The closest thing that I can comprehend that might line up with your
ideas of a "abstract dimensionLESS computational space" is a Hilbert space.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> There is no "all of spacetime" nor "each point of spacetime" where the
> computations are occuring. Remember, that's an abstract dimensionLESS
> computational space prior to dimensional spacetime. It has no 'points'
> itself, it computes all points of dimensional space and clock time. They
> arise as dimensional relationships imposed by the particle property
> conservation laws and the laws that compute the binding forces of matter.
> But am pleased to hear you agree with the rest, the general concept...
> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:23:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> Dear Edgar,
>> I would agree with your idea here if you made one change: replace the
>> single abstract computing space for all of space-time and replace it with
>> an abstract computing space for each point of space-time. The *one*
>> computation becomes an *infinite number* of disjoint computations. There
>> are also an infinite number of different computations possible for each
>> point for space time! Consider programs that are written in disjoint
>> languages, i.e. that have no trivial translation between them or a common
>> compiler. How many different computations can generate a simulation of the
>> same physical system? More than one!
>> This can be proven, I think, by rewriting A.A. Markov's diffeomorphism
>> theorem into a weaker form. Something like: There does not exist a general
>> algorithm that can decide in finite time whether or not a smooth
>> diffeomorphism exists between any pair of 4-manifolds.
>> OTOH, there do exist finite approximations of computations of clocks
>> that can be defined in finite hypervolumes of space-time. This gives us the
>> illusion of a present moment that is percievable at each point of
>> space-time, but it is not one that can be arbitrarily extended to cover all
>> of the manifold. Computation thus cannot be extendible over the entire
>> manifold and thus there cannot be a global present moment that can be
>> The point is that GR requires an infinite number of infinitesimal
>> space-times that are "patched together" into a space-time manifold in order
>> to make its predictions (including the equivalence principle). Since a
>> physical clock cannot be defined *in* a infinitesimal space-time
>> hypervolume (specifically the local neighborhood or "ball" of every point
>> in the space-time manifold), there is no way of globally ordering the
>> "present moments" that would be said to exist at each point.
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>> Yes I do have an explanation for how GR effects are computed. Thanks for
>> asking. It's refreshing to just have someone ask a question about my
>> theories rather than jumping to attack them. Much appreciated...
>> The processor cycles for all computations are provided by P-time (clock
>> time doesn't exist yet as it is going to be computed along with all other
>> information states). Thus all computations occur simultaneously and
>> continually in a non-dimensional abstract computational space as p-time
>> The results of these computations is the information states of everything
>> in the universe including all relativistic effects. The way this works to
>> automatically get GR effects is simply to use the pure numeric information
>> of the mass-energy particle property as the relative SCALE of the
>> dimensionality of spacetime as it is computed. The effect of this is to
>> automatically dilate (curve) spacetime around mass-energy concentrations
>> and this produces the correct GR effects of curved spacetime.
>> Imagine the usual GR rubber sheet model where the curvature of the rubber
>> sheet is caused not by a weight sitting on it, but by a dilation of the
>> spacetime grids around a central grid full of mass-energy.
>> This mechanism automatically produces all the effects of GR from the
>> fundamental computations as spacetime is dimensionalized by those
>> computations. The slowing of time with acceleration comes by comparing the
>> length and duration of motion of an object along the slope of the dilation
>> to the number of orthogonal grids it crosses as it moves.
>> If this is not clear let me know.
>> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:52:39 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>> Do you have an explanation for why reality time computes fewer moments
>> for someone accelerating than someone at rest?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.