandable to me that something as big as a universe might fit my pocket. It's dimensions again, but from another point of view. And we do become a sorts of projection, depending on how you look at it, from that.
Yes,........because this vision of reality is not necessarily about a particular mass or volume, it is about how the dimensions evolve around each other expanding out into the natural world we observe. This model is the archetype or pattern only and does not control the extended outcome where chaos and probability dominate.

This last state is where Mr. Bueno de Mesquita's rationale might come into play.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1071 on: 24/04/2013 16:44:24 »
The problem, to me, with such a description Ethos, is that it presume a 'space' in where something twists. But I think you should post it so we can see how you mean before drawing any conclusions. prnt scr is just one of the buttons on your key board, storing it in 'clipboard' on windows. then you need to have a graphics program that can open the image, as psp -> 'paintshop pro', or similar, by choosing 'paste as new image' (if in psp). Then you change it by saving it as 'my image.jpg' and upload it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1072 on: 25/04/2013 08:14:25 »
There is one point more. In a non propagating universe (light) it becomes meaningless to discuss it as being 'at rest'. Because what you get is very much alike a excitation in a field. Something created as a 'point like' expression, although related to, as I think, its environment (relations). You can imagine a field as something of a strength but I'm not sure you need propagation for it. The only thing you need is what we measure, a constant defining it as a (local) speed, and in my eyes, a simultaneously (locally defined) clock, aka 'arrow'.
« Last Edit: 25/04/2013 08:21:16 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1073 on: 25/04/2013 08:31:01 »
And that would give us a field with excitations, waves coming as a expression through its simultaneous clock (defined by relations too). But then we have one problem more and that would be observer dependencies. I take those seriously, otherwise I wouldn't use local definitions, and constants. That's my main beef with a field description, because to me it seems to assume a 'common 'same' universe'. Although if someone know how to describe this field from observer dependencies I will be very interested.

What my view makes easier to understand is also why a universe can be both small and infinite. You just need to use scales to see where dimensions lose their coherence.
« Last Edit: 25/04/2013 08:36:14 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1074 on: 25/04/2013 22:01:17 »
I've been thinking of taste. Did you know that it also is a geometry, translated into taste by our brains? That why artificial sweeteners works so well, not the same chemistry, instead a even better fit to our taste receptors. Does that makes what I taste redundant, or real? I call it real, but at a 'higher level' of reality. Because I do not taste a geometry, I taste a taste :) And so do you, well, most of us do, not all. But to me it has a real meaning, taste. If it didn't there would be no wine magazines at all.

But it is the geometry we taste.
« Last Edit: 25/04/2013 22:02:49 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1074 on: 25/04/2013 22:01:17 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length