Logically, nothing should exist.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Neo. I don't have time to respond in much detail now but I need to pull you up on this.
Neopolitan wrote:you have attempted to make the universe so much more complex than it needs to be by introducing the idea that nothing exists
I've no idea how many times I've emphatically stated that nothing does NOT exist so I won't bother repeating my reasoning. Furthermore my spaceless universe is vastly simpler than your mathematical confection, not more complex. It's amazing what chucking out 3 superfluous dimensions can do to a physical model.

Right from the outset I have always defined my universe as both a Mandelbrot set and a Universal Turing Machine. This was Wheeler's dream with his "it" from "bit" thinking.

I'll have another look at your post tomorrow and may have more to add.

Regards Leo
User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Neopolitan »

Obvious Leo wrote:Neo. I don't have time to respond in much detail now but I need to pull you up on this.
Neopolitan wrote:you have attempted to make the universe so much more complex than it needs to be by introducing the idea that nothing exists
I've no idea how many times I've emphatically stated that nothing does NOT exist so I won't bother repeating my reasoning. Furthermore my spaceless universe is vastly simpler than your mathematical confection, not more complex. It's amazing what chucking out 3 superfluous dimensions can do to a physical model.

Right from the outset I have always defined my universe as both a Mandelbrot set and a Universal Turing Machine. This was Wheeler's dream with his "it" from "bit" thinking.

I'll have another look at your post tomorrow and may have more to add.
You should avoid contextomies, Leo. I wrote to both you and Spiral, I wrote Spiral's name first and I addressed his "nothing exists" thing first, then I addressed your "space doesn't exist" thing. I wasn't accusing you of saying that nothing exists.

Hopefully, when you reply, you can address some of the issues that you left unaddressed in the Patchy thread.

-- Updated January 4th, 2015, 5:05 am to add the following --

Specifically from this post.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Misty »

GreenBow wrote:The simple fact that anything exist is impossible. In pondering where existence derived, if one tries to really hard to "remember" you get an intense nothingness, a block. This simple idea has driven some mad to the point of suicide. Even the theory of the big bang is not true by asking, Where did it come from? God? if so, where did God come from? The deeper one goes in thought the more impossible it is. Of course one could just say, you are a mortal being who's thoughts are too narrow to contemplate such deep things. And only God or for some, the many gods, can truly understand. Nothing is real due to the fact that it is impossible for anything to exist. Prove me wrong.
"The simple fact that anything exist is impossible." This sentence does not make sense.

"Logically, nothing should exist." "Nothing is real due to the fact that it is impossible for anything to exist." These are not logical sentences. "Prove me wrong," is a logical sentence. But, you prove your own premise wrong by the very fact you prove existence is possible and does exist by you being able to make these statements.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Neopolitan wrote: fractal geometry doesn't seem to mean what you think it means. It doesn't have a "language"
Neo. Fractal geometry IS a language in exactly the same way that Newton's classical mathematics is a language. However they are as chalk and cheese with respect to the nature of the physical systems they can be used to model. In a nutshell Newtonian reductionism models linear determinism and fractal geometry models non-linear determinism. I'm assuming you know the stark difference between these two different ways of defining causation. The former requires a previously assumed first cause and a programmed operating algorithm, whereas the latter does not. I've covered this point in the Kant thread on synthetic a priori concepts which I recommend to your interest.

It frustrates me having to repeat myself but I fear that folk are declining to take me literally, as I intend they should. My no-space model is not a metaphor for something else but an exact representation of Kant's noumenon. It replaces Minkwoski's Cartesian continuum of time and space with a fractal one of time and gravity. This immediately brings the universe to life by defining reality as that which is happening RIGHT NOW. Newton's mathematics are unable to do this, a point comprehensively acknowledged by Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Eddington and Wheeler, amongst others. In their private writings all these pioneers of 20th century physics have conceded that physics can only model the reflections in Plato's Cave and not the self-synthesising world of our experience, which is one which is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light. Newton's paradigm can only model the past whereas mine can only model the present. Neither can model the future. I freely concede that I'm insufficiently mathematically fluent to devise this model myself because the use of iterative functions in complex quadratic polynomials is not for the faint-hearted. This is work for a complexity theorist, not a dilettante wordsmith.

My model is entirely information-centric and once again this is not a metaphor. I quite literally define the universe as a computer but not one of the type that we are familiar with. A linear computer requires an input programme to perform its computation functions but a non-linear one does not. The most obvious example of a non-linear computer is a mind but note carefully that my model does NOT define the universe as a mind. A linear computer does not generate information but simply processes it into the required usable form. The non-linear computer generates new information through causal feedback loops between emergent and nested causal domains, as is exquisitely modelled in the Mandelbrot set. ( if you know something of these mechanisms you may be able to recognise mind as a self-similarity, the Mandelbrot set within the Mandelbrot set.)

Essentially what I'm saying is that my model defines a reality MAKER, whereas Newton's defines a reality which has already been made, the world of the observer. This reality exists no longer because the speed of light is finite, a point which Newton was unaware of to be fair to the man, but this no-longer-existent world can only ever be an approximation to reality because the Moving Finger has moved on. Einstein's universe is more relativistic than Newton's, because he takes the speed of light into consideration, but it still isn't relativistic enough because it requires free parameters to be inserted by hand from observation. These are the mathematical constants which all the models of physics are littered with and the ontological origin of these constants is inaccessible by definition. Physics is quite explicitly unable to explain why G, for instance has the value that it does, rather than some value, or why the electron should have the mass it does, rather than some other mass. These values are induced. Any physicist worth his wages will concede that this is an exercise in mathematical chicanery which brings us back to the Cave, and Niels Bohr knew it best of all. His cautionary warning to physicists to shut up and calculate has largely gone unheeded of recent times. Bohr and Einstein knew damn well that what they were doing was solely an epistemic exercise and that their models were not physical representations of the universe. Instead they and all the other blokes I mentioned above said exactly this in various different forms of words.


Our canonical doctrines of physics are not physical models but mathematical representations of a single physical model.


This point is crucial to the understanding of where I'm coming from.
Neopolitan wrote: In other words, the universe at any time t is a function of the state of the universe one sliver of time in the past (t-δt) plus that increment of time.
Yes Yes Yes. Exactly and precisely so. This is the universe which makes itself according to no pre-determined programme. It evolves towards informational complexity as a natural consequence of a single meta-law, namely that all effects must be preceded by a cause. It is a perfect description of a non-linear computer but it doesn't work in a 3D space because it needs no background to operate in. Whilst Newton's world is background-independent and Einstein's is background-dependent, this world is without a background of any sort. The grav-time continuum can best be thought of as a continuously emerging wave which needs no background onto which to manifest itself. All it needs is a previous moment (iteration).

I know it's not easy to get your head around this, Neo, and it's taken me most of my life to do so, but a universe that exists only in a fractal time dimension is an entity of the most exquisite simplicity. ( Wheeler would use the term "sublime austerity". He knew damn well what physics was looking for. Einstein was a ladies man and thus thought the same thing in terms of chatting up barmaids.) Our spatial world is a holographic representation of our past and the spaces we observe are not observations at all. They are constructions of our consciousness which have evolved to allow us to render our physical world comprehensible, a simple survival adaptation necessary for complex information-processing organisms.

You place a burden on me which it is not my responsibility to bear. Every mathematical philosopher in history, with the exception of the god-infested Descartes, describes 3D space as a mathematical object and not a physical one. None of the sciences except physics have need of spaces to model their hypotheses, all they need is events which they can temporally relate to each other. If you want to fight the good fight for a physical space you defend a minority position and the convention in philosophy is that the burden of proof therefore lies with you. I don't have to defend the logic of my paradigm, although I claim to have adequately done so, because the paradigm it seeks to replace is riddled with logical inconsistencies, an assertion you would be hard pressed to deny.
Neopolitan wrote: You still need to put stuff somewhere, you still need to have places in which events and processes can occur.
This is indeed the trickiest part of my paradigm to understand but the above statement is false. This was Newton's assumption also and Einstein's embellishment on the Newtonian paradigm left this assumption untouched. The inevitable consequence was Minkowski's frozen Parmenidean block, a metaphysical abomination which makes no ontological distinction between past, present and future. THIS IS NOT THE BLOODY WORLD WE'RE LIVING IN. The past makes the present and the present makes the future so all that can be logically said to physically exist is the moment NOW. The past consists of events which exist no longer and the future consists of events which are yet to exist. As you can see the philosophy of the bloody obvious has been well named because physics denies that this statement is true.

It is not necessary for me to prove this, Neo, because this is mainstream philosophy, simple common sense, and in perfect accord with our innermost intuitions. The burden of proof lies with those who would say otherwise, and a century after the publication of GR this proof has yet to materialise. Instead we have been offered a continuous and endless suite of absurd hypotheses and intrinsic paradoxes which are drawing us away from truth instead of towards it.
Neopolitan wrote: I'm much more interested in understanding how the universe works than I am in appearing to be clever about it.
If you only want to understand how the universe works then physics is enough for you, Neo. This is exactly what Newton invented physics to do and its trajectory of progress has tended steadily upwards ever since. However if you also want to understand why it works the way it does and not some other way, as I do, then the philosophy of the bloody obvious is exactly what you're looking for. You raised a lot of specific questions in our previous conversation on this subject and I'm confident I can answer all of them. I was summoned overseas on business during our last engagement and returned to find the thread locked. This time round I'd like to do it rather differently. My posts become too long when I have to cover the same ground over and over again and I have no wish to bore people by repeating myself. I've laid out the broad parameters of my paradigm, which I regard as irrefutable, and I reckon the best way to get it across is by applying it to specific examples of the paradoxes in physics which it resolves.

The easiest place to start is with gravitational lensing, offered as the definitive proof of the curved space. I'll deal with this in my next post because already this becomes too long. I'm happy to respond to any questions you may have about what I've said here but what I'm really asking you to do is suspend your disbelief. Ask yourself this: "What if Leo happens to be right? What happens to our models of physics then?"

I promise you an epiphany and finally I'll promise you a testable prediction which my model yields. This was the major sticking point in my philosophy for a long time because without such a prediction all my "clever" philosophising is only so much navel-gazing.

Regards Leo

P.S. By the way you're by no means the first to call me bonkers and I very much doubt you'll be the last. However I'll remind you that he who laughs last laughs the longest and I'll be pissing myself laughing all the way to the grave.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Sy Borg »

Leo, I'm trying to get my head around your model.

I like much of it but cannot understand how there can be no space or spacetime. If we and the rest of the detritus from the big bang are travelling at the speed of light then that means we are travelling through space to my mind (which is open to change since I know bugger all).

When I try to visualise your model I get something like m-theory, where a brane fills up with energy (or some kind of pre-energy) which has evolved over time up to now. Here the notion of travel is more akin to the blooming of a bud to a flower than a traversal across the space that the flower occupies. The light speed travel would then be in an inner dimension ...?

So our absolute truth of now is not sitting in a chair in front of a screen but a complex set of waves hurtling along at light speed through inner space ...?

The last few lines feel incoherent thought bubbles even to me, and I'm more confused than ever. I've kept them because it might ease the explanation burden if you can see where I'm getting screwed up.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Neopolitan »

It would appear, Leo, that you are suffering from the same problem that Spiral is in that you are struggling with a language that isn't set up to describe what you want to describe.

