 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / December 2007A New Way to Compute Space, Time and Matter
A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter A birds-eye view of quantum mechanics, relativity, computing, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence raises the possibility of using mathematics to implement a wide variety of ideas including Leibniz's Monadology and Greek Monism for the first time in history. http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm Haven't we always known that math can model the unknown? What is it that creates a distiction worth the difference with this idea of yours? > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Haven't we always known that math can model the unknown? What is it > that creates a distiction worth the difference with this idea of yours? There are plenty of differences between mainstream ideas and mine. Particularly how the mind works into things. As far as I can tell, the "hard problem" of explaining the mind from its neurobiological basis is eliminated. You'll need to read the paper to get more of the idea. > > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You'll need to read the paper to get more of the idea. It seems to me that the only real "hard problem" was philosophers accepting brain science as it was published. > > > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It seems to me that the only real "hard problem" was philosophers > accepting brain science as it was published.- Hide quoted text - This is why trying to boil the idea into a sentence or two in response to your question is not just a good idea. The paper itself makes no reference to the hard problem. It takes a different approach, one that is counter intuitive to the current science. You should really read it. It's only a couple pages long. > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Haven't we always known that math can model the unknown? What is it > that creates a distiction worth the difference with this idea of yours? Maths can't model the unknown. > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Haven't we always known that math can model the unknown? What is it > that creates a distiction worth the difference with this idea of yours? Good question. It took me some time to answer it appropriately. Here's part of the conclusion in the updated version of the paper: "The goal worked toward by such a team is a purely mathematical expression of nature and the mind that until now has only been expressed as a combination of mathematics, language, philosophy, and art. For example, string theory and brane mechanics both posit hidden dimensions and visible dimensions. But the variables representing all the dimensions belong to the same physical resource (the computer, or the paper, or the scientist's head, ect.). We are using language to express what is going on in the mathematics by saying "these variables are hidden, and these variables are visible." In the steps described by this paper, mathematics alone expresses two sets of information and distinguishes them from each other by storing them in two different types of resources." >A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm So...where is the computation? On Dec 11, 1:21 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:56:23 -0800 (PST), MobyDikc > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So...where is the computation? So... how much of the paper did you read? > On Dec 11, 1:21 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So... how much of the paper did you read? All of it. I notice a specific lack of actual physics, much less a way to compute observable quantities. Your welcome to prove me wrong by computing the fine structure of Hydrogen's spectrum using your program, though. > > On Dec 11, 1:21 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Atomic shells don't have funny shapes. They are spherical. Mitch Raemsch -- My Big Sphere - Hypersphere > Atomic shells don't have funny shapes. They are spherical. The 'shell' is a statistical likelihood of shape at any instant, a metaphor, a mnemonic. : > Atomic shells don't have funny shapes. They are spherical. : : The 'shell' is a statistical likelihood of shape at any instant, a metaphor, : a mnemonic. Yes indeed, and most molecules are not spherical either. It would conceivable to describe the hundreds of artificial satellites currently in orbit about the Earth as a "shell", but spherical? Not when most of them are in elliptical orbits. L@@K! A Google-posting fuckwit has a new theory about physics! >A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > > "Duh...where muh brane?" On Dec 11, 4:43 pm, "Uncle Archie Relf" <ShekinaAn...@webtv.net> wrote: > L@@K! A Google-posting fuckwit has a new theory about physics! Where? I posted new steps based on information science and neuroscience to develop a new class of hypotheses. A theory is quite a ways off, especially if I have to do it all myself. http://cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm no refs is a prob > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > no refs is a prob Do you think I should add some? It seems Robert Lanza's bio-centric theory of the universe seems to fit into this new framework. I don't think any of the statements made in the paper are all that controversial. > > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Do you think I should add some? Why? You aren't doing anything that requires references. I'm yet to see you compute _anything_ a first year physics student can do as homework. > It seems Robert Lanza's bio-centric theory of the universe seems to > fit into this new framework. > > I don't think any of the statements made in the paper are all that > controversial. > > > > A New Way to Compute Space, Time, and Matter > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm yet to see you compute _anything_ a first year physics student can > do as homework. Do you think I could get into a college? I don't have much for money. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.