Philosophy Now Forum

Instead of “singularity” we should consider “phase transition” from uncertainty (of the future) to the causality (ordered past/history)

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:59 am Instead of “singularity” we should consider “phase transition” from uncertainty
(of the future) to the causality (ordered past/history)

“phase transition” from uncertainty of “singularity” to certainty of our Earth world

The phase border between growing ordered/settled 4-D Past and unclear/disordered ?-D Future is the Presence, the 3-D live/quantum our world (growing surface of the Past), where quantum mechanismses permanently fix/glue new Planck time layers to the past…

Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:36 am The phase border between growing ordered/settled 4-D Past and unclear/disordered ?-D Future is the Presence,
the 3-D live/quantum our world (growing surface of the Past),
where quantum mechanismses permanently fixes/glues new Planck time layers:)

The "phase boundary" between the absolute Minkowski/Einstein 4-D and the Euclidean 3-D
is covered with fog . . . what is the role of the "singularity" (on the Planck's level)
in the "phase boundary" is not yet clear
=====

socrat44 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:52 am

Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:36 am The phase border between growing ordered/settled 4-D Past and unclear/disordered ?-D Future is the Presence,
the 3-D live/quantum our world (growing surface of the Past),
where quantum mechanismses permanently fix/glue new Planck time layers:)

The "phase boundary" between the absolute Minkowski/Einstein 4-D and the Euclidean 3-D
is covered with fog . . . what is the role of the "singularity" (on the Planck's level)
in the "phase boundary" is not yet clear
=====

It seems that for another hundred years we still must suffer from the silly belief that the "theory of relativity" can bring about any shift in the understanding of space, time and matter. It has been leading us into … the fog for a hundred years. Excuse me, Socrates, but in my opinion the emperor is naked and the real space is the growing grainy substrate of elementary particles…

Cerveny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:25 am . . . the real space is the growing grainy substrate of elementary particles…

The real Earth space (air) consists of many different atoms.
The real Cosmic Vacuum (spacetime-4D) consists of many different
Dirac's dualistic virtual particles: +/-E=mc^2 (in the Dirac's vacuum sea)
====

socrat44 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:36 am

Cerveny wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:25 am . . . the real space is the growing grainy substrate of elementary particles…

…
The real Cosmic Vacuum (spacetime-4D) consists of many different
Dirac's dualistic virtual particles: +/-E=mc^2 (in the Dirac's vacuum sea)
====

You can't believe everything. Why are there only a few stable types of particles, why can particles only appear in pairs? "Virtual" is not real, it's fiction. Virtual (notional) is only the future before its contact (interaction, incorrectly “measurement”) with reality (with the past). The quantum process (thin presence) fixes the possibility for certainty. The past is fixed and clear…

milewheeler1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:10 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:03 am

socrat44 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:21 pm Learning to Live in Steven Weinberg’s Pointless Universe
The late physicist’s most infamous statement still beguiles scientists and vexes believers
/ By Dan Falk on July 27, 2021 /
-----------------..
“The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he wrote,
“the more it also seems pointless.”
---------..

------------..
Why the universe is pointless for us?
Because we ignore the fact that the “big bang” can be started
only in the infinite Cosmic Vacuum
---------------..

If you have a point of view, the universe may be pointless but are you?

Haha nice and impressive joke which I really like it and as I am newbie I think I am not able to post this as my first post, but because I like it so can't wait to post it I hope you all understand.

Welcome to the forum!

Critical thinkers get the most points.

The GR gives us concepts of spacetime, speed of light, limits and uses its mathematical model for the theory.
Many predicted phenomena we have already observed, including black holes. But we cannot observe anything under the event horizon. Speed of light was bever directly measured, the best is done with round trip time.
We agree on concepts of the universe shape, but we don’t know for sure. The observable universe is more of a mystery for us than understanding.
Singularity in mathematics is also a concept. There are several concepts of infinity, but it is not a number, it is not a definition. Are there more infinities of integer numbers or fractional numbers? Mathematics doesn’t answer singularity as well as physics does not.
Since 1905 there have been a lot of new technologies, observations and theories, but some terms are outdated. So we go lost in discussions and translations.

Humanity = part of evolution

two eyes = logic of glamour

logic of glamour = humanity's mirror

humanity's mirror = the creator of glamour

the creator of glamour = not part of evolution, but the creator of daylight

the creator of daylight = the creator of a superseding symmetry, despite needing two eyes while not being part of evolution

DECEMBER 10, 2021
A quantum approach to a singularity problem
by Science POD
---
One of the major issues in general relativity that separates it from other descriptions of the universe,
like quantum physics, is the existence of singularities . Singularities are points that when mathematically
described give an infinite value and suggest areas of the universe where the laws of physics would cease
to exist — i.e. points at the beginning of the universe and at the center of black holes.

https://phys.org/news/2021-12-quantum-a ... oblem.html
-----
GRT singularity + quantum physics could help to solve disparity between two branches of physics.
------

Approaching the singularity from a simulation point of view will make the problem clearer.

In any simulation the programmer (god?) sets an initial position. He/she then programs how the simulation will progress in a logical way. The initial position is the singularity.

If we are in a simulation, the initial position would have been set and the universe progressed from that in a logical way.

On the other hand, the big bang could have progressed from something that always existed. This would be scientifically logical.

Theist and scientists will disagree regarding which of these conflicting theories is true but one of them must be right.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:18 pm Approaching the singularity from a simulation point of view will make the problem clearer.

In any simulation the programmer (god?) sets an initial position. He/she then programs how the simulation will progress in a logical way. The initial position is the singularity.

If we are in a simulation, the initial position would have been set and the universe progressed from that in a logical way.

On the other hand, the big bang could have progressed from something that always existed. This would be scientifically logical.

Theist and scientists will disagree regarding which of these conflicting theories is true but one of them must be right.

I disagree with my emphasized and enlargened quote of yours. The defining feature of the Big Bang is its FINITE belief in a specific origin in time and space. The alternate class of theory based upon approaches (no actual singularity able to be proven) is Steady State ('steady' means all times are the same and thus if you were to go back 14 Billion years to the apparent singularity, you'd still see that the Universe is 14 Billion more years away.

Your point of view though is slowly being SNUCK in deceptively because the general institutional acceptance of the Big Bang is politically LOCKED in and given they prematurally ejaculated the Steady State as a 'dead' issue, they'd lose face to admit it. Thus, going forward, the 'accepted' theories will demand a respect for the status quo but make more and more complex 'repairs' to keep Big Bang using retrofitting ideas that is getting convolutingly expanded upon indifferent to the evolution of religion itself.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:18 pm
In any simulation the programmer (god?) sets an initial position.
He/she then programs how the simulation will progress in a logical way.
The initial position is the singularity.

What could be the initial position?
Let's say the big bang is the starting position.
Then sooner or later the Universe will come to a cosmic absolute zero temperature,
then sooner or later the question will arise: "How the Universe can come from T = 0K?"

socrat44 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:09 am
Let's say the big bang is the starting position.
Then sooner or later the Universe will come to a cosmic absolute zero temperature,
then sooner or later the question will arise: "How the Universe can come from T = 0K?"

Your 2nd and 3rd statements do not come from your 1st statement.

You have made a leap in thinking that is not understandable.