All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe

[Terrapin Station]

The aspect 'identical nature' as a concept, when considering that it applies to all particles in the Universe, implies that the start point of the consideration is the identical nature by itself.

Say what? "identical nature" can't apply to all particles, because numerically distinct things are not identical. "Identical" means that something is literally the same thing in the relevant respects.

. . . at a fundamental level.

I don't know why "fundemantal" is suddenly being used in a bunch of different posts as if it's some well-defined, technical term.

The simple logical truth that something cannot be the cause of itself, implies that value cannot be the origin of value. This implies that the observer (counsciousness or mind) must precede reality

What in the world? I don't know what this has to do with the notion of identical yet numerically distinct particles, but "This implies that the observer must proceed reality" is a complete non-sequitur here, not to mention that it's incoherent. It's very frustrating to talk about philosophy where it seems like a majority of the people talking have some ulterior motive of apologetics for some religious or other mystical etc. belief.

[chewybrian]

In summary: two things of noticeable size, are unique only within the scope of a perspective. The concept Uniqueness would derive significance only by meaning within the scope of a retro-perspective (a memory).

I can't see how this has any meaning or implications for us. I can't look at anything without having a perspective, and nothing has meaning if it has no meaning. I'm also not sure what this says or implies about the universe being infinite or not.

The cited study shows that all particles in the Cosmos are entangled by their 'identical nature'. This implies that the quality non-uniqueness is applicable to particles on a fundamental level.

Even grains of salt are unique, despite having the same chemical composition. There is no reason I should assume that the particles which make up objects are identical because they share properties, like reacting in a predictable way with other chemicals. You and I share many properties, too. I will continue to believe that there could be and probably are differences at every level that can not always be noticed by us (yet). I can't prove it, nor do I think it can be disproven; it only makes sense to me. Even if atoms are composed of identical particles, if they are in motion, then they are unique in a snapshot, as their component parts would be in different arrangements. For example, inside a baseball, none of the atoms would have their electrons lined up in exactly the same form at any given time, so nothing inside would ever be truly identical to anything else.

[Terrapin Station]

In summary: two things of noticeable size, are unique only within the scope of a perspective. The concept Uniqueness would derive significance only by meaning within the scope of a retro-perspective (a memory).

I can't see how this has any meaning or implications for us. I can't look at anything without having a perspective, and nothing has meaning if it has no meaning. I'm also not sure what this says or implies about the universe being infinite or not.

The cited study shows that all particles in the Cosmos are entangled by their 'identical nature'. This implies that the quality non-uniqueness is applicable to particles on a fundamental level.

Even grains of salt are unique, despite having the same chemical composition. There is no reason I should assume that the particles which make up objects are identical because they share properties, like reacting in a predictable way with other chemicals. You and I share many properties, too. I will continue to believe that there could be and probably are differences at every level that can not always be noticed by us (yet). I can't prove it, nor do I think it can be disproven; it only makes sense to me. Even if atoms are composed of identical particles, if they are in motion, then they are unique in a snapshot, as their component parts would be in different arrangements. For example, inside a baseball, none of the atoms would have their electrons lined up in exactly the same form at any given time, so nothing inside would ever be truly identical to anything else.

Well, and at least from a nominalist perspective (I'm a nominalist, by the way), it's even problematic to say that two numerically distinct things have identical properties--again, as in literally the same property(ies) somehow being instantiated in numerically distinct things. What I buy instead is a sort of "resemblance" nominalism, so that the properties aren't literally identical, they're just similar.

[Pattern-chaser]

What might have been Albert Einstein's motive for doing the following:

- come up with a theory for an infinite Universe that has now been shown to be correct
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and help promote the theory of a Catholic priest friend who states that the Universe began in a "Cosmic Egg".

I don't think he had a conscious motive, any more than Coleridge had a conscious motive for writing Kubla Khan. I think this is down to creativity, imagination and inspiration in both cases. This is where art lives in science: hidden right at its core. This is why creativity is important for a scientist. This is why my former profession (before I retired) of software design is a creative discipline.

[Pattern-chaser]

The cited study shows that all particles in the Cosmos are entangled by their 'identical nature'.

