equations of the universe

[Mescaline]

Damnit I have to give this some more thought now.

Haha

Here are a few points I want to make.

1. Random fractals are completely random. Here is one:
Given point N, give a random direction, Theta.
From point N with angle Theta, give a random magnitude for the vector.
[Now we have a line from N at angle theta to a random point - this point is N+1]
Given point N+1, give a random direction, Theta+1.
From point N+1, with angle Theta+1, give a random magnitude for the vector.
[Etc]
THIS is the definition of "the random walk" which is relevant in chaotic systems (i.e. atoms bouncing around) and can be looked at as a completely random fractal.

But this means that the next point in the fractal equation is not completely independent of the preceding point in the equation. As it is dependent on, for example, "N+1". This in turn means that fractal equations are not genuinely creative in the sense that I was explaining. So as I understand it, it can still only be representational of an uncreative or repetitive universe.

 

[IJesusChrist]

Well, then you wouldn't have a fractal if it wasn't based on anything previously.

That is the definition of a fractal; a geometry (random or not) that is based on a previous point in time [or any other dimension].

So - we can conclude that no, there is no fractal that fits your definition of "creative".

 

[Mescaline]

Well, then you wouldn't have a fractal if it wasn't based on anything previously.

That is the definition of a fractal; a geometry (random or not) that is based on a previous point in time [or any other dimension].

So - we can conclude that no, there is no fractal that fits your definition of "creative".

Ok, haha, that's what I was getting at with the following:

Or am I making assumptions about fractal equations that stop it from being a fractal equation?

Well, then I do understand fractal equations correctly now, I suppose.
You evoked some doubt there for a while by stating that fractals are random, because in the true sense of the word "random" they are certainly not random. It's the same thing as with these so called "random variable generators" which you can find in various statistical software. These "random" variable generators are not truly random; they just pretend to be random; they try to be as random as possible. They are all based on some algorithm, and thereby can impossibly be truly random.

So, then I guess we're back at where we were before. We have to a make decision whether we either believe the universe, in and of itself, is uncreative, repetitive and non-random or whether you believe the universe, in and of itself, is creative, non-repetitive and random. (All three of these key-words used in the sense that I explained them before, and not in the common sense of their meaning)
I said earlier that I am in favor of the creative universe, but I think I will take that back, as I have absolutely no reason to believe this as of now. I would prefer it to be creative though; I want it to be creative.
Either way, this is what I end up with, up to now:

1) Fractal equations would be a potentially good representation of an uncreative, repetitive, non-random universe.

2) Quantum Theory would be a potentially good representation of a creative, non-repetitive, random universe.

Then, in case of Quantum Theory, the Schrödinger equation would be as close as you could get to an equation of the universe. Of course in case of Quantum Theory it is logically impossible to create a "real" equation of the universe (unless you make it infinitely long ), as every moment in the future contains an infinite amount of potentiality, the future state of which can in most cases simply not be calculated.
I am interested however, how it does seem to be possible for a hydrogen atom... Do you know, in detail, how this works? Could you explain?

And to answer my own question of why it would not be possible to write down the equation for the universe on a piece of paper:

It can only not be written on a piece of paper in case Quantum Theory is correct, as, in order to account for an infinite amount of potentiality, one would need an equation that is infinite and never-ending in nature, which in turn would require an infinite amount of pieces of paper.
In case a fractal equation is a good representation of the universe, it does seem to be possible to put it on a piece of paper, as you explained yourself.

And just like you, I think it unbelievable, as in not believable, that the universe can be written on a piece of paper. It just feels wrong... This makes me believe Quantum Theory is (more) correct, and that the universe is creative, random and non-repetitive in nature.

On the other hand, theories like Time Wave zero (the equation used in this theory would actually be another example of an equation that would fit the uncreative universe, if I understand it correctly), and the mayan prophecy about 2012, do seem to suggest that throughout history "timeperiods" repeat themselves, that we are going through the same "events" (or whatever you want to call them) over and over again, although at a faster rate every time. So this is actually in favor of an uncreative, repetitive, non-random universe. However, I will not base my reasoning on prophecies and alike, so I still prefer the creative universe, although I have to admit that this is mostly because an uncreative universe seems, well, kind of boring... Too "simple". :lol:

EDIT: Oh, man... Now I'm starting to develop some serious doubt that the universe is creative in nature.

EDIT2: Just noticed you asked another question I haven't answered:

So yes - in this way, the universe could be written down on a page, composed of all the equations within a logical system. However, something has to carry out that logic. In our case, it is a computer. In reality's case... ? What is the "operator"?

The operator.. Yes.. Well this brings us back to our previous discussion, and this is exactly why I thought it was important to talk about it.
Either there is something like a God, or any other creator (/operator), that itself is not created by something, thereby being eternal in nature or the operator could be us, thus us being the computer, and this again is intimitely connected with this alien theory, and the notion that we are a very advanced kind of robot, which has been created by these "aliens", which were in turn created by other aliens, etc. ad infinitum. And, of course, you can replace aliens/robots by anything plausible you like, and the theory would still work.
However, unless you have something more to say about this, lets refrain from having the same discussion over again.

 

[BrainEater]

hmm so after all your assumptions and speculations... what if the universe is still more complex and strange or so than you can imagine?? i mean it could possibly be both of the distinctions at once you brought up like creative or random.
after all for example randomness is at least in my opinion only an attribute that we use to describe/"define" something that we don't comprehend enough in its context or the thing/context itself.
and if you ask me, it's all more a matter of perspective than you may think. regarding creativeness and repetetitiveness... how could you for sure ever tell whether for example small details would repeat or not etc etc?? hmm well anyway... i think terrence mc kenna stil had kind of a similar theory... he said the universe is there to produce and conserve novelty = to create...
but then again if you ask me that's maybe only one part of the equation, because obviously the universe is based a lot on duality... i think duality is based on cycles. so possibly creation works together with destruction.. lol.. but i guess you could also see it like they work against each other while "in reality" working together... lol... something like that...
the point is probably, that we inhabit the world of forms, which is based on the concept of energy. and as you may already know, energy is supposed to never possibly to be destroyed, but can only change form.
the more adequate question to be asked is whether/what of the world is illusion and what is real... or better: what you perceive the world to be.
don't we each have a quantum computer for that as our own logical tool?? i think a quantum computer means that it can have several states of computation at once and it uses light for these states of computation... it's fascinating lol....
and maybe we shouldn't try to reduce everythign so much... like we also reduce people to their (supposed) functions, you know?
i dunno lol... hope any of this makes some sense...


peace 8)

 

[Mescaline]

i dunno lol... hope any of this makes some sense...

Oh, it very much does, and I'm happy you brought this up

hmm so after all your assumptions and speculations... what if the universe is still more complex and strange or so than you can imagine?? i mean it could possibly be both of the distinctions at once you brought up like creative or random.
after all for example randomness is at least in my opinion only an attribute that we use to describe/"define" something that we don't comprehend enough in its context or the thing/context itself.
and if you ask me, it's all more a matter of perspective than you may think. regarding creativeness and repetetitiveness... how could you for sure ever tell whether for example small details would repeat or not etc etc??

Yes, I think you are absolutely right, and I have had similar thoughts as well. I was thinking lately that it is the state of mind one is in, or as you put it the perspective you take, that determines whether the universe comes across as repetitive or creative.
Think about this, another way of putting the repetitive or creative nature of the universe: A repetitive universe implies the acceptance of the existance of a Past. As everything is dependent on something else that has preceeded it in that world view, there must be a past. On the other hand, in a random, creative universe, where every new moment is completely independent of anything else, there is no need for a past. All you need in a random universe is the Now, all you need is the present. This must certainly seem very familiar, right? Living in the now versus living in the past, and I'm guessing most of us are trying to live in the now, thereby looking to have the state of mind that involves a creative universe.

I very much like this way of seeing things, and I'm very happy you brought it up. This certainly seems a lot more plausible than the either repetitive, or creative universe line of thought.
But.. I'll keep an open mind; don't want to restrict myself to any specific line of thought (because I think you thought I was, but this was never my intention )

I have to run now. I'll read the rest of your post later, just thought this was most important right now ^^

 

[BrainEater]

yeah man... but i think what i meant was more something like that the universe could possibly also be or contain both of the implications of dualistic words at the same time.
for example if you say creative, you imply that there is also the opposite of it, which in this case is at least in my opinion somewhat ambiguous. the opposite could be simply non-creative or destructive...
so what i'm probably getting at is that the universe could possibly not exclusively be only one or the other, but rather one, the other and both together.
the same you could apply to the other possible characteristics you attributed to the universe.
hmm maybe don't rely too much on words if you can... they are just symbols and point towards a meaning. now obviously meanings of the same words can be totally different for different people.


peace

 

[Mescaline]

yeah man... but i think what i meant was more something like that the universe could possibly also be or contain both of the implications of dualistic words at the same time.
for example if you say creative, you imply that there is also the opposite of it, which in this case is at least in my opinion somewhat ambiguous. the opposite could be simply non-creative or destructive...
so what i'm probably getting at is that the universe could possibly not exclusively be only one or the other, but rather one, the other and both together.
the same you could apply to the other possible characteristics you attributed to the universe.

Agreed, there's no light without darkness, nor darkness without light. However, don't confuse creativity and creation. I agree they are very closely related, but the opposite of creativity is repetition, while the opposite of creation is destruction.
Anyway, I agree with your main point, that one cannot exist without the other, therefor they both have to exist at the same time. So, this also explains why both exist at the same time.

hmm maybe don't rely too much on words if you can... they are just symbols and point towards a meaning. now obviously meanings of the same words can be totally different for different people.

Very true, but without words it becomes impossible to transfer ideas and talk about it all. Different people giving the same words different meanings is certainly one of the biggest problems in talking about topics like this, and that's also why I explicitly mentioned my definitions of creativity and repetition. As you said, words are just symbols, and I just used those words to symbolize what I was referring to.
Agreement in these kinds of discussions is probably much harder to achieve due to different notions of words amongst different people than due to there being an actual disagreement. If there were an easy way to telepathically transfer ideas as a whole without the use of symbols that would be much better, of course, and agreement would probably be achieved much easier. However, as things are I'd rather take these "problems" brought about by words for granted and try to minimize these, than to just stop discussing any deep philosophical problems in general, just because words are unreliable
Of course this does not mean that the universe can only be of such a nature that it can be described in words. But, we can at least try to get as close to it as possible with words, and leave the indescribable to experience itself.

 

[mosaicmouse]

It's only a model...

 

[BrainEater]

what a bitch lol :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

oh and maybe something on topic too... i think time is a factor of synchronisation.... does that make sense? 8)

 

[ophiuchus]

hahaha

fractals are very short equations. z=z(squared)+c (with "z the output" becoming "z the input" **)is the mandelbrot set. which is neither truely ordered nor chaotic. it is also therefore never repeating (as are all fractals)

**the equals should actually be this sign, but to my knowledge i cannot type it.Voir la pièce jointe 5316