numbers and particles

[danny burton]

so why can’t +1 be the smallest building block of the universe?

can a singularity act as +1 and combine with (lots and lots) of other +1 points to form stable sets of patterns, in a polydimensional grid of +0/+1 potential points. like Conway’s game of Life or boids..

..except with groups of singularities forming stable sets within the polydimensional grid and behaving... when they have high enough number counts... behaving like particles. ... ?


On the instant after t=0, all that could be said about the universe was that it existed - a +1 state. It must have started with pure number, because there hadn't been enough time elapsed to describe anything else.

 

[BenTheMan]

What about +0.1?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

so why can’t +1 be the smallest building block of the universe?

Because its a mathematical abstract concept which doesn't exist in the physical world, it is a property which we can assign to physical objects.

It's like asking "Why can't the universe be built of happy?" or "Why can't the universe be made of nostalgia?". They aren't physical things they are attributes we assign to things or situations.

 

[Bishadi]

so why can’t +1 be the smallest building block of the universe?

IN a sense it is.

For example; use the concept of a vacuum, is there ever a complete void between 2 points of mass? Is it possible? Has it ever been experimentally proven to exists?

Or; can you measure between a and b without time?

can a singularity act as +1 and combine with (lots and lots) of other +1 points to form stable sets of patterns, in a polydimensional grid of +0/+1 potential points. like Conway’s game of Life or boids..

gonna go take a look see before commenting on that.

..except with groups of singularities forming stable sets within the polydimensional grid and behaving... when they have high enough number counts... behaving like particles. ... ?

Interesting idea to ponder.

On the instant after t=0, all that could be said about the universe was that it existed - a +1 state. It must have started with pure number, because there hadn't been enough time elapsed to describe anything else.

it is why the Big Bang analogy has that singularity point too as 'nothing from nothing meeeeeeeans nothing.'

interesting approach and welcome to the party

 

[BenTheMan]

danny---

You'd do good to ignore completely Bishadi's comments, for your own sake...