Looks fine;
you 'postulate' exactly what you need for your story and then apply them.
So your story comes 'true' - just like in conventional physical sciences.

a bit like the 'numbers-related image that moves (!) - it would need an
additional postulate to 'start the movement' (- by itself?). Is there?

SOMEBODY makes all these 'views' start moving. Even the universal
computer. (Is there a U-Dove-starter as well, to start the 'tailing'?)
Definitely  not the conventional 'God" - who/what is in the image of
man (that low??) - (or reciprocal?) and so also needs to get started.

John M



On 5/8/07, andy gh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "Every creation" hypotheses, instead of every computation
> or every mathematical structure.
> I favor a variant of the everything idea, which I would like
> to call the "every creation" approach. In some sense it
> creates every "computational moment". Computations are
> not required as fundamental entities. Almost all you need is
> a natural definition to make new creations from pairs of
> creations. This determines the evolution of an avalanche of
> creations. Creations inside the avalanche may be aware only
> of those creations to which they are in relative equilibrium.
> As with other approaches, a consequence seems to be the
> emergence of the laws of Physics.
>
> Let me start with the following 4 hypotheses:
>
> 1. There is an underlying time.
> 2. There are creations (creation objects).
> 3. There is a natural creation operation defined, which
> creates new creations from existing creations.
> 4. Every natural creation operation happens.
>
> Some more words on these hypotheses:
>
> (1) There is an underlying time, which is discrete. This
> makes it easy to talk about creation operations, as if they
> happened in our time. I will do this.
>
> (2a) New creations can be made (created).
> (2b) Creations do not get deleted.
> (2c) Creations can be made in multiple copies. Creations
> have multiplicities. Whether a creation can be made does
> not depend on (can not be prevented by) the preexistence
> of an identical creation.
>
> (3) For any two creations x and y, there is a natural
> creation operation [x,y] defined, which makes a creation z.
> Lets call x the operator, and y the operand. I do not specify
> the definition of the natural creation operation here. I have
> given one of my favorite definitions, using replacement
> operators, in a previous posting, where [(x1 x2),y] creates
> a copy of y and replaces every occurrence of x1 by x2.
>
> (4a) Every-creation hypotheses. The natural creation
> operation [x,y] is happening for every existing creation x
> and for every existing creation y.
>
> (4b) Every existing creation x has equal chance to become
> the operator in [x,y].
>
> (4c) Every existing creation y has equal chance to become
> the operand in [x,y].
>
> Let's also make the assumption that creations are (directly)
> responsible for our awareness and our perceptions of the
> world. What are the consequences of such a hypotheses?
>
> Creations may perceive other creations only indirectly and
> only if the later possibly play a role in the creations'
> histories. We may not perceive properties which depend
> on the underlying time Tau. But we may be able to perceive
> invariant properties, which do not change when the
> underlying time Tau is getting larger and larger. We can be
> indirectly aware of creations who's multiplicities are on
> average in relative equilibrium with the multiplicities of the
> creations which are directly responsible for our
> awareness.
>
> Thus the observable universe consists, possibly only, of
> creations who's multiplicities grow on average at the same
> rate.
>
> Multiplicity(creation,Tau) = phi(creation) * growth_factor(Tau)
> Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = phi(observer) * growth_factor(Tau)
>
> The relative multiplicity,
> Multiplicity (creation,Tau) /Multiplicity (observer,Tau) =
> = phi(creation) / phi(observer),
> is independent of Tau.
>
> For creations inside the avalanche, the importance of
> the initial conditions depends on the number of possible
> equilibrium states (or the number of certain equivalence
> classes of possible equilibrium states.) If there is only one
> possible equilibrium state, then the initial conditions are
> not relevant at all.
>
> Let's assume that Tau is large enough, so that the
> equilibrium is reached for the creations under
> consideration. The growth factor can be calculated when
> we make the simplifying approximation that every operation
> [x,y] just creates one new copy of y. In that case trivially all
> creations are in equilibrium, as required. If one of the
> operations [x,y] does not create a new copy of y, but
> instead another creation z, the equilibrium is broken. There
> is one creation y missing and one creation z too much. This
> is as if the creation y had been moved from y to z. The
> effective movement can be compensated by an effective
> movement back. There could be another operation [x2,z]
> which creates a creation y. Adding loops of effective
> movements does not change the equilibrium.
>
> May a set X of creations x_i form a pattern, and the
> operations among these creations may produce another
> pattern Y of creations y_i. Lets call this an effective particle
> P moving from X to Y. The broken equilibrium can be
> restored by an effective particle moving from Y to X. Let
> me call this the effective antiparticle P_bar moving into the
> opposite direction as particle P is moving.
>
> The choice of naming is intended to remind you of the
> Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of E<0Solutions of
> equations like Dirac or Klein-Gordon Equation:
> Negative-energy particle solutions going backward in time
> *describe*,
> positive-energy antiparticle solutions going forward in time.
>
> In short, this interpretation claims that
> P(-E) *describes* P_bar(E).
> But the equilibrium argument claims that
> the existence of P *requires the existence* of P_bar,
> P_bar also moving into the opposite direction.
>
> This suggest a new(?) interpretation of the equations
> where the two possible solutions are not only two ways of
> describing reality. They correspond to two parts of reality.
> They are based on two processes, which require each
> other in order to keep the equilibrium. For every particle
> with energy E there is an antiparticle with energy -E, and
> the total energy is E = 0.
>
> In a Feynman graph, there are lines that, according to
> Feynman, do correspond to a particle, *or* do correspond to
> an antiparticle moving into the opposite direction. However,
> according to the equilibrium argument, the line should be
> interpreted as a loop(s) composed of a particle, moving in
> one direction, *and* an antiparticle, moving backwards in
> time, back to the original space-time point.
>
> Feynman, with his lines, draws kind of one-dimensional
> projections of such loops. The additional dimension, which
> is not visible in his graphs, corresponds to transformations
> between spaces, which you may call "invention space" and
> "feedback space", or covariant and contravariant space.
> This additional degree of freedom may be what is needed
> to explain the additional imaginary component of quantum
> mechanical amplitudes -- to explain them from multiplicities,
> which are given as natural numbers.
>
> Covariant and Contravariant Spaces are not two
> descriptions of one reality which can be transformed into
> each other. They are rather two parts of reality which
> require each other in order to keep the equilibrium growth
> intact.
>
> Does the Hilbert space corresponds to that part of the
> creation space which is already in equilibrium?
>
> The following ideas may rely on the definition of the natural
> creation operation.
>
> Einstein's field equation might be understood as equations
> stating that effects of all loops going through one creation,
> such as all gravitation loops and all loops from energetic
> pattern movements, cancel each other and have no effect
> on that particular creation, except for its equilibrium growth.
>
> What is gravitation? Creations lead to new creations by
> the continuing inflation, plus continuing shrinking, plus
> rotations, and other transformations of space-time, at any
> space-time point in the remembered history of those
> creations. This gives a kind of diffusion effect, which could
> be responsible for gravitation. Do today's gravitation fields
> evolve according to the dynamics of "the past", in particular
> the dynamics of the Big Bang?
>
> By the way, at the moment I favor space-time generator
> "definitions" which result in non-projectable dimensions.
> (Projections can not be done easily with few operations.)
> The projections to the border which I have mentioned in a
> previous posting may correspond to other degrees of
> freedom though.
>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to