What Hard Problem?

[VVilliam]

Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

What does this mean? Can you cite a source?

SEARCH: "Spacetime is Doomed"
RESULT: [sample]

Is Space-Time Really Doomed? | Not Even Wronghttps://www.math.columbia.edu › ~woit › wordpress
31/03/2022 — Arkani-Hamed's point is that in a setting where we treat gravity and cosmology realistically it's not possible to fulfill the conditions quantum ...
Videos

1:22:00
Space-time is doomed. What replaces it? - Cornell Video
Cornell University
18/10/2010

1:00:22
Donald Hoffman "Spacetime is Doomed" - Mind and Agency ...
YouTube · Schmid College of Science, Chapman University
29/06/2022

10 key moments
in this video

2:07:10
PSW 2384 The Doom of Space Time: Why It Must Dissolve ...
YouTube · PSW Science
5/12/2017

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, so doesn't really seem like there's a concrete claim being made with a concrete specific source.

The first source leads to this paper -- https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.02225 -- and in that paper, the answer to the question "is space time doomed?" is, in fact, argued to be No.

I'm not looking for a bunch of links you throw at me blindly. If that's all you have, you don't have anything. You need something better than that.

[owl of Minerva]

Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

This leads to the hard problem of finding out what is fundamental to the existence of the universe, and some are wondering if the two hard problems are related.

Therefore we cannot be certain that the universe is definitely a closed system as the idea that the universe is not a closed system is still a possibility and has not been ruled out by current scientific understanding. While the concept of a closed system, where the universe contains all the matter and energy that exists, is widely accepted, there is still much that we do not know about the universe and its underlying structure.

If physicists view the universe as just a body with numerous organs: galaxies, planets, etc. it would not only be a closed system it would be a dead one. No body exists without a head which orders its existence and evolution. The candidate for this would be hyperspace, the brain of space, time and the universe. This possibility is currently proposed by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist.

In addition to research, physicists should think things through, philosophize a little, use a commonsense approach, as well. Then the next question would be is space and hyperspace a closed system, if there anything other than the quantum micro elements of space itself and the macro elements that make up the forms which inhabit it.

Einstein a skeptic, wrong, in relation to quantum flux, also declared the the aether, defunct. The concept of the aether had existed since ancient times. It was thought that as space separates forms, the aether, space’s subtlest element, kept their cohesion as forms in the midst of constant elemental flux. If it does not exist, then “God really does play dice with the universe.”

If it is the element that in addition to stability in the midst of flux also acts as a screen preventing us from seeing behind space, then it must exist, or else there is something awry with our seeing, if all we see is space.

[VVilliam]

Okay, so doesn't really seem like there's a concrete claim being made with a concrete specific source.

Okay.

The first source leads to this paper -- https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.02225 -- and in that paper, the answer to the question "is space time doomed?" is, in fact, argued to be No.

If you want to go with that, do so.

I'm not looking for a bunch of links you throw at me blindly. If that's all you have, you don't have anything. You need something better than that.

I don't need anything. If you want to maintain a position of belief based bias, whatever contrary to that, will be tossed.

[VVilliam]

Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

This leads to the hard problem of finding out what is fundamental to the existence of the universe, and some are wondering if the two hard problems are related.

Therefore we cannot be certain that the universe is definitely a closed system as the idea that the universe is not a closed system is still a possibility and has not been ruled out by current scientific understanding. While the concept of a closed system, where the universe contains all the matter and energy that exists, is widely accepted, there is still much that we do not know about the universe and its underlying structure.

If physicists view the universe as just a body with numerous organs: galaxies, planets, etc. it would not only be a closed system it would be a dead one. No body exists without a head which orders its existence and evolution. The candidate for this would be hyperspace, the brain of space, time and the universe. This possibility is currently proposed by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist.

In addition to research, physicists should think things through, philosophize a little, use a commonsense approach, as well. Then the next question would be is space and hyperspace a closed system, if there anything other than the quantum micro elements of space itself and the macro elements that make up the forms which inhabit it.

Einstein a skeptic, wrong, in relation to quantum flux, also declared the the aether, defunct. The concept of the aether had existed since ancient times. It was thought that as space separates forms, the aether, space’s subtlest element, kept their cohesion as forms in the midst of constant elemental flux. If it does not exist, then “God really does play dice with the universe.”

If it is the element that in addition to stability in the midst of flux also acts as a screen preventing us from seeing behind space, then it must exist, or else there is something awry with our seeing, if all we see is space.

Even if the universe was sentient, this would not mean it is a self-sustaining system which loops around eternally, becoming something different than it was in its previous incarnation.

[owl of Minerva]

Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

This leads to the hard problem of finding out what is fundamental to the existence of the universe, and some are wondering if the two hard problems are related.

Therefore we cannot be certain that the universe is definitely a closed system as the idea that the universe is not a closed system is still a possibility and has not been ruled out by current scientific understanding. While the concept of a closed system, where the universe contains all the matter and energy that exists, is widely accepted, there is still much that we do not know about the universe and its underlying structure.

If physicists view the universe as just a body with numerous organs: galaxies, planets, etc. it would not only be a closed system it would be a dead one. No body exists without a head which orders its existence and evolution. The candidate for this would be hyperspace, the brain of space, time and the universe. This possibility is currently proposed by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist.

In addition to research, physicists should think things through, philosophize a little, use a commonsense approach, as well. Then the next question would be is space and hyperspace a closed system, if there anything other than the quantum micro elements of space itself and the macro elements that make up the forms which inhabit it.

Einstein a skeptic, wrong, in relation to quantum flux, also declared the the aether, defunct. The concept of the aether had existed since ancient times. It was thought that as space separates forms, the aether, space’s subtlest element, kept their cohesion as forms in the midst of constant elemental flux. If it does not exist, then “God really does play dice with the universe.”

If it is the element that in addition to stability in the midst of flux also acts as a screen preventing us from seeing behind space, then it must exist, or else there is something awry with our seeing, if all we see is space.

Even if the universe was sentient, this would not mean it is a self-sustaining system which loops around eternally, becoming something different than it was in its previous incarnation.

owl of Minerva:

“Looping around eternally” is a different issue. It is unlikely that the universe does, there is nothing in nature to suggest it. As all in nature appears to follow a similar pattern, its following or adhering to a pattern would be more likely. As there is night and day, the universe having a similar pattern is feasible.

Its Day would be it manifesting or emerging. Its Night would be its quintessence, having a different meaning than the term in physics where it means Dark Energy.

Its Night would be a withdrawal, a quintessence to its essentialness, its essence, heavenly mode etc. which could be Dark Energy, about which not enough is known to consider it the essence, the prime energy of the universe.

Whatever is the case, its having a Day followed by a Night, pattern-based, as are other things, is the most plausible mode, if all follows patterns that are not separate and unique for each thing, but instead are similar, having an underlying unity to their expression.

[VVilliam]

“Looping around eternally” is a different issue. It is unlikely that the universe does, there is nothing in nature to suggest it. As all in nature appears to follow a similar pattern, its following or adhering to a pattern would be more likely. As there is night and day, the universe having a similar pattern is feasible.

Its Day would be it manifesting or emerging. Its Night would be its quintessence, having a different meaning than the term in physics where it means Dark Energy.

Its Night would be a withdrawal, a quintessence to its essentialness, its essence, heavenly mode etc. which could be Dark Energy, about which not enough is known to consider it the essence, the prime energy of the universe.

Whatever is the case, its having a Day followed by a Night, pattern-based, as are other things, is the most plausible mode, if all follows patterns that are not separate and unique for each thing, but instead are similar, having an underlying unity to their expression.

Are we agreeing? Disagreeing?

[owl of Minerva]

“Looping around eternally” is a different issue. It is unlikely that the universe does, there is nothing in nature to suggest it. As all in nature appears to follow a similar pattern, its following or adhering to a pattern would be more likely. As there is night and day, the universe having a similar pattern is feasible.

Its Day would be it manifesting or emerging. Its Night would be its quintessence, having a different meaning than the term in physics where it means Dark Energy.

Its Night would be a withdrawal, a quintessence to its essentialness, its essence, heavenly mode etc. which could be Dark Energy, about which not enough is known to consider it the essence, the prime energy of the universe.

Whatever is the case, its having a Day followed by a Night, pattern-based, as are other things, is the most plausible mode, if all follows patterns that are not separate and unique for each thing, but instead are similar, having an underlying unity to their expression.

Are we agreeing? Disagreeing?

We are agreeing that the universe “does not loop around eternally.” We experience day and night as 24 hours. The precession of the equinoxes has been calculated to be 24,000 years.

The universal cycle has been calculated to be 4,300, 560,000 years in extent (based on the relationship between the length of the solar year and a multiple of pi 3.1416). Don’t ask me how it is done. I have no idea. The life span of a whole universe has been calculated to be 314,159, 000,000,000 solar years, according to ancient scriptures.

So although it “does not loop around eternally” like everything else it conforms to a set pattern of fixed cycles as does our solar day day and night, and the precession of the equinoxes. All are mathematically set, conforming to mathematical laws, not random. Nothing is random.

[VVilliam]

“Looping around eternally” is a different issue. It is unlikely that the universe does, there is nothing in nature to suggest it. As all in nature appears to follow a similar pattern, its following or adhering to a pattern would be more likely. As there is night and day, the universe having a similar pattern is feasible.

Its Day would be it manifesting or emerging. Its Night would be its quintessence, having a different meaning than the term in physics where it means Dark Energy.

Its Night would be a withdrawal, a quintessence to its essentialness, its essence, heavenly mode etc. which could be Dark Energy, about which not enough is known to consider it the essence, the prime energy of the universe.

Whatever is the case, its having a Day followed by a Night, pattern-based, as are other things, is the most plausible mode, if all follows patterns that are not separate and unique for each thing, but instead are similar, having an underlying unity to their expression.

Are we agreeing? Disagreeing?

We are agreeing that the universe “does not loop around eternally.” We experience day and night as 24 hours. The precession of the equinoxes has been calculated to be 24,000 years.

The universal cycle has been calculated to be 4,300, 560,000 years in extent (based on the relationship between the length of the solar year and a multiple of pi 3.1416). Don’t ask me how it is done. I have no idea. The life span of a whole universe has been calculated to be 314,159, 000,000,000 solar years, according to ancient scriptures.

So although it “does not loop around eternally” like everything else it conforms to a set pattern of fixed cycles as does our solar day day and night, and the precession of the equinoxes. All are mathematically set, conforming to mathematical laws, not random. Nothing is random.

Simulation Theory, in other words.

[owl of Minerva]

Are we agreeing? Disagreeing?

We are agreeing that the universe “does not loop around eternally.” We experience day and night as 24 hours. The precession of the equinoxes has been calculated to be 24,000 years.

The universal cycle has been calculated to be 4,300, 560,000 years in extent (based on the relationship between the length of the solar year and a multiple of pi 3.1416). Don’t ask me how it is done. I have no idea. The life span of a whole universe has been calculated to be 314,159, 000,000,000 solar years, according to ancient scriptures.

So although it “does not loop around eternally” like everything else it conforms to a set pattern of fixed cycles as does our solar day day and night, and the precession of the equinoxes. All are mathematically set, conforming to mathematical laws, not random. Nothing is random.

Simulation Theory, in other words.

No. I would not see it that way. I do not believe it is a simulation; computer or higher intelligence (alien) simulation.or even an Evil Demon as Descartes speculated in order to test what was real. Concluding that what was real, what he was sure of, was that he existed.

I see it more as thoughts in the mind of a Deity, dreaming our reality; real to us but having no concrete existence of its own. Whatever, it is interesting and fascinating and will be figured out eventually.

The descent from the Bronze Age to the Dark Age did a number on human intelligence. But we are recovering and our cognitive intelligence is increasing, even if our emotional intelligence is lagging behind somewhat, I believe things are heading in the right direction; to a better place.

But then I am an optimist.

[VVilliam]

What is a dream but a simulated reality experience.

[owl of Minerva]

What is a dream but a simulated reality experience.

There is a difference between a simulated reality and a dream. A simulation could be consciously created, as for example a computer simulation. A dream is not a simulation of any particular reality, it is its own reality.

Our minds are not expansive enough or powerful enough to dream a universal dream reality. In our dreams our dream people are not conscious. While we are conscious within the universal dream, it is not our dream.

A deity’s consciousness in contrast can be divided into both dreaming consciousness and non-dreaming consciousness with the dreaming consciousness resulting from a play of ideas on it by the awake consciousness of the deity who can simultaneously be both dreaming and awake; consciously transcendent to the dream.

[popeye1945]

What is a dream but a simulated reality experience?

There is a difference between a simulated reality and a dream. A simulation could be consciously created, as for example a computer simulation. A dream is not a simulation of any particular reality, it is its own reality.
Our minds are not expansive enough or powerful enough to dream a universal dream reality. In our dreams our dream people are not conscious. While we are conscious within the universal dream, it is not our dream.
A deity’s consciousness in contrast can be divided into both dreaming consciousness and non-dreaming consciousness with the dreaming consciousness resulting from a play of ideas on it by the awake consciousness of the deity who can simultaneously be both dreaming and awake; consciously transcendent to the dream.

Yeah, but the dreamer is the choreographer, how does one express one's self in relation to others and the context of the inner world in general. It is interesting to try to interpret one's dreams, sometimes it is self-evident of what significant aspects of the nightly drama mean to one. Other aspects of dreams, maybe elements of childhood long forgotten consciously, this is one reason it is so difficult to understand sometimes what any individual in any given time frame is reacting to, one thing certain is that it is all process. The conscious and the subconsciousnes and their interactions contribute to one's ever-growing identity and behaviors of the moment.

[Agent Smith]

As far as I can see, David Chalmers is bang on target. There is a problem and it is hard.

[owl of Minerva]

What is a dream but a simulated reality experience?

There is a difference between a simulated reality and a dream. A simulation could be consciously created, as for example a computer simulation. A dream is not a simulation of any particular reality, it is its own reality.
Our minds are not expansive enough or powerful enough to dream a universal dream reality. In our dreams our dream people are not conscious. While we are conscious within the universal dream, it is not our dream.
A deity’s consciousness in contrast can be divided into both dreaming consciousness and non-dreaming consciousness with the dreaming consciousness resulting from a play of ideas on it by the awake consciousness of the deity who can simultaneously be both dreaming and awake; consciously transcendent to the dream.

Yeah, but the dreamer is the choreographer, how does one express one's self in relation to others and the context of the inner world in general. It is interesting to try to interpret one's dreams, sometimes it is self-evident of what significant aspects of the nightly drama mean to one. Other aspects of dreams, maybe elements of childhood long forgotten consciously, this is one reason it is so difficult to understand sometimes what any individual in any given time frame is reacting to, one thing certain is that it is all process. The conscious and the subconsciousnes and their interactions contribute to one's ever-growing identity and behaviors of the moment.

The mind of the dreamer does not consciously choreograph anything as it is asleep while the subconscious mind is active. There may be nonsense dreams; a processing of the events of the day.

Ancient kings were right to have a dream interpreter for dreams that were significant, especially dreams that were prophetic, advising of the likely outcome of a potential conflict with an adversary. Whether it was better to go full speed ahead or stay low until a more auspicious time. The fates being suitably aligned for victory being considered of the utmost importance. As the saying goes, timing is everything.

If consciousness is the substance of everything, a universal subconsciousness that tosses everything up into manifestation, it is not a hard problem, as we could understand it from our own experience in dreams. If it is not, then the hard problem remains, what is it? If dumb matter evolved it, evolved in this case meaning created it, that would be miraculous.

If it was always there until being unsheathed through evolution in the four kingdoms, mineral, plant, animal, and human, with its destination being Superman, unity with Itself, as they perceive it to be in the East, it would have a purpose. A dream creation and a final waking up from the dream with the dream and dreamer united in one conscious mind. As happens with us when we wake from our nightly dreams.

The Western perspective that matter created it makes matter godlike and that is how materialists perceive matter.

The two views may be compatible if consciousness is considered to be the substance of everything. The only thing to be resolved is whether it is just dreaming consciousness alone, or both, a dreaming consciousness and a consciousness that is transcendent to the dream. The latter appears more likely, as it would make sense of it all.