Philosophy Now Forum

Time/ Space: from Hawking back to Einstein / Minkowski.
==…
a) Stephen Hawking, book: "The theory of everything. Fifth lecture."
" . . . . the universe must have a beginning, and that this beginning
must be described in terms of quantum theory."
"When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however,
there will still appear to be singularities. The poor astronaut who falls
into a black hole . . . . could live in imaginary time, that he would
encounter no singularities."
"This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the
fundamental time, and that we call real time is something we create
just in our minds. In real time, the universe has a beginning and
an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which
the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are
no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time
is really more basic, and what we call real time is just an idea that we
invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like."
/ page 91/
So.
The real time in which we live has singularities.
But imaginary time without singularities or boundaries " is really the
fundamental time", " is really more basic. "

b) Einstein /Minkowski.
It was Einstein who first in 1905 introduced imaginary time in SRT.
In 1908 Minkowski changed imaginary time into 4D and said:
“ Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will
preserve an independent reality.”
So.
" space by itself, and time by itself" the real space and time in which
we live are "shadows" . . . . " and only a kind of union of the two
( on the basis of imaginary time) will preserve an independent reality.”
==..
My solution.
An imaginary time means a situation of absence of Time.
The situation of absence time means Eternal condition.
The Eternal condition belongs to Infinite zero vacuum: T=0K.
The black hole is eternal zero vacuum (T=0K) continuum.
The 4D is eternal zero vacuum (T=0K) continuum.
Space by itself (gravity-space) and Time (gravity-time) by itself
are secondary: made out from the eternal zero vacuum (T=0K)
through singularity / vacuum fluctuation-transformation.
===…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==,

A black hole has temperature of only one ten-millionth
of a degree above absolute zero. In 1973 the temperature
of the cosmic microwave radiation was about 2,7 degrees
above T=0K. If the universe is destined to go on expanding
forever then the temperature will eventually decrease to less
than that of black hole . . . to zero: T=0K.
So.
There are three basic similarities between black hole and zero vacuum:
a) both have imaginary time
b) both have the same temperature
c) both can emit radiation
Therefore black hole is zero vacuum.
=============..

socratus wrote:A black hole has temperature of only one ten-millionth
of a degree above absolute zero. In 1973 the temperature
of the cosmic microwave radiation was about 2,7 degrees
above T=0K. If the universe is destined to go on expanding
forever then the temperature will eventually decrease to less
than that of black hole . . . to zero: T=0K.
So.
There are three basic similarities between black hole and zero vacuum:
a) both have imaginary time
b) both have the same temperature
c) both can emit radiation
Therefore black hole is zero vacuum.
=============..

Yes, I tend to see "black holes" (in case they exist) as some lack of (cavity in) aether (lack of physical space). Consider please trivial model: elementary particle is a vacation in regular structure (lattice) of physical space...

Minkowski was full of shit and physics hasn't made a lick of sense ever since. Representing time as a spatial dimension orthogonal to the Cartesian 3-space was undoubtedly a clever mathematical trick but it is metaphysically non-kosher nevertheless because Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional. Time remains stubbornly uni-directional and the time invariance implications of physics have never been satisfactorily demonstrated.

Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
Quote:
Interpretation of the laws
The four laws of black hole mechanics suggest that one should identify
the surface gravity of a black hole with temperature and the area
of the event horizon with entropy, at least up to some multiplicative
constants.
If one only considers black holes classically, then they have zero
temperature and, by the no hair theorem, zero entropy, and the laws
of black hole mechanics remain an analogy.
However, when quantum mechanical effects are taken into account,
one finds that black holes emit thermal radiation (Hawking radiation)
at a temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
====…
Correct. It means that from the Classical point of view
black hole is zero vacuum T=0K. It means that all the fields,
such as the gravitational field and electromagnetic field have to be zero.
Then it seems that the Universe must to be a dead continuum.
But . . . . .
But thanks to " The Second law of thermodynamics"/ Entropy
the infinite zero vacuum continuum (T=0K) can somehow emit
"Virtual particles" which somehow can create the Material Universe.
==============…
P.S.
1.) Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.) Lev Landau (the Nobel Prize in Physics 1962) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.) Wilhelm Ostwald (the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1909 ) said :
" the entropy is only a shadow of energy".
4.) The famous mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
=======================…

All laws of physics are limited and according to QT
when they go to the limit all physical parameters (space,
time, energy, mass . . . ) disappear.
This limit according to QT is called "vacuum".
But these physical parameters can be reborn through
"vacuum fluctuation/transformation"
What can be done with this data mining?
==..

socratus wrote:But these physical parameters can be reborn through
"vacuum fluctuation/transformation"

I hope you're aware of the fact that this statement has no meaning.

Obvious Leo wrote:Minkowski was full of shit and physics hasn't made a lick of sense ever since. Representing time as a spatial dimension orthogonal to the Cartesian 3-space was undoubtedly a clever mathematical trick but it is metaphysically non-kosher nevertheless because Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional. Time remains stubbornly uni-directional and the time invariance implications of physics have never been satisfactorily demonstrated.

Time too has a forward and backward component. I've noticed that different scientists view this apparently differently: See Brian Cox's description of how entropy operates as opposed to Brian Green's.

Entropy describing time in One direction (Cox)

But, a better one the gives a good graphical description to aid in the understanding of Time in Two directions:

Entropy describing time in Two directions (Greene)

The logic is impeccable. While we may only make sense of our reality in one direction, a negative direction is just as equal and obeys entropy except that our own perspective going forward limits us to those alternative 'options' or "worlds" which provide many from one. Going backwards, while only one unique possibility exists to bring you to your previous world's perspective, a potentially infinite other "worlds" can exist from any point going backwards just as many potential causes can determine the same result. Of course, from each point on in either direction, those worlds could not coincide because we are locked in to one set of dimensions within our local experience determinately. This requires a multiverse acceptance but can be more reasonably argued than simply our one contingent one. Otherwise, it is meaningless to argue even varying possibilities going forward through entropy. Entropy by Cox's description only describes how we as humans can potentially determine the future. But in such a unique one-world view, the reality is that only one such outcome is truly possible and determined by nature, even if we can't.

Time is merely a comparative description of change which can be logically described by a Minkowski model. But this needs more depth and preparatory discussion.

Scott Mayers wrote:Entropy by Cox's description only describes how we as humans can potentially determine the future. But in such a unique one-world view, the reality is that only one such outcome is truly possible and determined by nature, even if we can't.

"Prediction is difficult, particularly of the future"....Yogi Berra.

Yogi was the master of the understatement because precise prediction of the future is utterly impossible. Feynman was as confused about this as Heisenberg ever was and thought that this somehow meant that the "laws of nature" were different at the sub-atomic scale than they were at the cosmological scale. This is utter nonsense. The motion of cosmological objects is no more amenable to precise prediction than is the motion of electrons around the nucleus and this has absolutely nothing to do with randomness. This is to with what we understand by a "law of nature" and how determinism works. Every object in the universe is gravitationally linked to every other object in the universe, which clearly means that physical reality is not linearly deterministic, as the notion of a "law of physics" requires. The real universe is non-linearly deterministic, which means that the so-called "laws of physics" are nothing more than reasonable approximations calculated by the observer.

Scott Mayers wrote:This requires a multiverse acceptance but can be more reasonably argued than simply our one contingent one.

An explanation which explains everything is an explanation which explains nothing. Since both are equally beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry why is the multiverse hypothesis preferable to the god hypothesis, since both are faith-based claims?

Obvious,

I'm confused on your particular understanding of determinism/indeterminism. You state something troublesome with "linear determinism" and appear to prefer some "multi-dimensional determinism" yet reverse this with respect to the universe defining our present universe (like a linear process in time) to disfavor 'multiverses' as being akin to religion. ??

Multiple spaces themselves have better rational justification to being considered realistic because the way these are understood by physicists (and myself) refer to places distinctly separate AND unable to directly impose or be imposed upon from just any universe. Different universes are logical assignments to those places that can be inferred 'if' any real physical indeterminate points exist to nature. [That is "indeterminate" to a god-like perspective that nature 'perceives', not the human capacity to be able to determine.] I disagree with presuming phenomena interpreted by statistical measures through QM prove that the nature of some of this phenomena is indeterminate by nature. But I believe that it seems reasonable that an infinite set of worlds exist that define universes covering all possible combinations. The distinction of being 'real' by our standards of consistency or completeness cannot out-rule worlds that lack them.

Think of it this way: You already believe that certain claims (and/or their interpreted meanings) are non-real, ...non-existent to our ability to determine humanistically. While the ideas themselves are 'real' in that they come from communicating our thoughts, if they don't map onto any 'real' world, this logically leaves them beyond such reality, and we refer to such things as 'existing' in "non-reality". Yet, if something that lacks reality cannot exist, even non-reality could not 'exist'. This may seem a trick of language. But it suggests that in comparing all that can be confined realistically as a finite existence, all possible things existing as being understood as "non-real" are always infinitely more because they are not confined by being finitely bound (closed).

In this way, you might imagine that a "God" or some "heaven" exists. But if and where such claims are not real, they are placed in the logical class, "non-reality". There, in non-reality, even contradictory things are 'true'. They are just inconsistent and/or incomplete worlds. It thus doesn't make sense to deny places external to our world any different than for you to deny that I am human. (I could be a clever A.I.!!) You can easily witness this writing and infer a human mind exists (me) that is writing. But you only non-mathematically induce my existence based on consistent patterns and samples from your experience. [Just in case you or other readers don't know, mathematical induction refers to being able to deduce each member within its infinite domain by enumerating for all numbers inductively and so is actually conclusive and certain.] But even if you don't presume my existence, indeterminately, you still assign a 'variable' without defining it. This is the same for any set of possible worlds one can define to exist within non-reality itself.

I referred to Brian Greene's explanation and favor it since it rationally shows nature as being symmetrically balanced with regards to physics. But such hypothesis is based on whether nature itself has real options to move even though they are indeterminate from our local perspectives. If you opted to turn right rather than left, the left option proved untrue from your perspective but is determined only after you've followed through your decision to turn right. But this does not mean that the left-turn option didn't exist relative to nature. You may be naturally determined to only appear to choose one option, but 'if' it is possible for the other option to exist by natures laws, then what determines your local assurance in this world to turn right is due to the variable inputs (as data) out of a domain of data. I can consistently reuse my calculator by inputting different values from the domain of numbers I have. To the calculator, it only physically determines the outcome based on each event. But if it 'knew' that other possible numbers can be input, it has evidence from its perspective, should it be able to think, to determine other kinds of inputs. Therefore, this would 'prove' that other possible combinations exist, even if, from the perspective of the calculator, it is unable to experience this in its off-on-off existence. The 'off-on-off' I used is an analogue to the unique experience of either one's life or to some given experience in some period of that.

Therefore, it is more reasonable to infer multiverses because we know by experience that there is a large set of possibilities for inputs, even though we only experience one unique one in our lives.

Oh, and note that including ALL possibilities of worlds indeterminate and determinate, closed and non-closed, consistent and inconsistent, this actually derives a 'closed' and 'consistent' meaning to Totality itself! Thus we resolve the problems presented by the Incompleteness Theorem by INCLUDING contradiction as a function within logic, not merely a finite end.

Scott Mayers wrote: I'm confused on your particular understanding of determinism/indeterminism. You state something troublesome with "linear determinism" and appear to prefer some "multi-dimensional determinism" yet reverse this with respect to the universe defining our present universe (like a linear process in time) to disfavor 'multiverses' as being akin to religion. ??

Not at all. We already have three dimensions superfluous to requirements so please don't accuse me of trying to invent more. What I'm claiming is that linear determinism does not exist at all in the natural world and that the patterns of organisation which we observe in nature are NOT a consequence of physical law. The universe is indeed entirely deterministic but this determinism is non-linear, or chaotic, and this same rule applies at all levels of scale in the cosmos, from the Planck scale up to the galactic scale. I specifically and literally define the universe as a non-linear dynamic system, or a dissipative structure. Such systems have a unique property which linearly determined systems don't have. They evolve increasingly more informationally complex sub-structures within themselves over time through the operation of only the single meta-law of cause and effect. In other words non-linear dynamic systems become more complex simply because they cannot do otherwise, a simple truth from which the phrase "complexity from chaos" derives. In this paradigm the so-called "laws of physics" are nothing more than observer-defined constructs which model what is in fact a completely self-determining process. Evolution towards informational complexity is the fundamental organising principle of the universe and the only law required for it to operate is the universal Aristotelian doctrine of causality. A non-linear cosmos can account for life and mind within it, something which the Newtonian paradigm can never do, even in principle. This is why Hawking had no choice but to define life as a "random chemical smear", or a "monstrous cosmic accident". The Newtonian paradigm defines a universe which is not only insufficient to its own existence, it is also insufficient to the existence of its own substructures.

Scott Mayers wrote: I disagree with presuming phenomena interpreted by statistical measures through QM prove that the nature of some of this phenomena is indeterminate by nature.

This is certainly a step in the right direction but inferring extra universes is not science. The behaviour of sub-atomic particles can be both entirely deterministic as well as completely unpredictable, just as the behaviour of gas molecules in Brownian motion is entirely deterministic yet completely unpredictable. Such systems can only be modelled probabilistically because of the dynamic complexity of all the various motions of the objects within the system and that's all there is to it. It's no different from predicting the weather and to my knowledge nobody claims that the weather is generated randomly. The word "randomness" is chucked around very loosely in physics and we are somehow expected to believe in the metaphysically ludicrous notion of the uncaused event, so it's no bloody wonder QM makes no sense. QM treats the atom like a cadaver on a slab and seeks to explain the sub-atomic world in terms of what its constituent parts ARE. This is a Newtonian reductionist myth because reality simply doesn't work like that. The behaviour of the atom is NOT determined by what its constituent parts are but rather by what they ARE DOING. Think of the atom as an arbitrarily defined collection of particles whizzing around at close to the speed of light and you'll get a sense of what I mean. The motion of each of these particles will gravitationally affect the motion of every other particle in the atom, a completely uncontroversial fact proven by GR. However the precise motion of any particular particle can never be predicted, even in principle, any more than the precise motion of a planet can ever be predicted, even in principle. This is quantum gravity because it is this chaotic behaviour at the sub-atomic scale which gives rise to all the various emergent waves, forces and fields which we collectively define as the "laws of physics". Randomness has no role whatsoever to play in this.

I hope you can see how this non-linear world eliminates the need for a multiverse hypothesis but if you can't I can elaborate on my reasoning later.