Why There is Something—And Further Extensions
If a complete lack of anything were the case, then there would not be anything; however, there is something and so a lack of anything could not have been the case, and so that notion is out and done with. Nothing’ cannot even be meant, much less have any properties or be productive, and so even any notion of it is forever squashed.
So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.
The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. ‘The impossible Stillness’ thus gains single quote marks, akin to its relative of ‘Nothing’, neither one able to be.
So, the Permanent Something of Necessity as the only true and lasting real thing can only form the temporaries through various arrangements of itself in such a way that it ever remains as itself. It has to do this because it cannot be still and is thus energetic and so it has motion within it.
Its nature has to be that the Something is the simplest state of being, as partless, for it would not be Fundamental as the only cause it if were composed of parts whose fundamentality preceded its own. It also has to be continuous, because it is both unbreakable and unmakeable, not to mention again that it cannot have spacers of the nonexistent ‘Nothingness’ in it. The Something is thus an Existent that cannot not be, and that is that!
So, then, the lesser, which in this case is the least, gives rise to the elementaries, the composites, and the complex, as the temporary universe, which from our point of view as one of the temporaries might might call it to be ‘greater’ in the sense that the temporary is more interesting than the simple base alone, much grander in its splendor of multiplicity, even.
The transcendental notion of the lesser having to come from a greater can now be totally thrown out, as another Impossible, and, besides, the notion leads to an infinite regress. That template is dead. It is also that not anything composite can be Fundamental, not even tiny proton, much less anything more composite or even infinitely complex, such as a Great Mind, begging the ‘question’ that didn’t even have to be begged.
So, we have the Truth, but out of curiosity as well as for the ultimate satisfaction from the Proof of confirmation, we look for the physical support to the philosophy of logic in the physics of science.
The quantum vacuum with is overall quantum field fits the bill to a T: the rather persisting elementaries form from excitations at the stable rungs of energy quanta in the quantum field. The elementaries don’t get quantized; they are the quanta. We know the rest of the story. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) gave us all of physics.
Universes may come and go, but the Permanent Existent ever remains, and anything can become of it.
So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.
The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. ‘The impossible Stillness’ thus gains single quote marks, akin to its relative of ‘Nothing’, neither one able to be.
So, the Permanent Something of Necessity as the only true and lasting real thing can only form the temporaries through various arrangements of itself in such a way that it ever remains as itself. It has to do this because it cannot be still and is thus energetic and so it has motion within it.
Its nature has to be that the Something is the simplest state of being, as partless, for it would not be Fundamental as the only cause it if were composed of parts whose fundamentality preceded its own. It also has to be continuous, because it is both unbreakable and unmakeable, not to mention again that it cannot have spacers of the nonexistent ‘Nothingness’ in it. The Something is thus an Existent that cannot not be, and that is that!
So, then, the lesser, which in this case is the least, gives rise to the elementaries, the composites, and the complex, as the temporary universe, which from our point of view as one of the temporaries might might call it to be ‘greater’ in the sense that the temporary is more interesting than the simple base alone, much grander in its splendor of multiplicity, even.
The transcendental notion of the lesser having to come from a greater can now be totally thrown out, as another Impossible, and, besides, the notion leads to an infinite regress. That template is dead. It is also that not anything composite can be Fundamental, not even tiny proton, much less anything more composite or even infinitely complex, such as a Great Mind, begging the ‘question’ that didn’t even have to be begged.
So, we have the Truth, but out of curiosity as well as for the ultimate satisfaction from the Proof of confirmation, we look for the physical support to the philosophy of logic in the physics of science.
The quantum vacuum with is overall quantum field fits the bill to a T: the rather persisting elementaries form from excitations at the stable rungs of energy quanta in the quantum field. The elementaries don’t get quantized; they are the quanta. We know the rest of the story. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) gave us all of physics.
Universes may come and go, but the Permanent Existent ever remains, and anything can become of it.
Comments (52)
Timmy: Thanks a ton uncle John! I'm so very happy!
Jack (to Timmy): That's nothing! Wait till ya see what I got for you!
Timmy: Yaay!
How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping that ties stuff together into a unit whole and that in so doing defines what is contained within that unit whole. This idea of a unit whole or a unity as being related to why things exist isn't new. Next,
when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.
Two important points are first that it's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Second is that while the words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something" in the above imply a temporal change, time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".
Quantum Field theory has been adopted as a metaphor for that which is not Real, but merely Potential, or logically Possible. The mathematical "points" in the field are described euphemistically as "Virtual" particles. In calculations, they are treated as-if real, even though they are only potential : not yet realized. The "nothing" that preceded the Big Bang Birth of our world may be compared to the un-real Statistical Probability of a mathematical Field. The field is characterized by Logic, but not Matter. :smile:
Are virtual particles Real ? :
Compared to actual particles — It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Note -- In QT, some external "excitation" or "perturbation", such as a Measurement or Choice triggers the transformation from Virtual to Actual, or Potential (hidden ; implicit) to Explicit.
Virtual :
(Computing) not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
___Oxford
That should have been "there is something and so a lack of anything could not be the case". Introducing the past tense confuses the issue by introducing time.
It's not legitimate to jump from "there is something now" to "there has always been something".
The virtual particles are not points but are the fractional quanta that aren't at a stable energy quanta rung and so they quickly go away (as per being 'particles'), unable to form elementary particles.
They as real although brief make for the Casmir effect.
Can't really have 'it'; the closest one might put 'it' is that 'it' is a nonexistent absolute, perhaps to employ it as a bound that cannot be gotten to, which one might also do for chock full, in which there could be no movement, this being another boundary to the forbidden, as another nonexistent absolute. Like Parmenides, I'm ruling out 'Nothing' completely.
This is what Max Tegmark goes for, but it's hard to fathom. The laws would have to be concurrent in the Mandatory Existent.
No, the virtuals can't become particles; they don't have the full quanta. Measurement is about determining the location of a spread out elementary particle smear as best one can do, given that it's approximate, and so a probability of its whereabouts comes forth. Best not to think of 'particles' as particles, like pinpoints, because they aren't; they are ever lumps in fields.
An aside, as a speculation, would be that if there is inflation then perhaps it will separate virtual particles faster than they can recombine.
Only the temporary forms can be gotten rid of, as forms, such as the universe that Banged out, but the Permanent has to remain, as the source of the Bang, and of course the temporaries here are ever the Permanent's rearrangements, not anything else different, but it would be those rearrangements that one imagines getting rid of.
Actually, it was already sufficient to state that existence has no alternative, given that nonexistence cannot have being, so I didn't need to reify 'Nothing' as a 'case', for a case is a fact. Consider it gone. There is Something because it is mandatory as it has no opposite.
One answer to such existential ontological questions is that, if anything exists now, something must have always existed. For Realists that bottomless Tower of Turtles is called the "Multiverse", more of the same forever. But a more philosophical answer is that the Potential for a new world must have always existed in the ideal realm of Possibility. And infinite Potential exists ("is there") because of Logical Necessity : being implies prior existence.
To materialists, such philosophical reasoning may sound like non-sense. Yet, for those who know that matter is subject to Entropy -- here today, gone tomorrow -- the timeless Source-of-Something must be immaterial, in some sense. For example, Claude Shannon defined his novel notion of Information as Negentropy (creative instead of destructive force or trend). Anyway, nothing come from nothing. And Matter comes from immaterial Energy : creative power.
And that's what Plato & Aristotle were referring to as the Ideal realm of Potential Forms, which are not Material, but Mental -- not Physical but Meta-Physical. Another Platonic term for a creative organizing power was LOGOS (the power of Reason). However, in my personal worldview, I use a modern concept to refer to the pre-space-time Potential for creating Real Things : Intentional Information (EnFormAction). Scientists sometimes speak of knowing the "Mind of God", when faced with that great unknown reservoir of not-yet-real reality. You can call it God, or G*D, or eternal Potential, or Logos. But wherever and whatever it is, that power-to-create-a-world-from-nothing is awesome. :smile:
“Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".” ...
Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...
What is EnFormAction? :
EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Sounds like "spooky action at a distance".
Like Gravity, Casimir "sucks". :joke:
The Casimir effect: a force from nothing :
https://physicsworld.com/a/the-casimir-effect-a-force-from-nothing/
Chaos Theory : The term 'Strange Attractor' is used to describe an attractor (a region or shape to which points are 'pulled' as the result of a certain process)
Note -- the "region" is in abstract Phase Space, not real State Space.
So, they're not even real enough to be virtual??? :joke:
Sorry, one cannot diminish the Casmir effect by saying ""Spooky".
Quoting Gnomon
The joke needs more work; they are real enough, as the quantum fluctuations.
Yes. But I wasn't referring to the Effect, which is an empirical observation. It's the Cause that's uncanny. For example, both Newton and Einstein were perplexed by the implicit "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. That's because such a sucking force was not allowed in their realistic mechanistic paradigm, where a pushing force was transmitted by direct matter-to-matter contact. A come-hither pulling force smacked of witchcraft.
Einstein evaded that problem of Causal Agency by proposing the counter-intuitive notion of curved space-time. Which merely replaced one mystery with another. So, now the old materialistic paradigm has been replaced by the metaphor of matterless emptiness as an Aethereal substance. Ironically, he was the one who applied the scare-word "spooky" to "diminish" another concept that defies common sense. Yet, today most scientists have accommodated their professional worldviews to the experiment-baffling-randomness, and the non-local weirdness, and the wave-particle non-sense of Quantum Theory. In effect, they accept the strange empirical Effects, even as they rationalize even more occult theoretical Causes. :cool:
[i]* We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. . . .
* Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers. . . .
* I have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the force of gravity, but I have not yet assigned a cause to gravity. . . ."[/i]
___Isaac Newton
[i]* Einstein's general theory of relativity has an unusual answer to that question which will be explored in this spotlight text. In part, gravity is an illusion. In part, it is associated with a quantity called “curvature”. Overall, gravity is intimately connected with the geometry of space and time. . . .
* Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. . .
* Albert Einstein famously said that quantum mechanics should allow two objects to affect each other's behaviour instantly across vast distances, something he dubbed “spooky action at a distance”
* “Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.”.
* “God Integrates Empirically”[/i]
___Albert Einstein
I agree that your logic is impeccable. Yet, intelligent people still disagree on the details of exactly what that essential "Something" is, Ontologically. Is it a material Thing like a self-organizing planet? Is it an immaterial Force like Chi? Or is it an immortal Wizard like The Great OZ behind the curtain? I have my own notions on the subject, but others may disagree, depending on their idiosyncratic worldview, or their communal mindset. :smile:
Democritus calls this "void". Spinoza calls this "natura naturans". Emmy Noether mathematically demonstrated this to be "fundamental symmetries" (of the vacuum) from which Conservation Laws were then derived. QFT further extrapolates to the "true vacuum". These are commensurable examples of physical not-something (not metaphysical nothing(ness)) and, therefore, non-physical / im-material / super-natural woo-of-the-gaps (e.g. Platonism) is not needed – certainly because woo explains even less than contemporary fundamental physics. :mask:
That was about quantum entanglement, and if you look it up you will see that it has been found. Also, spacetime is essentially the gravitational field. We've also found gravitational waves. "Occult" doesn't apply.
Yes, as all is constituted of it as what we call 'things' for convenience, but the temporaries are not identical to themselves over time; perhaps call 'things' events or processes.
Saying 'Chi' and 'Oz' as woo in the same discussion doesn't make it unreal.
GRAVITY EXPLAINED
The Strength of Gravity, the Feeble Apparent
Gravity is a universal force—for any body:
The force felt by a body is mass proportional;
Yet, the acceleration that’s felt is the inverse!
This coincidence removes all mass dependence.
(Einstein transcended this amazing “coincidental” race
By bodies going straight through curved space.)
Gravity might be derived from the fundamentals,
The byproduct of a small residual after cancelations
Of opposite electric or color charges, and more.
Why then is gravity universal, for its sources are not?
Perhaps the appearance of feebleness is deceptive
Since protons and neutrons are but lightweights.
