Rational Metaphysics: The Equation for Space

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Rational Metaphysics, RM, is an ontology for physics formed without the presumptions inherent in the Science of physics and is introduced here… Rational Metaphysics (what else would I be talking about).

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

The time variable in the equation allows for both post- and predictions 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 inherently erroneously predict due to improper initialization. Whatever its first given state is, it could never be truly and totally representative of any particular portion of real space. But sometimes close enough, is close enough for the need.

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 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, ever 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. One could get creative and predict the probable outcome of many proposed changes in environment, politics, social science, religion, or 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.

Man, throughout his history has constantly sought to be a god. 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 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, 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 to close right without being exactly right, the more powerfully dangerous people get. 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.

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.

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 do you stop the lust to implement “close enough” before the more favorable designs have been explored?

Given the chance, the rationality in RM 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 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 6.5 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.

2

James,

Once again, you are showing how audacious Rational Metaphysics is. This thread has opened a huge number of issues. Here’s my quick summary:

  1. 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?
  2. If it potentially predicts human behavior, does that mean we don’t have free will? If we don’t have free will, then a big enough computer will tell you what will happen if the Equation of Space is known, so you can work out if it’s safe to reveal it.
  3. Sometimes events can have two or more routes that can cause them. For example, a car might be parked in location A, and a short time later it is parked in location B. What route did the car take to get from A to B? There is potentially an infinite number of ways the car could have been moved - different routes it was driven, and who drove it, and how fast. 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.

I think it’s too hard to really answer 2 or 3. I think only question 1 can be realistically addressed. 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.

Is there are way you could do this?

Eugene Morrow

3

First, as stated in the other thread, 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 incontrovertibly of the logic and then the ontology is then proven by the sheer number of exact likenesses to empirically demonstrated physics. Unlike Science, RM doesn’t “reverse engineer” the physical universe. RM designs a 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.

The computer that I used to generate all of this is named Jack. Jack is the combination of a single bit processor and a common PC. The PC handles the memory storage and display while the SBP handles the logic. I chose the name Jack, because frankly, if you don’t know RM, you don’t know Jack. :sunglasses:

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.

I don’t know why I hadn’t thought of that before, but it actually wouldn’t be nearly that simple. The computer that could accurately predict the existing world would have to have a horrendous amount of precise 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. So as far as me having such a computer before hand so that I 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.

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 reason. 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 computers calculated 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 is awarded the Noble Prize in economics.

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 modal of things.

Remember that RM begins with the entire universe being no more than values assigned for each point in space. A value is not a physical entity. The changing of those values is what causes physicality and our universe. In a metaspace program, again merely values are assigned to all locations. The exact same rules that apply to the physical universe are then applied to those values. 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.

You can read a little more about the program here… Achieving Faster than Light

Also something that I had posted some time ago;

The following is a very early pic of a high density energy field being displayed through an Excel spreadsheet (because I didnt have proper graphics programs and didn’t want to go create one);

That pic doesn’t really tell you much other than displaying how fields aggregate and that trying to find a particle in all that mess would be tough. So I improved on the display processing by filtering out the lower level “noise” and adding a particle locater and tracker program separate from the metaspace programming.

That was an earlier snapshot using a tracker to locate and follow particulates forming. The big circles are the tracker.

What you are seeing is the center x-y plane of a cube of metaspace. At that stage, the tracker would follow the drifting Brownian type motion of the particle throughout metaspace while keeping the screen centered around the particle, or in that case, 2 particles. The red circle is indicating a particle that is in another x-y plane along the z axis. You can only watch one plane at a time in 2D of course.

I started to create a 3D spreadsheet for Jack, but Excel turned out to be too limited and I didn’t want to go relearn C++.

Jack has had various brain surgeries since that pic and looks a little better, but the entire thing wasn’t really for sake of public display so most all of it is merely sufficient for me. Later sometime I need to create some good animations and screen shots for full explanations.

The following displays a few of the clips showing two positrons interacting. The top graph displays the distance between the two. One positron was headed toward the other. They both responded with proper inverse square aversion to each other. Again, remember that as far as the program is concerned, there is no such thing as a “particle” . The program merely changes the PtA value at each point (many times more than those displayed) according to the “rules of reality”. Particles form and obey what we call the “laws of physics” without ever being told to do so.

Note the upper left corner number in orange. That number is a timer in real time letting you know how long it took my little setup to figure out everything required for each step. The actual screen is about 4 times what you see there displaying far more of the details involved concerning affectance field potential and density, gimbal spin velocities, and so on. The little blue circles are the tracker program locating the xyz position of the particles as they float about.

Most of that was from about a year ago.

But this thread isn’t actually about RM, but rather the eventual effects and consequences of extremely convincing predictive machines in the hands of lustful people who do not ensure that they really want what they seek.

The biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah is the exact scenario of concern merely in biblical language. To know that requires that you understand scriptural language, so for now, take my word for it. The concerns, behaviors, and consequences revealed in that story display a reality that predictive machines or mechanisms create.

Look at the threads concerning the “Ought” question and “Morality”. The world displays that it cannot resolve those questions any more than the people on this forum can. None of the Illuminati, Freemasons, Royal Masons, Catholic Church, Jews, Muslims, Secularists or anyone in influence is displaying any sign of having the slightest understanding concerning that question of morality and “ought”. Some seem to come closer than others at times or on specific issues, but there isn’t the slightest sign of an actual understanding behind their efforts. As the Bible story goes, “My people do not know me.” I have no doubt that such was true then, but my concern is that it is still true today.

4

.

tl;dr

.

5

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is that supposed to mean?

6

.

too long; didn’t read

You’re not ignorant. You’re just scared.

.

7

.

st;dp

You’re not perceptive, just presumptuous.

I had suspected that it had something to do with the post being too long, but couldn’t process the thought into such an acronym.

8

James,

You wrote:

If things are that bad, what exactly are you trying to achieve on this forum? Are you trying to find someone who thinks with the same precise logic as you do?

Eugene Morrow

9

To find an answer to this OP’s question;

Nice thought, but I gave up on that long ago. All that is required is someone who can understand such logic once presented; not waving their flag, mindlessly droning on and on (like our Mutcer friend for years arguing against Christians regardless of how many times he gets proven completely wrong) and having enough courage to not fear the truth.

The men of the “Enlightenment Era” had a disadvantage. But they came close and thus cast the world into war not yet over. As I said, “close enough” is the worst condition. It creates more power for the lustful to gain what they lust for. So how does one get them past their blind lust to see the actual sanity?

10

James,

You see to be looking for this:

What will you do when you find a person like this? Just tell them about Rational Metaphysics (RM)? Ask their thoughts on how to publicise it? Ask their help to write it up? Ask them to teach others?

Eugene Morrow

11

First an foremost is to have that person verify my logic, which is very different than promoting a favorite cause.

Secondly, I would ask him the same question of this OP; “What to do about it?”

12

James,

So you are looking for someone to ask you about your logic and verify that the steps are valid. Fair enough. I’ll step back from that one and leave it to others.

Eugene Morrow

13

That isn’t what this particular thread is about. I was just answering your question. There isn’t going to be anyone on this entire site who could address RM.

This thread is about the issue of presuming that such a thing as RM existed and was legitimate, what next?

The Bible tells a story of Babylon wherein God decides to destroy Babylon merely because if God didn’t destroy it, “they would be able to accomplish anything”. That seems an odd reason. Or does it?

The more power Man achieves, the more power he has to enforce his insanity. So as long as Man is being insane, which seems to be reflective of his entire history, it makes a degree of sense to remove his ability to accomplish just anything his little insane heart desires. But then again, to what end?

RM allows for Man to project his probable future regardless of what he plans on doing. RM is certainly not the first of such efforts, but RM is certainly incontrovertible. Thus RM affords Man an opportunity to actually envision sane from insane. But what RM doesn’t do is dictate that Man choose properly. RM can show how to ensure that homosapian continue, but it can’t dictate that the person using RM actually reads the results or cares.

As it stands to date, it seems that the war between those trying to prevent Man from being all powerful and those trying to be all powerful is headed like a full speed train toward a cliff of no return for homosapian. Both sides are guilty of causing it.

Is it too late to cause sanity among homosapian?
Is it too late to reveal the “Purpose of Life”?

14

James,

I am much clearer now on your goal here:

I think your first step - on a philosophy forum - is a great first step. What’s next depends on the responses. I won’t speculate further at this stage.

If you don’t get any replies, you may want to make it clear the scope and broad claims of RM. You’ve mentioned before on another thread that RM applies to more then just physics, and that there are huge results even in just physics. A bit more on that might stimulate some replies.

Eugene Morrow

15

Oh I would be amazed if I got any replies other than from you or ranters and harpies.

Any claims of the greatness of anything that isn’t a part of the current globalist propaganda gets nothing but ridicule on sites like this (and just about any Internet sites). Social engineering is mostly about programming children into being drones for the cause (who have become young adults now). A drone can’t see anything but what it is programmed to see and rejects anything else as either nonsense or evil. If anything is said that doesn’t appear to comply with its master’s program, it attacks with whatever it thinks will diminish any alternative influence.

Much like your own effort to promote TEW, because it isn’t the collective mindset, Internet harpies will attack it blindly and endlessly. You make the common mistake of thinking that Science actually cares what is correct or better (as apparently Dr Little did). The Matrix has you living in the past when Science was actually trying to be right. The War has reduced Science to merely another faith based religion promoted by mindless drones. People don’t care what is or isn’t correct. They only care about what seems to directly affect them or triggers their programming.

16

James,

I did see “The Matrix” and I remember early in the first film that the central character has noticed that things don’t seem to add up. I see that as the central emotional message of the film - that the world is a bit unreal and is falling apart due to secret forces.

Why was the film popular? Because people feel that. I believe society is aware that the previous ways of living are just not working as they used to, and institutions are starting to fail. This was well before the Global Financial Crisis shook up the world. Currently the same feeling are coming back - commodities are falling in price and debts are a worry to the Europe, US and even mighty China.

I see that emotional mood as positive. In China, their own newspapers are publishing criticism of the Central Committee of the Communist Party - something unthinkable in the 1960s. I believe China is about to have a civil war, where the Communist Party will finally be overthrown. There was a civil war in 1949, so it’s not such a rare thing in China. Hopefully democracy will win.

In physics, I see quantum mechanics (qm) as heading towards the same fate, although it may take longer. Despite qm having 99.9% of support in physics, the level of support is weak in many cases. I think there is a revolution brewing where people openly start to question the philosophy of qm, of which there is very little.

So I see the qm supporters as starting to have doubts and mutterings. No need to give up on them - sometimes people wake up and realise they are on the wrong path and change it. Doesn’t happen very often, that’s true. What I want to make sure is that when they do start looking around for a new path they have heard of TEW as an option.

You would be best positioned if you made sure Rational Metaphysics (RM) was also an option. Unfortunately, you seem to have a lot of concerns whether you should be offering it as an alternative. Good luck in finding the right supporters to chat to.

Eugene Morrow

17

.

[size=50]

…[/size]

[size=121]
…you do realize that everyone here who views this thread knows that both of you are the same person.

You do know that, right?[/size]

[size=50]…[/size]

.

18

The quote from a thread concerning the Fall of the USA actually reflects a similar kind of concern as the OP;

19

Bill Wiltrack,

James and I have done a lot of replies on my thread “New theory of the quantum world”, and on that thread I encouraged him to start his own debate about his theory - Rational Metaphysics (RM). I’m glad he’s done so. I am doing him the courtesy of replying to his thread because he replied on mine.

If you think we are both the same person, then you are crediting someone with a really big imagination - TWO new theories.

You can verify that the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) really is a new theory developed by Dr. Lewis Little - see the book details on my thread. James is a high profile participant on iLovePhilosophy, so I think you’ve all read things from him before.

So you are suggesting that James is promoting TEW and has the imagination for RM as well ! In a way, it’s a bit of a compliment to James. I assure you that James and I are separate people, even if some people like you are getting a bit sick of the two of us rabbiting on.

Why not participate yourself? If you disagree with both theories, say so. If you like quantum mechanics (qm), say so - although I’d prefer on my thread because I’m very keen to debate with qm supporters.

Like your cartoons - cool way to make a point.

Eugene Morrow

20

Wrong, Bill.

Please don’t derail the discussion or troll the other posters.