Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:]I'm saying cause and effect are constructs of Mind.
.

You are just a construct of my mind. Does this mean I can pretend you don't have any meaningful existence out side of my own mind?
If so, I can safely put you on ignore.

Obvious Leo wrote:
Are you suggesting that therefore causality is illusory? The principle of causality has underpinned all of science and philosophy since the dawn of time. It is the most intuitively obvious principle accessible to the human experience. if effects were not preceded by causes then the universe would have no order. What are you trying to imply by the above statement?

Tat tvam asi. There are no "things"; only relationships.

There are a large number of different possible explanations for the Casimir effect, all of which are contingent on the QM assumptions of indeterminacy. Since I reject QM and the paradigm on which it is founded I have no preference for one explanation over the other. As far as I'm concerned they are all nonsense and a far simpler explanation will be developed in due course. I have such an explanation in my own model but at this stage it remains a work in progress which I have not included in my synopsis. Are you suggesting that only an appeal to the invisible hand of the supernatural can explain this phenomenon?

I'm suggesting that until your "simpler explanation" is developed, I can safely say you don't know what you're talking about. For until your explanation is developed, you have a cause without a prior cause: a dreaded "first cause."

Many people seek solace in unprovable theories founded on beliefs in the supernatural. I don't begrudge you yours but as a philosopher of physics they do not fall within my domain of concern.

There you go again: inferring things from things never said or implied. I think you would be better off if you put your imagination to a better use than pretending you are a "philosopher of physics."

Cerveny wrote:There is possible to see our physical space as an analogy to chemical substance, where elementary particles act as various atoms. Such substance can change own structure (phase) or it can even decay depending on the temperature of Universe. So our physical laws can depend on the temperature of universe.. The essential structure of laws follow from very basic math-logical principle: statistics, dimension of space, elasticity... For example after very deep logical analysis we can find out there are no many other possibilities to create consistent, rich (not trivial) structure of physical laws for stable enough worlds...

I've been trying to argue some of this but am in the minority here. I don't get why people can't interpret what is variable (space) still remains real just as interpreting the variability of information we send to some address in the computer demonstrates indirectly that there exists some physical reality to the place that holds this data (the hardware memory).

From ancient times, people also thought that the air was nothing in the same way. They called this mysterious thing 'spirit' as it seemed to be necessary but nevertheless unreal. The idea of 'fluidity' (chaos) as a product of both the air and water was confusing too but some had at least recognized this as 'real'.

Scott. You've repeatedly declined my invitation to explain your aether theory so please do so this time. In order for an entity to be describable as physically real it must have measurable physical properties and be able to perform physical work. What are the physical properties of empty space and what physical work is it capable of performing?

Why do you insist on so willfully denying that which has been known to every major school of mathematical philosophy in history? What privileged reservoir of wisdom have you been granted access to which is denied to the rest of us and which you safeguard so carefully?

Space is not STUFF. Space is a co-ordinate system. Since you're the one with the weird hypothesis kindly present your evidence for it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I can't speak fo every physicist. But for sure there is a massive body of nut-cases from ~Deprak Chopra (how ever you spell hsi fucking name), down to a million Internet mystics chaffing at the bit to show how "truly random" events, can give you free will. Well duh.
Sometimes the stupidity really hurts.

There are true illuminati in the physics business, Hobbes, believe me. The internet is infested with nut-jobs, I agree, and there a few troglodytes like Hawking and Krauss left in academia, but nearly all the major players are now fully aware of the fact that physics is in a deep crisis. They know fucking well that a century with their bullshit models is far too long and that they've been going steadily backwards for many decades. The string theorists have packed up their crap and given up after 40 years of fruitless effort and theoretical physics quite literally has no direction. Just within the last decade the following theorists have all referred to this crisis, often with a sense of genuine despair.

Brian Greene, Jakob Bekenstein, Lisa Randall, Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli, Frank Wilczek, Sean Carroll, Paul Davies, Max Tegmark.

These are just the ones I've personally read and I've probably left a few out. The spacetime paradigm has been dead for decades and all that remains to be done is to dispose of the rotting corpse.

TIME IS NOT A SPATIAL DIMENSION.

IT NEVER HAS BEEN AND IT NEVER FUCKING WILL BE.

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. You've repeatedly declined my invitation to explain your aether theory so please do so this time. In order for an entity to be describable as physically real it must have measurable physical properties and be able to perform physical work. What are the physical properties of empty space and what physical work is it capable of performing?

Why do you insist on so willfully denying that which has been known to every major school of mathematical philosophy in history? What privileged reservoir of wisdom have you been granted access to which is denied to the rest of us and which you safeguard so carefully?

Space is not STUFF. Space is a co-ordinate system. Since you're the one with the weird hypothesis kindly present your evidence for it.

I wish you'd appeal only to your own understanding rather than pandering to support by others via your own personal interpretation. I could care less if so and so also believes in you or not.

As to a meaning to space, one major real property of it to which you feign does not exist is its variability to enable things to move through it. It is, in the words of science, "fluid", in this respect with regards to describing how matter is able to move through it. In contrast, if space were NOT real, then the 'objects' (matter) is defined as moving 'through' it by only addressing how matter changes from one place to another using other matter as referents. While this is a practical means to determine changes, it is only because we are unable to directly find a fixed coordinate based on our bias to be unable to by default. But we can certainly infer its existence just as we had with the ancient's interpretation of "spirit" to later learn that air is a real substance. You are thinking in the same kind of thinking of these past peoples with regards to air. And so you also interpret me to be thinking of space as a "spirit"-like essence while you maintain such absurdity as being nothing at all. Both would be absurd thinking. But you simply apply to me what you cannot make sense of that I can.

I've already presented lots of evidence but you haven't directly responded to them. For instance, I demonstrated how if you were a programmer (or even the program itself) that is trying to make sense of some reality, I demonstrated how we test the 'referent's' existence (address of a memory location) as being real by recognizing its variability. That some such address can contain both a zero or a one and be manipulated, proves that something exists to that address as a real structure, even though it may not be able to directly define it in terms of its hardware. If you believe that this is not a valid test, we should then be able to always arbitrarily test any address, even if it actually doesn't exist. But if you understand computers, you know that this is not possible as it would return an "error" for seeking some address it doesn't have.

Similarly, we "know" space is real because it too is variable. This is tested by simply knowing that anything we witness can be moved through it with variation. Just because you don't appeal to recognizing reality that allows variables, you only pre-beg that 'reality' is only allowed to be defined as constants. This is like reducing your thinking to only trust that what is derived from your internal memory as "real" but not experiences from the variables that come from objective experience. This contradicts your own reversal belief that you think that objective reality is all that is real when it comes from without, yet deny ideas themselves as real.

I further expanded on this by explaining how we 'learn' of external reality by testing in the same way to addresses that appear not to take any assignment upon your will to do so. [Try for instance, to assign what you see through your eyes as something you WANT rather than what appears to be coming to you beyond your will. If you cannot, this means that this is a sensation from external reality.] This variability proves that these addresses are actually ports (like the senses) that draws in variable information from somewhere 'else' other than your own mind.

You also ironically believe that everything is only made up of some 'time'. Yet even presuming this you'd have to recognize that your own appeal to believe this requires you recognize that it is the factor of VARIABILITY which proves this as a real phenomena. If things didn't change, you'd have no appeal to believing it. If you only 'see' pure one thing, this constant is indifferent to being blind and would be proof that you can't see. (notice how this example demonstrates that even a blind person cannot distinguish whether what they 'see' is any one real thing, like a specific color or shade of anything, and yet is the same as having an "absence" of anything at all simultaneously. But a blind person really CAN determine from there environment that they are lacking a capacity to see, even though they cannot prove nor disprove it.) This shows how a nothing is also the same as one exact real thing too, by the way.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I can't speak fo every physicist. But for sure there is a massive body of nut-cases from ~Deprak Chopra (how ever you spell hsi fucking name), down to a million Internet mystics chaffing at the bit to show how "truly random" events, can give you free will. Well duh.
Sometimes the stupidity really hurts.

There are true illuminati in the physics business, Hobbes, believe me. The internet is infested with nut-jobs, I agree, and there a few troglodytes like Hawking and Krauss left in academia, but nearly all the major players are now fully aware of the fact that physics is in a deep crisis. They know fucking well that a century with their bullshit models is far too long and that they've been going steadily backwards for many decades. The string theorists have packed up their crap and given up after 40 years of fruitless effort and theoretical physics quite literally has no direction. Just within the last decade the following theorists have all referred to this crisis, often with a sense of genuine despair.

Brian Greene, Jakob Bekenstein, Lisa Randall, Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli, Frank Wilczek, Sean Carroll, Paul Davies, Max Tegmark.

These are just the ones I've personally read and I've probably left a few out. The spacetime paradigm has been dead for decades and all that remains to be done is to dispose of the rotting corpse.

TIME IS NOT A SPATIAL DIMENSION.

IT NEVER HAS BEEN AND IT NEVER FUCKING WILL BE.

It appears that you simply prefer to be the arbiter of language here. It is like you would prefer that I use "spirit" to refer to air if and where you personally cannot find sense to it other than what you're used to thinking of it as. But if people fall in step, while one might be able to use the term for your sake to describe something, it also biases the person being forced to use it to appear as though they support your view completely.
To you, space is "spirit" here, an unreal and religious belief. Yet you define space too as nothing physical which begs the same religious thinking but just opt for a secular-sounding description that doesn't differ.

If space is NOT real, then all things in it are exactly next to each other but have some other magical essence between them that deludes us into thinking there is space even though there isn't. So in an opposing challenge, what do you propose this thing is?

I'm merely expressing the mainstream viewpoint of mathematical philosophy here, Scott, and it is you who is expressing the notion that empty space is a physical substance, an idea which was unambiguously disproven by Michelson and Morley. What you're asking for is a definition of a tautology by asking "if space does not exist then why does space exist?"

The nature of the Cartesian space was perfectly well understood by Leibniz who defined it as a co-ordinate system constructed within the human mind to define the relationships between the physical entities which are the subjects of our observation. If the subjects of our observation are events occurring in time then the physicality of the spatial constructs of our consciousness are simply unnecessary and can simply be defined on the grounds of Occam economy.as observer effects "That which is unnecessary cannot be" is a fundamental metaphysical proposition which you are therefore also now required to refute.

This is not a question of language usage but a simple question of formal logic. The case for the physical existence of the Cartesian space has never been made whereas the case against has been satisfactorily demonstrated so you are assuming that which you seek to establish, which is how reasoning is distinguished from rationalising.

However I've made this point often enough so I'll try a different line of attack. All philosophical syllogisms take the form of IF/THEN propositions and the philosophy I propose is no different. You clearly have a reasonable working knowledge of physics so try and consider what I'm telling you in this way.

IF the universe is an event and not a place THEN what would it appear like to the observer.

Not only would it look exactly like the universe we observe it would make all the counter-intuitive nonsense of the 4D manifold simply vanish and define a universe which a child could understand. Why should this explanation therefore not be preferred?

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm merely expressing the mainstream viewpoint of mathematical philosophy here, Scott, and it is you who is expressing the notion that empty space is a physical substance, an idea which was unambiguously disproven by Michelson and Morley. What you're asking for is a definition of a tautology by asking "if space does not exist then why does space exist?"

No, your feigning a mainstream belief of popularity by merely stating it. It's like ridiculing another using a high-school kind of behavior of popular support that doesn't exist but only distracts you from having dealing with the arguments directly by demeaning them.

