Back from a wonderful vacation–but thought about various permutations of this scaleless system artifice I am building. I want to think on this quite a bit more since it is very clear to me that this is a profound area of study that seems to have drawn very little thinking from the major philosophers and mathematicians of history–yet is pointed right at the very heart of how we came into being. You can get more detail of the artifice from my previous postings, but they can be quickly summarized as thoughts about how to get something from nothing. Several corollaries emerge, such as being careful to specify what it means to have a nothing versus a something, what it means to have spatial and time dimensions, and so on. The crucial degree of freedom for every observable dimension is the property of scalelessness. If there is nothing present in a finite system, you can never get something without an external influence (such as something from another dimension able to morph to the nothing dimension). But as soon as you allow an infinite system of nothing, then the mathematics of infinities permits something to emerge. The property of scalelessness emerges from an infinite system of nothing, so one could imagine that an infinitely slight curvature of some infinitesimal property of the nothing system would actually seem to be a lifesize entity to an observer of the same scale. The thing that was so amazing to me from the last posting was–we don’t even have to know what the property characteristics are, because the same scalelessness could be applied to the entire infinite set of possible properties. *Any* possible property could emerge with any possible scale in both time and space and ultimately form a system from which entities capable of observing the property emerge!

Now, after a fair amount of (somewhat incredulous!) thought, I’ve realized that mathematically the path to something from nothing will always exist (using care to understand what a true nothing is). I’m tempted to then head down the path of what that says about the existence of God.. but I’m really not ready for that. There’s just a whole vista of thinking about scaleless systems I want to do first, to see what properties and characteristics will come forth.

Along those lines, I had a very interesting discussion about spatial dimensions recently–and while I’ve discussed my thinking about the appearance of three dimensions in previous postings, I’d like to restate it here as a summary, because it helps one see the potential power of the enormous degree of freedom a scaleless system gives us. It was (and is) my contention that the desire of mathematicians to establish the three space dimensions is an illusion. It’s a common question to ask why are there three, why not 4 or some other number. Physicists are clamoring for ten or more to resolve the relativity versus quantum mathematics. But the reality (at least as it appears to me) is there is only one–and that includes time, I think. Dimensions are set up to create a system whereby unique points in space or time or both have a unique identity. Practically any system of dimensions that covers the space will do this, but we happen to choose one that specifies dimensions that are orthogonal and straight, and thus come up with three. It can successfully be argued that a single dimension path that winds its way through every point in space uniquely is sufficient (think a spiral in two dimensions, you can locate every point with a unique value that is the length along the spiral). Yes, we can ask questions as to why there aren’t four spatial dimensions that are straight and orthogonal–and I would rebut that the spiral is a single dimension that is straight and orthogonal, since there are no other dimensions–to a snake lying on the spiral! We see three dimensions because of how our sensors are imposed within our space, not because there really are three!

Why does this relate to scaleless systems? Because an important question in characterizing scaleless systems is did the dimensions come first, or are they an intrinsic development of something from nothing. I argue that they develop from a nothing system that is scaleless–and that the number of dimensions an observer sees is a direct result of his formation along with the something formation!!

One exciting development related to this is about one of my first corollaries, the one that says that a system is scaleless if there is nothing in it or if there is only one entity in it, that no comparisons are possible. But I discovered that the system is *still* scaleless even when there are two somethings. Yes, you can compare the two somethings and call one bigger than the other, but you still have no way of knowing how big or tiny either one “really” is. So, a new corollary: a system retains its scalelessness even if it is not a nothing system. Now if you think just a bit I’ll bet you’ll hit upon a shocking revelation (look at the title if you need a hint!): there is no difference (in an infinite scale, ie scaleless, system) between a nothing system and a something system….!!




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: