I think I have a ToE. I've succeeded at uniting the big and small. and explaining many mysteries within the model. Well, it is still developing. My current effort is single photon interference.
I started for physical concepts Is there such a thing as ``a void'' between objects. My first concept was there must be 2 components whose interaction produces the universe. One doesn't do it - no interaction. Your difference produces a void - which I think is not existent in our universe.
Hello Richard,
I have a little trouble getting something from nothing and will let others take care of that origin problem. But I do know where the physical regulator of time is located and how it works. Every speck of the Universal Vacuum is locked at the same pace by the dynamic shape that packs best.
Richard - Thanks for an interesting essay! You and I see creation beginning with the identical distinction --- one from Void. Although I get there by following the metaphysical holes in math and physics and would not agree that the process can bootstrap itself.
Regards - George Gantz
Dear Richard,
The scope of your essay is certainly very ambitious, and you present some intriguing ideas. In the spirit of constructive criticism, allow me to mention an issue that I have noticed.
In reference to your initial void, you say "It has no consequences or effects, and cannot be named, referenced, or pointed to", then you introduce as "The first and smallest possible step away from Nothing" NotNothing and say that "in discussing emergence of space and time, we will need only this most-basic primitive--Difference--in order to begin the emergence of both space and time below."
I believe that there is a logical problem here, and showing this involves treating two cases.
First, suppose NotNothing is to be parsed as (neg)Nothing where (neg) is the negation operator. But that would mean that the negation operator has a referent, it refers to Nothing, or the Void. But above you said that the Void"cannot be referenced, or pointed to".
That rules out the possibility that NotNothing is (neg)nothing and brings us to the only other possible alternative, which is the second case: That NotNothing is "something" considered as a whole. But if "Notnothing" is considered as "something" as a whole, it is not definable in terms of anything more basic (in particular, not definable in terms of (neg)Nothing because that has already been ruled out). But then that means Notnothing is a primitive by the definition of what a primitive is, namely, something undefinable in terms of something more basic. But this contradicts your claim that the most basic primitive is the difference between NotNothing and Nothing.
Incidentally, the difference in and of itself is problematic because it has two referents, Notnothing and Nothing, and this conflicts again with your claim that Nothing is not a referent. I don't think it is possible to claim that the difference does not have referents because if that were the case, then the difference would lose its meaning. Consider that generally the meaning of a difference is such that the difference between two appropriately comparable objects is another comparable object. In your case of distances, the difference between two distances is another distance. So it seems that the difference without the referents of which it is meant to be the difference would simply fail to mean that. It is possible that you might have meant something like a difference operator, but then I think you should state that more clearly.
In fact, reframing your introduction in terms of a difference operator might possibly save your work from the apparent inconsistency above.
Again, I think you present some intriguing ideas, my criticism was given with the best possible intention, that we learn from each other. I hope you found it useful.
Best wishes,
Armin
"Here we see the real nature of relative motion and the basis for the space and time dilation of relativity."
Sorry I don't see anything like that in your essay. In 1905 Einstein informed the world that "the basis for the space and time dilation" is his constant-speed-of-light postulate.
Pentcho Valev
@shirazi: Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Yes, everyone says this at first, thinking of the usual idea of an "operator". I use that word only because I don't have a better one. Perhaps I should have made one up, or at least explained it better. The key thing is the idea of the boundary, not really an operator on one or two referents. The First Distinction IS the first object. This is always hard to get because it goes against our everyday classical experience with objects, and is one notch below it and prior to the usual logic or set theory starting places. -- Richard
Dear Richard,
Excellent and profound essay! I enjoyed reading yours. I do believe we need at least two to start an exchange between two fundamental element that is actual one element that splits itself up into two so that it can evolve and exchange with each other to fo-evolve and so one. It is bootstrapping itself. It is pure magic.
I agree with you that "Mathematics is generative, dynamic, and alive." Yours deserved a high score and please look at mine and yes it is true we are searching for the fundamental truth.
Best wishes,
Leo KoGuan
Dear Richard,
Xuan Yuan about 4712 years ago already stated in The Four Canons, 11 explains how things come into beings, from the "Void" without distinction: "All things had been one whole before the Heaven and Earth split... with no distinction of day and night, Yin and Yang. Since Yin and Yang were not separated yet, it was not possible to name anything. Now that one is divided into two: Yin and Yang, and the four seasons distinguished... become the norm. The enlightened take it as the Dao, which is profound and subtle, and follow it in whatever they do. Following the Dao is the same as handling the relationship between the female and the male. When there is attraction between the two, then follows the union of the assertive and the receptive. They complement each other and give birth to new forms."
Here another quotation from Zhuangzi Derived his thought from Xuan Yuan more than 2000 years before him that describes how a difference causes Existence, here is the quotation for your review: "Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together, and all things and I are one. Since they are one, can there be speech about them? But since they are spoken of as one, must there not be room for speech? One and Speech are two; two and one are three. Going on from this (in our enumeration), the most skillful reckoner cannot reach (the end of the necessary numbers), and how much less can ordinary people do so! Therefore from non-existence we proceed to existence till we arrive at three; proceeding from existence to existence, to how many should we reach? Let us abjure such procedure, and simply rest here." See Legge, James. trans. Zhuangzi, "The Adjustment of Controversies"; See also Watson, Burton. trans. Zhuangzi: Basic Writing, "All things equal."
Yes, something more fundamental is change/difference itself as the source of Existence. However, they did not have the latest knowledge that we have, they had no theory with equations and numbers derived from those equations. KQID fixed these problems and stated that Existence has one Source Qbit(00, , -), one Principle Giving first Taking later; one theory bit is it; one Zeroth equation with one normalized number "1"; and one quantum entangled Existence.
Thank you for your great contribution, I hope I can add mine.
Truly yours,
Leo KoGuan
Dr. Shoup,
Lucid paper. Challenging. Cogent and readable.
When you discuss sqrt(-1) ("i" or "j") logic configurations you specify that these are "abstract." I'm assuming this usage is in the spirit of Turing discussing TMs or, maybe more appropriate here, non-deterministic TMs. Also I'm keeping in mind Venn's expressed doubt, contra Boole, that formal logic could ever pull off a move analogous to the square root of a negative number as contained in mathematics. Additionally, in the opposite direction, I'm aware of Spencer-Brown's four classes of statements (true, false, meaningless and imaginary). Anyway:
In your opinion, is what in effect would be an "i" gate physically realizable and does it matter?
Your work illumines with your co-ordinal authorship.
-Sincerely,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
Is a paradoxical statement (X=~X, or "This sentence is false") the same as an imaginary statement (per Spencer-Brown)?
Dear Richard,
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
