Philosophy Now Forum

Why it's clear that it's only one verse of a greater musical masterpiece. Oh those vibrating strings!

tillingborn wrote:

Cerveny wrote:The question is not "What" but "Why." Why not "What"? The Universe is everything - hence "nothing": (

'Why?' is a perfectly reasonable question if you are doing philosophy, but I wouldn't bother asking a physicist. In fact you are liable to get some pretty odd looks if you ask 'What is the universe made of?' ....

"What is the Universe?" is ultimately a technical problem. When we are finding its solution we can not avoid the Goedel principle. It touches Universe boundaries at its beginning and at its presence - both is the "Future".

Cerveny wrote:"What is the Universe?" is ultimately a technical problem.

Why is it not a philosophical problem?

Cerveny wrote:When we are finding its solution we can not avoid the Goedel principle.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (Godel's incompleteness theorem?)

Cerveny wrote:It touches Universe boundaries at its beginning and at its presence - both is the "Future".

I'm not sure what sure what you mean by this either.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Why it's clear that it's only one verse of a greater musical masterpiece. Oh those vibrating strings!

String is what you get when mathematicians try to create physical models; some of them don't appear to have any experience of making things work in the real world.

tillingborn wrote:

Cerveny wrote:"What is the Universe?" is ultimately a technical problem.

Why is it not a philosophical problem?

Cerveny wrote:When we are finding its solution we can not avoid the Goedel principle.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (Godel's incompleteness theorem?)

Cerveny wrote:It touches Universe boundaries at its beginning and at its presence - both is the "Future".

I'm not sure what sure what you mean by this either.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Why it's clear that it's only one verse of a greater musical masterpiece. Oh those vibrating strings!

String is what you get when mathematicians try to create physical models; some of them don't appear to have any experience of making things work in the real world.

You made a mistake:

The universe started out as something ever so teeny...

When the universe started out, there would be nothing to compare it to, as size is relative, thus size would be non existent, thus it was neither tiny nor big.

Now as to your reply, to my string, I say only: TIME!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You made a mistake:

The universe started out as something ever so teeny...

When the universe started out, there would be nothing to compare it to, as size is relative, thus size would be non existent, thus it was neither tiny nor big.

Well yes, size is relative. You are quite right, the initial state of the universe would only qualify as teeny relative to it's current size, if it is it true that it has been getting bigger for 13.7 billion years.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Now as to your reply, to my string, I say only: TIME!

And I say: what do you mean by TIME?

tillingborn wrote:

Cerveny wrote:"What is the Universe?" is ultimately a technical problem.

Why is it not a philosophical problem?

Cerveny wrote:When we are finding its solution we can not avoid the Goedel principle.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (Godel's incompleteness theorem?)

Cerveny wrote:It touches Universe boundaries at its beginning and at its presence - both is the "Future".

I'm not sure what sure what you mean by this either.

"Content" of the universe is material - technical, his motives are philosophical. We can not understand the future that encloses the universe, including its beginning by "our" logic in principle. Each system is limited by the Goedel's sense - Logic of the universe is limited by the logic of the future. If we want to ascertain, what is the universe composed of, we end up with its "stem / Planck's? cells", which condense from the future. As universe is a process (the being), the more we examine the structure of the universe in detail, the more we are running toward the future, when facing the insurmountable "phase" interface.

Cerveny wrote:"Content" of the universe is material - technical, his motives are philosophical.
We can not understand the future that encloses the universe, including its beginning by "our" logic in principle. Each system is limited by the Goedel's sense - Logic of the universe is limited by the logic of the future. If we want to ascertain, what is the universe composed of, we end up with its "stem / Planck's? cells", which condense from the future. As universe is a process (the being), the more we examine the structure of the universe in detail, the more we are running toward the future, when facing the insurmountable "phase" interface.

I don't understand what you are saying here, in particular, what does 'condense from the future' mean?

tillingborn wrote:

Cerveny wrote:"Content" of the universe is material - technical, his motives are philosophical.
We can not understand the future that encloses the universe, including its beginning by "our" logic in principle. Each system is limited by the Goedel's sense - Logic of the universe is limited by the logic of the future. If we want to ascertain, what is the universe composed of, we end up with its "stem / Planck's? cells", which condense from the future. As universe is a process (the being), the more we examine the structure of the universe in detail, the more we are running toward the future, when facing the insurmountable "phase" interface.

I don't understand what you are saying here, in particular, what does 'condense from the future' mean?

Very simply saying: The future is a liquid, history is a solid, and presence is a live, rather uncertain yet, just condensing thin time layer - some kind of a phase border…

Cerveny wrote:Very simply saying: The future is a liquid, history is a solid, and presence is a live, rather uncertain yet, just condensing thin time layer - some kind of a phase border…

Ah, I see. Actually, I was being more literal, I'm curious about the stuff that fundamental particles are made of. I assume it is the same stuff that went bang 13.7 billion years ago.

tillingborn wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Very simply saying: The future is a liquid, history is a solid, and presence is a live, rather uncertain yet, just condensing thin time layer - some kind of a phase border…

... I'm curious about the stuff that fundamental particles are made of...

Who knows, maybe the vacuum (history) is 4-D solid (crystal of) anti-hydrogen: (

Cerveny wrote:Who knows, maybe the vacuum (history) is 4-D solid (crystal of) anti-hydrogen: (

I think we can rule that out, what sort of vacuum is made of anything?

tillingborn wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Who knows, maybe the vacuum (history) is 4-D solid (crystal of) anti-hydrogen: (

I think we can rule that out, what sort of vacuum is made of anything?

I believe that elementary particles are some kind of defects in regular vacuum structure, but I have tried to explain it here already.

Cerveny wrote:I believe that elementary particles are some kind of defects in regular vacuum structure, but I have tried to explain it here already.

As you say, who knows? But if they are defects in a structure, how do they move?

tillingborn wrote:

Cerveny wrote:I believe that elementary particles are some kind of defects in regular vacuum structure, but I have tried to explain it here already.

As you say, who knows? But if they are defects in a structure, how do they move?

Movement of crystallographic defects is common, such as forging of casting, or any usage of semiconductor ... It is widely accepted view that the universe grows. I am deliberately avoiding (from many reasons) the word "expands". As I have already indicated several times, it seems much more logical that the universe condenses / crystallizes. In this case, some types of defects (eg screw dislocation) are automatically replicated to the new time / crystal layers. Generally, the movement of structural defects is caused by some tension, pressure ... Free, inertial, motion is apparently simple replication of deffects in the new growing, mounting time layers…

Cerveny wrote:Movement of crystallographic defects is common, such as forging of casting, or any usage of semiconductor ...

Does anyone actually know how semi-conductors work? Are you sure what say isn't a model you are taking too literally?

Cerveny wrote:It is widely accepted view that the universe grows. I am deliberately avoiding (from many reasons) the word "expands". As I have already indicated several times, it seems much more logical that the universe condenses / crystallizes.

I think galactic red-shift is compelling evidence for the growth or expansion of the universe. What do you think it indicates?

Cerveny wrote:In this case, some types of defects (eg screw dislocation) are automatically replicated to the new time / crystal layers. Generally, the movement of structural defects is caused by some tension, pressure ... Free, inertial, motion is apparently simple replication of deffects in the new growing, mounting time layers…

If the past is a solid, why can't defects move in it?