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"
).