I think there might be more to it when it comes to your statement "(f)ractal geometry IS a language in exactly the same way that Newton's classical mathematics is a language." It's very much a part of "fractal geometry" that there's not a language in the same sense as classical physics is a language (note that mathematics is not really in question here, only physics). Essentially, fractals are emergent features - they cannot be accurately described (meaning that they are not accessible to "language") other than by running the processes from which they emerge. This is not to say that they cannot be loosely modelled, but when we are talking about Newton's physics we are all well aware that Newton had only a loose model of things, accurate enough on the macro scale over shortish periods of time, but totally inadequate for accurately predicting the solar system beyond a few thousand years. (And we run into the same problem with Einsteinian physics as well, because we simply don't have enough information about the current state of the solar system to be able to model accurately. Once we start running the model, the errors in our data start to combine and magnify and - again - we eventually end up with an inaccurate prediction. So it's not really a problem associated with Newtonian or Einsteinian physics per se.)

Then you say that you assume that I know the difference between linear and non-linear determinism. Well, yes, I know a difference. But this is a philosophical forum and the intelligent posters here are forever banging on about defining terms because some people come along using a term that they don't understand or that they use idiosyncratically and it is up to them to make sure that others understand what they mean by the term. The same applies here. I think you mean chaos theory, but there's nothing in chaos theory (to the best of my knowledge) that implies that space doesn't exist. Note that this link indicates that I might be right, given that it's a primer on chaos theory from the Fractal Foundation. They do sterling work finding homes for stray fractals and campaigning tirelessly to shut down fractal mills and prevent the blood-soaked horror that is fractal fighting, or something like that, and they are calling for donations and volunteers right now! From the science side of things, however, they come across as just a little bit batty (perhaps they are simply gushing with enthusiasm which is all well and good, but enthusiasm is no substitute for accuracy in reporting).

If you don't mean "chaos theory and all things that pertain to chaos theory" when you say "non-linear determinism" could you please explain what you mean by the term.

I do agree (to an extent) if you mean the emergence sort of effects associated with both the generation of fractals and processes within chaos theory. There was no prior planning necessary to generate the universe as it is today (and the universe looks very much like it wasn't planned). You'll notice, Leo, that the problems associated with the models of both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are associated with effects relevant to chaos theory. The inaccuracy of the models is precisely what one would expect. Pointing to fractals and chaos doesn't actually provide you with a better model, doing so just goes some way to explaining why all models are going to be inaccurate.

Now ... "noumenon". This is another term that you don't seem to be using correctly. Especially so when you refer to Kant in the same breath. For Kant, the noumenon is unknowable so I don't quite grasp how you think that you have obtained an exact representation of it (and you've made it quite clear that you don't intend this as a metaphor). The pre-Kantian noumenon is something we know without the mediation of the senses - which I suppose makes sense (no pun intended) since without space there is no sense (again no pun intended) in talking about senses, the senses we have are all spatially anchored (for example, the sensation of pain or heat or electrical stimulation is localised, the eyes and ears and nose and tongue have physical structures as does the brain and there are regions on the brain in which our various senses are processed). Let's leave this aside for the moment until you can explain what you mean by "noumenon".

I agree that reality is happening right now (or rather "just then" since we have a time lapse between events taking place and our becoming aware of them) and I would go further to say that we only have a limited interaction with "reality" since we are only aware of the internally generated models slapped together from a filtered selection of any inputs we have available (and the quality of our models varies from person to person). Naturally, I don't expect mathematics or physics to be able to model these internally generated representations of reality. What I expect is that mathematics and physics will model external reality (phenomena, rather than noumena). Whether or not what goes on inside our heads matches those models (or even better reality) is the business of each individual with a head for things to go on inside of.

I'm going to ignore your list of notables as a possible appeal to authority. It's a good list though.

I disagree that Newtonian physics can only model the future and is unable to model the present or the future. That claim of your is what we call, in technical terms, ********. What we cannot do is model the future with perfect accuracy, but the same applies to the past (for largely the same reason). We might be able to say that at some time in the past the universe was in a smooth, hot, dense state (which is relatively easy to model) but between then and now we have too many unknowns to do any completely accurate modelling from. We can certainly get broad brushstrokes, if that is all you want, but is that accurate enough for your purposes?

