Here are a few of the logic gaps in this idea:
the integer elements of primes having the least “entropy” thing, whilst interesting, bears no real parallel with actual entropy and partition functions are just a simplification rather than the full story.
I agree with you. It is only a starting point.
[quote author=“narwhol” ]
Besides which, there is no reason in any real system to reduce the partition functions into integers rather than any other real numbers
Agree. The basics of the full model are defined in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf .
quantum superposition only works if the quanta are in the same location, which not all of the quanta in the universe are, plainly.
At this part I generalize it to Information Theory, which is not limited by any particular scale.
it bears no real similarity to an eratosthenes sleeve, since the probability densities that you obtain for multiple experiments to determine a property of a single quantum give wavelike plots that are asymmetric.
maximum entropies existing as gradient and area calculations are no evidence whatever of interelation in the first place, and in the second, given that I can see points at which the differential is zero and others at which it is in between maximum and minimum in your diagram this is fallacious anyway. Thirdly, I can see regions where you can set limits that would give in-betweeny integrals. So even if a real quantum system could be represented by an eratosthenes sleeve (which it can’t), your idea of non-local and local inrelation is flawed.
Notion #2 is not a QM model. It is a new point of view on set N.
if we expand the wave particle duality to a whole universe? how? and in what way? wave particle duality really only works on the basis of a quantum being standing wave like and therefore having a region over which it operates, but also particle like in that it has a defined focus of maximum amplitude at which a property can be said to be acting. this last point varies according to where the quantum itself phically moves to and how the energy is being transferred along it from one instant to the next. as you increase the number of quanta that make up an object, the less wavy that objects behaviour is and even at the size of an atom, this borders on negligible. so a whole universe is barely affected by the probabilistic wave-like properties of individual quanta.
Unless Space and Time are complementary states of the same realm, for example:
Connectivity or integration is the property that is recognized by us as time(timing) or correlation among different entities.
A time-line of some universe is the most connected state where no discrete phenomenon exists and all we have is a smooth connectivity without space (no measured place).
Non-connectivity or differentiation is the property that is recognized by us as space or non-correlation among different entities.
A space of some universe is the most disconnected state where no smooth phenomenon exists and all we have is discreteness without time (timing) or correlation (no measured flow).
Our universe is both time_AND_space and this complementary relation can be found in any researched level within and without us.
A cone and a sphere are two separated models of a universe, where a sphere is a closed universe (has “start”, “middle” and “end” along a time-line) and a cone is an open universe (has “start” but no “middle” and no “end” along a time-line).
A time-line in both models is like the “spine” of a universe, where any space/time phenomena are changed relatively to it.
Space/Time is a complementary fading transition between “pure” time (the time-line) and “pure” space (the surface).
In other words, time and space are the polarities of the same phenomena, called universe, that most of its history exists in its complementary space/time environment that has common “laws of nature” determined by the time-line, which is actually the attractor of a universe.
This time-line can be a single time-line, which is the attractor of a single universe (closed or open):
Also a time-line can be a one branch that belongs to a tree-like attractor that may have a fractal-like property:
This diagram was taken from Andri Linde’s work ( http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosfig1.htm )
and it is:
“A graphical representation of the multiple inflationary bubbles of Andrei Linde’s “self-reproducing inflationary universe”. Linde’s theory is one attempt to generate a “world ensemble,” or ensemble of varying universes—within a larger Universe—in which the physical laws and properties may differ from one universe to the next. Changes in shading represent “mutations” in basic physical properties from “parent” to “offspring” universes. (Figure after Andrei Linde, “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, ” Scientific American 271 [November 1994]; p.55.)”
A Cybernetic curve:
If we produce a cross-section end examine an arbitrary slice of a universe, which its space/time fabric is the result of integration/differentiation tendencies between “pure” time and “pure” space, then a natural equilibrium between these “purities” , has the shape of an Archimedean-like curve, for example:
This Archimedean-like curve is maybe the optimal zone where complex phenomena like life, for example, can find a stable and rich enough conditions in order to be developed to a self aware non-trivial system.
For more details please look at:
Organic Natural Numbers and Cybernetic Kernels:
Organic Natural Numbers: (some old papers that need more work)
This topic expending the wave-particle duality to a whole universe, where a universe is a complementary phenomenon that exists between two opposite properties, which are integration and differentiation.
Integration is understood as gravity and differentiation is understood as expansion.
The most integrated state is understood as the 4D which is time or time-line.
The rest 3 dimensions are the observed space, which is ordered relatively to the time-line that is considered as its attractor.
So the history of a universe is the story of space/time complementary associations along the time-line.
Without this time-line, no fundamental conditions can appear as natural laws of a universe.
By this model we can examine the idea of rich enough conditions in the space/time fabric, that maybe explains the origin and development of life phenomena along the time-line.
The next part of this research is to use the insights coming from Quantum-Mechanics, in order to develop a new fundamental mathematical language where Redundancy and Uncertainty are first-order properties of its axiomatic system.
By doing this, we actually re-examine the whole scientific cosmological research in a new light, where the researcher himself is both observer_AND_participator.
From this point of view any result in any level (and not just in QM level) is influenced by the researcher, and the researcher has to include this influence as an inseparable part of his results.
By using the word ‘result’ we mean that by this model, ethical results must also be considered as an organic part of the scientific research and development, where ‘development’ has two legs which are our technical skills and our ethical skills, which are combined to a one comprehensive scientific method, that can help us to survive the power of our developed technology along the time-line.
For further information please look at:
As much as I know NXOR\XOR logic is a new point of view on Logic itself, and it is beyond the ability of a one man’s work
the idea that an observer affects the outcome in quantum experiments is nothing more than a poetic notion that still persists in the minds of a very few serious scientists and the idea that ethics affect the outcome doesn’t actually follow from anything you have said and in purely spurious in its introduction here.
It is well known that in order to get accurate results about energy, the researcher first choose the experiment that will give the requested results out of some examined quantum system. The same holds in the case that the researcher wishes to get accurate results about the location of the same quantum system.
In both cases the researcher has to decide what property he wishes to research, before the experiment actually happens. In other words, it is not an objective observer of the results, but it has a direct influence on them.
I don’t really see how your pretty little fractal models follow from any of the foregoing discussion. there is no link given and I strongly expect no link is ascertainable.
In short, you seem to take the erroneous premise that primes having the lowest entropy if you only use integers despite their being no reason why one should, then ignore it for the rest of the discussion whilst going to the erroneous premise that the eratosthenes sleeve resembles any probabilistic quantity associated with quanta, use this to make a massive leap of faith to say that locality and non-locality are interrelated despite the fact that it would a) depend on which values you chose for your y-axis and b) their clearly not and one of which is a divergent quantity anyway, and then you spuriously add that ethics effects quanta and go onto add a whole section in which pretty little fractals are generated to no purpose.
Also in this case, please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf.