Multiverse!

[Scott Mayers]

it can be the case that each world in your perspective can still be parallel.

What does parallel mean? Do you mean contemporaneous?

"Parallel" does mean "contemporaneous", yes. Since "time" is not what everyone believes is more fundamental than your own interpretation, it would be inappropriate to use that word for those of us who do not. It would be like a non-religious person being willing to use the word, "God" instead of "Universe" simply to appeal to the religious, although we do so metaphorically. [Like Einstein might say, "God does not throw dice." This very statement of his has actually been used to suggest that Einstein was religious by many which only proves why one should try to prevent using the terms of others in context of their own ideas without care.]

So "parallel" is the appropriate term I use. If you prefer "contemporaneous" that is alright. If it is, then are you fine with this interpretation when you replace "parallel" with your preferred meaning, "contemporaneous", or are you setting up a scarecrow by begging me to transfer to another definition you have in mind? [Not accusing you of this, just wondering if you intended a bad interpretation of "contemporaneous".]

Another good reason why "parallel" is more useful is because if you notice in the illustration, one world event may be longer or shorter with respect to the stages between expansion-to-collapse. Since we cannot possibly transfer to those places (as far as we can be certain of), especially where such 'times' in other places may be mismatched, it doesn't matter at this point whether we perceive one interpretation over the other. Both work. The question would only arise if we had to argue whether we could actually transit to those other worlds, which even most multiverse proponents do not even think is possible regardless.

[Scott Mayers]

Note Leo that this relates to our discussion in "models" thread. If you happen to make sense of the above, you should be able to see that I actually 'agree' that your interpretation is in sync with mine but that I use a different model by perspective. Our models would thus only differ and is more favorable to our own uses because of the way we might find it advantageous to present our ideas appropriate to our own thought processes. So this should prove that I do NOT think that you are 'wrong' in the least. I only opt to use a different model for the sake of my own way of making sense of reality. I later use my own preferred model because it helps with other models I use to build my own case elsewhere.

[Obvious Leo]

I'm afraid that your idea of another time dimension which exists external to the universe lacks Occam elegance, is impossible to test, and permanently places a mechanism for gravity beyond all possibility of explanation. How could such a model ever remove the inconsistencies which already obtain with the current epistemic models of physics? It adds further layers of complexity instead of removing them and it is removing complexity which everybody agrees must be the goal of a unification model.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm afraid that your idea of another time dimension which exists external to the universe lacks Occam elegance, is impossible to test, and permanently places a mechanism for gravity beyond all possibility of explanation. How could such a model ever remove the inconsistencies which already obtain with the current epistemic models of physics? It adds further layers of complexity instead of removing them and it is removing complexity which everybody agrees must be the goal of a unification model.

I'm not sure how you'd interpret the gravity thing with respect to this but agree with you on the difficulties. Note that in that diagram, what lies 'outside' of those closed figures are not defined and so not a part of the totality nor 'universe' (in your interpretation). I just used the way they are illustrated to represent the idea of different 'stories' (with respect to your interpretation) and one 'story' in mine using a multiple interpretation.

I'm going to digress on my own into math and logic to inspect the "foundations of mathematics" because I'm concerned that much of the difficulty lies with trying to make sense of my own approach [by others] in logic using contradiction as an implicit step to discovery within the system. I'm noticing that I keep having to take another step back into having to study another long line of old philosophers simply to seek out even the varying references used by others. It's frustrating because you have to keep transferring your own familiarity of language to interpret just another person's of the past in order to make sense of them in a fair light. It's like having to require learning 100 different languages. The only other thing that I can think of is to continue on my own terms to think of a more creative way to present things.

I was having a discussion elsewhere to which Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem" arose. I know that this proof was based upon Hilbert's Program but its goal to seek a "finite" solution is where I believe is the problem as I see it even affects your own theory similarly being "infinite" in nature. Although I'm confident with my own reconstruction already, I have to figure out why others (thus far) have a hard time making sense of infinities. Was it Cantor who investigated this and ended up dying in an insane asylum (maybe it wasn't about his infinite infinities he was suffering from though)? I don't have his problem yet can't figure out why others do.

[Obvious Leo]

It was indeed the infinities that ultimately sent poor old Georg into ga-ga land, although my own view is that his relentless religious mysticism couldn't have helped. Although the pre-Socratics had no real mathematics as we understand it in the modern era they certainly laid the philosophical groundwork for the future development of formal mathematics by the Pythagoreans and others. I would highly recommend a very good grounding in pre-Socratic philosophy before proceeding to the insights of the great Persian philosopher/mathematicians. It was from the Persians that Europe inherited its mathematical tools and it is still from the Persians that we must learn what these tools are and are not capable of telling us about the nature of reality. I still no of no significant western philosopher who seems to have grasped the Persian concept of spaces, except perhaps for Leibniz who almost certainly arrived at the same conclusions independently.

[Obvious Leo]

I forgot to mention Fibonacci, a much underrated student of the Persian schools of mathematical philosophy. Check him out.

[Scott Mayers]

Thanks, Leo. I had studied much of the pre-Socratics mostly through others as most of them have been lost to us in their actual works were there was any. But the Persians would be an interesting one too. On contradiction, I'm in line with the Dialectic Materialist type that derived from Hegel. Did you see the link on Hegelianism? Although I recognize through links that I see some of your own likely influences (like Kant there), if you haven't read this, check it out. I looked up "contradiction" there too as it all relates and is precisely what I need to find out how others dealt with this in depth.

[Obvious Leo]

I've read Hegel but I'm afraid the official apologist to the Prussian court never did much for me since my primary interest in philosophy has always had its major focus on the philosophy of science. I find Hegel's approach to political philosophy interesting but only tangentially relevant to my own interests in the sense that social, economic and political structures are evolutionary phenomena.

In your research into Godel's efforts to resolve Hilbert's programme did you come across Peano arithmetic? Godel was much influenced by Peano and I reckon Peano makes a grave metaphysical error by defining zero as a real number. I can't actually remember if Cantor does the same thing because all this research was done a long time ago and brain rot gets to us all in the end. The Greeks never defined zero as a real number and neither did the Persians. In these philosophies zero was always regarded as an unrealisable abstraction located midway on an imaginary line between two other unrealisable abstractions, these being plus and minus infinity. In fact the Greeks never used either zero or infinity in any of their mathematical systems, which greatly limited their utility. The Persians were more adventurous in the use of these abstractions as placeholders but they knew exactly what they were doing when they did so. Newton never did.

[Scott Mayers]

Hegel is the root philosopher of most interest for origins of reflecting on the contradiction as I'm using within a system of logic.

I completely covered Boolean logic for study in computer logic and began Peano's extension using multivalued logic. But it expands on Boolean's use of using only a binary set of numbers of which zero is necessary. So Peano wasn't the adding zero but other numbers (or bases) in his logic to any number of distinct numbers greater than n = 2 (for {0, 1}) to n = (P + 1) (for {0, 1, ..., P}. )

I couldn't originally find sources for Peano's works directly and the logic text I was learning from layed out the initiating logic without much explanation. I had to try to make sense of it without the source as it was only an insignificant addition that referenced Peano's work for more interest. But I now understand it.

Zero isn't simply a number as it acts as a backdrop for real uses. Of course, I argue space as real for a relative static example. But even in dynamic ones, like computers, this is demonstrated as very real in meaning. One might opt to use two varying voltages rather than a nothing and one voltage value, but then this imposes other difficulties without using a multivalued logic. For instance, it is harder to design memory that holds multivalues and only recently do they apply this (like in certain flash memory). A computer requires a clock which creates the pulses necessary to all functioning in the computer. This can be done in many ways but all relate to a use of alternating voltages. The use of a zero represents a real factor and though may be one that can lack a voltage, it is equivalent in 'value' but in opposition to an absolute charge or voltage.

[Obvious Leo]

I can't argue with what you're saying but the zero in Boolean logic is not a real number. It is merely a placeholder representing the absence of a real number. Incidentally the finer points of applied computation are way above my pay grade but the mathematical philosophy which underpins this nerdy detail is not.

[Scott Mayers]

Okay, let us define what follows in a rectangle as a "universal" to which represents a potential 'space' to which matter may be filled into. Using "black" to represent matter in both sample universals, which universal do you think is valid as your own interpretation of what best represents matter? What I'm asking is that since you don't accept space as 'real' although matter can "occupy" it, both demonstrate matter "occupying" universals of space. But the one on the left demonstrates this matter and space as its background to contrast what 'matters' is. The right universal shows all that 'matters' given that space being occupied but demonstrates the non-reality of space appropriate to the way I interpret it since no non-material space is 'real' in such a space.
[that is, I favor the left with its background of space as 'real']

2015-10-10_062417.png

Which one do you prefer and why?

[raw_thought]

I'm afraid that your idea of another time dimension which exists external to the universe lacks Occam elegance, is impossible to test, and permanently places a mechanism for gravity beyond all possibility of explanation. How could such a model ever remove the inconsistencies which already obtain with the current epistemic models of physics? It adds further layers of complexity instead of removing them and it is removing complexity which everybody agrees must be the goal of a unification model.

Your model of time is incredibly nonsensical. There is only time and no space? The present has to be infinitesimal ( literally infinitely small) if you are consistent. How do we hear melodies then?

[Obvious Leo]

The present has to be infinitesimal

You haven't been following my posts because I never once said this. I have specifically stated that time cannot be infinitely divisible and MUST have a smallest possible bit. In this way time can be quantised equivalently with gravity and this is quantum gravity.

[PoeticUniverse]

Isn't a proposed multiverse still just one big verse overall as a whole, such that there isn't anything else?

[Scott Mayers]

Isn't a proposed multiverse still just one big verse overall as a whole, such that there isn't anything else?

I believe so. It defaults to assume that since we cannot possibly know all or everything, then assign a 'place' that includes ALL possibilities by default. It doesn't mean they all 'exist' as possibilities that something like us as humans or other being could ever realize.

So it then treats this totality as a 'constant' by label but places all 'real' possibilities in one category and all 'non-real' possibilities in another. It doesn't mean that we could determine which ones are real or not but just that each class exists in this 'whole'.

It does another thing. If we want to appeal by argument to help literally anyone with many different views to be able to accept an entry into questioning reality in a reasoning anyone can relate to from their own background. For instance, we might define this "totality" as including one's god, their heaven, or heavens, or any of what we relatively presume that another might question by perspective.

If we define our particular experience as belonging to one part of this totality, then we don't discriminate against all other possible worlds for which we can try to determine which things we can eliminate with practical considerations without disrespecting those things we cannot possibly know. Thus it aids to help even those who may be 'religious' or mystical to be able to participate in learning and willing to learn where they might normally resist such efforts. Note though that while many of us might agree to what we think of as "religious" or mystical, or pseudoscience, etc as 'fiction', we easily witness that even among ourselves that even this is about perspective too which only aids to create division is trying to move forward.

Then the process would be about eliminating which things we can be sure of that don't fit give certain ideas and conditions.

Then in an opposite way, to only assume what is in front of us as individuals, like assuming a perfect solipsistic reality to begin with, is then also good and we can use this as a type of perspective to discover reality too. That is, we accept both approaches as distinct but useful to find a means to both induce and deduce reality so that we can meet in the middle these approaches to infer reality.