When you say that your paradigm can model the present but you don't have the skills to devise the model, this means you are applying an <<insert miracle>> here approach. Until you actually have a model and someone to sort out the problems associated with devising this model, you have little more than gums flapping in the wind (or fingers stabbing randomly at a keyboard). To the extent that you might be right, you have nothing of value to offer until you (or someone more capable) provides this model. An orphan "paradigm" isn't worth the paper it hasn't been written on.

Then you get into an information-centric version of the universe. ******** again. You seem to be drawing from the holographic principle (especially given your later reference to the term "holographic"), the idea that the universe is information "painted" or "encoded" on the boundary of the universe (and I am happy to consider "now" as the current boundary of the universe). However, this is relies on a reification of information - or a completely different definition of information. The only way we could "decode" this information would be to experience it, pretty much as if it weren't information at all, but rather the things that the information leads us to believe that the information is. Pragmatically we would have to call it ********, unless, of course, you could do something useful with the concept - which, so far, they haven't, despite the idea being around since about 1978. (They have, on the other hand, been able to do useful things with information theory.)

You're getting needlessly messianic when you suggest that the mind is self-similar just after talking about the universe as information-centric (but emphatically not a mind). You are still implying that the "mind" is in some way similar to the universe. It would help, of course, if you defined mind here since in most definitions of the term the thing being referred to doesn't actually exist.

You sadden me when you say "(p)hysics is quite explicitly unable to explain why G, for instance has the value that it does, rather than some (other?) value". In natural units, G has the value of 1, as does c. Such a value simply does not need explaining (because it's almost like it has no value at all, in a sense it's transparent). With respect to the mass of an electron, you really should avoid using "why" questions in such a context because (sotto voce) we have theists here. We can really only talk about the relationships between the mass of the electron and other features of the universe. You have been better off talking about the fine structure constant and the gravitational coupling constants, both of which are dimensionless (but then again, they are related by the mass and charge of an electron - so there's your relationship).

Alright now on to where we have some agreement. You didn't like my (purely representative) equation, but you liked my words, despite the fact that my words said exactly what my (purely representative) equation has just said. Ok, I can live with that.

I'm not overly happy with the idea of the universe "making itself", but since you had a negative in there, I'll assume that you aren't suggesting that universe actually makes itself. But what is this "perfect description of a non-linear computer"? A chaotic computer? What on the Grand Pixie's purple forehead is this supposed to mean? And then you say it can't do X (operate in 3d space) because it doesn't need y (a background on which to operate) ... this is a logical fallacy. Not being required doesn't make something impossible. Did you mistype?

When you say that you don't have to defend the logic of your paradigm, I guess you are right. There's no apparent logic to it to defend. All you have is a smokescreen of words, appeals to famous names and bold assertions that all the physicists agree with you (despite your saying elsewhere that these very same physicists are all complete idiots who welded to ridiculous ideas that you in your obvious genius can see are obviously false). You claim that there are logical inconsistencies that riddle modern physics. You also state that the need for stuff and events to be somewhere is an "assumption" (the assumption of Newton and Einstein) and then claim that it's bleeding obvious that it's not the case, but I see no substance to your claims - it's all just ranting and bluster. If there really are so many inconsistencies in physics, then you could easily point out a few. If the "assumptions" of Newton and Einstein are so obviously false, perhaps you could explain why. But I suspect that you can't or perhaps won't. And the reason for that is, I further suspect, that you, my imperiously obvious friend, have no theoretical clothes on.

That all said, I'll await your revelations on gravitational lensing. Note however, that you are behind the 8-ball on this one. Gravitational lensing was predicted by Einstein, not explained in hindsight. The 1919 expedition provided evidence in support of (by not falsifying) Einstein's theory. I do understand that you are probably not in a position to make predictions like that, but even if you can explain something that isn't currently understood, it'd be a more convincing argument on your part.

-- Updated January 4th, 2015, 11:09 pm to add the following --
Greta wrote:Leo, I'm trying to get my head around your model.

