Re: randomness

Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
On Mar 30, 10:32 pm, "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1175267497.157466.280380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Mar 29, 8:51 am, "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
How do you build partial existence? Is it a feedback mechanism?
Do you get into spacetime?
Uncertain existence is partial existence. Consider a set whose
elements
have
a 50:50 chance of existing. A set which is existentially fuzzy. There
is
nonzero probability that it's not even there.
Of course, invoking "nonexistence" can be seen as ridiculous, but if
one
has
triviality i.e. existential indeterminacy then partial existence makes
perfect sense.
We're playing billiards, sometimes known as "pool".
9 ball impacts 3 ball, and 3 ball drops into the corner pocket.
Everybody is happy.
Unfortunately, the 9 ball is existentially fuzzy. There is a nonzero
probability that the 9ball doess not even exist. Hence, there is a
certain
probability that the process was acausal. That it had no cause.
Simply saying thatthe 9ball does not exist, after having said that it
does -
this would be nonsense. However, partial existence via probabilistic
fuzzyness - this allows genuine acausality.
I have a pretty hard time with this concept, but I cannot refute your
approach either.
Thanks for the criticism and the objectivity. I like to role play a little
like I'm playing the pompous expositor, and just argue on and on and on like
an idiot, but I do put a lot of thought into it and think some of this stuff
is probably valid. There is a very real possibility that I'm just full of
***, but I'll never know if I dont just argue it all the way through. An
incomplete or halfassed argument will prove nothing, and this theory is
getting huge.

I think there is something to be said for following
out the consequences of a construction and measuring the
construction's value based on those results. It seems to me that this
thing you work with sort of denies my approach and so I would be left
working around it via another angle.
I think that you're thinking of something like Kolmogorov complexity or
something like that ?

I accept that we will never
compute reality due to the complexity of the situation.
I'm glad that I'm not a professional scientist because they would have
strung me up a long time ago. I think that getting people to believe in
"partial existence" would be very difficult, even if you had a proof.

Then we get
into these minimal systems such as two-slit experiments where we are
supposed to anticipate a clean solution and still get strange
behaviors. The level of control and measurement down there does seem
consistent with your scenario but why then isn't the macro world more
full of this sort of weirdness? Superposition? Are the product
behaviors we initially are taught the fundamental forces to be totally
wrong? I understand that the correspondence principle is enough to
replace the static system with a more dynamic system like your
existential indeterminacy. I do accept a need for freedom somehow or
other yet it is almost a matter of faith until the appropriate
construction comes along.
The weird behaviours can be contained by considering scale properly -
attempting to understand this makes me dizzy. I can "see" it, but I dont
have a model of what I'm visuallizing. Yet.

I will say that most serious mathematicians would probably strongly disagree
with many things I've said, or certainly question whether it is even
mathematics at all. I myself do not know the answer to that, except to say
that I intend to keep on arguing and see what happens. If I make an ass of
myself, then I've lost very little. On the other hand, maybe it might lead
to some real problem solving. I dont know.

One thing that I do know. This type of "number" is very weird:

a + ~b

~b is a random selection from either a continuous or discrete set,

and the mind boggling thing is that this choice, continuous vs discrete,
this can be made arbirtary vis-a-vis topological indeterminacy which was
explained as being morphic to the solution set of 0 = a * 0.

I find it mindblowing, that ~b might be arbitrarily continuously or
discretely selected. That both might be embodied in a single variable -
that is wild, and might be possible to really formalize such a thing.

I think that you need a scalar calculus of some kind to make it happen
properly, and so if sub-Planck scale actually implies triviality, as I've
stated elsewhere, then you really would have a valid reason to believe that
all of this stuff is really valid, and wave-particle duality is explained
algebraically. HUP would make sense algebraically as well. The implications
would be beyond astonishing.

I do have some math that can generate
support for spacetime from a general construction
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
and if it could be fitted with a random basis then perhaps some
physics would alight.
Polysign covers the dimensional side of things.
-Tim

I fully concur with the right to make an ass of oneself and I practice
the same with nothing to lose and taking this gamble is the freeing
factor that will allow for progression, if not by me then by another
like me. Along the way mistakes will hopefully be exposed and generate
more progression.

Hi guys.

I've been looking at your exchange with some interest. Nice to see minds percolating. If you care to google or already know, I've made an "ass" of myself plenty of times here. That is to say, I've learned a lot. Like I said to Lester, with whom you may be familiar, debate is the process, in logic and in science, presenting evidence and arguments, and seeing if either holds up in the face of others. So, that's what we're doing, and we can win or lose each match, and just get better, eh?


Going back to your 'fuzzy' consideration and going down to fine scale
gets over toward thermodynamics and I am fond of considering the human
scale world as a hazy representation of the cold reality. Cold
temperature physics keeps exposing very well behaved and fascinating
properties of material. Superfluids and fractional quantum Hall
effects are nature in its coldest form. These behaviors vanish in our
ordinary world and so I believe these people who do this stuff have a
powerful role. We should take these behaviors as fundamental or rather
the new models will account for these and yield ambient existence as a
hazy version.

I was considering the pool analogy (and I played a little last night). To me, it's not a matter of whether the 9 ball "exists" or not. It's a matter of statistics, and within which constraints we can exercise our control. Oh, the "nib" shot. I've never called and made one, but the day will come, and it will involve lots of luck. That's bouncing the ball off the corner of the pocket, and getting it to go where you want. Yep. Mostly luck.

Now, like any pool shot, one can gauge the difficulty. It depends on a number of factors including, most basically, the speed, direction, and spin of the cue ball as you send it off the end of the stick. One can only predict the result to within the constraints of one's ability to control those three factors. So, one can say, "I can make it go between x and y speed", and "I can send it within so many degrees of that direction", and then if one wants to get phantsy, "I can put so many rpm's on this ball, so it goes in unexpected directions, when it hits something, or make it do the opposite, when it does".


I do take interest in your sub-Planck concept and have considered a
similar concept back at a fundamental math level, though I haven't
gone very far with it. Would such a concept pose a minimum wavelength
for electromagnetic radiation? If so then what of blue-shift at such a
high frequency? A flat space conception may be required to make this
consequential since allowing space an elastic quality merely keeps
scrunching space. The idea of a photon providing affinity rather than
being a kinetic energetic is nearby.

The concept of some infinitesimal "size" for a point has advantages, not only for physics, but also raw math.


I am not fully appreciating the
a ~ b
concept. I understand that a is a static component and b is its
variant.
Center of mass is a concept that has not been destroyed even for
conglomerate systems.
If we were to allow such a center of mass a variance then the variance
would take on the dynamical qualities which must inherently include
rotation in an ordinary spatial model. Is this too far away from the
random basis b? The complexity of b is greater than a right?


I saw the original question, and it had to do with whether A+B was more random if both A and B were random, rather than one being exact, and I don't think so. The variance for the conjunction OR is the max of that of either A or B. So the randomness is not greater. The variance of A*B, A AND B, may be greater than either A or B if they both have absolute values greater than 1. But, that's not logic, at that point.

The indeterminacy concept reeks a bit of multidimensional behaviors
where we take a 2D projection of a higher dimension space there are
sorts of occlusion that are possible. As the word occlusion implies
these qualities would be virtually invisible. Even in a 3D world we
must accept that when we look at a tree that we are also looking at
galaxies which lie in the same direction beyond the tree, but accept
that occlusion denies us such vision. In some ways the indeterminacy
that you take as an in-and-out sort of haze does not have to be
temporally fast.

The multidimensionality arises from considerations of relative measure. In a universe characterized by the value 1, any value less is a subset of the whole. Where Leibniz defined each object as a set of attribute values, and identical sets represent the same object, each is an ordered set of coordinates in some space. So, partial inclusion in a set, defined by an attribute, is a measure of how much that attribute contributes to the definition of that object. :)

We are compelled to accept that the distance to the galaxy and even
the galaxy itself will not be known, though existence of such a galaxy
at a fixed distance is acceptable. As we realize that an observer in a
3D world observes a 2D world should we then allow for even higher
dimensions? I would not call this verbiage a proof of such but would
argue that we should remain open to this issue in terms of a
generalized solution. Multiple observer solutions yield a 3D space
that should also be accounted for and I cannot deny that result. But
in terms of your fundamental disappearing act of indeterminacy we see
some conceptual connections with spatial properties even with slow
temporal components. The n+1 relationship crops up in lots of
conceptual places and the very nature of discrete spatial dimension
provides an informational paradigm.

Sorry if that is too much. Please criticize freely.

-Tim



Wow. Getting too deep for my current machine state. :)

Tony
.

Quantcast