The Equation for Space

Rational Metaphysics, RM, is an ontology for physics formed without the presumptions inherent in the Science of physics.
Rational Metaphysics is an ontology built upon Definitional Logic.
Post Reply
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 pm

The Equation for Space

Post by admin » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 pm

Within RM:AO is an equation that mathematically describes any portion of space, regardless of what is in that space. Anything within that space merely alters the value of a few parameters without change in the equation itself. And of course a part of that equation is time.

In the beginning...
The following is Why all existence is what it is;
Equation of Space.png
It is the fundamental reason, logic, and mathematics concerning why all things are what they are and do what they do. It is Why existence has;

Light
Light at that particular speed, "c".
Fields (gravitational and electromagnetic)
Inertia
Mass
Momentum
Photons
Mono- and polyparticles
Forces (EM, Gravitational, Strong, and Weak)
Charge Polarity
Atoms
Molecules
Bodies
Perception
Consciousness
Hopes and Threats (Values)
Life
Religions
Societies
Governments
Economies

That equation is; THE Cause of all things, a "Theory of Everything",

If you were to emulate that one equation, preferably in an analog computer because the equation cannot be quantized or digitized without sacrificing accuracy and consuming a horrendous amount of time and memory, into a huge spherical matrix, a meta-universe would immediately form containing everything that any universe could ever have within it, that entire list above and more, although much, much, much slower. And all because there is no alternative. It is what it is and it is what it must be. The universe IS an infinitely large, infinitely dense analog system that is currently processing at an infinite speed.

The time variable in the equation allows for both post- and pre-dictions throughout all time. In effect, it allows for someone to predict the exact state of that space and whatever might have been in it throughout the future. Or it can be used to calculate what state the space had to have been in prior such as to get to the state it is in.

Of course there are inherent problems. Knowing the truly exact state of any bit of space is all but impossible so trying to simulate any real space would form inherently, erroneous prediction due to improper initialization data. Whatever the first given state is, it could never be truly and totally representative of any particular portion of real space. But then again, sometimes close, is close enough for the need at hand.

Also amongst the problems is the fact that space is actually infinite in all directions (despite theories and fantasies to the contrary) and thus there is no actual boundary. And because there is no actual boundary in real space, there are affects stemming from outside the given portion under study that will affect the actual future state. Without including the entire universe, trying to calculate the future for any one portion is limited.

Another problem is that to truly represent all of any significantly large space (anything greater in size than a pea) a horrendously, unimaginably large computer would have to hold all of the parameters.

But such limitations do not make the equation entirely useless. When investigating particle reactions, one need not build a multi-billion dollar particle collider, a multi-thousand dollar computer can do the job setting in someone’s office. And the good thing is that it is likely to be even more accurate than the collider without all of the potential dangerous of blowing up the user or the world.

But let’s say that such an equation was advanced to the point where it became practical to truly represent all of the activity on Earth with a high degree of accuracy, every atom, every blade of grass, every human endeavor. What do you suppose would happen then?

With such a system, one could predict the consequences of any and every proposed change in laws or environment for quite some time beyond the initiation. One could get creative and predict the probable outcome of many proposed changes in environment, politics, social science, religion, or the simple moving of these people from point A to point B. And all without having to go kill anyone to get it done. Danger would be minimized. Well, except for that one issue.

Man, throughout his history, has constantly sought to be a god. And not merely a god, but THE GOD in absolute control of all things throughout the world and even the universe. There are a variety of reasons that keeps such a thing on his limited mind and heart, but there is no question that anything allowing him to become more of a true prophet, is something he would kill anyone and everyone to get his hands on. And with such a computer, he would have such a thing.

With a large enough computer and the Equation of Space, anything that is possible to be accomplished could be designed in serious, perfect detail. Any invention imaginable that was actually doable could be designed to a tee. Any and every cure for any illness could be fully designed along with the required means to deliver it. Of coarse, also any and every potential disease could also be designed. Every type of religion could be designed, every type of governance as well. Whoever had such a computer could answer any and every whim whether for good or bad.

So what would you do with such a device if it was in your hands? What goal would you seek for the human race?

Realize that what I have formed in RM:AO, was already formed in perhaps a more crude way back in the 1950’s. Of course there have always been crude forms throughout history. And by being close to right without being exactly right, all the more powerfully dangerous people become. So today, as such endeavors get closer and closer to being “close enough”, the threat to all humanity increases greatly depending on the sanity of the people running the program and making the choices as to what future will be constructed. Technology has greatly increased Man's ability to utterly destroy himself.

Many stories and films have been made with such a thought in mind. Many worries and many hopes have been dreamt. Television shows such as Dr. Who explores in fanciful form the types of concerns that are revealed by being able to see (or “travel”) into the past and future, “do this, and lets see what comes of what you just did”.

What I find most disturbing is not the potential power of such a device in the hands of the wrong people, but rather that there seems to be no “right people” who actually have a sane idea concerning what the future “should be”, what goal to design toward. Without knowing what is actually right, only the wrong can be designed.

With a great deal of experience toying with such a device without actually implementing the proposed changes in the world, the lusts for power gets quailed into a far more moderate understanding, less passion and more compassion. The final question of “why bother to do anything” gets answered without passion, presumptions, or primitive yearnings. But how does one stop the lust to implement “close enough” before the potentially more favorable designs have been explored?

Given the chance, the rationality in RM:AO settles into the soul to allow the noise of lustful passions for control and domination to calm and fade. Man then has to decide for what purpose he is to actually do anything for sake of the future. His mind and heart becomes clear of his presumptions. The “Sin” within Man himself fades.

I said that the Equation for Space has already been developed in crude form and by some very influential people. But how do I know it is in “crude” form? I know by comparison of the fruit of such a “tree of knowledge”. What I see is exemplary of the “close enough” equation in the lustful wrong hands. What I see is insidious manipulation where none was needed, death, misery, and destruction where none was needed.

The RM:AO model does not inspire to seek total domination of all reality. It displays the consequences of such attempts to be disastrous and eventually futile. It shows a more sane way of achieving sanity among homosapian; less death, misery, and destruction of what humanity is, more freedom and less struggle for all concerned.

A man once asked, “what do you do with 300 million insane people?” I now must ask, “what do you do with 7.5 billion of them?” Let them see the futures they propose? Will that bring sanity among them? Will that inspire true rationality in Man for perhaps the first time? “Close enough” is going to make him extinct. That part is already foreseeable.
Question: "How can you show that the Equation for Space is correct, or even approximately true? The size of the computer used seems to be the limiting factor. What can you do with the current computers you have access to?"
First, one cannot prove anything concerning logic unless the person viewing it adheres to logic - proof is in the mind of the beholder. Definitional Logic proves the incontrovertibleness of the logic and the ontology is then proven by the sheer number of exact likenesses to empirically demonstrated physics. Unlike Science, RM:AO doesn't "reverse engineer" the physical universe. RM:AO designs a logically necessary physical universe and then compares it to the one already in operation. When that comparison is so exact as to not be able to distinguish one from the other on every observed phenomena in physics, a sufficient proof has been formed.

With what I had to work with and in the time allotted, I created a metaspace of about the size of a fraction of a hydrogen atom, enough to be able to watch particles form and interact. But within that space, all of the laws of physics can be witnessed even though not programmed into the behavior.

The computer that could accurately predict the existing world would have to have a horrendous amount of precise current data on the world just as it stands. Such efforts have been underway since WW2. Huge computers are currently trying to track everything you could imagine solely for the purpose that I am warning about. As far as you having such a computer before hand so that you could predict the effect of that same knowledge being "known to the world" (as if there was anything ever known to the entire world), would be extremely unlikely.. well.. impossible.

What they do so as to make any computer have even the slightest chance of being accurate involves approximations, generalizations, and probabilities. For socialist and communist governance schemes such things are much easier because they frankly don't care about anything but constructing a simple idealized model of an organized social system regardless of who has to suffer and die in order to achieve it. I think the cartoon film, Shrek, displays the basic scenario. But the adversaries to such schemes are as bad if not worse. None display any actual understanding of morality and necessity.
Question: "Sometimes events can have two or more routes that can cause them. How can RM decide which one happened? Measuring the position and velocity of every air molecule seems a tad unrealistic so I can't see how the information could be provided. Surely there is not enough information to determine how some events happened, even if you had a huge computer."
You are right that post-dicting (as opposed to pre-dicting) can be tricky. But in reality and due to the horrendous complexity of the universe, by truly knowing almost every detail of the present, every event of the past can be calculated. Of course the further distant one tries to post-dict, the more precise one's measure of the present must be. And you are right in that no computer could ever contain enough information about the present to be very precise in details concerning distant past events. Again, it becomes an issue of "good enough" for the concerns at hand.

Predicting is much easier for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is that one way to increase the accuracy of a prediction is to help adjust any variations that begin to happen so that the computer's calculated path to the future will turn out as predicted. In other words, you cheat.

