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.

## Advertising

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-StÃ¼ckelberg 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---