Reality - Version 0.1

James

OK, I am not being a smart ass - so don’t get the wrong idea. I just want to be candid(truthful and straightforward; frank).

I get the concept of propagation in the following quote:

Which sounds similar to the following to me:

With the exception that we are adding coordinates.

In metaspace we can do anything. We have a lot of flexibility.

So we are switching from Segments and Columns to Coordinates. Each Coordinate contains a negative or positive value for PtA.

Correct?

[-o<

I didn’t want to make a liar out of you. :sunglasses:

You already had coordinates with the arrays. It’s e4asier if you use them, especially since it all becomes 3D after a while.

Let me know when you think that you have all of that straight because the next issue will throw you. :sunglasses:

James

Has anyone ever told you that you are a pain in the neck sometimes? :laughing: Kidding of course.

Thanks man.

Yeah yeah . . . I should have said coordinate system. 3D Cartesian Coordinate System. The arrays I will use for storing each set of coordinates.

I think that I have all of that straight. I can contemplate the next issue while I work on some new logic.

:sunglasses:

More times than I can count. But its good for you to finally get that out. Now we can move a little faster. :sunglasses:

Well okay. You had propagations going along any chosen axes and even mentioned propagating diagonally. Using an orthographic array, such is simple and obvious. But of course in reality, propagation must occur at ANY angle. So how are you going to arrange for that with your arrays (I should mention that this is largely how I started as well)?

James

I guess I have a propensity toward a more passive approach . . . when the time calls for it.
Since I have been here, I have had to take a good look at what I have to deal with - initially I was attacked - rationally speaking that directly points at emotional conduct in my eyes. That to me, runs against the grain of good philosophy. Before I arrived here I existed in a very logical world. A world far superior in rationality.

Constructive criticism in the before world could be easily discerned. In this “new” world it is difficult to determine what is constructive and what is trolling. The language I am used to follows words like, preposterous, nonsense, complete rubbish to name but a few examples - This new world its seems quite often follows words like, shit, fuck, asshole to name but a few examples. My before world should not be taken to mean the old world, however my tolerance for this “new” world has lessened quite rapidly for the time I have been here. To say that I am impressed with this “new” world, would be a disgusting overstatement.

I really appreciate that James. I get no enjoyment from offending people - especially those I respect so much. :smiley: I feel that a good philosopher should take no offense. Good philosophy should have at its basis - fortified thinking, to put it simply.

- - ( – | <> | – ) - -

Notes on my methods: Some of the following information is usually kept in the background so as not to pollute the communication process. I do however feel it is necessary to share a few things here so that you have a clearer picture of how I operate. I get the feeling I might have introduced some confusion at some stage.

I did this entirely on purpose. I habitually approach problems a certain way - because I have found that the problem is usually the solution in reverse(poetic license).

You have the solution - it introduces to me a problem. So I break apart your solution into the smallest parts I can find. That way I can determine needed refinements in the information process - basically I hit the black box with a sledge hammer with the intention to reverse engineer the solution. Metaphorically speaking the parts are scattered everywhere and they become a puzzle to be put back together. I usually make the parts fit together better than before.
This works hand in hand with abstraction.

I call it a workup. It is a process whereby I separate and purify differential information so that I can analyze each derivative.
Chemists use a similar procedure.

After a successful workup, I move on to the next step. This next step I call compounding.

Compounding is a process whereby I amalgamate ‘each elemental unit(each derivative)’ into larger structural components. Compounding is done incrementally.

Slow and steady wins the race . . .

Step 1 ► Workup
Step 2 ► Compounding

From what I discern so far we have two separate compounds, metaspace and physical space. Each space is a compound space else it would be empty.
Empty space must be non-existent. Euclidean space is non existent until you add dimensions. Euclidean space is a compound of elemental dimensions.
To only add one element to empty space is as good as saying it is empty - for what could affect it and what could it affect?
Even the first dimension is a compound, constituted of two connected points - we call this a line.
The First Dimension is the LINE consisting of infinite points

Regarding: Now we can move a little faster. :sunglasses: Yes we can - I suggest rather than a set speed - acceleration.

Let us sensibly build momentum within both of our set limits - lessening the confinement a step at a time.

:sunglasses:

?? :sunglasses:

I am getting to that - before that I will be approaching the topic of the word orthographic.

:-k

I am just taking care of a few things. Just a quick note.

Regarding angles . . . do you have some trick up your sleeve? When I consider what you said I find myself thinking about PtA does not move but rather passes itself on so rotation matrices, quaternions, Euler angles(and gimble lock) and what ever else I am missing here are the flip side of your statement: Let me know when you think that you have all of that straight because the next issue will throw you. :sunglasses:. Alternatively I could be reading what you said wrong.

:-k

Look to his little “pink” koi avatar. lol
That is what it means to exist…movement.

Arcturus Descending

Huh . . . pink . . . boys don’t wear pink . . .

Actually I totally disagree with this complete nonsense :laughing: I am totally joking . . . you are so close to the truth here Arcturus Descending.

Now I have to deal with an issue in the divine realm - involving the scaling of infinity . . .

. . . so that things can move in the physical totality of existence.

:-k

encode_decode wrote:

In a perfect ideal world, looking at life and seeing its reality objectively, would be a part of existence.
If by life you mean the universe, nature, and all that surrounds us, we can see some of it objectively, no - insofar as we know the facts, certain facts.
But can we see much of it objectively - since we don’t have all of the facts - and those that we do have - are capable of changing.

But does it mean that we do not exist if we more often than not see life subjectively? How can we not? We have egos and we all come from different perspectives because we come from different places in life which cause us to see with different eyes.

Yes, that to me is certainly part of what it means to exist.
Look at your avatar. It’s a beautiful example of what it means to be affected by surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence.
Both those koi are affecting and influencing one another.
I wonder what the one would do if the other stopped swimming and just turned around and looked at the one.

I think that you are reading it right. You began by expressing random levels of PtA distributed throughout a 2D matrix. We discussed the propagation from point to point within the matrix. But for the model to reflect reality, such propagation must travel at any angle, not merely the horizontal, vertical, or diagonal angles. And that becomes a serious challenge.

I spent some time investigating the issue of “filling space” so as to determine if there is a regular form that a matrix could represent and that would also allow for the required variety of angles. I eventually proved that no such polygon can exist. And that left me wondering what to do. How does one represent the propagation of millions of random PtA levels in random directions?

Actually, you already have my answer to that conundrum. I just thought it would be good for you to see why I suggested it in the first place.

James

I am pleased with this response - it shows me I am internalizing things - which is good because I am busy working on a virtual machine at the moment . . .
. . . obviously that is unrelated so I will get down to specifics.

Yes it does become a serious challenge, I totally agree - off the top of my head just from this quote alone - interpolation of angles into the matrix comes to mind.

I can see why . . . there is no scale for infinity. Again, just off the top of my head I would be doing some sort of averaging and interpolation. I guess there are a number of ways to make do but that is all I can think of without much effort.

OK . . . I will go and search for it. You are quite welcome to give me a hint - it might save time, however I will know what it is when I find it.

:sunglasses:

Tennis.

James

I nearly forgot . . .

I need you to elaborate. Are you talking about projection? I ask because I use this word in a number of domains including mapping and memory. Orthogonality also comes to mind. I also thought that you might have been referring to an orthogonal array. I agree to the simple and obvious comment - I also think that simple and obvious is a wonderful thing once I start compounding - that way I know what a complex system is about.

James

My goodness :blush: sorry.

James

If it is not too much trouble, I still require your thoughts on this post.

It is important to me that we are sharing the same terminology.

Thank you in advance.

:smiley:

Sorry, I merely meant it in the common sense of right angles, as in a Cartesian coordinate system (“ortho-” meaning “proper/right/straight/standard/authentic”).