But why are they so light? Their mass is a compromise
Between a disturbance energy and its cancellation.
The quarks’ color charge
Disturbs gluons around them,
Small at first,
But larger growing farther from the quark.
These disturbances cost energy,
But, how to cancel them?
With an anti-quark
Or two complementarily colored quarks.
But, the qualifying quarks
Can’t sit atop the originals,
For quarks have no definite position,
Just a wave function,
And they can’t be localized
To a small spread of position,
For this requires a larger energy;
So, forget nullification.
The compromise is that
Some residual energy amounts
From the not-completely-canceled
Gluon field disturbances
And from the not-completely-canceled
Quark positionings;
Thus, the proton mass from m=E/cc,
With this tricky element
Of how the gluon disturbance field
Grows with distance.
The residual strong energy
From color charge also binds
The protons and neutrons
In the atomic nucleus;
The electromagnetic electron/nuclei
Charge residuals
Bind atoms into molecules,
And molecules into materials.
Asymptotic freedom
Is a subtle feedback effect
From virtual particles
Antiscreening the color charge.
This antiscreening builds up gradually,
Especially at first,
Then proceeds more quickly,
Building upon each building.
Whereas, screening happens
For electrically charged particles,
Being such as a positive charge
Attracts a negative virtual cloud.
Thus, at first,
Since it’s so slow to build,
The pressure to localize the nullifying quarks
Is quite mild as well;
Thus, there’s no need
To very strictly localize and
So the energies are small;
So then is the proton mass.
This is the lightness of being.
(Ideas herein were gathered from readings, esp. Frank Wilczek)
Maybe there was always something. Our best science can only predict up close to the big bang. Then it breaks down.
But from the big bang to "before" if, that makes any sense, which is not clear, we have no clue. Perhaps, and contrary to all our intuitions, something can come out of nothing, given enough "time", which didn't exist prior to the big bang, supposedly. Or maybe it existed in a manner which is beyond us.
Or the multiverse could be a possibility.
The point being that we likely don't have intelligence enough to understand why there is something or why there should be a beginning or an infinity.
Some physicists now argue that something is more plausible than nothing. The laws of physics may well indicate this and it may be true. Doesn't take away from the fact that in conception, for us, it is extremely natural and much easier to understand "nothing existing" than something. No effort is required.
But we don't know. You could be right as well.
We can't even hope for 'Nothing' to be or do something because 'it' isn't. You're right that humans might have trouble pondering anExistent that has no alternative or opposite, given that we can think of alternatives for other 'thing's, plus, Nothing is indeed a word, albeit that it means: not anything.
Now, how can the Permanent Existent be something definite, like continuous points with this as a continuous 3D wave field, given that it has no beginning and thus no direction or design to it? It's likely that there isn't anything simpler, given that it has to be partless to be fundamental.
Since the Permant Existent ever remains, it could make another temporary universe… unto a multiverse.
Because there can't be a 'not'.
I was born in 1947, too.
Magnetism, Gravity, and Electricity were all, I suspect, candidate mechanisms for telekinesis/psychokinesis. Spoooooky! Very, very spoooooky!
The man who knew the man who knew too much :point: @TheMadFool
:grin:
Even if it were the case that nothing, it couldn't have stayed that way for long i.e. creatio ex nihilo.
Where,
p = potentiality, a = actuality. P(a) = probability of an actuality (something)
Nothing has infinite potentiality.
Ergo,
Something will actualize.
There are different notions of nothing too. One thing is to say there can't be "nothing" in the universe, there's always a quantum vacuum, which is something or sorts.
But we also have the nothing of ordinary life, as in, before I was born, I wasn't anything nor will I be anything after death. There isn't anything for me to grasp when I'm not here. That's a legitimate use of the word.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
That's an attractive idea, of finding something which can't be simpler. That makes some sense. The thing is, we need evidence to postulate this as something that happened, instead of leaving it up as a possibility. This is fine too, but we should remember that we are speaking of something that may not exist.
This description of the hypothetical First Cause of the Big Bang sounds like something I might write. It accurately outlines what I call : BEING ; Enformer ; LOGOS ; G*D ; etc. But we seem to differ in our opinions of exactly what that "Something" is, essentially.
In some of your retorts, you seem to imagine the Prime Cause as a Physical Thing -- like a cue ball -- while I lean toward a Meta-Physical Principle -- like Logos. Physical "things" are material, specific, and subject to the laws of Thermodynamics, hence temporary and impermanent. But Meta-Physical Principles are rational concepts, general, universal, holistic, and ideal. So, only such non-things could possibly fit your unconditional answer to "why there is something?".
Temporary physical things are Real & Embodied & Relative. But only the eternal essential creative power-to-embody could be "Permanent", and all those other Absolute adjectives. Unfortunately, such a non-thing (absolute Zero ; Infinity) cannot exist in the thermodynamic Real world, because it would then be subject to Entropy and extinguishment (heat death). Yet, in the Ideal world of human reason, unconditioned Universals are essential to understanding of relative Reality. :cool:
Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. ... Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
BEING :
[i]In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
PS___Did I misunderstand your position, or did you misinterpret mine? :chin:
It is the simplest, so there's really no more to go with it to keep it Fundamental. Its math may be messy, though.
I can see how the “intricacies and complexities” of QFT would arise in its complete math description nightmare, given that the 25 quantum fields overlap and can interact with one another (we can’t even solve the three-body problem), but any individual field would seem to be of the ultimate simplicity. That QFT works so well is a huge plus for it being ontological, too.
I see that the following is the crux of the matter of much wondering about existence:
[i]“I cannot rid myself of the conviction that Nothing would have obtained had not something special somehow superseded or counteracted it. Yes, I know that seems circular— …”[/I]
— Robert Lawrence Kuhn
(Answering him in an email):
Not really circular, but undeniably showing a feat accomplished such that we can claim necessity for sure as a Truth without a Proof, which is about all that philosophy alone can do, which is why it’s more satisfying to the find the physical analog of the logic through physics.
The Proof is not always necessary or possible, but we do have the quantum vacuum and its overall quantum field staring us in the face as able to make all the constituents of the universe. Carlo Rovelli likes to say that the quantum fields exhaust reality, which one could also take as a joke that all this research can be really tiring, although I find it to be invigorating.
‘Necessity’ is of course still as a brute fact, but that’s the best point for the buck to stop, at the causeless, in order to avoid the infinite regress that ever ensues if we get taken in by the template of wanting a lesser stage to ever have to come from a greater stage.
I can only offer that since ‘Nothing’ couldn’t cut the mustard that ‘it’ couldn’t, and it is thus again impossible or that ‘it’ cannot be an it, and so The One Existent has no alternative and thus it must be, as the least state that gives rise to the composite and then to the greater complexity, just as we see as what happened in the universe.
I’ll perhaps have to think more about why the One Existent has to be what it is, given that with no beginning it couldn’t have any specific design or direction going into it. At first, I thought that it not being anything in particular somehow meant that it could be everything, either linearly or all at once (we don’t yet know the mode of time), but lately I’m sticking with that it defaults to be being the simplest state with no parts in order to satisfy the fundamental arts, which state still seems to be able to do anything and everything.
In the class of universes that have life, our universe is not among the worst, nor close to perfect, as it is mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. Protons and neutrons require only up and down quarks, and not the other four quarks. Of course, the extravagant waste may have increased the chances of Earth having the right conditions for life and the other quarks and stuff may play some role.
Our universe then is generic, as mediocre, even, somewhere within the range of universes that can achieve life. Our universe took an extremely long time to evolve cosmically, as well as for life to develop biologically. It perhaps wasn’t the quickest or the slowest to do so. It kind of limped along through the deuterium bottleneck at first.
We on Earth had to wait for a metal rich third generation star, and then early life had to suffer through five extinctions, nearly wiping out all of the species, the last near extinction, the Permian, opening up a space for mammals to evolve. I doubt if Intelligent Design consists of throwing a huge rock at the Earth.
That our universe is somewhere in between perfect and the worst shows that there has to be a multiverse. Also, if there can be one universe then there can be more.
Some forum posters have asserted that the Cause of our world must be more complex than the Effect : e.g. an infinite array of multiverses. And in some cases that may seem to be true. For example, humans are still trying to create something (AI) that is at least as complex as a human. In speculation, it's possible that human culture will eventually create a race of robots that are equal-to or superior-to humanity.
But, I envision the "something" that created our complexifying universe as both more-than in Potential and less-than in Actual. For example, the math for computing the possibilities of Infinity (outside of space-time) is simple : just start at 1 and keep counting forever. But, if you start counting at 0 (zero), the first step is infinitely wide, and the math-machine just spins its wheels.
That's why I assume that the First Cause must be BothAnd. Both Infinity (all possibilities) and Zero (no thing). One of those possible powers is the god-like ability to lift itself with its own bootstraps : i.e. to be self-existent. But, an infinite Tower-of-Turtles is always missing something "fundamental" : a Foundation. So, for me, Aristotelian Potential is a necessary attribute of the Prime Cause. It may be "First" from our perspective in the gravity-well of space-time. But from the God's-eye-view of unlimited possibilities, it's a Forever Cause. :smile:
Quoting PoeticUniverse
The "argument from mediocrity" may be a reasonable statement. But, outside of our unique universe, it's unverifiable. so we'll never know if it's true. The infinite Potential of a Forever Cause, could very well include a Zillion Multiverses. But the only 'verse I know anything about is good ole GAIA. So I don't bog-down my mind by trying to do the math of Eternal Infinities. It's an unreal, meta-physical concept. More like Qualia than Quanta. Fun to speculate, but messy to calculate :wink:
Halt and Catch Fire :
a program command, such as dividing by zero, that will cause a computer to crash & burn.
Enfernity : my coinage of Spatially Infinite & Temporally Eternal
OMNIVERSE :
TURTLEVERSE :
Why not?
People will never be able to create a human outside the womb of an already existing human being. By the very nature of human beings (or other organisms). All humans contain the contain a part of the history of the entire universe and creating people would mean creating a universe.
Hence AI can never be as complex as beings.
Quoting Gnomon
That's because there is nothing before zero. Postullating a time zero, as in the big bang model within the confines of general relativity implies an impossibility to start, as there is nothing to get things started. Hence GR fails in the Planck era.
Transhumanists are aware of the biological facts of life. But they have faith in human creativity and ingenuity. Since the essence of a baby human is encoded into a spiral of physical stuff in the form of digital mathematical symbols (abstract Information), scientists assume that they can also use chains of 1s & 0s to produce, first a thinking machine (AI), and eventually a living machine (AL). And they see no need to add a dollop of Magic or a soupçon of Spirit to the formula, in order to manufacture a living organism. I don't believe in Magic, but I do believe in the multiplied power of leveraged Information (knowledge).
The history of human technology is littered with confident "nevers" -- "Men will never fly" -- that nevertheless became routine "evers". So, while I realize the Holy Grail of man-made-life may be harder to achieve than the Trans-homo-sapienistas assume, I'm not certain enough of my predictive abilities to prophesy the long-range future of a Global Science Project. Human Culture usually finds a way to exceed the limits of Human Nature. Maybe they will,or maybe they won't, make artificial babies. But some visionaries will die trying. :smile:
The past, present, and future of artificial life :
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2014.00008/full
PS___Giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if god-like scientists do avoid the pitfalls of Frankenstein --- to finally rejoice : "it's alive!" --- they will never be able to create something from nothing. :starstruck:
Quoting Gnomon
For my own interests, I will expand on that inherent limitation of Quantum Physics : it explains why things fall apart (Entropy), but not why they assemble into whole systems. QT does not account for "spooky" Gravity. Perhaps that's because G is not a Quanta, but a Qualia : not Physical, but Metaphysical. (am I barking up the wrong axis?)
