From a post to Mike Levine and to Mike Pearson:
If entropy is the amount of "bound energy" in a system:
I call it "bound alternatives"
which I call "specification"
but "time" involves specific generalisation?
So you get entropy in pasing time as:
specified specific generalisation:
or; generalised generalisation (as two specifications give generalisation):
so: given "generalisation generalised" now gives:
"specification":
final answer is: "specification".
And "specification" is "bound alternatives";
so entropy CAN increase as "time passes" BUT ONLY IF YOU COUNT!
Entropy is optional.
If you count: you get for example:
specification (or bound energy) goes to NEW SPECIFICATION (counted bound energy)
so an example here of how a physics law is OPTIONAL and is only "laid down" by COUNTING.
So a relationship between physics and math exposed here......
I can show this in stunning detail for numerous physics laws...
Physics laws are optional and can take any form; it's a question of how you count.
If you stick labels on things; you might get stuck...
But if you count God first; nothing shall be impossible to you......................
do you see how the act of counting generates the LAW in a physics law?
"As YOU judge; so you are judged" it is said...
By the way: the minimal definition of a "function" is that something is "constant" in a varying scenario; effectively: "1 = 1 = 2" with "2" as the "same background" the ones are viewed against.
You and Profesor Stephen Hawking have apparently un-realisingly re-discovered math INSIDE math; something described pre-mathematically by Chris Langan as "conspansive duality", I might suggest...
("pea instanton" may be a way of re-finding: "1 + 1 = 2".)
"Generalisation" becomes "2" or "group": "specification" becomes "1" or "partially differentiated".
Universal Dirac Delta function becomes "1 + 1 = 2".
"Fourth axis virtual partical exchange" as "quantum electro-dynamics" (from your comments long ago) becomes: "including other perspective on 1 + 1 = 2" that is when one meets one; each one has a view on the meeting.
Distributive law inside distributive law: QED...?
Regards,
Alan |