Ether Theory?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot »

Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:33 amIf I'm not misreading then objects, instead of being contained in space, are merely densified regions of it. This makes sense if one assumes that space is indeed material, the objects 'seemingly' contained within it being actual derivations or condensations of it.
Here's something from a lecture Einstein gave: "according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field.." http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html
It's various quantum fields these days, and excitations or perturbations, "derivations" is also good, rather than condensations, but the principle is the same. For practical purposes, physics only deals with the strength of those fields, because they can be measured and manipulated. It doesn't really matter why, how or if fields become or interact with matter, if your job is to make phones or satellites work, so plenty of physicists are too busy to care.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:33 amWouldn't that make String Theory also a version of this materialistic underpinning of space?
Quite possibly. I'm not sure that many string theorists have given much thought to the actual mechanics.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:33 amDefaulting to my more limited abilities to think abstractly, I'd interpret the knots, whirlpools, ripples you mention as emergent entities of the BB and as such, at least generically, as units of space-time particles insofar as space-time remains a valid paradigm.
Space-time, as it was originally envisaged, was just x,y,z and t; a grid for locating events. It's only with general relativity that the term is tacked onto some stuff with mechanical properties. From the same lecture: "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:33 amUntil there's more resolution beyond hypotheses it's a subject where science to a great extent still remains in thrall to grand old intuition.
It's an ongoing process.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot »

Greta wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:35 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:30 am
Greta wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:15 amWhat we call "space" is just like us, only more thinned out. After all, to a neutron star's perspective we ourselves are space, or at best a cloud.
Good point. I'd never thought of that.
It's a direct result of considering your concept of "big bang stuff".
I'm rather proud of that. Thank you.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:19 am
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:05 am Can you answer this one with a simple yes or no? Is there any such thing as space that isn't moving?
Yes (positive), No (negative) , both/neither (neutral).
Oh well, I tried.
Have you?
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Dubious »

uwot wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:09 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:33 amUntil there's more resolution beyond hypotheses it's a subject where science to a great extent still remains in thrall to grand old intuition.
It's an ongoing process.
Do we have any idea if...

1 - Space itself is material and what constitutes its materiality.

2 - or a consequence of objects, materials existing or in process of becoming, time dependent

3 - or completely independent of anything existing, the ultimate thing-in-itself, time independent

Another ignorant question: Can we define space as material, meaning made up of particles, unless we correctly define the word "material" in a quantum field context vis-a-vis its usual colloquial meaning. The quandary for me is, can a material be a particle, not as in a grain of sand, but as a unit of discrete energy or does this merely rely for practical purposes on our subdivision of energy fields. If the latter, then the word "material" has an additional though very different reference to its usual meaning as one that may define in theory the materiality of space even if there are no frozen tangible objects within it.

or...

4 - maybe I should read more and keep my mouth shut in the meantime.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:09 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:33 amUntil there's more resolution beyond hypotheses it's a subject where science to a great extent still remains in thrall to grand old intuition.
It's an ongoing process.
Do we have any idea if...

1 - Space itself is material and what constitutes its materiality.

Materiality can be argued as movement through individuation, where space as a universal and stable reality is conducive to a Unified ether. Ether could be argued as pure space as dimension. We observe dimensions merely has bounaries which give structure to the realities we observe. In these respects what we observe as space it not so much "emptiness" but rather "being" as pure unity.

Materiality, as an approximation of the ether, is a negation of unity through multiplicity in which phenomena exist if and only if they individuate (multiply or seperate).

In these respect, materiality is existence through movement as relation.


2 - or a consequence of objects, materials existing or in process of becoming, time dependent

Time is merely movement as the relation between particulate (parts of a whole). In these respects time can be observed as a movement towards point zero as a center of gravity. Time is relative because time is relation.

3 - or completely independent of anything existing, the ultimate thing-in-itself, time independent

Ether would be time dependent. Apeiron, or what we observe through the Principle of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, is time dependent as it is time as movement.

A neutral form of space, synthetic space, would be the triadic result of Ether and Apeiron synthesizing. Dimension, as direction, in turn is the result which differs very little from the bounaries lines one sees in a yin and yang symbol. Dimension is both Apeiron and Ether in "limit" and in a seperate respect it is neither as "no limit".

This limit, as boundary can be observe embodied in linear dimensions that are inherent within Apeiron and Ether. In a seperate respect this "no-limit" can be observed as "point" or "center" which provide foundations for both.


