I started out on the game theory side of things, say, with concepts like guaranteed maximum, versus, maximum guaranteed, amounts. Which I, then, went on to apply to a thus solution of a theory of everything, rather than a straight-up mathematical and physical theory of everything. There will always be the two ways to solve things. Of course, though, it's not enough to look at everything, as how it all comes together, but, also every thing as how the individual pieces fit together. I came across a terms for the latter, such as a "theory of everything everything", which has to do with details like why we do what we do.
Anyway, from there, I tried to find the logic from no guarantee, to a guarantee. What's in between? Sort of like a quasi-crystal, but, I didn't know of that per se, at the time. That was a relatively new discovery. I thought that there was some sort of randomness in between the two states above, at which point, things were likely more complicated than simply determined.
From there, I started to look at how the dimensions may thus grow out of themselves, starting with a point pertaining to some, or all of, the well-defined notions above. Around then, Roger Penrose had a vortex model of a point. Stuff like that. Quite a few years working back and forth through a few of the dimensions, to try to find a "thread" through them to build on. I guess that any decent theory takes quite a while to figure out what is involved, what the salient question is. At which point, it becomes more a matter of working out a set of a few consistently convergent rules, to work to such a "thread". And, to start, and, re-start from first principles, or, "scratch", every now, and then.
From there, waiting decades for the numerals to show up, on their own, instead of try to infuse them into things, from the start. Doesn't make much sense to build on others such work, because they would have finished it if they had the right thus rules to work with. But, that's okay because there's plenty of time, even on the end of things, to work with the resultant numerals. Numerals are much easier, and faster, to work with, and, without room for error, having to start over.
I like to think that the notion or concept of the word, nothing, is defined in terms of what and how things, however, connect to it. It's pretty damn hard to try to figure out what nothing is, but, then, go from there to other things. Should I write that dimension-0 isn't a dimension? Does no dimension, as mixed with the stuff of dimensions, make dimension-0? I found out that it's a lot easier to figure the nuts-and-bolts details out on the end, after getting numerals that work out. And, if nothing else, in terms of confidence building to keep at it, back to the nuts-and-bolts of the mathematical and physical side of things. One can spend a lot of time to relate abstract notions such as black & white, clear & unclear, contrasted grays, and, then, colors, and, so on, to the math and physics, but, only as means to try to nudge things into giving up the underlying thread. But, no way to conclusively put one thing on another until every other thing, on the end. (Yes, within such exercises, there is the final answer, but, very likely, it's not visible until on the end, after the numerals have shown themselves, at which point, there is a reason, and more-specific ways, to follow up on such.)
A point doesn't lose the other dimensions, but, counts up from plus/minus plus/minus 0, and, down from plus/minus plus/minus all, as it rotates through the other dimensions to connect to them. In general, there's a mathematical point, and, a physical point. Specifically, dimension-0 is time is full is solid is closed is white, and, so on, or, it's (infinitely divisible) matter is full is solid is closed is unclear, and, so on; whereas dimension-all is space is empty is not solid is open is black, and, so on, or, (infinite or perpetual) motion is empty is not solid is open is clear, and, so on, respectively. Similarly, those qualities, but of mind, as reversed, in terms of that which can't physically happen in reality. Similarly, there are the general, and specific, analogous types of mathematical equations, operators & operands. The absolutes. We don't live in the realm of absolutes, but, in a realm of many things in combination, in the sense that each of those things gives up its thus essence along the way. One might look at dimensions- 0, and 2, in terms of algebra, and geometry, but, dimensions- 1, and 3, in terms of functions/relations, (infinities of) calculus, along with trigonometry.
Reply With Quote