Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:
Please enlighten us all and explain what dark energy actually is

The term dark energy is merely a placeholder for a mysterious phenomena as it is not known at this point in time what
it actually is. However it has the property of repulsive gravity. And it is responsible for the expansion of space between
galaxies which is causing the Universe to travel beyond light speed. This can be determined by the red shift of galaxies
relative to each other. In simple terms it means that everything in space is moving away from everything else. So there
shall come a time when from the vantage point of Earth no stars shall be visible at all because of this cosmic expansion
But why are you so sceptical with regard to its existence ? Do you not accept the Universe is expanding and if not why ?

I'm rejecting the part where you say that the universe is traveling beyond light speed because nothing travels faster than light and where is the (entire) universe traveling to?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I'm rejecting the part where you say that the universe is traveling beyond light speed because nothing travels faster than light and where is the (entire) universe traveling to?

Or what is it expanding into? Or what is it that is expanding? To say that the universe is expanding is not a physical statement because space is not physical, despite what Newton thought. It has no physical properties and is a purely mathematical object, as Leibniz insisted from the outset. The Persian philosopher/mathematicians knew this perfectly well even 600 years earlier

The universe is purely a temporal entity, not a spatio-temporal one as modern physics would have us believe. The spatial extension of temporal events is merely a construct of the consciousness of the observer, as any psychologist of perception or neuroscientist would agree.

'It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid"....Albert Einstein

I had no trouble explain it to my 9 year old grandson so I reckon Albert was right.

It is possible for the Universe to be travelling beyond light speed as general relativity only applies to phenomena
within the Universe not to the Universe itself. And it is not travelling anywhere for the expansion is within it not
without it. This might sound counter intuitive but that is what is actually happening. When a balloon is blown up
it expands from within not from without. Obvious Leo : why can the Universe not be expanding as well as ageing

surreptitious57 wrote: Obvious Leo : why can the Universe not be expanding as well as ageing

Because the notion of expansion is a physical one and space is not physical. Didn't you read my above post?

If you wish to put the counter-argument then be my guest. Tell me HOW space expands. Does it just spread itself out a bit or do new bits of space arrive from somewhere to fill in the gaps? If I'm satisfied with your explanation I'll try you out on the curves.

If space does not expand then logically it means the Universe cannot expand either. And which in turn means that
there was no Big Bang since that was a quantum expansion. So I do not think that space is mathematical. I think it
it can be modelled mathematically but it is not the same thing. And so it is important not to confuse the map with
the territory. And in this scenario mathematics is simply the map. So space is physical because it has property and
dimension like every thing physical does. I would find it too counter intuitive to accept it was purely mathematical

surreptitious57 wrote:If space does not expand then logically it means the Universe cannot expand either.

Obviously. Expansion is a spatial concept by definition.

surreptitious57 wrote:And which in turn means that
there was no Big Bang since that was a quantum expansion.

Your conclusion that there was no bang does not follow from the premise and the term "quantum expansion" has no meaning.

surreptitious57 wrote: I think it
it can be modelled mathematically but it is not the same thing. And so it is important not to confuse the map with
the territory.

This is exactly the point I'm making. it is the mathematical model which is the map and the universe which is the territory. To arrive at this conclusion I refer to no less an authority than Albert Einstein who maintained throughout his life that the spacetime continuum was NOT a physical model. It was merely a mathematical representation of a physical model and he was adamant that this distinction should always be maintained. Max Planck and Niels Bohr were well aware of this also so it is modern physics which mistakes the map for the territory, not I. In their arrogance they ignore the cautions of their own pioneers in spacetime modelling.

surreptitious57 wrote:And in this scenario mathematics is simply the map.

This is what I'm saying, mate, so don't steal my lines.

surreptitious57 wrote:So space is physical because it has property and
dimension like every thing physical does.

Kindly specify what physical properties space has and then explain your revolutionary new concept in mathematical philosophy in which you deny that the notion of "dimension" is purely a mathematical one. A dimension is simply a co-ordinate system within which mathematical symbols are manipulated. It is not a physical "thing". Once again if you wish to claim otherwise you have the floor. As the defender of the minority position you have the burden of proof.

surreptitious57 wrote:. I would find it too counter intuitive to accept it was purely mathematical

Take my word for it, mate, it doesn't take long to get used to and it's well worth the effort. It makes every single paradox and counter-intuitive absurdity in physics simply disappear back into the luminiferous aether from whence it came.

The Cartesian space is an observer effect. It's all in your mind. Ask a cognitive neuroscientist if you don't believe me.

Obvious Leo wrote:
it is the mathematical model which is the map and the universe which is the territory. To arrive at this conclusion I refer to no less
authority than Albert Einstein who maintained throughout his life that the spacetime continuum was NOT a physical model. It was
merely a mathematical representation of a physical model and he was adamant that this distinction should always be maintained

Can you explain then why the mathematical model allows for the spacetime continuum while the physical model does not
Why is this false representation simply not removed from the mathematical model then replaced with one more accurate
Does this just apply to this particular model or to other phenomena too such as for example gravity or general relativity
Are the mathematical representations of them false as well or are they more accurate. If they are more accurate why

surreptitious57 wrote: Can you explain then why the mathematical model allows for the spacetime continuum while the physical model does not

There is no physical model. The spacetime model is all there is and all there has been for the past 100 years. That's what all the fuss is about with the unification model because the models they're currently using all contradict each other.

surreptitious57 wrote:Why is this false representation simply not removed from the mathematical model then replaced with one more accurate

Because academic physics is a cloistered priesthood imprisoned at the bottom of a conceptual mineshaft. Like the frog in the well they can see only the spacetime paradigm and nothing else. This is hard-wired into the methodology of physics, which is all about model-building. If the model they're trying to build on is bullshit then they're fucked because their own methodology prevents them from questioning it. Exactly the same thing happened with the Ptolemaic cosmology and it took over a thousand years to figure out where they went wrong. So far we've only been a century in the cul-de-sac so Ptolemy's record is safe for a while yet.

surreptitious57 wrote:Does this just apply to this particular model or to other phenomena too such as for example gravity or general relativity
Are the mathematical representations of them false as well or are they more accurate. If they are more accurate why

Read this:

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

Obvious Leo wrote:
Because academic physics is a cloistered priesthood imprisoned at the bottom of a conceptual mineshaft

So there no physicists who are aware of the problem or is it that groupthink makes it harder to question

Absolutely EVERY physicist on the planet is aware of the problem. That SR, GR and QM are mutually exclusive models has been known since forever but the resolution of this incompatibility is not a question for physics. If it were so then some clever geek would have figured it out before you and I were even born. The unification problem for physics is a METAPHYSICAL question and also a META-MATHEMATICAL question and these questions belong in the domain of philosophers, not in the domain of physicists.

Physicists have a very low opinion of philosophers, an opinion which is cordially reciprocated in most cases, and THAT is possibly the biggest problem of them all.

Now the apparent incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity applies to
just the mathematical models. In reality there is none since they are both phenomena that
happily co exist in the physical world. And the only reason mathematical models them selves
exist is to explain how physical reality works. Which is fine just as long as they are true to that

Physicists do have a low opinion of philosophers but think that is because philosophers only have
to use reason and logic while physicists have to test their hypotheses against actual reality. So the
burden of proof is much higher for them. Even so there should exist a spirit of co operation not one
of contempt between the two disciplines. And especially as science is actually a branch of philosophy

surreptitious57 wrote:physicists have to test their hypotheses against actual reality

This is what they claim but this is bullshit. They test their hypotheses against a particular narrative of reality which they are first required to specify. In other words they devise their models specifically to predict what the observer will observe, which means they can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what their models have predicted. This is inherently tautologous because how could it be otherwise? Many of the leading geeks are well aware of this problem and were less than thrilled at the "discovery" of the Higgs boson. They knew they were cheating.

Physics seems unable to grasp the fact that an observation is merely a construct of the human consciousness so they can't possibly model the world as it is. They can only model the world as they think it is. Immanuel Kant told them this but all most physicists would know of Kant is how to spell his name.


“(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognising it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object”.

....Immanuel Kant. ( from the Jasche Lectures on Logic.)

If models are designed in accordance with what observers were expected to see then logically they would all be
compatible with each other. As they are not then that cannot be so. Now the thing about quantum mechanics in
particular is that that model is incredibly counter intuitive. So God knows what the realty is like. Yes it is true to
say that observation is a construct of human consciousness but until a more objective means of examining reality
is discovered we are stuck with it so have to rely on it whether we like it or not. It is not inconceivable that there
there will come a time where the model of reality is so complex that we give up trying to understand it altogether

Obvious Leo wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: Obvious Leo : why can the Universe not be expanding as well as ageing

Because the notion of expansion is a physical one and space is not physical.

Space is the present moment we all share. As I look back in space-time from my point of view, everything looks contracted the further back the more contracted. As we measure, the distances between objects appear to increase and the matter to get smaller, don't think of it as space expanding just think of it as time dilating. Because the time between all objects is increasing if you think that they all had a common beginning. The present moment is not an observable, think of space, we are receivers and signals from past events are the best we can do.

petm1 wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: Obvious Leo : why can the Universe not be expanding as well as ageing

Because the notion of expansion is a physical one and space is not physical.

Space is the present moment we all share. As I look back in space-time from my point of view, everything looks contracted the further back the more contracted. As we measure, the distances between objects appear to increase and the matter to get smaller, don't think of it as space expanding just think of it as time dilating. Because the time between all objects is increasing if you think that they all had a common beginning. The present moment is not an observable, think of space, we are receivers and signals from past events are the best we can do.

I more or less agree. When we make an observation of the world around us all we're doing is looking back in time. The further away we look the further back in time we see and if we had Superman's eyes we could see all the way back to the big bang itself, 13.8 billion years ago. The 3D space is not physically real but a construct of our human consciousness because what we're in fact doing is spatialising time and projecting a spatial extension onto purely temporal phenomena. This is exactly what physics does and in the modern parlance such a spatialising of temporal phenomena is called a HOLOGRAM. We exist in the real universe but we can only ever observe a holographic representation of our own past because the speed of light is finite. Not only do I regard this as a statement of the bloody obvious but I also offer it as an explanation why our current models of physics make no sense. They describe a world which no longer exists. The Persians told us this a thousand years ago already.


The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

From “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam”