Benj96March 03, 2022 at 13:009200 views325 comments
I know that the list in the poll is not exhaustive. And a lot of the options have considerable overlap and could be both explained simultaneously. I encourage you to explain further your reasoning.
The universe is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. The beginning is equal to the end.
This is the theory which I stand for. But, instead of considering "equal" the beginning and the end, I see it as the one/unique movement/power which is concentrated in itself. Greeks usted to debate a lot of Alpha (beginning) Omega (the end). I like the point where it is defended that one of the most characteristic acts in the human nature are "born" and "die", thus, "beginning" and "end"
Universe is infinite, we humans are just passing through until our extinction.
[b]Factum est: ego sum alpha et omega, initium et finis.
It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.[/b] :flower:
Aye, theory siblings, you and I. And yes, infinite is more like it. Beginning and end are human interpolations because we detect patterns through time. No actual such thing, Einstein showed this with relativity.
There can be no cause of existence. For there to be a cause something must exist.
Could it be that “cause” is “existence”? In this way there is no need for cause indeed as it is synonymous with existence itself. Existence is cause or existence is energy - the ability to be/ do.
The verb “to be” may answer to no one. It simple “is”.
At planck radius, "the universe" was a runaway – inflationary – cosmic-thermal entropic effect of an acausal (spontaneous symmetry-breaking) vacuum fluctuation^. There was no "beginning", just cosmological development^ that is measurable with contemporary physics to minus c13.8 billions years back from t=0 (today).
Like a sphere, torus, loop ..., it makes no more sense to conceive of spacetime^ as bounded having a first point (i.e. "beginning") as it does to conceive of Earth having an edge (e.g. "north of the North Pole").
Also, pedantic note: "the universe" =/= "existence" (as the poll suggests); analogously, the latter is like a field and the former a dissipating structure^ with respect to that field (i.e. ocean and wave/s, respectively; or continuum and set/s).
I do not know the original cause of existence.
I do not believe anyone else knows.
I do not believe that anyone has a plausible account that would be likely to command widespread consensus.
I believe that if anyone has ever stated the original cause of existence truthfully, then it was sheer luck.
I believe that we will never know whether such a truthful statement has ever been made or by whom.
I do not believe that any assertion or denial as to the original cause of existence has any basis whatsoever.
The original cause of existence is, in that respect, quite unlike the cause of the formation of clouds, which are (relatively speaking) fairly well understood.
Also, pedantic note: "the universe" =/= "existence" (as the poll suggests); analogously, the latter is like a field and the former a dissipating structure^ with respect to that field (i.e. ocean and wave/s, respectively; or continuum and set/s).
Ah yes i see what you mean. I often, like many, struggle to distinguish between that which is (exists and is objective) and that does not - in any “real” sense but which is merely a construct or concept used in order to make comprehension easier.
Fields and possibilities and waves, probabilities, potential vs the cold hard particulate objective world. The scope of “existence” in this way perplexes me. As I often wonder does it extend to feelings, dreams, ideas or is it merely that which is measurable in some physical external sense. I wonder where that which exists has its limits with the imaginary. Where something borders nothingness. I believe it is human tendency to make everything concrete. To imagine quarks as solid things as opposed to mathematically demonstrable oscillations that themselves are not tangible. Is maths something that exists as a physical logic or is it a human tool to navigate the physical world which has no application other than in our comprehension?
We have been arguing about what is real and what is not for millennia, I suspect this won’t be soon resolved.
I know that the list in the poll is not exhaustive
Not exhaustive??? This is the longest poll list I have ever list by far!
Then, if you think that it isn't exhaustive, why don't you just ask everyone to present his/her version?
What theory or proposition do you hold as to the original cause of existence
Your question is incomplete: you should add the word "Universe" next to "existence", even if --or, especially because-- it is contained in the options, since alone, this term can refer to a lot of things.
Also, the word "original" is redundant. Can there also be a "second" or "later" or "newer" cause of the existence of the Universe? In fact of the existence of enything? A cause is something that makes X happen. After X has happened the cause and effect relationship and the corresp. phenomenon are complete.
Existence is cause or existence is energy - the ability to be/ do.
I don't think that existence is the ability to be. We say of things that are or that we claim are that they exist. It is not the ability to be but that fact of being.
To put it in a way that may seem paradoxical or contradictory - existence does not exist. But there is nothing paradoxical or contradictory about that statement.
Reply to javi2541997 I respect that it may be fun or interesting, as a matter of preference. Definitely ask the questions if you enjoy it.
But for me,
I don't think questions about the origin of the universe are interesting, because no matter what the answer is, the end result is the same. Namely, the end result is the world we have to deal with today. In other words, the next question AFTER "how did the universe originate" is already accessible to us. So we just don't need "how did the universe originate". Instead, I'm insanely curious about what we should/ will do, now that it has.
Reply to Benj96 I think we can be certain about what necessarily cannot be real: impossible objects, impossible worlds; anything else, no matter how improbable, is a possible version of reality (i.e. possible way the world could have been or can be aptly described). I've speculated here Reply to 180 Proof from the perspective of Reply to 180 Proof.
We can only know what we should/could do if we know when everything started on the beginning :flower: :up:
If you think so closely, you would check a lot of theories so the results are not necessarily the same
I don't think we have to know how things started from the beginning to make decisions, I think we can just guess if we want. But maybe you disagree with that, which would be awesome, because then it would be the kind of conversation about what we should do that I thought would be better.
It could be the universe is eternal and infinite in extent, in which big banged universe follow each other up. Not expanding and contracting and expanding, etc. But serial expanding universes all with their own beginning of time caused by the preceding universe. And guess who brought it all into existence? It were the gods clapping their tales or howling the words.
The rotation of the Earth is of uttermost importance. Day and night, sleep and wake, hot and cold, they are the important features that give matter and the vital divine spark in it the means to evolve by moving away from thermodynamic equilibrium bit by bit. The flow of heat reverses daily in the rythm of day and night. Matter receives from the Sun at daytime and radiates during night. The equilibrium can never be reached, giving matter structures a means to evolve between the heat and the cold. Creatures come crawling out of the swamps, start roaming in seas, start growing out of the earth, and walk on the land.
And a lot of the options have considerable overlap and could be both explained simultaneously.
As a subject, the start of everything doesn't interest me much. I tend to think notions of beginnings and ends are human attempts to apply order to the reality we know. 'How it all began' is of almost no use to me in my daily life. But I understand the especial attraction of beginnings for theists. The absurd uncaused first cause still has a hold on folk who use it to prop up god's who must have something to do, or they recede into history.
I don't think the human brain is capable of "understanding" time. There are endless arguments about beginnings or eternities but its like a dog trying to understand calculus.
There are endless arguments about beginnings or eternities but its like a dog trying to understand calcul
Well, there is one element of calculus they understand. The greater than or more than comparison. They always want to fetch the bigger stick and want more.
Why can't we understand time? It's a clock ticking or asymmetric motion based on symmetric motion. Time can't be reversed because it has a beginning. The beginning is caused by timeless motion.
As a subject, the start of everything doesn't interest me much. I tend to think notions of beginnings and ends are human attempts to apply order to the reality we know. 'How it all began' is of almost no use to me in my daily life. But I understand the especial attraction of beginnings for theists. The absurd uncaused first cause still has a hold on folk who use it to prop up god's who must have something to do, or they recede into history.
I'm not sure I understand why this is an attraction for theists. I'm a theist too but I don't have a problem with a beginning without them gods.
I'm not sure I understand why this is an attraction for theists. I'm a theist too but I don't have a problem with a beginning without them gods.
I think mainly because the first cause or cosmological argument is an easy one to understand and make and enthusiastic Protestant apologists in the English speaking world have often adapted the Kalam cosmological argument to good results with the folks. 'Common sense' apologetics often do best.
The universe is about 70% dark energy. Dark energy is timeless. Another 25% is dark 'matter' that could also be timeless. The remaining 5% is plasma, like the stars, then there is scattered galactic dusting of minute amounts of what we call ordinary matter.
So the universe started as concentrated pure energy and will end as ultra-thinned out pure energy. Sounds pretty boring, doesn't it?
As usual, the beginning is obscured from view, We can only hypothesize i.e. speculate on such matters; quite unfortunate. It's as if we've awoken from a deep slumber and find ourselves in strange surroundings. How did we get here? Our story begins in medias res, the narrator, if there's one, has failed to record, much to our chagrin, the origins of our universe. Fear not, logic to the rescue - the OP, in my humble opinion, has managed to narrow down the possibilities to a handful. Deduce, abduce, induce, friends (and foes) and shed light on the matter.
If one gives it some thought, clearly there's a paradox: per kind favor of memory, the past should be something we have a handle on, the future being uncertain. Yet here we are...bewildered and angry too I suppose.
Why can't we understand time? It's a clock ticking or asymmetric motion based on symmetric motion. Time can't be reversed because it has a beginning. The beginning is caused by timeless motion.
The universe is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. The beginning is equal to the end.
I voted for this because the universe is not bounded. The everything is the universe. We gave meaning to time, but without us, it has no meaning or existence at all. But -- there's decay! How about that. Stars die out.
It sounds interesting as hell that universe could be timeless because this can means that the concept of "time" itself is just a human concept or... A limit one
That's exactly what time does without motion. It has motion, of course. Time always involves motion. But there are different kinds of motion. The symmetrical motion of which you can't say (not even if you know everything about it) if it goes forward or backward in time, precedes the unidirectional asymmetrical irreversible motion involved in the thermo"dynamic" time. Something like that. It's all figùred out pretty smartass....
The beginning (only) makes sense temporally. The universe (only) makes sense temporally. Remove time and the question of a start is meaningless; unfortunately or not, the universe becomes unintelligible. Make your choice: either you can use Occam's broom and sweep time under the rug OR give up trying to comprehend our oh so beautiful universe.
But it does exist for us because we created the concept of "time" but probably, the time itself doesn't exist in the universe. We are just walking through it
The beginning is just a symmetrical passage of time. It goes forwards and backwards. Then circumstances, the ending of a previous big bang, caused it to take of in one direction. And that's why time has a direction. And when our universe has expanded away to infinity, that triggers a new big bang behind us. Maybe we'll resurface there. Over and over. Pain upon pain upon pain. What a promise... Even suicide won't help...
How can you prove it's not? The universe is not just some fixed 4d spacetime state of matter through which our consciousness travels. I consider it attached to matter, inside it, traveling and pushing and pulling along.
Because consciousness is something related to human knowledge. For example, dogs and cats are not aware about their own existence. Nevertheless, they are part of the "universe", aren't they? We all are part of this universe but we are the responsible of giving it a "significance"
The universe is just there, "existing" and then we are here "thinking" and philosophizing
god must be atheistMarch 04, 2022 at 08:02#6627070 likes
I chose "other" for the reason to say that any poking at the nature of the Universe that populates the same space as we do, and any speculative description stands to fail. (But not necessarily.)
There are beliefs people hold on to, and I am no exception. I know the space expanse and time are infinite. And I know I exist. Beyond that, everything else is negotiable.
Theories abound. The more science uncovers of reality, the more incomprehensible things become on the intuitive level. I think the best thing is not to make any rash decisions; and definitely not to engage in bitter arguments over these things.
Reply to EugeneW I don't see how that implies anything different or corrects what I've said. 'Spatial' and 'temporal' predicates presuppose spacetime and therefore are not applicable to spacetime itself – what I "know" is that applying "spatial" and "temporal" predicates to spacetime itself is question-begging nonsense.
Reply to god must be atheist :up: We are proximate beings for whom reality is proximate and therefore for whom "ultimate reality" is an ever-approachable yet unattainable encompassing horizon. Our best, most fundamental science is only a finger pointing at the CMB by which we interpretatively orient ourselves (civilization) in the boundless void.
Reply to EugeneW Higher dimensional Z is constituted by lower dimensional Y, X ... A; the latter are not separable, discrete entities with respect to the former. 0-d points, 1-d lines, & 2-d Circles are not "located within" a 3-d sphere; they are constitutents of a sphere (which are abstracted mathematically.) In other words, 5-d spacetime is an extension (i.e. projection) of 4-d spacetime just as a 3-d sphere is an extension (i.e. projection) of a 2-d circle.
The 2d surface of a sphere is located on its boundary. Likewise our universe can be located somewhere in a higher dimensional space. Of course matter has to be attached to our 3 space dimensions. It can expand in that higher dimensional space. Dark energy and all that. DE is just higher dimensional curvature!
I wish our beautiful dogs would aware about themselves. But no, this is only a human complex issue. This is why we tend to develop theories and philosophy. We are more complex than animals.
While we are concerned about what the future holds or what could happen this afternoon, the universe is there, not caring
That's what I mean. The boundary of the sphere is part of the sphere. Just like any surface inside it. So our universe could be a volume inside a higher dimensional space. So located inside that higher dimensional space. Expansion of space is proof.
That our 3d space is located on a higher dimensional space. If that 3d space propagates through that higher dimensional space, it seems the galaxies are receding from each other. If that space is negatively curved, even accelerated, if matter induced positive curvature drops below a threshold.
OK, if you think so, then why do you think we cannot communicate with animals? Because our language are more complex than theirs. They just act with primary actions. We tend to be more complicated. Reasoning, thinking, wondering... Or even hating
Reply to EugeneW We know two facts: (1) the observable 4-d universe (i.e. hubble volume) is expanding and that (2) the 4-d universe is larger than the hubble volume. There are no factual grounds to assume that the hubble volume is "expanding into" anything else other than the unobservable 4-d universe that excompasses the hubble volume.
There are no grounds to assume that the hubble volume is expanding into anything other than the unobservable 4-d universe that excompasses the hubble volume
Except that it's expanding. The extra space that is created while expanding is just part of the higher dimensional space of which we are a sub. That's the explanation for dark energy.
Not at all. Language is a very complex matter. We can communicate but probably we cannot understand them. That's the issue
I understand my dog. She can even act! She was jealous when I paid attention to another dog. She acted as if her back leg was hurting suddenly. I understood.
I think you are misunderstanding stimulus with language. She is acting with pure primary interests. It is so complex for her to analyze what is the meaning of "being jealous"
I'm with you on this. Wittgenstein said that if a lion could talk we would not understand him. I disagree. If the lion said "I'm hungry and you look good to eat", I would get the idea.
When the cat scratches at the cupboard door it's because she believes her food is in there. To think she doesn't have beliefs because she doesn't have language I would have to have a pre-existing theory about beliefs that would stop me thinking that. But why should I?
[What has that got to do with the start of everything? I just saw the thread title]
But it is more complex than it. We just give it a significance. Our dogs act and interact with us but there is a gap between what we think and what they feel. This is why we have to train and educate our dogs. To try to behave "correctly" according to our circumstances.
When the cat scratches at the cupboard door it's because she believes her food is in there. To think she doesn't have beliefs because she doesn't have language I would have to have a pre-existing theory about beliefs that would stop me thinking that. But why should I?
Exactly. In a loose sense. If our dog jumps me and heads to where her leash hangs I understand what she tells me. Right now she makes a kind of weeping sound in fact. Wants my attention. I look at her, she looks back with asking eyes. How difficult can it be?
But it is more complex than it. We just give it a significance. Our dogs act and interact with us but there is a gap between what we think and what they feel. This is why we have to train and educate our dogs.
She just has to learn not to pee in our bed. Damn her!
Oddly enough, the issue was discussed from the opposite angle in another thread about 'hinge propositions'. There is a view that 'hinge propositions' are part of our 'animal' nature, an almost pre-verbal behavioural response rather underlies our core beliefs.
"Of course, their being ineffable does not prevent our hinges from showing themselves in what we say, but here too, certainty is animal. My hinge certainty that 'I have a body' is much the same as a lion's instinctive certainty of having a body."
— Danièle Moyal-Sharrock, p8
It needs no evidential justification that my dog understands "are we going for a walk?" (In my native language). If I say so, her head rotates a bit. She knows what I mean. She understands the words. She reacts. Stands up nervously, comes to lick my face. Other words don't have that effect. No matter how I say them. That's the evidence, if one likes evidence.
Let's say we discovered the true origin story of our Universe. What would a lifeform like us do with that information? Try to replicate the process? Is that what our Universe is, an attempt to replicate the origin process discovered by lifeforms in another Universe? and on it goes. I am not sure that the origin process matters as much as what each of us decides to do with our life.
I try to consider the Universe before any lifeform that was capable of asking a question, existed.
This was the state for the vast majority of the proposed 14 billion years of time passed so far.
To me, it's a little like sleeping or being knocked unconscious or being in a coma etc. If I don't dream, then I become unaware of the passage of time. This stoppage of time is of course only relative to my conscience. So under my personal reference frame, the Universe came into existence when I was born and will end when I die, perhaps for me, that's where the significance of this Universe does and should begin and end. Personal oblivion before and after my life is nothing to fear.
I see the proposed 14 billion years of the Universe as a 'Universal time frame,' not a relative time frame.
It's 'the past' of the Universe. We can only experience the 'reality' of the sun as it was minutes ago, not as it is 'now.' To experience it, as it is now, we have to 'remove the distance between us,' physically. It's the same with people. We communicate on this website and this simulate's the removal of distance and allows us to know each other a little more but not as much as if we interacted in person, face to face, no distance between us, on a regular basis.
I don't think the suggestion that until 'thinking' life arrived, the Universe was in 'sleep mode,' but still mechanistically changed, is a deeply meaningful analogy but I do think there is some value in it.
I am content to say, for sure, since it began, the Universe demonstrates an ability to change over time.
The main driver is vast (probably not infinite) variety in vast numbers of combinations.
I am currently more attracted to the pan/cosmopsychist explanation of the 'fine tuning' problem than I am to the multiverse/Mtheory solution. As an atheist, I have no interest in the god fable.
I am attracted to Phillip Goff's 'cosmopsychism.' I like his description of:
"If we combine holism with panpsychism, we get cosmopsychism: the view that the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself. This is the view I ultimately defend in my book Consciousness and Fundamental Reality."
If you want to, you can read his 11 page essay at:
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life
When the panpsychists describe the consciousness of the Universe itself., they suggest that consciousness is made up of non-sentient quanta. We only become self-aware due to 'combination of particular quanta.'
I think that natural 'change' in the universe is trying to achieve, self-awareness through the thoughts of lifeforms such as us by means of asking and answering questions. Why this is true is another question that needs an answer. How this all started (origin process of our Universe) is also another question to be answered.
That's good enough for me, for now. It allows me to be happy in my life and not be something more difficult to live with such as pessimism or antinatalism etc. That would make me unhappy.
Sounds very simplistic but perhaps simplicity and parsimony is the way to go
I partially agree. I think the 14 billion years are one in many. I think that solves the problem of a beginning. There is no beginning, only beginnings following each other up. If all is dead and gone here (no pessimism intended here, I keep that for the foreseeable future), the universe reacts back to the source, from which a new time comes into being. Will we all meet again then? Who knows. I agree with all being endowed with consciousness. But not the universe as a whole trying to understand itself. It's us trying to understand. Are we just faces of the universe? A universal hydra? Well, I'm sure if my head is chopped off it won't grow back. Other heads pop up continuously though, but all with their own bodies. I don't think we can create a new universe. Why should we? Is the reason to life generating new life? And the reason for that new life to spring new life again? If so, then what for? To live? Why? To live! That's the meaning/reason to live. Life itself. Some people though fuck the planet up. What a mess... But what can we do?
Oh! Forgot one thing... Of course all is created by gods. There is no physical theory that is self explanatory. The finetuning problem doesn't exist in an eternal universe in which only massless partìcles interact with fixed couplings. No hierarchy problem. Gravity is weak because of a relative (to us) high speed of light.
god must be atheistMarch 04, 2022 at 12:40#6627710 likes
nly a finger pointing at the CMB by which we interpretat
What's a CMB?
(Nothing against you, personally, but it irks me to no end when people are too lazy to type out three words, and they assume I will understand their abbreviations, while there is total communication breakdown due to not my fault, but due to their 1. laziness and 2. assumption that everyone knows what they know. And they make me fucking work by needing to type much more than three words to get their message over to me again, and to properly express my dismay about the related events their lack of consideration causes.)
Good points. Your text is interesting. I simply want to add that we could see the Universe just as something "static". I still defend that all those characteristics are imposed by humans because we like to improve our knowledge. This is why we study de cosmology or astrology. A normal human with a minimum interest for life would at least read or study a bit related to what is going on out there.
Nevertheless, I still defend (quite pessimistic I guess) that universe is like a huge empty living room that we full it with our knowledge. But imagine humans never existed at all. Well, the Universe would not care because it would be still there.
Thus, we are the ones just walking through
I think the 14 billion years are one in many. I think that solves the problem of a beginning. There is no beginning, only beginnings following each other up. If all is dead and gone here (no pessimism intended here, I keep that for the foreseeable future), the universe reacts back to the source, from which a new time comes into being.
So do you favour the oscillating Universe theory or Roger Penrose and his dissipating Universe and the creation of a new Universe within a new epoch of time?
What many of us continue to try to do. What people in history have tried to do. Learn from our mistakes and do better next time. Maybe this clash with Russia will be the last of its kind if we survive it or perhaps there is another one to come with China. Maybe after that such craziness will become forever smaller and local.
Good points. Your text is interesting. I simply want to add that we could see the Universe just as something "static".
Hello, first time I have chatted directly with you I think. A pleasure to chat with you.
Can you explain your 'The Universe just as something static' when it has demonstrated change from the moment of its origin?
I still defend that all those characteristics are imposed by humans because we like to improve our knowledge.
I think the anthropocentric tendency of human thought is a valid criticism but recognition of that tendency makes us take account of it when we postulate.
This is why we study de cosmology or astrology. A normal human with a minimum interest for life would at least read or study a bit related to what is going on out there.
Yes I agree but education will for most people, normally result in quick rejection of nonsense such as astrology.
Nevertheless, I still defend (quite pessimistic I guess) that universe is like a huge empty living room that we full it with our knowledge
I don't think this is pessimistic, the universe is physically vast and if we are the only creatures capable of 'complex thinking' then it really is pretty empty of 'meaning'. What a wonder, how incredibly exciting is it to think that we and we alone give meaning and significance to something so vast. To do this by just existing and thinking and being a part of the universe gives me an overwhelming feeling of wonder. Much more so than any story of god and paradise ever has or could.
But imagine humans never existed at all. Well, the Universe would not care because it would be still there.
Thus, we are the ones just walking through
But the Universe may have no capacity to care, except through us. The animals might care a little and thus imbue the Universe with a little ability to care. Maybe the dinosaurs offered the same but we are a lot better at it and we can act upon such in ways that the dino's and the current animals cannot. We can do science. Enough to leave this planetary nest perhaps and ask a lot of new questions and discover new answers about the Universe.
So do you favour the oscillating Universe theory or Roger Penrose and his dissipating Universe and the creation of a new Universe within a new epoch of time?
Well, not exactly oscillatory in the sense of a big bañg-bang-big-crunch, etc. More like big-bang-big-rip kinda thing. If our universe has accelerated towards oblivion, it could be a sign for the singularity at the "origin" (of a 4d space) to start a new blast from virtuality (virtual particles). This new 3d blast can expand after us on the higher dimensional space it's in.
Not yet no but nature suggests that for the sake of continued survival, it is wise to reproduce
Smolin says this happens inside black holes. Im sure you've heard that. But why should we if it all starts again after us? In a hunderd thousand trillion years after us? And if we could, you would have to pass a wormhole. If a wormhole comes to be in the first place (we'd be fucked...)
Maybe this clash with Russia will be the last of its kind if we survive it or perhaps there is another one to come with China. Maybe after that such craziness will become forever smaller and local.
Yeah. Let's hope (or pray, but I don't think that'll work) they won't nuke the fridge... Modern warfare ain't funny anymore.
Can you explain your 'The Universe just as something static' when it has demonstrated change from the moment of its origin?
I meant to the static meaning from a philosophical point of view. Probably I didn't choose the correct world. I was thinking about the universe as something rigid which stays there, doesn't caring or wondering about Earth's existence.
how incredibly exciting is it to think that we and we alone give meaning and significance to something so vast. To do this by just existing and thinking and being a part of the universe gives me an overwhelming feeling of wonder.
We can do science. Enough to leave this planetary nest perhaps and ask a lot of new questions and discover new answers about the Universe
Exactly, we can do science because we care and we tend to be more complex than animals. It is a paradox because while we are supposedly more intelligent than others, at the same time we suffer more about uncertainty and concerns
If our universe has accelerated towards oblivion, it could be a sign for the singularity at the "origin" (of a 4d space) to start a new blast from virtuality (virtual particles). This new 3d blast can expand after us on the higher dimensional space it's in.
I think this is a similar viewpoint to that of Roger Penrose but I think he also suggests that some information can pass from time epoch to time epoch and that each Universe may be very different.
He does not support the multiverse theory.
I might hope so! But is there truly a greater whole? A cosmic Hydra?
Well, If one accepts that the Universe is the 'whole' then no.
I don't like to use mythological beast analogies such as the Hydra in such chats as such analogies don't help my conception/perceptions in any useful way.
Smolin says this happens inside black holes. Im sure you've heard that. But why should we if it all starts again after us? In a hunderd thousand trillion years after us? And if we could, you would have to pass a wormhole. If a wormhole comes to be in the first place
To me, you are just demonstrating 'natural frustration' at not knowing all the answers. Patience is a virtue (so they say). I understand your frustration but don't ever let it dull your focus or affect your sanity. The Universe needs you to do your duty and ask and answer questions as rigorously as you can.
True, true, true. So true I said it thrice. If we go extinct then, in my opinion, the Earth and perhaps the Universe will be set back for at least many thousands of years.
I am agree. I want to share with you this paper: The Dark Forest Postulates and the Fermi Paradox. I guess you would like it.
Thanks, I will add it to my 'text I need to read now! list,' sadly this list grows ever longer.
I am some familiarity with the Fermi paradox of vast size of the Universe and probability versus no extra terrestrial intelligent life found so far, despite SETI's efforts.
It is a paradox because while we are supposedly more intelligent than others, at the same time we suffer more about uncertainty and concerns
I don't think this is paradoxical, I think it's consequential. We care and so we suffer and so we care.
We would not act so fervently against suffering if we did not have it as a comparator to non-suffering. Caring is what makes us want to convert suffering into non-suffering.
I think this is a similar viewpoint to that of Roger Penrose but I think he also suggests that some information can pass from time epoch to time epoch and that each Universe may be very different.
He does not support the multiverse theory.
Similar but not the same. Does he postulate contraction after expansion?
Do we have a duty towards the Universe? Sounds the same like having a duty towards god
'Duty' was just my choice of word to try to suggest a 'strong responsibility' on your part. It was my statement and I am of the Universe but I cannot claim it as a universal dictate, especially if you disagree with it. How about 'kindness/gesture of positivity/support toward the Universe. No, I don't project into the god fable with that particular sentence, in my opinion.
If, and once, we have answered all questions, as we would then be omnipotent and omniscient.
This might take a while though.
Well, I think I know the answer to cosmological problems (matter/antimatter asymmetry with associated left/right asymmetry, hierarchy problem, arrow of time, fundamental fields, particle structure, etc.) but if that makes omnipotent? Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?
Similar but not the same. Does he postulate contraction after expansion?
No, he suggests the expansion will continue and heat deaths will eventually reach a point when all that's left is black holes and they will slowly evaporate and then we will only have space which he suggests is the same as having nothing. At this point, a 'singularity' will inflate again and local time will reset to 0.
A new Epoch.
There are various YouTube vids where he talks about this. There is also one where he debates with William Lane Craig. Craig listens much more than he talks, which I think is a good idea for him.
Caring is what makes us want to convert suffering into non-suffering.
But suffering is one of the most trascendental emotions we have. To be honest, I think is quite impossible to "not suffer" at all. Philosophical aspects as "happiness", "sadness", "suffering" is upon us and our attitude towards the life.
I even think that most of the days of our lives are full of uncertainty and sadness.
Well, I think I know the answer to cosmological problems (matter/antimatter asymmetry with associated left/right asymmetry, hierarchy problem, arrow of time, fundamental fields, particle structure, etc.) but if that makes omnipotent? Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?
Let's say you are correct. If you can think of a question that has not been answered and 'proved' then we cannot claim omnipotence or omniscience. I did not understand " Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?"
Craig listens much more than he talks, which I think is a good idea for him.
Haha! Sounds like Penrose holds a similar idea. The universe that is left after evaporation of all holes will contain photons only. Maybe some neutrinos if the holes are made of neutrons. These don't have a clock that ticks and no real clock will be present. All neutrinos will annihilate with anti neutrinos again, indirectly creating photons again. But where resides the singularity in Penrose's optics?
Let's say you are correct. If you can think of a question that has not been answered and 'proved' then we cannot claim omnipotence or omniscience. I did not understand " Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?"
But what if we can't think such a question (about the fundamentals, that is)?
If we know everything then don't we know also what's possible or not?
Yes! Here I completely agree. But not because gods made it, like you know I believe. The universe and all in it is just great.
You agree, because you are, as I believe most people are, fundamentally good. This is confirmed by your last sentence. Putin and his forces are killing Ukrainians due to perceived fears (justified or otherwise) he has of 'the West'. It's an old human story, that's been going on since we left the wild,
tribalism. The problem is that the main tribes now have m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction facing all of us. Perhaps such a choice does have to be faced by an emergent intelligence such as us.
Perhaps it's a natural consequence of technological advancement. Perhaps if we survive, we will be one step closer to leaving our planetary nest. I hope we choose to unite.
But suffering is one of the most trascendental emotions we have. To be honest, I think is quite impossible to "not suffer" at all. Philosophical aspects as "happiness", "sadness", "suffering" is upon us and our attitude towards the life.
I even think that most of the days of our lives are full of uncertainty and sadness
I have always held a similar view. I need my suffering, as a comparator, without it or at least, without its threat, I cannot appreciate pleasure. I enjoy food most when I suffer hunger. I love a cold pint of beer much much more when I am very very thirsty etc. Any story of heaven has no meaning to us unless you offer the alternative of hell. I am not suggesting that horrific suffering is desirable and should not be prevented. I am simply saying that we need comparators. That does not mean we will always require extreme examples to initiate major changes in the direction and priorities of our society, as we seem to need now.
Atrocities of the past have caused major positive changes but there are better ways if we become a more enlightened and united species.
he suggests the expansion will continue and heat deaths will eventually reach a point when all that's left is black holes and they will slowly evaporate and then we will only have space which he suggests is the same as having nothing.
If photons are all that's left, time has gone but there are still photons. Does he say how or where the new bang occurs? Or is that state itself the singularity?
The problem is that the main tribes now have m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction facing all of us. Perhaps such a choice does have to be faced by an emergent intelligence such as us.
I'm not sure I understand. The choice of MAD, mad as it is, will be faced by an emerging intelligence?
What do you mean by timeless motion. Because for me motion indicates a reference to space and distance. And I can’t see how motion from A to B can exist without some form of time which elapses between them. I thought space and time are inseparable - the space time continuum. How does motion occur without some medium be it time or space?
But where resides the singularity in Penrose's optics?
I think I was paraphrasing him a little. I think he just posits a new Universe starting within the space of the old. I think he calls it 'Universal bounce.' I can't remember if he mentioned the source as a 'singularity' or not. I would have to watch the particular video again or at least forward it to the relevant point. I have watched most of his youtube stuff, I would recommend them.
I watch a lot of the online cosmologist offerings. I like to hear about all the current opposing ideas.
Currently, I like watching Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Laurence Krauss, Carlo Rovelli, Alan Guth, etc
I have also watched some very good female cosmologists take part in online discussions but they are still 'up and coming' and don't yet have the online presence they should have on sites like youTube.
If photons are all that's left, time has gone but there are still photons. Does he say how or where the new bang occurs? Or is that state itself the singularity?
He does say that photons are all that would be left, your right on that but I don't recall what he cited as the source of the 'bounce.' I went to YouTube to find the exact video I was talking about but there are a few so I didn't have enough time to track it down but I will and I will tell it to you in a PM.
Atrocities of the past have caused major positive changes but there are better ways if we become a more enlightened and united species.
I wish most of the people follow your philosophy. But, sadly, the reality is quite complex. Look at Russia-Ukraine war or other issues as Brexit. The governors tend to do the worst options possible
I'm not sure I understand. The choice of MAD, mad as it is, will be faced by an emerging intelligence?
Well, I just mean that it seems to me that if you consider history since we left the wild. We were in small groups that united by conquest/ political marriage between tribal leaders and the daughters of other tribal leaders etc and became bigger tribes. Technology provided us with many useful inventions as well as more efficient ways to kill each other. M.A.D seems like an almost 'natural consequence' of our technological advancement. Our rate of technological advancement is tied to our ability to discover new knowledge, which is tied to emerging/developing intelligence. So the choice of self-destruction or facing the threat of self-destruction seems to 'come with the territory,' when we reach the technological stage we have now reached. I was merely suggesting that the current global threat caused by the relationship between Russia and the West was always inevitable. I hope we all survive it and I hope that the result is that the big world tribes will see the necessity to unite into one human species, currently on one planet.
Well, processes can be reversible and irreversible. All physical processes in the universe are irreversible. Before the big bang, there were no real particles yet to constitute irreversible time. But there was a kind of clock ticking in the form of virtual particles. That clock was (and is) in motion but it has no direction in time. In the case of a pendulum that has a constant period (which can't really exist, while a caesium clock or comparables come close and divert only 1 second in a trillion years or something) you can't tell if it goes forward or backwards. It's that motion I talk about, and that was only present before inflation, to kick inflation in one direction.
Is nothing the same as non-existence? When you say that something came from nothing, are you saying that existence came from non-existence
Trying to explain what nothing is, is one of the hardest questions there is. The best we can do at present is 'an absence of something.' This is of course a very unsatisfactory answer but its all we have at present. Give us another million years to answer this one. That's not much to ask, considering the almost 14 billion years it took to produce something like you which was able to ask the question.
For me, non-existence has a 'yet' flavour to it. Non-existence to me, still has a 'field of potential.'
But all I can offer in attempting an 'answer' such questions is not an answer at all, but merely my opinion based on my personal interpretation.
I wish most of the people follow your philosophy. But, sadly, the reality is quite complex. Look at Russia-Ukraine war or other issues as Brexit. The governors tend to do the worst options possible
I agree, but at least you and I can shout about it. We can protest and demand better. I am convinced that you and I are actually many many millions, perhaps even billions of people. If we could organise, our voices would drown out the voices of maniacs such as Putin and if that is not enough then our combined actions could destroy all maniacs and stop future maniacal behavior. We have not been able to achieve this unity and level of global organisation yet but we are also not ALL DEAD YET, so maniacs beware, wee f****** see what you bas***** are doing to our chance of a fulfilled and meaningfull life.
But what if we can't think such a question (about the fundamentals, that is)?
If we know everything then don't we know also what's possible or not?
Keep faith in us and in yourself. We are alive! and as long as that's true we will keep trying to think of new questions. If we ever know everything, then the question 'what's possible' will no longer be valid as we will know the answer, as you suggest but we don't know everything yet as unanswered questions still exist.
I may not understand the deeper point your are trying to make to me but I will try this:
The philosophers will annoy themselves with paradoxes such as 'is it true that there are no more questions?' and they will point out that this is itself a question and then some will conclude that 'there are no more questions,' is an impossible state. But 'there are no more questions' can also be a statement not a question. If it is true 'at that instant of time.' then there is no paradox.
The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.
The philosophers will annoy themselves with paradoxes such as 'is it true that there are no more questions?'
What will be the answer? Will it be the last question in the great book of questions? Will the answer be found in the appendix or supplement of the book? If the answer "no", what will be another question to ask?
Can't think of another question... Is that possible?
What will be the answer? Will it be the last question in the great book of questions? Will the answer be found in the appendix or supplement of the book? If the answer "no", what will be another question to ask?
Can't think of another question... Is that possible?
I think the last two questions will probably be something like what is nothing? and what is our purpose now?
There would be no more need for memorialising knowledge (no books) if component lifeforms can collectivise and communicate with everyone at will or 'pool all knowledge' whereby access is instant and available to all (these are just my imaginings/musings) I would IMAGINE an omnipotent, omniscient 'collective' would only have the final option to recreate or repeat the process of universe/life creation, there would be no other purpose to them. So if you want to label such as the moment god is created then I can deal with that but as I said before, in a previous post, we could also call such a moment Fred.
It's Friday night, I'm away for beer's and stuff. I will reply to your other two posts tomorrow EugeneW.
Have a good evening!
If we ever know everything, then the question 'what's possible' will no longer be valid as we will know the answer
In mathematics factorial represents a function of all possible combinations. If you know everything (a set) you must also know every recombinant or “rephrased” question (the set of this set) then you must know the set or the set of that set and so on into an infinite regress. Knowledge and information can always be rehashed from a new perspective. If it couldn’t then lateral or creative thinking and imagination wouldn’t not be possible. This I believe to know everything is infinitely impossible
There are some options with problems, and I see that nobody has voted for any of them yet.
Most do not solve the problem of original cause of existence. I mean, my parents are my original cause of existence, but they don't solve the problem since their cause also needs explaining.
So for instance, "Some form of fundamental consciousness or god created the universe" lacks an explanation for the creator's existence. It is usually hand-waved away with the always-existed reply, but that just reduces that choice to the eternal model without a beginning, listed as a different choice.
Multiverse - universes “give birth to eachother” or all possibilities must exist.
While a level 2 multiverse has this sort of property, as do some theories about black holes being those other universes, in both cases, there must still be a first cause, left unexplained.
Nothing is real. We live in some form of simulated universe
Living in a simulation would very much constitute being real, and it doesn't explain the origin of the simulation.
Big Bang - some singularity was the original cause. Physics once complete fulfills an explanation
The big bang theory is a theory of how the universe evolved from the dense singularity. It offers no explanation of the origin of that singularity.
Other options - please elaborate.
I take more of a relational view, like RQM (Rovelli). The question in the OP is meaningless as worded. Existence is a relation, not a property/predicate. Nice thing about that view is the problem you're pondering isn't a problem anymore. X exists relative to Y iff Y measures X. But there is no meaning to X exists or Y exists since it isn't expressed as a relation.
god must be atheistMarch 05, 2022 at 01:44#6630800 likes
Reply to god must be atheist It's well-known to the scientifically literate as the link provided shows. Stop whining, man; I'm not here to spoon-fed that much.
god must be atheistMarch 05, 2022 at 02:08#6630900 likes
Fair enough. One thing to ponder, though: If you are trying to communicate an idea to someone else, would it not be more CONDUCIVE to your cause to make the other person understand you "with" the least possible effort, on the path of the least amount of obstacles to the other "person's" comprehension?
The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.
What does the above mean, anyone?
I've pondered the liars paradox before and understand the paradox, but how and in what sense can it be true, within a particular instance of time?
Also, if it can be true within a particular instance of time, what philosophical or scientific implications does it have?
god must be atheistMarch 05, 2022 at 04:53#6631420 likes
Reply to 180 Proof Thank you, 180. I've known you for your magnanimity on these forums. I got carried away, but if something positive came out of my rants, then perhaps it was worth it.
To be frank, I've been forever angry about others using abbreviations that were unclear to me. That anger triggered by a long line of occurrences of the same kind over a long period of time, never subsided; in fact, it always increased with every new occurrence.
That's why I never established a family.
I am sorry, and I apologize, for putting you through this. My only defense is that I get incredibly annoyed by this habit of others.
Again, I apologize for my misbehaviour, and I am glad something will change in the future for the better.
If we know the basic fundamental workings of nature, couldn't we say then what things would be impossible to do?
Yes, but only impossible due to the natural constraints/rules/laws that appear to be 'impossible to defy.'
It is impossible for mass to travel at light speed within our Universe. If you have no mass then you can travel AT the speed of light but not faster than it. So, the human IMAGINATION, which to me, is just a form of 'speculative thought,' (but still perfectly valid thought) will come up with 'sci-fi' solutions.
Bend a piece of paper and you can touch two points together. This thinking manifested in the idea in Star Trek of folding/warping space. So will it be technically possible, say, millions of years in the future, when we are transhuman to the extent that we can exist as pure energy and can that energy be placed in 'superpositional' states that allow us to be in more than one place/planet/galaxy at the same time.
Will we discover that space really does have layers? Subspace, Hyperspace/ Wormholes etc and will we be able to 'conquer distance' by such or other means.
This is only some of the musings of current sci-fi Imagineers. Look at what human science has achieved in the tiny period of time it has had so far.
My current statement towards all those 'impossibility' claims and the list of 'things that humans can never know and will never be able to do,' is simple. "Give us a chance!"
We do have a lot of time before any of the end scenarios for the Universe occur.
We are still little fledglings in our wee nest called planet Earth, we have only tipped our toes in the vast cosmic ocean.
So a statement can be false and true? The electron has mass but its essence has not?
I cannot totally defeat all the 'logical dilemma's/impossibilities,' proposed by philosophical or mathematical logic but I can offer some thoughts that may nibble a little at their claimed 'impenetrability.'
'What is the beginning and end of a circle?' Well, it can be anywhere on the circle YOU DECIDE it to be.
Every point on the circle can be its beginning and its end. Human will seems to have dominance here.
Can a statement be false and true, well, 'this statement is false,' can by human will, be declared as true.
I think it is more important to ask, what are the consequences of making this statement true for a particular instant of time? Again by human will, we can decide to make it false after that instant of time and then analyse the consequences of doing that.
A simple example would be 'This exploding nuclear bomb won't kill us so let it explode.'
If we decide this is true or false then the possible outcomes are we die or we survive.
To me, that's not what matters, what matters is that we can choose. The choice may be bad or good but we can choose.
We have dilemmas like the barber's paradox but IN REALITY, every barber can get a shave, despite the logical paradox of 'a barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves, so who then, must shave the Barber?'
Human will, can break a paradox by making a decision regardless of logical rules. This must be true as in real life all barbers can shave themselves despite propositional logics position that they should not do so.
'This statement is false.' Ok! I think that is true, oh! now I think it's false, oh!, now I think it's neither true nor false and in this instant of time, I label it a 'paradox.'
Well, that's all fine and dandy, so what do we do now?
Do you see what I mean? The real consequence of such thinking is that the Universe continues regardless of such musings, as does our daily lives, despite all enigmas.
It is that fact we must understand and celebrate.
We can continue to try to answer all questions and try to identify new ones.
Human will, allows me to live a happy, meaningful, useful, positive, contributive life and enjoy thinking about these impossible enigmas in the process of doing so. What happens when an irresistible force meets the immovable object?
In this instant of time, I think it's a BIG BANG and the creation of a new Universe or a new Fred....... but I could be wrong!......
In mathematics factorial represents a function of all possible combinations. If you know everything (a set) you must also know every recombinant or “rephrased” question (the set of this set) then you must know the set or the set of that set and so on into an infinite regress. Knowledge and information can always be rehashed from a new perspective. If it couldn’t then lateral or creative thinking and imagination wouldn’t not be possible. This I believe to know everything is infinitely impossibl
Your musings are as valid as mine. You have added mathematical set theory to your musings to strengthen your posit. Mathematics is a powerful tool of logic.
I assign great value to everything mathematics and logic (as we currently understand it) dictates but I personally, don't like words like 'impossible' and 'infinite.'
I fully accept the Universe does not care what I like or don't like but I counter that position with the claim that as far as we currently know, the Universe has no inherent ability to care, other than through lifeforms like me and you. I think human willpower, in its individual and collective form can have a seriously significant effect on the Universe. I don't mean this in any supernatural way. I don't mean that if I could only focus my will strongly enough, it would overwhelm the laws of physics or rules of mathematical set theory. I just mean that my will can allow me to keep believing that it might be possible that in some transhuman form in the very distant future we may be able to traverse and interact with the Universe in ways similar to how consciousness exists within the human concept of 'self.' Perhaps this will allow the possibility of all questions being answered.
I am much more attracted to this form or projected naturalism than I am to any concept of theistic entities which already exist.
Science normally considers the appearance of an infinity, as a failure in some aspect of the mathematical approach used. I think if an 'infinite regress' shows up then the thinking behind it is
flawed. It's easy for me to say this, I appreciate that, especially when I can't offer anything better than 'I don't like infinities.' But perhaps we will have better answers in the distant future.
The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.
What does the above mean, anyone?
I've pondered the liars paradox before and understand the paradox, but how and in what sense can it be true, within a particular instance of time?
Also, if it can be true within a particular instance of time, what philosophical or scientific implications does it have?
I can feel your incredulity and your protest but your last sentence is my main point.
If you personally decided, within an instant of time, that 'this statement if false,' is true then indeed, what philosophical or scientific implications would your decision have? Some philosophers and some scientists would say you are wrong, others might say you are inaccurate and it's more accurate/more useful to science and philosophy to say it's a paradoxical statement. Is it's more useful to say it's paradoxical or it's true or it's false? I don't think it matters much for now, when we consider the current borders/limits/purview of science and philosophy
My simple point is that we need to celebrate the 'thinking' and not get bogged down or disheartened by the enigma. I am pointing out that significant science has only had a few thousand years out of the proposed 14 billion. Perhaps we will be able to fully explain paradox in the future.
It's the same for the origin process of the Universe. Give us at least another million years to work on the problem.
Will we discover that space really does have layers? Subspace, Hyperspace/ Wormholes etc and will we be able to 'conquer distance' by such or other means
Wormholes like in interstellar don't exist. Wormholes are a fantasy due to the non-pointlike character of particles.
Now we're getting somewhere! Take of your hat and throw it 6 miles up! Screaming! I don't think understanding can get better. What I don't understand why physics forums are so unwilling to see that quarks and leptons are not fundamental. I asked on stack exchange, both the physics and philosophy site, and the question was closed almost instantly. Though philosophy took some longer.
I fully accept the Universe does not care what I like or don't like but I counter that position with the claim that as far as we currently know, the Universe has no inherent ability to care, other than through lifeforms like me and you. I think human willpower, in its individual and collective form can have a seriously significant effect on the Universe. I
So you think the universe, via us, has become self aware? If we know certain things about it, is that the universe knowing? No, it's us knowing.
You think we can èxist as photons? Don't think so. We would have no substance and feel no passage of time.
Photon is merely a label. Is a thought made up of massless constituents? I don't think we know yet.
can a human consciousness exist in the future as a non-corporeal form? Maybe.
We would have no substance and feel no passage of time.
I have always found this one very interesting. I think that a non-corporeal human conscience can still be destroyed. Star trek suggests possible answers to your physics problems. If mass and energy are merely different states of the same material then the question becomes, can a way be found to convert from one to the other and back again, like in star treks transporters/holosuites/food replicators.
The time/age problem is solved by traversing distance in something like a 'warp bubble.' Total sci-fi at the moment and perhaps you will understandably say "Yes, and such abilities will always be total fiction," and you might be correct but I simply prefer the sci-fi conjecture of shows like star trek compared to the god sci-fi.
Now we're getting somewhere! Take of your hat and throw it 6 miles up! Screaming! I don't think understanding can get better. What I don't understand why physics forums are so unwilling to see that quarks and leptons are not fundamental. I asked on stack exchange, both the physics and philosophy site, and the question was closed almost instantly. Though philosophy took some longer.
We all get frustrated sometimes by our lack of knowledge and our treatment by others, some of whom we consider as very learned. I don't think such experiences will stop someone like you from continuing to ask the questions you wish to ask. I celebrate human tenacity as well.
So you think the universe, via us, has become self aware? If we know certain things about it, is that the universe knowing? No, it's us knowing
We are part of the Universe so I think reference to an object is a reference to all of its parts.
The Universe is not yet self-aware as we do not yet know how to combine into a single collective mind of individuals. We would also have to confirm that we were the only such lifeforms in the Universe. I think a self-aware Universe could only be realised as a 'thought combination' of all lifeforms within it.
Fully panpsychist. I am not saying this is definitely possible, I am saying, it might be and I am further saying I am more attracted to that projection of naturalism than I am attracted to dualism or theism.
How can it be now, when there are unanswered questions?
Well, and I know it maybe sounds psychotic or cranky, couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? To actually prove it, you'll need a looooot of energy though. But it proves that theories precede practice, though they're rooted in it at the same time (true and not true at the same).
Well, and I know it maybe sounds psychotic or cranky, couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature?
Well do you mean only you? from a religious style 'chosen one' perspective or as a random happenstance or as the Universe's deliberate 'reasoned' decision? or just as a result of your own musing about the Universe rather than any direct contribution from the Universe to you personally.
I think the first three such claims are traditionally risky from the aspect of (and I think of no gentle way to put this,) mental stability. That would not make such claims wrong (if you are indeed making any such claim) It would just make them unadvisable in general discussion groups.
I think it would be simply better to say that you are convinced that your idea of the basic structure and working of the Universe are correct.
To actually prove it, you'll need a looooot of energy though.
Do you mean to experimentally demonstrate that your picture of the Universe is true would require a vast amount of energy input, more than is available by any current scientific technology?
This is often the case, yes but sometimes discovery is by accident or repeated practice causes a general theory to form in the mind of one who repeats the practice 'ad nausea.'
though they're rooted in it at the same time (true and not true at the same).
So you mean theory is rooted in practice as well as preceding it, I can understand what you mean by this
Btw here are the Roger Penrose vids I mentioned:
The first one is the debate with William Lane Craig and is about 1.5 hours long.
The second is where he suggests what might have happened before the big bang.
It's not the more detailed one I watched where he talks about different epochs of time for each big bang but it introduces his basic idea and it's only 17 mins long. I am in pursuit of the other one.
Well do you mean only you? from a religious style 'chosen one' perspective or as a random happenstance or as the Universe's deliberate 'reasoned' decision? or just as a result of your own musing about the Universe rather than any direct contribution from the Universe to you personally.
I think I understand your name now. Universeness. We all have it. I think Fred shows itself to everybody. To all creatures. Not only me.
I think the first three such claims are traditionally risky from the aspect of (and I think of no gentle way to put this,) mental stability. That would not make such claims wrong (if you are indeed making any such claim) It would just make them unadvisable in general discussion groups.
What three claims do you mean? Doesn't the mental has to be unstable for the fighting of standard models, which bear mental stability?
This is often the case, yes but sometimes discovery is by accident or repeated practice causes a general theory to form in the mind of one who repeats the practice 'ad nausea
Serendipity is almost omnipresent in science or technology. The pigeon shit on the reflector (leading to CMB radiation detection), the photographic plate left in the drawer by Becquerell (I suspect though he knew about radioactivity from his dad who, when B was a kid, saw radioactivity already, but he didn't know; B did and set it all up for Nobel prize money; the sneaky bastard!). Or Fleming, the discovery of teflon, of graviton strings, Feigenbaum universality (on his pocket calculator...), serendipity elements in PDE's, Archimedes, the 7 bridges of Koningsberg, the microwave oven, etc. etc. What discovery doesn't involve it?
Thanks for the link. Iconoclastic thinkers tend to be unstable by nature almost...
Iconoclastic thinkers tend to be unstable by nature almost.
Its often said that genius and madness are close siblings. There are many examples of very talented people who were also slightly mad. The music/film/book world has many examples. Science and philosophy have many examples as well, from Pythagoras to Nikolai Tesla. I am not suggesting such people have never made serious contributions to their field but I just feel more comfortable with what I see as 'rational discourse.' I would accept an accusation of personal bias or narrow-mindedness on this however.
The three claims I was trying to highlight were:
1. The religious chosen one or christ complex. Real People from Joan of Arc to Aleister Crowley and Rasputin have claimed to be 'chosen to know what the rest of the human race does not know.'
2. A 'conscious universe' choosing an individual at random to reveal its workings and structure to.
3. A conscious universe choosing an individual as a 'reasoned' choice to reveal its working and secrets to.
I cannot prove that these are not true claims and that anyone who makes such claims are slightly mad, but I do think such claims are highly umlikely.
I am not saying you fit into any of these three descriptions in accordance with your words: Quoting EugeneW
couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature?
I was just asking you to explain your words above, with a little more detail.
I prefer terms like 'thinking outside the box,' 'lateral thinking,' 'creative thinking, etc' rather than the image of a Universe that can reveal its workings to individuals. But maybe I am being rather conventional.
Serendipity is almost omnipresent in science or technology. The pigeon shit on the reflector (leading to CMB radiation detection), the photographic plate left in the drawer by Becquerell (I suspect though he knew about radioactivity from his dad who, when B was a kid, saw radioactivity already, but he didn't know; B did and set it all up for Nobel prize money; the sneaky bastard!). Or Fleming, the discovery of teflon, of graviton strings, Feigenbaum universality (on his pocket calculator...), serendipity elements in PDE's, Archimedes, the 7 bridges of Koningsberg, the microwave oven, etc. etc. What discovery doesn't involve it?
Yep, all good examples of serendipity in science but I don't think serendipity is involved in every scientific discovery but I haven't read every word regarding how maxwell arrived at his equations or how Boyle arrived at his law. You may be correct that at some point each would say 'I was lucky here because......
Yep, all good examples of serendipity in science but I don't think serendipity is involved in every scientific discovery but I haven't read every word regarding how maxwell arrived at his equations or how Boyle arrived at his law. You may be correct that at some point each would say 'I was lucky here because......
Would be a good new thread. Are all discoveries pigeon shit? Even Maxwell's? It's only when the theory is worked out rationally that it seems invented or discovered while searching for it. Reality is more complex that methodology books want it to be.
Ha Ha, you always seem to get a wee 'god' image in there somehow!
Haha! Well, I don't eat my panties for them! Fred is the universe. God is Stephen hiding in it... How can the universe exist without a kind of intelligence that has blown or screamed it into existence? The same can be asked of gods, but an eternal intelligence seems more plausible than intelligence evolving in a non intelligent universe. How can the laws of nature and the stuff in it obeying them have come to be by themselves?
I prefer terms like 'thinking outside the box,' 'lateral thinking,' 'creative thinking, etc' rather than the image of a Universe that can reveal its workings to individuals. But maybe I am being rather conventional.
But if the universe wants to become self aware, wouldn't it be best to show herself to us?
How can the universe exist without a kind of intelligence that has blown or screamed it into existence? The same can be asked of gods, but an eternal intelligence seems more plausible than intelligence evolving in a non intelligent universe. How can the laws of nature and the stuff in it obeying them have come to be by themselves?
These are tough questions. I think we need that million years of scientific thinking that I mentioned, at least, before any answers that are more than pure conjecture become possible.
I am currently, personally more convinced of intelligence evolving/progressing within a Universe that had no intelligence for most of its proposed 14 billion year existence than I am convinced by the posit of an intervening omniscience who write tablets of commandments, dictates contradictory stories to chosen ones and parts waters.
As I said, If God/Fred is an emergent omniscience in this Universe by way of the combined intellect of all lifeforms wihin it networking with each other when all questions have been answered, and this has all happened before, and our Universe is actually a reproduction of another omniscient universe/God/Fred, and reality is actually a multiverse of omniscient Fred's all reproducing, then fair enough. Perhaps this even gives some value to a monotheistic deist position. Again, such musings, are all pure conjecture.
We and many many others will think about this stuff until we die but I predict that every human alive today and their children and their children and..... will be dead before we get anywhere near the answer. Perhaps when the transhumans arrive then who knows if that will speed things up or not.
But if the universe wants to become self aware, wouldn't it be best to show herself to us?
I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will."
I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will. So, if the Universe could do as you suggest then it already would have, but not just to one of us, as that would be rather inefficient. It would have 'shown herself' to all of us, in the same way as the theist god would appear to all of us if it existed and could.
I was thinking perhaps it would be true (or false for that matter) if you just stopped and didn't ask the next question in the infinite regression that the liars paradox creates.
To be honest, I think I know. Not because I'm the chosen one or whatever BS, but because I'm interested, gave it a lot of thought, and somehow my subconsciousness made all parts "click". The puzzle pieces fell into the right place. It clicked.
I was thinking perhaps it would be true (or false for that matter) if you just stopped and didn't ask the next question in the infinite regression that the liars paradox creates
Such an action on your part is an example of what I am trying to say. Your act of will would be effective in that it would allow you to prevent that which cannot yet be understood from having a possible detrimental affect on your psyche. In my opinion, this is a sensible/logical/valid/healthy response until new knowledge is gained. Constant contemplations of infinity has sent some deep thinkers mad.
I don't believe in infinities, but I cannot currently explain them so I acknowledge them, I don't spend time thinking about them, Impose a personal value and I move on and I think about that which I can conceive/perceive.
I also don't care if anyone calls me a 'cowardly thinker' for not 'smashing my brain' against 'infinity/paradox/impossible/immovable meeting irresistible etc,' I prefer my mental health and I don't care about the opinion of such people.
I think that it is valid, by 'act of human will' and within an 'instant/measure of time' to 'observe' a proposal of logic such as 'this statement is false' and impose, using a simple measure of personal preference, any ONE of the values true/false/paradox and then just move on without causing any important detrimental effect on the rigor of your current scientific or philosophical deliberations.
I hold to "none of the above, because we don't know the answer".
It may not be 'sexy', but isn't this the only honest answer?
A very reasonable position to take. One that allows people to just 'move on' and try to concentrate on the areas of science and philosophy which we can advance. We should never abandon the search for the true origin story but we have hardly learned how to crawl towards correct knowledge let alone walk or run towards it. We just don't have the know-how or the technology yet. Only our best geniuses can move us any distance at all, towards the correct origin story and I for one, am not in that league.
X exists relative to Y iff Y measures X. But there is no meaning to X exists or Y exists since it isn't expressed as a relation.
I'm not sure I fully understand your algebraic/relational argument here but are you talking about Rovelli's proposal regarding the measurement problem?
The collapse of the wave function due to the act of observation?
I think he suggests that this affect is only local, between the two systems X and Y involved.
The waveform only collapses from the standpoint of the observer not from the standpoint of the Universe.
Is this what you are referring to? and do you mean you cannot find out the origin story of the Universe by the act of experimental measurement?
To be honest, I think I know. Not because I'm the chosen one or whatever BS, but because I'm interested, gave it a lot of thought, and somehow my subconsciousness made all parts "click". The puzzle pieces fell into the right place. It clicked.
Interesting, and that's fair. Despite my comment about 'honesty' it's genuinely not my intention here to simply accuse others of dishonesty.
What answer would you give to the OP's question? I looked back in the thread a bit but didn't find your answer. Apologies if I missed it.
As usual, when you can see the functioning of something, you say "of course, how else?"
I felt puzzle pieces falling in place, after absorbing all kinds of theories. My subconsciousness helped me. The universe showed itself to me in it's great and amazingly simple true being.
The basic form is an open spatially 4D torus. A 4D Planck-sized (in width) wormhole connects two infinite 4D spaces on which two closed spherical 3D spheres, like two closed 3D branes, move away from the central wormhole, the singularity. Somewhat reminscent to pyrotechnical models and models that allow gravitons to travel in a 4th space dimension while matter is confined to 3D. The gravitons coming from virtual particle states, which are the only ones present in the initial 3D state around the wormhole, can induce negative curvature of the 4D space needed for that state to expand.
Quarks and leptons are made from two massless base fields and are almost pointlike. In reality they are Planck-sized torus shapes, ie, three large dimensions of a 6D space rolled up to circles, like a 2D space can be rolled up to a cilinder on which we can image a tiny circle for a particle. So 3D space is actually 6D and the 4D substrate actually 7D. The small torus shape in 6D is such that the 6D shape fits nicely on the thin 7D wormhole (which has an appearance of 4D).
For visibility, consider the inside part of a 2D torus. The mouth connects two spaces and has negative curvature. Consider the mouth Planck-sized. From this mouth, because of its negative curvature, can inflate two circles with matter into real existence. From the virtuality around the mouth the real particles are excited. BANG! Two mirrored universes.
The 3D branes, expanding on the 4 dimensional space, temporarily are decelerated. As observations have shown. Currently, the universe is expanding again and this will continue into the future, and when all stuff has turned to photons and has diluted into infinity, this will be a signal for a new pair of branes (3D universes), to get virtual particles inflated into reality again. A new time takes off, and again it accelerates all into oblivion again, only to signal for a new start at the source.
This is only a popular outline, but as Einstein said, if you can't explain it to a six year old, then you're on the wrong track. So let's see what's in store...
Does the term skeuomorphic ontology mean anything to you? Any sense can be applied to both of these words.
Or rather, if such a concept were valid in some sense, what could it mean?
What would it mean if I say, for instance, that the liars paradox was a skeuomorphic ontology? What sense could be made of that? This term could be applied and superimposed on any other concept. But what could it mean do you think?
I take more of a relational view, like RQM (Rovelli).
X exists relative to Y iff Y measures X. But there is no meaning to X exists or Y exists since it isn't expressed as a relation.
— noAxioms
I'm not sure I fully understand your algebraic/relational argument here but are you talking about Rovelli's proposal regarding the measurement problem?
The collapse of the wave function due to the act of observation?
That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation. It makes it sound like humans or things that 'observe' make any difference, which couldn't be further from what he says.
Any interaction between two causally separated systems results in a collapse of the wave function of the 'cause' system in relation to the 'effect' system.
The view, driven to its logical conclusion results in an ontology that doesn't suggest an 'existence' in need of being brought into existence, hence being an elegant solution to the problem posed in the OP. That was my point.
I think he suggests that this affect is only local, between the two systems X and Y involved.
The waveform only collapses from the standpoint of the observer not from the standpoint of the Universe.
Exactly, except I'd not have used the word 'observer'. Measurer maybe.
do you mean you cannot find out the origin story of the Universe by the act of experimental measurement?
The universe (as a whole) doesn't need an origin story, lacking anything that measures the universe. That would require an external observer. Internal interaction only results in self-consistent state.
Rovelli says no system can measure itself, which doesn't mean I can't see my arms, but it means the cat in the box cannot collapse its own wave function relative to the observer outside the box. The live cat cannot measure dead parts despite being in superposition of being dead and alive.
I'm not in a position to critique this at the level of mathematics or even to evaluate whether it's mathematically meaningful at all. As such, I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I don't see how it answers the OP's question. These 4D Plank-sized toruses and expanding 3D branes - where did they come from? How did they come to have the properties they have?
Why shouldn't a system be able to measure itself? If an observer measures Schrödinger's cat, it is said that the whole of the observer and cat is still in a superposition and that a second observer collapses that superimposed state. So the last observer will always remain in a superposition. Which means the whole universe stays in one. Weird. But it logically follows. So time for a change.
Basically it says the beginning in time happens in series. After us a next beginning and thereafter again. And before us. Ad infinitum. On that, eternal and infinite 4D space the 3D branes expand in two pieces of infinite bulk connected by a thin wormhole. The branes emerging backfire to their source (the wormhole) and inform when the next two universes (branes) can be inflated into reality (from virtuality).
InvoluntaryDecorumMarch 06, 2022 at 21:59#6636920 likes
Simulated universe would still require an explanation for the "real world" it comes from. Unless the logical workings of that world were completely disconnected to ours, which we wouldn't be able to grasp
Benj96: Hi. My view is more along the lines of your first choice "The universe came from nothing. Something is a property of nothingness". My rationale is below.
Before beginning, it's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which the mind would not be there. When I use the term "nothing", I'm talking about "nothing" itself. While one can't visualize this directly, it's important to try and get close and then extrapolate to what it might be like if the mind were not there.
I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". If this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice if we start with "nothing" is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing” but was in fact a "something". Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".
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. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This leads to the idea that a thing only exists where and when the grouping exists. For instance, groupings can exist inside a person's mind or outside the mind. For outside-the-mind groupings, like a book, the grouping is physically present and visually seen as an edge, boundary, or enclosing surface that defines this unit whole/existent entity. For inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.), the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.). 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.
Related points are:
1. 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".
2. Because the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself are two different things, our talking about "nothing" itself (which is derived from the mind's conception of "nothing") doesn't reify "nothing" itself. Our talking about it has nothing to do with whether or not "nothing" itself exists or not.
3. 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. In visualizing "nothing" one has to try to imagine what it's like when no minds are there. Of course, this is impossible, but we can try to extrapolate.
Reply to Benj96 I'm more along the lines of this. At the most fundamental level, the reason for what exists is inherent to it. I put my view on what this might be on page 6 of the comments.
The absolute nothing is absolutely nothing. How can something come to be from absolutely nothing? It can't. So there had to be a physical universe always. But how can this have come into being on its own, by the laws describing it physical evolution? It can't be because of these laws. Even if they are eternal, they didn't and can't have caused themselves. Only a divine being could. It needs intelligence. Divine intelligence.
?noAxioms
Why shouldn't a system be able to measure itself?
That was explained in my post. It would be akin to the cat (or any system) collapsing its own wavefunction, preventing it from being in a state of superposition relative to some other system. Superposition state would then never be observed.
Secondly and a bit more formally, a system at a time is not local, and it takes time to measure something non-local, so no non-local thing can measure itself:
A system at a given time (Y) can measure its past state (X), but its past state cannot measure the later state, so while X exists in relation to Y, Y does not exist in relation to X. If X and Y were the same thing, that would be a violation of law of non-contradiction, so X and Y are not the same thing, and thus no self-measurement has been done by any system.
If an observer measures Schrödinger's cat, it is said that the whole of the observer and cat is still in a superposition and that a second observer collapses that superimposed state.
Yes. That seems to be a statement that X might be measured by Y, but Z may not have measured either, so the state of X and Y is not collapsed in relation to Z. So no objective state for anything. The state of any (X say) is a relation with some other system Y or Z, and not necessarily the same state, as your example illustrates. Hence it being meaningless to say something like 'X exists' without a relation, similar to saying that events 1 and 2 are simultaneous without specification of a reference frame.
So the last observer will always remain in a superposition.
Which means the whole universe stays in one. Weird. But it logically follows. So time for a change.[/quote]Unintuitive maybe, but you seem to be able to follow it. Most don't get that far, balking when it rubs the intuitions/biases the wrong way.
Point is, the universe is not in need of existence if there's no external observer relative to which it is need of being.
Basically it says the beginning in time happens in series. After us a next beginning and thereafter again. And before us. Ad infinitum. On that, eternal and infinite 4D space the 3D branes expand in two pieces of infinite bulk connected by a thin wormhole. The branes emerging backfire to their source (the wormhole) and inform when the next two universes (branes) can be inflated into reality (from virtuality).
OK, but how do we "know" this? You seem to find it extremely plausible, but do we have any way of confirming it, or of eliminating alternative theories?
Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.
You might consider rethinking your analogies. :roll:
There are lots of alternatives. But considering the current observations, this model fits the best as far as I know, and offers a dark energy mechanism (the 4D space).
What I meant is, why can't the Schrödinger cat actually collapse without someone looking, observing. Standard QM says this doesn't happen but there are theories with an objective collapse.
What I meant is, why can't the Schrödinger cat actually collapse without someone looking, observing.
First of all, I balk at the word 'looking', since it makes it appear that humans or life forms play a preferred role. I can think of only one interpretation that suggests that, and even it was abandoned by its author (Wigner) due to it being driven to solipsism.
Secondly, I am not offering a falsification of objective collapse interpretations, but the relational interpretation isn't one of them. Relative to what system would the cat collapse without said system measuring the cat?
In standard QM, human observers play that special role, and together with the probabilistic interpretation, this leads to strange scenarios (like many worlds).
The bottle with poison breaks and kills the cat or not. If the superposition of, say, spin (thumb,) up and down interacts with a photon from outside, the photon can make it collapse to up (cat lives) or down (cat dies). Before the photon hits the superposition, the cat is just alive. So it's the spin that gets realized relationally. Likewise, all positions of particles make sense only because of interaction. Only relative to other positions they are meaningful.
Does the term skeuomorphic ontology mean anything to you? Any sense can be applied to both of these words
Such terms are easily looked up using internet searching.
From the internet, Skeuomorphs are typically used to make something new feel familiar.
My career is in computing and we use emulators so I am familiar with this concept.
Computing also uses ontology all the time as a way to group and categorise data into types.
So I would assume you are describing a method of categorisation into familiar types.
So the liar's paradox is categorised as a paradox found in the mathematical sub-topic of propositional logic. Paradoxes don't happen in real-life, in real human experiences. They are merely constructs of mathematical logic. You don't get a barber who won't shave themselves or a liar who makes the statement 'I am a liar' as no human being tells lies exclusively. Other paradoxes such as 'The only true fact is that there are no true facts,' are also flawed as there is no rigorous definition of the term 'true fact.'
I have no idea if this relates to what you are trying to say by using the term 'skeuomorphic ontology,' but I gave it a shot anyway. Perhaps it would be easier if you were less cryptic about the points you are trying to make.
That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation. It makes it sound like humans or things that 'observe' make any difference, which couldn't be further from what he says
Ok, It could well be that I was not attentive enough when watching Rovelli on YouTube.
So, I assume you are saying that according to Rovelli, it's not the observer that's causing the waveform collapse it's the local interaction between x and y.
The universe (as a whole) doesn't need an origin story, lacking anything that measures the universe. That would require an external observer. Internal interaction only results in self-consistent state.
Rovelli says no system can measure itself, which doesn't mean I can't see my arms, but it means the cat in the box cannot collapse its own wave function relative to the observer outside the box. The live cat cannot measure dead parts despite being in superposition of being dead and alive.
Humans desire an origin story for themselves and therefore for the Universe. I think that desire is significant even though I agree with all of Carl Sagan's great demotions.
I understand your narration of Rovelli's view of Schrodinger's cat from the reference frame of the cat but you said earlier that only an observer from outside of the Universe can make measurements on the Universe that would reveal its true structure (is that what you are saying?). Does this not suggest that an observer outside of the box containing Schrodinger's cat should be able to know if the cat is dead or alive or is it merely the fact that the observer outside the box cannot see through the box?
If so, then surely you are assuming that anything outside of the Universe would have an ability to interact with the Universe. As I have said before, my expertise is computing not cosmology but cosmology is of great interest to me.
I have never understood the "commotion" involved in Schrödinger's cat. As long as the state of superposition is undisturbed the cat is alive, so not in a superposition of dead and alive. If the cat will stay isolated in the cage though then the cat will slowly dilute into the whole universe. As will any system devoid of interaction with the world surrounding it. So systems own their localization to interaction, which makes them relational in a way.
An observer can measure, whether it's human or sensor, I think you are making an unimportant distinction here.
In the standard interpretation of QM, this distinction is made and together with the fundamental probability this gave rise to many worlds interpretation, decoherence, and other mechanisms.
Thanks for taking a stab at that. I just made that term up. Sometimes phrases will come to mind that I think hold some key to further understanding. It's just a weird quirk of mine.
Throw away the macroscopic objects in superpositions. In a superconductor, Bose-Einstein condensates, or other exotic states of matter, there are a lot of constituent particles in superposition, but a cat in a superposition of a live state and dead state is nonsense, as the 6 year old would testify to. The standard rules of QM assign such state to a cat because it inherits the superposition of the superimposed state which leads to poison or not, upon measurement. The wavefunction of the cat-up-down-superposition becomes is a superposition of a poison-deadcat and a nopoison-livecat state. That's the weird implication.
The better way to look at it is to consider only the spinup-spindown state in superposition. The cat is just alive and an act of measurement collapses the state to up (cat alive) or down (deadcat). In alignment with the expectation of the six year old.
The bottle with poison breaks and kills the cat or not. If the superposition of, say, spin (thumb,) up and down interacts with a photon from outside, the photon can make it collapse to up (cat lives) or down (cat dies). Before the photon hits the superposition, the cat is just alive.
None of this is expressed as a relation, so the assertions of state are according to different interpretations. 'The superposition' is not an object which a photon can hit. If a measurement of the spin of some particle is taken, it usually involves information (photon?) traveling from the state being measured to the measurer, not the other way around.
It could well be that I was not attentive enough when watching Rovelli on YouTube.
YouTube almost always uses human observers in their examples, and yet in real experiments, the human is often not present during any of the measurements, all of which are taken and recorded by inanimate equipment, say a screen upon which an interference pattern appears.
So, I assume you are saying that according to Rovelli, it's not the observer that's causing the waveform collapse it's the local interaction between x and y.
According to quantum mechanics theory (rather than any metaphysical interpretation of that theory), there is no evidence that humans play a special role in physical waveform collapse. Humans do play a role in epistemological collapse: Even if somebody else watched, one particular lab guy isn't going to know where the photon was detected without at some point measuring the result, however indirectly. That doesn't mean that the photon didn't in fact get measured at a particular location.
An observer can measure, whether it's human or sensor, I think you are making an unimportant distinction here.
I'm balking at the connotations of using human verbs (like 'looking') when describing an interaction of any kind between two arbitrary systems. It is precisely that language usage that caused the naive readers back in the day to conclude that QM somehow provided evidence that humans were special. And, the 'oberver' need not be a sensor at all. It need not be anything designed with the purpose of specifically measuring the system. A photon can hit, instead of a photo-sensitive screen, just a black wall and be lost forever. The wavefunction is still collapsed relative to the system containing that wall.
Humans desire an origin story for themselves and therefore for the Universe. I think that desire is significant even though I agree with all of Carl Sagan's great demotions.
Totally agree. Humans want this. How to explain the reality of whatever it is that you must assert to be objectively real to satisfy your desire for warm fuzziness. But the explanations always require dancing around an inevitable contradiction, and it seemed far simpler to not assert the objective reality in the first place.
I understand your narration of Rovelli's view of Schrodinger's cat from the reference frame of the cat but you said earlier that only an observer from outside of the Universe can make measurements on the Universe that would reveal its true structure (is that what you are saying?).
By definition, there can be no such observer. Any such observer would be part of the universe.
I grant that similar to a simple quantum system in a thought experiment, the structure of the entire universe can be considered from 'outside', but that's different than measuring. No wave function collapse results from objective analysis of a wavefunction of some closed system.
Does this not suggest that an observer outside of the box containing Schrodinger's cat should be able to know if the cat is dead or alive or is it merely the fact that the observer outside the box cannot see through the box?
I have no idea what I wrote that might suggest the outside observer could acquire knowledge concerning the state of the unmeasured cat.
If so, then surely you are assuming that anything outside of the Universe would have an ability to interact with the Universe.
Again, that would make the observer part of the universe, and not outside it.
As I have said before, my expertise is computing not cosmology but cosmology is of great interest to me.
Cool. I'm a software engineer myself, hardly a cosmologist.
The universe (as a whole) doesn't need an origin story, lacking anything that measures the universe. That would require an external observer.
I took this to mean that only an external observer of the Universe could make measurements/perform experiments on the Universe (as a whole) and by doing so, discover its structure and workings.
I took it that you were basing this view on your other view that internal measurers (human or electronic sensor) cannot gain the necessary data as they are part of the Universe.
By definition, there can be no such observer. Any such observer would be part of the universe.
I grant that similar to a simple quantum system in a thought experiment, the structure of the entire universe can be considered from 'outside', but that's different than measuring. No wave function collapse results from objective analysis of a wavefunction of some closed system.
Are you using the argument that no observer can exist 'outside' of our Universe?
If that is the case then are you saying we can never know the origin story of the universe based on the points you make that an outside observer would be needed and such cant exist and internal observers cant do what's required and this view is Carlo Rovelli's viewpoint. Is that what you are saying?
If an observer can be conceived as 'outside' of the Universe then how would they be part of it?
That makes no sense to me.
What evidence are you calling upon that demonstrates that objective analysis of a waveform is a closed system? What if there are > 3 dimensions or the multiverse is real, or the Universe is layered, or time is not linear and is in fact, multidimensional etc, what are you defining as 'objective' and 'closed'?
I am trying to follow a smooth line of logic in your narration of 'The structure and workings of the Universe,' as suggested by Carlo Rovelli. I have tried to narrate the basics of his viewpoint as I conceive it, based on the youtube videos he offers. You may have a better understanding of his viewpoint than I do. I am merely trying to understand what you are presenting based on my limited grasp of the cosmological theories involved.
If a measurement of the spin of some particle is taken, it usually involves information (photon?) traveling from the state being measured to the measurer, not the other way around.
A state of superposition remains superimposed without interaction. A superposition of spin up and down won't collapse by emission of a photon carrying info to the observer. Measuring the spin means placing the superposition in an external field.
Which sounds more abstract, even mystical, than most of mathematics. Are things really that bizarre in the quantum realm, or is a dramatic paradigm shift over the horizon, awaiting an Einstein? How much of the weirdness is due to limitations of experimental investigations?
Long, long ago I thought of majoring in physics, but found the concepts of mathematics were clearer to me.
All particles interact by coupling (by their charge) with the virtual particle field between them. So the up/down superposition, two simultaneous paths in spin space, gets collapsed to up or down after this coupling. The virtual particles are not virtual in the sense that they don't exist but in the sense that their energy and moments (or times and positions) are independent, delivering the right values for the transition. Mathematically, the propagator for a virtual particle is the integral over all momenta and energies and in a larger diagram, with external legs representing real particles, deltas ensure the right momenta and energies are picked for the interacting real particles. :cool:
Superposition is collapsed by a virtual photon. An interaction is involved.
That might be one way, especially for a realist interpretation.
You seem to envision poking the cat with a stick, but measurement of the moon does not seem to involve virtual photons, so collapse does not necessarily involve such a virtual interaction.
A state of superposition remains superimposed without interaction. A superposition of spin up and down won't collapse by emission of a photon carrying info to the observer. Measuring the spin means placing the superposition in an external field.
You have a reference for any of this? This seems to violate locality for one thing.
The universe (as a whole) doesn't need an origin story, lacking anything that measures the universe. That would require an external observer.
— noAxioms
I took this to mean that only an external observer of the Universe could make measurements/perform experiments on the Universe (as a whole) and by doing so, discover its structure and workings.
I didn't mean that with that comment, which was specific to the relational interpretation.
I don't see how 'experiments' could be performed by an external observer given definitions and models where such an observer is meaningful.
A model could in principle be simulated by something not part of the universe modeled, and experiments might consist of different initial conditions or something.
I took it that you were basing this view on your other view that internal measurers (human or electronic sensor) cannot gain the necessary data as they are part of the Universe.
I forget the context of when I said that. Data necessary for what again?
By definition, there can be no such observer. Any such observer would be part of the universe.
I grant that similar to a simple quantum system in a thought experiment, the structure of the entire universe can be considered from 'outside', but that's different than measuring. No wave function collapse results from objective analysis of a wavefunction of some closed system.
— noAxioms
Are you using the argument that no observer can exist 'outside' of our Universe?
By definition, given the relational (or any non-counterfactual) interpretation, nothing external (or even sufficiently distant) can exist since it cannot be measured. But given a different definition of 'exists', the rules might be different.
are you saying we can never know the origin story of the universe based on the points you make that an outside observer would be needed ...
There is no origin story. Only a realist interpretation requires an origin story to explain the reality of whatever is asserted to be real. Positing an 'outside observer' doesn't change that.
If an observer can be conceived as 'outside' of the Universe then how would they be part of it?
That makes no sense to me.
Totally agree. So if it interacts, it is not outside. If it's outside, it can't interact.
What evidence are you calling upon that demonstrates that objective analysis of a waveform is a closed system?
I'm not suggesting it necessarily is. The wavefunction of the universe is supposedly by definition closed, and thus an analysis of 'the universe' (defined as that wavefunction) would be an analysis of a closed system, but open systems can also be objectively analyzed.
hat are you defining as 'objective' and 'closed'?
Objective is an adjective which I am using in opposition to 'relative'. Objective existence is realism: The ontological property of existence even in the absence of observation. Relative existence is a relation: A exists to B, but A might not exist to C.
I am trying to follow a smooth line of logic in your narration of 'The structure and workings of the Universe,' as suggested by Carlo Rovelli.
I'm not trying to convey Rovelli's views. I've not read the work you name. But the view is at least loosely based on his concept, but driven to its logical conclusion.
I have tried to narrate the basics of his viewpoint as I conceive it, based on the youtube videos he offers. You may have a better understanding of his viewpoint than I do.
Or not... Not sure if I'd score better than you on a test of his works.
You seem to envision poking the cat with a stick, but measurement of the moon does not seem to involve virtual photons, so collapse does not necessarily involve such a virtual interaction.
Even the Moon is measured with virtual photons. Though they are almost real.
Every non-interacting system will get spread over space. So their spatial properties depend on other particles. So their properties are relational. Measuring is a two-way process.
I'm not trying to convey Rovelli's views. I've not read the work you name. But the view is at least loosely based on his concept, but driven to its logical conclusion.
I think we have been mostly talking past each other. I thought you were narrating Rovelli's views as your first response to me stated:
That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation
I think Rovelli's posit that the measurement problem and waveform collapse is a localised phenomena which only occurs between interacting systems X and Y and is not a 'Universal/objective effect,' is very interesting. The waveform does not collapse from the reference point of the whole Universe.
I don't think Rovelli has ever suggested that the structure and fundamental workings of the Universe are unknowable because those who are trying to discover such are part of the Universe they are trying to explain.
This is an example of what I mean by 'talking past each other' or misunderstanding.
I have WATCHED his youtube videos, his lectures and his discussions with Sean Carroll etc.
I haven't READ any of his publishings.
The wavefunction collapse is a real local collapse. Only a universal wavefunction of non-interacting particles will never collapse. Collapse is interaction.
I'm not trying to convey Rovelli's views. I've not read the work you name. But the view is at least loosely based on his concept, but driven to its logical conclusion.
— noAxioms
I think we have been mostly talking past each other. I thought you were narrating Rovelli's views
It says 'loosely based'. Rovelli certainly has the physics part down, but not having read his works, I don't know if he's explored the philosophical implications of his ontology, such as that of identity for example.
your first response to me stated:
The collapse of the wave function due to the act of observation?
— universeness
That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation
— noAxioms
I restored some of the context. That reply of mine referred to your usage of "act of observation" which sounds like a pop wording at best, and not how a physicist might have put it.
'Act' makes it sound like some action or intent is required, and 'act of observation' makes it sound like a human is required to be involved in the act. There's never been evidence of this. A rock can take a measurement and collapse the wave function of some non-rock system just fine, all without actually observing or knowing anything. So it was the pop-representation that I meant to label a poor representation of the science, and not of Rovelli's view in particular.
I think Rovelli's posit that the measurement problem and waveform collapse is a localised phenomena which only occurs between interacting systems X and Y and is not a 'Universal/objective effect,' is very interesting. The waveform does not collapse from the reference point of the whole Universe.
With that we seem to both agree. It implies that a wavefunction has a location (which I would not have intuitively suggested), and that a wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'.
I would not have said that spatially systems can 'interact' since I consider a system to be essentially an event and not say a worldline like Rovelli implies. We obviously differ on this point, but I can drive the worldline view to contradiction, a philosophical problem which seems not to concern Rovelli, being a physicist mostly interested in empirical consistency.
Two events cannot 'interact' since that would require each to be in the other's past light cone.
I don't think Rovelli has ever suggested that the structure and fundamental workings of the Universe are unknowable
Did I suggest anything along those lines?
I have WATCHED his youtube videos, his lectures and his discussions with Sean Carroll etc.
I haven't READ any of his publishings.
Perhaps you can recommend some Rovelli vids, even though I don't usually get my science from videos. Then I can point out places where I might not agree with Rovelli.
It says 'loosely based'. Rovelli certainly has the physics part down, but not having read his works, I don't know if he's explored the philosophical implications of his ontology, such as that of identity for example.
I don't recall much mention of any philosophical aspects/consequences of his theories, that he discussed in his YouTube offerings but I was too busy trying to gain some understanding of his scientific musings.
Here is an audio podcast between Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli. It is an episode from Sean Carrolls 'Mindscape' series and is titled: Episode 2: Carlo Rovelli on Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime, and Reality.
A rock can take a measurement and collapse the wave function of some non-rock system just fine, all without actually observing or knowing anything.
I have no idea what you mean by this? A rock can take a measurement? in what sense?
I assume you don't mean this literally but I don't get it, if it was meant as a metaphor for something else.
I assume you just mean that you don't need the presence of a human conscience to collapse the wave function of a process such as the interference pattern produced by the double split experiment or entanglement.
With that we seem to both agree. It implies that a wavefunction has a location (which I would not have intuitively suggested), and that a wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'.
Well, a wave function will produce a waveform, will it not? and all waveforms moving in 3D space will produce a worldline as it traverses space from its origin. Like a drop of water in an ocean that will cause only a localised disturbance and then settle as it dissipates its energy. It does not affect the entire ocean. I don't know what you mean by the wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'. light waves from a distant star still have to traverse the distance between here and its origin, which is why we see what was, not what is. maybe I am being a bit dense here but I am not following your logic very well.
I would not have said that spatially systems can 'interact' since I consider a system to be essentially an event and not say a worldline like Rovelli implies. We obviously differ on this point, but I can drive the worldline view to contradiction, a philosophical problem which seems not to concern Rovelli, being a physicist mostly interested in empirical consistency.
Two events cannot 'interact' since that would require each to be in the other's past light cone
I think I understand your words but then how do particles 'interact.' Perhaps Reply to EugeneW can explain to me what you mean more clearly. I often turn to him, regarding cosmology stuff that I dont fully grasp.
Not about Rovelli, no I don't think you did. You stated that observers cant fully understand a system that they are a part of so it's that which I disagree with. A system which is capable of successful self-diagnosis and self-maintenance would have to know how all of its parts worked individually and as sub-systems and as a whole system. If this can be achieved electronically then it must be possible in the case of the universe. I am not claiming that we have produced such an electronic system yet but we are getting much better at it.
Perhaps you can recommend some Rovelli vids, even though I don't usually get my science from videos. Then I can point out places where I might not agree with Rovelli.
Here is another one you might like that I watched a few months ago:
Act' makes it sound like some action or intent is required, and 'act of observation' makes it sound like a human is required to be involved in the act.
In standard QM this is actually the case.
An event in physics is not actually an event. It's the time and position of a particle. If particles were devoid of charge all individualities of partìcles would be lost and the universe would spread out into a uniform mass in which nothing could be defined or have outlines. All would be one. When particles interact, by their charges coupling to the omnipresent field of virtual particles, their evolving wavefunctions (which are, loosely speaking, the temporal cross sections of quantum fields) collapse every time upon an interaction. The standard view doesn't speak of collapse but the objective collapse approach does.
So particles tract characteristics and identity because a relation with other particles. Their condensations in spacetime are relational.
I think I understand your words but then how do particles 'interact.' Perhaps ?EugeneW can explain to me what you mean more clearly. I often turn to him, regarding cosmology stuff that I dont fully grasp.
It's easy and difficult at the same time. There is a field of virtual particles in empty space. If a charged particle moves through space it couples to this field. How can they couple if they are point? Simply because they are no points. Their coupling to this field cause that field around them to change. Same for other particles. This means that if a particle enters a region of space where that virtual field is disturbed by another charge (say both charges are electrical, which couple to virtual photons only), it will not move the same as before (unchanging velocity, apart from the "Zitterbewegung"). It's accelerated because of the potential created by the other charge (which actually is a so-called virtual photon condensate). These interactions happen in measurements, and take place continuously to maintain individuality of the parts. Bosons though don't have individuality when in groups.
A system which is capable of successful self-diagnosis and self-maintenance would have to know how all of its parts worked individually and as sub-systems and as a whole system. If this can be achieved electronically then it must be possible in the case of the universe.
I might disagree with you about the gods issue, but here I agree! If sub-systems collapse, I think the whole collapses. What is the whole though? If the spin inside the Schrödinger cat cage is measured the superimposed spin state is projected on one of the two states, up and down. Even for the observer observing the combined cat-observer state.
An event in physics is not actually an event. It's the time and position of a particle.
I think the 'event' label is a perfectly reasonable/logical one from the standpoint of natural human perception. Surely time and positional data are 'details of the event.' Why is such a distinction important?
If particles were devoid of charge all individualities of partìcles would be lost and the universe would spread out into a uniform mass in which nothing could be defined or have outlines. All would be one.
But is magnetism or repulsion/attraction the only reason for the existence of quanta?
If the universe is made up of multidimensional vibrating strings for example then an electron and its properties are merely due to a particular string state.
When particles interact, by their charges coupling to the omnipresent field of virtual particles, their evolving wavefunctions (which are, loosely speaking, the temporal cross sections of quantum fields) collapse every time upon an interaction. The standard view doesn't speak of collapse but the objective collapse approach does.
I get that an interaction between two electrons involves the exchange of a virtual photon from one to the other and this causes a change in momentum of the receiving electron and this causes them to repel each other. At least I got that from a question posed to a physicist on Quora. Is it the collapsing waveform that causes the repulsion or the change in momentum? Is the waveform collapse, similar to disturbed, undulating water, becoming still again?
There is a field of virtual particles in empty space. If a charged particle moves through space it couples to this field. How can they couple if they are point? Simply because they are no points. Their coupling to this field cause that field around them to change. Same for other particles. This means that if a particle enters a region of space where that virtual field is disturbed by another charge (say both charges are electrical, which couple to virtual photons only), it will not move the same as before (unchanging velocity, apart from the "Zitterbewegung"). It's accelerated because of the potential created by the other charge (which actually is a so-called virtual photon condensate). These interactions happen in measurements, and take place continuously to maintain individuality of the parts. Bosons though don't have individuality when in groups.
So space is therefore not empty, it's full of 'virtual particles.'
By 'coupling' do you simply mean 'connects to' or is 'affected by' or 'reacts to'?
What do you mean by 'Point'? a dimensionless point which has coordinates only or a tiny 'packet' or 'concentration of mass or energy?
So the charge/spin direction causes a disturbance in the 'virtual field' (why is the field virtual rather than real?) and the result is that the particle gets accelerated away? Am I understanding this correctly, so far?
The charges couple to this omnipresent virtual field.
So this virtual field must permeates all space if it is omnipresent, yes?
So why does the particle not accelerate forever if it encounters a constant expanse of 'virtual field'?
If the spin inside the Schrödinger cat cage is measured the superimposed spin state is projected on one of the two states, up and down. Even for the observer observing the combined cat-observer state.
Nope, sorry I don't think I understand this. Are you simply saying the cat is alive (spin up state) or dead (spin down state) Does spin up mean spin faster and spin down means spin slower? or does spin up mean 'starts to spin' and spin down mean 'stops spinning'?
The observer has to open the box to find out which possibility is true, I get that. If the box remains closed these both outcomes remain possible so one state is 'superimposed' on the other.
Are you saying that in your opinion, the structure and workings of the Universe are knowable, even though we are trying to discover such, as component parts, inside the universe we are trying to understand? Do we have to open all the Schrodinger style boxes and do all the measurements?
Nope, sorry I don't think I understand this. Are you simply saying the cat is alive (spin up state) or dead (spin down state) Does spin up mean spin faster and spin down means spin slower? or
No. I mean the direction of spin. It can be up and down. If they are in superposition there is no connection with a dead or alive cat. As long as the cat is in the cage it doesn't care about us or the superposition. Only when a spin up or down is measured (projected on an eigenstate) the cat will notice
Are you saying that in your opinion, the structure and workings of the Universe are knowable, even though we are trying to discover such, as component parts, inside the universe we are trying to understand? Do we have to open all the Schrodinger style boxes and do all the measurements?
Everything in the universe that interacts collapses, if we measure or not. All structural identities stem from interactions. When we measure or when we don't.
Everything in the universe that interacts collapses
But two galaxies can interact by colliding and they don't collapse, they effectively merge!
Collisions within accretion disks merge into planets, I know my examples are of the very large rather than the very small but I still don't really understand.
I think I will just raise the white flag for now and keep watching Youtube cosmology vids and continue my reading on the subject until I can demonstrate more depth of understanding. I will continue to make some comments now and then however.
I think the 'event' label is a perfectly reasonable/logical one from the standpoint of natural human perception.
I think so to. That's why in physics it's a bit strange. An event is something that happens, a happening. A glass can't break at a point in time or space.
get that an interaction between two electrons involves the exchange of a virtual photon from one to the other
Photons are not exchanged. An electron doesn't emit or absorb photons. It couples to a virtual photon. On their own (so without charged particles) such photons are present through all of space (quantum bubbles). Charged Dirac fields couple to them, in accordance with the Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian) and charges. So it depends which energies and momenta of the virtual photons are needed (they have them all and independently, and give what the asymptotic conditions require).
What do you mean by 'Point'? a dimensionless point which has coordinates only or a tiny 'packet' or 'concentration of mass or energy?
So the charge/spin direction causes a disturbance in the 'virtual field' (why is the field virtual rather than real?) and the result is that the particle gets accelerated away? Am I understanding this correctly, so far?
A 0d point. Which causes misery. The field is virtual as opposed to real. Virtual fields have independent p and E. In a sense, a real particle is a virtual particle with p and E depending on each other and with a direction in time.
But two galaxies can interact by colliding and they don't collapse, they effectively merge!
Haha, yes! Of course. I meant their wavefunctions. The wavefunctions of both galaxies interact with other galaxies and will result in two collapsing wavefunctions of galaxies that merge. If the two galaxies were the only ones in an infinite flat space then in a very long time both galaxies would diffuse in space, like the wavefunction of a single non-interacting particle spreads.
Let me put it in a different way. Consider a single virtual photon. Represented as a single circle in a Feynman diagram. One of the quantum "bubbles" (wrongly imagined in popular science to be a short appearance of a particle and its antiparticle). The virtual particles dont go in one time direction. They oscillate in time. Constantly and everywhere. Electrons couple to them. They "break" them open and from a circle they become a line (in Feynman diagrams) between two vertices (with associated vertex factors which quantify the coupling strength).
So do you mean all interacting wavefunctions (which produce actual waveform disturbances yes?) in the Universe collapse?
— universeness
Rìght
I, like many people, I think, only understand wave interactions based on water waves, waves passing along strings from either end and meeting up with each other. Waves passing through prisms etc, peaks, troughs, frequencies, trig etc. Waves can interfere, cancel each other, merge etc.
When you say all interacting wavefunctions IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE collapse, what do you mean by collapse. I assumed that this means the function no longer produced a waveform.
So you get nothing when you try to measure what happened due to the interaction between system X and system Y because the action of trying to measure, stops the wavefunction from producing waveforms so you don't get the interference pattern you get in the double split experiment if you try to detect which slit each photon(massless) or electron(mass) went through. I thought this was the basics of 'the measurement problem,' yes/no?
I don't recall much mention of any philosophical aspects/consequences of his theories, that he discussed in his YouTube offerings but I was too busy trying to gain some understanding of his scientific musings.
Then the videos are likely to be of little use to me since it is precisely the philosophical implications that have a direct bearing on the OP question. I'm not going to disagree with the physics of those guys. I'm in the wrong league for that.
I have had direct communication with Tegmark and don't disagree with any of his physics, but there are some metaphysical points on which we disagree. The quantum suicide thing for instance makes some serious errors, and does not in fact constitute evidence of his favored interpretation.
My time is limited, and I've yet to get to the videos.
I have no idea what you mean by this? A rock can take a measurement? in what sense? I assume you don't mean this literally
I mean it very literally. It is the effect end of a cause-effect relationship. Any superposition of the measured system is lost relative to the rock. Some molecule of Napoleon's dying breath interacts with the rock, changing the state (the momentum perhaps) of at least one particle of the rock. The rock is now different than it would have been without that measurement, thus Napoleon exists relative to that rock (as if he didn't already, but it's this particular measurement we're using in the example). The world cannot be measured to be in the state of that rock's exact state, but with Napoleon never having been.
I don't know how EugeneW would have expressed that since he seems to assert the necessity of a two-way 'virtual' interaction, which implies that Napoleon cannot exist relative to me (I cannot have measured Napoleon) unless I also exist relative to him (Napoleon has measured me, which violates locality).
That you have no idea about this means you need to spend more time learning physics from reviewed textbooks and not pop videos and articles, which almost always focus on the more relatable humans, their actions, and the epistemological aspects of knowledge of a system instead of the actual metaphysical state of a system.
Well, a wave function will produce a waveform, will it not?
It is a description of a system (somewhere) from a point of view. It doesn't necessarily 'produce' anything, but the future state of the system in question, if closed, can be described by evolving the wavefunction over time using Schrodinger's equation. Not sure if you'd consider that the production of a waveform. So maybe it's an atom with a half-life, and the wavefunction will give the state of the unmeasured system at any time. Upon measurement, the wavefunction collapses into a simpler state (typically decayed or not) instead of the superposition of all possible states of .
and all waveforms moving in 3D space will produce a worldline as it traverses space from its origin.
No. Wavefunctions are not objects that move around. They're descriptions.
Like a drop of water in an ocean that will cause only a localised disturbance and then settle as it dissipates its energy. It does not affect the entire ocean. I don't know what you mean by the wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'.
EugeneW worded it that way, giving a wavefunction the location of the point-of-view in question, hence measurements here collapse the local wavefunction here that describes the non-local system elsewhere. This makes sense in a local interpretation (of which RQM is one). If I measure one particle of an entangled pair, it doesn't physically make any change to the other particle elsewhere. No local interpretation supports 'spooky action at a distance' the way that non-local interpretations do. No reverse causality, with actions now having effects billions of years ago. There are very much interpretations that suggest otherwise.
light waves from a distant star still have to traverse the distance between here and its origin, which is why we see what was, not what is. maybe I am being a bit dense here but I am not following your logic very well.
Agree with this. Say the star is a light year away (impossible of course). To word it differently, only the state of the distant star a year ago is in our past light cone, and thus the wavefunction of that star from the point of view of Earth is collapsed only to its year-old state, and its present state is not in any way fact, relative to us. Likewise, a star sufficiently distant (say 50 GLY) doesn't meaningfully exist at all relative to Earth. Unmeasured state is not meaningful to a local interpretation. That's a very hard pill to swallow, but I find it an even harder pill to abandon locality, that information can travel backwards in time or anywhere else outside its future light cone.
I think I understand your words but then how do particles 'interact.' Perhaps ?EugeneW can explain to me what you mean more clearly. I often turn to him, regarding cosmology stuff that I dont fully grasp.
I cannot understand EugeneW, so I don't think an explanation of what I mean is going to come from him.
You stated that observers cant fully understand a system that they are a part of so it's that which I disagree with.
I don't think I disagreed with that either. I said a system cannot collapse its own wavefunction. Superposition would be nonexistent if it were otherwise.
Act' makes it sound like some action or intent is required, and 'act of observation' makes it sound like a human is required to be involved in the act.
— noAxioms
In standard QM this is actually the case.
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
An event in physics is not actually an event. It's the time and position of a particle. If particles were devoid of charge all individualities of partìcles would be lost and the universe would spread out into a uniform mass in which nothing could be defined or have outlines. All would be one. When particles interact, by their charges coupling to the omnipresent field of virtual particles, their evolving wavefunctions (which are, loosely speaking, the temporal cross sections of quantum fields, collapse every time upon an interaction. The standard view doesn't speak of collapse but the objective collapse approach does.
So particles tract characteristics and identity because a relation with other particles. Their condensation in spacetime are relational.
None of this seems at all relevant to my comment quoted above.
Waveforms certainly exist in electronics, but in Quantum theory they may be in abstract spaces where collapse of wavefunctions occur. What is actually physically happening vs probability measures, etc. At least that's how I see it - and I'm probably off track.
None of this seems not at all relevant to my comment quoted above.
None seems not at all relevant? So all seems relevant?
It depends how you view the wavefunction. In the standard Copenhagen view it's a mathematical aid. A complex function in Hilbert space. The square, a real number, represents the probability of finding a particle. Contrary to a dice, this probability has no determining substrate. That's the difference with etymological chance, where chance is due to lack of knowledge. The standard says there is nothing to know.
The other approach, which I use here, is that there is a layer of determination beneath the chance: hidden variables. These are real features. The wavefunction describes them. So the particle has a well determined position but hops around in space due ti the hidden variables. You could say the hidden variables are the space-sauce around the particles. If there is no interaction, the particles get lost in space.
None seems not at all relevant? So all seems relevant?
Thx. Double negative fixed.
It depends how you view the wavefunction. In the standard Copenhagen view it's a mathematical aid.
True. Copenhagen is/was an epistemological interpretation, and as such, the only way anybody is going to learn about the state of some system (like the existence of Napoleon and TutCommon, the latter being the more ordinary brother of Tutankhamun) is to take a measurement (like read a history book) which collapses your knowledge from to .
As such, an act (reading a book, getting a sunburn) is required to change your knowledge.
It's like the shell game: the ball is under one of three shells and you don't know which until you life the shells. But not knowing where the ball is is absolutely not the same thing as the ball being in superposition of those three places. That's a metaphysical state which means (for the purpose of this discussion) that a real possibility exists for it to be anywhere instead of in fact under the left shell, unbeknownst to you. Superposition (QM definition this time) means that those three states can be made to interfere with each other in some way, which would be a metaphysically different state.
I am admittedly, in my posts, talking about metaphysical wavefunction collapse (or lack thereof) which narrows the interpretation choices to the metaphysical ones (which includes a metaphysical version of Copenhagen in which humans once again play no role).
The other approach, which I use here, is that there is a layer of determination beneath the chance: hidden variables. These are real features.
You've been speaking of locality before, and now there's hidden variables, used only by interpretations which abandon locality.
For the most part, and for purposes of this topic, I don't care. My observation was that RQM is an elegant solution to the origin problem. I really don't care that the other interpretations don't solve the problem the same way, or don't solve it at all. There are no hidden variables in RQM, and humans do not play any preferred role.
Many seem to know some (textbook) physics but, as this thread amply shows, very few demonstrate that they actually understand the speculative implications of major physicists' rival interpretations of the currently prevailing theories. How tedious ... Quoting noAxioms
My observation was that RQM is an elegant solution to the origin[al] problem. I really don't care that the other interpretations don't solve the problem the same way, or don't solve it at all. There are no hidden variables in RQM, and humans ["consciousness"] do not play any preferred role.
Many seem to know some (textbook) physics but, as this thread amply shows, very few demonstrate that they actually understand the speculative implications of major physicists' rival
Then the videos are likely to be of little use to me since it is precisely the philosophical implications that have a direct bearing on the OP question.
Perhaps you would be more interested in offerings from Carlo such as:
That you have no idea about this means you need to spend more time learning physics from reviewed textbooks and not pop videos and articles
I think we are in a 'similar' league when it comes to command of physics. If by 'pop' you mean popular then I think there is value in using any source of physics-based facts or musings. I am happy with my own attempts to improve my knowledge of physics and philosophy and require no advice from you on how I could best progress.
I have had direct communication with Tegmark and don't disagree with any of his physics, but there are some metaphysical points on which we disagree.
That's good to hear! There you go @EugeneW, some of these guys will enter a discourse with us humblebums! I have mixed emotions when it comes to the term 'metaphysical.' Definintions like 'after physics' or 'beyond physics' don't help but I normally do find some value when I read/view 'metaphysical' discussions.
Some molecule of Napoleon's dying breath interacts with the rock, changing the state (the momentum perhaps) of at least one particle of the rock. The rock is now different than it would have been without that measurement, thus Napoleon exists relative to that rock
I may have garnished more value from this if you had typed something like 'Some molecule of Napoleans consciousness (not his dying breath), as his physical body starts to disassemble, after his death...interacts with a rock.' I personally think this idea is nonsense and that such an interaction would leave the rock completely unchanged. I think it's much more likely that disassembled component parts of a dead human consciousness (whatever such quanta might be) could only 'interact' with a live conscience or a forming fetus in a woman or perhaps any living creature, but not a rock.
It is a description of a system (somewhere) from a point of view. It doesn't necessarily 'produce' anything, but the future state of the system in question, if closed, can be described by evolving the wavefunction over time using Schrodinger's equation. Not sure if you'd consider that the production of a waveform.
Thank you for this one. It made me search the internet with 'Wave function and the quantum world.'
I clicked on wikipedia for 'wave-function' and read about A wave function in quantum physics. I think I have been confusing wave function and wave equation. Wikipedia states:
"A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it."
and
[b]The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.
For a given system, the choice of which commuting degrees of freedom to use is not unique, and correspondingly the domain of the wave function is also not unique. For instance, it may be taken to be a function of all the position coordinates of the particles over position space, or the momenta of all the particles over momentum space; the two are related by a Fourier transform. Some particles, like electrons and photons, have nonzero spin, and the wave function for such particles include spin as an intrinsic, discrete degree of freedom; other discrete variables can also be included, such as isospin.[/b]
and
According to the superposition principle of quantum mechanics, wave functions can be added together and multiplied by complex numbers to form new wave functions and form a Hilbert space. The inner product between two wave functions is a measure of the overlap between the corresponding physical states and is used in the foundational probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the 'Born' rule, relating transition probabilities to inner products. The Schrödinger equation determines how wave functions evolve over time, and a wave function behaves qualitatively like other waves, such as water waves or waves on a string, because the Schrödinger equation is mathematically a type of wave equation. This explains the name "wave function", and gives rise to wave–particle duality. However, the wave function in quantum mechanics describes a kind of physical phenomenon, still open to different interpretations, which fundamentally differs from that of classic mechanical waves.
I also used the linked pop-ups for more info on terms such as 'degrees of freedom and 'commuting observables' as used in quantum physics. I think I now understand more about the term wave function as used in quantum physics.
and all waveforms moving in 3D space will produce a worldline as it traverses space from its origin.
No. Wavefunctions are not objects that move around. They're descriptions.
I was referring to waveforms not the term wavefunction as I now conceive it based on the wikipedia stuff above. I was referring to something like a light wave with traditional peaks, troughs, wavelength, frequency etc, physically traveling through 3D space. All such will produce a 'worldline' based on my understanding of the term. I base this on a comment made by a physicist on Quora: "the worldline of light behaves as ligtht-like curves in spacetime"
To word it differently, only the state of the distant star a year ago is in our past light cone, and thus the wavefunction of that star from the point of view of Earth is collapsed only to its year-old state, and its present state is not in any way fact, relative to us. Likewise, a star sufficiently distant (say 50 GLY) doesn't meaningfully exist at all relative to Earth. Unmeasured state is not meaningful to a local interpretation. That's a very hard pill to swallow, but I find it an even harder pill to abandon locality, that information can travel backwards in time or anywhere else outside its future light cone.
Yes, so the picture of hubble deepest field image (I have a very large framed print of it in my bedroom)
mainly contains objects which probably don't exist anymore.
I cannot understand EugeneW, so I don't think an explanation of what I mean is going to come from him.
He has been quite patient with me when I have demonstrated my limited knowledge of physics. He has demonstrated his deeper grasp of the topic and has not 'dismissed' me as 'not worth his efforts.' As a retired school teacher myself, I appreciate and celebrate his approach and passion for physics and I prefer it to the more pretentious and unwarranted, almost sad, aloof attitudes of other members of this forum, be the thread philosophical, scientific, religious or political. Thankfully, such attitudes are also in the minority on this forum.
This is an aside folks but I sent the message below to one of the moderators, 'Baden,' 22 hours ago as a PM. I am probably being too impatient here but he has not got back to me yet and I just noticed that my @EugeneW above did not work, it did not appear as I thought it would. I thought the @member handle resulted in that member being informed of the mention. Perhaps one of you reading this thread could answer my questions below faster than 'Baden' seems able to.
Hi,
Could you answer a few quick questions for me. How do you refer/mention another member in a post?
I have seen the @member handle, reference used by other members. But I just tried @Garret Travers and it did not appear as a link.
Oh, I've just realised, his handle is Garrett Travers (two t's in his first name), is that the reason it didn't work?
A couple of other questions.
Is there no way to change the size of text in a post?
Can you insert a direct link within a current post, to a previous post earlier in the same thread or to an earlier post you have made in another thread? If so, how do you do this?
Are you referring to traveling analogue waves as data packets are transmitted through the air using from source (DAC (Digital to analogue converter)) to destination ADC (analogue to digital converter)?
or digital waveforms (Castle turret shaped)?
Based on the wikipedia entry I pasted on my most recent response above, to noAxioms, I think the waveforms of computing would be described as belonging to the 'classical' category and differ from that produced by a 'wavefunction' in quantum physics.
As a maths expert, do you have anything to add that would aid my understanding of the difference between the terms wave /function/form/equation as they are used in maths compared to quantum physics?
So, a virtual particles have no direction in time. They just go up and down. Since the beginning of time and before
But up and down are opposite DIRECTIONS on a straight line. This could be perceived as the universe of 'lineland,' such a universe could still support linear time (past present future), so I don't get your 'virtual particles have no direction in time,' proposal. If they have no direction in time then they have no direction in space by virtue of spacetime. Does this not mean they can't actually exist and they are merely a convenient 'tool' to aid some current theories of the structure and workings of the Universe.
The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude
Is it the quote above from wikipedia, that 'marries' with your 'goes up and down' proposal?
The idea of a wave 'amplitude,', if so, an amplitude must take time to form an it forms in a direction from rest to up (in the case of a crest) or rest to down (in the case of a trough). Does this marry with the proposal of 'rest up to crest as current to future' and 'rest down to trough as current to past?'
Real particles have a direction in time. They move forward in time. A virtual particle goes forwards, backward, forwards, backwards, forwards, etc. This fluctuation is often popularized as a pair, a particle-antiparticle pair, created and annihilating each other, while in fact there is just one eternal particle (seen from the collective of real particles going forward).
I cannot understand EugeneW, so I don't think an explanation of what I mean is going to come from him.
— noAxioms
He has been quite patient with me when I have demonstrated my limited knowledge of physics. He has demonstrated his deeper grasp of the topic and has not 'dismissed' me as 'not worth his efforts.' As a retired school teacher myself, I appreciate and celebrate his approach and passion for physics and I prefer it to the more pretentious and unwarranted, almost sad, aloof attitudes of other members of this forum, be the thread philosophical, scientific, religious or political. Thankfully, such attitudes are also in the minority on this forum.
A wavefunction, in relation to qft, can be considered as a temporal cross section of a particles free field. A particle litterally travels on all possible pathways through spacetime. All paths have a probability, and are taken at the same time. In hidden variables theory, they hop from one to the other. No wonder these variables are non-local, and I have never understood why the fact that there are no local hidden variables is such a big deal. That's exactly what they don't have to be. In that theory, the wavefunction is a physical entity. Its squared, that is. It's a wavefunction because it's derived from the same equation as a real wave equation.
Carlo Rovelli is great. He's something else, like Smolin. Must be his "Italian blood". All particles need interaction to identify themselves. By interaction they can show their quantum numbers. Which is almost equivalent to their charges. There are leptons and quark numbers. But these are not thought to be fundamental. Which is naturally the case in preon theory. There are only three kinds of massless charges in that theory. All moving within the space sauce of hidden variables.
Reply to EugeneW
How did you do that @universeness profile link. That's one of the things I was asking the elusive 'Baden' mod about and relates to the 'general' post I made at the top of this page.
Here's a fun aside, every time I type 'mod' instead of moderator, I get images of a large group of mad teenagers wearing fishtail parkers with Harrington jackets and turtle neck pullovers underneath and mostly white drainpipe trousers, driving Lambretta scooters whilst heartily singing in loud unison:
"We arra mods, we arra mods, we are we are we arra mods! repeated ad Infinitum and ad nauseam.
As they search for an equivalen group on 'Rockers' on real motorbikes who they invariably got beat up by. Go figure my thought processes? Perhaps I need some time with an analyst:
We arra mods, we arra mods...............
The idea of a wave 'amplitude,', if so, an amplitude must take time to form an it forms in a direction from rest to up (in the case of a crest) or rest to down (in the case of a trough). Does this marry with the proposal of 'rest up to crest as current to future' and 'rest down to trough as current to past?'
I'm not sure I understand. You mean time going forwards and backwards in a wavefunction, depending on the position in the wavefunction?
It's a bit hard to visualise, because we are used to particles going forward in time with definite position and energy, mutually related. If energy is zero then momentum squared is [math]-m^2[/math], according to [math]E^2-p^2=m^2[/math], and this relation doesn't hold for virtual particles. They can have independent values to fit the boundary conditions of two asymptotically free particles. In other words, if the two incoming particles have specified E and p, as the outgoing ones, the virtual particle adjusts to fit these values. It could also adjust to other values. All have certain amplitudes to occur. Qft calculates these scattering amplitudes by means of Feynman diagrams.
A particle litterally travels on all possible pathways through spacetime. All paths have a probability, and are taken at the same time
Oh, This is Richard Feynman's mind, isn't it. Yeah, I have read about this many times in relation to the double-slit experiment. Never been able to get my head around this one. How can every possible path be traversed by the 'same' particle in an instant of time? I know I should not conceive of the speed of light as a limiting factor here but I don't understand how to do that.
That's exactly why hidden variables are invented! How can a particle have a probability to be here or there? Where is it then?
Well, I understand the probability of an outcome as simply 1/all possible outcomes.
The probability of a particle having a particular 4 coordinate position (3 spacial and 1 of time), would I assume depend on its starting position and its known or predicted path.
But I would also assume that the 'geometric expanse' of the particle involved would also be a factor as to how much space it occupies at any instant of time.
It's a bit hard to visualise, because we are used to particles going forward in time with definite position and energy, mutually related. If energy is zero then momentum squared is ?m2?m2, according to E2?p2=m2E2?p2=m2, and this relation doesn't hold for virtual particles. They can have independent values to fit the boundary conditions of two asymptotically free particles. In other words, if the two incoming particles have specified E and p, as the outgoing ones, the virtual particle adjusts to fit these values. It could also adjust to other values. All have certain amplitudes to occur. Qft calculates these scattering amplitudes by means of Feynman diagrams
I was reading something similar to this on Wikipedia and a physics site. I also read a discussion on this on quora. I understand some of it but will have to do a much more detailed reading on it to improve my understanding. I think I need a very detailed example from a starting title such as: 'a day/hour/minute/second/plank time in the existence of an electron.'
There must be such worked examples available. If you know of such a link then I would appreciate it but I can do my own searching as well.
One to add to my 'to do' list or more accurately, my 'to improve my understanding of quantum physics' list.
Imagine being an electron. A virtual one. You travel on all possible paths, with all possible values of E and p, forward and backward in time, at the same time. A real electron does the same, but only forward in time and with fixed E and p (or corresponding t and x, their conjugates, obeying uncertainty relations).
Imagine being an electron. A virtual one. You travel on all possible paths, with all possible values of E and p, forward and backward in time, at the same time. A real electron does the same, but only forward in time and with fixed E and p (or corresponding t and x, their conjugates, obeying uncertainty relations)
I wish I could imagine such and I have quite a vivid imagination, in my opinion.
I can only imagine virtual as it is proposed in virtual reality simulations, which I think is a very acceptable manifestation of the term applied to the 'science of reality,' as a human being might perceive it.
Earlier in our discussions on another thread, you stated that you had difficulty with the logic/evidence behind my predictions of the possible future transhuman manifestations which may become possible due to technological advancement.
I have similar or perhaps even more difficulty with the logic/evidence behind:
"You travel on all possible paths, with all possible values of E and p, forward and backward in time"
and "A real electron does the same"
I know this is from Feynman and I hold him, as most people of science do, in very high esteem but it's when the words "This literally happens" that an electron travels on all possible paths through the slits in the double-slit experiment, that I have great difficulty with. I understand it as a 'mathematical thought exercise' of Feynmans and that he used this thought exercise to collapse all these paths into a single 'average' REAL physical path. I can make that 'logical jump,' but I can't conceive or accept that all possible paths are literally traversed by an electron or photon emitted by a source towards a screen behind two slits in a card placed between the source and the screen, producing the wave interference pattern viewed.
If you understand the wavefunction, then you should understand this. If you put cards parallel to the screen (in the double slit experiment) you would see the wavefunction (as on the screen). I don't think the particle travels on all paths at once. It rather jumps from one to the other, within the confines of the wavefunction the wavefunction accompanied the particle.
I have mixed emotions when it comes to the term 'metaphysical.' Definintions like 'after physics' or 'beyond physics' don't help but I normally do find some value when I read/view 'metaphysical' discussions.
Physics concerns what one expects to measure. Metaphysics concerns what is. So a quantum interpretation like Bohmian mechanics or RQM make zero empirical predictions, hence are not part of quantum mechanics physics theory.
Some molecule of Napoleon's dying breath interacts with the rock, changing the state (the momentum perhaps) of at least one particle of the rock. The rock is now different than it would have been without that measurement, thus Napoleon exists relative to that rock
— noAxioms
I may have garnished more value from this if you had typed something like 'Some molecule of Napoleans consciousness (not his dying breath), as his physical body starts to disassemble, after his death...interacts with a rock.
That breath was made of atoms, and electrons and protons and such. Those particles are still around to this day. They'd be somewhere else had Napoleon never existed, so they constitute a measurement of him.
To phrase it in MWI terms: It is not possible that there is a world that contains you (now and in your current state) and does not contain Napoleon.
I personally think this idea is nonsense and that such an interaction would leave the rock completely unchanged.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
I think it's much more likely that disassembled component parts of a dead human consciousness
I don't think human consciousness is an assembly of components. More of a process that takes place, like combustion, involving not necessarily the same matter at any given time, just like a candle flame's atoms are almost completely different than the 'same flame' a minute later.
I base this on a comment made by a physicist on Quora:
"the worldline of light behaves as ligtht-like curves in spacetime"
Not to say anything against that particular quote which seems accurate, but I find Quora to be one of biggest sources of misinformation on the web due to the lack of mechanism to promote correct answers to questions. Physics.StackExchange is far better in this regard and I usually look there first. I'm not a registered user on either site.
Yes, so the picture of hubble deepest field image (I have a very large framed print of it in my bedroom) mainly contains objects which probably don't exist anymore.
Depends on your definition of 'exists'. They've been measured, so they exist to us by that definition. They're galaxies, and separate galaxies might merge into bigger ones, but they hardly just cease being there after only several billion years
That's exactly why hidden variables are invented! How can a particle have a probability to be here or there? Where is it then?
You seem all over the map with your 'facts', but without framing them with a specific interpretation, and almost all of them are interpretation-dependent 'facts'.
You seem to mix bits from RQM, Copenhagen, and Bohmian mechanics, only the latter of which actually suggests that a particle has a location even unmeasured. Bohm's efforts seem a desperate attempt to explain quantum mechanics in classical terms as if classical physics is the more fundamental of the two.
The interpretation (and only one other that I know of) holds to the principle of counterfactual definiteness: that any given particle is in fact in some defined state at any time even in the absence of measurement. In doing so, he discarded the principle of locality (that cause must precede effect), a principle I find harder to sacrifice. No valid interpretation holds to both principles.
There are no hidden variables in RQM, and humans do not play any preferred role.
— noAxioms
How do you know there are no hidden variables?
— EugeneW
I didn't say there are no hidden variables
Okay. That's all I asked. Which means they offer an explanation. In BQM, the wavefunction just collapses. As a matter of fact, experiments can be done to discern if they exist or not.
Bohm's efforts seem a desperate attempt to explain quantum mechanics in classical terms as if classical physics is the more fundamental of the two.
The interpretation (
"Desperate"... Typical. Bohm was called names by his contemporaries. But he was right.
If anyone was desperate, it was Everest. Or Rovelli, for that matter, but he shows some signs of intelligence.
as if classical physics is the more fundamental of the two.
You see hidden variables as classical variables? Don't think so. They are non-local. Classical variables are local, except maybe tidal forces but they can be considered in arbitrary small regions of space. Maybe space itself is made of hidden variables. I don't see what Napoleon or Casar have to do with QM.
You seem to mix bits from RQM, Copenhagen, and Bohmian mechanics
"Seem" indeed, because I don't mix them. I just say there are hidden variables. Unfashionable, exciting lots of irrational underbelly feelings, just as the existence of preons. They are not metaphysical but physical.
As a maths expert, do you have anything to add that would aid my understanding of the difference between the terms wave /function/form/equation as they are used in maths compared to quantum physics?
In math a simple wave is a time-dependent vector field defined, say, on the complex plane as
[math]F\left( z,t \right)[/math]. One can elaborate on this, but I don't think that will help. Fourier series, of course, are associated with waves. But the closest I've come in recent years to producing a wave-like result might be these notes: Wave tunnels to centroids, Compressed wave of infinite length.
Perhaps the most illuminating way to connect the easiest of math waves with QP is to take a look at the foundational equation of the subject, the Schrodinger equation. Recall from basic calculus the mathematical relationship describing the rate of change of something compared with the quantity of that something. This is fundamental to so so much. It says the instantaneous rate of change of a quantity is proportional to the existing quantity at that moment.
[math]\frac{d}{dt}Q(t)=KQ(t)[/math]. Easily solved to [math]Q(t)=Q(0)\cdot {{e}^{Kt}}[/math]
Compare this with the Schrodinger equation in simplest form:
Notice that the capital K if replaced by [math]-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)[/math]
gives
[math]{{e}^{Kt}}={{e}^{-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t}}=Cos(\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t)-iSin(\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t)[/math]
And this, as t=time progresses, can produce a wave in the complex plane.
My comments are heuristic and descriptive, avoiding complexities beyond my grasp.
If you understand the wavefunction, then you should understand this. If you put cards parallel to the screen (in the double slit experiment) you would see the wavefunction (as on the screen). I don't think the particle travels on all paths at once. It rather jumps from one to the other, within the confines of the wavefunction the wavefunction accompanied the particle
An electron fired ONE AT A TIME from the source, through the slits forms an interference pattern on the screen, unless you put a detector behind the slits. Doing so, will 'collapse the wavefunction' and you will see two lines on the screen instead of the interference pattern. This is the 'measurement problem.' As far as I have read, further efforts have been made to show that it is not some 'affect of the detector' (such as the detection method used by the detector causing the electrons to change their path). So Feynmann suggested that each single electron passes through both slits and effectively 'interferes with itself'. His 'thought experiment' was that the single electron takes all known paths. You say it 'jumps from path to path.' This idea is just as confusing for me. How would 'jumping' allow a single electron to pass through both slits? The logic of 'jumping' would suggest passing through one slit, then stopping, changing direction, moving back, and onto another path and then moving through the second slit. Even as I type this, part of my conscience is telling me that my thinking of QM here is 'too conventional' but my brain fog continues for now on this topic. I get some relief from Feynman's comment of 'Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics. Sorry EugeneW, I appreciate your efforts so enlighten me on this topic but I must be too dense to fully grasp your logic. You seem quite convinced you understand exactly what's going on in the double-slit experiment. I am completely stumped by it for no. I defer to an old song by Toyah Willcox, 'Its a mystery,' (to me)
And this, as t=time progresses, describes a wave in the complex plane.
I could be wrong, but doesn't [math]e^{-iHt}[/math] describe a rotation of a complex vector as time goes on? The magnitude of this vector, is proportional to the probability in standard interpretation, is constant in time. How does that reflect a wavy probability in space? What propagates a probability wave in time? We know the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translations ([math]e^{-iHt}[/math] being the translator and H the generating operator associated with a conserved energy). What does it translate? The wavefunction in space. If you multiply the spatial part (also an e power for a free particle) by this translator than the wavy space part propagates in time. If H=0, the space-wavepart is stationary. The zero energy generates no propagation in time. Nevertheless, the particle can have momentum, if the spatial extent is bound.
You say it 'jumps from path to path.' This idea is just as confusing for me. How would 'jumping' allow a single electron to pass through both slits?
Confusing indeed! Let's say the electron just explores all possible paths to reach for other particles to interact with. It goes through one slit and during this transgress it hops to the other. Then to the other again, passes through, goes to the left to the right, over all possible path parts. The wavefunction accompanying it, determines which path it can move on, so a wavefunction from one slit, or one that's already collapsed after passing through both, will give a different pattern, which builds up from many one particle interactions and reflects the shape of the single particle wavefunction.
How does the particle hop from one path to another? How often does this happen? Well, that's indeed mysterious. It does it fast and instantaneous (seems like c is superseeded, and in a sense it does, I mean, imagine you are that particle; you're here and the next on the other side of the slit, instantaneously, without delay!).
Physics concerns what one expects to measure. Metaphysics concerns what is.
I don't agree with this interpretation. Physics makes predictions of the results of a particular experiment but it then accepts the actual results as what is.
Metaphysics is decribed as:
"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space."
and
"abstract theory with no basis in reality."
I prefer the scientific method employed by physics to the nonetheless interesting philosophical musings of metaphysics.
I don't think human consciousness is an assembly of components. More of a process that takes place, like combustion, involving not necessarily the same matter at any given time, just like a candle flame's atoms are almost completely different than the 'same flame' a minute later.
They've been measured, so they exist to us by that definition. They're galaxies, and separate galaxies might merge into bigger ones, but they hardly just cease being there after only several billion years
Well, it might have been more accurate for me to say that the print in my room of that area of space looks nothing like that anymore.
Reply to jgill
Thank you, I downloaded the two pdf's but the maths is quite advanced (at least for me) so I will attempt to understand it at some point.
imagine you are that particle; you're here and the next on the other side of the slit, instantaneously, without delay!)
Brian Greene talks about this type of 'quantum weirdness' and 'quantum fluctuations.' A particle which is on one side of a barrier simply 'almost spontaneously' appears on the other side and he just says 'we don't know why or how, it just does. So I go back to a previous point I made. Thinking about and discussing QM with others will remain good practice and good fun, if somewhat frustrating, but I think we probably need another million years of science and scientists before we 'know.'
Thinking about and discussing QM with others will remain good practice and good fun, if somewhat frustrating, but I think we probably need another million years of science and scientists before we 'know.'
Well, hidden variables offer an answer. They are non-local variables. Bohm was ridiculed for it. He was literally called names by his contemporaries (a frustrated Troskyan, having an unmatured brain, etc.). Hidden variables were not done. You can even considering them being space itself surrounding the particle. Virtual particles wavefunctions could make up the bulk of space and curve empty space negatively (these kinds of things are what you're banned for on physics sites...).
So not all paths are taken at once but parts of paths
To me, this almost suggests that the electron has some kind of cognisant intent, almost 'deciding' when to jump and things get difficult and almost 'magical' when it gets to two slits and its only one electron.
I may be being a little anthropic here but your suggested behavior of these electrons sounds as if they have panpsychist aspects to them. Maybe some unknown or misunderstood conditions of the double-slit experiment causes an approaching electron to 'smear out' or 'stretch its expanse' so that it passes through both slits and under other conditions it only passes through one of them. Has the experiment been done, whereby the distance between the slits has been incrementally increased and the experiment repeated?
Reply to EugeneW
I assume he meant 'almost no passage of time,' so I assumed he was suggesting that in some cases the appearance on the other side may happen faster that c but I am just guessing. He said it during a discussion he was having with a large panel of cosmologists which included, krauss, carroll, guth and about 6 others. I watched it on youtube a few years ago but I cant remember its title.
I think the nature of reality will always remain a mystic mystery somehow. Maybe the basics of nature are geometric structures made of hidden variables reaching out for other structures, and when near their coupling to the vìrtual field offers a means to interact, collapse and get identity. What particle likes to get lost in space...?
I don't. I see an interpretation that attempts to get as close as possible to classical intuitions at whatever cost in additional complexity. I prefer the simpler ones (Occam's razor and all), but I am not so naive as to assert any particular interpretation as 'the truth'.
Confusing indeed! Let's say the electron just explores all possible paths to reach for other particles to interact with. It goes through one slit and during this transgress it hops to the other.
You say this stuff like it is fact, when it is only your personal opinion, which is misleading when replying to one who is trying to learn. Last I checked, Bohm does not suggest that the electron goes through one slit and then hops to the other. It takes one path in that interpretation.
The interpretation suggests that the electron detours to the side a bit to migrate to the next positive interference concentration, but it never doubles back and 'takes both paths'. From wiki:
"Trajectories of particles under De Broglie–Bohm theory in the double-slit experiment."
Note that the picture is not entitled: "Trajectories of particles under Quantum Mechanics theory in the double-slit experiment."
Note also that none of the paths double back and pass through more than one slit.
So Feynmann suggested that each single electron passes through both slits and effectively 'interferes with itself'.
That's like saying the cat is both dead and alive. It isn't. The electron is said to be in superposition of going through each slit, and the cat is in superposition of being dead and alive. Even then, the latter is wrong since superposition requires a coherent state: the electron states in superposition can interfere with each other and produce a measurable interference pattern. The live cat cannot measurably interfere with the dead cat, and so it not a true superposition.
They done the double-slit thing with buckyballs, which is a huge molecule which they've nevertheless managed to get to interfere with itself.
Physics makes predictions of the results of a particular experiment but it then accepts the actual results as what is.
If I am looking for my coffee, and see it sitting on the counter, that's a measurement. That I infer that the cup is actually over there is a metaphysical conclusion, but one that works very well for me, so it's second nature in everyday life. Physics says that if I actually go there and reach for the cup, I'd expect it to be measured by my hand when I do that, but physics actually says that that expectation can be made regardless of the metaphysical overhead.
It's a thin distinction, but an important one to me. I named myself 'noAxioms' precisely because there's nothing I refuse to question. I've a long list of things that pretty much everybody believes (including myself) which are nevertheless lacking in hard evidence. The result is a conflict: I believe some things that I know to be likely false, as if there are multiple entities in me with conflicting ideas, and only one of them can be in charge.
They're galaxies, and separate galaxies might merge into bigger ones, but they hardly just cease being there after only several billion years
— noAxioms
Well, it might have been more accurate for me to say that the print in my room of that area of space looks nothing like that anymore.
What something looks like is what you see if you look at it. Galaxies are huge and take ages to change. I assure you it that it still looks like that now from here. Sure, you move a few billion light years in some direction and point the telescope the same way, the view will look different. The picture is definitely dependent on point of view and looks different from significantly elsewhere.
This is false. One would need to assume certain unprovable postulates (*cough* biases *cough*) to demonstrate this
One would need very precise measurements of arrival times. At the moment these measurements are extremely difficult to realize but it could be done in principle. Hidden variables give almost exactly the same predictions as the standard. But not totally.
Bohm does not suggest that the electron goes through one slit and then hops to the other. It takes one path in that interpretation.
It's not Bohm who says a particle hops from one path to another. It's me. An electron travels on parts of all possible paths, directed by non-local variables. This actually happens.
Bohm was mocked
— EugeneW
But has anybody proven him wrong?
Nobody did, as a matter of fact. Just irrational prejudices about QM made Pauli and most others condemn him. Everything was fetched to defend the standard view. Sleazy methods included (he was friends with a mystic... can't be any good coming from them!).
Thanks! I downloaded the pdf and I will read and study its contents and see if it improves my understanding of what's happening in the double split experiment.
Yeah, but why did he turn to characters like Jiddu Krishnamurti
Don't ask me but he was, like Bohm a holist (Bohm's holographic universe):
"His interests included psychological revolution, the nature of mind, meditation, holistic inquiry, human relationships, and bringing about radical change in society. He stressed the need for a revolution in the psyche of every human being and emphasised that such revolution cannot be brought about by any external authority, be it religious, political, or social."
Maybe they were lovers, who knows? JK was no quantum theorist, I think. I think they strengthened each other's view. On physical nature as well as soul.
It's a thin distinction, but an important one to me. I named myself 'noAxioms' precisely because there's nothing I refuse to question. I've a long list of things that pretty much everybody believes (including myself) which are nevertheless lacking in hard evidence. The result is a conflict: I believe some things that I know to be likely false, as if there are multiple entities in me with conflicting ideas, and only one of them can be in charge
I particularly like 'there's nothing I refuse to question.' I think Scientific rigor benefits from such an approach and such an attitude.
"as if there are multiple entities in me with conflicting ideas, and only one of them can be in charge"
I think we have three. The RComplex(me), The Limbic system(myself), and the Cerebral Cortex (I).
Combined, they are all my thoughts, my consciousness. That's of course only the result of my internal study of what I am. In a similar way to us trying to figure out what the Universe is from inside it.
Reply to EugeneW
I have a sister who is a fan of Jiddu Krishnamurti. I glaze over when she gives him plaudits. She despairs at my refusal to give him the credits she thinks he deserves. She even sent me a calendar which contains one of his inane statements under a pretty picture of nature for each month. It's in a drawer somewhere.
I personally put him with characters like the Maharishi, the mystic that managed to fog the brains of the Beatles or L Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame.
I just see such characters as engaging in pure sophistry as a means of earning a living.
Yeah, Capra (Tao of physics) and Pirsig (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance), and more of them. I can't see a connection between QM and eastern philosophy though, and Bohm's implicate order presents a different reality. I'm not sure what his friendship with K means for hidden variables. These were already thought up by Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, 7th Duc de Broglie. They give exactly the same measurable stuff but the ontology is more satisfying. At least, to me. I can't imagine particles taking all paths at once with unfounded probabilities. Probabilities must have an underlying mechanism. 't Hooft is one of the few defenders. Luckily. He has no career to loose. Can express his mind freely. Many physicists don't have the guts, afraid of not being accepted.
I think for wavebehavior you need the space part of the wavefunction. A Gaussian wavepacket is a wavelike structure (composition of different momenta and omega exponentials: [math]u(x,t)=e^{i(kx-\omega t)}[/math], from which momenta/position and energy/time connections can be discerned). It's also a complex vector varying in space. If t evolves, the shape propagates.
From Wiki:
"In the coordinate representation of the wave (such as the Cartesian coordinate system), the position of the physical object's localized probability is specified by the position of the packet solution. Moreover, the narrower the spatial wave packet, and therefore the better localized the position of the wave packet, the larger the spread in the momentum of the wave. This trade-off between spread in position and spread in momentum is a characteristic feature of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle"
The product of complex time and position vectors gives the dispersing Gaussian wavepacket of a free particle (due to a momentum spectrum). The square gives the probability density, which is a density of probability traveling through space, in a wavelike shape. Not all wavefunction solutions have a wavelike nature though. But free particles always have.
Reply to EugeneW I was asked to relate a bit of QP to (elementary) math, and the Schrodinger equation in a simple version resembles a fundamental relationship in elementary calculus. In this way the SE is related to continuous compounding. Weird, huh?
You've given more info on the physics part, which is admirable. I don't attempt to add physics I'm not familiar with.
It's not Bohm who says a particle hops from one path to another. It's me. An electron travels on parts of all possible paths, directed by non-local variables. This actually happens.
OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. I don't think you're the best for trying to educate another. Quoting EugeneW
Hidden variables give almost exactly the same predictions as the standard. But not totally.
By definition, all quantum interpretation must make the same predictions as quantum theory. If it doesn't, it isn't an interpretation of that theory. So by saying this, you're asserting that all quantum physicists are wrong, and you alone have sole access to some kind of special truth, and not just a deluded belief.
Kind of arrogant, no? I'm just saying that your claims are unbacked and waaay over the top.
I think we have three. The RComplex(me), The Limbic system(myself), and the Cerebral Cortex (I).
Well, I don't label them me, myself, and I, but sure. I notice that the authority hierarchy goes left to right in that list. The cortex is the slowest and least in charge, but that's where the rational part of us is. Not being in charge, I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest and ostensibly rowdiest seats in the theater, the occupants of which were often known to heckle the performers. The least expensive snack served at the theatre would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to convey their disapproval. Phrases such as "no comments from the peanut gallery" or "quiet in the peanut gallery" are extensions of the name.
OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. I don't think you're the best for trying to educate another.
I think this is ill-judged commentary and sounds rather bitter and somewhat presumptuous.
You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse?
Hopefully @EgeneW remembers the DIMP guys theory that I posted for him to peruse. That guy certainly had his own private physics, but based on accepted physics. He like many others are convinced they know exactly what the basic workings of the Universe are and they know what its basic structure is. Most of them feel that the currently established cosmology hierarchy will not (rightly or wrongly) give them an adequate public hearing.
If you want to encourage new thinking, you need to welcome any attempt at new physics.
As a teacher of 30 years, I fully endorse all 'true seekers.' Encouraging Original thinking is a very
sound approach when 'trying to educate another.'
A software engineer, who I am sure, is often tasked with creating ever more efficient algorithms should know that.
I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
This is a more negative view of a human than the one I hold myself but I do respect your right to hold 'your own private humanism viewpoint now.'
By definition, all quantum interpretation must make the same predictions as quantum theory. If it doesn't, it isn't an interpretation of that theory. So by saying this, you're asserting that all quantum physicists are wrong, and you alone have sole access to some kind of special truth, and not just a deluded belief.
Considering your name, noAxioms, I'm surprised you dislike an interpretation that goes against the basic axioms. I don't say quantum physists are wrong. Newton was not wrong either, in the domain of application. It's just that hidden variables make the same predictions as standard QM, except in a domain that's difficult to access experimentally (but it is in principle).
You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse?
:up:
I just watched Rovelli talking to a big public. I like how he says "consequences": consequences.
Reply to EugeneW
I think Italians always sound quite 'cool' when speaking their version of English.
But I feel the same about Spaniards, French, Americans, Africans, Australians, Scots(so me!) .......everyone who is not actually English....and even some of them who are....Liverpudlians, Mancunians, Geordies etc
I might have a unique take on the subject if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1
You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse?
That isn't physics since it makes no empirical predictions. It's just a system of categorization of different kinds of multiverse that falls out of standard physics theories and interpretations, with the fourth level being his own philosophical addition, but again, nothing that was asserted as any kind of necessary truth.
To quote Tegmark: "I don’t think it’s my job as a scientist to “believe” in particular theories, and prefer being quantitive and discussing the probability p I’d estimate for something being correct."
Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse?
No I don't. They're more professional than that.
He like many others are convinced they know exactly what the basic workings of the Universe are and they know what its basic structure is.
If you 'know' something for which the evidence is yet to be found, then it's blind faith, which I find unprofessional.
If you want to encourage new thinking, you need to welcome any attempt at new physics.
I never said I didn't. But new ideas (especially ones that are contradicted by empirical evidence) shouldn't be asserted as truth, just 'because I know'. Proper new thinking is presented in the form of hypothesis. That's how the scientific method works.
I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
— noAxioms
This is a more negative view of a human than the one I hold myself but I do respect your right to hold 'your own private humanism viewpoint now.'
I don't find that comment negative at all, just my best assessment. Declaring something fit (or at least more fit than the alternative) seems a positive trait, not a negative one.
It's just that hidden variables make the same predictions as standard QM, except in a domain that's difficult to access experimentally (but it is in principle).
But no such experiment has been identified, even an impractical one. If the experiment has not taken place, how is this assertion known?
Comments (325)
Quoting Benj96
This is the theory which I stand for. But, instead of considering "equal" the beginning and the end, I see it as the one/unique movement/power which is concentrated in itself. Greeks usted to debate a lot of Alpha (beginning) Omega (the end). I like the point where it is defended that one of the most characteristic acts in the human nature are "born" and "die", thus, "beginning" and "end"
Universe is infinite, we humans are just passing through until our extinction.
[b]Factum est: ego sum alpha et omega, initium et finis.
It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.[/b] :flower:
Aye, theory siblings, you and I. And yes, infinite is more like it. Beginning and end are human interpolations because we detect patterns through time. No actual such thing, Einstein showed this with relativity.
Yes! :up: I personally think is the most reasonable theory. Nevertheless, I respect the others points of views
Me too, Javi. I just wish they'd respect mine most of the time. Ever heard of General Systems Theory??
There can be no cause of existence. For there to be a cause something must exist.
No, I never heard about this theory. What's about?
Could it be that “cause” is “existence”? In this way there is no need for cause indeed as it is synonymous with existence itself. Existence is cause or existence is energy - the ability to be/ do.
The verb “to be” may answer to no one. It simple “is”.
At planck radius, "the universe" was a runaway – inflationary – cosmic-thermal entropic effect of an acausal (spontaneous symmetry-breaking) vacuum fluctuation^. There was no "beginning", just cosmological development^ that is measurable with contemporary physics to minus c13.8 billions years back from t=0 (today).
Like a sphere, torus, loop ..., it makes no more sense to conceive of spacetime^ as bounded having a first point (i.e. "beginning") as it does to conceive of Earth having an edge (e.g. "north of the North Pole").
Also, pedantic note: "the universe" =/= "existence" (as the poll suggests); analogously, the latter is like a field and the former a dissipating structure^ with respect to that field (i.e. ocean and wave/s, respectively; or continuum and set/s).
I do not know the original cause of existence.
I do not believe anyone else knows.
I do not believe that anyone has a plausible account that would be likely to command widespread consensus.
I believe that if anyone has ever stated the original cause of existence truthfully, then it was sheer luck.
I believe that we will never know whether such a truthful statement has ever been made or by whom.
I do not believe that any assertion or denial as to the original cause of existence has any basis whatsoever.
The original cause of existence is, in that respect, quite unlike the cause of the formation of clouds, which are (relatively speaking) fairly well understood.
Ah yes i see what you mean. I often, like many, struggle to distinguish between that which is (exists and is objective) and that does not - in any “real” sense but which is merely a construct or concept used in order to make comprehension easier.
Fields and possibilities and waves, probabilities, potential vs the cold hard particulate objective world. The scope of “existence” in this way perplexes me. As I often wonder does it extend to feelings, dreams, ideas or is it merely that which is measurable in some physical external sense. I wonder where that which exists has its limits with the imaginary. Where something borders nothingness. I believe it is human tendency to make everything concrete. To imagine quarks as solid things as opposed to mathematically demonstrable oscillations that themselves are not tangible. Is maths something that exists as a physical logic or is it a human tool to navigate the physical world which has no application other than in our comprehension?
We have been arguing about what is real and what is not for millennia, I suspect this won’t be soon resolved.
Compare these two questions:
1) How did life originate?
2) Now that life has originated, what should we do?
I'm willing to hear another viewpoint of course, but as I currently see it, 2) is interesting, 1) is empty and distracting.
Well, I think it is interesting debate about the origin of everything... If is it matters? Why not
Not exhaustive??? This is the longest poll list I have ever list by far!
Then, if you think that it isn't exhaustive, why don't you just ask everyone to present his/her version?
Quoting Benj96
Your question is incomplete: you should add the word "Universe" next to "existence", even if --or, especially because-- it is contained in the options, since alone, this term can refer to a lot of things.
Also, the word "original" is redundant. Can there also be a "second" or "later" or "newer" cause of the existence of the Universe? In fact of the existence of enything? A cause is something that makes X happen. After X has happened the cause and effect relationship and the corresp. phenomenon are complete.
I don't think that existence is the ability to be. We say of things that are or that we claim are that they exist. It is not the ability to be but that fact of being.
To put it in a way that may seem paradoxical or contradictory - existence does not exist. But there is nothing paradoxical or contradictory about that statement.
But for me,
I don't think questions about the origin of the universe are interesting, because no matter what the answer is, the end result is the same. Namely, the end result is the world we have to deal with today. In other words, the next question AFTER "how did the universe originate" is already accessible to us. So we just don't need "how did the universe originate". Instead, I'm insanely curious about what we should/ will do, now that it has.
We can only know what we should/could do if we know when everything started on the beginning :flower: :up:
If you think so closely, you would check a lot of theories so the results are not necessarily the same
I don't think we have to know how things started from the beginning to make decisions, I think we can just guess if we want. But maybe you disagree with that, which would be awesome, because then it would be the kind of conversation about what we should do that I thought would be better.
But I will admit you raise a very good point.
It could be the universe is eternal and infinite in extent, in which big banged universe follow each other up. Not expanding and contracting and expanding, etc. But serial expanding universes all with their own beginning of time caused by the preceding universe. And guess who brought it all into existence? It were the gods clapping their tales or howling the words.
The rotation of the Earth is of uttermost importance. Day and night, sleep and wake, hot and cold, they are the important features that give matter and the vital divine spark in it the means to evolve by moving away from thermodynamic equilibrium bit by bit. The flow of heat reverses daily in the rythm of day and night. Matter receives from the Sun at daytime and radiates during night. The equilibrium can never be reached, giving matter structures a means to evolve between the heat and the cold. Creatures come crawling out of the swamps, start roaming in seas, start growing out of the earth, and walk on the land.
As a subject, the start of everything doesn't interest me much. I tend to think notions of beginnings and ends are human attempts to apply order to the reality we know. 'How it all began' is of almost no use to me in my daily life. But I understand the especial attraction of beginnings for theists. The absurd uncaused first cause still has a hold on folk who use it to prop up god's who must have something to do, or they recede into history.
Well, there is one element of calculus they understand. The greater than or more than comparison. They always want to fetch the bigger stick and want more.
Why can't we understand time? It's a clock ticking or asymmetric motion based on symmetric motion. Time can't be reversed because it has a beginning. The beginning is caused by timeless motion.
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm not sure I understand why this is an attraction for theists. I'm a theist too but I don't have a problem with a beginning without them gods.
I think mainly because the first cause or cosmological argument is an easy one to understand and make and enthusiastic Protestant apologists in the English speaking world have often adapted the Kalam cosmological argument to good results with the folks. 'Common sense' apologetics often do best.
So the universe started as concentrated pure energy and will end as ultra-thinned out pure energy. Sounds pretty boring, doesn't it?
If one gives it some thought, clearly there's a paradox: per kind favor of memory, the past should be something we have a handle on, the future being uncertain. Yet here we are...bewildered and angry too I suppose.
Motion without time. You're on a roll!
I voted for this because the universe is not bounded. The everything is the universe. We gave meaning to time, but without us, it has no meaning or existence at all. But -- there's decay! How about that. Stars die out.
It sounds interesting as hell that universe could be timeless because this can means that the concept of "time" itself is just a human concept or... A limit one
How can the universe be timeless? The fact that you can remember things proves that time exists.
That's exactly what time does without motion. It has motion, of course. Time always involves motion. But there are different kinds of motion. The symmetrical motion of which you can't say (not even if you know everything about it) if it goes forward or backward in time, precedes the unidirectional asymmetrical irreversible motion involved in the thermo"dynamic" time. Something like that. It's all figùred out pretty smartass....
But it does exist for us because we created the concept of "time" but probably, the time itself doesn't exist in the universe. We are just walking through it
Doesn't it have to exist to walk through it?
Yes, but only in our consciousness. Not in the universe's one. Because the universe itself is timeless, space less and limitless
But our consciousness is part of the universe.
How can you prove that?
For me, those are clearly separated of each other
Yes. Just as spacetime is (located) neither where nor when, (i.e. (has) neither 'inside-outside' nor 'before-after').
How can you prove it's not? The universe is not just some fixed 4d spacetime state of matter through which our consciousness travels. I consider it attached to matter, inside it, traveling and pushing and pulling along.
How do you know that? It can be situated in a higher dimensional infinite space into which our universe is expanding.
Because consciousness is something related to human knowledge. For example, dogs and cats are not aware about their own existence. Nevertheless, they are part of the "universe", aren't they? We all are part of this universe but we are the responsible of giving it a "significance"
The universe is just there, "existing" and then we are here "thinking" and philosophizing
There are beliefs people hold on to, and I am no exception. I know the space expanse and time are infinite. And I know I exist. Beyond that, everything else is negotiable.
Theories abound. The more science uncovers of reality, the more incomprehensible things become on the intuitive level. I think the best thing is not to make any rash decisions; and definitely not to engage in bitter arguments over these things.
:up: We are proximate beings for whom reality is proximate and therefore for whom "ultimate reality" is an ever-approachable yet unattainable encompassing horizon. Our best, most fundamental science is only a finger pointing at the CMB by which we interpretatively orient ourselves (civilization) in the boundless void.
Our 4d finite closed spacetime could be located in a higher dimensional spacetime. Isn't it located then?
My dog lays on the couch licking clean her precious part. She's very aware of herself. Thomas Malthus, eugenics, are alive and kicking...
The 2d surface of a sphere is located on its boundary. Likewise our universe can be located somewhere in a higher dimensional space. Of course matter has to be attached to our 3 space dimensions. It can expand in that higher dimensional space. Dark energy and all that. DE is just higher dimensional curvature!
I wish our beautiful dogs would aware about themselves. But no, this is only a human complex issue. This is why we tend to develop theories and philosophy. We are more complex than animals.
While we are concerned about what the future holds or what could happen this afternoon, the universe is there, not caring
That's what I mean. The boundary of the sphere is part of the sphere. Just like any surface inside it. So our universe could be a volume inside a higher dimensional space. So located inside that higher dimensional space. Expansion of space is proof.
I pity your dogs if they're not self-aware. People nowadays are too much self-aware. Every creature is self aware.
We are animals who are free to create their own coat, communication means, and material reality.
Proof of what?
That our 3d space is located on a higher dimensional space. If that 3d space propagates through that higher dimensional space, it seems the galaxies are receding from each other. If that space is negatively curved, even accelerated, if matter induced positive curvature drops below a threshold.
OK, if you think so, then why do you think we cannot communicate with animals? Because our language are more complex than theirs. They just act with primary actions. We tend to be more complicated. Reasoning, thinking, wondering... Or even hating
We can communicate with animals. We're a kind of animal ourselves.
Except that it's expanding. The extra space that is created while expanding is just part of the higher dimensional space of which we are a sub. That's the explanation for dark energy.
Not at all. Language is a very complex matter. We can communicate but probably we cannot understand them. That's the issue
I understand my dog. She can even act! She was jealous when I paid attention to another dog. She acted as if her back leg was hurting suddenly. I understood.
I did...
I think you are misunderstanding stimulus with language. She is acting with pure primary interests. It is so complex for her to analyze what is the meaning of "being jealous"
She doesn't analyze it. She just is.
I'm with you on this. Wittgenstein said that if a lion could talk we would not understand him. I disagree. If the lion said "I'm hungry and you look good to eat", I would get the idea.
When the cat scratches at the cupboard door it's because she believes her food is in there. To think she doesn't have beliefs because she doesn't have language I would have to have a pre-existing theory about beliefs that would stop me thinking that. But why should I?
[What has that got to do with the start of everything? I just saw the thread title]
But it is more complex than it. We just give it a significance. Our dogs act and interact with us but there is a gap between what we think and what they feel. This is why we have to train and educate our dogs. To try to behave "correctly" according to our circumstances.
Exactly. In a loose sense. If our dog jumps me and heads to where her leash hangs I understand what she tells me. Right now she makes a kind of weeping sound in fact. Wants my attention. I look at her, she looks back with asking eyes. How difficult can it be?
She just has to learn not to pee in our bed. Damn her!
Ha! What we want?.... Oops...
"Of course, their being ineffable does not prevent our hinges from showing themselves in what we say, but here too, certainty is animal. My hinge certainty that 'I have a body' is much the same as a lion's instinctive certainty of having a body."
— Danièle Moyal-Sharrock, p8
https://www.academia.edu/25773618/The_Animal_in_Epistemology_Wittgensteins_Enactivist_Solution_to_the_Problem_of_Regress
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/652559
Sorry, still off-topic.
It needs no evidential justification that my dog understands "are we going for a walk?" (In my native language). If I say so, her head rotates a bit. She knows what I mean. She understands the words. She reacts. Stands up nervously, comes to lick my face. Other words don't have that effect. No matter how I say them. That's the evidence, if one likes evidence.
I try to consider the Universe before any lifeform that was capable of asking a question, existed.
This was the state for the vast majority of the proposed 14 billion years of time passed so far.
To me, it's a little like sleeping or being knocked unconscious or being in a coma etc. If I don't dream, then I become unaware of the passage of time. This stoppage of time is of course only relative to my conscience. So under my personal reference frame, the Universe came into existence when I was born and will end when I die, perhaps for me, that's where the significance of this Universe does and should begin and end. Personal oblivion before and after my life is nothing to fear.
I see the proposed 14 billion years of the Universe as a 'Universal time frame,' not a relative time frame.
It's 'the past' of the Universe. We can only experience the 'reality' of the sun as it was minutes ago, not as it is 'now.' To experience it, as it is now, we have to 'remove the distance between us,' physically. It's the same with people. We communicate on this website and this simulate's the removal of distance and allows us to know each other a little more but not as much as if we interacted in person, face to face, no distance between us, on a regular basis.
I don't think the suggestion that until 'thinking' life arrived, the Universe was in 'sleep mode,' but still mechanistically changed, is a deeply meaningful analogy but I do think there is some value in it.
I am content to say, for sure, since it began, the Universe demonstrates an ability to change over time.
The main driver is vast (probably not infinite) variety in vast numbers of combinations.
I am currently more attracted to the pan/cosmopsychist explanation of the 'fine tuning' problem than I am to the multiverse/Mtheory solution. As an atheist, I have no interest in the god fable.
I am attracted to Phillip Goff's 'cosmopsychism.' I like his description of:
"If we combine holism with panpsychism, we get cosmopsychism: the view that the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself. This is the view I ultimately defend in my book Consciousness and Fundamental Reality."
If you want to, you can read his 11 page essay at:
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life
When the panpsychists describe the consciousness of the Universe itself., they suggest that consciousness is made up of non-sentient quanta. We only become self-aware due to 'combination of particular quanta.'
I think that natural 'change' in the universe is trying to achieve, self-awareness through the thoughts of lifeforms such as us by means of asking and answering questions. Why this is true is another question that needs an answer. How this all started (origin process of our Universe) is also another question to be answered.
That's good enough for me, for now. It allows me to be happy in my life and not be something more difficult to live with such as pessimism or antinatalism etc. That would make me unhappy.
Sounds very simplistic but perhaps simplicity and parsimony is the way to go
I partially agree. I think the 14 billion years are one in many. I think that solves the problem of a beginning. There is no beginning, only beginnings following each other up. If all is dead and gone here (no pessimism intended here, I keep that for the foreseeable future), the universe reacts back to the source, from which a new time comes into being. Will we all meet again then? Who knows. I agree with all being endowed with consciousness. But not the universe as a whole trying to understand itself. It's us trying to understand. Are we just faces of the universe? A universal hydra? Well, I'm sure if my head is chopped off it won't grow back. Other heads pop up continuously though, but all with their own bodies. I don't think we can create a new universe. Why should we? Is the reason to life generating new life? And the reason for that new life to spring new life again? If so, then what for? To live? Why? To live! That's the meaning/reason to live. Life itself. Some people though fuck the planet up. What a mess... But what can we do?
Oh! Forgot one thing... Of course all is created by gods. There is no physical theory that is self explanatory. The finetuning problem doesn't exist in an eternal universe in which only massless partìcles interact with fixed couplings. No hierarchy problem. Gravity is weak because of a relative (to us) high speed of light.
What's a CMB?
(Nothing against you, personally, but it irks me to no end when people are too lazy to type out three words, and they assume I will understand their abbreviations, while there is total communication breakdown due to not my fault, but due to their 1. laziness and 2. assumption that everyone knows what they know. And they make me fucking work by needing to type much more than three words to get their message over to me again, and to properly express my dismay about the related events their lack of consideration causes.)
Good points. Your text is interesting. I simply want to add that we could see the Universe just as something "static". I still defend that all those characteristics are imposed by humans because we like to improve our knowledge. This is why we study de cosmology or astrology. A normal human with a minimum interest for life would at least read or study a bit related to what is going on out there.
Nevertheless, I still defend (quite pessimistic I guess) that universe is like a huge empty living room that we full it with our knowledge. But imagine humans never existed at all. Well, the Universe would not care because it would be still there.
Thus, we are the ones just walking through
Cosmic microwave background rats
So do you favour the oscillating Universe theory or Roger Penrose and his dissipating Universe and the creation of a new Universe within a new epoch of time?
Quoting EugeneW
But we are components of the Universe, are we not?
Quoting EugeneW
Not yet no but nature suggests that for the sake of continued survival, it is wise to reproduce.
Quoting EugeneW
What many of us continue to try to do. What people in history have tried to do. Learn from our mistakes and do better next time. Maybe this clash with Russia will be the last of its kind if we survive it or perhaps there is another one to come with China. Maybe after that such craziness will become forever smaller and local.
Hello, first time I have chatted directly with you I think. A pleasure to chat with you.
Can you explain your 'The Universe just as something static' when it has demonstrated change from the moment of its origin?
Quoting javi2541997
I think the anthropocentric tendency of human thought is a valid criticism but recognition of that tendency makes us take account of it when we postulate.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes I agree but education will for most people, normally result in quick rejection of nonsense such as astrology.
Quoting javi2541997
I don't think this is pessimistic, the universe is physically vast and if we are the only creatures capable of 'complex thinking' then it really is pretty empty of 'meaning'. What a wonder, how incredibly exciting is it to think that we and we alone give meaning and significance to something so vast. To do this by just existing and thinking and being a part of the universe gives me an overwhelming feeling of wonder. Much more so than any story of god and paradise ever has or could.
Quoting javi2541997
But the Universe may have no capacity to care, except through us. The animals might care a little and thus imbue the Universe with a little ability to care. Maybe the dinosaurs offered the same but we are a lot better at it and we can act upon such in ways that the dino's and the current animals cannot. We can do science. Enough to leave this planetary nest perhaps and ask a lot of new questions and discover new answers about the Universe.
Well, not exactly oscillatory in the sense of a big bañg-bang-big-crunch, etc. More like big-bang-big-rip kinda thing. If our universe has accelerated towards oblivion, it could be a sign for the singularity at the "origin" (of a 4d space) to start a new blast from virtuality (virtual particles). This new 3d blast can expand after us on the higher dimensional space it's in.
Quoting universeness
I might hope so! But is there truly a greater whole? A cosmic Hydra?
Quoting universeness
Smolin says this happens inside black holes. Im sure you've heard that. But why should we if it all starts again after us? In a hunderd thousand trillion years after us? And if we could, you would have to pass a wormhole. If a wormhole comes to be in the first place (we'd be fucked...)
Quoting universeness
Yeah. Let's hope (or pray, but I don't think that'll work) they won't nuke the fridge... Modern warfare ain't funny anymore.
I meant to the static meaning from a philosophical point of view. Probably I didn't choose the correct world. I was thinking about the universe as something rigid which stays there, doesn't caring or wondering about Earth's existence.
Quoting universeness
I am agree. I want to share with you this paper: The Dark Forest Postulates and the Fermi Paradox. I guess you would like it.
Quoting universeness
Exactly, we can do science because we care and we tend to be more complex than animals. It is a paradox because while we are supposedly more intelligent than others, at the same time we suffer more about uncertainty and concerns
I think this is a similar viewpoint to that of Roger Penrose but I think he also suggests that some information can pass from time epoch to time epoch and that each Universe may be very different.
He does not support the multiverse theory.
Quoting EugeneW
Well, If one accepts that the Universe is the 'whole' then no.
I don't like to use mythological beast analogies such as the Hydra in such chats as such analogies don't help my conception/perceptions in any useful way.
Quoting EugeneW
To me, you are just demonstrating 'natural frustration' at not knowing all the answers. Patience is a virtue (so they say). I understand your frustration but don't ever let it dull your focus or affect your sanity. The Universe needs you to do your duty and ask and answer questions as rigorously as you can.
Quoting EugeneW
True, true, true. So true I said it thrice. If we go extinct then, in my opinion, the Earth and perhaps the Universe will be set back for at least many thousands of years.
Ok, but as I suggested earlier, I think we are its attempt to develop an ability to 'care.'
Quoting javi2541997
Thanks, I will add it to my 'text I need to read now! list,' sadly this list grows ever longer.
I am some familiarity with the Fermi paradox of vast size of the Universe and probability versus no extra terrestrial intelligent life found so far, despite SETI's efforts.
Quoting javi2541997
I don't think this is paradoxical, I think it's consequential. We care and so we suffer and so we care.
We would not act so fervently against suffering if we did not have it as a comparator to non-suffering. Caring is what makes us want to convert suffering into non-suffering.
You think we could create a new universe?
Do we have a duty towards the Universe? Sounds the same like having a duty towards god...
If, and once, we have answered all questions, as we would then be omnipotent and omniscient.
This might take a while though.
Similar but not the same. Does he postulate contraction after expansion?
'Duty' was just my choice of word to try to suggest a 'strong responsibility' on your part. It was my statement and I am of the Universe but I cannot claim it as a universal dictate, especially if you disagree with it. How about 'kindness/gesture of positivity/support toward the Universe. No, I don't project into the god fable with that particular sentence, in my opinion.
