Questions we'll never solve

[Scott Mayers]

But Leo, what would you prefer? If we abandon models, what do you propose could replace them other than to do what cannot actually be done in practice? We may as well give up and return to simply accepting the most religious virtues that abandon thinking all together. Every word we speak using language is a model. I'm not understanding your logic here.

[PoeticUniverse]

This is why I opt to begin using nothingness as a start and try to demonstrate how this can still derive things like laws and apparent abstraction of number and/or logic as real things. We need both approaches to discover truth regardless of whether you agree to using nothingness as I do, one thing as others do, or an infinite set of things.

Of course if nothingness can do something, then it's not a Nothing (as per your word 'derive things'), so we can refer to it as a near nothing, and, indeed, nature's smallest is indeed minuscule to the point of being greatly infinitesimal, which is where the action begins.

Some suppose that Nothing is totally lawless and so therefore anything goes, or at least something may go; but, again this kind of capability, potential, possibility would make for a something, and so then that would be What IS ever as the basis of all, perhaps even for making sum-things, for there appears to be a very curious (near) zero-sum balance throughout nature, which I can list another time.

Superpostion/duality? This can be a result of how I explained strings as forms of spirals that originate what matter is. It's structure necessarily presents particles as having a symmetry that extends in two opposing directions and the 'superposition' is represented by how the spin of one arm at some given distance has an equal and opposing spin and vector direction on the other arm.

My guess about a particle's superposition is that it is a vibration, causing it to be here and there, in turn. Its smallness would protect it from gravity collapsing its wave function.

[see "My theory" This is just an example of how things can be argued by a different perspective, not necessarily something you should or should not agree to.

I'll take a look when I get a chance, but, yes, we must head down all avenues to get at the syntax of the ToE: letter, word, phrase, sentence, and (uni-) verse.

[Obvious Leo]

But Leo, what would you prefer?

Never once have I suggested that we should chuck aside our models, Scott, and In my philosophy I stress over and over again that we needn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The models can serve for as long as they need to and then be replaced by new models, as science has always done. All I'm saying is that our models can't tell our stories for us. Every time you hear a physicist say something like "the evidence speaks for itself" then you should reach for your gun and shoot the ignorant p****. Let me give you a couple of examples, one of which you referred to.

Dark energy was INVENTED to explain the "expanding space" but the expanding space is a mathematical statement and not a physical one. If you watch a car driving away from you do you say that the space between you and the car is expanding or do you just say that the car is driving away from you. Keep it fucking simple, for Christ's sake, a galaxy that is moving away from us can be no bloody different!! How the fuck can empty space expand?

How about dark matter? This was invented over 80 years ago to support a theory of gravity which everybody knows is wrong. It was needed to account for the fact that the galaxies aren't flying apart but IT IS ONLY THE THEORY WHICH SAYS THAT THE GALAXIES AREN'T FLYING APART.

The evidence suggests an entirely different story because any idiot can see that the less massive galaxies are in fact flying apart, including the one we're living in. This is the sort of bullshit that physics will forever be up against if they elevate their models to the status of canonical doctrine and then try and force the universe to conform to it by brute mathematical force. Ptolemy would beam with pride but Kant would shudder with horror.

[PoeticUniverse]

[see "My theory"
… Initially, if all there is is absolute nothingness, it acts as one PURE TRUTH.…

'It' has no 'is' and can't be an 'it' and can't 'act'.

[Scott Mayers]

This is why I opt to begin using nothingness as a start and try to demonstrate how this can still derive things like laws and apparent abstraction of number and/or logic as real things. We need both approaches to discover truth regardless of whether you agree to using nothingness as I do, one thing as others do, or an infinite set of things.

Of course if nothingness can do something, then it's not a Nothing (as per your word 'derive things'), so we can refer to it as a near nothing, and, indeed, nature's smallest is indeed minuscule to the point of being greatly infinitesimal, which is where the action begins.

Some suppose that Nothing is totally lawless and so therefore anything goes, or at least something may go; but, again this kind of capability, potential, possibility would make for a something, and so then that would be What IS ever as the basis of all, perhaps even for making sum-things, for there appears to be a very curious (near) zero-sum balance throughout nature, which I can list another time.

You laid out how nothingness provides meaning as also a something in the same way I propose. It is this very contradiction that assures all of reality to exist because it means that at some point of nothingness, it is also a something simultaneously of the same thing.

The same goes by interpreting nothing as a limit, as you are referencing that calculus deals with. If you take any purely perfect 'unit' of some smallest size of something, either you cannot define it, or if you declare some measure of it, it reduces to contradicting its existence as a unit because it would imply that it lacks meaning (cannot define it), or if you beg defining it by some measure, if this isn't simply measuring it as 'one unit', it begs that it has another smaller measure which one could describe it. But this would assume another smaller 'unit' used to measure it infinitely and could never be understood either.

Superpostion/duality? This can be a result of how I explained strings as forms of spirals that originate what matter is. It's structure necessarily presents particles as having a symmetry that extends in two opposing directions and the 'superposition' is represented by how the spin of one arm at some given distance has an equal and opposing spin and vector direction on the other arm.

My guess about a particle's superposition is that it is a vibration, causing it to be here and there, in turn. Its smallness would protect it from gravity collapsing its wave function.

spiral.png

The points (oval marks) I placed on this form of spiral represents what I'm referring to as superposition. Note that while this particular spiral is only a planar one, there are two other forms less easy to draw quick enough [I have to figure out how to use Illustrator to do this.] This form demonstrates those points as 'spins' in the same direction (counter-clockwise) but having opposing vector directions at those points.

[Obvious Leo]

My guess about a particle's superposition is that it is a vibration, causing it to be here and there, in turn.

Its smallness would protect it from gravity collapsing its wave function.

Remember the law of parsimony, Austin. A precise wave function equation can only be written for the hydrogen atom, which is a 2-body system. For an n-body system we can speak only of probabilities, exactly the same as we can only speak in the language of probabilities for gravitational motion on a cosmological scale. Why would the rules governing this uncertainty be any different and contingent on the scale of the system being interrogated?

It's far simpler to think of the inside of the atom as a number of different particles all rushing around at speeds very close to the speed of light. They all have different masses and thus all have different relativistic effects on the motions of each other and as Poincare, the TRUE father of relativity pointed out before Heisenberg was even born, modelling the trajectories of these motions is utterly impossible by definition. This is due to the complexity of the various motions of the particles and has NOTHING to do with randomness. The wave function becomes such a powerful predictive tool purely because the particles are moving so insanely FAST. They aren't actually "everywhere at once" but they very nearly are because they're travelling at very close to the speed of light.

It's so simple that it can't be wrong because it is this relativistic motion of the subatomic particles which gives rise to all the various forces in physics. It is gravitational motion which makes the so-called laws of physics and nothing else. This is quantum gravity.

[Obvious Leo]

it begs that it has another smaller measure which one could describe it. But this would assume another smaller 'unit' used to measure it infinitely and could never be understood either.

You make the same mistake as Newton and ignore the philosophy of the quantum. In order to be definable as physically real a physical entity cannot be infinitely divisible. This has been mainstream philosophy since the pre-Socratics and I've yet to see an argument against it. Your "infinite divisibility" is a mathematical construct only and not a physical one and can thus have no applicability in a physically real world. In other words Newton was full of shit and physics has been willing to go along with his nonsense for centuries.

[Scott Mayers]

[see "My theory"
… Initially, if all there is is absolute nothingness, it acts as one PURE TRUTH.…

'It' has no 'is' and can't be an 'it' and can't 'act'.

Let X be 'true'; If such an X is perfectly void of content, then while presuming 'true' it is also false such that X = 'untrue' as well. If you think of this as a box to which you label it with an 'X', it acts variable in that you can put anything into it or not.

If you place something in it, you know that you placed it there and so are able to be confirmed this by putting something in it. On the other hand, if you don't, while you may not actually be placing anything in it, you still know from your inability to determine what may or may not be already present there, the act of NOT placing anything in it acts as an opposing value to placing something in it.

Let the act of placing something in the box = Y and the act of not placing something [nothing] in the box = -Y. You realistically recognize that you can either do Y, as an act, or -Y as both equal possibilities. Recognizing this possibility alone is enough to represent that what you can place in the box is as meaningful and real as not doing so.

Therefore, the box's content represented as the one with an, X, is real because if it wasn't, no X meaning no actual box = -X exists!

This logically proves that for any minimal concept of reality is necessarily one thing and nothing at the same time. Just note that to place something in the box requires displacing the potential of something else being there as you try which defeats your ability to do Y. Thus all you can be certain of by default is -Y until you try. This is a type of rewording of QM's Uncertainty Principle as an application to reality itself.

[Scott Mayers]

it begs that it has another smaller measure which one could describe it. But this would assume another smaller 'unit' used to measure it infinitely and could never be understood either.

You make the same mistake as Newton and ignore the philosophy of the quantum. In order to be definable as physically real a physical entity cannot be infinitely divisible. This has been mainstream philosophy since the pre-Socratics and I've yet to see an argument against it. Your "infinite divisibility" is a mathematical construct only and not a physical one and can thus have no applicability in a physically real world. In other words Newton was full of shit and physics has been willing to go along with his nonsense for centuries.

You are clearly misinterpreting me. Given any 'size' begs that this 'size' is a measure of some unit measure. But if no such thing is smaller than some given real unit, you can't even measure it because you'd need a real 'ruler' with smaller measures on it to determine this. But this contradicts that nothing smaller could exist. As such, you can't actually define this as being of any internal substance which is just as equivalent to being nothing itself.

It doesn't ignore the quantum of something. A QM quanta is a relative measure considering at least two already pre-determined measures or sizes. It just implies a harmonic relationship between these two measures relatively that remain fixed.

[Obvious Leo]

Quantum mechanics does not concern itself with quantum entities, Scott, because quantum entities are not further divisible. QM deals with a considerable suite of sub-atomic particles, each of which has different physical properties such as mass, charge and spin. Where do you imagine these properties came from? Out of the luminiferous aether perhaps, or maybe even from god? In fact they came out of our own minds because we simply invented them to model what we observe.

Try not to forget the hierarchy problem and that the Planck scale is a full 20 orders of magnitude beneath the sub-atomic scale. Surely we can accept it as self-evident that the properties of the sub-atomic particles are being specified for at the Planck scale by PROCESSES that are occurring at the speed of light, in accordance with Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle. It is quite unnecessary for us to be able to precisely model these processes at this stage of our scientific history, and indeed this task may occupy the minds of scientists for many generations to come, but this is not the point.

As I've said many times before physics is all about the narrative which goes with it and this narrative fits far more closely with both our intuitive experience of the world as well as with the wisdom of the ancients. The universe is that which is continuously remaking itself and at the fundamental Planck scale it is doing so at the speed of light. This story is not about what we should do with our epistemic models of physics because it truly doesn't matter a fuck what we do with them. We can change them as many times as we please because the true story is about the ontology which underpins these models, the "ding und sich" which determines the reality we observe. The real story is the story about what the speed of light is because it is the the speed of light which is the processing speed of physical reality. The speed of light is the speed at which our universe is MAKING ITSELF.

[Obvious Leo]

I reckon Steven Hawking is a knucklehead but he very nearly stumbled across the right answer by accident almost 20 years ago when he was working on the black hole information paradox and the black hole firewall. He was on the right general track with the holographic universe and he had asked the right question some years earlier when he asked "what is it that breathes life into the equations of physics and brings forth a universe for us to behold?".

The answer was staring him in the face. The Minkowski "block" spatialises time out of existence and examines the universe as if it were a cadaver on a slab. Only time can bring the universe to life and time is simply a function of gravity.

[cladking]

But Leo, what would you prefer? If we abandon models, what do you propose could replace them other than to do what cannot actually be done in practice? We may as well give up and return to simply accepting the most religious virtues that abandon thinking all together. Every word we speak using language is a model. I'm not understanding your logic here.

The words are models but the concepts we're each trying to communicate is reality.

[Scott Mayers]

I reckon Steven Hawking is a knucklehead but he very nearly stumbled across the right answer by accident almost 20 years ago when he was working on the black hole information paradox and the black hole firewall. He was on the right general track with the holographic universe and he had asked the right question some years earlier when he asked "what is it that breathes life into the equations of physics and brings forth a universe for us to behold?".

The answer was staring him in the face. The Minkowski "block" spatialises time out of existence and examines the universe as if it were a cadaver on a slab. Only time can bring the universe to life and time is simply a function of gravity.

I'm not sure precisely what you are saying. But on the last sentence above, the fourth dimension is both expansion and implicitly time. That is why Einstein defined this as space-time, which I agree to. It is also the cause of gravity by my explanation in my theory. Yet this original entry into spacial expansion is of linear information because it cannot expand directly as three-dimensional space. As such, it has to add this information through either a point, a line, or a plane. This is because information can be 'added' in this way without requiring the present space to conflict with it.

I believe the linear forms are the most likely since if it is an expanding plane, it could only seem to break another rule of conservation as the larger the area of a circle expands in such space adds more as it expands with no logical justice. If a point, this may be possible but then a line would follow as a fifth dimensional factor (accelerating expansion). Either way, a line will result which is represented as growing from a single point in two opposing directions. The growing line acts as the quantity of information that enters space and travels at the speed 'c' in both directions from that point.

Because these lines must have only one unique set of duel directions given three-dimensional space, this means that there is an infinite set of worlds to which each direction is covered but only one to each universe. When these straight growing lines hit matter as curves, this gets distributed in both directions of the spiral as I illustrated above that cancels that information out through the effect on the curve in different ways depending on how it hit it. Then gravity is an effect between at least two curved strings of matter that pushes them together. The spaces between the two matters is limited to being able to create as many new lines than the space external to both of them and thus pushes them together. The closer they are together, the greater the 'pressure' of linear hits from without that push them together as an accelerated factor.

[Scott Mayers]

But Leo, what would you prefer? If we abandon models, what do you propose could replace them other than to do what cannot actually be done in practice? We may as well give up and return to simply accepting the most religious virtues that abandon thinking all together. Every word we speak using language is a model. I'm not understanding your logic here.

The words are models but the concepts we're each trying to communicate is reality.

I'm not in disagreement. The point was that I was showing Leo is how we could not resist using models to demonstrate reality other than actually witnessing the reality directly all the time. But even witnessing them are based on internal models of our minds through the senses. Regardless, at least some models can represent some part of something with as much detail as necessary to describe it. No one has to confuse the models for the reality as long as we share the same initial denotations for learning the symbols we use to model the realities. Even this is difficult but not impossible.

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. I've seen you write quite knowledgeably on mathematical questions before but your understanding of mathematical philosophy is appalling. Get you mind into the thoughts of the great Persian philosopher/mathematicians and learn to make the distinction between a mathematical object and a physical one. You've done this over and over again and it's making your posts look rather silly. A DIMENSION IS NOT A PHYSICAL THING. It is a co-ordinate system used in mathematics.