Patience and Vigilance, My Friend
Okay, so your theory is more a theory of a concept of something and less an actual "invention-like" thing? It's a plain truth like E=MC2. Am I getting closer?
Yes, you are getting closer. And if you have been paying attention in the "Information Subsumes Physical Energy" thread, then you should be able to see how my theory relates to, includes, and somewhat modifies E=MC^2.
It's something you can build things from by applying the theory to it?
Yes, but "building things" is not necessarily the do-all-and-end-all.
Understanding how things work is important before you can
Do things. Once I understand how to do things, then I will naturally want to build things to help me do those things. Get it?
So you're describing something we can build McGuffins from?
One can build many things (or anything) once one has a better understanding of how the physical universe is constructed and how it works.
Is the purpose to develop applications like how there is no "E=MC2 machine" even though stuff couldn't exist without it?
The FIRST purpose is to describe how Force relates to Energy, and Energy relates to Information, in a fractally-embedded (non-lienar) manner. From a better understanding of how Force is modulated by Energy which, in turn, is modulated by Information, many applications can arise. I understand you are eager to get to "a widget". I deal with the same "widget-focused mentality" with my sophomore engineering students to whom I am trying to teach systems engineering. The most important aspect of systems engineering is avoiding the natural tendency to jump straight to the "widget", and instead step back and understand how things work, what sort of "widgets" are required, and how a system relates to the environment it lives and operates in.
Mentally? Absolutely. But that will not change the reality of the issue at hand.
I've asked you before if you define your reality solely by what your physical senses tell you. You have not answered that question either. Let me start a trend for when I would like you to answer specific questions:
Q for Jmpet: Do you believe reality is solely defined by what you can perceive to be "real"? Or is it possible that there is a larger reality, beyond which your senses can report?
Man you're gonna hate this- does this mean "there are many different ways to see the same thing, many different realities all making up reality"?
That is one way to say it, but there are more mathematically-stringent ways to say it that don't rely upon an "absolute reality". Remember, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. We live in a relative universe. And one of the problems I have with your approach is that you are overly concerned with ensuring yourself that you "know" what "reality" is. You seem to have the attitude that "no one can tell me anything new about what is real." When in fact, "reality" changes every day. That is part of the nature of information...to help shape our vision of what is "real".
Is this more a "collective unconcious" thing? Is that the direction to think?
No, as that would imply that information is not of the physical domain, when it is. The "unconscious" is on the "other side of the veil" from Massive SpaceTime. "Unconscious" is in the realm of Spirit/Soul/Mind. When I speak of Information, I am speaking of a physical metric (measureable) that is just as real as a Force or just as real as physical Energy. In fact, one of the better ways to visualize it would be as 3 concentric spheres. Label the innermost sphere "Force" and assign it the "reality" described to us by Newton, Kepler, Galileo, etc. Label the middlemost sphere "Energy" and assign it the reality described to us by Einstein, Mach, Bernoulli, Maxwell, and a whole host of others from that era. Label the outermost sphere "Information" and assign it the reality that I am trying to describe, by standing on the shoulders of much smarter and much greater men than I, such as: Shannon, Boltzmann, Turing, Planck, Feynman, Wheeler, Thorne, etc.
So this means there are many different pasts depending on the observer but they are or can be all equally tangable?
Not exactly, and certainly not "equally tangable". The physical metric of Information will certainly allow me to describe conditions or situations that are not, nor will they ever be, tangible. It will also allow me to describe conditions and situations that do, indeed, have a possibility of being tangible. So consider "Negative Past, Negative Present, and Negative Future" the total 3-D manifold of things that I can describe (with Information) that could never, EVER occur given what we know of physics. Alternately, consider "Positive Past, Positive Present, and Positive Future" the total 3-D manifold of things that I can describe (with Information) that do have some possibility of occurrence given what we know of physics. In between these 3-D manifolds of "Positive" and "Negative" would be neutral (saddle) points: "Actual Past, Actual Present, and Actual Future". These 3 coordinate points are the ones that matter most to your POV, your consciousness.
Well you're the one postulating, my replies are inquiries for clarification- that's how knowledge is gleaned isn't it?
Knowledge is gleaned in many ways. Do not make the error of thinking it can only be gleaned in one way (your way). Certainly inquiring for clarifications is one way. Another way would be to stop, think about my questions to you, and either answer them or discuss them. Asking questions and answering questions exhibit two, different ways to glean knowledge.
So does that mean we are nowhere on the time axis; time is irrelevant to the observer?
You keep insisting on using "where" with respect to Time. Can you not understand when I correct you to "when"? Furthermore, you wish to force "we" to be in the same "place" on the Time axis. I have intimated that "when" YOU are on the Time axis is distinct from "when" I am on the Time axis. And each of us is at a different "when" on the Time axis. I know this answer may not be satisfying to you now, but it is leading to a
manifold view of Time. One which may cause you to rethink your certainty that Time is linear, and conical in form.
Can you at least hint at it? Are you leaning more towards "we exist" or "everything is just an illusion"?
Again, I see your tendency to force things to be mutually exclusive. What if my maths exhibit how both could be true? By that I mean: The Massive SpaceTime tensor field, when coupled with a non-physical consciousness, could exhibit how we could come to the conclusion that "we exist" while at the same time showing how the things we rely upon to "know we exist" are based upon the illusions of separate physical dimensions we call Mass, Space, and Time.
In your mind, is there a difference between tangable reality and something else?
Yes. Tangible reality is what is described by the 3x3x3 integrated tensor fields of Massive SpaceTime. And yet, one cannot "know" tangible reality without having a POV (the tenth element) immersed within Massive SpaceTime to sense its surroundings. The "something else" beyond tangible reality is something I have not discussed here, but it is the subject of the "Spirit" side of my website. I have some material developed on that side, but as you can see there is not much posted on that side of the website. Let's stick to Massive SpaceTime (the tangible part) for now.
The universe makes sense to me even though I don't know exactly how it works.
And yet I can describe (mathematically) things that DO exist, and DO "work" in the universe that would not make much sense to your mind. And this gets back to another question I have asked you before that I would like you to answer:
Q for Jmpet: Do you think it is good to presume how the universe works based solely on the SMALL
(VERY SMALL) slices of information delivered to your mind by your senses? Or... can you appreciate that the "reality" of our universe is much, MUCH,
M U C H greater than what you see/feel/hear/taste/touch with your senses?
It took Einstein years to write E=MC2 because it's such an awesome formula that it applies to everything, everywhere.
Yes, indeed. And I must continually remind you that "E=MC^2" is just the "reader's digest condensed (scalar) version" of his theory. The full-blown tensor representation of this is even more beautiful, and even more astounding as to what it tells us!
Before we had E=MC2, everyone thought the universe was more or less magical- that when our understanding of things ends, the fantasy fills in the missing parts.
This statement is highly debateable with regard to its technical veracity. "Everyone" did not think it was more or less magical. In fact, I can give a short list of names of people who came BEFORE Einstein who KNEW the universe was NOT "more or less magical": Newton, Kepler, Bernoulli, Mach, Maxwell, Heaviside, Boltzmann, and on and on and on the list goes.
E=MC2 tells us that everything, everywhere is related to everything else and that this is truly a closed universe.
Absolutely not. In fact, not only does E=MC^2 not tell us the universe is closed, the question of whether the universe is "open" or "closed" was not even solved by the time of Einstein's death. In fact, there are people who claim that even today this question is not answered to sufficient accuracy. And one must always ask "closed with respect to what?". Our conservation of Energy law would tell us our universe IS closed with respect to Energy. But if Information is a higher-dimensional metric than Energy, the next question would be "Is our universe closed with respect to Information?". IOW, is Information a conserved entity just like MomEnergy?
Question for RainmanTime: Is your theory consistent or at odds with E=MC2?
Again you seek one of two mutually exclusive answers. And yet both science and math has shown us that such is rarely "reality". I can tell you that my theory is consistent with E=MC^2
to a point. But beyond that point, it is my belief that what we currently know as "E=MC^2" needs some further tweaking (just as Einstein told us that Newton's F=ma needed some tweaking at relativistic speeds). Furthermore, my theory claims there is a "dimensionality" that exists OUTSIDE of the dimension called Energy expressed by E=MC^2. This goes back to my three, nested spheres visualization above.
The sum total of my "tweaks" to F=ma and E=mc^2 I have been describing to you has been how we need to treat Mass and Time as vectors, just as we have always treated Space as a vector. By adopting this SAME, 3-D balanced mathematical model to these other two dimensions, it is my claim that we can (and will) take the mathematics of Newton, Einstein, and others to even greater heights of understanding... and yes, we will also be able to "build new widgets" based on this new understanding.
RMT
