What is more simple to describe reality with a primitive "is"-ness or "me-sness" ?

@GorDie,

Discrete space means it is not infinitely divisible as opposed to continuum.

No it is not in anyone's head. Heads are like anything else information patterns in the big string.

Space is only material if you greatly enlarge and modify the meaning of material.

If material steps back to only mean X exists then I am OK with it. But then we have to let go of the abstract vs concrete dichotomy.
(which by the way we should have done by now...yet another dualism worth throwing out.)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am not sure you need anything but a discrete space 1D string where bits fit in.

You mean a string of 1's and 0's? Such a thing cannot exist virtually, without some sort of things coding for 1) the space itself, and 2) for the 1's and the 0's within that space. E.g. 1) the sheet of paper and 2) the ink dots.

Of course, you could say that it's all written on yet another under-lying mathematical object, but that calls for an infinite number of mathematical levels, each building upon one another, and you don't like infinity as I recall...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes virtual machine is my answer.
But think of an hologram that repeats the pattern when you go either one layer up or one layer down. Its a loop ! Pseudo infinity !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Mathematical turtles all the way around, in a circle, each biting the tail of the one before, sound absurd to me as a world representation, if only for reasons of scale: the infinitely small cannot be built upon or be encoded on the infinitely large.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No its not a true infinity, its a loop. You simply set a logical function at the end of the string that points to the start of the string. You still have only one single string. If you follow the computation you have the illusion of causation where the "head" meets the "tail"...but it is an illusion.

Also remember this thing is timeless. Its uncaused. It doesn't need justification. Its the ground of all being. You cannot indeed go an infinite regress of causes. The point is the all string is not caused. But is set in a way that when reading from within the computation you find no limit as beginning meets the end.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

No its not a true infinity, its a loop. You simply set a logical function at the end of the string that points to the start of the string.

That's not the problem I'm having with your theory. I am asking: what is the string itself coded upon?

There's no such thing as pure information without something that's being put "in form". There can't be "form" without some "substance" that takes such a form. Pure form is unthinkable, and Occam razor as I know it cannot lead you to something that's unthinkable.

Hence the inherent duality to this world, or at least to my understanding of it: form and substance; message and medium; software and hardware; mind and brain. I see those categories as homothetic.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

A bit of information fits in the smallest possible lenght of discrete space probably at plank scale. Its a binary system on which either the smallest bit of space is either filled or unfilled. The 1D string is made of this space being filled with information. Don't ask me for what substance it is since I am not a materialist, or better put, I don't have a clear understanding on what "materialism" is addressing...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

So you believe there can be such a thing as pure form?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I have told you geometry can be reduced to maths except 1D space so I am not entirely sure what you are asking. If you mean to ask if I don't have a logical cabal explanation of materialism then my answer was yes. I don't know its final properties. Still I consider myself a naturalist just not a materialist at least till someone clarifies to me what materialism exactly entails.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I am not talking of materialism, not even of matter per se. We can address that later if you want. For the moment I am just asking a question pertaining to logic: can a form (aka structure or information) exist without something being shaped in that form? Can a pattern exist without any support or medium? (the question of pure form)

I say no, because to me that is logically unthinkable.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I am not talking of materialism, not even of matter per se. We can address that later if you want. For the moment I am just asking a question pertaining to logic: can a form (aka structure or information) exist without something being shaped in that form? Can a pattern exist without any support or medium? (the question of pure form)

I say no, because to me that is logically unthinkable.

But this was clearly answered several times now. Smallest bit of space is what supports the information. 1D single bit of space is the support of each bit of info.

...and yes although you seem to think you are not asking, you indeed are asking for a substance on those bits. Either that or you don't understood what I am saying. On this regard I already told you I don't know what fills it.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Smallest bit of space is what supports the information. 1D single bit of space is the support of each bit of info.

Except that this space with all its bits neatly organized along 1 dimension are themselves a form, aka structure or information. What supports or codes for the 1D space and its bits, in your system? Nothing I presume, therefore it exists as pure form, which to me is unthinkable.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Smallest bit of space is what supports the information. 1D single bit of space is the support of each bit of info.

Except that this space with all its bits neatly organized along 1 dimension are themselves a form, aka structure or information. What supports or codes for the 1D space and its bits, in your system? Nothing I presume, therefore it exists as pure form, which to me is unthinkable.

So you rather have an infinite regress of supports ? That problem can be put forward to any system you present !
I am just sticking with the simplest possible system, space and info.

You do realize space is a thing not nothingness, right ?

For me rules of the game are:
Simplest possible medium, 1D discrete string of space.
Simplest possible substance, 1 bit of info.
Structure arises from the combination of these two.

1 Reply

Let me make it simple for you. Information is ENGRAVED in space itself. Space is a discrete collection of 1D bits. The substance that fills those bits its unknown to me.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

From a system like this in principle you can describe as many dimensions as you want. Be it 3, 4, 11, or a 1000 dimensions if you want more complexity.

At a fundamental level all you need is 1 Dimension...so in my guessing, yes it is wild guessing, I stick with the simplest proposition.

Also its far easier to deal rationally with discrete space then with a continuum on which case you would be confronted with Zeno's paradox and the need for infinite energy, matter, space, infinite motion, everything infinite, to mechanize any structure and make anything work at all...That is appealing to magic. I rather forgo that.

0 Replies

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I disagree with the idea of pure randomness as being fundamental.
People keep confusing complexity and computation limits with true randomness. True enough a system informs another system
within a given layer of language on which information is useful. Meaning on which information serves a function. Whether or not there is pure randomness at work is totally speculative. Randomness can be defined as lack of knowledge and predictive power about future states of affairs related with our own sub system limitation in relation to a master system. Hence why information is useful in distinct layers of exchange beyond which it doesn't work or works as background noise.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Simplest possible medium, 1D discrete string of space.
Simplest possible substance, 1 bit of info.
Structure arises from the combination of these two.

Note that you have a dualist system here. So the simplest possible systen to explain the world still have two stuff in it.

In short, I don't think monism is logically defensible.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Reality is as it is - ontic
Reality is as it is perceived (measured, known, etc) - epistemic
Both describe reality which, when all is said, is as it is.

1 Reply

What is more simple to describe reality with a primitive "is"-ness or "me-sness" ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know