Reply To: The Project: Phase 1 requirements, clarifying the initial conditions

[Akinbo]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your response.

I don’t know to what extent you tolerate criticism, but I see some of these things not as criticism but as dialectic in the tradition of the ancient Greeks.

There is no gainsaying that phase 1 of the project is probably the most important. You have yourself mentioned that it is to be the foundation upon which other phases will be built. This being so clarity is essential.

On terminology, for example it needs be made clear what difference there is between “a granule” and “a particle” so that the exercise does not reduce to semantics, especially when the initial goal is stated as “To simulate a micro-sized universe, the motion of its components and the formation of the FIRST particle”. It can be argued that Granule has equal right to claim precedence as the first particle. And if so, from what smaller particle would it have been formed?

Arguments of this sort along with others such as “When a granule is displaced from equilibrium, it follows simple, harmonic motion”, suggest that ultimately the fundamental substance is a continuous rather than a particulate medium. For example, if the granules oscillate as stated here, it means that what lies between them can store potential energy, which therefore dictates that it must be substance. If so, which other type of yet smaller granules will it then be composed of?

I like the attempt at simulation and I think it can be done once the framework or foundation is properly laid.

The following links may be helpful in your thoughts. How the Conway Game of life works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway_Game_of_Life ). And some thoughts by Ed Fredkin et.al. on the subject at http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/

If criticism can interfere with your goals and you wish to continue this conversation, you can take it offline. You can find my email address on the NPA relativity Google group or in some of my papers on Researchgate.

Regards,

Akinbo

[Akinbo]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your response.

I don’t know to what extent you tolerate criticism, but I see some of these things not as criticism but as dialectic in the tradition of the ancient Greeks.

There is no gainsaying that phase 1 of the project is probably the most important. You have yourself mentioned that it is to be the foundation upon which other phases will be built. This being so clarity is essential.

On terminology, for example it needs be made clear what difference there is between “a granule” and “a particle” so that the exercise does not reduce to semantics, especially when the initial goal is stated as “To simulate a micro-sized universe, the motion of its components and the formation of the FIRST particle”. It can be argued that Granule has equal right to claim precedence as the first particle. And if so, from what smaller particle would it have been formed?

Arguments of this sort along with others such as “When a granule is displaced from equilibrium, it follows simple, harmonic motion”, suggest that ultimately the fundamental substance is a continuous rather than a particulate medium. For example, if the granules oscillate as stated here, it means that what lies between them can store potential energy, which therefore dictates that it must be substance. If so, which other type of yet smaller granules will it then be composed of?

I like the attempt at simulation and I think it can be done once the framework or foundation is properly laid.

The following links may be helpful in your thoughts. How the Conway Game of life works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway_Game_of_Life ). And some thoughts by Ed Fredkin et.al. on the subject at http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/

If criticism can interfere with your goals and you wish to continue this conversation, you can take it offline. You can find my email address on the NPA relativity Google group or in some of my papers on Researchgate.

Regards,

Akinbo