Riemann's Problems with curved space

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Again, hardly. My MIs are somebody's home planet and somebody else's entire visible universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I read a Superman DC comic book maybe 45 years ago where Sup miniaturized himself and saved just such a planet. It was on an atom of a red brick. It was engrossing ... but I still don't believe it ;o)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In for a penny, in for a pound. Once you accept one physically impossible thing, anything goes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Emphatically, no. Only up to the limits set by the uncertainty principle.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But one unit of substance in a void cannot have properties other than existence because they must all be relative to something,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Don't agree here. One unit of substance can't even have "existence" because it can't change. I require 'things' as well as 'consistent interactions' to delimit existence. One thing in a void is a photograph of something that might exist when some more stuff is added (consecutively ;o).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But as I said, this won't mean much unless you have read MM from the beginning.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have read your book cover to cover. Unfortunately, I have not got it memorized. So, I may forget what I read last week. I forgot my own name once for about forty seconds ... ;o)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />existence is fundamentally (at base) a simple integer count.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, it is fundamentally a state of occupying space. To the extent that it resembles a count, it resembles real numbers rather than integers because every "unit" already contains an infinite number of parts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why did you assume that existence didn't run off in the same way ... from a beginning?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can existence of anything ever begin or end without a miracle? Miracles are not allowed as explanations in physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My question was "Why is there something instead of nothing?" So, I started with that same "nothing" and looked for a reason for its impossibility ... (we're here so it must be impossible).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This seems to imply that you agree that there was never "nothing", that existence is an eternal property of substance. Did I get that right?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since there are admittedly many forks in the road (well actually there is no road but what you make) ... I suppose it's to be expected that no agreement is presently obtained ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, there are no forks at all, just a unique deduction path. However, it does presume a common set of physical principles; i.e., no miracles allowed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Sup miniaturized himself and saved just such a [miniature]planet. It was on an atom of a red brick. It was engrossing ... but I still don't believe it ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Belief never enters the reasoning. One must force oneself to put aside all such biases and follow the trail of deduction. In this case, how could you ever solve the Zeno-like paradox of contact (as described in MM) without infinite divisibility? For that matter, how do you explain motion in the light of Zeno's argumentation? In MM, the only answer that does not violate physical principles requires infinite divisibility, with the same types of forms occurring at every scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Once you accept one physically impossible thing, anything goes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Emphatically, no. Only up to the limits set by the uncertainty principle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You assume an uncertainty principle? Why? In MM, deduction shows why that principle exists -- because we are trying to measure waves that have finite extent at every instant but are mistakenly assuming they are particles occupying a specific place at any instant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: But one unit of substance in a void cannot have properties other than existence because they must all be relative to something,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Don't agree here. One unit of substance can't even have "existence" because it can't change.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Change is the property that eventually becomes "time". Again, why do you assume that time exists? The assumptions you then make about its nature will lead you over a logical cliff. Wait until deduction forces a concept of time on you, and accept it regardless of your starting biases...

... assuming your goal is a real understanding of nature and existence, as opposed to vindication of your personal beliefs, which is the goal most people have. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In MM, there are no forks at all<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Assuming you have not made an error somewhere along the way. That would constitute a fork.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This seems to imply that you agree that there was never "nothing", that existence is an eternal property of substance. Did I get that right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Exactly. There can't be a "nothing" ... because it can't sit there all on its own. It generates lots of conceptual baggage. There is an anterior-posterior aspect to numbers, the embodiment of which I recognize as "time". Nothing is just the starting point. The universe is the logical "show". It is not apart from logic but is rather the thing itself. Particles are like the numbers, variables or constants in an equation ... interactions are logical operations ... we are part of the logical fallout.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... assuming your goal is a real understanding of nature and existence, as opposed to vindication of your personal beliefs, which is the goal most people have. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm way beyond that, I assure you. In fact, I see myself in the boneyard with no recognition whether right or wrong ... so, all that's left is ... to know.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You assume an uncertainty principle? Why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Anyone who posits a "bottom" to the universe (not an infinite number of scales) is constrained to accept an uncertainty principle along with finite "quanta". It comes with the territory. If the universe has a beginning ... it has an uncertainty principle. If not ... then not (and no identical or definite quanta either).

Merry X-mas, see you on the flip side ;o)