I like much of it but cannot understand how there can be no space or spacetime. If we and the rest of the detritus from the big bang are travelling at the speed of light then that means we are travelling through space to my mind (which is open to change since I know bugger all).

When I try to visualise your model I get something like m-theory, where a brane fills up with energy (or some kind of pre-energy) which has evolved over time up to now. Here the notion of travel is more akin to the blooming of a bud to a flower than a traversal across the space that the flower occupies. The light speed travel would then be in an inner dimension ...?

So our absolute truth of now is not sitting in a chair in front of a screen but a complex set of waves hurtling along at light speed through inner space ...?

The last few lines feel incoherent thought bubbles even to me, and I'm more confused than ever. I've kept them because it might ease the explanation burden if you can see where I'm getting screwed up.
Personally, I think we are travelling at the "speed of light" through space-time. It's a constant speed, but not a constant velocity (velocity has a direction component) - this means that if we could be absolutely motionless in a spatial sense then we would move through time at the "speed of light", when we move through space at any speed we move more slowly though time. I describe this in detail here (I do warn therein that it gets a little complicated - but note that there's a difference between "complicated" and "wrong" :) ).
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Sy Borg »

Thanks Neo, but I was never good at physics! So ... the v.spacetime2 formula retains the basic principle of relativity that the amount of energy needed to form mass is immense, just that the amount varies depending on velocity rather than the constant c. Yes?

Just a comment about what you said earlier: "You are still implying that the "mind" is in some way similar to the universe. It would help, of course, if you defined mind here since in most definitions of the term the thing being referred to doesn't actually exist".

I took that to mean fractal concentrations of a particular dynamic found throughout nature - colonies, neurons, families, cities, the internet and ultimately the cosmic web. Highly concentrated oases of order networking through an ocean of entropy, the structures formed in branching processes occurring over time.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Greta. You modestly claim to know bugger-all about physics which places you at a distinct advantage. You are unburdened by an excess of prior knowledge. However you're selling yourself a bit short because your questions and observations are perceptive.

Try it this way. I use the word "construction" rather than "illusion" but just pretend that our 3D space is entirely illusory and step up to my telescope. We set it to maximum and focus it as far away into the universe as we can. This is a region of "space" known as the CMB and it is as far away as any telescope can possibly see. It's "location" is about 380,000 years after the big bang. Already your spatial illusion is coming unstuck as we conflate two concepts which simply cannot be physically conflated. This "distance" is expressible in miles but this spatial distance is meaningless because the CMB no longer exists. The notion of quadrillions of miles of empty space stretching out to a non-existent entity is absurd beyond belief. The CMB is simply what the universe used to look like 13.7 billion years ago minus 380,000 years. It isn't a "place, it's a past EVENT.

As a thought experiment only, because this is utterly impossible, we'll now focus our telescope all the way back to the big bang, 380,000 light years beyond the CMB and the full 13.7 billion light years away. What will we see? Will we see the universe exploding into existence from a point? Not a chance. What we'll see is the universe sucking itself back in to a point. What we're observing is reality happening backwards, a problem which the QM geeks have all sorts of difficulties with on the atomic scale. Thus the observer is located 13.7 billion years away from the big bang regardless of whereabouts in the universe we place him. Nobody in the universe is either closer to or further away from the big bang than us, which places us right on the boundary of the universe, along with everybody else. In fact this boundary is the only "place" where anything can be said to exist. This boundary is the present, the nexus between past and future.

