Are You Certain?

Writ large on the blackboard was:
Axiom - Everything can fit into one of three boxes: YES; NO; Do Not Know (maybe).

“That’s not self-evident mate - maybe everything fits into one box!”
“Well, yes and no; Yes everything fits into one box but, no, it’s always one of the three boxes.”
“Ah, so you mean it fits into two boxes then - Certain and Uncertain?”
“Shut up!”
“Now I maintain that for any question there are always the three boxes even if you don’t know, the Do Not Know.”
“You do not know what you’re talking about mate.”
“Shut up.”
“Okay, if you don’t want to discuss it.”
“Now, if you can argue that YES and NO fit into the same box…
“No you can’t mate. YES is the opposite of NO.
“Yes, but it’s the opposite of the SAME thing - they're two sides of the same coin.”
“Nah, how can NO mean the same as YES.”
“Assume YES is positive and NO is negative, okay?”
“Well, I’m not positive…”
“Yes, Yes, but can you see that two negatives make a positive. Not, not sure, means sure, certain.”
“No it doesn’t, not, not sure might mean Don’t Know, you said there was always a Don’t Know. If not, not sure is not, Do Not Know then what is Do Not Know?”
“Right, well, there isn’t a Do Not Know now because were talking about a special case without maybes. Okay?”
“NO NO.”
“Why not?”
“Why not what?”
“Why don’t you agree to agree?”
“I was agreeing!”
“No you weren’t, you said NO!”
"No, I didn’t I said NO NO!”
“Exactly.”
“Yes, but you said that NO NO meant YES so I said YES.”
“Yes, yes, now shut up!”
“Do you mean NO or YES?”
“What are you talking about now?”
“Well, you said YES YES which logically must mean NO if NO NO means YES!”
“Right, GET OUT!”

I can sense most people can’t get a sense of what’s behind this ‘sketch’.
Think about a computer, it works on YES and NO -
a binary world full of 0’s and 1’s.

Now then, it can simulate almost anything and perhaps it would be possible to create a binary digital world such as that portrayed in the film The Matrix.

However, to create a real world you need an extra something to put the bits in, a space, a container for the bits of information.
In Buddhism there is a ‘nothing’ in which everything exists similar, perhaps, to the Western scientific concept of space-time.

So, instead of just needing two boxes you need three, or do you?
Space-time, nothing, Do Not Know, is a box you can put everything in.
So, if we put YES and NO into Do Not Know we approach reality.

“Einstein could not understand how gravity could work being a force, like electromagnetism, in spacetime. He decided that rather gravity must be a property.”

Do Not Know is something without properties which will take on the properties of that which you put in it.
We pretend that YES and NO are absolutes but maybe they are simply...
the properties of Something in NOTHING :O)

Now would probably be a good TIME to skip on to Part Two - you can always read the rest of this later if you feel the need.
http://www.abctales.com/story/mykle/noddy-goes-school

************************************************

Re-reading I see I have not made it clear how putting YES and NO into Do Not Know works
Think of Do Not Know as Space and Space as a SET:

Think of a SET as a bag, and its members as being the contents of the bag. Putting YES and NO into that bag creates a TRInary world.

A world in which everything that exists is in the 'bag'...
a bag which, undoubtedly still exists when there is nothing in it!

Perhaps later we might consider the properties of the 'bag' but for the moment we shall just say it can contain things.

Yes and No are local properties within the arguments that contain them and the whole lot resides in NOW which is based on BEFORE but modified by CHANGE which we measure in TIME.

In words the Matrix might use.
The universe is a computer, its memory is not binary -
but trinary and defaults to zero.
Yes is positive +1, No is negative -1,
and so Yes and No are both 1 but sum to 0 :O)

There is no back up - no past, the future, everything that comes to exist is simply a modification of what was before.

************************************************

Interestingly if you follow through the premises then you end up concluding that Everything sum to zero, that is that -
Everything could have come from Nothing!

It depends on Whether Positive and Negative are a 'lack' or not.
Is Positive a lack of Negative or is it something IN ITSELF?

What I'm trying to say is:
Is ZERO both +1 and -1 at the same time or is neither, NOTHING, trully empty.
Philosophically speaking is the Universe EVERYTHING Or NOTHING ;o)

To clarify, you could have a 'trit' (Trinary digit) which had clockwise spin for positive and anti-clockwise spin for negative and no spin for zero.
It's harder to think of a similarly simple method by which zero could contain both positive and negative but I'll give it more thought.

Either way you can certainly see how a QUESTION could echo through space-time creating the Universe in its search for an ANSWER.
When the Universe has finally agreed on its ANSWER

will it be POSITIVE or NEGATIVE or Forty Two? ;O)

Part of a planned series entitled “Forty One Point Nine”...
(Life the Universe and Everything - well almost)

***************************************************

Here are some speculations I threw onto the forums in the hope of inspiring some debate... it was a forlorn hope :O)
I haven't given the ideas much though but see if you can see any glaring inconsistencies and comment if you like.

***************************************************

Searching for a practical physical model I assumed we could see space-time as a huge array of ‘bags’ which we can, for the sake of simplicity further assume to be spherical.

When these ‘bags’ contain matter the mass causes them to shrink and obviously increases the density of ‘bags’ by volume of space.

Could it be that light moves via 'vibration' of these ‘bags’ while physical things actually travel through them.
In fact it is probably easier to see it as molecules of water, deep in the sea, propogating waves with little actual movement themselves.

In theory as the bags continued to shrink in the presence of mass then there would come a point when the ‘bags’ were so small that light travelled slower than physical particles and so triggered Cerenkov radiation.

Also it might be the reason that satellites always tend to orbit at the same speed relative to their distance from the centre of mass? If you can see what I mean the forward momentum of the satellite being eventually balanced by the increased size of the ‘bags’… and so they find their own orbit irrespective of their mass.

All I’m really interested in is how could space warp, curve, as Einstein maintained it did and produce the property of gravity.

Since we also need to explain why light always appears to have the same speed (in a vacuum but for practical purposes anywhere we might likely be) to the observer regardless of the velocities of the emitter and the observer it seems likely that it utilises a separate means of transmission to physical particles.

After further consideration it seems likely that light could only travel from bag to bag without ‘entering’ if the bag was empty… that is that empty space would be black as light would be a wave and only when the bag contains matter would photons be generated and give us the familiar aspects of light.

In other words light would propogate as a wave through empty space and only become 'visible' in bags which were NOT empty and which had matter to trigger the production of photons.

The problem with this is that since Neutrinos don’t interact with matter they should be waves and not particles… any ideas why they‘re particles?

I notice there are supposedly THREE different flavours of Neutrino -
I wonder if they are Yes, No and Maybe :O)

Thanks for reading!