Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 22, 2016.
I would be dishonest to say that I really follow you here.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Start at the beginning. A void has a boundary.
Mathematically the boundary of a closed curve in a Euclidean space, or a closed 'bubble' in three dimensions has no thickness. But physically this can't be true, a physical bubble (even a jar made of thick glass) has to have some substance.
Now if there's a whole lot of void bubbles, and all you can do is pass through their boundaries, how do you know when you're in a void? If there's nothing it it (assume the blind path isn't affected in any way by being in a void or not, it's just a path). So it's something like a random walk through a graph, and it's based on the difference (between void and not-void), which is something that can be seen in the graph but is not seen by the random walk.
These ideas stem from my (probably incomplete) understanding of a kind of logic (what, there's more than one kind?) called boundary logic.
For example this note says:
Note that, following the above argument, a soap bubble is a void because it contains no detergent molecules. Soap bubbles can be nested inside larger bubbles.
So given some collection of "marks" or bounded voids, a blind path through the boundaries can lead to a contradiction--if there is a void inside a void, a path into the inner void will look locally just like it has entered and left a single void and is 'outside' any void again.
Likewise, if there are two distinct bounded voids, a path through both will not be distinguishable from a path that goes through one void twice. And so on.
There are two kinds of void: bounded and unbounded. The latter is like an intentional contradiction in that reference to an absolute void is always contradictory.
That's my run-down so far, although there's a lot more to it. Boundary logic has apparently been around for over a century, but wasn't seriously used until Spencer Brown and his switching networks in the 1960s.
Judging from what you present here, your "boundary logic" is not logic properly so-called. It really is essentially a theory, somewhat like you have Algebra or Group Theory. You start off with a few axioms of your choice, usually a clever and minimal expression of a particular conceptual framework, and you just run with it as far as you can.
Logic properly so-called is really fundamental and there's just one. It is therefore not optional. Even idiots have to rely on it. Theories, on the other hand, are multiple and optional in that they only apply to specific fields. You get to choose which one you think best apply to a particular field.
Logic properly so-called:
Logic in a broader sense and very different from the first sense:
I guess the general idea is to start from a metaphor and see how far you can go with it. And, occasionally, this may bring you insights on the real world or even on yourself.
I'm not sure, though, how your boundary "logic" could relate at all to the common-sense notion of nothing.
And I also don't think we need any conceptual scheme to understand it. We all do. I suspect that even preverbal children do.
Any void presumably has nuetrinos and photons rushing by just as the blank sheet☺
I've studied enough logic to know that's just wrong.
I've never heard of a logic "properly so-called". Can you quote an example?
Boundary logic is Boolean, in that there are two abstract states: bounded and unbounded.
Moreover, a professor of Mathematics, Kauffmann, says this:
It's not that easy to do, but you associate a "true" state with < >, "false" is then the absence of < >.
The thread is not about mathematics .
The thread is about the physical properties of nothing and a void .
Of which both are entirely seperate .
Nothing has no physical properties , it had and never will .
A void is an three dimensional area of space with no physical material in it .
Entering the domain of mathematics.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What makes you think that three dimensional space cannot be dynamic in essence?
Check out CDT (causal dynamic triangulation) which describes how spacetime fabric itself evolves, independent of background.
We are talking about a void , right ?
Logic isn't necessarily mathematics.
Logic can be just a series of statements:
The next sentence is true. This sentence is not empty, but the next one is. ( )
. . . I can represent an empty sentence as ( ), a space character with brackets around it. What does the boundary represent physically, logically (symbolically), or Platonically? In fact, the concept of "empty" is entirely encapsulated between two boundaries.
But wait, the sentence "( )" isn't really empty, but I can "empty" it by doing this: (( )) =
Which implies: ((( ))) = ( ).
I see that as a mathematical equation, obscure and abstract to be sure, but mathematical in essence nevertheless.
Yet mathematics has nothing to do with a void in this thread . Mathematics is totally irrelavent .
The void is physical , not mathematical .
Physical values and functions are mathematical in essence. "The Universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties". (A Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark.)
And yet there is a mathematical way to describe physical things. Hence the void is also symbolic.
In the case of boundary logic, BL, a void has more than one equivalence (there are two kinds of void, bounded and unbounded). It's equivalent to false (false is the empty symbol), hence if ( ) is equivalent to true, then ( ) = (F) = T.
And (( )) = ((F)) = (T) = F.
Ladies and gentlemen, an algebra of symbols. T and F are Boolean values (this is just showing a connection to T/F binary logic), but in BL they could be whatever you like.
And yet mathematics is still irrelavent .
Yeah. Good one.
Are you sure? We know that a "vacuum" (an enclosed void) has mathematical properties.
Vacuum is not a enclosed void .
There is no Vacuum in the Universe .
Separate names with a comma.