God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Hi Dr. Dick! Do You Follow This Argument? Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on July 23, 2003 08:46:27 UTC

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":

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