Another ignorant question: Can we define space as material, meaning made up of particles, unless we correctly define the word "material" in a quantum field context vis-a-vis its usual colloquial meaning.
Physicist cannot seem to agree as to what material is. Material can be observe as moving space, through particulate with particulate merely being composed of other particulate. The particulate exist as relations through a 0d point which act simultaneously as a field.

If you look at the 0d point:

1) Any object moving towards the center of the 0d point seperates itself from other material. In these respects the point, through movement towards center, extends itself into a field.

2) The point seperates material in a manner in which the material relates to further material. These relations cause further individuation. Take for example the a 1 dimensional line between two zero dimensional points. The line is seperate through the zero dimensional points. Considering the line is ad-infinitum the line is merely a relation to a further segment of line. If the segments relate, they form further points through intersection resulting in further lines. The lines increase in relation, as the lines increase in quantity. The zero dimensional point, however remains the same as one zero dimensional point is the same as another zero dimensional point.

The lines change however according to their relations with other lines. A line of x seperations is larger or smaller to a line of y seperations. The lines relate and form z number of lines. However the nature of the lines is define by what further lines they relate too.



The quandary for me is, can a material be a particle, not as in a grain of sand, but as a unit of discrete energy or does this merely rely for practical purposes on our subdivision of energy fields.
Movement exists as energy, and energy is an absence of structure. Considering particulate exist if and only if they relate (as they are deficient in structure) by default they can be observed as units of energy...or units of movement.

If the latter, then the word "material" has an additional though very different reference to its usual meaning as one that may define in theory the materiality of space even if there are no frozen tangible objects within it.

or...

4 - maybe I should read more and keep my mouth shut in the meantime.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

What we understand of space is merely dimension as number. In these respects number is a spatial property. The ether, in these respects observe Number as a spatial median which glues reality together.

What differs an extradimensional (directed outwards) line from 1?

What differs a point from 0?

What differs an intradimensional (directed inwards) point from 1?

What differs a negative dimensional line (deficient in direction) from -1?

What seperates dimensional limits from 1 as unity and 1 as multiplicity, or 1/1?

What seperate no limit from "center" as 1 or 0?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot »

Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmDo we have any idea if...

1 - Space itself is material and what constitutes its materiality.
If anything, too many. Most physicists, if pushed, will concede that the 'space' in our universe, probably has 'material' qualities. If that can be agreed, the next challenge is to come up with a name for this 'material'. About the only consensus is not 'ether'. As Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin says: "The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum…The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
'Vacuum' is popular, but a bit misleading, because it doesn't necessarily mean 'nothing'. This wiki article gives some idea of the confusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum . Basically, 'true vacuum' is more or less 'space' as envisaged in Newtonian physics and special relativity; while 'false vacuum' is represented in general relativity and quantum field theories. Lawrence Krauss was criticised for his book A universe from nothing, because by most standards, a false vacuum is not nothing.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pm2 - or a consequence of objects, materials existing or in process of becoming, time dependent
It's a weird take on the chicken and egg. For most practical purposes, a 'field' is treated as if it is a consequence of an object. At the macro-scale, that is perfectly reasonable; the Earth, for instance, generates a gravitational field. At the quantum level, again for practical purposes, a field is an area in which a force is felt, and you won't get the sums wrong if you assume an electric field is generated by an electron. According to field theory though, the electric field associated with an electron, is actually a distortion created by 'pressure' in 'the electromagnetic field', but until it actually appears, it's not really an electron. It's a bit like if you push a tablecloth; the creases are most likely to appear near where you are pushing from, but they could pop up anywhere.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pm3 - or completely independent of anything existing, the ultimate thing-in-itself, time independent
That's another mystery: it's not clear whether the big bang happened in some eternal false vacuum/quantum field/region of the multiverse, or it just happened in a true vacuum for reasons we can only guess at, and the observable universe is a freak in an infinite expanse of proper nothingness.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmAnother ignorant question: Can we define space as material, meaning made up of particles, unless we correctly define the word "material" in a quantum field context vis-a-vis its usual colloquial meaning. The quandary for me is, can a material be a particle, not as in a grain of sand, but as a unit of discrete energy or does this merely rely for practical purposes on our subdivision of energy fields.
Yeah, for "practical purposes" most physicists take the instrumentalist approach and just use the tools that are known to work, even if the pictures of reality they are based on contradict one another. Shut up and calculate.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmIf the latter, then the word "material" has an additional though very different reference to its usual meaning as one that may define in theory the materiality of space even if there are no frozen tangible objects within it.
Well no; solid has no meaning at the quantum level.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmor...

4 - maybe I should read more and keep my mouth shut in the meantime.
Yeah but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Dubious »

Thanks Uwot. I appreciate your informative response especially at this time of year when most are busy with other things. Promise not to intervene until sometime next year!
uwot wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:26 am 'Vacuum' is popular, but a bit misleading, because it doesn't necessarily mean 'nothing'. This wiki article gives some idea of the confusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum . Basically, 'true vacuum' is more or less 'space' as envisaged in Newtonian physics and special relativity; while 'false vacuum' is represented in general relativity and quantum field theories. Lawrence Krauss was criticised for his book A universe from nothing, because by most standards, a false vacuum is not nothing.
I'd begin with the Lear's saying that "nothing becomes of nothing", if Nothing is accepted in its literal meaning. Since all that exists are derivatives of a pre-manufactured universe, vacuum takes the place of no-thing requiring its own definition. "Nothing" is merely a name given to an empty set of descriptions. Almost certainly the universe was not born in nothing but from or in a vacuum, black hole or some kind of energy field however concentrated or described, whose properties remain more mysterious than any philosophical problem ever encountered. I think half the battles are due to language, grammar and semantics whether applied to a cosmic or local venue. Perhaps the only thing that never dies in the universe is gravity as the agent of renewal.

These, btw, are not conclusions only opinions.
uwot wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:26 am Yeah, for "practical purposes" most physicists take the instrumentalist approach and just use the tools that are known to work, even if the pictures of reality they are based on contradict one another. Shut up and calculate.
The "instrumentalist approach" is viable and means simply using what works for now. Usually it's the means to an end without anyone knowing the ending. The most astounding proof for that began with Ptolemy.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmIf the latter, then the word "material" has an additional though very different reference to its usual meaning as one that may define in theory the materiality of space even if there are no frozen tangible objects within it.
uwot wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:26 amWell no; solid has no meaning at the quantum level.
That's understood and relates to the point I tried to make. If space is defined or believed to be material then the word requires a separate or added-to definition distinct from its usual classical denotations of something "solid".

May 2018 - I still remember 2008 all too well - be favorable to your endeavors!
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:26 am
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmDo we have any idea if...

1 - Space itself is material and what constitutes its materiality.
If anything, too many. Most physicists, if pushed, will concede that the 'space' in our universe, probably has 'material' qualities. If that can be agreed, the next challenge is to come up with a name for this 'material'. About the only consensus is not 'ether'.

I agree that the ether cannot be equivalent to what we deem of as material, material is strictly movement. Physics already provided the foundations for the apeiron as 0d point energy. It should focus on that. Physics will never be able to prove a theoretical ether without delving into pure mathematics and geometry, and even then it would have to invent a new one.

What we understand of material is strict movement, in these respects what we understand of material space is strictly the 1 dimensional line continually folding upon itself through the particle wave. Movement, as matter, is strictly "direction through relation" as a boundary. The particle-wave exists as a boundary to other particle waves because of its movement. In these respects movement forms a limit.



As Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin says: "The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum…The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
'Vacuum' is popular, but a bit misleading, because it doesn't necessarily mean 'nothing'. This wiki article gives some idea of the confusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum . Basically, 'true vacuum' is more or less 'space' as envisaged in Newtonian physics and special relativity; while 'false vacuum' is represented in general relativity and quantum field theories. Lawrence Krauss was criticised for his book A universe from nothing, because by most standards, a false vacuum is not nothing.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pm2 - or a consequence of objects, materials existing or in process of becoming, time dependent
It's a weird take on the chicken and egg. For most practical purposes, a 'field' is treated as if it is a consequence of an object. At the macro-scale, that is perfectly reasonable; the Earth, for instance, generates a gravitational field. At the quantum level, again for practical purposes, a field is an area in which a force is felt, and you won't get the sums wrong if you assume an electric field is generated by an electron. According to field theory though, the electric field associated with an electron, is actually a distortion created by 'pressure' in 'the electromagnetic field', but until it actually appears, it's not really an electron. It's a bit like if you push a tablecloth; the creases are most likely to appear near where you are pushing from, but they could pop up anywhere.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pm3 - or completely independent of anything existing, the ultimate thing-in-itself, time independent
That's another mystery: it's not clear whether the big bang happened in some eternal false vacuum/quantum field/region of the multiverse, or it just happened in a true vacuum for reasons we can only guess at, and the observable universe is a freak in an infinite expanse of proper nothingness.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmAnother ignorant question: Can we define space as material, meaning made up of particles, unless we correctly define the word "material" in a quantum field context vis-a-vis its usual colloquial meaning. The quandary for me is, can a material be a particle, not as in a grain of sand, but as a unit of discrete energy or does this merely rely for practical purposes on our subdivision of energy fields.
Yeah, for "practical purposes" most physicists take the instrumentalist approach and just use the tools that are known to work, even if the pictures of reality they are based on contradict one another. Shut up and calculate.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmIf the latter, then the word "material" has an additional though very different reference to its usual meaning as one that may define in theory the materiality of space even if there are no frozen tangible objects within it.
Well no; solid has no meaning at the quantum level.
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:19 pmor...

4 - maybe I should read more and keep my mouth shut in the meantime.
Yeah but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot »

Dubious wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:08 amI'd begin with the Lear's saying that "nothing becomes of nothing", if Nothing is accepted in its literal meaning.
Ex nihilo nihil fit-from nothing comes nothing. It's as old as philosophy.
Dubious wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:08 amSince all that exists are derivatives of a pre-manufactured universe, vacuum takes the place of no-thing requiring its own definition. "Nothing" is merely a name given to an empty set of descriptions. Almost certainly the universe was not born in nothing but from or in a vacuum, black hole or some kind of energy field however concentrated or described...
The Ancient Greeks called it Chaos.
Dubious wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:08 am...whose properties remain more mysterious than any philosophical problem ever encountered. I think half the battles are due to language, grammar and semantics whether applied to a cosmic or local venue. Perhaps the only thing that never dies in the universe is gravity as the agent of renewal.

These, btw, are not conclusions only opinions.
Noted.
Dubious wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:08 amMay 2018 - I still remember 2008 all too well - be favorable to your endeavors!
Thank you, and yours. May we remember 2018 with equal clarity, ten years hence.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:07 pm...material is strictly movement.
Of what?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:07 pm...material is strictly movement.
Of what?
Moving space is the relation of dimensions, with dimensions merely being the boundaries of further space, as space itself. As dimensions, through measurement, are merely boundaries which both form and maintain space... what we observe is a movement in measurement. In these respects what we observe as consciousness, rooted in space, is merely an approximation as measurement with space folding upon itself through the measurement process.

This approximation, as a form of randomness, is merely the limits of the ether or "unity" where the consciousness is strictly an extension of the ether through its application of "1" as a universal dimension of unity and individuation. It is this application of "1" as dimension which maintains the consciousness as a constant extension of the ether as the ether is merely 1 reflecting upon itself ad-infinitum as one. In these respects space as 1 dimensional is unifying and stable and can be observe universally as the base dimension from which consciousness is measurement.

The consciousness observing 0d manifests its observations as 1 acting as an individuator, which observes 1 as unit which relates through the 0d space as particulate. This is considering that 0d acts as an individuator, which we can observe in the Apeiron as 0d point energy or within basic geometry with zero being the individuator forming the relation of lines.

Movement is strictly the observation of a particulate, relative to another particulate and in these respects observes the nature of Consciousness, as an extension of space through the application of dimension, as having a fractal nature where 1 exists as a dimension of multiplication and division of dimensions through the 0d point acting as both and individuator in one respect and a field in another.

The 0d point, with linear dimensions ever approaching center, acts as a field in a seperate respect. I will call this the 0d point field effect. This 0d point-field effect can be observed where the dimension, we will observe as the 1d line as it is the root of all dimension, is forced to relate with itself. This act of relation is necessary considering no movement can exist within strict 0d space; because there is fundamentally nowhere to move.

As there is nowhere to move, the 1d line individuates into further 1d lines through what I will call a "Y" effect...or a branch effect. The line manifests continual "duals" which relate and are connected. These relation, allow the 1d line to exist through 0d space through a process of movement as relation, where they continually manifest further duals as relative particulate. This may be observed as quantum entanglement in one respect, while in a separate respect we observe this process within nature in the form of trees, leaves, plants, rivers, etc "branching" through the duality of the "Y".

These "Y"s curve, through the 0d point field, to form the wave as linear relating angles. In these respects, the "Y" effect forms the wave as another linear movement. A further 1d linear dimension forms which in effect follows the same process of individuation as perpetual movement where energy is neither lost nor gained but exists as a perpetual cycles of linear dimensions alternating through the 0d point.

At dualistic point "Y", through the 0d point field effect, we can observe the observation of relations in 1 respect, while a connection with the ether in a seperate. At the degree of seperation the extradimensional nature of the linear dimension inverts into a negative dimension as an extension of the 1 intradimensional ether. In these respects the 1 dimensional line is rooted through an inversion into a negative dimensional line as the extension of the 1d ether. This negative dimensional line, as an inversion of the extradimensional line exists as the boundary between the ether and the 0d space we understand. It is strictly an extension of the ether, through the ether, as the limits of the ether. In these respects the "Y" effect observes a trifold nature of dual lines relationg through the 0d point with the line inverting into a seperate dimension as the extension of the either. In these respects the 1d line and 0d point are connected through a linear dimension.


It can further be argued that space as movement is a form of modal realism within the nature of what is self-evident, or the axiom, itself. Space synthesizes through measurement as 1,2 and 3. In these respects what we observe of Consciousness is fundamentally a process of dimensions synthesizing. Space is both moving and non-moving, with the movement merely be approximation relative to 0 dimensionality.

That is my presented argument.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:55 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:07 pm...material is strictly movement.
Of what?
Moving space is the relation of dimensions, with dimensions merely being the boundaries of further space, as space itself. As dimensions, through measurement, are merely boundaries which both form and maintain space... what we observe is a movement in measurement. In these respects what we observe as consciousness, rooted in space, is merely an approximation as measurement with space folding upon itself through the measurement process.

Hang on a mo...
Moving space is the relation of dimensions.
Dimensions are boundaries of further space. (As space itself?)
Boundaries form and maintain space. (Because of measurement?)
Therefore, "what we observe is a movement in measurement"?

Sorry. I really can't make any sense of that.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:47 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:19 am Yes (positive), No (negative) , both/neither (neutral).
Oh well, I tried.
Have you?
Yes.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:55 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:31 am Of what?
Moving space is the relation of dimensions, with dimensions merely being the boundaries of further space, as space itself. As dimensions, through measurement, are merely boundaries which both form and maintain space... what we observe is a movement in measurement. In these respects what we observe as consciousness, rooted in space, is merely an approximation as measurement with space folding upon itself through the measurement process.

Hang on a mo...
Moving space is the relation of dimensions.

The observation of movement, through particulate which compose space as structure, observes the relations of dimensions. The relation of these dimensions, at its root, are specifically that of linear dimensions which relate to each other.

Dimensions are boundaries of further space. (As space itself?)

Dimensions exist through measurement, as measurement is the process of observing dimensions. These dimensions are merely directions of space formed by the directions of further space.


Boundaries form and maintain space. (Because of measurement?)

Measurement forms and maintains space.

Therefore, "what we observe is a movement in measurement"?

The observation of moving space is the observation of measurements moving, through the application and observation of dimensions.

One measurement in turn forms another measurement, much in the same manner one dimension forms another dimension. So what we understand of movement is a continual process of measurement.


Sorry. I really can't make any sense of that.
It can also be implied that the movement of space is the process of space acting as center points which provide the foundations for further boundaries.

All center points give structure to reality through a process of perpetual movement.

The movement of a dimension to the 0d center point causes the dimension to propagate itself through a process of individuation into further units. These units relate to form particulate as movement, with the particulate being units in themselves. These particulate exist if and only if they relate, and they relate through the 0d point acting simultaneously as a field which causes this same individuation.

So the act of individuation (as multiplication or division of relations) at one 0d center point in turn affects the particulate of a similar ratio which exists in another set of particulate.

Take for example two triangles "x" and "y". "x" and "y" are proportional in their angulature. "x" however exists in a field of relations called "a". In field "a", "x" is relatively large. In a seperate respect "y" exists in field "b" where it is relatively small. "x" and "y" are proportional, however their size differences are due to the fields in which they relate. These fields are seperated, through the 0d point, as a particulate in themselves as the are composed of the same linear relations that compose "x" and "y".

Because "x" and "y" are proportional they share a medial relation through the 0d point which acts the boundary of movement. Field "a" causes a movement in "x". As "x" is directly proportional to "y" through the zero dimensional point, this movement is transfered to "y" directly through that same zero dimensional point. In turn field "b" is affected and moves.


As "x" and "y" are directly proportional through the 0d point, its proportional nature exists as a linear relation between the two. So "x" and "y" particulate, as the relations of multiple linear dimensions, forms a duality. This duality in turn manifests a third linear relation, observed as proportionality itself, being the median through which they relate.

Proportionality, in these terms exists as its own linear dimension, considering that what we understand of dimensions, is fundamentally the manifestation of proportions. The 1d line, drawn across a space, inherently divides that space into 2 spaces which are proportional to each other. In these respects the 1d line acts as a boundary of proportionality.


Considering "x" and "y" are proportional through quantitative (number of individuations through the 0d point) and qualitative (the relation of these individuations to further individuations) means through the 0d dimensional point, the 0d point is the median of movement which connects "x" and "y".

What we can observe as movement is strictly the relation of spatial dimensions relative to the 0d point. Movement is strictly the observation of the absence of dimensionality, through the 0d point acting as a median of movement.
Post Reply