This makes no sense spatially, as I'm sure you'll agree, but it makes perfect sense temporally. The "distance" between us and the big bang is the past, which no longer exists, and the region beyond the boundary is the future, which is yet to exist. This region doesn't exist yet but if we come back and repeat our experiment in a billion years time our primordial past will be 14.7 billion years away from us. In the spacetime paradigm we say that the universe has expanded but in the grav-time paradigm we need simply say that the universe has aged. We don't have to twist our minds into a pretzel by trying to imagine such an absurdity as an expanding space. It's perfectly kosher to model the expanding space as a mathematical convenience but it's way wrong-headed if we don't understand what we've done. We've turned the real universe into our mental picture of it, the world in temporal reverse. This shouldn't be too hard to grasp for a non-physicist but for a physicist this is bloody near impossible to see. This is not because they're stupid because most of them aren't. It's simply because they've been trained to think in the language of mathematics and not in the language of reason. Neurons that fire together wire together and they've mistaken the map for the territory.

That the universe is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light is a self-evident conclusion from this simple thought experiment. The past WAS, the present IS and the future WILL BE. The tricky bit to appreciate is that the same thing is happening to us, the observers. We are simply a suite of emergent properties fundamentally composed of matter and energy like any other stuff of the universe. You, Greta, are continuously coming into existence at the speed of light and I intend this statement to be taken literally. Another way to express this is that you are physically CHANGING at the speed of light. Only a single electron within a single one of your trillions of atoms needs to jump into a different energy level and you are a physically different entity, which means that the notion of "you" as an object has no meaning. You are only definable in terms of the changes taking place within you, which clearly defines you as a non-linear PROCESS. You are a work in progress, another bloody obvious conclusion which accords perfectly with our deepest intuitions. At the emergent level you and I are vastly more complex than stars and planets etc, but at the fundamental level we are no different. If we are only meaningfully definable as a non-linear process then so must be all the rest of physical reality.

As a non-physicist you'll probably be unable to appreciate the significance of this as it relates to the models that physics uses but the significance is profound. Neo has enough physics to see it and it should be sending him into a frenzy of introspective self-revision. A non-linear process cannot be modelled on a spatial template of any sort, be it Newtonian or Einsteinian. Non-linear processes are NOT time invariant and thus cannot be modelled on a Cartesian line. They can only be modelled in a fractal dimension, which is exactly the way I define the grav-time continuum.

I've no idea whether I've clarified anything for you or simply made matters worse. However I'm honoured by your interest and urge you to watch this space (sic). By all means keep firing questions at me because from my point of view the entire object of this exercise for me is just to continually tighten up my language of expression. If I'm not making sense it simply means I have to try a bit harder. There's nothing about this model that you won't be able to understand as long as I explain it properly, although why it makes physics so badly wrong ontologically may not be so easily apparent to you. If it brings you any comfort nobody in the whole world understands any of the alternative paradigms that physics has on offer, including those who are offering them.

Regards Leo.

P.S. Neo. Your post is weighty and will take some time. As big Arnie says "I'll be back".
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Vijaydevani »

So even my laptop, on which I am typing right now, is on a time differential. Everything I observe, I am essentially looking into the past, however short the time frame might be. Have I got this right? Your theory fits in quite well with expansion too because now I can see why the scale change takes place.

Whether you are right or not, the fact that you can even conceive of this theory is mind blowing. Brilliant stuff.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Yes Vijay you've got it. Your computer monitor lies in your past and you can only see it as it WAS. Because the speed of light is finite there is a small but finite possibility that you're looking at something which isn't there. Obviously in the case of a distant galaxy this small possibility is extrapolated into a stone cold certainty. Galaxies move around and they move a bloody long way in a billion years. They can also collapse into a gigantic black hole and vanish from the observer's scrutiny.

The moral of the story. Never believe what you see.

quote="Vijaydevani"]Your theory fits in quite well with expansion too because now I can see why the scale change takes place.[/quote]


The scale change emerges naturally but subtly because of gravity. GR shows us that time passes more quickly between galaxies than it does within them and the observer observes this as the galaxies moving away from each other. They are, but not spatially, only temporally. The further away the galaxy the faster it will appear to be receding, hence the expansion appears to be accelerating. This is the mythical "dark energy".
Vijaydevani wrote: Whether you are right or not, the fact that you can even conceive of this theory is mind blowing.
I didn't find it in a packet of cornflakes, Vijay, I've been working on it for forty years. I think doggedness might be a better explanation than brilliance because I didn't want to die in universe that made no sense to me.

