Hi Akinbo,

Thank you for your comment on my blog.

I think I see where you are coming from with your essay and where you are trying to get to.

I have a clear idea about the subject.

I believe that the Universe is made of what I call Universal Bits (Existence/non-existence). They are the smallest of everything and cannot be subdivided. They are just bits of potential information, they are not material and they do not have a shape as such, but their apparent size, in any directions, is one Planck Length and they flick between existence and non-existence every Planck Time.

In order for a coherent world to develop, these Universal Bits must group into Coherent Basic Units (made of synchronised Universal Bits). Particles are simply a temporal pattern created by these Coherent Basic Units. But that's only my point of view ...

All in all, I thought that your essay was spot on track. I just rated it accordingly.

All the best,

Patrick

Dear Akinbo,

I am glad to be at contest again with you, as in 2013.

Simple but deep.'Yes' and 'No' in (v) is crucial for me.

More about: „How should we think of infinity?" You can see at RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković [1, paragraph 391]. "Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility". More you can see in paragraphs 391 to 396. Therefore I say: the mass, radius and any other fenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite.

[1] Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in naturaexistentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, first edition 1922, second edition 1966

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

    Dear Akinbo,

    I enjoyed your essay and I think it was nicely written. As far as extension in physics, things become a little more complicated if it involves also a temporal dimension, as in relativity theory. Zeno's paradoxes are resolved in special relativity because there is no motion in space but in spacetime. However, we all do not have to agree with the ramifications of this approach but it represents a solution.

    Actually, Zeno's paradox of dichotomy is about motion being impossible. It cannot even commence since there will be always a point closer to the start than any other point ad infinitum. If we have to preserve the autonomy of this world, or to be more exact, its quasi-autonomy, then this paradox can be resolved only in the context of a tensless theory of time and existence. Another solution is the one given by Descartes that I also speak in my 2011 essay involving a continuous recreation of the world (at discrete time and space, i.e. a virtual reality). Obviously, the subject is more involved than that.

    All the best.

    Efthimios

      Thanks Efthimios,

      I will reply more in your blog as I just read your 2011 Essay.

      Regarding motion in special relativity, I am not sure the mechanism you describe fits. Check the mechanism for the Alcubierre drive in Wikipedia, to see how spacetime in front of the moving object is compressed and spacetime behind the object expands.

      I will also be asking on your blog whether the 4-dimensional block universe you propose as reflecting the correct situation exists and if it exists, whether it can perish or it is an eternally existing universe?

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Dear Branko,

      Thanks for your comment. I don't think I agree that if divisibility is finite, the number of possible combinations can be infinite. With finite number of constituents and finite number of compartments, the number of combinations, even if astronomical, must be finite also. However, if the number of compartments and constituents is increasing, as would be the case for an expanding universe, the number of different possible arrangements in the system will also be increasing. This is illustrated by the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy of the universe is finite, but increasing with time.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      9 days later

      Dear Akinfo,

      You raised fundamental issues on point, space and time. I enjoyed reading your argument. You raised a solution, you wrote: I next propose a hypothesis of time as the separator of minimum lengths, enabling the physical manifestation of discreteness in otherwise 'syrupy' space." I would say if I may point it out that KQID states that space or extended line or matter is indeed 3D time, or time extension. That is why I made a slogan that space is the fetus of time and time is pregnant with space. Therefore, our Multiverse is the fetus of time and time is pregnant with our Multiverse. Crazy statement but logical? yes. Simple idea? Yes. Common sense and "of course" simple idea so obvious in Wheeler's sense? I would say, definitely yes.

      You are the warrior of the truth, I comment you and keep on marching no matter what. I admire and share your spirit, I am with you marching no matter what they say and do,

      Leo KoGuan

        Akinbo,

        Clever presentation. Does your last statement indicate your affirmation of Parmenides or of consciousness being the key to what is real? My "Connection: Mind, Math and Physics is comparatively mundane.

        Jim

          Thanks James for looking in. The essence of my essay is a refutation of Parmenides proposal that things do not change. I then try to illustrate what implication this has for physics. I will read and comment on your perspective this weekend.

          Akinbo

          Dear Akinbo,

          A. Given your interest in division, allow me to be divisive: Finding (as yet) no seconder, the motion lapses. Case closed.

          B. Given the above, your interest in DIALECTIC, and me now earnestly SEEKING an EXTENSION, I come as your old friend to close the case properly: I second the motion!

          I now CUT to the chase.

          1. As in good cooking: FIRST, catch your mathematical extension!

          2. You write: All mathematical extension that has magnitude can be mentally divided.

          3. You write: Therefore, no energy is required for division to be carried out.

          4. However, as every good physician knows: Mental activity requires energy.

          Conclusion: From such 3-step contradictions, all may be proven!

          With best regards, and loving your continuing enthusiasms;

          [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2491]Gordon Watson: Essay Forum[/link]. Essay Only.

          Dear Gordon,

          Thanks for your comments. Someone here also drew attention to the fact that mental division would require some energy to carry out. In a sense I agree.

          However, energy-wise physical division would be more expensive energy-wise as it would be a sum of the mental activity and the physical.

          There is the saying that "if wishes were horses beggars would ride". Therefore, mental division must come so much, more cheaper since it is a wish. Taking a fantasy trip to the Moon, would cost you much less calorie-wise than taking a stroll down the road.

          I will take a look at your essay now as I have some time on my hands at the moment.

          Best regards,

          Akinbo

          Dear Akinbo,

          1. Please accept my once-and-for-all apology for excess 'Aussie irony' in my response above (and, to be sure, hereafter). I blame over-stimulation from reading and re-reading your lovely words (and in anticipation). How about we share the indictment?

          2. Nevertheless: a contradiction is a contradiction (and not saved by (imho) unnecessary escapist fantasising). So may I suggest that you did oft misspeak -- and thus should fix -- each unnecessary (and distracting) reference to energy?

          3. Until that time, the contradiction remains.

          4. Yet, indeed, that FIX will not eliminate my FIRST emphasised point in my first above: Have you yet captured that mathematical extension? Or shall I find an engineer to help?

          PS: Thanks for the helpful comments on my essay. I'll reply soon; some thinking to do.

          Sincerely; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

          I really loved your well thought out essay. I was impressed by your quote "Ultimately, if extension cannot be its own separator into discreteness, the hypothesis proposed introduces 'time' as the separator of extension into discrete. By 'time', I mean duration of existence, i.e.extension can start to exist and cease to exist and as all minimum lengths do not have the same life span, the discrete nature of otherwise syrupy space becomes manifest. And the idea of perishing distance and how extension works when we walk about the room is intriguing. Well done it really makes me think.

          John C. Hodge mentioned in his post on my essay that your essay would be very interesting and he was correct! My essay is about Sorites Paradox; it explores discrete time units (where Plank's constant is made a cyclic-measuring-device or a Hamiltonian for duration)in contrast to your essay about discrete lengths (and Zeno's Paradox). I think there might be some overlap between our two points of view. I hope you get a chance to read my essay. I gave your essay a good mark. Yours Harri

            Thanks Harri for looking in. I also just read your essay. Yes, I think there is room to link our two essays, as you say 'discrete lengths' and 'discrete time units'. Note however that I suggest that what separates length or extension into discreteness is 'time'.

            I will rate your essay towards the end of competition to give it a lift when needed most.

            Regards,

            Akinbo

            Toward the OJO point:* studying the Akinbo point** until it perish.

            Dear Akinbo,

            1. FIRST, answering your title-question (Essay, p.1): No.

            2. SECOND, a request: Please define/explain in greater detail the Akinbo point** (this strange new point on p.5 of your essay), based on this preliminary attempt to clarify your text (p.5):

            "I [Akinbo Ojo] prefer to call that fundamental unit (which is extended, in contrast to the zero-dimensional point of some mathematicians), the [impure per Leibniz]*** "Akinbo point". The Akinbo point, my fundamental unit of length, is [somehow] featureless, save that it is a [somehow] extended thing." ???

            Please explain, for example: the connection between the original point and your identified extension. (PS: Was this extension discovered or created; by the gods; etc?) Perhaps compare this extension with extension by colour, or life-time, or its god(s); etc. And since it is NOT zero-dimensional: of what dimension is it?

            * reserving "the Ojo point" for a proposed gift to the mighty Ojo clan!

            ** here named; seeking to eliminate misunderstandings already wildly breeding.

            *** Though the immediate case I bring is against you (and not (YET) against the ancients or the gods), I and Leibniz (via his 1714b, para #2) seem to be as one on this one point of purity: A pure point, having no parts, cannot be extended, shaped or split:- yet (so goes my thesis) it may be forever named and claimed!*

            Regards; Gordon

              Dear Gordon,

              Thanks for the feedback and the opportunity to shed more light on possible grey areas on this topic.

              1. Good to see a No answer. So in your opinion what's the difference?

              2. FIRSTLY, there is no strangeness or originality in the extended point. As I discussed in my first essay, it dates back to the Pythagoreans and was a bone of contention between The Pythagoreans, Proclus, and partially Aristotle on the one hand holding the point to be the smallest possible finite limit to extension resulting from division, while Plato proposed that the point be of zero dimension. The inheritors of both schools of thought are for the former those holding a 'substantival' view of space, i.e. space exists independent of objects (Newton being a famous son of this family, and probably also Maxwell) and for the latter those of the view that space is a mere 'relational' concept that does not really exist (Leibniz, Mach and Einstein being famous sons of this school). Sometimes, there is an overlap and some straying. Witness for example that Einstein though of the latter school that says space is a fiction and a relational concept that does not exist comes round to propose that this unreal and non-existing thing when amalgamated with time becomes something real that exists, it can curve the path of moving bodies, and it can vibrate giving rise to gravitational waves which propagate at velocity, c.

              So from the foregoing going further down the scale, for a space that does not exist, its fundamental unit would be of zero dimension and does not exist. That makes sense. For a space that exists, following the idea dating back to Democritus that whatever exists must have some fundamental unit that also exists, since a multitude of what does not exist cannot make up what exists.

              SECONDLY, what does "having no parts" mean? This can have two meanings for a fundamental object. It could mean not existing, being of zero dimension and therefore not divisible and split into parts.

              OR it could mean existing, have a non-zero extension (since a multitude of zero existence and extension is zero existence and zero extension, while a multitude of non-zero extension is an even greater magnitude of extension), but not further divisible physically into smaller parts beyond some limit. Thus it CANNOT have parts. It cannot be split. A smaller part of it has no meaning and does not exist. It is suggested from empirical evidence that this limit to the divisibility of extension is ~ 10-35m (Planck length).

              So it really boils down to whether Space exists independent of objects OR Space does not exist but is merely a relational concept between objects, i.e. remove the objects in a location and nothing exists there anymore. As you can see it is an argument dating back centuries. There is an interesting entry in The Stanford Encyclopedia by Hugget, N. and Hoefer, C., Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion.

              You seem to belong to the Relational school. Good for dialectic as I have someone whose position I can attack and who can attack mine as well.

              All the best,

              Akinbo

              *I think you may have misinterpreted Leibniz a bit given your point of view. Cant be extended can mean cannot be stretched. Only something that has parts can have a shape, i.e. central part and a border part or this side and the other side. An extended point has no sides, no central part and an outer part.

              If you read the first 7 paragraphs, which I consider sufficient, you will see that the pure point of Leibniz is a 'simple substance', the true atoms of Nature. Can this simple substance and true atom of Nature be of zero dimension?

              Dear Akinbo:

              To assist with my reply to your nice details above, could you help here please.

              1. Regarding those who take "the reals" to be continuous, how do they write/represent/denote the last real before 2 and the first real after it?

              2. Do you take "the reals" to be continuous?

              With best regards from this local realist; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

              Dear Gordon,

              As far as I know the answers I can give to your two questions are:

              1. There is no definite real before 2 nor any defined real after 2.

              2. I take 'the reals' to be continuous as do most, if not all mathematicians. I think the important question is how the real number line applies to physical reality. In this regard, I have a favourite quote from Roger Penrose's book, The Emperor's New Mind, p.113:

              "The system of real numbers has the property, for example, that between any two of them, no matter how close, there lies a third. It is not at all clear that physical distances or times can realistically be said to have this property. If we continue to divide up the physical distance between two points, we could eventually reach scales so small that the very concept of distance, in the ordinary sense, could cease to have meaning. It is anticipated that at the 'quantum gravity' scale ~10-35m, this would indeed be the case.... We should at least be a little suspicious that there might eventually be a difficulty of fundamental principle for distances on the tiniest scale. ...Why is there so much confidence (in the real number system) for the accurate description of physics, when our initial experience of the relevance of such numbers lies in a comparatively limited range? This confidence - perhaps misplaced- must rest on the logical elegance, consistency, and mathematical power of the real number system,..."

              My work seeks to demonstrate that this confidence is misplaced. That is also why although motion is well described using calculus, calculus itself makes use of the 'infinitesimal', dx a dubious quantity that simultaneously obeys both dx = 0 and dx тЙа 0. Mind you the term dubious is not mine. It is from an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

              Lastly, in contemplating how to fold a line constituted by an infinity of points, contemplate as well whether your type of 'point' can be folded or at what point does the folding take place.

              Thanks for the exchange.

              All the best,

              Akinbo

              Dear Akinbo,

              Overwhelmed by the stimulants on offer at your free self-serve open-access drug-store (especially your knowledge of the ancients), I'm now in rehab. And I am now required to pray "The Engineer's Prayer" should I find myself near your store again. So praying -- "I am a concrete engineer. I carefully distinguish between abstract and concrete objects. No abstract ocean floats a concrete boat. Amen" -- I throw this note to you:

              "I am a local realist* suspecting that you are similar. I seek to join you in working to reduce the ink and increase the truth in the world! Could this be true: We are two true local realists working to eliminate nonsense from BT, QM, SR, etc? And are we not yet sure where we differ? GW."

              The background to this note is this: You here express what I interpret to be a healthy open local realism. So, until my rehab is complete, I think it might be best for all if we concentrate on such "much more concrete" matters for awhile. (Perhaps leaving our creative jousting re "Euclid-v-Leibniz ++" until the off-season?)

              PS: Standing ready to reply to all your questions, it would be a big help if you'd NUMBER and repeat the questions in an Addendum; or edit the original via Q-numbers [eg, Q1. Q2. ++]. Thank you.

              * each term is defined in my essay.

              As always, with best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.