Also, Michelson and Morley's experiment is faulty as I've written elsewhere before that you skipped over. I'm not going to bother repeating arguments if you don't bother attending to them when I have before. The experiment was done to try to measure something they could not actually measure for the very reason that the the whole apparatus is bound to the determination of the use of using a light source within its own frame of reference. It abides by relativity because the source light including the directions in space are biased in that frame. As such it cannot possibly determine whether a background exists from that.

In other words, if you use a light bulb (or laser) that creates light in a moving source (either inertial or accelerating) these bulbs are limited to the restrictions of what Einstein credited to time as dilating. I say that it is not time that changes as it is NOT a thing but a measure of change and it is the actual things that make up matter in these frames, including the bulb that actually slows down. An electron cannot go around each atom in a moving frame at the same rate precisely because it is being dragged down at the same rate due to a background. That is, the faster an atom moves, while the overall path with respect to the background limits its speed to 'c', because of this total path limitation, it actually is unable to have electrons in it that can cycle at the same rate with respect to the background and thus slows down.

The nature of the Cartesian space was perfectly well understood by Leibniz who defined it as a co-ordinate system constructed within the human mind to define the relationships between the physical entities which are the subjects of our observation. If the subjects of our observation are events occurring in time then the physicality of the spatial constructs of our consciousness are simply unnecessary and can simply be defined on the grounds of Occam economy.as observer effects "That which is unnecessary cannot be" is a fundamental metaphysical proposition which you are therefore also now required to refute.

This is not a question of language usage but a simple question of formal logic. The case for the physical existence of the Cartesian space has never been made whereas the case against has been satisfactorily demonstrated so you are assuming that which you seek to establish, which is how reasoning is distinguished from rationalising.

However I've made this point often enough so I'll try a different line of attack. All philosophical syllogisms take the form of IF/THEN propositions and the philosophy I propose is no different. You clearly have a reasonable working knowledge of physics so try and consider what I'm telling you in this way.

IF the universe is an event and not a place THEN what would it appear like to the observer.

Not only would it look exactly like the universe we observe it would make all the counter-intuitive nonsense of the 4D manifold simply vanish and define a universe which a child could understand. Why should this explanation therefore not be preferred?

What may be 'counter-intuitive' to you is not to me. You also keep framing me as supporting a noun-only type of thinking as you propose a verb-only interpretation. I differ because I require BOTH nouns and verbs. You actually denounce even allowing nouns at all. This reduces all things we speak as commandments. You cannot have a sentence without both! "Time" is an unclosed infinite concept. Yet you ignore that anything described in motion, like time, is a type of incomplete sentence lacking some noun, like an object, to receive the action of the verb. By contrast, it is still even more reasonable to assume the nouns as real because then when they create complete sentences, these act as new component nouns that can be placed in new sentences. But while nouns cause verbs to have closed value, any sentence requires both in the bigger picture.

You also commit the very act you accuse me or others of as you appear to be mistaking the maps (the geometric referents) to the reality, space (the reality the maps refer to).

Is that it? You offer frame-dragging as evidence for an aether theory? Its been done to death and there are plenty of people far better credentialled than I am who have demolished all the frame=dragging arguments countless times. The only problem with the MM experiment is that the more elegant of two possible explanations for the data was overlooked in favour of an explanation which made no sense. This inevitably lead to the spacetime hypothesis and the century of confusion which followed.

However, there's no point in bleating about what might have been. You seem to be avoiding all my questions about space but I have plenty more. Let's try this one.

It is claimed that the space in the universe is expanding. What is it expanding into?

Obvious Leo wrote:Is that it? You offer frame-dragging as evidence for an aether theory? Its been done to death and there are plenty of people far better credentialled than I am who have demolished all the frame=dragging arguments countless times. The only problem with the MM experiment is that the more elegant of two possible explanations for the data was overlooked in favour of an explanation which made no sense. This inevitably lead to the spacetime hypothesis and the century of confusion which followed.

However, there's no point in bleating about what might have been. You seem to be avoiding all my questions about space but I have plenty more. Let's try this one.

It is claimed that the space in the universe is expanding. What is it expanding into?

I'm guessing that you're assuming some argument that infers another background that I'd have to accept as equally real or deny it in some infinite regress? This could be the case. But even given our space, it is infinite even if a big bang could occur the instant it begins as expansion is presumed to occur everywhere at the same time. This becomes the problem of defining sets of 'closed' infinite space as also becoming greater than it is in another kind of infinity.

This is just another reason why I don't believe in the BB theory. A Steady State theory operates well in infinite sets though even if totality has a logical origin without 'time' at first. This is because while I assert an initial state in absolute nothingness, everything that derives prior to time acts as an equal indistinguishable instant from 0 space to an infinity of it in no time at all 'until' time is derived as a causal result beginning in nothing.

Space doesn't need to expand into anything as it is already has the property of being variable and acts like adding new memory capacity to one's computer memory. Each state of a computer is always finite (and why we use "discrete" mathematics in it). Addition of memory acts as spacial expansion to which each moment defines a new finite quantity through time. The 'extra-spacial' concept of adding memory units in areas that must also exist only represents that totality has a place for an infinite set of data as a whole. To the program's perspective this space seems to come from nowhere. But from our perspective as computer hardware creators, we know we can add memory but also question our own spaces with the same confusion that the program has for our own perspective.

I really think that you and I can continue this without appearing to agree where we actually do in light of perspective differences only. I know that your ideas can eventually demonstrate an appropriate demonstration of reality beginning with 'time'. And it is not irrational as this is precisely what I believe language originated as. I only prefer closure up front to begin from. You prefer non-closure. While both may be a means to infinitely explain the other without an initial cause. But note that I appreciate your's as well as others different approaches. Perhaps we need them all to be taught as independent ways to explain reality AND collectively as covering all bases to describe the same truth we are all seeking.

Scott. I'm well aware of the fact that our respective positions have much in common and the only reason I like taking the piss out of you is because you make it too hard not to. You're looking for complications where no complications exist and you're making an easy job hard. Why not simply accept that reality is exactly what it appears to be and leave it at that? Your own existence is simply a journey through time and if this is true for you then why the fuck wouldn't it be true for everything else in the universe? What's so special about you?

Even though this perfectly straightforward understanding of the nature of existence sounds so blindly obvious, as indeed it is, it simply isn't the way the current models of physics are able to model the world. However now is not a good time to forget that every major physicist in the world accepts that these models are bullshit and a new paradigm for physics is desperately needed. Since this one explains EVERYTHING that physics is unable to explain then why not test the fucking idea? I'm not expecting anybody to accept what I say on faith and I do remind you that my model yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify the spacetime model.

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. I'm well aware of the fact that our respective positions have much in common and the only reason I like taking the piss out of you is because you make it too hard not to. You're looking for complications where no complications exist and you're making an easy job hard. Why not simply accept that reality is exactly what it appears to be and leave it at that? Your own existence is simply a journey through time and if this is true for you then why the fuck wouldn't it be true for everything else in the universe? What's so special about you?

Even though this perfectly straightforward understanding of the nature of existence sounds so blindly obvious, as indeed it is, it simply isn't the way the current models of physics are able to model the world. However now is not a good time to forget that every major physicist in the world accepts that these models are bullshit and a new paradigm for physics is desperately needed. Since this one explains EVERYTHING that physics is unable to explain then why not test the fucking idea? I'm not expecting anybody to accept what I say on faith and I do remind you that my model yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify the spacetime model.

I'm just not certain of your particular take on it completely yet. But I still know my own also explains things with clarity through a positive argument that I cannot even begin without other's initially attempting to try out my own means to argue from nothingness. I literally have a theory that explains specifically what and how everything is up to chemistry, as a physical construct. It doesn't disagree with observations but interprets how interpretations can be reconcile things like QM to Relativity with closure. Yet the present paradigm doesn't believe in such closure and only interprets reality based on prior human authorities' interpretation only. As such, I get challenged to provide a 'new' theory that predicts something 'new' for which I don't have. This means that my theory only differs from conventional science only by its interpretation. Yet I am begged to provide something 'new' and present another 'new' prediction to which differs from previous descriptions. Like you, I am against the present paradigm but only because it doesn't default to recognizing how the conflict between present theories doesn't seem to be recognized as a counter-example to prove that something is still amiss without reconciliation.

To me, the "indeterminacy" of QM can be resolved by respecting an inclusion of multiple universes, even where they cannot act successfully as completely rational (consistent) universes. Relativity lacks the problem by the interpretation of 'time' as being the factor, similar to your own, rather than reinterpreting the same resulting case by assuming that matter itself is limited to a 'fixed' background instead. To reconcile the differences requires speaking in common terms with all explanations in the same way by perspective. There also can be multiple ways of approaching this but I opted to begin with nothingness because it, to me, is the most simplest assumption akin to my experience being atheist as presuming default to assuming nothing. Others began with things like posited beliefs to which I differ by fortune only. As such, the WAY others often approach it is in a kind of defiance of what is present only later. Yet they still have an underlying early origin in presuming a 'something' as opposed to an absence of anything. To me this is a normal result of how we assign values in early childhood and not something easily overcome. This is why I understand your own approach as reasonable even if you disagree with my own. I actually relate to yours but can also see other approaches with an intuitive grasp inclusively. But as such, I am able to actually recognize the simpler solution given all possible interpretations simply for seeing them all.

The problem with my approach is that is also dismisses the need for the practical means to discover that I'm certain because it still inevitably lead to the same conclusion. The practical means to discovery through contemporary science will lead to my conclusion but politically and economically acts to provide projects that employ others in means that successfully provide justice to the efforts of science as it is done presently. I've discovered a way to prove precisely what matter, energy, and space is but it realistically threatens the investment placed in the process of empirical methods that provide REAL jobs and encouragement to intellectual investments in things that produce outcomes that evolve in a pace that society can handle. Yet, since I've discovered these things can be proven without these investments, it threatens the realistic ability of society to adapt and could actually destroy the very effectiveness of society to adapt in a step-by-step approach that allows society as a whole to engage in easily. As such, I feel that I'm ahead of my own time. Yet, am I supposed to give up what I've figured out without requiring the investment modern science requires to 'fit' in with our ability to allow in practice?

It's frustrating that I can 'see' the complete picture intuitively but lack a perfect ability to prove it for my own lack of my own perfect ability to communicate it in a way that is acceptable in present terms. I understand logic and math intuitively but lack the skill to maintain a means to productively remember the very rules I learn as an operate function of practice. As such, I have to reconstruct everything from scratch at each phase of my arguments even though my mind has already forgotten the particular proofs at each stage as it becomes intuitive. The memory of particulars is so lacking that I forget even what 8 x 9 is without having to reconstruct the rules that lead to demonstrating that it is 72 every time I have to think about it. It is a clerical fault but I intuitively understand by the logic alone.

I really KNOW what matter, energy, and space is. And while I am getting better at arguing, it seems almost futile because I can't find a way that appeals to others without such investment that I'm unable to simply produce for the asking in terms that require a complete social structure that has advanced enough to understand. In this way I feel to far ahead of my time and defeated by the present paradigms. It's getting exhausting to keep trying. If I knew that my wisdom could lead to useful technology, I might have a hope. But I don't see it as leading to anything more spectacular than is already present.

I've discovered some things and methods (as technology) that if I presented could realistically cause such severe harm if I presented them prematurely to our society today, could not handle them in our present mindset and actually cause our demise. I don't know what to do or say. And yet I have invested in this to such a degree that I can find no other means to make my own life meaningful in this era without sharing it. Yet I'm scared. Should I tell what I know even if I lose credibility as another steals it as their own? Why should I even care if I am certain that it won't benefit me in totality by being rewarded later? If I only care for how it benefits others except for myself, while being sacrificial, would such sacrifice penalize me to an eternity of disgrace and hatred that only penalizes me by producing the benefits that other's get to experience favorably by nothing they learn by their own insights earned by intellectual reflection?

I want to tell but don't know if my own sacrifice by doing so will condemn me to eternal suffering for doing so, especially when I don't share the same compassion for others that coincide with a similar compassion for me regardless.

Philosophy is not for the faint-hearted, Scott, particularly when one seeks to challenge the established orthodoxies. If you attempt to reach into the void and explain yourself by invoking unobservable universes then your quest is doomed from the outset because the unknowable cannot be used to explain the unknown. If it were that simple the god hypothesis is easily the most parsimonious and I get the feeling that you've embarked on your journey for the same reason as I did. The god hypothesis is unpersuasive and you're stuck with working what you've got.

If you don't do as I did and start with the a priori assumption that the universe is everything that exists then you immediately define the universe as unknowable and your attempt to comprehend it as futile. Chuck your books in the fire, your fancy thoughts down the toilet and shove your exquisite logic up your arse because it ain't gonna happen. Go back to where physics all started with Newton, Scott. That's where it all went pear-shaped.

From a review of The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time.

Three central ideas – or perhaps we could say assertions or axioms – are developed in the book (I summarise from pp 5-16): the solitary existence of the universe (there are not, and have never been and will never be, mulitple universes); time is inclusively real (nothing is outside time, everything changes sooner or later); and mathematics is not a substitute for reality, it should be seen as representing a world eviscerated of time and phenomenal particularity (mathematical relations are timeless and of a general character, and indeed are useful to a point, but they do not model a universe in which time is real).

Another review qualifies the concept that nothing is outside of time with: "...everything in the structure and regularities of nature changes sooner or later," which is more palatable for me.

I have the book, but it is was far too wordy to hold my attention. I mention it because it is probably right up Leo's alley.

Obvious Leo wrote:Philosophy is not for the faint-hearted, Scott, particularly when one seeks to challenge the established orthodoxies. If you attempt to reach into the void and explain yourself by invoking unobservable universes then your quest is doomed from the outset because the unknowable cannot be used to explain the unknown. If it were that simple the god hypothesis is easily the most parsimonious and I get the feeling that you've embarked on your journey for the same reason as I did. The god hypothesis is unpersuasive and you're stuck with working what you've got.

If you don't do as I did and start with the a priori assumption that the universe is everything that exists then you immediately define the universe as unknowable and your attempt to comprehend it as futile. Chuck your books in the fire, your fancy thoughts down the toilet and shove your exquisite logic up your arse because it ain't gonna happen. Go back to where physics all started with Newton, Scott. That's where it all went pear-shaped.

I already know the truth via reasonable experience and logic. Mine is absolutely non-religious. But if you interpret this as such, you, an not me, are not intellectually prepared to deal with this at present. I am at a loss because of your own ignorance. It is something I can't at presently prove to you as you are blind to certain things which although I understand, I can't compete with here. Good luck with your approach but I already known mine is absolutely correct to which society will eventually accept if we exist long enough, but not necessarily with my name as the credit. But I know that yours is defeated in the end even though I know you mean well. Your theory is incomplete. And I am even cursed by explicating mine as valid compared to yours.

Scott Mayers wrote: Your theory is incomplete.

How the fuck would you know since you haven't even read it?

I have suggested an experiment and outlined the protocols for this experiment in such a way that it allows me to make a prediction in accordance with my model which differs from that of current theory. This is the gold standard in all of science, Scott, to design an experiment in such a way that two conflicting theories will yield two different outcomes when exposed to empirical testing. I claim that if my prediction is confirmed by experiment then the spacetime model is unambiguously falsified. Do you deny this or would you prefer not to say because you haven't even bothered to read it?