This is an idea that I had a little while back; and was lost; and then reappeared in my mind again. The idea is raw and highly abstract in its nature, so be cautious.

The idea is simple. There are 3 types of domains.

1. True-dynamic domains: No real statics exist, only pseudo-statics that are created by taking intervals of the dynamic.
2. True-static domains: No real dynamics exists. Only pseudo-dynamics that are created by taking a series of statics.
3. Hybrid domains: Both true-dynamics and true-statics exists.

So what is a true-dynamic domain and what is a true-static domain, you may ask.

A true-dynamic is a one single big flow. There, you can’t pinpoint anything perfectly. There are no isolated things, everything is like a mist. There are no instances and there are no exact things in a true-dynamic domain. If one to take an interval in this kind of a domain and consider it as indivisible, then it could be seen as a pseudo-static. But remember the boundary of that interval is also not exact but a diffused one.

And it’s quite the opposite in a true-static domain. Everything is ultimately made up of indivisible discrete things or are indivisible discrete things themselves. There is no flow. If one to arrange a set of statics in a series and then it can be considered a pseudo-dynamic.

I think the hybrid-domain is self-explanatory. It’s a domain both true-dynamic entities and true-static entities can exist. But if you think a little bit more, there is a problem. What about the boundary of a true-dynamic entity in a hybrid domain? Is it clear-cut or somewhat fuzzy? Because having a definitive boundary contradicts what a true-dynamic is, and is actually a property of a true-static. This raises the question that, can hybrid-domains exist, or are they impossible? If they can exist, what is the nature of a boundary of a dynamic entity in it? I don’t really have any answers to them now and I’ll just leave these questions for everyone to think about.

These also lead to many other questions about the reality we live in. Is space a dynamic or a static? In a dynamic space, the famous “Zeno’s paradoxes of motion” would still be there, but in a static space they would not (or would they?).

Is time dynamic or static? If it is a dynamic, then instances would not exit. That means you won’t be able to talk about the state of something at t=25, because the instance of t=25 or any other would not simply exist. But you could talk about things in a somewhat fuzzy interval of time. (Zeno again!)

What about matter and energy? Quantum physics with the standard model and the others seems to say that matter and energy are dynamic and their static behaviors are just pseudo-static. (mind my poor physics :))

Modern computing seems to be true-statics, because they are binary machines, and having 2 clearly separated states mean they are true-statics. All the dynamic behaviors are just pseudo-dynamics.

What about mathematics, can mathematics handle both true-dynamics and true-statics, or just a one? Euclidean geometry seems to be static. Because it can have zero area points and zero width lines and likewise. The series of integers seems to be a pseudo-dynamic. But what about the real numbers? To me it seems like a hybrid domain where the rational numbers are static and irrationals are dynamic, but I’m no mathematician; I’m merely an infant (maybe an unborn even) when it comes to mathematics. So I’ll leave this to the mathematicians.

And finally, what about the (physical) reality itself? Is it a true-dynamic, or a true-static or a hybrid?

Personally I love a true-dynamic, even if it’s real or not. I love it for the elegance, the majesty, and the all or nothing nature of a true-dynamic. That’s also one of the reasons why my writings have less numbers and equations in them. Because numbers represent something exact and that’s a static thing. I like a bit of vagueness and a pinch of mystery in things (not too much, obviously).

So, that’s it from me for now. What are your thoughts about this?