Skip to main content

Elements

Origins Of The Exploration “Elements”| 10/5/17: Couldn’t I have exploration of elements without having an experience of the conformation of elements? (7/6/17)

Behavior Of Elements| < 21/4/17: What determines the behavior of elements? If we consider the compound structure, behavior of them is determined by the behavior of their elements, here for elements we seem to have no other elements to determine their structure. Can’t we give any reasoning for the behavior of elements? Are laws the ones which state the behavior of these elements? (Clarification required, 22/4/17, edited on 7/6/17)

Different Worlds From The Automation Of Modified Elements| 22/4/17: Nothing yet…

System With Elements Having Variable Properties| 3/4/17: Nothing yet…

Structure With No Elements| 3/4/17: Can’t there be a structure with no elements? In mathematics, number line seems to have no elemental structure, with the property of dividing it to what ever the smallest size one wants, but it has been explored in terms of elements of zero size (?). (3/4/17)
How to determine the properties of a structure with no elements? (3/4/17)
Would these structures have different working properties at different sizes? (3/4/17)
Can the different sizes itself act as elements for the construction of different compound structures? (3/4/17)
Aren’t mass, length, energy, etc. the structures of no elements? Don’t their different sizes make different structure, but with no real elements from which they can be made up? (Clarification required, 3/4/17, exploration required on oddities)
Can there exist relations among working properties of structures at different sizes? (3/4/17)

Element As The Exploratory Way| 30/3/17: Atoms are elements (?), which form compound substance structures. Is it not possible for non-existence of these elements forming compound structures in other domains, i.e. is it not possible for this same exploration to not exist in other domains? (Clarification required, 30/3/17)

Beyond Elements| 1/3/17:
Is it possible to form conformations beyond what the elements can form? (28/3/17)

Circular Elements| 25/1/17: Can every structure look as elemental, from which every other given structure can be constructed? (< 3/4/17)
If I have A,B,C as the structures, can each construct other structures by being as element of them? (3/4/17) 
 
Real Elements| 04/11/16: Progress through real elements seems to be firm. Nothing seems to be completely valid unless they are expressed in terms of real elements. (04/11/16)

[Gen] Creating non-connection elements| 30/10/2016: How to create elements not related to reality or its edited version? Can they be attained accidentally? (Clarification required)

Human as a Transitional Element and as an Operator | <19/08/2016: Nothing yet... 
 
New Elements: Find out elements other than numbers (cardinality/ordinality). (<30/10/16)
 
Sound Atoms:  

In order to define anything we need words; to understand the first word, we need to define those sub-words; then those sub-words need sub-sub-words, then it goes on and on and on, then what? Have we defined the first word? Can't we define anything?  

In the journey of answering this question, I met Wittgenstein, Russell, Kant, Locke, Mach, Newton, Francis Bacon and many others. From my written records, I started thinking on this from 25 July 2015 ~9:00 IST (actually it started many days before in the un-written mode) and it ended on 29 September 2015 ~17:00 IST, this shows the significance this concept has for me and (might be) for all.

Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" textbook's below given few lines gave a push towards the answer,

"..For the most part, however, these concepts [force, space, time, mass, simultaneity, etc] will not be analyzed critically here; rather, they will be assumed as undefined terms whose meanings are familiar to the reader..."
Then I went on thinking, great help came to me, when I changed the concept of word to sounds. Sounds are just the one we make to communicate with others; words are sounds; so humans can have "width" (word picked from +Cheriyan Alexander ) for the usage of a particular sound, but it is blurry. I imagined the early humans making sound for fire, or any other thing; even the present day words/sounds have some kind of "sound" which tells us the inclination of softness, roughness, etc. This connected me to the experience. Then after a series of conversation with Dr. Rabbi Akkiba Anigras, Prof. H.R. Madhusudan, and even +Edward Witten ! I got a forward move.

I got connected with Francis Bacon (see experiences related to Bacon), who said that the axioms (atoms) come from experiments or experiences.

I went on to see how Newton has communicated with us using sounds to make us understand primary atoms/words/sounds. I opened his Pricipia book and saw his definition of mass, it goes like this:
"..Thus air of double density, in a double space, is quadruple in quantity; in a triple space, sextuple in quantity. The same thing is to be understood of snow, and fine dust or powders, that are condensed by compression or liquefaction, and of all bodies that are by any causes whatever differently condensed. I have no regard in this quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name of the body or mass..."     
Here Newton has described the experience in words, and these words/sounds are known to us from experience to mean a band of meaning, like our imagined-early-man used to know fire and other stuff. And these definitions develop from then on as required (Contributors for this idea: +Rabbi Akkiba Angiras , +madhu@taralaya.org , and +vinay bs).
 
So, to define anything in a clear way we need to start by experimental-sound-atoms. I feel little more analysis left in this regard, which I will see ahead.  
 
[Gen] Standard Elements: Think more on your conception of artificial standard elements. (Clarification required, <30/10/16)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog