Building a 3D world from scratch...

Building a 3D world from scratch…

using a computer, > then a universe:

I was messing around with skyrim [the pc game] and I thought, what games need to do is get away from all those rigid empty meshes. Computers are very good at math and what it needs is a different kind of ‘mesh’; imagine all the points of a mesh [computer model/object] were x, y, z, spatial coordinates with a varying algorithmic mathematical relationship between them all. Such that the +/- [like how particles all have polarities] difference between the points would give the mesh flexibility rather than animations for example.

To visualise the difference, imagine that a lady wore a body suit with millions of points upon it, each being understood by the computer as pints as described above. It would trace every movement of every motion of the body, flesh and muscles etc, and could animate the collection of points exactly as a human would move but without animation skeletons being required.

We could add layers of points such the body would have an exact replica of human innards. Now rinse and repeat for everything in the game world.

If the computer software could achieve this ‘live’ in real-time using multiple camera angles to match the world, it could e.g. be used for security cameras to map areas and more importantly, for the computer to be able to understand or perceive that world in terms of objects and their relationship [which they struggle to do now]. Cars could drive themselves better than humans can, as they could build a 3D world and ‘know’ where everything is in that world. Contrarily accidents are caused by our inability to know the world around us, especially if we are being distracted.

So now to create a universe; lets assume that the universe took a similar strategy – so to speak, ~ as its the simplest model for manifesting and understanding worlds. Problem is that the universe has to ‘imagine’ that world in curved space with all manner of quantum weirdness at base. We could say that the universe doesn’t need anything but the points/particles, but the problem is that it has to >imagine< the universe, when there are no edges to define the world-space. Without which, though it can compare the x, y, z, points relative to one another, it cannot imagine them as relative to a place they sit in, nor bounce the math off of edges to the univeses worldspace as if the points were in a room and the points could be placed relative to its surfaces.

In short, the only way around this is to continually re-imagine the world space, which in turn means that at base the points cannot be spatially located, …sound familiar! Yes its exactly like quantum mechanics.

I would suggest that as the universe is being constantly reinvented, it doesn’t require edges, as apparent edges of the universe would be relative to ones observational perspective. In effect, if you travelled at any speed below light speed [or whatever turns out to be the fasted speed] or one could say; the speed at which the universe processes information, then you would not ever arrive at the edge of the universe. This is because your every movement is being matched by an ever changing universe, regardless of what one attempts to do to get to the ‘edge’ your efforts would be futile.

I would then ask; wouldn’t there potentially [or metaphorically] be people living on a planet at the edge of the universe, hence it must have an edge. We all know that space is curved, so now add that it is also being constantly reinvented, and we are always in the middle of that process i.e. it is not a solid state nor are spatial locations exacting. A further resolution arrives in that there has to be the amount of points [or matter, energy, particles] the universe has for the whole thing to work. For example; if there were only say 7 suns in the universe, no amount of bending space and light would stop that from being a spatially located object ~ with edges. Yet the universe cannot compute any such universe, there has to be enough space, time and stuff such that the whole thing can be continuously recalculated.

I just thought this may be a good way to visualise the universe, and for me it answers a lot of questions I couldn’t answer before, and no-one seems to be ably to envision a philosophical image of universe, hence I thought i’d write this as a way to achieve that.

_

I think (and am pretty certain) that this is merely an issue of efficiency. The more points that you define, the more PC power is required for animating. It is efficient to presume an infinite number of points as long as you don’t have to calculate all of them. Many animation programs use “floating objects” within a 3D space with coordinates as accurate as the PC can handle. Those objects define the “floating points” involved in 3D modeling. Thus an animated item is represented by a great many floating objects painted together.

That is how laser modeling works anyway.

Yes. It leaves us with questions like; what is doing the processing for the universe? What is its hardware and software [- holographic?]?

Don’t you think there are a limited if unknowable [QM etc] amount of points though?

Well, my ontology has each and every infinitesimal point doing its own “processing” if you want to call it that.

Oh, certainly not. Interestingly I have just been working with that very thing in my own little emulator.

In my current project, space is a 3D coordinate system of infinite lines with infinite points. But that is merely what I call “normal space” because it ranges from one infinitesimal, “0i” up to one standard infinity, “infA = [1+1+1+…+1]” (and 0i = 1/infA).

There is also a “sub-space” that ranges from 0i^2 up to 0i. Within each infinitesimal normal space point is and infinite number of points of sub-space. So between each two normal points there are an infinite number of sub-points. But of course it doesn’t stop there either because between each two infinitesimal sub-points are an infinite number of sub-sub-points. And of course that goes down infinitely as 0i gets raised to higher and higher powers.

The system also goes in the other direction for “super-space” concerns wherein our entire universe is merely one infinitesimal point within the “super-universe” above ours. Each universe is a cardinality of infinity as Cantor had described long ago except that mine range from infA raised to the minus infinity up to infA raised to plus infinity. So all potential bases are covered.

I actually have to do it that way because as it turns out what we have been calling the “magnetic field” is due to that sub-space concern. Each sub-space acts like a compression field which is what gives the universe its springy like action concerning EMR waves and causes induction, permittivity, and permeability. But in my current project, I am working with merely a one dimensional emulation (like a typical x-y graph) showing two EM waves coming together. And to do that, I have to use the compression field (sub-space). And I am still trying to figure out for certain exactly how many lower cardinalites I have to program into the model and how to do that efficiently. I am suspecting that merely 3 will do the trick.

I am building that particular emulator so as to display more about why it is that particles form from EMR noise. To me the QM model of limited Plank size ontology is ridiculous and provably not true. It is merely a remnant of thoughts from hundreds of years ago.

This issue with magnetism and sub-space fields is interesting, because magnetism like gravity will propagate through a “vacuum” and through any material.

James S Saint

I can only understand that in terms of their being an interconnectedness between the points, there would have to be something within the points communicating otherwise [which involves ‘movement’ [e.g. an element of unknowableness [otherwise the universe would be static]].

I don’t know how all the points can be knowable though? Some if not all are in a juxtaposition until observed ~ I thought? Come in and out of existence, can be in two places at one time etc.

cant imagine infinite lines [wouldn’t they be circular?] and points, they are finite/limited things except in math.

All of that is new age Quantum Phantasy Physics for the masses wherein all things are unknowable, dubious, and changeable without notice to ensure insecurity.

I don’t live in that mindset. And you cannot do what you suggest, build a new ontology, using that kind of pseudo-science.

Well, because of this topic being what it is, let’s really start at the beginning, “from scratch” and build an ontology (a model of existence). Let’s say that you have already done the Buddhist thing and erased all notions of truth and knowledge. You have a blank slate, void of all presumed truth. What do you do then? You could perch up on a mountain top and contemplate your navel for the rest of your unnatural life. Or you could do something much more interesting.

Suppose while you are up there on that mountain, you decide to not speak a single word until you are 100% certain that whatever you say is truly indisputable (in a rational sense). For example, there would be nothing that you could say about the past because that would depend upon the reliability of your memory, senses, and possibly what others have said. Nor could you say something like, “The Sun is bigger than the Earth” or “The Earth is beneath my feet”. In effect, especially at first, there would be nothing that you could say and know that it is necessarily logically indisputable.

That is something that I actually did in 1970. It took me two weeks of being totally silent before I finally came up with something that I could say that was certainly true beyond dispute. I don’t remember what that first thing was now, but I got a blank notepad and wrote it down. I promised myself that I would not write anything into that book except things that could not possibly be false.

About 3 days later another thought came to me that I could not deny by any logical means. I wrote that one down. Another couple of days went by before I had yet another. They seem to start coming to me faster and faster and with each, I would look back at the others to see if they still seemed to be irrefutable.

At the stage of having 12 indisputable truths, things slowed down and I began to wonder if perhaps there have always been only those 12 things that anyone could have ever said with absolute certainty. But shortly, another came to light. So maybe there is a “holy 13” at the base of all knowledge, I thought. But shortly, yet another appeared and the list grew to I think 21 when I finally decided that I hadn’t any way to know when the list would be complete or even if there was a completeness to obtained.

Unfortunately by that time, not being truly up on a mountain and having to deal with “normal American life”, I allowed the distractions of the rest of the world to draw me away from my little book of truths. And as time passed on, I noticed that a different mindset had taken root. As people spoke, I immediately filtered “probably true” from “possibly true” from “impossible to be true” and never heard anyone ever say anything that was certainly true. I found myself realizing that there was no one around me who actually understood truth itself. And more significantly they didn’t really care. Life wasn’t about always being exactly right. And anyone seen as even trying to do such a thing was frowned upon.

Merely by contrasting what I knew was beyond question with what people said, I could instantly know if many of the things they said were true even though I knew very little of the subject of which they spoke. And I found myself to be quite a nuisance because it was quite easy in most cases to verbally show that what they said could not be actually true. PhD types get really perturbed when that happens. And it was happening more and more. But I already knew that being right about everything wasn’t really what life was about, so I didn’t push the notion and let myself drift further into the chaos of modern Amercan life not being terribly concerned with exact truths.

I went ahead through engineering and psychology and into a career that I call “intelligence design” because invariably, I was consigned to make stupid things and people more intelligent, often putting microprocessors into normally very dumb things such as in one of IBM’s semiconductor-tester’s power supply. Their new power supply for the testing their new semiconductors was more intelligent than the tester. I could and did give photographic memory to young people so they could go through their schooling much easier.

I had felt a small mountain forming within my mind of absolute understanding, an “ontology” concerning existence itself. But it was about 30 years before I ever really wondered exactly why I could know absolutely undeniable truth from merely anything else. And upon wondering about that, it took a number of years before it dawned on me how simple it really was. The chaos of things that people say keeps the mind from seeing some of the simplest things upon which it depends.

I had properly surmised that knowing absolute truth wasn’t really what life was about but what hadn’t occurred to me is that knowing absolute wisdom was… indisputably. I wonder how different my entire life would have been if instead of concentrating on absolute truth, I had concentrated on “absolute wisdom”. And instead of being talented at making things and people smarter, I had gained the talent to make them wiser.

I discovered that what had been allowing me to know with certainty that something was absolutely true was merely “definition”. That which is true by definition within the ontology being used is indisputable because every understanding is merely a free choice of defined concept with which a model is to be built. The choice of concepts is free but of course if issue isn’t really the truth that will be built, but rather the wisdom of trying to use that particular ontology. Is the ontology useful? If it is not useful, it is not wise to build it. So the defined concepts for the new ontology are not really totally free. They must eventually relate to some purpose in one’s life. And that is what is called “being rational”.

So what you would be wise to create is a “rational ontology” from scratch, not merely a “true ontology”. And where to begin?

An ontology is an understanding of reality or existence. So how about start by defining “existence” in a meaningful way? What do we really mean when we say that something “exists”?

In my own effort in building such an ontology, from scratch, I defined existence to mean “possessing the property of affect” and if something has affect it exists. If it has absolutely no affect, it doesn’t exist. Additionally, to “affect” merely mean to cause change. So something must have the potential to cause change in order for it to be said to exist. But change what? We haven’t really defined anything else yet. We have an ontology so far that merely contains affecters. What are they affecting?

Well, how about each other? If one affecter is affecting another affecter’s potential for affecting, then what I have defined as “an affecter” is correct. And how s it affecting the other affecters, but by increasing or decreasing their potential to affect anything. So now we have “positive and negative” affecters that change the potential for affecting that all together we can call “affectance”.

Well, how much Affectance should be in our ontology? How much existence is there to understand? The universe seems a big place. And if existence is defined by the attribute of affect, then anywhere there is to be existence, there must be affectance. So now we have an infinite ocean of Affectance busily altering its potential to affect (its very existence).

Now we no longer have an empty slate. Our universe has been filled with something. And even though we don’t know for certain yet that our new ontology will be useful or wise, we at least know that it is absolutely true. We now must examine the exact details of that something. How are the affecters affecting other affecters? How big is “an affecter”? Of what is it made? How long does it take to affect? What are the rules or principles involved?

Gradually as each of those questions and others are answered, our “from scratch” ontology will build, be absolutely true, and I can tell you from direct experience with this one, it becomes quite useful, and even can be said to be “wise”.

A select few on these forums know that what I have been discussing is Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology. RM:AO has been developed “from scratch” to the point of being able to be emulated (one method of verifying its rationality) and aberrantly reveals exactly why all of the principles of physics are what they are. But more importantly, RM:AO is an open source for absolute truths built from Definitional Logic open to be verified, cross checked, emulated, and demonstrated for its veracity.

RM:AO is different than Science because as you noted, Science has been built merely “from experience” (via demonstrations). Science is not built upon definitional logic and thus when perceptions are corrupted, the reasoning involved gets corrupted which leads to misunderstanding compounding upon mis-perceptions yet presented as “truth”. RM:AO is built upon Definitional Logic with a requirement to be rationally useful and thus demonstrable in the same way that Science has always required. But once logically verified, cross checked, emulated, and demonstrated, RM:AO cannot be disputed.

RM:AO is the next “Enlightenment Era” that is not dependent upon personal revelations, nor reports from Science priests and prophets. RM:AO is “Definitional Logic + Science Methodology” and can be at least logically verified by anyone (or anyone capable of thinking logically concerning anything). And most significantly, RM:AO doesn’t merely explain physics, but truly every field of Science. It is a true “Unified Field Theory” and also “Grand Unified Theory”. But it isn’t something that can be learned in a day, week, month, or even a year. It is a mountain of absolute truths for anyone to climb who is truly interested in indisputable and rational “facts” of life.

That is what you get when you “Building a 3D world from scratch”.
And RM:AO even knows why it must be 3D only. :sunglasses:

I am working on it, but I am not there yet ~ it doesn’t seem to want to be found, or even cannot be found. Primarily I feel that words can only take us so far, and there is a more subtle way of understanding the finer side of things. Equally, reality ‘below’ [or finer than] existence cannot be understood except in the most profound way. Basic druidic belief I do believe [e.g. ‘once it is written it is lost’].

Existence is false hence the gaming analogy to describe it. For me it all comes down to information and communication, but I don’t know what that is, and I don’t think anyone does. Maybe there is no way to understand the very thing you are using to communicate, as that would suggest something is outside of the system i.e. if we are thinking with words, then to understand what that is we would have to think with something other than words.

However, a big part of communication is perception [for us anyhow], and that can look inwards upon itself. Any suggestions concerning what info and communication is, I am all ears!