Richard Feynman, Carver Mead & Edward Fredkin__Pals...

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/msr_er/archive/2011/02/04/celebrating-richard-feynman-at-tedxcaltech.aspx

(Also check my post out here:) http://theawakeningoftheamericamind.blogspot.com/2011/08/complex-epistemology-of-logic-simple.html

Hi Tim, and yes I think we should pursue this line of opposing dialectics, as imo, the only way forward is even deeper stimulation, at these levels__I agree. Here's a link to a relationship between Feynman's ideas about quantum computing, which the leader of Digital Philosophy, a personal friend of Feynman's, Edward Fredkin, who is the leading voice for Digital Mechanics, and quantum computing, plus its logic gates, he's already invented. Carver Mead is also the tech guru for Intel, and also was a personal friend of Feynman. I'm just shooting you some research I've recently uncovered, to further the theorizing.

Here's also a few links to Fredkin's work:

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/Home/Papers/tabid/61/Default.aspx

Here's just a few paras of the above:

CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS...
For an embarrassing collection of questions ordinary physics has not yet produced
fundamental explanations; what we have are mathematical relationships and
consequent tautologies.We fit together more and more subparts of a jigsaw puzzle
called physics, butwe have no idea of the big picture!Awonderful example of such
progress is the Standard Model. This was a fantastic accomplishment and it put
into one coherent theory a great many disparate observations. But it isn’t the final
answer; it is just one more piece of the puzzle, as were quantum electrodynamics,
QM, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Maxwell’s equations, thermodynamics,
Newton’s laws, etc. We would like to believe that at some point physics should
get simpler, but we aren’t there yet. The important thing that DP shows us is the
possibility of a different kind of theory that might tell us exactly what things are
and exactly how they work. DP could be consistent with common sense and, most
important, it might not leave any unanswered questions at the most microscopic
level. If DM is ever a good model of physics, we can expect to eventually know
and understand the most fundamental processes of physics exactly. But there will
still be plenty of mysteries. Most important, DP teaches us that it may be possible
for us to gain a new level of understanding as to how things work.

When Newton came up with the calculus, mechanics, and a theory of gravity,
various critics raised some interesting objections. It seemed contrary to common
sense that a force called gravity could act by unknown mechanisms through vast
regions of empty space to keep the Planets confined to their orbits around the sun.
Newton’s response to his critics was, “I make no hypotheses.” This was tongue
in cheek, as Newton had by then already devoted considerable efforts to trying to
find a mechanism that explained gravity; he and everyone ever since have come
up emptyhanded. Newton had developed a set of laws that were descriptive and
predictive. This was a good thing, much better than the pre-Newtonian state of
affairs. Nevertheless, if one can now throw off the shackles of a lifelong indoctrination as to what we shouldn’t question in physics, we observe that universally accepted models of most physical processes contain aspects contrary to common sense. Remarkably, by allowing us to develop one ad hoc, incorrect partial model of physics DP reveals to us that modern science, physics, and mathematics have so far offered no complete, logical, microscopic process-models for relativity, QM,
or even Newtonian mechanics. The truth of this revelation does not depend on
whether or not DM can actually model physical reality.

The greatest flaw of conventional physics is the acceptance of magic that
has been forced upon all of us by our ignorance of the science of informational
processes. This is particularly true with respect to Newtonian motion. We have
no right to complain about the fact that nowhere in all of contemporary physics
is there a commonsense model of motion. We haven’t had a way to know better.
Newton swept this matter under the rug and Poincar´e and Einstein convinced us
that we must believe that there is nothing under the rug. Intoxicated by all our
fantastic accomplishments since Newton, it is human nature to avoid dwelling on
dead-end issues. So, as smart as we all are, concepts of motion have remained in
a state similar to the vitalistic theories of life that flourished in the past. “Things move.” “Mass has inertia.” “Like begets like.” The idea that physics can get along without a fixed reference frame is utter nonsense from an informational viewpoint. It does not matter how brilliant and convenient the theory of relativity is or how many experiments validate its formulas. It is our collective misfortune that, until recently, no one has ever had any competent idea of what an informational point of view is.

If nothing else, DP(Digital Philosophy) shows us that there are new ways to think about such
things.

And here's a very interesting criticism of science and academics, I came across the other day, by a major bio-physicist:

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/science64_strong_inference.pdf

This 'Strong Inference' article is the best I've ever read, as to the present problems in science and academics, Tim...

Also, yesterday I picked up two new physicists books, Penrose's new book and an unknown from England on 'The House of Wisdom' in the Muslim Empire, a history of its science and math. At the same time I just found another major logician and mathematician I didn't even know existed from Germany, 1898__Outlines of Logic and Metaphysics, Johann Erdmann, when the battle was raging between logic, psychology and quantum mechanics foundations, long before it actually developed...

So, I'm still at finding those elusive pieces of information. I long ago learned the mind is triggered by many different pieces of information, and often from even unrelated sources__but these are truly related sources, especially as to the very foundation of QM thinkings...

I'll let ya know if I find anything, super-interesting, as this guy's directly speaking about the core of mental processing... Here's just a few paras:

® Identity is inseparable combination, not sameness.
(2) The element of the understanding is an
essential one in philosophical contemplation. Where
it is wanting everything floats in nebulous indefiniteness.
This is by those forgotten who try to make the
understanding out to be something bad. <3) Correctly is it given as the character of dogmatism that, in the interest of definiteness it holds fast to aut aut. [See Hegel's " Encyklopadie," § 119.] Since it resolves everything into its fixed, simple determinations, dogmatism has an abstract character. In the so-called metaphysics of the understanding of the Wolfian school, this moment stands out in its extreme onesidedness. § 13. But, likewise, the necessary contains in itself, secondly, distinct determinations (that duality, § 12), since only thereby does it contain the motion which belongs to necessity. The contemplation of the understanding, therefore, does not suffice; for regard must be had to contradiction in the object as well as to its resting determinateness. To do this is the problem of reflection^ which, carried out one-sidedly, gives the diametrical opposite of dogmatism, scepticism!® The moment, which reflection emphasises, is by Hegel [" Encyklopadie," § § 79, 81] designated as the dialectical or negatively rational. (2>As dogmatism
holds fast to the fact that the object is and therefore
does not contradict itself, so scepticism maintains
that the object contradicts itself, and therefore cannot
be.

14. But, thirdly, the necessary is both at once :
it is, and contains in itself contradiction. Therein is
it something concreted The combining moment is,
therefore, precisely as essential in the account as are
the two others. But even this, which in practical
matters gives to the healthy human understanding
such superiority to all abstractions (i.e., one-sidedness),
may in science be one-sidedly emphasised at the expense
of the others ; and this happens not merely
upon the standpoint of so-called common sense, but
also upon that of intellectual intuition, and, finally,
even in Jacobi's immediate knowledge, both of which
last oppose themselves to the thought of the understanding
as well as to reflection/2)
W The abstract is that which contains in itself
only one determination ; the concrete that which contains
several. <2> The age has scarcely passed in
which the philosophy of reflection was the most
common term of reproach.
§ 15. Fully conceived, the necessary is found only
where all these moments receive their rights, i.e., in
speculative thought (cf. my "Outlines of Psychology," §
122) or where there is comprehension. This occurs
when the object is taken first as it is, then as it contradicts
itself, finally as it is the concrete identity of
opposites.

But, as per above, comprehension is the objective logic of perception, and not mere psychology…

Comprehension Is Objective Logical Perception__Direct Seeing…

The Fasle Interpretations of Psychology, Which Actually Is Logic…

§ 18. The property of an object to enter into such
eternal motion conditioned upon inner contradiction
is its dialectical nature, and this eternal motion,
itself, demanded by its essence, is its dialectic. This
the dialectic art

The Absolute Hypothesis of Logic…

Only Science Proves The Necessity Hypothesis of Itself…

The Necessity Hypothesis of Thought & Logic__Reflection and Self-Reflection Produce The Truth of Itself & The Universe of Thoughts & Objects, Through Normative & Reflective Comprehension/Seeing…

23. The assertion that philosophy must make no
presupposition, can not have the meaning that for
it nothing is presupposed, but only that by it nothing
is presupposed/1
) But in fact, if it supposes, i.e.,
asserts® nothing, it also /^supposes nothing. It
will therefore avoid that difficulty (§ 22) by beginning
not with an assertion, which of course would be
or would rest upon a mere assumption, but with a
demand or a postulate®) as regards which the question
of proof would be an absurdity/4) What it
necessarily has it does not derive elsewhere, but puts
forth.¬¬__False…!!!

§ 24 What logic will demand or wherein that
postulate will consist, is determined by its entire problem.
If, that is to say, it is the science of thought
(§6, obs. 2), it requires no other matter than merely
this; it will, therefore, naturally be compelled to
begin with the proposal to produce only this matter.
This means that it proposes that there be merely
thought, and begins with the postulate, Think! There
is, therefore, " at first present, merely the resolve to
engage in the activity of thinking." This resolve is
presupposed for logic without its having begun with
the definition of thought as its first deo-is.__No Problem Exists…!!!

Johann Erdmann’s 27 Paragraph Introduction to, ‘Outlines of Logic & Metaphysics…’(extremely informative…)

The Universe__Itself__Is The Absolute Logical Fundamental__Existence…

Existence__Itself__Is Primarily, Logical & Scientific…

The Universe Is Necessarily__Logical & Scientific…

When Heraclitus, in opposition to Xenophanes,
made becoming the predicate of everything, he was
right. Heraclitus is in his speculative depth equally
far removed from dogmatism and scepticism. His principle
of absolute flux is concrete. (See § 14.) W This
untruth of being is the reason why thought cannot
abide by that but must go further ; the untruth of
being therein corrects itself.

§ 33. Becoming, as the concrete unity of being and
not being, contains both in itself. But, of course, no
longer as they were before their union, but as degraded
to mere moments, i.e., as sublatedP^ Hence
in it being is contained as passing into nothing, i.e.,
as ceasing, and likewise nothing as passing into
being, as originating.^ The two as constituting
a becoming are inseparably joined.®
Sublate taken in the threefold sense of tollere,
conservare, elevare: hence sublate and degrade at
one and the same time. ® Similarly, in combinations
of oxygen radical and acid principles as such
no longer exist, because we have to do with something
other than a mixture. <3> That what originates
also ceases to be, or that what has a beginning also
comes to an end, is no merely empirical observation,
but origination and cessation are one {one becoming),
and every origination is in itself a cessation. Significance
of o-Te/Mjo-is for all origination, with Aristotle.__Early Supervenience Problem…

W Something is determined (coactum, determination)
when it receives its determinateness (to be
distinguished from determination) from other. The
same distinction underlies that between shall and
must. (9 All compulsion, as law, duty, etc., presupposes
an opposing tendency, since that which compels
is as such a foreign power, i.e., another (not one's own)
will. (3> Limit, barrier, termination are here em
ployed as synonyms, and in their use all spatial
meaning is abstracted from. Something is finite in
that it is limited by another. Since here the other
which appears to present itself beside something
( 38), and is so posited in something itself that this
owes its being to that, we have in the concept of finitude
the most important concept in this group ; and
hence it was employed as superscription. (See p. 33.)
W Hence the expression for one who has definite
duties of calling, that he (only then) is something.
The moment of iinitude {jvkpa.% was by Pythagoras and
Plato rightly emphasised as the higher compared with
mere indeterminateness {airupov). Limit is that
whereby something is this determinate thing (roSe n,
according to Aristotle) the haecceitas of Duns Scotus.
® This was above given as concept of determined
being. (§ 42.)__i.e., Logic Itself, Forms Mathematics, Through Necessary Finite Limits…

Haecceitas = Supervenience = One/Many Mechanics…

Spatial and Temporal Spectrum

Morning Lloyd,

As much as we have in common, our scientific interpretations often finds us at opposite ends of those few key concepts which have the ability to penetrate all the way to the absolute philosophy of science. In all of the concepts in existence, only a few find themselves able to reach to the absolute extremes of existence itself setting such theoretical models founded upon such against themselves in terms of function and mere being. These very concepts should have a classification of their own if they don’t already. A few examples of such are: discrete vs. continuous, deterministic vs. random, eternal vs. temporary, infinite vs. finite, etc. If anything ever comes out of our discussions it will probably be due to our individual approaches having to work themselves out. As we know, I am much more prone to theoretical interpretation while you attempt to stay much more grounded in established logic and knowledge systems along with your tireless efforts of studying all available material, while I prefer to take in only certain amounts while leaving enough mental processing power to sort through what I can and explore within my own scientific and logic processes, searching for verification through later studies. So, you keep us grounded and I’ll keep us pushing through the ungrounded possibilities. Most of what I suggest is highly theoretical as you know, especially considering the level at which we are discussing at. In the end, its probably the best set up for exploration we could have as seen in natures very design of the brain with each of us representing competing regions whereby truth is sorted rather than both of us being aligned to the point that we lead ourselves astray. I see a need for both personalities at this level, so I respect your position on such matters. On a side note, I was born left handed BTW, but mostly developed into being ambidextrous with only slight left handed dominance. I had natural tendencies towards being an artist, musician, inventor, creative thinker, etc.

Here’s a link to a distance scale I found on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28length%29

There’s a pretty good extended list there going into the many resolutions of structure, but here’s a shortened version.



Now if we take the absolute observer position and place the universal marble under the hypothetical microscope, then no matter how much we zoom in, we find many recursive aspects of structures acting together within unstructured mediums of various dynamics and densities all the way to the subatomic where things get a little blurry to say the least as we near the quantum realm. Though the closest we may have come to physically representing what is going on at such levels is perhaps Bose Einstein Condensates and such, we have otherwise come up with no means to interact at such resolutions below those allowed by QM, which would give us an idea of what to expect at the most absolute scales in terms of continuous vs. discrete, deterministic vs. random, etc. Continuous background independent models would suggest a fundamental substance making up the very fabric of space and matter with density variations allowing for the visual representations of structured vs. unstructured as we zoom back out to the macro realms. Certain discrete background dependent representations might paint a different picture though whereby substituting variances in volume for those of a value system which determined what passed through and within what. Either way, both would suggest some form of mere information processing at such resolutions, whether in terms of volume or value, whereby even if we developed methods to slow the fastest interaction in nature and modulate them from the shortest of distances to distance and time scales that would allow our direct observation and perhaps manipulation, I believe we would still have to change our entire understanding of such interactions which we had otherwise been taught throughout the various other recursive resolutions of structures interacting with structures by way of the field states of unstructured regions as established by the wiki diagrams. Whether discrete or continuous, values or volumes, the very scales and timeframes at which we would be dealing with is in essence a natural information system operating within some set of parameters, IMHO.

We find ourselves at the middle of many natural spectrums as with our greater familiarity with the more centralized visible frequencies (light) of the electromagnetic spectrum along with our greater familiarity of the distance scales represented by the centralized “human scale” of the lists I’ve provided. Due to such, we must develop methods to probe in both directions by making use of both extremes of the various spectrums we are otherwise more centrally positioned within. Thus, the very exposure time of the various distance scales determines how we interpret such interactions taking place there. Many things might move seemingly slow almost frozen in time at the larger astronomical scales, while the other end of the distance spectrum represents interactions which could barely be determined of having taken place at all even if directly viewed. Structured systems are solid to us due to our slower position in the velocity spectrum, yet to a neutrino or high energy photon propagating at or near c, which might pass through many structured systems being only exposed to them for a miniscule amount of time, the very unstructured, much more vast regions of unstructured ’space’ with its fabric of short range non maintained, short duration interactions, might become the extended more solidified densely structured field relative to such motions and the trajectory throughout, due to the very duration of exposure with such a medium and its interactions. We know much more about a rock than we do a photon, simply because our trajectory and velocity allows us to propagate parallel to it long enough to examine it thoroughly. Our exposure to a photon is so short lived that it is still unresolved whether it is a particle or wave.

Perhaps the very interactions that make no sense to us due to the time and distance scales involved at the micro resolutions might actually have some definable or differentiable pattern if we were able to increase our exposure times to such interactions by a hypothetical acceleration through unstructured space, or a modulated and temporally extended structured interaction. The very energy requirements of doing either seems to establish an event horizon at both ends of such an interaction spectrum which we may never overcome. I’m of the opinion that being as we are dealing with an information type system, our best bet might be that rather than modulating such aspects outward to resolutions which allow for interpretation as with particle accelerators and such, we may perhaps learn to further inwardly modulate interactions more familiar with our central position within the various spectrums far past the transmitted signals we now accomplish by way of radio waves and such to the point to somehow interfere with the very information structure which lies within and throughout nature to the point of directly manipulating some aspect of nature in a determinable manner rather than smashing things together to see what they're made of, to allow for a further extension of our scientific knowledge which may otherwise be impossible. The proposed Higgs field which accounts for mass in particle physics might be one of information rather than a mere particle field whereby we might have to retool our thought structuring to further our knowledge of such in terms of evolving from the recursive lessons we’ve been taught at the many scales and resolutions which move much too slowly to determine their true parameters of interaction in any other manner than mere interpretations of forces, to the point that we develop methods to interact thus decode those scales and resolutions at which interactions are so short ranged, short lived and immensely frequent that the very language in which they are written can be translated to the point of our modulated input establishing scientific truth as we learn to manipulate nature itself at the most micro scales rather than merely witnessing it by way of those maintained interactions which establish ever more macro structured systems whose very composite motions are increasingly out of phase with its internal micro constituent interactions to the point that we have declared a knowledge of such events in terms of forces and energy even with our centralized aspect of the rate at which we perceive nature, which is ultimately a mechanical process itself due to our very structural position within the universal marble.

Later,

P.S. If we ever discovered a way to interact at the most fundamental resolution, though we may not view it directly, we may be able to interpret whether such is continuous or discrete depending upon the methods employed to do so.

The Background, of Absolute Background Problem...

"Singularities are bound to exhibit paradoxes." Poincare'

Hi Tim, having fun yet...? The 'background problem', or 'landscape problem' is the most difficult to theorize about, to the point of fully understanding this concept's necessary mechanics. Instead of me going through my entire system, let me attempt a straight symbolic logic explication of the 'background problem'__if possible__as I see all arguments are going to come back to this most fundamental of problems...

First, here's a few of your quotes, related to the problem, and my comments:

Btw, I’m not sure that I was using math to refute math in that quote you were debating. I was simply suggesting that macro systems are functioning as a product of micro interactions as described earlier. Thus, any macro math is a product or extension of the math which represents what is going on at the micro scales. Without the micro interactions we wouldn’t have the macro outcomes we witness.

Tim, the problem here is one of foundations of math and logic. There's two major math foundations; 1. Build up of numbers from the smallest to the largest. 2. Build down from the largest to the smallest. Both math foundations are correct uses, but if you'll more thoroughly notice, the most infinitesimal maths are actually build downs from some higher product, even if only the products between 0 and 1. The build downs at the larger end of the scale are actually foundations from rational infinities, or actual infinities represented by equilibriums and identities at massive scales, such as 10^900 = 10^900 representing the massive identities and equalities of two distinct sides, or just a random number chosen to found such formal math systems from/on. Of course the same can be done from the smallest up, also, as per 10^-900 and add or multiply and such__but how would we know of such math, unless we'd first discovered the large numbers to divide to such infinitesimal entities__as the large is what we as humans actually saw first(just a fact of Nature's evolution). The point is, the foundations just happened to have been discovered, top-down, or large to the smallest... Tim imo, any comparison of ideas is really a mathematical comparison, of some sort__No...?(as to the point of math unknowingly being represented in your ideas, as mentioned above.)

Though I may stand at risk of taking your statement slightly out of context, isn’t such a relational background independent model subject to having to internally prove all of its validity by such means as using the aspects it establishes such as math, science, logic, etc, within itself to establish its own validity?

Tim, many systems' uses is not one system, within itself… You can not deduct, deduction from deduction, to achieve the background of the ‘deducted from’__It’s still the original ‘deducted from’__Circular logics are not allowed. A –B, when B is A, is still A…(I'll explain below, if possible, since it's extremely complex to explain, understanding-wise, a singularity of logic, about itself.)

Tim, my statement was the singular subject of 'math' could not be used to prove the validity of the singular subject of such 'math', in and of itself. Logic, philosophy and semantics are additional singular subjects__which when combined with math, science and experimental evidence__can prove math, but outside of the subject of math__with extra-relational ideas and logics, etc. Imo, it always takes extra entity subjects to prove any statements or maths, such as experiments, etc. The singularities are not all, yet the problem is, one of em is all__The Universe... Now, as to more easily see the Universe's 'background problem', take the simple symbolic logic stated above; A -B, when B is A, is still A... What this means is that when we deduce the Universe's entire particle field, down to its absolute fundamental field or FS__We have A, and in order to stipulate what is to be distinguished from this most fundamental A(FS), we must name another A, a B, as it's actually the same exact field FS, therefore A becomes B, for clarity's sake, yet is still understood as the fundamental substance A, i.e., still the FS Field__as we have no other language when dealing with an absolute singularity__until volumes, frequencies, velocities, etc., are added. Yes we can write it A -A' = A'' = part of A, with a different volume as per Av, but the first Av must be specified, and it's a true and possible variable unknown__so, do you see what I'm getting at here, Tim?__Logic itself has a major problem of self-distinguishment/ability, at its most fundamental level__the logic singularity. Yes, we can say A and A + PSF, but what would we use to distinguish the naked A FS-substance as__where even the naked A must be A + PSF, at all times, so it's all a matter of wording and understanding of supervenience, or how A(the fundamental FS) itself, depends on the PSF for definition, and the PSF(A +PSF) depends on A to be itself. Tim, it's simply an abstraction to separate A and PSF to discuss what is actually A__so A -A, being a reduction of part of A' from A is a reduction of part-self from self__yet having no true definition of difference possible, as we have no definition of the initial Universal volume__unless we abstractly set it at some tremendously high value such as 10^80 solar masses, or some other arbitrary number like 10^900kg, etc__as there are no known factuals of A(thus the independence of true background), at either end of the measurement spectrum(there's also no knowledge of how small the PSF actually goes). All measurement is a created system, at limits, and the higher we set these limits__or the lower in the case of infinitesimals__the more accurate we can make our math and measurement systems__This is why its oh so important to fully understand limits, as there's also the great problem of the limits to our logic and understandings if not fully interpreted. Reduction from the self-same singularity of Universe A, to a part of Universe A, when A is only a blind black-box unknown, is a bit confusing, unless one uses symbolic logic to distinguish what one is actually relating to. Therefore, generally stated; A -A' = A'' or A -B = C, as the same__since the FS mechanics is always FS -FS represented by different volumes, times, distances, temps, velocities, frequencies and such or whatever... Tim, it's just if you don't use symbol logic or semiotics(sign systems) to talk about such singularities, ones terms and meanings become far too confusing and conflating to interpret between different interpreters__and this is why symbolic logic and semiotics were created, in the first place__to make explanation even possible, at the singularity's 'background independence' level...

One volume of FS is or can be totally different(unstructured vs. structured) as you already know, but we must stipulate these exact differences when speaking of all the physical state differences, so's understanding between different parties is possible__it's that simple, Tim__Accurate language, maths and logics are always required. Now, as to discreteness and deterministic states__How would such states be proved, when we are only viewing the entire Universe, which is really a singular continuum, as per information flows, of superfluid states__anyway?__The state of A, when we don't actually know much about the state of A, except that A Exists__The Universe...? If you state that PSF applies to the entire states of the Universe, you have no possible method to prove this, even though it may be the state we find QM in, by way of present scientific measurement(except for superfluids), but there's nothing to prove the FS Universe doesn't exist in fluidic states far exceeding the minimals of the stated PSF's, as per Planck's present scales, and there's actually no absolute evidence as to the state of our Universe being finite, infinite, expanding forever, or possibly contracting at some date in the future. There's a lotta' guesswork in physics__but when one thoroughly investigates the whole of it, there's a lotta' false guesswork__and it's our job to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is why we always must state whether we are stating and using abstract ideas and theories, or they have been scientifically experimentally proven.

Yes, c seems to force the quantum world to have some relationship to a PSF grid of interpretation of volumes, masses and such__but I can't find the math necessary to match it up__yet__since it needs to cross the 'math gaps'. And, I full well realize there are many 'gaps' in our logic and knowledge systems, also__that create the present states of incompletenesses. I'm just simply trying to show you, we can't know as much as you are quite often stating about the absolute FS mechanics, determinism and discreteness__especially since A is always necessitated to be a property of A, which just as easily interprets to a fluidic FS-Substance Field, and more-so, than any discrete substance field(As such would seem to destroy the very meaning of the em-field.), since all He4 is known to be superfluidic, with no discreteness known to exist in its most fundamental states. The individual fermion and boson states seem to blend into a super-flowing single state__indistinguishable to present science, at the best resolutions of QM__so far... The question then becomes, Tim__Is A, A...? Or, is A, -A...? Or is A, A and -A...? And herein is the most fundamental abstract problem of both logic and math__the para-consistencies of both math and logic in relation to identities and non-contradictions... Ever since the Non-Euclidean and Non-Aristotlean Logics and algebras/maths were invented by Boole, Lobchevsky, Grassmann, DeMorgan, Clifford, Peirce, Vasiliev and company__we've been left in the interpretation problem pool of 'Peirce Abduction' to figure it out, and btw, Peirce is the first of the relational logic and algebra books ever written, which all these modern singularity interpretation problems, pool around__He wrote the first theses about relational-extended logics and maths, in 1869 and 1870__not Frege, as much of the academic world falsely thinks...

Tim, in the end__The Universe is a single atom, we abstractly subtract from itself__yet it's always that same single atom__as far as our logic, math and science can tell__And our fundamental modal logics of possibility, impossibility and necessity__absolutely necessitate this__or we have no truth systems possible, as all full quantification logic is dependent on modal existence and non-existence proofs, all the way from the early Greeks to today. Discreteness's and determinism's are no more than our abstractions ascribed onto the singularity atom of the logical continuum interpretations, and when you go down to the bottom measurement of QM, you always find the superfluids acting as a highly complex super-positioning singularity__and we possess no science to measure any differently__no matter how much abduction is thrown at it__He4 tells another story, as does all the math and logic, at that level...

The experiments, to date, prove non-discreteness and non-determinism or indeterminism, uncertainty and incompleteness... That's the science of the maximum and minimum levels of all measurement__to date... Iff you stay within sound and 'necessary' logic and math, you have no other necessary truths even possible... Now say; "But absolute discreteness and absolute determinism are counter-intuitive, and not easily grasped by classical, relative or quantum logic and mechanics." But, such thinking is simply going beyond any conception of classical, relative or quantum science, logic and math__we actually have access to, imo Tim...

May not be the best of explanations Tim, but it's the best I can put together, for the simplest and easiest understanding of these ideas__though they be extremely complex to understand... The way I most easily understood it from David, was to see the entire Universe as a marble, as a single atom, then I was able to see all motion contained within itself__self-containing the marble as a FS-Continuum of FS-Motion__as the Universe has no__'absolutely zero'__outside information. We are in the Universal FS-Motion__The FS-Motion is also inside us, but 'us' is still in the Universal Motion's FS-Singularity of Non-Singularity, by Abstraction__Only__The Human Observer Position...

Abstraction is not 'The Reality', only 'The Universe' Is 'The Reality...'

The Background Debate Response

Alright, first understand that my concepts, ideas and ultimately overall paradigm is itself due to the process of abduction Lloyd, the very process which you promote as critical in our ability to learn. That in itself DOES NOT make it correct but it does explain the fact that there will inevitably be gaps in the math, logic, and overall scientific pool it is projected from. Much of your argument against my mechanics reminds me of Greg’s argument against determinism which I explained a while back and justified it as a plausible argument. He simply argued the aspect of how Dave and myself could promote a deterministic system whereby the universe displayed no internal uncertainty within its interactions with itself if by our own methods of exploration, measure and observation we would never be able to resolve every little detail about such interactions and mechanics to verify that such were actually deterministic being left with only the probabilistic methods of Quantum Mechanics. Thus, being as the universal interactions would forever remain uncertain to us, then we must leave our theorizing at such a level whereby despite what might lie beneath the surface, the surface established by intellectual processes will forever remain the most intimate we will ever be with nature. This may not be the extent of your argument, but I interpret a similar logic within it.

