How does your work differ from Stephen Wolfram? I believe he has taken a similar discrete computational approach to reformulating physics via a unified field theory and has notable success simulating black holes.
I don't know enough to say, but it seems like he's taking a more abstract approach--instead of saying "space is a grid of 3d voxels", he's got a more general theory. I expect compatibility between them.
How can abstract info connect things? I guess I should grope around in your archives, but I am not sure how to search them effectively. If I read down a list of post titles, will one of them mention ontological pluralism and interaction?
Would you hypothesize that if there were only two distinct masses in the universe, there would be some finite distance that would be large enough that they exert no gravitational force on each other?
I agree that I am not the same object as my wife. But my question is, how we can arrive at that conclusion using your description of an object as stated in the post. Our masses seem separate, but our fields maybe not. Or rather, if gravity is a field, even our masses are not separate. How is it that objects can share such geometric structure, and hence their totality?
Could that “microstructure” concept of gravity still function if gravity is not an attractive force? In Quantized Inertia for example, gravity and inertia are both caused by opposing wavelengths contained within the “cavity” of the observable universe that don’t quite cancel out, due to either acceleration or an object obscuring them.
In this view, gravity is not an attractive force. It's the result of micro-collisions that bias movement towards a center. So at least in principle, it might be possible to avoid such collisions--i.e. controlled quantum tunneling through the field, avoiding interactions with the microstructure.
If All there is are voxels and bits, what is doing the connecting when “bit states are connected at a distance?”
If “the totality of an object includes all its geometric structure—both its mass and fields,” then isn’t there only one object? E.g. there is no separation between my gravitational field and that of the Earth, the sun, and my wife. Are we all parts of one object?
Abstract information connects the bits. Please see my other stuff on ontological pluralism and interaction.
With regards to how many objects there are, this is one of the benefits of discreteness: it allows the possibility of causal independence between objects, since the "fields" can actually terminate.
If space is continuous, then you're forced into the position that "everything affects everything."
But regardless, because of the sizes involved, the state of the sun definitely affects you, your wife, and the earth. This doesn't mean you're the same object, but it means your states are not totally independent.
How does your work differ from Stephen Wolfram? I believe he has taken a similar discrete computational approach to reformulating physics via a unified field theory and has notable success simulating black holes.
I don't know enough to say, but it seems like he's taking a more abstract approach--instead of saying "space is a grid of 3d voxels", he's got a more general theory. I expect compatibility between them.
How can abstract info connect things? I guess I should grope around in your archives, but I am not sure how to search them effectively. If I read down a list of post titles, will one of them mention ontological pluralism and interaction?
Would you hypothesize that if there were only two distinct masses in the universe, there would be some finite distance that would be large enough that they exert no gravitational force on each other?
I agree that I am not the same object as my wife. But my question is, how we can arrive at that conclusion using your description of an object as stated in the post. Our masses seem separate, but our fields maybe not. Or rather, if gravity is a field, even our masses are not separate. How is it that objects can share such geometric structure, and hence their totality?
Could that “microstructure” concept of gravity still function if gravity is not an attractive force? In Quantized Inertia for example, gravity and inertia are both caused by opposing wavelengths contained within the “cavity” of the observable universe that don’t quite cancel out, due to either acceleration or an object obscuring them.
In this view, gravity is not an attractive force. It's the result of micro-collisions that bias movement towards a center. So at least in principle, it might be possible to avoid such collisions--i.e. controlled quantum tunneling through the field, avoiding interactions with the microstructure.
If All there is are voxels and bits, what is doing the connecting when “bit states are connected at a distance?”
If “the totality of an object includes all its geometric structure—both its mass and fields,” then isn’t there only one object? E.g. there is no separation between my gravitational field and that of the Earth, the sun, and my wife. Are we all parts of one object?
Abstract information connects the bits. Please see my other stuff on ontological pluralism and interaction.
With regards to how many objects there are, this is one of the benefits of discreteness: it allows the possibility of causal independence between objects, since the "fields" can actually terminate.
If space is continuous, then you're forced into the position that "everything affects everything."
But regardless, because of the sizes involved, the state of the sun definitely affects you, your wife, and the earth. This doesn't mean you're the same object, but it means your states are not totally independent.