The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Could Spacetime Be Continuous--and Discrete. At the Same Time? Options
ebb101
Posted: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 4:14:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/5/2010
Posts: 80
Points: 255
I would love to get your interpretation on how this fits in with the Universe-Solved concept. It sounds very familiar.
Quote:

Here, aiming to resolve this dilemma, we present results that show that spacetime could be simultaneously continuous and discrete, in the same way that information can be. The transformation rules between continuous and discrete representations of information are described in Shannon's sampling theory, which is in ubiquitous use in all signal processing


Spacetime--Continuous and Discrete.
RedDog
Posted: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 4:14:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/1/2009
Posts: 52
Points: 156
Location: Washington
I do not know much about the Shannon Theory of communications for band signals, but the
idea that spacetime is both continious and discreate, makes sense from our perspective
but when reduced down to a discreate sample, which can then be repeated, sounds to
me a lot like digital photographs. Sure, they are great representations of the original
even after lossy compression routines, BUT are they really accurate? What is being left off?
jim
Posted: Friday, November 5, 2010 9:59:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
This is actually a really interesting article and idea. For a little clarity, Shannon's theorem has to do with the encoding of information in various ways. In information theory, signals in the time domain can be represented by data in the frequency domain and vice versa. They are just two different ways of encoding information. For example, let's take a pure sine wave of frequency 1000 Hz and amplitude 1. There are only two numbers needed in the frequency domain (1000 (frequency) and 1 (amplitude)) to completely encode that waveform in the time domain. That is, if I know those two numbers, I can say what the value of the sine wave is at time t=.124 seconds, for example. Also, at t=.125 seconds, and any value of t in between. Therefore, while that signal is continuous in the time domain, it is discrete in the frequency domain, since it only has to be described by two numbers. Interestingly, this works in reverse. A discrete function in the time domain corresponds to a continuous function in the frequency domain. To go from one domain to the other, one uses either a Fourier transform (time to frequency) or in Inverse Fourier Transform (frequency to time). [Note: this stuff brings back lots of memories, as it was my concentration for my Master's degree]

So what does this have to do with the nature of reality? According to Achim Kempf, who authored the referenced paper, one could consider the discrete nature of reality in the time and space domains to have a corresponding continuous nature of reality in a different domain, such as the frequency domain. Or, in simpler terms, our discrete world may be continuous in terms of vibrational levels. There are actually a lot of preceding ideas that are similar. For example, there is the idea of reality being a holographic projection on the surface of a black hole (see http://www.theuniversesolved.com/theuniversesolved/yetanotherforum/yaf_postst492_Worlds-Most-Precise-Clocks-Could-Reveal-Universe-Is-a-Hologram.aspx). Also, in Michael Talbot's "Holographic Universe", the idea of reality being described in the frequency domain is discussed.

My take is this:

We live in the time and space domain. Time and space are either continuous or they are not. If they are, depending on the nature of the "reality signal", it may be described, or encoded in a discrete manner. Specifically this would work, if the reality signal repeats. Max Tegmark calculates how often our reality might repeat in the multiverse, so theoretically, this could be the case. If so, programmed reality still has a possible place in terms of encoding space and time. However, if time and space are continuous and do not repeat over arbitrarily large distances, then there can not even be a discrete representation of reality in any domain, and we would have to concede that programmed reality would be false. On the other hand, if space and time are discrete, as they appear to be, programmed reality continues to be the only logical explanation.
RedDog
Posted: Monday, November 8, 2010 2:19:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/1/2009
Posts: 52
Points: 156
Location: Washington
That is not easy to follow. Seems like semantics to me, but I'm no expert here on such theorem's.
One thing that sticks in my head though is the concept of encoding information signals. Encoding
and Recording are similar concecpts as is displaying this discrete program in realtime. What interests
me is what is the medium by which the signal manifests as reality for us?
A computer and TV have hardware display devices.
What do we have? Consciousness? If so, where is the encoding playing out?

I'm also interested in your perspective on what ,if any the corollary is between discrete/continious
encoding and the particle/wave duality?
If you are describing the Universe as programmed, and that to be such, it must contain discrete
encoding? Then is this the same as saying the wave funtion collaspes to create a fixed particle
version of reality?
My point has to do with the duality nature of both forms of expression.
Tracy
Posted: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:00:58 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
I'm ignorant about all of this.
I was watching a youtube vid on fractals, Arthur C. Clarke described fractals as, "infinitely complex."
Sounds continuous to me.
Quantized or fractal?
Discrete or continuous?
Both seem rather 'holographic' to me.
Other threads around here discussing experiments aimed at determining if reality is quantized, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these experiments conclude that reality is "continuously quantized." Shhh

RedDog:
Quote:
My point has to do with the duality nature of both forms of expression.

That damned duality complicates everything. Anxious
RedDog
Posted: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:08:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/1/2009
Posts: 52
Points: 156
Location: Washington
The fact we can discuss the idea that our reality may be programmed is amazing in itself, since we are "self aware".
Creations that are self aware is some spectacular programming on a most galactic scale. Our awareness here
inside Time and Space has pointed to an aspect of this lesser reality that has at its core, the duality issue of waves
and particles.
I'm not sure if this is logical to argue that if the duality of waves and particles exists here, then one can posit that
the singularity of both or none exists outside the program.

Follow me for a moment. If outside this reality there is no Time frequency, no Space frequency, no Gravity frequency
or any typical energy frequency we find here as a medium of transfer of energy/information/encoding, then how is
the transfer taking place between here and there?
What does our realm look like when stripped of Time/Space/Mass/Light from that perspective?
What the heck is our own consciousness when stripped of the Body/Mass/Time?
jdlaw
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2010 9:01:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Are you really as "self-aware" as you think?

Time-space is a funny thing. If you speak, it takes a time (a small amount of time) for the words to travel to the ear of the receiver. If you shine a laser light at the moon, it takes a couple of seconds for it to reach the moon and bounce back to you. If you had a friend who traveled in space to a distant planet in a distant galaxy and as you looked at him into your futuristic and powerful light telescope (and you could see that far) at the same “time” he looked into his futuristic and powerful light telescope (and he could see that far) you would be seeing his planet thousands of years ago and he would be seeing your planet earth, thousands of years ago. Yet, in a fully “real” and spiritual sense, you would be looking at each other at the same “time.” And if “real” is only the physical that we touch, see, or hear; then, what is “real?”

When you experience something, you really cannot ever exactly be experiencing anything in the time-space sense since there is no real "now" -- and only a then. But is any "then" really real at all.

There is always a small delay (even if minuscule) in every sensation that you believe is real. We believe that entropy increases toward the future and decreases toward the past. In the quantum world, frequency and amplitude of an "analog" sine wave can not be measured to any precision beyond any system of the natural units of the Planck Planck length of 10^−35 m or beyond the Planck time of 5.39124(27) x 10^-44 seconds. This is assuming that the speed of light is not infinite, therefor once we attempt to measure something beyond the limit for its carrier (light) to transmit it, is too fast or too short for it to exist in our reality.

This idea is similar to the concept of "light cones" in the macro world.

So, when you say that time-space is both continuous and discrete -- well maybe it is continuous, but as for any reality we can experience (or measure) it is discrete.

Our perceivable world is granular (i.e. discrete). The entire possibility of existence is continuous, but only if you "believe" it to be so.

I call this "cognitive causality" and if you happen to google search that term, my blog has been the number 1 hit for over 3 years.

(Of course when you "invent' your own terms, there is not likely to be any other weblogs using it. Thus, proving my point about cognitive causality.)
Tracy
Posted: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:00:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
jdlaw:
It seems you haven't posted here much lately, until recently that is.
I was starting to miss your posts, way beyond my understanding and generally requiring me to "think on it" for days, or even weeks, or longer.
Yer crazy. Applause
ebb101
Posted: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:55:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/5/2010
Posts: 80
Points: 255
Heck, I can't even figure out the user id, password combination.
jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:40:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Tracy wrote:
jdlaw:
It seems you haven't posted here much lately, until recently that is.
I was starting to miss your posts, way beyond my understanding and generally requiring me to "think on it" for days, or even weeks, or longer.
Yer crazy. Applause


Hi Tracy,

That is the funny thing, you know, about quantum physics, non-local reality, or even programmed reality; it all sounds so crazy. And you would think from the posts, here, that I (we all) must be crazy.

Me personally, I am an attorney/engineer/business man ("JD/MBA BSME" in my professional title) with a pretty good career. I'm sure that if you asked anyone who knows me professionally, but does not know me here (or my lifelong hobbies of studying physics, metaphysics, and artificial intelligence) would pretty much say that I am as sane as the next guy.

But, let's face it -- this hope, longing, studying -- about the nature of the reality around us ... is well, just as crazy as ... something like religion.

So, I will repost some youtube videos here that I find very relevant on the "universe solved" issue. And whether or not Jim Elvidge has really solved it.

e.g. Bill Maher Religulous

Yet, I believe he has.

e.g. What the the bleep

Tracy
Posted: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:12:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
The newsreel bit in that last vid, great stuff!
jdlaw
Posted: Sunday, November 21, 2010 6:51:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Quote:
The newsreel bit in that last vid, great stuff!


IMHO. If you find any of the the things discussed in this forum the least bit interesting -- and have not yet read Elvidge's book ... or watched the movie "What the Bleep ... Down the Rabbit Hole" in there entirety -- then you should do both. The "Matrix" movies (and other Hollywood "nature of reality" plots) aren't bad ether, but they are of course just dramatizations of the point.

If you followed the "What the bleep" link in the post above to Youtube for part 1, you should also be able to find the links to part 2, 3, 4 etc. in the right column on the youtube page.

May I suggest watching it all? It was made in 2004 and the stuff it talks about has developed even further in recent years.

You can also buy the DVD here http://www.amazon.com/What-Bleep-Do-We-Know/dp/B0006UEVQ8 and other places.
Tracy
Posted: Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:50:45 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
jdlaw:
Quote:
IMHO. If you find any of the the things discussed in this forum the least bit interesting -- and have not yet read Elvidge's book ... or watched the movie "What the Bleep ... Down the Rabbit Hole" in there entirety -- then you should do both.

I used to be interested in this sort of thing as a child, less so as I grew older. Until I heard an interview with Jim on C2C, and then read his book. Liked the book so much I had to get a copy for a friend. Since reading The Universe Solved, the subject has become a bit of an obsession with me, I think this stuff all the time.
The vid, I've seen parts of it before. And youtube vids with some of the people in it. Like what's his name, Jon Hague? The one who talks about the Unified Field Of Consciousness? Other parts of that video I haven't seen before, so I've been watching, over and over again.
That whole part about how the brain processes 400 billion bits of information, and we're only aware of something on the order of 2,000 bits, crazy. I think about that bit about the Shaman and how he couldn't see the ships at first, and how we're like that.
Another poster here, Neo, has posted about the next industrial revolution. I think this may happen over the next few years, by 2010.
When it happens it will be driven by a shift in consciousness.
jdlaw
Posted: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:17:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
ebb101 wrote:
Heck, I can't even figure out the user id, password combination.


If you are referring to the "cognitive causality" weblog, I have always worried that if there is some kid out there on the brink (like Columbine, Colorado, where two senior students embarked on a massacre, killing 12 students and one teacher) that if we suddenly prove to him that his entire existence is nothing but a virtual reality, that it will likely put him over the edge. So, I password protect parts of the website.

Hint: (give away actually) The user name, depending on which section you enter, will either be "pick" or "leave." The password for pick is a single numerical digit whole number. The password for "leave" is also a numerical digit which is Euler's number rounded to the 5th decimal place. Either (username password) combination solves the riddle.
ebb101
Posted: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 4:59:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/5/2010
Posts: 80
Points: 255
Got it. Thank you.
Fascinating stuff.
jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:47:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Sorry, I am not a very good writer. My writing of course makes perfect sense to me, but if I were to really publish anything outside from behind the portal website, I would first need to hire an editor who could spend the tedious hours needed to put this into plain English.

Here are some more of my favorites:

We start with a point Pseudo-scientist Rob Bryanton (very thought provoking)

Fabric of the Cosmos Brian Greene is another often accused of pseudo-science. I love to read and agree and disagree with Greene. Sorry I do not have a link to the actual book.

Urantia This is a pop cult that has grown out of a book (6000 pages)written by beings of other worlds and "channeled" by mediums. Yes, this is too weird, but I love the chapters on Jesus' childhood life. If you actually try to read any of this, I suggest start with those chapters. If you start at the beginning, you will be lost.
jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:25:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Sorry I got the wrong link connected to Fabric of the Cosmos.

I meant it to go to a wiki link about the book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v4.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.