Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:46 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:12 pm Yes! Computer science recognizes that space and time are reciprocal.

That is literally why we have coined the term Space-time trade-off.

A space–time or time–memory trade-off in computer science is a case where an algorithm or program trades increases space usage with decreased time. Here, space refers to the data storage consumed in performing a given task (RAM, HDD, etc), and time refers to the time consumed in performing a given task (computation time or response time).

The link is broken, and equating space-time to computer time-memory
has nothing to do with how the physical universe works.

What do you seem to think "The Universe agreeing with us" looks like in practice?

Predict x will happen due to y, x happens due to y.

Ironically, ALL information is vital if you subscribe to the language of Physical information.

You need to decide what you want here. Do you want a universal language or a particular language?

I don't know any 'language of physical information' besides motion.

And what units are you use to quantify "space" and "time"?

They are themselves the measure:
one unit of space per one unit of time.
Pythagoras c^2=a^2+b^2.
*A=s^2+t^2
When s and t are 1, c is not 1, but √2.
We have two legs, thus twice rooted.
√5 (pentagram) is intrinsic to the golden ratio.

(1±√5)/2= 1.618..., -0.618...

Multiplying by 2 for the two roots gives √5.

((1±√5)/2)^2 gives the reciprocals:
2.61803398
..↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓
0.38196601

Space and time are each their own 'units': one to one is c, the speed of light.
However, that does not mean the real 'metric' of c is 1: it is the golden ratio.

I have nothing to say to you here except recommend a book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

Only to follow up with:

That doesn't matter - once you have a model of the universe you can project it onto whatever geometry makes sense to you.

That's literally what we call "views".

3D universe is a projection of 2D information.

The very leap from mathematics to suffering is making me suffer.

Who will you blame?

None of that shit matters. You "collapse" (project? transform?) the 123861283761725376123 dimensions into 3-dimensional human experience.

And you do experiments with the results your 123861283761725376123-dimensional model predicts.

If it agrees with experiments THEN we say that the Universe has 123861283761725376123 dimensions.

There are only 3 dimensions: 'space' is described by 3 despite having a scalar one-dimensional ground. Time is the same.

3s↔2s↔1s
_________
1t↔2t↔3t

2s/2t is s^2/t^2, the a and b of pythagoras.

The language of "real" and "not real" is nonsense.

If the model with 123861283761725376123 dimensions works then the 123861283761725376123 dimensions are "real".

There are real numbers and imaginary numbers, i.
There is real knowledge and imagined belief.
These two roots are √2=c^2 as the resultant of a^2+b^2
(space and time).

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:53 pm**

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:46 pm The link is broken

Google is your friend. It's on wikipedia.

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:46 pm and equating space-time to computer time-memory has nothing to do with how the physical universe works.

Then you better tell ALL of physics that they got it wrong ASAP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of ... rgy_supply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Mathematically speaking "space" is "memory". They are identical constructs.

For every equation you give me - the space-time complexity of its computation/execution can be calculated.

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:46 pm They are themselves the measure:
one unit of space per one unit of time.

Ok, so size up/weigh up "1 unit of space" and show it to us.

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:46 pm Space and time are each their own 'units': one to one is c, the speed of light.
However, that does not mean the real 'metric' of c is 1: it is the golden ratio.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

And I ran out of interest for the rest.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:50 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:53 pm Google is your friend. It's on wikipedia.

Google is nobody's friend.

Then you better tell ALL of physics that they got it wrong ASAP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of ... rgy_supply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Mathematically speaking "space" is "memory". They are identical constructs.

For every equation you give me - the space-time complexity of its computation/execution can be calculated.

They don't listen: they presently worship the Cult of Quantum as a bi-product of the Cult of Einstein
and his space-bending old balls.

Ok, so size up/weigh up "1 unit of space" and show it to us.

"1 unit of space" can not exist independent of its own relation to time.
A photon is 1 unit of space / 1 unit of time and is thus motionless
being carried naturally by natural progression
however we move at the speed of light in relation to photons
which appear to move at the speed of light in relation to us as observers.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

And I ran out of interest for the rest.

You call bullshit to the golden ratio? It exists not in creation?
I sooner run out of interest for one who denies the golden ratio (!)

(φ^2 - φ) + √5 / 2 = 1.618..., -0.618...