Are we saying here that all collections of identical particles are intrinsically a Bose-Einstein condensate?

[Steve3007]

Are we saying here that all collections of identical particles are intrinsically a Bose-Einstein condensate?

I think Bose-Einstein condensates are a specific example, whose properties are best understood on the basis that all bosons are identical.

If this aspect of this topic were to be continued to be argued, I think it would probably turn into yet another example of an argument over what it's useful to propose in order to explain the world as observed versus what is actually ontologically the case. So I'm staying out of it, except to note this and the fact that Einstein was dyslexic and that's perhaps why he mis-spelled "Hubble", not that he was trying to dis Edwin.

[psyreporter]

Say what? "identical nature" can't apply to all particles, because numerically distinct things are not identical. "Identical" means that something is literally the same thing in the relevant respects.

The counting that occurs in the concept 'numerically distinct' is mathematics which is a mental construct and thus a perception.

As can be seen in the topic about the Infinite monkey theorem, the factoring out of the observer (perception) results in the idea that mathematical infinity can be applicable to reality, for example as a ground for the claim that there is no need for a God or intelligent design.

A similar problem is addressed in your defense of the Kalam cosmological argument by your denotion of time as Tn in topic Endless and infinite by which you argued that an infinite amount of time cannot precede a given Tn (impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’). The perception on time that provides the foundation for the ability to denote time as Tn is left out of consideration.

What in the world? I don't know what this has to do with the notion of identical yet numerically distinct particles, but "This implies that the observer must proceed reality" is a complete non-sequitur here, not to mention that it's incoherent. It's very frustrating to talk about philosophy where it seems like a majority of the people talking have some ulterior motive of apologetics for some religious or other mystical etc. belief.

I am not religiously motivated, nor spiritual. Personally I have an interest to 'serve' truth, but that's not something emotional. I am personally purely driven by theory.

Scientific evidence for the idea "a primary role for mind in nature" is mounting from multiple angles. For example recent quantum physics studies have proven using experiments that the observer precedes reality (the scientific 'observer' = consciousness = mind).

(2019) Quantum physics: objective reality doesn't exist
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-p ... oesnt.html

When the Universe is a conscious mind, then, 'reality' is a memory and particles originate from the source of the perspective (consciousness), which is necessarily infinite which means that particles of the same kind must be Non-Unique, signified (made non-identical) by 'meaning' within the scope of a retro-perspective (memory).

[psyreporter]

I can't see how this has any meaning or implications for us. I can't look at anything without having a perspective, and nothing has meaning if it has no meaning. I'm also not sure what this says or implies about the universe being infinite or not.

If mind plays a causal role in nature / the Universe, that has far-reaching implications for human progress and aspects such as morality.

As cited a few posts back:

"There might be moral implications. We tend to treat systems that have conscious experiences different from systems that don't," said philosopher Johannes Kleiner.

Yet if it is proven that consciousness plays a causal role in the universe, it would have huge consequences for the scientific view of the world, said Kleiner. "It could lead to a scientific revolution on a par with the one initiated by Galileo Galilei," he said.

https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious

One may be able to argue that in this case it does matter whether particles are Non-Unique on a fundamental level, or whether the origin of particles and reality is 'mind'. The implications would reach as far as a conclusive answer to the question 'does morality exist?'

Even grains of salt are unique, despite having the same chemical composition. There is no reason I should assume that the particles which make up objects are identical because they share properties, like reacting in a predictable way with other chemicals. You and I share many properties, too. I will continue to believe that there could be and probably are differences at every level that can not always be noticed by us (yet). I can't prove it, nor do I think it can be disproven; it only makes sense to me. Even if atoms are composed of identical particles, if they are in motion, then they are unique in a snapshot, as their component parts would be in different arrangements. For example, inside a baseball, none of the atoms would have their electrons lined up in exactly the same form at any given time, so nothing inside would ever be truly identical to anything else.

What is posed is that 'particles of the same kind' are Non-Unique on a fundamental level.

When the origin of particles is conscious mind, that would be logical. It also means that the fundamental nature of particles can change in time.

[psyreporter]

Well, and at least from a nominalist perspective (I'm a nominalist, by the way), it's even problematic to say that two numerically distinct things have identical properties--again, as in literally the same property(ies) somehow being instantiated in numerically distinct things. What I buy instead is a sort of "resemblance" nominalism, so that the properties aren't literally identical, they're just similar.

What would be the origin of the Unique nature of those properties? Pure randomness?

[Terrapin Station]

Say what? "identical nature" can't apply to all particles, because numerically distinct things are not identical. "Identical" means that something is literally the same thing in the relevant respects.

The counting that occurs in the concept 'numerically distinct' is mathematics which is a mental construct and thus a perception.

No, no and no.

The notion isn't someone literally counting, etc.

"Numerically distinct" simply refers to what's the case when there are different things (so that when there are people around, for example--which there doesn't have to be, we can say "Those two things").

[Terrapin Station]

Well, and at least from a nominalist perspective (I'm a nominalist, by the way), it's even problematic to say that two numerically distinct things have identical properties--again, as in literally the same property(ies) somehow being instantiated in numerically distinct things. What I buy instead is a sort of "resemblance" nominalism, so that the properties aren't literally identical, they're just similar.

What would be the origin of the Unique nature of those properties? Pure randomness?

What would be much harder to say is what the origin would be of multiply instantiated identical properties, because the very notion of that is quite incoherent.

If we're asking what the origin of any existent is, we don't know. For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

[psyreporter]

The counting that occurs in the concept 'numerically distinct' is mathematics which is a mental construct and thus a perception.

No, no and no.

The notion isn't someone literally counting, etc.

"Numerically distinct" simply refers to what's the case when there are different things (so that when there are people around, for example--which there doesn't have to be, we can say "Those two things").

The 'isness' that is used in your argument (things that 'are') as ground for the meaning attributed to the concept numerically distinct is an assumption based on a belief that facts are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy). That belief is questionable.

Without the idea that facts are magically 'existent' without a perspective, the notion numerically distinct could only apply to 'literally counting' (a mental perception).

If we're asking what the origin of any existent is, we don't know. For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

There is at least a third option. When the origin of a particle is conscious mind, then, the Unique quality of numerically distinct particles originates from the start of a pattern within the scope of a perspective. There is no 'existent' that needs an 'origin' but merely meaning within the scope of a perspective, which origin is logically infinite because the origin of a pattern cannot be a pattern (i.e. cannot be finite).

When this concept is considered in general, then, the quality existent itself, which could apply to particles of the same kind, finds its origin in a perspective, and thus, must be Non-Unique and infinite on a fundamental level. Evidence for this is that since the origin of a perspective cannot be finite, anything that originates from that perspective, must be infinite as well, since the quality Uniqueness or 'existent' would render the inifite origin of the perspective impossible, which would be absurd.

[psyreporter]

The cited study shows that all particles in the Cosmos are entangled by their 'identical nature'.

Are we saying here that all collections of identical particles are intrinsically a Bose-Einstein condensate?

Can you please explain in more detail (e.g. with references) how the quality Non-Uniqueness would be explained/applicable with Bose-Einstein condensate?

[Terrapin Station]

The 'isness' that is used in your argument (things that 'are') as ground for the meaning attributed to the concept numerically distinct is an assumption based on a belief that facts are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy). That belief is questionable.

Without the idea that facts are magically 'existent' without a perspective, the notion numerically distinct could only apply to 'literally counting' (a mental perception).

Are you using "perspective" to suggest a subjective perspective, or something that requires minds? I'm just checking, because sometimes people use that term that way and sometimes they do not.

[psyreporter]

Are you using "perspective" to suggest a subjective perspective, or something that requires minds? I'm just checking, because sometimes people use that term that way and sometimes they do not.

I am using the term perspective to denote the extrapolation of the essence of pattern recognition. In a sense, consciousness or mind expresses itself by means of pattern recognition, thus it would imply 'mind'.

Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind? Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

If your answer is yes to both, how is it possible to not believe in determinism?

You once mentioned the following:

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following, which is essentially the idea that mind is necessarily 'caused' within the scope of physical reality.

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Could they be right?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

As can be seen from the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.