Regards Leo
User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Neopolitan »

Greta wrote:Thanks neo, but I was never good at physics!
There was a warning ... :) The earlier articles try to explain some of the ideas in a less physicsy sort of way.
Greta wrote: So ... the v.spacetime2 formula retains the basic principle of relativity that the amount of energy needed to form mass is immense, just that the amount varies depending on velocity rather than the constant c. Yes?
Well, it's not that the energy needs to be huge. I try not to distinguish too much between mass and energy, I quite often refer to mass-energy (and concentrations of mass-energy). The famous equation E=mc2 is actually a simplification of Eo=moc2 - which talks only about the energy of a mass at rest. (It's this issue that the last little more complicated section was about.
Greta wrote:Just a comment about what you said earlier: "You are still implying that the "mind" is in some way similar to the universe. It would help, of course, if you defined mind here since in most definitions of the term the thing being referred to doesn't actually exist".

I took that to mean fractal concentrations of a particular dynamic found throughout nature - colonies, neurons, families, cities, the internet and ultimately the cosmic web. Highly concentrated oases of order networking through an ocean of entropy, the structures formed in branching processes occurring over time.
I've no real problem with interpreting things this way, but our interpretations do not make reality.
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Vijay. If you really fancy a headspin try this on for size. Time passes more quickly at your head than it does at your feet. This means your hair is aging faster than your toes. The difference is miniscule but you have good reason to be grateful for it. This is what is holding you onto the surface of the planet.

Regards Leo
User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Neopolitan »

Obvious Leo wrote:Vijay. If you really fancy a headspin try this on for size. Time passes more quickly at your head than it does at your feet. This means your hair is aging faster than your toes. The difference is miniscule but you have good reason to be grateful for it. This is what is holding you onto the surface of the planet.
Hm. That is a little disingenuous, Leo. That is a fact that derives from general relativity (and was subsequently found to be true with the deployment of GPS satellites, which have to be calibrated to take into account their elevation over the Earth's surface as well as their orbital velocity). It's not a function of your paradigm.

You've got things **** about as well. The effects that we perceive as gravity affect the rate at which clocks run, it's not the rate at which clocks run that keeps you stuck to the planet.

It's certainly a bit of a head spin, but then it's a head spin when you realise that your head is travelling faster than your feet (while standing upright anywhere other than on the rotational poles). So, our heads need a 100,000 kilometre service before our feet do ...
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Vijaydevani »

Obvious Leo wrote:Vijay. If you really fancy a headspin try this on for size. Time passes more quickly at your head than it does at your feet. This means your hair is aging faster than your toes. The difference is miniscule but you have good reason to be grateful for it. This is what is holding you onto the surface of the planet.

Regards Leo
I actually knew that thanks to Michio Kaku. :D
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Obvious Leo »

Vijaydevani wrote:I actually knew that thanks to Michio Kaku. :D
I'll have to think of something more impressive then. My model has a few conceptual curiosities because of our a priori assumption about the 3D space. However it contains no paradoxes and is entirely mechanical. No dice-playing god and no spooky action at a distance.

I'm a great admirer of Kaku, who has a very elegant and lateral mind. There was a time when I felt sure he would achieve a unification model ahead of me but it never happened. I also thought the same about Lee Smolin back in 2006. I felt sure he was right on it but then he seemed to retreat from his line of attack and cosy back up to the quantum field theorists. I didn't know it at the time but all he had to do was pick up an elementary textbook on the psychology and neuroscience of human perception and the penny should have dropped. He also overlooks another very important thing which he shouldn't. He writes extensively on the universe as an evolving system, up to and including life and mind, and then ignores the fact that evolving systems can't be modelled using differential geometry. I've no doubt that he knows a **** more about non-linear dynamic systems theory than I do and yet he never made the connection. Space is an insidious deceiver.

Regards Leo
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021