√5 is the pentagram, divided into bi-directional rotations:

360/2=180/5=36
36x5=180x2=360
therefor
π/2=180/2=36x2+36/2=90
π=90=90=90

to know all thus not to believe expands indefinitely outwards (as one tree),
to believe all thus not to know contracts indefinitely inwards (as another tree)
thus twine is a being rooted: 2((1±√5)/2) - 1 = √5, which has two roots:
one is real, the other is not.

Posted: **Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:59 am**

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:50 pm They don't listen: they presently worship the Cult of Quantum as a bi-product of the Cult of Einstein
and his space-bending old balls.

Perhaps it is you who should listen then? Less crank - more read!

Quantum Physics has no way of reconciling the phenomenon of gravity. That is why Quantum Gravity is an actual problem in physics.

And because Quantum Physics can't (currently) account for gravity, there is no "space-bending" of any sort going on (theoretically speaking).

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:10 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:59 am
nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:50 pm They don't listen: they presently worship the Cult of Quantum as a bi-product of the Cult of Einstein
and his space-bending old balls.
Perhaps it is you who should listen then? Less crank - more read!

Quantum Physics has no way of reconciling the phenomenon of gravity. That is why Quantum Gravity is an actual problem in physics.

And because Quantum Physics can't (currently) account for gravity, there is no "space-bending" of any sort going on (theoretically speaking).

I tried to listen when I was younger, but in the case of modern inventive science such as Quantum, gravity is a problem because such "physicists" do not know what gravity actually is, for believing it is a "force".

There is a natural progression the physicists denote the cosmological constant. There is a scalar magnitude behind this expansion such: that space/time is invariant, thus all moves "away" from all else, like points on a balloon.

Only if/when setting this magnitude to '1' does gravity have any meaning, being the inverse: it is the particular displacement(s) from this natural datum whose "gravity" is caused by the constituency of the concerned body itself, and any/all motion(s) associated with that body, including their relationship to surrounding bodies. Thus, bodies can be both "physical" and "metaphysical" wherein the gravity of ones own is duly accounted for, as has been, and ever will be, such to satisfy universality.

Einstein's Relativity relies on the bizarre property of space "bending". Space has no such property: it is one reciprocal aspect of motion, the reciprocate being time. Therefor, all that is progressing according to the natural datum has no relevant space/time displacement(s): this is what scientists call "photons" and/or the speed of light c.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:49 am**

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:10 am
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:59 am
nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:50 pm They don't listen: they presently worship the Cult of Quantum as a bi-product of the Cult of Einstein
and his space-bending old balls.
Perhaps it is you who should listen then? Less crank - more read!

Quantum Physics has no way of reconciling the phenomenon of gravity. That is why Quantum Gravity is an actual problem in physics.

And because Quantum Physics can't (currently) account for gravity, there is no "space-bending" of any sort going on (theoretically speaking).
I tried to listen when I was younger, but in the case of modern inventive science such as Quantum, gravity is a problem because such "physicists" do not know what gravity actually is, for believing it is a "force".

There is a natural progression the physicists denote the cosmological constant. There is a scalar magnitude behind this expansion such: that space/time is invariant, thus all moves "away" from all else, like points on a balloon.

Only if/when setting this magnitude to '1' does gravity have any meaning, being the inverse: it is the particular displacement(s) from this natural datum whose "gravity" is caused by the constituency of the concerned body itself, and any/all motion(s) associated with that body, including their relationship to surrounding bodies. Thus, bodies can be both "physical" and "metaphysical" wherein the gravity of ones own is duly accounted for, as has been, and ever will be, such to satisfy universality.

Einstein's Relativity relies on the bizarre property of space "bending". Space has no such property: it is one reciprocal aspect of motion, the reciprocate being time. Therefor, all that is progressing according to the natural datum has no relevant space/time displacement(s): this is what scientists call "photons" and/or the speed of light c.

Space can bend and expand relatively if space is infinite. A point expanding into a circle in turn expands the space from the center point with this expansion observing a dot invert into another position thus creating a series of dots between them. The expansion of space is the curvature of space.

The movement of a dot from one position to many reflects the manifestation of an infinite series of points thus an expansion of space. The movement of one point to another observes a contraction in space with creates a new curve which relatively causes space to expand in a different position as well. The expansion and contraction of space allows for its infinite nature as pure movement.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:16 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:49 am Space can bend and expand relatively if space is infinite. A point expanding into a circle in turn expands the space from the center point with this expansion observing a dot invert into another position thus creating a series of dots between them. The expansion of space is the curvature of space.