Such things have already taken place in the US and I'm sure across the world because the Pharaohs were doing similar 3000 years ago. More recently, when Prof John Nash proved an economic scheme that would make the elites rich, but required a specific type of human social behavior for it to be accurate, extreme measures were taken to get people to behave as the computer model required so that the wealth could be realized. What was created was the "Me Generation" and the current economic crisis. During that time, John Nash was awarded the Noble Prize in economics.
Question: "I see the Equation of Space as potentially a "simulator" where you could design some experiment, and then show the results given by the Equation of Space, and then do the actual experiment to see if the answers agree. This would be a pretty definitive way of proving how useful it is."
Interestingly, there is a difference in a simulator and a true metaspace. It gets complicated as to exactly why, but what forms in a metaspace is as real as anything that forms in real space, merely a more complex version of it. A metaspace program cannot use models of things.

Remember that RM:AO begins with the entire universe being no more than PtA values assigned for each point in space. A PtA value is not a physical entity. The changing of those values is what causes physicality and our universe. In a metaspace program merely PtA values are assigned to all locations. The exact same rules that apply to the physical universe are then applied to those value changes. Those values change in accord with physical reality and create an actual real, physically existent meta-universe wherein only the true rules of reality prevail... that is until the program gets stopped or interfered with.
Question:"Would you mind telling me a bit about the equation itself (for example about the term to the right of the "p +")?"
In common English, the equation states that every point in space is defined by the sum of its potential-to-affect, "p" At every point there is a PtA and also the changing of that PtA. The changing has rates of changing expressed as time derivatives - dp/dt - the time derivatives.

In philosophical terms, it is merely stating that every point in existence is defined by the rate of change of its potential to alter the degree of existence surrounding it (its ability to affect anything = its degree of existence).

The terms following the "p +" are the sum of all changes at all rates in p through time (change in p per change in t) , expressed as the sum:

Code: Select all

    a0*dp/dt + 
    a1*d²p/dt² + 
    a2*d³ p/dt³ + ...
wherein the "a" values are scalars suited to each time derivative.
Question: "How did you figure out the use of the equation? Did you use the equation? And if you did: How did you do it?"
The first key is to realize that every affect comes with a direction of affect and each and every 3D direction has its own equation of space for every point in space. All of those listed change rates are different for every possible direction. So for example, headed directly to the right of point A, the following value set for "a" might apply:

E{right} = [0.5, 0.01, 0.0001, 0.023, ....]

But also at the exact same time headed in the upward direction from point A, the following values apply:

E{upward} = [0.3, 0.001, 0.02, 0.7, ....]

Of course every angle must be handled and there are an infinity of such directions in 3D, so the challenge got a bit tough. I not only had an infinite series for a billion points, but an infinite number of infinite series for each of a billion points, all of which had to be calculated for each picosecond tic.

The project was to emulate affects propagating through a small bit of space in whatever direction they might take. The resolve took a very long time for my little brain to figure out. I basically had to prove that each preferred method (due to simplicity or speed) of emulating space would not work.

If you allow space to be represented by a matrix of location points, the question arises as to how these points are to be situated. Aristotle proposed that a tetrahedron could properly fill space. That turned out to be incorrect, although pretty close. What is called "space-filling" became my study for a while. I tried all kinds of combinations of shapes with which to fill space along with which equations would have to be used to emulate the propagation of an affect in any direction. I wanted to simplify for sake of speed and memory usage, but that turned out to be quite a challenge.

Not being able to use any of the standard methods and after getting very, very creative in coming up with new methods (that didn't quite cut it), I almost gave up on being able to realistically emulate space. Eventually, it dawned on me that I could use the simple cube matrix to fill space with locations, but I couldn't calculate each point for each tic of time. Merely a 1000x1000x1000 pixel matrix, 1 billion points, would represent perhaps 10 nanometers of space and leave a matrix of 1 billion simultaneous equations to have to resolve for every tic of time (one "frame"), which might represent merely one picosecond or less. That would take an average PC possibly years to calculate each picosecond of time. So I had to find a way to update the state of that tiny metaspace without losing accuracy concerning the propagation of affects through the space and calculate thousands of tic frames within a reasonable completion time.

Eventually I figured out the "Afflate"....

Genitiv
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:39 am

Re: The Equation for Space

Post by Genitiv » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:51 am

That's all very well, but where is the equation? :?

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 pm

Re: The Equation for Space

Post by admin » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:26 pm

How on earth did you find this forum? I do not imagine that it ranks very high on google.

The equation is within RM:AO

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 pm

Re: The Equation for Space

Post by admin » Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:44 am

Genitiv wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:51 am
That's all very well, but where is the equation? :?
OK, now I understand. I had to rebuild the forum as the first forum became corrupt and the problem proved too difficult to track down.

I will put the equation in soon.

Genitiv
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:39 am

Re: The Equation for Space

Post by Genitiv » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:51 pm

admin wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:44 am
I will put the equation in soon.
Maybe I can help. ;)

Image

Post Reply