Space, the final frontier(1)....

When we start trying to understand phenomena outside what the traditional field of science and engineering would be, in what is the artificial universe that is (very wrongly!) called "social sciences," what will most mislead us is the concept of "space."??Ever since we started studying natural phenomena, the physical space in which we live has been a given. It is there, it serves as the background for everything we have done since we were born, as people and as a species, and we don't even question where it comes from. But we must understand that, in abstract terms, without it, a minimal quantity of things works because almost all the mathematics we use is based on the fact that a background space is there for us. Position, velocity, energy, variation, sum, functions in general, you name it, it all depends on the idea of background space.

One of the significant victories of the digitalization of our world is the questioning of what space is. Notice how our personal relationships don't need the space that our biological envelopes need, how we can compose a song in Lisbon and be playing it in Shanghai two seconds later or send a flirt to a lady in Cape Town (I'm not a composer, so you'll believe I don't send flirts on the Internet either). How can we understand what space is in this context? And how can we know, starting from here, what physical space is and how it is explained, that is, where did it come from?

A key piece here is, let's call it, the "impulse." The impulse is what is going to happen for sure. For example, we may question where we will do the week's shopping, but we don't ask that we do it. In fact, on average, we can be sure that it will happen. In other words, there is an impulse for it to happen, and the existence of the impulse changes everything.?

Let's take a more basic example, elections. Polls are based on the existence of an impulse: there will be an election, and, on average, people will vote(at least 0.40 of the person). More rigorous, the person will not vote; who will vote is the voter, an object incarcerated in a being we call a person. This impulse causes a voter to attach himself to a party, to some contender. But is it really "some contender"? How can we know?

Well, let's imagine that there are three parties that we know nothing about. We measure today how many people will vote, and we find that each one will get, for the time being, one vote. That is, from what we are given to understand, the parties are equally attractive. However, we know that there is someone who will decide tomorrow. Since they are equally appealing, they will choose one of them with equal probability. Only, when we measure tomorrow after the decision of this additional voter, there is one that has two votes, while the others have one. That is, one has an attractiveness that is double that of the others. When the next person decides, he will be twice as likely to choose a party as the others, which is a huge difference. The day after tomorrow, another voter decides, and so on until election day. As a result, what was equal initially becomes a very heterogeneous thing, one huge party, one not so big, two medium and many small (I won't do the mathematical demonstration here). Nor does it matter why one was more or less attractive. The simple existence of the "impulse" is enough.?

A critical point emerges here from the result of the "impulse." I have been dividing the voters into days—one tomorrow, one the day after, etc. I didn't mention space, but I introduced something else: time.??I was putting the voters along the time scale that we know in our biological life but imagine the opposite. Imagine that there is no time scale in our natural being. So, I'm going to create a new time scale, every time a voter decides, there is a tick of the clock because ideally, we should be able to separate the universe of voters from the universe of people. If voters choose instantaneously, there is no "impulse," but also no elections. In short, having "impulse" creates a new "intrinsic" thing in the system: time. But it produces more than that. Voting intentions are made when the ticks of the clock strike, and connections are created between voters (through the parties) in such a way that we say, "they are further apart or closer together." As time passes, the parties become more different in terms of attractiveness, and this difference implies a representation of the voters "relative" to the parties. Yes, not only are parties defined by voters, but voters end up defined by parties because one doesn't exist without the other- abstractly speaking, we don't even need people or physical space for this. So, in short, "impulse" created time, and time created space in which I can reference voters because they are closer or further away in that space. Plus, the impulse also made the "mass" - the attractiveness. The detail of all this will come in an upcoming post; on how Einstein, without internet, digitization, or even enough mathematics, set this all up theoretically.

This whole mechanism I call inflation. Contrary to what (some) economists think, inflation is not the devaluation of money; it is the appreciation of everything else against money, which is the only thing that does not move; it is paper. What's impressive is that all of this appears from what I called "impulse." Something that economists call "scarcity" (no, economists, scarcity and rarity are two different things). And, as it turns out, it is the only thing we need to explain the whole universe, as I will try to explain in the following posts.

PS:??I don't know how many more posts I'll make, but I'm trying to build up the entire thing from my thoughts and your comments (and other social nets). In the end, there will be only Physics...