Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Things may be stored differently from the way I experience them
#1
For some months I've been living with the idea, that something information-like underlies my everyday experience, and that this information is stored quite differently from the way I experience it.

I've struggled with a way to introduce the subject on here, but I've failed to come up with any easy way, so I've decided it's just better to come right out and put it on here. To understand these ideas, it's assumed that the reader will need to have rejected ideas similar to direct realism.

[Image: 2d-2d_1.jpg]
1. This is how I tend to think about spacetime. 3 dimensions of space I can move around within, and 1 dimension of time which is rather like a bead on the bar of an abacus, which is sandwiched between two other beads on the same bar, and is unable to move passed them.

However, for lots of different reasons (which I'm not going to go into immediately), I'm at a stage in my exploration where I feel much of the anomalous stuff we discuss on here, may be better explained by considering whether my spacetime experience (shown above), is actually just the result of processing information which is actually stored quite differently. That is information is actually stored in a different number of dimensions, from the familiar 4 dimensions of spacetime we know. I don't have an absolutely fixed view how many dimensions. It could be more dimensions, it could be less, but currently I prefer the idea that this information is stored in less dimensions, and here I'll discuss information as if it were stored in just 2 dimensions.

[Image: 2d-2d_2.jpg]
2. Here are two, 2 dimensional surfaces, you might think of each of them as a flat piece of paper. On them you can store information by colouring in the boxes to get a sort of checkerboard pattern. But rather than thinking about flat sheets of paper, you can get the same effect by thinking about the 2 dimensional inner surface of two spheres... like here...

[Image: 2d-2d_3.jpg]

3. Here we see two spheres, which also provide us with a 2 dimensional surface. But lets strip away the surface of each sphere, and think only about 2 dimensional storage, as the arrows (vectors) coming from a central, space-less point, as shown here...

[Image: 2d-2d_4.jpg]
4. Lets imagine that these vectors (arrows) are equivalent to the black and white squares on the 2 dimensional paper sheet we mentioned earlier.

[Image: 2d-2d_5.jpg]
5. Such that the storage potential of this sphere-like 'thing' is enormous, because an almost infinite number of vectors can be stored, simply by expanding the size of sphere, we can increase surface area of the object.

[Image: 2d-2d_3.jpg]

6. Now lets assume that these vectors are as yet unrealised, they have not yet come into existance within spacetime itself. At present they are only information, like the black and white chequerboard. Only when they interact with another 2 dimensional storage system, do the vectors become realised into spacetime... and only appropriate vectors are realized... somehow, both systems only release relevant information to each other.

You might think of one of these 2 dimensional objects as the red arrow, the other 2 dimensional object as the blue arrow...

[Image: 2d-2d_7.jpg]

When both 2 dimensional storage systems interact, they share one of their dimensions with the other system...

[Image: 2d-2d_8.jpg?]

Such that the interaction causes the information that is stored in these two dimensional storage systems, to be processed into a result where the information is combined, and is experienced as 3 dimensions of space, and 1 dimension of time... spacetime.


Now I'm not saying this is actually what happens. What I'm trying to get across is the idea that if information is actually stored quite differently from the way we experience it, then our experiences may by joined up quite differently from the way we popularly understand them. We may see repetitions and repeating cycles that intrigue us. We may experience glimpses of what we understand as the past or the future (apparitions and premonitions). But these anomalies, may be the result of our processing of information that is not actually stored as 3 dimensions of space, and 1 dimension of time.
[-] The following 3 users Like Max_B's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel, stephenw, malf
Reply
#2
'Information' isn't stored. Information is accessed from parallel realities which we automatically choose (unconsciously) as it is needed and relevant.

You did a good job on the 4D analysis btw maybe this will help.

Think of space-time as a 100% thing. The more space you have, the less time is involved. Versa-visa.
Existence is not subject to time; time is subject to Existence.
Reply
#3
(10-17-2017, 06:52 PM)Pssst Wrote: 'Information' isn't stored. Information is accessed from parallel realities which we automatically choose (unconsciously) as it is needed and relevant.

You did a good job on the 4D analysis btw maybe this will help.

Think of space-time as a 100% thing. The more space you have, the less time is involved. Versa-visa.

I'm perfectly fine with your intuitions on here, but I'm trying to go beyond simpler ideas of relativity. I don't want to build a bridge in the middle of nowhere. I want it to be connected to our existing observations. The ideas currently used to understand those observations may just be approximations, but the observations probably are not, so my ideas need to match up with what we observe.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Max_B's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel
Reply
#4
Why do two 2-dimensional sheets give you 4 dimensions?

~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
Reply
#5
(10-23-2017, 12:36 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: Why do two 2-dimensional sheets give you 4 dimensions?

~~ Paul

I'm assuming you mean at 2)? ...I've simply added the minimum number of coordinates needed to define a location on these unconnected 2-D sheets (spaces) together, as a way of trying to explain an idea.
Reply
#6
(10-23-2017, 08:49 AM)Max_B Wrote: I'm assuming you mean at 2)? ...I've simply added the minimum number of coordinates needed to define a location on these unconnected 2-D sheets (spaces) together, as a way of trying to explain an idea.

To specify a location among two 2-dimensional surfaces, we need {0,1}, x, y. That doesn't get us the third and fourth continuum dimensions. Yet you said it equals 4D. That's what has me confused.

~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
Reply
#7
(10-23-2017, 07:05 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: To specify a location among two 2-dimensional surfaces, we need {0,1}, x, y. That doesn't get us the third and fourth continuum dimensions. Yet you said it equals 4D. That's what has me confused.

I don't understand the maths you've written, so can't really help.
Reply
#8
(10-23-2017, 07:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: I don't understand the maths you've written, so can't really help.

To specify any point on two 2-dimensional surfaces, we must specify which surface (0 or 1), then the x, y position on that surface. What we don't have is a complete 4-dimensional continuum, where we would specify x, y, z, w. Two 2-dimensional surfaces are not equivalent to one 4-dimensional hyperspace.

~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
Reply
#9
If it's analogous to 3D space + 1D time = 4D, then it's not a question of specifying one or the other, and then a location in the one you've specified. Each point will have a location in both of the 2D spaces - that is, 4 coordinates, which does amount to a 4D space.

I'm not saying I really understand it, mind you.
Reply
#10
(10-23-2017, 08:41 PM)Chris Wrote: If it's analogous to 3D space + 1D time = 4D, then it's not a question of specifying one or the other, and then a location in the one you've specified. Each point will have a location in both of the 2D spaces - that is, 4 coordinates, which does amount to a 4D space.
It's two points, one in each of the 2D spaces, because you can't allow:

point A at 1, 2 and 3, 4
point B at 5, 6 and 3, 4

If you do, then two points are sharing the same position on the second surface.

~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)