uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:18 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 4:23 pmI treat everything as "pointers" to stand as referents to anything and ignore the actual facts they point to.
Which is fine, but when someone tells you they don't understand your nomenclature, it doesn't help if you replace that with symbols. My symbolic logic is functional, albeit rusty, and without busting a gut, your thesis appears coherent. But it's the nature of logic and maths that 'facts' can be ignored; the criterion is validity, rather than soundness. So, I accept that your argument is valid. What are you claiming are the sound premises? What is the universe made of that can have lines, curves, spirals, spin and whatnot in it?
All of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true', some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these. Given theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.
I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
The numbers can act as indeterminate realities. For us, they are just labels we can use to identify everything as though in closed boxes. Instead of opening these boxes, we treat them as 'pointers' and graphically represent them as points in a geometric way. Physics is the manifestation of such a similar model regardless of it seeming to be 'abstract'. This is because we describe reality ONLY through abstractions based upon sensations indirectly. When we define some sensation of what we observe, the consistent patterns define what we presume are 'laws' of reality. But why would or should reality OBEY if it has no mind?
My proposed approach relies on first demonstrating that given no truths, some (finite truths), or an infinity of them (or a count of x, where x = infinity^x, that can define infinite levels of infinities). Exhausting these possibilities proves that with respect to Totality, ALL things are either one of these. The finite option is out without presuming a SPECIAL Universe (or multiverse) that is uniquely true of Totality. It would suggest some potential 'god' or other mysterious realities; But then this begs its own rationale infinitely without leading to either some other higher essence or the infinities of the other options themselves. If the infinite option is true, then each finite possibility is covered AND has to include an Absolute Nothing. But Absolute Nothing is the only possible 'apriori' reality that is at LEAST certain. This is where I justify this fact both logically and to EACH subjective mind's capacity to reason this. This makes it both valid AND sound, and thus at least certainly true of physics. When Absolute Nothing is true, then it is also false and leads back to an Absolute Infinity of possibilities.
This is where I then assign EACH possible truth a 'pointer' and represent it as a unique point. If, continuing with a screen analogy, we imagine for any sized rectilinear shape that represents a world, have each pixel (point) be represented as perfectly unique colors, then we arbitrarily begin with ANY arrangement of these pixels as one of the many possibilities for each position. That is, if we have a world of only 4x4 screen, we have distinctly 16 colors and 16! (16 factorial is a very big number) of possible arrangements. Then, imagine we allow for 'change' to be defined by the way we can arrange any set of these whole images together.
Most sets of images can be represented as a "non-patterned" moving picture to us viewing the monitor. The changes here are of the whole pixels TRADING positions because we assigned each its own unique color or shade. The ones that 'swap' in a pattern we deem tangent to their prior positions, demonstrates how reality operates. That is, all our world needs to express what we see is to have each point moving by trading positions in some way to other tangent pixels.
Note that this simplified two-dimensional model doesn't suffice. We need a way to define 'dimensions'. I did this earlier here but not precisely nor with images. All you do is begin with a few points. Four suffice to describe this concept. Let one point represent an 'origin' and three others be surrounding this. One of the points is a 'source' swap, one is a 'destination' swap, and the third is a dormant OPTION or 'alternative'. Extend this to EACH point and where no point is permitted to swap beyond this or in loops. [I can draw this later for here.] The alternative is a dimension and the other two are what I'll call the "Normal" or original route.
We imagine first that from a given arrangement, the 'next' (second) frame can swap only two points. It is arbitrary where we start and choose the swap. But it can only swap positions 'tangent' to another position AND that only have the three options. The next frame after that can trade from both ends of the first pair of swapped points but they cannot simply trade the same two original points. They dynamically creates a 'line' (not necessarily 'straight') that grows from its original first pair outwards.
Now this demonstration can be done in many different sets of ways defining different line 'stories'. Picture that we only have a black screen that uses 'white' pixels to represent the swapping points. Then we'd see random lines being drawn (like a screen saver) that originates randomly from any point and grows from that seed in any direction. The 'screen' that would be required for the three point presentation thus would not be 'square' pixels, but rather triangular-like ones. In this model we wouldn't be able to actually run this because no growing 'line' can be described as running back into the same point.
While this seems odd, you can use this to define any infinite possible worlds with any number of dimensions you wish. The dimensions would be 'relative' to each point and be sufficient at least to DESCRIBE all possible multidimensional worlds. OUR is one of these patterned worlds.
My theory actually goes all the way to describe what literal shapes particles take and have a rationale way to express how all these interact to formulate the manifested reality we see up to the first elements!