The article below, by British physicist Julian Barbour, reveals that "There is nothing in the form of the laws of nature at the fundamental microscopic level that distinguishes a direction of time" (upward complexifying Evolution). Then, he notes that "Gravity presents many puzzles because it gives rise to “anti-thermodynamic” behavior: Under its influence, uniformly distributed matter tends to break up into clusters. As of now, no one knows how to describe this behavior using an entropy-type concept". That mysterious "clustering" behavior of matter is called by the negative-name of "Negentropy", attractive "Forces".
But, in my thesis, I call the positive aspect of Evolution : "Enformy". Previously, I had metaphorically compared it to the "strange attractor" force of Gravity. But I didn't think it was that simple. Now, I may have to rethink the Something that causes Things to gravitate into new things -- parts to become wholes -- elements to become systems. :chin:
The Mystery of Time’s Arrow :
anti-thermodynamic” behavior
https://nautil.us/issue/71/flow/the-mystery-of-times-arrow-rp
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, [ anti-thermodynamic ] natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet, but isn't it then a wonder then how QM works so well?
Sometimes we get lucky; apparently the weak effect of gravity is neglible at the miniscule QM level!
Roger Penrose thinks that at the point where the micro meets the macro, the gravity is enough there to swing the state, but we don't know where that point is. I predict it is about the size of a piece of dust since that's the mid-point between the largest and the smallest. Roger needs some money from to perform an experiment in space to find out. Send $$$ right away because he is very old and can't wait around too long.
Maybe you watched my 'Energy' video… Let me know if the answer is in there.
I'm just guessing. But perhaps the Quantum Gravity gap is simply a matter of scale. Quantum effects typically manifest only on the smallest scales. And gravity is so weak that its effects only become apparent on cosmic scales, such as the curvature of vast quantities of space. Gravity is general and diffuse, while sub-atomic forces are specific and focused. Particle colliders require massive energy inputs just to study local quantum scales, but that's trivial compared to the gravitational forces of non-local Black Holes. Apparently, we need to amp-up our instruments in order to study Quantum effects inside a ginormous gravity well. Could the QG mystery be that simple, and that monumental? :chin:
Black Hole :
[i]You might expect the authors to celebrate, but they say they also feel let down. Had the calculation involved deep features of quantum gravity rather than a light dusting, it might have been even harder to pull off, but once that was accomplished, it would have illuminated those depths. . . . .
In some way or other, space-time itself seems to fall apart at a black hole, implying that space-time is not the root level of reality, but an emergent structure from something deeper. Although Einstein conceived of gravity as the geometry of space-time, his theory also entails the dissolution of space-time, which is ultimately why information can escape its gravitational prison.[/i]
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/
Sorry, I was distracted by the girl in the red dress. All that dancing energy. . . . :wink:
I suppose the answer to the QG mystery may lie in-between Qualia & Quanta. Unfortunately, I couldn't find my long-ago poem about "Skebleens" : the binding forces in between. But I did find this pathetic puerile poesy in the archives :
Happy Black Hole Friday!
Hellholes hurl infernal light-year jets of fear,
In Centaurus, cross the galactic sphere.
Supermassive darkling beasts devour all;
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
I sometimes have black hole days and I wonder if psychological black holes are in any way parallel to physical ones. But, in the psychological ones I do find that there is 'something' which seems to come out of them on a positive level. It is as if going into shamanic underworld brings forth some hidden treasures, even though there may be moments which may feel like 'nothingness' along the way.
Well, you can't get out of physical ones, not even if you are shining light for help. Untill now I always came out of the psychological ones. But in both it can be pretty dark and give you tunnel vision ,and the feeling of getting ripped apart is present in both. It is even claimed that physical black holes form a portal to new and fresh universes, which is nonsense, but it certainly applies to psycho holes. From the outside their appearance is stretched in time and compressed in space. From the inside it's all in a flash and stretched out in space. Somehow, a psychological black hole seems to be the inverse, but both are singularities.
According to theory of relativity, time is a kind of space. That seems to explain how time may exist within a larger, timeless reality. Time itself is just one of timeless mathematical objects (a space), so there is no "passage" of time just as there is no "passage" of space or of any other timeless mathematical object. The "passage" of time is therefore just a feeling, a property of certain complex parts of spacetime that we call "conscious".