Robert McEachern
Rob,
I think your origin story makes no sense. “Shannon proved” no such thing; “Shannon proved” nothing that can be related to the origins of the actual real world. Shannon’s work was all about communication using man-made symbols of the world; it is not about the actual real world; it is about man-made symbols of the world.
Lorraine Ford
It makes no sense to you, because it does not fit, anywhere at all, into the faulty picture of the Reality, that you, like the physicists, have constructed; a picture that cannot possibly be "fixed" by only moving around, or readjusting, just a few pieces. It needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. It is a daunting fate indeed, to watch, as one's entire world view is destroyed, and replaced by another.
Like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, your picture of Reality, maybe a beautiful edifice. But it is out of kilter, as the result of having been built upon a bad foundation.
Shannon explicitly stated that, in order to work without errors, as he was the first to prove was both possible and practical, "the transmitted signals must approximate, in statistical properties, a white noise." That does not sound much like any of your "man-made symbols of the world", that you have used to construct your out-of-kilter Picture of Reality; and that is the problem.
I believe that the origin of space and time does not lie in some “more fundamental matter” or “entity,” but rather in the self-organization, holographic feedback, and dynamic resonance of the information field. Space and time are experiential emergences of the information field at specific interfaces—they are projections of the multidimensional dynamics of the universe’s essence. Understanding this helps us break through our conventional views of space and time, allowing us to deeply explore the true nature of the universe and the profound mysteries of reality’s structure.
Robert McEachern
Could you please stick to the actual subject, not to an analysis of my mind?
…………………..
Shannon’s Theory of Communication should more properly be called:
There is a big difference between the real world and mere symbols of the world!!
There is a big difference between the real world and mere symbols of the world!!
Far bigger than you have ever imagined. Why do you persist in the pointless use of "mere symbols of the world", like the English language, to describe your Picture of Reality, when you also insist that those symbols, and all such languages, are hopelessly inadequate to the task?
Unlike you, Shannon deciphered an entirely "unearthly" language, Mother Nature's own tongue - the language of noise.
Learn to speak it, if you ever wish to understand what Reality has been saying, for a very long time indeed.
Robert McEachern
Rob,
I have never “insisted”, or thought, that “languages, are hopelessly inadequate to the task”. I don’t know where you got that idea from. Man-made language symbols and other human-devised symbols are all we have got for communication. Symbols are used for communication; symbols are necessary for communication.
But what are symbols? Symbols are special man-made arrangements of matter: i.e. symbols are not the matter as such.
Examples of man-made symbols include special arrangements of ink on paper, special arrangements of pixels on screens, special arrangements of sound waves, and special arrangements of voltages in computers. Unlike the matter itself, which is affected by laws of nature, man-made arrangements of matter, using these materials, and at this scale, are not significantly affected by laws of nature.
And so man-made symbols have a very useful property: man-made symbols can be used to represent something different to the matter the symbols are made out of. So, for example, arrangements of ink on paper can be used to represent things that are not actually ink on paper.
Symbols are necessary for communication, and Shannon’s Theory of Communication is all about the use of BOTH special human-devised electronic symbols AND the properties of matter, in order to successfully get a relevant-to-human-beings message across.
However, Shannon’s Theory of Communication does not explain anything at all about the underlying matter, or the underlying world or the underlying “reality”.
Lorraine Ford
Explaining "matter" is of little consequence, if matter only behaves chaotically.
Shannon explained, not "matter", but a "process", that may not be necessary, but which is sufficient, to enable non-chaotic, deterministic "cause and effect", to emerge into existence, from chaos.
In order to perfectly replicate an effect, it is sufficient to perfectly replicate its cause. And perfectly replicating a cause, is what Shannon's theory is ultimately all about.
Robert McEachern
“Chaos” and “order” are vague superficial descriptions that apply to an already existing system, where all outcomes are caused by the system's underlying equations and algorithm.
Genuine order lies, not in outcomes, but in the underlying mathematical and algorithmic order.
There is no such thing as “order” (i.e. your “non-chaotic, deterministic "cause and effect"”) emerging “into existence, from chaos”.
Order underlies a system, it doesn’t emerge from a system. No one has mathematically shown that causal mathematical equations and/or algorithms emerge from a system.
Spacetime Waves and Object Motion – A New Perspective on the Fundamentals
When you throw a ball, the space surrounding the object is no longer still. Instead, wave-like oscillations emerge and propagate from the point of impact. These oscillations are spacetime waves. The important point is: the object does not “fly away” by force, but rather slides along the very spacetime wave it has generated. It slides and simultaneously spins, much like the planets. The wave propagates—and the object moves in the direction of that wave, like a boat gliding on water waves.
Spacetime is a unified entity, a combination of space and time. When we observe that time passes differently on Earth and in satellites, we have evidence that spacetime is not flat—it is curved or oscillating. Earth does not rotate and travel like an isolated block; instead, it slides along a field of spacetime waves. That is why it both rotates on its axis and moves around the Sun.
If spacetime waves truly exist, we should be able to detect them by measuring subtle time shifts—just like how one might deduce the existence of an invisible vehicle: even if we don’t see the vehicle, knowing the speed of the person allows us to infer the speed and presence of what they’re riding. Spacetime waves are the same—we cannot see them, but we can perceive and measure them through time. If the existence of spacetime waves can be proven, humanity will unlock an era of futuristic technologies, such as space travel and antigravity.
Is Space Geometrically Linked? A Testable Model for Global Synchronization in a Continuous Universe.
I recently submitted this work to PRL, and would like to invite foundational-level feedback here.
It proposes that synchronous curvature linkage is not speculative, but mathematically required by spacetime continuity.
Any local curvature disturbance must be globally reflected, not through energy transfer, but through geometric compensation.Energy is observable, information is structural.If space is continuous, linkage is not optional—it is mandatory.
Core formula：
\mathbf{O}\left(\mathbit{x}\right)=\frac{\mathbit{dK}}{\mathbit{dx}}\cdot\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbit{r}^\mathbf{2}}\cdot\mathbf{\chi}\left(\mathbit{x}\right)\geq\ \mathbit{\epsilon}
Zenodo DOI:10.5281/zenodo.15861537
I welcome any questions, critiques, or cross-references to similar geometric structure models.
Best regards,
Zhang Xiaohui
E-mail：zhangxiaohuiB2M@gmail.com
Dear Zhang (or Rone),
I found your ideas on curvature continuity, redshift/blueshift, and the holistic dynamics of spacetime very interesting. I’m working on a related line of thought through a different framework.
My model is based on a 4-dimensional spherical surface expanding at the speed of light (r = ct). I assume that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the continuous field responsible for maintaining the global shape of the universe. Matter, on the other hand, is treated as a discontinuity and does not contribute to the preservation of the 4D geometry.
This idea is developed in my post here:
https://forums.fqxi.org/d/961-alternative-models-of-cosmology/385
The theme of shape preservation is, in my opinion, fundamental. Mathematically, I was able to reach consistent results by focusing solely on the CMB and neglecting matter. However, I eventually had to introduce an additional conjecture: that the expansion of the universe is governed by the CMB and that matter is dragged along with it.
This conjecture is a limitation, but it led to some results I consider meaningful, even if not confirmed. Among them:
• A derivation of special relativity from a geometric principle (without assuming it).
• A reinterpretation of redshift in terms of 4D expansion.
• A consistent energy balance in radiation consistent with blackbody evolution.
• A possible link between gravity and entropy through equilibrium in the expanding hypersurface.
I also find your approach equally valid and would be happy to exchange ideas.
I expect a common objection might be that matter’s mass-energy today dominates over the CMB, so it cannot be neglected. My reply is that, in my model, it is not the total energy content but the geometric continuity that preserves the 4d-sphere’s shape. The CMB, being a continuous and isotropic field, defines a coherent equilibrium surface, while matter, being discontinuous and localized, cannot maintain global curvature but only causes local deformations.
Best regards,
Claudio Marchesan
Claudio Marchesan
Thank you for sharing your research findings. I will read them carefully and think about them. However, there is one point that I firmly believe: space is three-dimensional.
Roney
You have symbolically represented a relationship that, you seem to consider, must exist in the world.
These types of relationships/ equations are an unmeasurable aspect of the world because these relationships/ equations have merely been inferred to exist by human beings from a pile of experimental results and findings. But “law of nature” relationships/ equations DO seem to exist.
However, the existence of particular relationships/ equations doesn’t cover the issue of: how come the real-world system (or small parts of the system) can distinguish/ detect/ know about its own mathematical relationships/ equations? And for that matter, how come the real-world system (or small parts of the system) can distinguish/ detect/ know about its own numbers that apply to the categories in the equations? It can reasonably be inferred that base-level proto-knowledge/ proto-consciousness aspects of the real-world system must exist in order for the system to operate.
Also, the existence of particular relationships/ equations doesn’t cover the issue of: how come the real-world system is moving, i.e. how come the numbers (that apply to the categories in the equations) are jumping? Jumping, because there is no such thing as a number that smoothly morphs into another number; but jumping in what direction? It can reasonably be inferred that base-level aspects of the real-world system must exist in order for the system to operate, aspects that jump the numbers (whereby the relationships/ equations then kick in and jump other numbers).
What I’m getting at is: clearly, any relationships/ equations, that are inferred or purported to exist, can only ever be A PART of a viable, moving real-world system. As described above, additional aspects are required in order to explain the existence of a viable, moving real-world system. Equations alone CAN’T do the job.
Lorraine Ford
The DOI address of the paper is provided above. It clearly describes the observable verification method.
Roney
Sorry, I wasn't criticising or commenting on your paper. I was commenting on your equation, in a very general way.
I was talking about equations in general: whether equations are capable of representing ALL the aspects that are needed in order to produce a viable, moving real-world system. I'm saying that equations alone can't do the job
E.g., although the delta symbols in equations might mathematically paint a picture of numbers moving (where the numbers apply to categories), the delta symbols don't give a reason for why the numbers would ever move in the first place, or why the numbers would continue to move. In other words equations can't represent all the aspects that are necessary to produce a viable, moving real-world system.
I've since made progress on my idea of motion as the fourth spatial dimension.
"Saint Stuart’s visionary debut presents a radical new way to consider the fourth dimension—not as time, nor as a static spatial axis, but as something hiding in plain sight: motion.
Surprisingly, this perspective has remained absent from both academic science and alternative New Age speculation. Writing as an amateur science enthusiast and self-proclaimed Christian mystic, Stuart expands this insight into a full seven-dimensional framework.
Beginning with pure geometry, the model advances through motion toward force as the final physical dimension, and from there moves beyond into the non-spatial realms of consciousness. It continues with the dimension of possibility, the logical foundation of awareness, and culminates in intelligence—the organizing, creative, and directive principle of conscious experience, from which choice and will emerge.
Bridging physics, metaphysics, and spiritual insight, this concise philosophical monograph invites readers to rethink the very structure of reality."
Lorraine Ford
Equations give a mathematical description of what happens, which is a lot more precise than a word description, but nevertheless, just a description of what happens. Just like a newspaper reporter might describe an event. In the case of “laws of nature”, equations also describe a relationship between categories which has experimentally been found to exist.
However, in a viable moving system, there must be a causal aspect, something that makes it happen. What makes it happen is not the same as the superficial mathematical-equation description of what happens. Equations can never represent a causal aspect of a system: the necessary causal aspects of a system can only be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols.
Lorraine Ford
Leaving aside the religious views, there are those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to an underlying set of equations, and those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to people, and other suitably-integrated forms of matter, being genuinely free (i.e. free to jump their own numbers), as well as the underlying set of equations.
The former group, those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to nothing more than an underlying set of equations, are looking for the killer equations/ the killer mathematics whereby everything about the world is suddenly explained. This group seemingly includes most of the physicists, mathematicians (and also philosophers) in the world. And despite years and years of effort, and years and years of purportedly killer mathematics, they are not having much luck, and every one of them has a different set of killer equations/ killer mathematics.
But a world where people are genuinely free, i.e. a world where suitably-integrated forms of matter are partially free to jump their own numbers, is a fundamentally different type of world from its foundations up. These suitably-integrated forms of matter would presumably be: particles, atoms, molecules and living things including human beings.
Lorraine Ford
Yes, there is indeed a problem with my formula. Due to my limited mathematical ability, this theory is the inevitable result of my logical reasoning. I welcome any modifications you may wish to make to my mathematical formula. Thank you very much.
