Limits of Reality?

[IDMclean]

I have been considering recently the percise definitions of reality itself.

 

I have come to an idea, which I suppose is not new, though I haven't heard of it myself. So I thought I would put it up here.

 

It's really quite simple.

 

The number of elements of the set of what exists, e, is less than infinite, and greater than indefinite[math]^1[/math]. Expressed as follows.

 

e may only be expressed as a non-zero, non-negative integer.

 

[math]0<e<\infty[/math]

 

[math]^1[/math] I am working on an indefinite theorem, so bare with me, please. a Zero value element, in a set where all elements exist, is indefinite within the set. Axiomaticly, this disallows a zero value element from the set of all things. For subsets there is an exception to this.

[Farsight]

Funnily enough, I was saying somewhere else that both nothing and infinity are mere concepts that don't really exist. So yep, what you're saying sounds good to me.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=23424

[arkain101]

Kick,

 

I'd apreciate a simplified version of that post. I dont follow some terms that well.

[IDMclean]

The set of what exists, is finite. What exists is not only finite, but it's elements implicitly are finite. That is what exists is not infinite.

 

The set of what exists, is Definite. What exists is not only definite, but it's elements implicitly are definite. That is what exists is not indefinite.

 

Hence the expression.

 

So the set, the value of it's elements and the number of elements of the set are all finite, defined values. This is a way of saying that reality is strictly conserved.

[arkain101]

Thank you sir.

 

I find it interesting and look forward to where this takes you.

 

Besides, how can anything be measured in an unmeasurable enviroment? :fly:

[sanctus]

 

So the set, the value of it's elements and the number of elements of the set are all finite, defined values. This is a way of saying that reality is strictly conserved.

 

 

To be definite and finite does not imply that reality is conserved, because the elements of the set of existing things (with the 2 conditions, ie defeinite and finite) are still allowed to vary in number.

[IDMclean]

Would not the variance of the set or it's elements be finite?

 

However for convenience lets say that our next condition is Noether Theorem.

[sanctus]

For thee Noether thm you need a symmetry what's your symmetry?

[IDMclean]

Umm what exists?

[sanctus]

What exists is not a symmetry to me, explain further?

[UKOK]

Interesting post Kickassclown. This all seems very heavy to me but I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions to demonstrate my misunderstanding.

 

Why do you limit the set of things that exist as finite? How does one define 'things'? Is this e encompassing a point in time or across all time?

 

The reason I bring this up is that the statement you make falls apart if e = infinity, i.e there is no limit to reality. The definition of 'things' that are in the set of what exists is also important. To me the whole spacetime issue raises its head. If you take a substantivist view point where spacetime itself is absolute and we also argue that the spacetime is a a continum rather than discrete points then one could also argue that what exists is infinte as it is infinitely divisible. I.e. take a chunk of space and divide by 2 continously and you always end up with spacetime.

 

Or I could have completely missed the point which is highly probable.

[arkain101]

What I vaguely understand in quantum theory is that energy packets of photons work in discrete values. that is they are quantized.

 

Energy value of a wave of light is lost by the square of the radius of which it travels, correct?

 

If a light wave, as to imagine a circle wave expanding, continued to expand on and on, would that wave not reach a point in which energy value reached its final lows, and eventually became zero or stopped?

 

Is this some type of limit on reality? What is known here?

[IDMclean]

I define things as matter(concrete concept, the object), and the patterns that form from matter (Abstract, the subject).

 

I limit reality to a finite set, because if it is not so limited, then conservation must be broken. It might be a light breaking of the laws of conservation, but it is a breaking none the less.

 

In my book, a particle of light can not leave the universe, as to do so would invite the destruction of a well supported theorem, that says that energy is conserved. Jay-qu and myself were discussing such a thing in reference to the two hydrogen particle interaction. He noted that a photon could be emitted and "lost" from the system, that is not absorbed somewhere in the system. I said plainly that this is an impossibility if current laws are to hold.

 

My explination then went to that the photon actually radiates in a hyperspherical way, so that no matter what it will be absorbed by either the emitting hydrogen atom or the receiving hydrogen atom. Either way the conservation of energy in the closed system is held.

 

That is I maintain that the universe is a closed system. As for space-time continuity? Check my thread on Relative Quantum Charge Dynamics for what I think of space-time.

 

I admit I could be quite wrong and in a ironic twist of events, the universe could be infinite. It still gets us closer to a constrained, rational universe in which supernatural (Things that happen without causality) things are not a possibility.

 

An interesting thing to concider, that I don't know how to otherwise iterate, is that the set of what exists is finite, the set of what does not exist is infinite, and the set of e is a hole in the set of n. That is what does not exist is infinite, and indefinite, but can not reach finite terms.

 

As for what "length" time this encompasses, well talk to my friend InfiniteNow, he is very knowledgable about the concept of time.

 

As for dividing things which exist, infinitely? Not going to happen in my book, and it would seem that quantum physics supports this. That is length, time, energy, matter, charge, spin, and mass are all quatasized, as it would appear. Which makes sense. Can you divide a car in two and have two cars? I think not. Same applies for just about anything else. Yes you can divide an atom, but you don't necessarily end up with an atom.

 

I hope that addresses your questions.

[UKOK]

You guys are obviously well eductaed in this area and I will have to do some reading. I do understand that if you split a car you dont get 2 cars. I started writing my response to you and realised that I was talking about a post I put in a different forum.

 

I made two post last night and the other one goes into this topic in more detail. Can I ask you guys to read it and comment back on that. I may not understand your answers but it gives me something to go and read up on.

 

The question/debate was about 'what does space consist of?'

 

"I signed up to this forum last night because I was googling the plank length because I was trying to get my head around exactly this discussion.

 

I am glad someone earlier correct the view that plank length is the smallest possible distance. If this were the case then we could argue that space is made up from discrete chunks. I had problems with this but my conclusions are far from lucid at the moment. This all started from a different question for me. Why is the speed of light what it is and why a maxima? what other limitations were there around both distance and time.

 

My worry is that if the smallest distance is x then motion is also constrained to move in chunks because something cannot move a distance smaller than x.

 

For example, imagine the edge of a golf ball travelling through space at 100,000 miles an hour. If it is unable to move less than the plank length then how does it jump the 'gap'. If point A and point B are plank distance apart then it needs to be at point A at time X and point B at time Y where time Y is the time it takes to move plank distance at 100,000 miles per hour (lest call it Z).

 

But what happend in between as the edge of the ball cannot be in between those two positions as it would mean moving a distance smaller than plank. The alternative is that the ball sits at point A for the period Z and then instantaneously appears at point B.

 

This says to me that things move around by being stationary at points and then moving plank distance instantaneously where the interval of the jumps is dictated by the speed (i.e. how long it remains stationary). This raises too many questions if this were to be the case and so I believe that space time is continuous. I.e. it can be infinitely divided and still end up with spacetime."