The movement of a dot from one position to many reflects the manifestation of an infinite series of points thus an expansion of space. The movement of one point to another observes a contraction in space with creates a new curve which relatively causes space to expand in a different position as well. The expansion and contraction of space allows for its infinite nature as pure movement.

I am not into theoretical universes comprised of "points", "circles", "dots", "curves" etc.
Universal geometries do yield insight into nature, but only if real geometries (not just points and circles).
I recently derived a universal equation which, by changing the polarity (+-) of only a single term,
reciprocates between 1 (unity) and Φ³ . The equation uses 16π² as a base, has nine numerator terms,
uses π² three total, π four times, and contains two √5 roots. I am very excited about this discovery
as it is a new and geometrically sound derivation of the mathematical root i (achieved by placing √-π
before the equation). How I derived it is literally beyond me.

Space neither can not, nor does not bend. Space is not a "thing" thus is meaningless to bend:
being merely one reciprocate aspect of motion, space is merely a relation to time - that is all.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:11 pm**

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:16 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:49 am Space can bend and expand relatively if space is infinite. A point expanding into a circle in turn expands the space from the center point with this expansion observing a dot invert into another position thus creating a series of dots between them. The expansion of space is the curvature of space.

The movement of a dot from one position to many reflects the manifestation of an infinite series of points thus an expansion of space. The movement of one point to another observes a contraction in space with creates a new curve which relatively causes space to expand in a different position as well. The expansion and contraction of space allows for its infinite nature as pure movement.
I am not into theoretical universes comprised of "points", "circles", "dots", "curves" etc.
Universal geometries do yield insight into nature, but only if real geometries (not just points and circles).

Everything is composed of form, form is shape, shape is curvature, all things that exist are composed of curvature.

I recently derived a universal equation which, by changing the polarity (+-) of only a single term,
reciprocates between 1 (unity) and Φ³ . The equation uses 16π² as a base, has nine numerator terms,
uses π² three total, π four times, and contains two √5 roots. I am very excited about this discovery
as it is a new and geometrically sound derivation of the mathematical root i (achieved by placing √-π
before the equation). How I derived it is literally beyond me.

Space neither can not, nor does not bend. Space is not a "thing" thus is meaningless to bend:
being merely one reciprocate aspect of motion, space is merely a relation to time - that is all.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:28 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:11 pm
Everything is composed of form, form is shape, shape is curvature, all things that exist are composed of curvature.

The problem is 'space' is not a 'thing' thus there is no 'thing' to bend.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:59 pm**

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:11 pm
Everything is composed of form, form is shape, shape is curvature, all things that exist are composed of curvature.

The problem is 'space' is not a 'thing' thus there is no 'thing' to bend.

All things are subject to forms, all forms to shapes, all shapes to curves.

Posted: **Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:33 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:59 pm
nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:11 pm
Everything is composed of form, form is shape, shape is curvature, all things that exist are composed of curvature.

The problem is 'space' is not a 'thing' thus there is no 'thing' to bend.
All things are subject to forms, all forms to shapes, all shapes to curves.

Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

Posted: **Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:02 pm**

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:59 pm
nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:28 pm

The problem is 'space' is not a 'thing' thus there is no 'thing' to bend.
All things are subject to forms, all forms to shapes, all shapes to curves.
Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

And tell me about a thing which does not contain a shape.

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:22 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:02 pm
nothing wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:59 pm

All things are subject to forms, all forms to shapes, all shapes to curves.
Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.
And tell me about a thing which does not contain a shape.

Containing form
does not imply bending space, as
space is not a bendable thing.

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:16 pm**

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:59 pm
nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:28 pm

The problem is 'space' is not a 'thing' thus there is no 'thing' to bend.
All things are subject to forms, all forms to shapes, all shapes to curves.
Same answer: 'space' is not a 'thing'.

But what is a "thing"?

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:39 pm**

So A does not = A?

So I'm going move the identity of the terms in your question, making none of the variables identical, just to prove a point.

I therefore "reject" the word "rejection," and term it "possible acceptance."

I reject the word "Aristotelian," and choose arbitrarily to redefine it as "Platonic."

I reject the word "identity," and decide to call it "hovercraft" instead.

I reject the concept of "law," and term it something like "emu."

So, since none of the identities in your original question are stable, and all have been rejected, your OP now reads to me as:

"Possible acceptance of Platonic hovercraft emu."

Or would you prefer I go back to respecting the Law of Identity?

Philosophy Now Forum

Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

Re: Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A