Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

Newton, 1687: Relative space and time are measurements determined by the senses

The idea behind physics is to provide useful mathematical relationships between those measurements.

The use of equations to formalize those relationships has been
successful.

We can use a simple tools like pen and paper to derive results.

For example, if we plot the motion of billiard ball, we can determine
where it will be at t = 10, or if it ever gets to x = 5, and we don't
have to compute where it will be at t = 9 to know t = 10.

That's convenient. Having a shortcut like that.

I propose those shortcuts are the reason for no GUT based on
equations, and I would like to add my voice to those who say a more
general form of mathematics, computation, will yield a more complete
and consistent model.

Essentially the formal mathematical objects in the computer models
should be regarded as monads, not existing in relative space or time.

The monads should interact and produce enough complexity to begin
making measurements of themselves. For example, one group of monads,
operating like an eye, nerves, and brain interacts with another group
of monads arranged into a rod and makes a measurement of its length.

At that point, when the measurement is made, relative space and time
emerge in the model.

Just as Newton distinguished relative space and time from absolute
time, it is helpful here to think of monads as absolute matter and
particles, atoms, molecules, and macroscopic objects as relative
matter.

That's what Leibniz did anyways.

I've explored a few hundred models by now, here's a video showing the
final screen shots on some of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRWX09aO6bw

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2009
Posts: 172

If we agree that time, space, and energy need to be replaced by monads below the Planck scale, then should we attempt to develop computer models that depend upon M-theory in order to avoid the re-invention of M-theory?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory .
If quantum mechanics is an approximation to a model with hidden determinism, then are there two main alternates: (1) guide waves or pilot waves as described by Bohm and de Broglie or (2) a multiverse or many worlds interpretation? If there is a computer simulation using a network of monads yielding a unified theory of physics, then why wouldn't M-theory be a good approximation to the simulation? Doesn't it make sense to start with M-theory in attempting to develop an ultimate computer simulation of physics?
Is the following analogy valid? Wind is to a sailing ship as empirical evidence is to a scientific theory.
In M-theory or any theory that competes with M-theory, what plays the role that Kepler's laws play in the development of Newtonian mechanics?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

M-Theory and string theory may certainly be guides for a monad theory.

Take Brane Theory.

What I'm saying (as are others) that our brane, with relative space, relative time, and relative matter, has to be a result of another brane measuring itself, not simply two existing branes with one affecting the other.

Here's Phil Gibbs take:

<quote>
Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings.
It will be the first step towards a reconciliation of physics and
philosophy. Perhaps it will be quickly followed by a change of view,
to a point from where all of our universe can be seen as a consequence
of our possible experiences just as the old philosophers wanted us to
see it. What other ways will we have to modify our understanding to
accommodate such a theory? Not all can be foreseen.
</quote>

I think instead of strings, we should be thinking of something more general, which we should call monads.

Strings are one attempt at monads, but the 10 or 26 dimensions or whatever shouldn't exist all together.

Relative space and relative time that we measure in physics should be "by-products" of the unseen dimensions.

We should model our dimensions indirectly through the eyes of a modeled observer.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged