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 Good Questions Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on August 25, 2003 04:47:23 UTC

Good questions; if I may quote:

I want to know how "counting" happens in the laws of physics. I do not care how it is done in the supermarket.

Let's consider a single molecule traveling along in space. I would guess that according to your physics, it would have no option but to keep going in a straight line.

An object moving in a straight line; according to the physics model I found:

can be thought of as:

the mass of the object: uncertainty about its location

the distance travelled: uncertainty about its location

the "straight line" aspect:
gives "direction"

so the uncertainty of distance is locally certain
(reminds me of something called "amplification" where dropping succesively smaller superballs from a stack of positions the heaviest in the lowest spot then each lighter one higher; gives a rebound acceleration amplification (if pure elastic bounce, 15 balls dropped from 1 meter will send the smallest superball to the moon; neglecting friction etc. going by page 141 of "Mad About Physics" by C Jargodzki and F. Potter (c) 2001 John Wiley & Sons----a book of physics "brainteasers, paradoxes, and puzzles" I came across)

In my model of physics "direction" is like "time"; it requires 3 components; a self-referent aspect (like one swing of a pendulum) to establish a "line" in any direction with initial and final boundary; and a third to establish a reference point to compare the first two so as to get a relative direction (an OPTION of direction established).

An object travelling in a directed path:

a generalisation (or uncertainty) uncertain (travelling) relatively certain (in a direction).

But a generalisation generalised gives "specification" (example: gen. is "car", "gen. is "red"; spec. is "red car").

So a mass moving in a direction is:

"mass moving" as "localised specification" (or "relative specification") so local certainty

"mass moving in a direction"

is localised certainty in a localised certainty

(since "direction" gives also "localised certainty").

(This is effectively a "double slit experiment" twice; that is an EPR experiment: as three categories juggled passing through two close holes in one category models the double slit experiment. Split a photon (photon: 3 categories juggled) and see it again (see it split again, see new version of it's split state) gives "which way do you see it defined? spin-up/spin-down; spin-left;spin-right?)

"mass moving" is two categories (two generalisations). "Direction" is two categories (initial and final boundaries of space-line) juggled with a third (giving locally agreed direction) so "direction" is like "photon" that is : 3categories juggled.

"mass moving" is like "closely spaced two holes in a category called "mass moving" ? hopefully O.K. ("closely" in number-math minimalistic definition)(reality freer than math-view depicts it...).

So "mass moving in a direction" is translated as "3 categories pass through two closely spaced holes in another category":

so if you juggle them all together because you want to see "mass moving in a direction" AGAIN:
your "double slit experiment" became an "EPR experiment".

Two objects colliding is like two EPR experiments colliding and exchanging views and reaching agreement on what sort of universe they will be in?

"Therefore it would be a certain thing."

Only RELATIVELY certain: the object, the space, and the direction; all these "do a deal" to establish the "object travelling in a direction" it seems as the definition of each is dependent on each other.

"Options are created when another molecule comes along and knocks it in a different direction."

Options COULD be created: but the system is already full of "negotiation space". The new molecule "enters the negotiations" about "what will the universe look like"...it seems (in accordance with freedom in freedom creating free...)

"So the collision process creates uncertainty- gives it options."

The collision process is defined by the mutual definition agreements of the "parties" .......

"But how is this collision process related to counting?"

When one "counts"; one "sticks a label" to something. Example: "one" apple sticks a label "one" to "apple".

More basic counting: one doesn't say "one" but just meets an apple. One meeting; you and the apple were counted by mutual consciousness of each other.....................

Pre: the collision: each item is (in the model) defined by their consciousness of each other; by their mutual definition.

The "collision process" is in the model "a negotiation about how each item (including time) looks to each other in a mutually agreeable way...

This idea of "items mutually defining each other" seems to work in modelling physics laws. But leads to a more general idea that "God is Love" that interactions that "define" ones life are defined in pure freedom in pure consciousness in voluntary association.....

This apparent "sea of relativity" looks empty and scary mathematically perhaps; but beyond "number labels" seems to be a much deeper mystery of: existence.

"And to my original question now that I have illustrated what a process in nature is, what kind of a process makes uncertain things certain and how does that process relate to counting.'

By "process" you asume a certain "order" or linear sequence; my model puts all parties to the "sequence" in "negotiating space" so that "linearity" is created fresh at every interaction.

Instead of linear-universe in which things happen; I get "things happen": universe created new through voluntary agreement where old linearity is re-defined, re-born; always alive, eternally re-born, not static except as agreed...

"I can even give you an example of that kind of process. But this is your theory and you have to develop it. It's very annoying when someone else comes along and developes your theory, and then gets credit for it."

I have developed it very extensively but am way behind on typing it. I'm holding back stuff that could astonish you because I want to put a major part of it here at once....

"So I cannot do it for you. I can only ask the appropriate questions- you have to provide the answers."

Feel free to ask the questions!

Regards,

Alan