My simple logic is that the universe is a fluid system which our intellect is trying to explain by way of science and mathematics. If we take the absolute observer position and view it from a broad macro perspective, then RM works fine at determining how structured systems move within the unstructured medium of space, clocks change their frequency, rulers contract, etc. However, if we zoom in and view it at the shortest of distances, then QM works within its realm whereby having overcome the inability to resolve every little detail by employing a probabilistic and statistical type approach where need be. How such small scale interactions relate to such macro interactions thus physically accomplishing such is where I see the rift between the two methodologies. Even if we apply an FS to fill the gaps of understanding within the Standard Model, whether continuous or discrete, it effectively becomes the background to every structured system which emerges from its interactions. Dave and yourself seem to choose to leave the theorizing at the continuous fluid dynamic substance resolution which is still a background to structuralization, but has no further attempts to establish absolute space and time. Thus, all measurements, observations and calculations are relative to other aspects of the system whereby the system becomes confined by relational mechanics to establish any truth, which leads my mind back to this quote of yours;

“but one can't use math to refute math__Tarski proved in the `30's, along with Church, Turing and Godel that 'no system can be used within itself, to prove its own validity or non-validity'__that also means, you…”

Though I may stand at risk of taking your statement slightly out of context, isn’t such a relational background independent model subject to having to internally prove all of its validity by such means as using the aspects it establishes such as math, science, logic, etc, within itself to establish its own validity? It determines the spatial and temporal position of one system off of the spatial and temporal position of all other systems in such a relational/relative fashion that it seemingly requires no external background yet many of the aspects required to accomplish such mechanics will still be subject to some background dependent aspects in some form or fashion. Ultimately, we have to philosophically cut the questioning off somewhere unless we are to eternally bring the questions to ever more fundamental levels as Austin used to attempt with his questioning of why the exact volume, why such a workable substance, etc, etc. At some point we accept a background and build from there which in our case is either a continuous FS from which structured systems interact with unstructured systems or we take that background as not being the fundamental absolute scale, thus we establish some form of PSF type mechanics whereby the FS is merely a continuous type frame of reference established upon thus moving within an absolute frame of reference thus structural aspects along with the spatial and temporal positioning of systems aren’t founded upon their relational aspects to each other, but are rather founded upon their relation to the absolute frame of reference. Btw, I’m not sure that I was using math to refute math in that quote you were debating. I was simply suggesting that macro systems are functioning as a product of micro interactions as described earlier. Thus, any macro math is a product or extension of the math which represents what is going on at the micro scales. Without the micro interactions we wouldn’t have the macro outcomes we witness. The values we are searching for at the macro resolution allow for a resolved deterministic type approach while any math which is to represent what is going on at the shortest of micro distances is doomed to be a probabilistic type approach when considering the temporal and spatial scales at which interactions take place within such micro resolutions. This is why Dave used to say that QM was objective while RM was subjective.

Either way, I’m not supporting such an absolute reference frame as with a PSF in the sense that I am retarded and think that every little detail will someday be resolved whereby we might imply absolute determinism. I’m simply inferring from my abduction pool a paradigm which sets my mental processing into a mode which no other paradigm has thus far, whereby I’m forced to translate scientific aspects into mere interactions at the most fundamental resolution. If I thought it would never be beneficial then I wouldn’t bother, but I feel that there is some exploitable aspect of the interactions taking place at such scales and distances which we might come to understand in perhaps a probabilistic manner whereby furthering our very understanding of the interactions of our universe. Viewing the many aspects of science as being translated into mere information processing aspects might find itself as beneficial to understanding. If this isn’t the case, whereby the further reduction to such realms isn’t beneficial to our understanding in the future, then I agree that such theorizing is irrelevant and useless and we must stop our theorizing at the resolution at which our intellect can distinguish theory from truth by way of the information we can extract and verify. If you see this resolution as currently being the continuous FS, then I agree and understand, but I must explore the implications of a further discrete realm to see if there’s any extractable information there which may help my understanding. I have no problem continuing our discussion at the FS resolution and in terms of continuity if you like, because I’m merely trying to explain my position here.

P.S. At the deepest of philosophical and scientific levels, how would we establish at what resolution the only absolutely continuous substance in existence actually moved within itself? How does motion act upon such a substance? Liquids such as water might best represent the dynamics trying to be expressed as much of Dave's concepts were in terms of wave mechanics, but the resolution at which motion acts upon water can be differentiated by the molecules thus also atoms which make it up. They act as bearings in a sense to allow motion to exhibit wave dynamics. A truly continuous fundamental substance would have no such internal division whereby differentiating/defining how it moves. Even in the simplest of chiral waves propagating through the substance, what is being manipulated to exhibit such forms of wave mechanics if not the very aspect of embedded attributes of absolute space and time? This could be considered an over complication on my part, but in the spirit of philosophical exploration I feel it a valid concept to question. This is the type of thinking which led my mind to explore in the sense of a background dependent model whereby such wave mechanics are merely displaying information about an underlying resolution and motion can be differentiated at such a resolution whereby such chiral concepts are merely a sequencing of a deeper discrete process. I don't supply this thinking it resolves the argument, but rather to further explore my reasoning.

I didn't supply Lee's work in support of my position Lloyd, but rather to show that even theories which seem to be background independent have aspects of background dependency and vice versa along with it being the best work I had found in a short search which discussed all of the dynamics which must be considered within such debates. I don't care if Lee disagrees with my position but forgive me if I don't allow such to be the final say.

I must admit, you debate an argument from so many directions e.g. logic, semantics, science, philosophy, etc, that it does become exhausting to even try to relate ideas at this level. I'm not saying you don't have valid positions, but I do see where there's still some misunderstanding with the actual mechanics I suggest due to my limitations of finding the words to express them. I'd love to be able to supply a lengthy mathematical formalism, collection of equations or whatever, but I cannot. I'm simply supplying the philosophical paradigm by which a high school drop out has come to understand such complex aspects and interactions of our world to the point that I can even debate with the likes of much more educated individuals such as yourself, Dave, Greg, etc, which is a credit to itself. I'll try to give a more simplified explanation of my theories shortly so as to clear up all of the logical, philosophic and semantic aspects being debated to the point that we can discuss it in terms of science and mechanics only rather than the much broader debate we seem to be having.

Ultimately, if any of this was easy, we'd already have all the answers we seek because there are definitely greater minds in the world today along with many greater one's in the past than ours I'm sure. I'll try to sort through the many arguments you have with me and distinguish the science/mechanical ones from the semantic and logic problems we seem to be having so I'll have a better idea how to respond.

Meanwhile, why don't you give me a full run through of your current mechanics so maybe I can find points where we agree and disagree and perhaps might find a way to bridge the language gaps and such whereby we might have better communication. You can start at the continuous FS resolution and work through your chiral wave mechanics through structuralization and such to give me an idea of how you see an approach to unifying the many seemingly conflicting aspects of science. It's a better approach to let me into your mental processing so I'll get a better idea of how to further communicate rather than me trying to find ways to justify and explain my personal beliefs.

Background Independencies vs. Background Dependency...

In an attempt to refresh my memory of all of the various aspects to consider for this debate, I came across Lee Smolin's work 'The Case for Background Independence' which addresses many of the dynamics at play with the background issues of RM and QM whereby each actually contain aspects of both types of background dynamics. Here's a link to a PDF by chance you haven't already came across this work, which I figure you have. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507235v1.pdf

Yeah Tim, I have Lee's newest book here in my camper. I just thought it odd that you'd send a link to the main 'background independence' physicist, when your ideas are usually so attached to 'background dependence'. If you'd read the entire paper, you'd have seen where his, and his colleagues, work was far more leaning toward 'background independence' than 'background dependence.' The book he published a year later than this paper has much clearer ideas of his older writings, where he's even more an advocate of 'background independence' and anti-string theory, than this paper portrays, but anyway...

Tim, the point is, if you divide the Universe down to it's most fundamental particles possible, then realize you need a methodology to describe what the further division of these fundamental particles is going to be represented by, then this is the point where one realizes, one needs a field theory, and if it's to be a quantum field theory, one must decide if there's a sound background to attach such a theory to, or not. If mathematically attached, then one is creating a 'background dependence', and if mathematically un-attached, then one is working in a 'background independence.'(The realization we don't have this mathematical gap solved, yet.) My question, to make the point obvious would be; "If it's 'background dependent', then what's it attached to, and how...?" Tim, once you've divided all particle structure to its most absolute fundamental structure__then it's pure 'background independent' field, imo, as that's all that's left.(We yet have no method of sound mathematical definition to close the gaps.) If you're going to attempt to make the field 'dependent', as per your PSF grid, then where are the co-ordinate and reference frame distance numbers coming from?(Especially if looked at, at state change points__recycle points.) You see, to me Tim, if you are using particle structures as your fundamental measurement basis, and you go below this particle structure measurement basis, or some fraction of a c-wave crossing the surface of a proton__what's left to measure?__The fine structure constant_1/137?__or do you go to probability waves?__which are purely theoretical or virtual measurements...?

This may be rather crude, but all I'm trying to point out, is reductionism has its 'limits of reduction'__to the point where further reduction begins to make no sense, meaning or definition even possible. When such a 'limit reduction' is reached, one must realize the methodology must change__and this is where field, or quantum field mechanics must enter__and when you are required to enter this, due to measurement necessities, you must realize this field system is an entirely different measurement system__and imo, can not be compared to any quantum particle structure measurement__other than possibly time__as our instruments just are not sensative enough to measure it accurately enough, yet__even though we could extend it infinitesimally small with math, such maths would/may not refer to reality, other than some fictitious virtual reality...

So imo, when this possible measurement limit state is reached, one is forced to decide whether they are going to accept a 'falsely created background dependent' deterministic field system__where there's actually nothing for such a field to depend on and or determine, other than meta-physical creations of__Or to accept the much more true absolute 'background independencies', where the absolute only refers to a fully dynamic field mechanics__fundamentally self-hydrodynamic wave-mechanics' initiating all motion, as the self-eternally existing source... Tim, particle mechanics, whether Newtonian or QM, just will not give the needed 'dynamic background independence', or anything close to the discreteness of fundamental particles, coming from some 'background dependence', as such is so limited and impossible to the consistent logic of the possible mechanics and measurement dynamics present, of the actual Universe's already measured books of facts. Absolute discreteness(where absolute discreteness means measurement of actual FS__so far.) is like the ol' creation problem__It requires an infinite regress of the structured substance present, as a reduction to a field__where such a field is 'background dependent' on a PSF measurement, measured within the confines and constraints of such a particle structure's 'background dependency' fails to supply the necessary mechanics' dynamics potential, to build the very particle structure, the model is dependent on.(It just lacks the necessary mechanics' entities, to build particle structures.) To me Tim, it's a snake swallowing its own tail, as I've always seen such quantum foam and virtual particle models. I'll explain this further, as I respond to your two other paragraphs' statements...

I still feel that there is a fundamental misalignment with your understanding of my theories Lloyd, which is to be expected at this level of conversation considering all of the aspects and dynamics involved with viewing the universal interactions as an entire functioning system.

Tim, are you not wedded to a non-feee-will, deterministic, 'background dependent' system__More than a free-will, indeterministic, 'background independent' system...? I am wedded to the opposite, Tim... And btw, so is Lee Smolin...

Keep in mind that my discrete ideas are very dynamic with reference frames moving within frames and the motion transferences thereof rather than a mere collection of "pool balls" converging to a centralized background region to construct a structured system.

If so, how would you describe such system mechanics at state change limits...? Let me exaggerate, to make my point clear. Let the entire finite Universe decay to its absolute recycle state limit__let this be understood to be the superfluid, super-positioning state of all fermions and bosons__let it be called the super-cycle-state. Now, let this state be represented to function within and by your PSF grid__Can/does the grid resize its grid-scale to accomodate the necessary re-scaling of the entire finite Universe, at such a necessary super-fluid hydrodynamics state, as would be necessary of such a fermion and boson state of such theoretical ultimate Hawking decay mechanics, yet also being necessitated to maintain the Universe's consistent fundamental dynamics, electro-magnetic and gravity motion states? Does your PSF grid shrink/scale accordingly, or stay the same__as per the absolutely necessary field scalar-shrinkage__at such decay limit, i.e., if fermions 'state change' to bosons, bosons must 'state scalar-shrink' back toward a new Universal structured state__No?

Within my most complex theorizing, the discrete properties of the background dependent model which go towards structuralization of a system at any given moment are in constant change whereby further defining the mass to velocity relationship of RM.

You see here Tim, I think you have a definitional explication problem__You state 'discrete properties', and 'constant change' within the same sentence, thus destroying the logic of your premises and conclusion, i.e., such logic is self-contradictory. It's simply not allowed to state such sentences, and think they pertain to logical representations of science. I think you'll notice this, as I've here pointed it out__No...?

For a structured system to remain near motionless within a region of the absolute background, then its mass would have to be great enough to warp all system transference aspects from any degree of linear to near perfect angular as with a black hole, which further goes into escape velocity aspects and such.

Again Tim, the term 'absolute background' really has two meanings__'physical absoluteness' and 'event-progression' absoluteness of motion, which must be made clear in sentences, for another person to clearly understand. By 'escape velocity aspects', do you mean 'decay mechanics...?'

I see RM and QM as explaining the same universal model, just at the scales at which they are appropriate within. Among other inconsistencies, RM requires spacetime to be smooth and continuous to establish the warpages which govern orbital aspects while QM requires it to be a lumpy dynamic field of virtual interactions and such as with 'quantum foam' models.

If RM and QM are explaining the same Universal model, then why can't we unite the maths, or might it be possible for one of them to be wrong__wrong at least partially, and somewhere in their definitional interpretations and statements...? Tim, do you actually believe in 'virtual particles' creations...?' And, do you actually believe in 'quantum foam' models...? I think it's 'background dependence' that falsely creates some of these anomolous models... Don't get me wrong, as I do think QM has many other 'true vilidities', at the same time__just not 'virtual particle creations' or 'quantum foam models'__To me, that's just ways of hiding what they don't know, and are too weak to admit, what they do not know...

The mathematics of both methodologies are merely an analog model of how the system is functioning with the smooth continuous motions of the massive bodies along with the deterministic mechanics thereof and faded uncertainty having somehow arisen from the seemingly indeterminate and uncertain interactions of a more fundamental resolution working at the shortest of distances.

Tim, I think one of the major differences between your thinking and mine, is I don't try to guess that far into the dynamics I can't clearly see, or at least figure on paper. I think I accept much more of what I don't know, and what I don't think science knows than you do, imo. As I've mentioned before, it's safer to under-determine the ideas, than to over-determine them__as tis over-determining them that gets our egos into trouble. "I'd rather be right about being wrong, than wrong about being right..." You see, me being an absolute skeptic of 'determinism' being applied to any Universal state, makes absolutely no sense to me__as it implies a knowledge of absolute 'cause and effect' one just can not possibly have__when one can't even explain the mechanics of a/the 'prime mover'__Therefore, all statements about 'determinism' are necessitated to be fallacious, in my book... You explain the absolute origin and mechanics of fundamental motion, and I might accept your enthusiasm for 'determinism', but not until...

The concept of other dimensions of motion goes a long way here in considering a possible aspect of the rift between the two mathematical methods employed to analogously describe the interactions of nature at their appropriate distances and scales. I don't see the seemingly smooth continuous spacetime warping of RM as described by Einstein, but rather I see many quantum interactions going into the propagation and trajectory of massive bodies which aren't smooth and continuous but rather potentially discrete whereby many dimensions of motion at the shortest of distances dissolve into the very smooth fabric of spacetime to allow for its quantization along with such micro motions also going into the very structuring of the massive macro body itself. Thus, every smooth and well defined deterministic path of macro bodies along with the bodies themselves are built upon a background of various quantum motion dynamics which result in the macro interactions per the quantum micro interactions.

Wishful thinking Tim, doesn't hide the 'giant math and physics gap' in your 'false-jump ideology...' Science is about filling in the giant math and physics gaps... Words don't work, Tim__It takes sound math and sound logic, then the experiments to prove the results. We're all able to use idealist word systems to jump science's massive gaps in knowledge, but this in no way creates any new science... It's very simple to know a lot of what you are saying is true, Tim__But, it ain't adding anything to science, to jump the gaps, without forging new and sound bridges, much the way Ramsey and Herbrand did back in the late `20's...

Though Einstein went far in giving a mechanism to Newton's gravity which was till that point just known by its effects, RM still lacks the further mechanization of the relationship of unstructured and structured systems which would further define just mechanically how spacetime is warped in the presence of a massive system. What are the quantum interactions taking place whereby such processes are so deterministically resolved?

Quantum magneto-hydrodynamics, Tim__and known about since the thirties and forties... Some of the older encyclopedias included this field, the new ones love to ignore. The field is still very active, but research grants are simply going to the quantum deterministic nonsense... It might be deterministic Tim, if anything was actually measurably determinable__at the truly deterministic level, but you may also be quite surprised to learn about effects creating affects, at the truest scales of resolutions, definitions and interpretations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics I also posted much about this on 'East Meets West...' It's real quantum science and cosmology, Tim...

Though the absolute background upon which reality is fashioned may seemingly be hidden once the system reaches its deterministic resolution which allows for system to system or reference frame to reference frame exploration and observation, which led to Einstein's conclusion of the invariant speed of light thus variant aspects of space and time, I feel that Newton's approach goes further to understanding the universe at a more intimate level by allowing the absolute space and time invariance which will possibly unify the seemingly conflicting aspects of the Standard Model, more specifically RM and QM, by supplying the preferred frame of reference which allows the understanding of exactly what aspects of nature these two seemingly conflicting methodologies are analogously modeling.

True enough Tim, but only after one redefines the two meanings of absolute background space and time of Newton's era, as relates to today. The new definition requires the addition of 'Dynamic Absolute Space and Time'__Not 'Fixed Background Absolute Space and Time...' The PSF-Grid is an abstract tool, and an absolute illusion of the real absolute space and time, highly 'Dynamic Universe...' You see Tim, most of these silly problems come down to no more than false definitions and wrong interpretations of meanings... These interpretation problems are spread all throughout the sciences' and philosophies' histories...

Do I know how to resolve the mathematical inconsistencies? No, but this is the conclusion I'm drawn to when considering my apparent limited understanding of the vast complexities of nature itself. I guess to me, any mathematical description at the macro resolution would ultimately be a byproduct of the more fundamental mathematical aspects taking place at the much shorter micro distances as such constituent interactions went towards building the composite greater distance scales at which the rise of determinacy imposed a reciprocal fall of uncertainty as many unresolved interactions went towards a resolved fluid path of a structured system propagating within an unstructured medium.

Yeah, except for one thing, Tim__you forgot about the macro-structured bio-beings existing first, to allow measurement of the macro-geo-structures, enabling the fundamental possibility of any possible measurement at those micro-structure levels__to even or ever first exist...!!! Get that horse out from behind, and out in front of your cart... He can't see where he's going, when ya got him pushing the damn cart...

I'm not certain that a unification of such varying mathematical methodologies and the systems they are analogous to is the key to understanding, but I rather prefer to entertain the thought of how one composite mathematical methodology/system might arise from a vast region operating within a more fundamental set of interactions represented by a constituent mathematical methodology/system.

Again, you've tried another one of those self-contradictory sentences__Bogus logic, Tim... Nothing wrong with bio-emergences of mathematics and methodologies, but one can't use math to refute math__Tarski proved in the `30's, along with Church, Turing and Godel that 'no system can be used within itself, to prove its own validity or non-validity'__that also means, you...

Perhaps the unification of RM to QM will come by way of not understanding how such are related, but rather how macro measurements and observations are merely an approximation of interactions taking place at the more fundamental micro realm as not all quantitative aspects of such micro interactions go into the measurable values of the macro realm, as it is more representative of the dominant interactions which see to the preservation of structured systems and their trajectory through the unstructured quantum medium. I'll try to explain better later.

Yeah, but here again__you've forgot that all micro-measurements only exist because of macro-measurements' first inventions and long uses... Tim, it was many thousands of years before man ever dreamed of even the possibility of anything smaller than the atom__and many thousands of years after first dreaming about the atom, before he actually understood just how small, it's many parts actually were__and we still ain't there completely__Yet...!!!

Also, a few notes from that Smolin paper:

The Landscape Problem…
The reason that we do not have a fundamental formulation of string theory, from which it might be possible to resolve the challenge posed by the landscape, is that it has been so far developed as a background dependent theory. This is despite there being compelling arguments that a fundamental theory must be background independent. Whether string theory turns out to describe nature or not, there are now few alternatives but to approach the problems of unification and quantum gravity from a background independent perspective. Smolin

Leibniz’s argument for relationalism was based on two principles, which have been
the focus of many books and papers by philosophers to the present day. The principle
of sufficient reason states that it must be possible to give a rational justification for every choice made in the description of nature. I will refer the interested reader to the original texts for the arguments given for it, but it is not hard to see the relevance of this principle for contemporary theoretical physics. A theory that begins with the choice of a background geometry, among many equally consistent choices, violates this principle. So does a theory that allows some parameters to be freely specified, and allows no mechanism or rational argument why one value is observed in nature.

But it took physics a long time to catch up to Leibniz’s thinking. Even if philosophers were convinced that Leibniz had the better argument, Newton’s view was easier to develop, and took off, whereby Leibniz’s remained philosophy. This is easy to understand: a physics where space and time are absolute can be developed one particle at a time, while a relational view requires that the properties of any one particle are determined self-consistently by the whole universe.

QM’s Description vs. Construction Distinctions…

Einstein was among those whose thinking was changed by Mach. There is a certain
historical complication, because what Einstein called “Mach’s principle” was not exactly what Mach wrote. But that need not concern us here. The key idea that Einstein got from, or read into, Mach, was that acceleration should be defined relative to a frame of reference that is dynamically determined by the configuration of the whole universe, rather than being fixed absolutely, as in Newton’s theory.

Relational strategy: Seek to make progress by identifying the background structure in our theories and removing it, replacing it with relations which evolve subject to dynamical law.

An Effective Measurement Theory…???

If it is true than the reason that string theory finds itself in the situation described in the introduction is that no background dependent theory could successfully solve the five key problems mentioned there. If this is true, then the only thing to do is to go back and work on the less studied road of relational theories.

The Background Problem

I still feel that there is a fundamental misalignment with your understanding of my theories Lloyd, which is to be expected at this level of conversation considering all of the aspects and dynamics involved with viewing the universal interactions as an entire functioning system. Keep in mind that my discrete ideas are very dynamic with reference frames moving within frames and the motion transferences thereof rather than a mere collection of "pool balls" converging to a centralized background region to construct a structured system. Within my most complex theorizing, the discrete properties of the background dependent model which go towards structuralization of a system at any given moment are in constant change whereby further defining the mass to velocity relationship of RM. For a structured system to remain near motionless within a region of the absolute background, then its mass would have to be great enough to warp all system transference aspects from any degree of linear to near perfect angular as with a black hole, which further goes into escape velocity aspects and such. I see RM and QM as explaining the same universal model, just at the scales at which they are appropriate within. Among other inconsistencies, RM requires spacetime to be smooth and continuous to establish the warpages which govern orbital aspects while QM requires it to be a lumpy dynamic field of virtual interactions and such as with 'quantum foam' models. The mathematics of both methodologies are merely an analog model of how the system is functioning with the smooth continuous motions of the massive bodies along with the deterministic mechanics thereof and faded uncertainty having somehow arisen from the seemingly indeterminate and uncertain interactions of a more fundamental resolution working at the shortest of distances. The concept of other dimensions of motion goes a long way here in considering a possible aspect of the rift between the two mathematical methods employed to analogously describe the interactions of nature at their appropriate distances and scales. I don't see the seemingly smooth continuous spacetime warping of RM as described by Einstein, but rather I see many quantum interactions going into the propagation and trajectory of massive bodies which aren't smooth and continuous but rather potentially discrete whereby many dimensions of motion at the shortest of distances dissolve into the very smooth fabric of spacetime to allow for its quantization along with such micro motions also going into the very structuring of the massive macro body itself. Thus, every smooth and well defined deterministic path of macro bodies along with the bodies themselves are built upon a background of various quantum motion dynamics which result in the macro interactions per the quantum micro interactions.

Though Einstein went far in giving a mechanism to Newton's gravity which was till that point just known by its effects, RM still lacks the further mechanization of the relationship of unstructured and structured systems which would further define just mechanically how spacetime is warped in the presence of a massive system. What are the quantum interactions taking place whereby such processes are so deterministically resolved? Though the absolute background upon which reality is fashioned may seemingly be hidden once the system reaches its deterministic resolution which allows for system to system or reference frame to reference frame exploration and observation, which led to Einstein's conclusion of the invariant speed of light thus variant aspects of space and time, I feel that Newton's approach goes further to understanding the universe at a more intimate level by allowing the absolute space and time invariance which will possibly unify the seemingly conflicting aspects of the Standard Model, more specifically RM and QM, by supplying the preferred frame of reference which allows the understanding of exactly what aspects of nature these two seemingly conflicting methodologies are analogously modeling. Do I know how to resolve the mathematical inconsistencies? No, but this is the conclusion I'm drawn to when considering my apparent limited understanding of the vast complexities of nature itself. I guess to me, any mathematical description at the macro resolution would ultimately be a byproduct of the more fundamental mathematical aspects taking place at the much shorter micro distances as such constituent interactions went towards building the composite greater distance scales at which the rise of determinacy imposed a reciprocal fall of uncertainty as many unresolved interactions went towards a resolved fluid path of a structured system propagating within an unstructured medium. I'm not certain that a unification of such varying mathematical methodologies and the systems they are analogous to is the key to understanding, but I rather prefer to entertain the thought of how one composite mathematical methodology/system might arise from a vast region operating within a more fundamental set of interactions represented by a constituent mathematical methodology/system. Perhaps the unification of RM to QM will come by way of not understanding how such are related, but rather how macro measurements and observations are merely an approximation of interactions taking place at the more fundamental micro realm as not all quantitative aspects of such micro interactions go into the measurable values of the macro realm, as it is more representative of the dominant interactions which see to the preservation of structured systems and their trajectory through the unstructured quantum medium. I'll try to explain better later.

In an attempt to refresh my memory of all of the various aspects to consider for this debate, I came across Lee Smolin's work 'The Case for Background Independence' which addresses many of the dynamics at play with the background issues of RM and QM whereby each actually contain aspects of both types of background dynamics. Here's a link to a PDF by chance you haven't already came across this work, which I figure you have. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507235v1.pdf

later

The Discrete ‘Pool-Ball’ Model vs. The Non-Discrete ‘Pool’ Model & The Unified Continuum Conformality of Both…

For now Tim, just let me show you the non-solvability of your single function discrete pool-ball model__as thus far mentioned by your ‘standard model’ extensions, or the other ‘standard physics’ models extensions. You can think this way only until you try to solve the physical actions and intergration maths at the limits of necessary physical function__of the necessary mechanics of the Universe, or any sub-system of the same Universe. As scientists, we already know these are the unsolved unification problems of the two independent systems__QM and RM__Where there’s been absolutely no possibility of mathematical solutions between discrete and non-discrete systems’ mechanics__yet__and this is known of by the ‘background problem’, by way of the ‘background independence’ of RM and the ‘background dependence’ of QM__or simply starting your math and models out, from the system’s non-discrete unification statistical mechanics of Einstein’s RM, or from the discrete non-unified mechanics of Heisenberg’s QM. The last 30+ years of physics maths, from all fields of physics and math studies, have been unsuccessful at unifying these two seemingly un-unifiable systems, just as was Einstein’s and any others attempts at trying to unify these two disperate systems, over the 70+ years before. Yes, there have been many hypothetical and theoretic systems put forward over the last 30+ years, but no-one can point to any physically verifiable systems__yet. Yes, we can create pseudo-matrix models and such, that may seem to convince some, of possible unifications, of the real physical systems, but they are simply being built so complex as to simply ‘seemingly’ convince many of those who are not thorough enough to check the maths against real physical systems possibilities__and therein lies these pseudo-unifications.(remember here that; “Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.”) There is yet no conformal math unifications, that truly and fully mate the real physical systems of discrete and non-discrete necessities__and all serious mathematicians, theorists, scientists and physicists admit these facts…(tis only the false assumptions, carrying water for the pseudo-day’s non-scientific ‘wished-for’ propaganda…)

Tim, we all have the desire for our minds to unify these two discrete and non-discrete systems, far beyond our mind’s abilities to physically and mathematically do so__but when sincere honesty is called forth, all our efforts are__thus far__bound to meet in failure.(that is when discussing present known realities.) No matter how much we may wish our preferred pre-suppositional system/ideas to have physical and mathematical reality__It has no reality, until it can fully and ‘absolutely’ link the real and sound maths, to the real and sound fundamental Universe’s physical actions__and thus far none of this has happened__no matter how much the wishing-well is used. Here’s the scientific way of stating the same matter:

[Note that the term ‘system’ has a different meaning for microscopic (or dynamical) systems and macroscopic (or statistical-mechanical) systems.] Physical laws come in two flavors, namely, ‘dynamical’ and ‘statistical’ laws. Dynamical laws apply to ‘completely specified’ systems (in this context often called ‘microscopic’ systems), and, at least in classical mechanics, they make predictions about individual experiments. To the best of the physicist’s knowledge, these laws are exactly reversible. Statistical laws apply to ‘incompletely specified systems’ (which include what are in this context called ‘macroscopic’ Systems), and in general all they can say is something about the whole ensemble of systems that meet the given incomplete specifications, rather than about any individual system. In the case of macroscopic systems consisting of a ‘very large number’ of interacting particles, certain statistical laws take the form of predictions concerning practically all (but not ‘exactly’ all) individual experiments. These predictions can be organized into a consistent set of deterministic laws (the ‘laws of thermodynamics’), and it is only from the viewpoint of these quasi-laws that certain physical processes are irreversible [Katz, 1967].

Right here Tim, if you notice; 'The reversible laws of physics, are completely in conflict with the irreversible laws of physics__The core of the problem__or the total lack of state change understandings, within the physics communities, no matter how much tensor math and renormalization mechanics, is thrown at this problem__It's still incomplete, especially as to sensible description logics...'

Tensor Mechanics: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/documents/Tensors_TM2002211716.pdf
Spinor Mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinor

And more simply stated:

Noether’s Theorem (Noether, 1918) states, “For every continuous symmetry
of the laws of physics, there must exist a conservation law…”

Tim, if you thoroughly read the last 20 or 30 pages of Zuse’s paper, you’ll see how clearly he stated the above stated physical and math problems, from the naturalistically derived positions, where no constructed axioms are necessary.(let me see if I can find exactly where Zuse states what I mean about the yet undiscovered truths). This is the purely naturalistic axiom system, I’ve often mentioned, as per the way Peirce always stated ideas, in the fully naturally derived methods__and always making positively sure to state what is ‘not yet naturally derived’ as well as what is ‘already naturally derived.’ Imo Tim, this is what makes the major difference between all real and pseudo-scientific positions. So imo, it’s always best to state less than what one knows, than to mistakenly state more than one knows in this very complex area of knowledge and theory__this way, more mistakes are avoided…

We thus far have no naturally derived axiomatic or absolute systems, either physically or mathematically logically__to unite the two above systems, mentioned in the Katz paragraph__well stated as far back as 1967, and of course the many others stated by such notables as Einstein, himself__“Castles in the sky…”

Tim, here’s a simply analogous question__How does one explicate the ‘adrenaline’ in the system, transferring and transducing throughout the entire system, within and without a pool-ball type discrete system, and the non-discrete continuum system__when we absolutely know adrenaline runs throughout the bio-system, when our fears are entered into mental action over the bio-states of cells, reacting as emotional states, then there’s these analogical inter-relationships of the possible pseudo-pool-balls, having to transfer their internal bosonic energies(here analogically relationally understood as adrenaline) out to the outside world of other bosons external/internal mechanics, as the energy has to be contained within the photon/boson structure, since it adds so much energy, than simple surface energy allows, to electrons, protons and such? A rather complex mechanics__No…? And, I see no way for frequencies, amplitudes and wave-lengths mechanics allowing such physical mechanics necessities, to achieve the possible physical actions, needed to make such a model’s mechanics possible__without inter-action with a continuous field__as our ‘fundamental pre-suppositional starting point’. If the pool-ball model says it’s all maintained on the surface of the photons/bosons’ waves, there’s just absolutely no way to account for the tremendous addition of energy/mass added to any of the micro-particles mechanics involved__It just will not add up, until the inside storage capacity of the photons/bosons is fully scientifically considered__then the model is committed to explaining the internal to external physical dynamics/mechanics of a super-positioning bosonic model, as per such as the Higgs Field-Particle Model. The discrete pool-ball model has all this necessary mechanics completely missing__no matter how hyper-fine structured your theorizing attempts to go, as you reach a Planck-scale point, where your infinitesimal size and scale theorizing, to accommodate your pool-ball model, exceeds the mathematical physical measurement, and physical mechanics ability, to stay within any sensible physical measurement and mechanics reality__’The Big Problem…???’

Tim, the model doesn’t have to explain the adrenaline model, per say, but it does have to explain how such a mechanical analogous model of radiation or bio-inter-actions truly does achieve their massive additions of mass per event volumes of actually present physical particle mechanics… That mass per event volume of its necessary mechanics is entirely missing in the discrete model__The physical torque mechanics, in the angular momentum release, is completely missing in the discrete model__When the H-bomb explodes… The discrete model has no wave-mechanics to explain how the massive mass of a heavy boson fits inside an electron, and what this mass is shaped like, upon release from the electron, and into the proton, neutron or which-ever, and also back to the FS-Field… This is why I’ve always mentioned the 9 possible shapes of the waves. If you may have noticed, Zuse also mentions the 9 fundamental states of QM motions(see tensor quote below)__This happens to be an absolute necessity of the fundamental degrees of freedom… The Universe can not be fully understood below this level of necessary ‘degrees of freedom…’ Sure, we can talk and theorize about 1 to 8 degrees of freedom, but we are not discussing the true Universal mechanics, that’s always present, in all scientific experiments. Such limited theorizing is completely ignoring the ever-present Universal field’s continuously acting event upon event upon event mechanics, all the way to eternity, thus requiring that ol’ boogie-man, natural infinity… All discrete models, thus far offered, want to limit discreteness to pseudo-intellectual finiteness__which may be great for rational mathematical simplicity, but completely fails naturalistic realities of complete logics’ necessities of fundamental FS existence, and her possibly naturally and necessarily derived axiomatic system…

Continuum mechanics...
Important examples are provided by continuum mechanics. The stresses inside a solid body or fluid are described by a tensor. The stress tensor and strain tensor are both second order tensors, and are related in a general linear elastic material by a fourth-order elasticity tensor. In detail, the tensor quantifying stress in a 3-dimensional solid object has components that can be conveniently represented as a 3×3 array. The three faces of a cube-shaped infinitesimal volume segment of the solid are each subject to some given force. The force's vector components are also three in number. Thus, 3×3, or 9 components are required to describe the stress at this cube-shaped infinitesimal segment. Within the bounds of this solid is a whole mass of varying stress quantities, each requiring 9 quantities to describe. Thus, a second order tensor is needed.

The mathematical discrete-limit problem is still sitting in the middle of the natural non-discrete physical Universe’s highly possible and necessary field-continuum, imnsho…

Pre-suppositional wishes__Will not, a complete system, make__There’s just simply no fundamental Universal mover, without the FS-Field’s first gravitational and electro-magnetic angular momentum opposing wave-particle torques__unless it necessarily be as I’ve continuously stated it__the hydrodynamic and magneto-hydrodynamic necessities of the FS-Field’s Fundamental Continuum’s Torque Mechanics… Remember Tim, vector mechanics only explains 2D topological mechanics__and says nothing scientifically rationally true about 3-body+__3D Rational Universal Mechanics… Discrete mechanics has nothing to say about the real Universe, above the micro-systems scales of QM, which are admitted by all the best QM’ers to be indeterministic systems, as all the maths and functions are reversible__thus pseudo-factualistic as pure redundantly recursive and completely tautologous systems. Yes, this means they are proved within themselves__but as relates to the greater ‘Macro-Universe of Reality’__they say nothing… There’s nothing existing in the discrete mechanics and maths to jump the giant gap between their micro-world mechanics, and the larger mechanics of the macro-Universe__Nothing except giant wishes… Wishes don’t count…

As far as I can tell Tim, the two systems are discretely opposite, in function and description__and no unification mechanics yet exists, except possibly the super-positioning and supervenience mechanics I’ve already mentioned__then this is still only in the hypothetical and theoretical stages, but these methods, so far, make far better physical sense, to me__than the fully discrete models being offered… Imo Tim, it’s gonna’ have to be a composite combination system of full intergration, to achieve any sort of ToE. Discrete systems simply shoot themselves in the incompleteness head__There’s no complete mechanics__There’s no fundamental prime motion mechanics__They offer no possible completion mechanics, especially as applies to field torques, which we absolutely know exists__just by looking up at the shape of the known galaxy mechanics’ spiral torqueing, electromagnetics and yet fully unexplained gravity mechanics… The instant you go to absolute discrete mechanics, you eliminate any possible understanding of these Universal Macro-Systems’ Necessary Continuum Field-Mechanics’ Inter-Actions…

I’ll get back to you later Tim, on that exact location in Zuse’s paper, where he theorizes about this very subject, the clearest of anyone else, as the language he developed best explains the complex, most simply…

P.s.
Realize Tim, if an 'analog to digital conversion' exists, then a 'digital back to analog conversion' must also be the other half of the continuous mechanics of any Universal reasoning and physical facts' existence__Action/reaction laws necessitate such...

In this scenario, nature would be interacting in such a way that our very understanding and visualization of such may actually be similar to a digital to analog conversion whereby though we may model our universe at the ever larger scales in a fashion which exhibits aspects of physical and interactive continuity, the underlying natural processes which allow for such modes of mental information processing are fundamentally discrete in nature. There is the potential for the division of the method of information processing of the only two natural systems in nature which display the processing of information as a consequence of their very design i.e. the universal system which establishes nature vs. the brain which interprets nature, whereby the functioning of one isn’t evidence to the mechanical functioning of the other as either method i.e. digital vs. analog could establish the other as with the universe creating the brain or with the brain interpreting the functioning of the universe. The universe could operate and arrange structured and unstructured systems in a digital or analog manner and still establish an internal system such as the brain which functioned in the opposite way, the same as the brain could operate and arrange structured and unstructured thoughts in either manner and still be correctly interpreting a universe which was functioning in the opposite manner with the correctness of such interpretations finding its balance by way of the scientific methodology whereby truth is evaluated rather than merely accepted.

Tim, the dynamics of this paragraph is a canard. You are necessitated to use the same free-will/action analog/digital mechanics to attempt refutation of exactly what you are not successfully refuting. Your paragraph is not respecting the logical rules of non-contradiction, falsifiability or opposing counterfactual logics__therefore the argument is dis-allowed in any and all sound logic systems... You can't refute free-will/action, due to the fact you are necessitated to use the same free-will/action to attempt such pseudo-free-will/action refutations... It's like the 'god' problem__It can't be refuted because there's no falsifiability possible, due to no counterfactual information existing, the same as there's no non-free-will/action evidence existing... These arguments relationally relate to your above paragraph... Action can never be refuted with inaction... If the mind and Universe uses one mechanics, it uses the other, by the necessity of valid identities... We can't have part of the Universe working one way, and another part of the Universe working another__and this is where supervenience enters the picture to maintain the conformality of the Universe of ideas and informations, even though we haven't reached the total evidence of it yet__as we have no other Universal law's possible evidence pointing elswhere__and the Universal physical laws are our fundamental direction of total overall pre-suppositional Universal mechanics, grounding our statistical mechanics foundations, which allows the greater functioning of our statistical probabilities' maths... Tim, simply put; 'We can't use non-mechanics to refute mechanics...' To me, the logic requires both discrete and non-discrete systems to exist everywhere__at all times. Fields and wave-particles are facts of our physical realities__everywhere, for all time, in my natural logical derivational opinion...

Tim, might you be barking up a rubber tree...? :-)

Frequencies and wavelengths are reducible to quantitative aspects of energy as with E=hv.

And here, you'd have to realize you may be conflating two systems of interpretation. Reduciblility of systems, and actual existing mechanics of systems, are not absolutely actual reductions, but merely abstract reductions of theories, and the concrete Universe remains unchanged, as a still possible non-discrete FS. Yes, we use such formulas and ideas to better express our understandings of the Universe's possible mechanics, but we should never jump the gap to complete understanding, where no complete Universal understanding has been established__Yet...

Translating Standard Model Concepts into the Parameters by which Information is Processed

I just got through looking over the article Lloyd and though I must admit to having a limited understanding of a few of the more technical aspects represented therein I think it goes far to giving such a technical approach to the more general expressions I’ve been trying to relate for a while. The main thing to keep in mind is that if such a discrete paradigm goes further to encompassing the various aspects of the Standard Model along with allowing ever further connections to biology, chemistry and the social sciences, then our own standards of the scientific methodology should require that it be found to be the more plausible explanation of our physical world. Though it may not be to such a stage in current form, I feel that such a discrete approach has the potential to do just that. Due to the interface of bio and geo nature as with the place at which our minds decipher the interactions of the physical world, it may be found that nature does not interact in such a discrete manner therefore having a more natural continuous functioning. However, if we find that our understanding of such mechanics comes by way of an analog to digital conversion of the values and interactions of nature within the mind itself whereby we might have a more intimate understanding of nature by following such avenues of reasoning, then ultimately the continuous aspects of nature are irrelevant to our very understanding and furthering of technology.

I think a lot of the problems of most people’s thought process with adopting such a paradigm is the mental conversion required to understand the relevance of such concepts. This process comes natural to my way of thinking for some reason and I feel that it is an advantage to my investigations. What I’m suggesting here is the required mindset needed to translate such standard model concepts as forces, mass, energy, thermodynamics, matter, space, time, velocity, etc, into mere functions of a more fundamental system of discrete information processing as discussed in the article in more technical details of how to possibly accomplish aspects of such. We learn of such things as gravity from Newton who gave us an idea of the effects of such a force and the deeply embedded role it plays in nature, while Einstein further brought us closer to understanding a potential mechanism of such a force by way of a physical continuum. This in turn structures our intimacy and familiarity to such interactions in the sense that it brought such from strictly the more familiar material aspects of existence e.g. planets, apples, etc. as provided by Newton to a unification of such materialistic aspects with the seemingly immaterial vacuum of space per Einstein’s spacetime manifold and the ability of matter to warp the very fabric of space itself to allow for gravitational interactions. Bringing the mind to a method of information processing whereby such a physically structured aspect of nature within our thoughts such as gravity can be translateed to be a mere consequence of how some form of discrete information is structurally stored, propagated, sorted and further exchanged within a matrix operating by way of a natural process which is further governed by the transmission of such information within a discrete operational speed limit whereby further consequences of such seemingly emerge from the paradigm which seemingly coincide with various other aspects we’ve come to know by way of modern science, is the key to having a truly intimate understanding of nature and our universe IMHO. Though science has taught us to visualize the interactions of our universe in a way that we have become familiar with as with the various autonomous entities from particle physics to astronomy bumping into each other throughout various distances of space, there is the ever present and much more plausible consideration that the way we view nature is not the way nature views itself.

In this scenario, nature would be interacting in such a way that our very understanding and visualization of such may actually be similar to a digital to analog conversion whereby though we may model our universe at the ever larger scales in a fashion which exhibits aspects of physical and interactive continuity, the underlying natural processes which allow for such modes of mental information processing are fundamentally discrete in nature. There is the potential for the division of the method of information processing of the only two natural systems in nature which display the processing of information as a consequence of their very design i.e. the universal system which establishes nature vs. the brain which interprets nature, whereby the functioning of one isn’t evidence to the mechanical functioning of the other as either method i.e. digital vs. analog could establish the other as with the universe creating the brain or with the brain interpreting the functioning of the universe. The universe could operate and arrange structured and unstructured systems in a digital or analog manner and still establish an internal system such as the brain which functioned in the opposite way, the same as the brain could operate and arrange structured and unstructured thoughts in either manner and still be correctly interpreting a universe which was functioning in the opposite manner with the correctness of such interpretations finding its balance by way of the scientific methodology whereby truth is evaluated rather than merely accepted.

As to your quote on energy Lloyd, “If the effective quantum is assigned the dimension ‘shifting process’, we obtain the dimension ‘shifting process per unit of time’ for energy…(First excellent definition of energy, I've ever seen...) ” It seems to be addressing what I was getting at the other day in a previous post when I said, “I am working on the implications of a discrete field per the frequency mechanics discussed before in terms of a reduction of all interactions to mere energy transferences amongst absolute regions of the fundamental field. Frequencies and wavelengths are reducible to quantitative aspects of energy as with E=hv. I’m simply suggesting here that the further reduction of frequency and wavelength interactions which oversee nature at the FS resolution may find themselves further reduced to how PSF domains interact and impose motion transferences upon each other.”

If we consider energy from the standpoint of such a matrix and properly translate it to a quantitative value of the changes and magnitude thereof taking place within regions of such within a given time, then we are fundamentally addressing how the system interacts in terms of the way it processes information in various regions along with the transference of such information from region to region thus also the effects of such upon other regions being processed. Simply put, when the system is establishing a structured system within a localized region, this is when the system becomes more visible to us as with differentiating matter from space. We may not see every little interaction down to the Planck scales, but its obvious that there is a distinction going on within such a region whereby the interactions thereof are much different than would be those which establish and calculate mere space. The more the system is committed to structuralization within a localized region, the less it is effecting other various non local regions outwardly and the more its motions are concentrated inwardly. It’s as if information is being stored and moved in larger quantities as a single unit i.e. mass rather than being dispersed throughout the system. E=mc² effectively becomes a relationship of the magnitude at which one form or region of processing can effect another throughout the system. There is no true autonomy or autonomous structures within such a system whereby changes of state within one area of the matrix are required to be absorbed by others whereby altering the state of various other structured systems due to the actions of one. Sometimes rather than a dismantling of a structured system it is just the mere presence of such a system which alters aspects of others such as trajectory as two systems compete for the same absolute position within the matrix, thus causing them both to have to be processed simultaneously which ends up in the various forces we witness along with their characteristics of repulsion, attraction, orbit, etc. thus also establishing the mechanism by which the values of such interactions are so consistent throughout the known universe, which is why we are yet to find such things as a less massive object enforcing its will upon a more massive object in a collision unless the velocity of the lesser is great enough to accomplish such, which is also a further aspect of the magnitude and dynamics by which information is transferred within such a matrix.

This is just an example of how such concepts of modern physics can potentially be translated in a general sense to aspects of a digital system of information processing whereby scientific aspects emerge as consequences of a natural process. It could potentially be how nature works or it could be potentially how the processes of the mind are able to perceive it working. Either way, much work would have to be done to bring it from a general description to a quantitative one whereby science might judge its relevance or the lack thereof, but until I see something such as a larger stellar body orbiting a much smaller one somewhere in the universe which would cause me to have to reevaluate my understanding of physics itself, my form of mental processing will probably always lean towards understanding the universal system in such discrete terms.