Well, I think I know the answer to cosmological problems (matter/antimatter asymmetry with associated left/right asymmetry, hierarchy problem, arrow of time, fundamental fields, particle structure, etc.) but if that makes omnipotent? Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?
Yes! Here I completely agree. But not because gods made it, like you know I believe. The universe and all in it is just great.
No, he suggests the expansion will continue and heat deaths will eventually reach a point when all that's left is black holes and they will slowly evaporate and then we will only have space which he suggests is the same as having nothing. At this point, a 'singularity' will inflate again and local time will reset to 0.
A new Epoch.
There are various YouTube vids where he talks about this. There is also one where he debates with William Lane Craig. Craig listens much more than he talks, which I think is a good idea for him.
But suffering is one of the most trascendental emotions we have. To be honest, I think is quite impossible to "not suffer" at all. Philosophical aspects as "happiness", "sadness", "suffering" is upon us and our attitude towards the life.
I even think that most of the days of our lives are full of uncertainty and sadness.
Let's say you are correct. If you can think of a question that has not been answered and 'proved' then we cannot claim omnipotence or omniscience. I did not understand " Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?"
Haha! Sounds like Penrose holds a similar idea. The universe that is left after evaporation of all holes will contain photons only. Maybe some neutrinos if the holes are made of neutrons. These don't have a clock that ticks and no real clock will be present. All neutrinos will annihilate with anti neutrinos again, indirectly creating photons again. But where resides the singularity in Penrose's optics?
But what if we can't think such a question (about the fundamentals, that is)?
If we know everything then don't we know also what's possible or not?
You agree, because you are, as I believe most people are, fundamentally good. This is confirmed by your last sentence. Putin and his forces are killing Ukrainians due to perceived fears (justified or otherwise) he has of 'the West'. It's an old human story, that's been going on since we left the wild,
tribalism. The problem is that the main tribes now have m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction facing all of us. Perhaps such a choice does have to be faced by an emergent intelligence such as us.
Perhaps it's a natural consequence of technological advancement. Perhaps if we survive, we will be one step closer to leaving our planetary nest. I hope we choose to unite.
I have always held a similar view. I need my suffering, as a comparator, without it or at least, without its threat, I cannot appreciate pleasure. I enjoy food most when I suffer hunger. I love a cold pint of beer much much more when I am very very thirsty etc. Any story of heaven has no meaning to us unless you offer the alternative of hell. I am not suggesting that horrific suffering is desirable and should not be prevented. I am simply saying that we need comparators. That does not mean we will always require extreme examples to initiate major changes in the direction and priorities of our society, as we seem to need now.
Atrocities of the past have caused major positive changes but there are better ways if we become a more enlightened and united species.
If photons are all that's left, time has gone but there are still photons. Does he say how or where the new bang occurs? Or is that state itself the singularity?
I'm not sure I understand. The choice of MAD, mad as it is, will be faced by an emerging intelligence?
What do you mean by timeless motion. Because for me motion indicates a reference to space and distance. And I can’t see how motion from A to B can exist without some form of time which elapses between them. I thought space and time are inseparable - the space time continuum. How does motion occur without some medium be it time or space?
I think I was paraphrasing him a little. I think he just posits a new Universe starting within the space of the old. I think he calls it 'Universal bounce.' I can't remember if he mentioned the source as a 'singularity' or not. I would have to watch the particular video again or at least forward it to the relevant point. I have watched most of his youtube stuff, I would recommend them.
I watch a lot of the online cosmologist offerings. I like to hear about all the current opposing ideas.
Currently, I like watching Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Laurence Krauss, Carlo Rovelli, Alan Guth, etc
I have also watched some very good female cosmologists take part in online discussions but they are still 'up and coming' and don't yet have the online presence they should have on sites like youTube.
He does say that photons are all that would be left, your right on that but I don't recall what he cited as the source of the 'bounce.' I went to YouTube to find the exact video I was talking about but there are a few so I didn't have enough time to track it down but I will and I will tell it to you in a PM.
Is nothing the same as non-existence? When you say that something came from nothing, are you saying that existence came from non-existence?
I wish most of the people follow your philosophy. But, sadly, the reality is quite complex. Look at Russia-Ukraine war or other issues as Brexit. The governors tend to do the worst options possible
Well, I just mean that it seems to me that if you consider history since we left the wild. We were in small groups that united by conquest/ political marriage between tribal leaders and the daughters of other tribal leaders etc and became bigger tribes. Technology provided us with many useful inventions as well as more efficient ways to kill each other. M.A.D seems like an almost 'natural consequence' of our technological advancement. Our rate of technological advancement is tied to our ability to discover new knowledge, which is tied to emerging/developing intelligence. So the choice of self-destruction or facing the threat of self-destruction seems to 'come with the territory,' when we reach the technological stage we have now reached. I was merely suggesting that the current global threat caused by the relationship between Russia and the West was always inevitable. I hope we all survive it and I hope that the result is that the big world tribes will see the necessity to unite into one human species, currently on one planet.
Well, processes can be reversible and irreversible. All physical processes in the universe are irreversible. Before the big bang, there were no real particles yet to constitute irreversible time. But there was a kind of clock ticking in the form of virtual particles. That clock was (and is) in motion but it has no direction in time. In the case of a pendulum that has a constant period (which can't really exist, while a caesium clock or comparables come close and divert only 1 second in a trillion years or something) you can't tell if it goes forward or backwards. It's that motion I talk about, and that was only present before inflation, to kick inflation in one direction.
Trying to explain what nothing is, is one of the hardest questions there is. The best we can do at present is 'an absence of something.' This is of course a very unsatisfactory answer but its all we have at present. Give us another million years to answer this one. That's not much to ask, considering the almost 14 billion years it took to produce something like you which was able to ask the question.
For me, non-existence has a 'yet' flavour to it. Non-existence to me, still has a 'field of potential.'
But all I can offer in attempting an 'answer' such questions is not an answer at all, but merely my opinion based on my personal interpretation.
I agree, but at least you and I can shout about it. We can protest and demand better. I am convinced that you and I are actually many many millions, perhaps even billions of people. If we could organise, our voices would drown out the voices of maniacs such as Putin and if that is not enough then our combined actions could destroy all maniacs and stop future maniacal behavior. We have not been able to achieve this unity and level of global organisation yet but we are also not ALL DEAD YET, so maniacs beware, wee f****** see what you bas***** are doing to our chance of a fulfilled and meaningfull life.
Keep faith in us and in yourself. We are alive! and as long as that's true we will keep trying to think of new questions. If we ever know everything, then the question 'what's possible' will no longer be valid as we will know the answer, as you suggest but we don't know everything yet as unanswered questions still exist.
I may not understand the deeper point your are trying to make to me but I will try this:
The philosophers will annoy themselves with paradoxes such as 'is it true that there are no more questions?' and they will point out that this is itself a question and then some will conclude that 'there are no more questions,' is an impossible state. But 'there are no more questions' can also be a statement not a question. If it is true 'at that instant of time.' then there is no paradox.
The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.
If we know the basic fundamental workings of nature, couldn't we say then what things would be impossible to do?
So a statement can be false and true? The electron has mass but its essence has not?
What will be the answer? Will it be the last question in the great book of questions? Will the answer be found in the appendix or supplement of the book? If the answer "no", what will be another question to ask?
Can't think of another question... Is that possible?
I think the last two questions will probably be something like what is nothing? and what is our purpose now?
There would be no more need for memorialising knowledge (no books) if component lifeforms can collectivise and communicate with everyone at will or 'pool all knowledge' whereby access is instant and available to all (these are just my imaginings/musings) I would IMAGINE an omnipotent, omniscient 'collective' would only have the final option to recreate or repeat the process of universe/life creation, there would be no other purpose to them. So if you want to label such as the moment god is created then I can deal with that but as I said before, in a previous post, we could also call such a moment Fred.
It's Friday night, I'm away for beer's and stuff. I will reply to your other two posts tomorrow EugeneW.
Have a good evening!
Hit the pint friend! Back home safely. Seeya later!
In mathematics factorial represents a function of all possible combinations. If you know everything (a set) you must also know every recombinant or “rephrased” question (the set of this set) then you must know the set or the set of that set and so on into an infinite regress. Knowledge and information can always be rehashed from a new perspective. If it couldn’t then lateral or creative thinking and imagination wouldn’t not be possible. This I believe to know everything is infinitely impossible
Most do not solve the problem of original cause of existence. I mean, my parents are my original cause of existence, but they don't solve the problem since their cause also needs explaining.
So for instance, "Some form of fundamental consciousness or god created the universe" lacks an explanation for the creator's existence. It is usually hand-waved away with the always-existed reply, but that just reduces that choice to the eternal model without a beginning, listed as a different choice.
Quoting Benj96While a level 2 multiverse has this sort of property, as do some theories about black holes being those other universes, in both cases, there must still be a first cause, left unexplained.
Living in a simulation would very much constitute being real, and it doesn't explain the origin of the simulation.
The big bang theory is a theory of how the universe evolved from the dense singularity. It offers no explanation of the origin of that singularity.
I take more of a relational view, like RQM (Rovelli). The question in the OP is meaningless as worded. Existence is a relation, not a property/predicate. Nice thing about that view is the problem you're pondering isn't a problem anymore. X exists relative to Y iff Y measures X. But there is no meaning to X exists or Y exists since it isn't expressed as a relation.
It's well-known? Well, I have never heard of it.
That's precisely my point. YOU assume it is KNOWN to EVERYONE because it's known to you.
Fair enough. One thing to ponder, though: If you are trying to communicate an idea to someone else, would it not be more CONDUCIVE to your cause to make the other person understand you "with" the least possible effort, on the path of the least amount of obstacles to the other "person's" comprehension?
What does the above mean, anyone?
I've pondered the liars paradox before and understand the paradox, but how and in what sense can it be true, within a particular instance of time?
Also, if it can be true within a particular instance of time, what philosophical or scientific implications does it have?
To be frank, I've been forever angry about others using abbreviations that were unclear to me. That anger triggered by a long line of occurrences of the same kind over a long period of time, never subsided; in fact, it always increased with every new occurrence.
That's why I never established a family.
I am sorry, and I apologize, for putting you through this. My only defense is that I get incredibly annoyed by this habit of others.
Again, I apologize for my misbehaviour, and I am glad something will change in the future for the better.
:halo:
My mind wills not the world I see,
Nor did it will itself to be.
Something else 'bove both must be,
That willed it so for you and me.
Yes, but only impossible due to the natural constraints/rules/laws that appear to be 'impossible to defy.'
It is impossible for mass to travel at light speed within our Universe. If you have no mass then you can travel AT the speed of light but not faster than it. So, the human IMAGINATION, which to me, is just a form of 'speculative thought,' (but still perfectly valid thought) will come up with 'sci-fi' solutions.
Bend a piece of paper and you can touch two points together. This thinking manifested in the idea in Star Trek of folding/warping space. So will it be technically possible, say, millions of years in the future, when we are transhuman to the extent that we can exist as pure energy and can that energy be placed in 'superpositional' states that allow us to be in more than one place/planet/galaxy at the same time.
Will we discover that space really does have layers? Subspace, Hyperspace/ Wormholes etc and will we be able to 'conquer distance' by such or other means.
This is only some of the musings of current sci-fi Imagineers. Look at what human science has achieved in the tiny period of time it has had so far.
My current statement towards all those 'impossibility' claims and the list of 'things that humans can never know and will never be able to do,' is simple. "Give us a chance!"
We do have a lot of time before any of the end scenarios for the Universe occur.
We are still little fledglings in our wee nest called planet Earth, we have only tipped our toes in the vast cosmic ocean.
Quoting EugeneW
I cannot totally defeat all the 'logical dilemma's/impossibilities,' proposed by philosophical or mathematical logic but I can offer some thoughts that may nibble a little at their claimed 'impenetrability.'
'What is the beginning and end of a circle?' Well, it can be anywhere on the circle YOU DECIDE it to be.
Every point on the circle can be its beginning and its end. Human will seems to have dominance here.
Can a statement be false and true, well, 'this statement is false,' can by human will, be declared as true.
I think it is more important to ask, what are the consequences of making this statement true for a particular instant of time? Again by human will, we can decide to make it false after that instant of time and then analyse the consequences of doing that.
A simple example would be 'This exploding nuclear bomb won't kill us so let it explode.'
If we decide this is true or false then the possible outcomes are we die or we survive.
To me, that's not what matters, what matters is that we can choose. The choice may be bad or good but we can choose.
We have dilemmas like the barber's paradox but IN REALITY, every barber can get a shave, despite the logical paradox of 'a barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves, so who then, must shave the Barber?'
Human will, can break a paradox by making a decision regardless of logical rules. This must be true as in real life all barbers can shave themselves despite propositional logics position that they should not do so.
'This statement is false.' Ok! I think that is true, oh! now I think it's false, oh!, now I think it's neither true nor false and in this instant of time, I label it a 'paradox.'
Well, that's all fine and dandy, so what do we do now?
Do you see what I mean? The real consequence of such thinking is that the Universe continues regardless of such musings, as does our daily lives, despite all enigmas.
It is that fact we must understand and celebrate.
We can continue to try to answer all questions and try to identify new ones.
Human will, allows me to live a happy, meaningful, useful, positive, contributive life and enjoy thinking about these impossible enigmas in the process of doing so. What happens when an irresistible force meets the immovable object?
In this instant of time, I think it's a BIG BANG and the creation of a new Universe or a new Fred....... but I could be wrong!......
Your musings are as valid as mine. You have added mathematical set theory to your musings to strengthen your posit. Mathematics is a powerful tool of logic.
I assign great value to everything mathematics and logic (as we currently understand it) dictates but I personally, don't like words like 'impossible' and 'infinite.'
I fully accept the Universe does not care what I like or don't like but I counter that position with the claim that as far as we currently know, the Universe has no inherent ability to care, other than through lifeforms like me and you. I think human willpower, in its individual and collective form can have a seriously significant effect on the Universe. I don't mean this in any supernatural way. I don't mean that if I could only focus my will strongly enough, it would overwhelm the laws of physics or rules of mathematical set theory. I just mean that my will can allow me to keep believing that it might be possible that in some transhuman form in the very distant future we may be able to traverse and interact with the Universe in ways similar to how consciousness exists within the human concept of 'self.' Perhaps this will allow the possibility of all questions being answered.
I am much more attracted to this form or projected naturalism than I am to any concept of theistic entities which already exist.
Science normally considers the appearance of an infinity, as a failure in some aspect of the mathematical approach used. I think if an 'infinite regress' shows up then the thinking behind it is
flawed. It's easy for me to say this, I appreciate that, especially when I can't offer anything better than 'I don't like infinities.' But perhaps we will have better answers in the distant future.
I can feel your incredulity and your protest but your last sentence is my main point.
If you personally decided, within an instant of time, that 'this statement if false,' is true then indeed, what philosophical or scientific implications would your decision have? Some philosophers and some scientists would say you are wrong, others might say you are inaccurate and it's more accurate/more useful to science and philosophy to say it's a paradoxical statement. Is it's more useful to say it's paradoxical or it's true or it's false? I don't think it matters much for now, when we consider the current borders/limits/purview of science and philosophy
My simple point is that we need to celebrate the 'thinking' and not get bogged down or disheartened by the enigma. I am pointing out that significant science has only had a few thousand years out of the proposed 14 billion. Perhaps we will be able to fully explain paradox in the future.
It's the same for the origin process of the Universe. Give us at least another million years to work on the problem.
You think we can èxist as photons? Don't think so. We would have no substance and feel no passage of time.
Quoting universeness
Wormholes like in interstellar don't exist. Wormholes are a fantasy due to the non-pointlike character of particles.
Quoting universeness
Now we're getting somewhere! Take of your hat and throw it 6 miles up! Screaming! I don't think understanding can get better. What I don't understand why physics forums are so unwilling to see that quarks and leptons are not fundamental. I asked on stack exchange, both the physics and philosophy site, and the question was closed almost instantly. Though philosophy took some longer.
Quoting universeness
Don't let yourself be fooled by Fred... The universe has not become self aware.
So you think the universe, via us, has become self aware? If we know certain things about it, is that the universe knowing? No, it's us knowing.
That distant future is now. But I don't think it makes me omnipotent.
Photon is merely a label. Is a thought made up of massless constituents? I don't think we know yet.
can a human consciousness exist in the future as a non-corporeal form? Maybe.
Quoting EugeneW
I have always found this one very interesting. I think that a non-corporeal human conscience can still be destroyed. Star trek suggests possible answers to your physics problems. If mass and energy are merely different states of the same material then the question becomes, can a way be found to convert from one to the other and back again, like in star treks transporters/holosuites/food replicators.
The time/age problem is solved by traversing distance in something like a 'warp bubble.' Total sci-fi at the moment and perhaps you will understandably say "Yes, and such abilities will always be total fiction," and you might be correct but I simply prefer the sci-fi conjecture of shows like star trek compared to the god sci-fi.
Quoting EugeneW
We all get frustrated sometimes by our lack of knowledge and our treatment by others, some of whom we consider as very learned. I don't think such experiences will stop someone like you from continuing to ask the questions you wish to ask. I celebrate human tenacity as well.
We are part of the Universe so I think reference to an object is a reference to all of its parts.
The Universe is not yet self-aware as we do not yet know how to combine into a single collective mind of individuals. We would also have to confirm that we were the only such lifeforms in the Universe. I think a self-aware Universe could only be realised as a 'thought combination' of all lifeforms within it.
Fully panpsychist. I am not saying this is definitely possible, I am saying, it might be and I am further saying I am more attracted to that projection of naturalism than I am attracted to dualism or theism.
How can it be now, when there are unanswered questions?
No omni's are possible if we have unanswered questions.
Well, and I know it maybe sounds psychotic or cranky, couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? To actually prove it, you'll need a looooot of energy though. But it proves that theories precede practice, though they're rooted in it at the same time (true and not true at the same).
Well do you mean only you? from a religious style 'chosen one' perspective or as a random happenstance or as the Universe's deliberate 'reasoned' decision? or just as a result of your own musing about the Universe rather than any direct contribution from the Universe to you personally.
I think the first three such claims are traditionally risky from the aspect of (and I think of no gentle way to put this,) mental stability. That would not make such claims wrong (if you are indeed making any such claim) It would just make them unadvisable in general discussion groups.
I think it would be simply better to say that you are convinced that your idea of the basic structure and working of the Universe are correct.
Quoting EugeneW
Do you mean to experimentally demonstrate that your picture of the Universe is true would require a vast amount of energy input, more than is available by any current scientific technology?
Quoting EugeneW
This is often the case, yes but sometimes discovery is by accident or repeated practice causes a general theory to form in the mind of one who repeats the practice 'ad nausea.'
Quoting EugeneW
So you mean theory is rooted in practice as well as preceding it, I can understand what you mean by this
Btw here are the Roger Penrose vids I mentioned:
The first one is the debate with William Lane Craig and is about 1.5 hours long.
The second is where he suggests what might have happened before the big bang.
It's not the more detailed one I watched where he talks about different epochs of time for each big bang but it introduces his basic idea and it's only 17 mins long. I am in pursuit of the other one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLtCqm72-Y
https://youtu.be/ypjZF6Pdrws
I think I understand your name now. Universeness. We all have it. I think Fred shows itself to everybody. To all creatures. Not only me.
Quoting universeness
What three claims do you mean? Doesn't the mental has to be unstable for the fighting of standard models, which bear mental stability?
Quoting universeness
Serendipity is almost omnipresent in science or technology. The pigeon shit on the reflector (leading to CMB radiation detection), the photographic plate left in the drawer by Becquerell (I suspect though he knew about radioactivity from his dad who, when B was a kid, saw radioactivity already, but he didn't know; B did and set it all up for Nobel prize money; the sneaky bastard!). Or Fleming, the discovery of teflon, of graviton strings, Feigenbaum universality (on his pocket calculator...), serendipity elements in PDE's, Archimedes, the 7 bridges of Koningsberg, the microwave oven, etc. etc. What discovery doesn't involve it?
Thanks for the link. Iconoclastic thinkers tend to be unstable by nature almost...
Quoting EugeneW
Its often said that genius and madness are close siblings. There are many examples of very talented people who were also slightly mad. The music/film/book world has many examples. Science and philosophy have many examples as well, from Pythagoras to Nikolai Tesla. I am not suggesting such people have never made serious contributions to their field but I just feel more comfortable with what I see as 'rational discourse.' I would accept an accusation of personal bias or narrow-mindedness on this however.
The three claims I was trying to highlight were:
1. The religious chosen one or christ complex. Real People from Joan of Arc to Aleister Crowley and Rasputin have claimed to be 'chosen to know what the rest of the human race does not know.'
2. A 'conscious universe' choosing an individual at random to reveal its workings and structure to.
3. A conscious universe choosing an individual as a 'reasoned' choice to reveal its working and secrets to.
I cannot prove that these are not true claims and that anyone who makes such claims are slightly mad, but I do think such claims are highly umlikely.
I am not saying you fit into any of these three descriptions in accordance with your words:
Quoting EugeneW
I was just asking you to explain your words above, with a little more detail.
I prefer terms like 'thinking outside the box,' 'lateral thinking,' 'creative thinking, etc' rather than the image of a Universe that can reveal its workings to individuals. But maybe I am being rather conventional.
Quoting EugeneW
Yep, all good examples of serendipity in science but I don't think serendipity is involved in every scientific discovery but I haven't read every word regarding how maxwell arrived at his equations or how Boyle arrived at his law. You may be correct that at some point each would say 'I was lucky here because......
Ha Ha, you always seem to get a wee 'god' image in there somehow!
Would be a good new thread. Are all discoveries pigeon shit? Even Maxwell's? It's only when the theory is worked out rationally that it seems invented or discovered while searching for it. Reality is more complex that methodology books want it to be.
Quoting universeness
Haha! Well, I don't eat my panties for them! Fred is the universe. God is Stephen hiding in it... How can the universe exist without a kind of intelligence that has blown or screamed it into existence? The same can be asked of gods, but an eternal intelligence seems more plausible than intelligence evolving in a non intelligent universe. How can the laws of nature and the stuff in it obeying them have come to be by themselves?
But if the universe wants to become self aware, wouldn't it be best to show herself to us?
These are tough questions. I think we need that million years of scientific thinking that I mentioned, at least, before any answers that are more than pure conjecture become possible.
I am currently, personally more convinced of intelligence evolving/progressing within a Universe that had no intelligence for most of its proposed 14 billion year existence than I am convinced by the posit of an intervening omniscience who write tablets of commandments, dictates contradictory stories to chosen ones and parts waters.
As I said, If God/Fred is an emergent omniscience in this Universe by way of the combined intellect of all lifeforms wihin it networking with each other when all questions have been answered, and this has all happened before, and our Universe is actually a reproduction of another omniscient universe/God/Fred, and reality is actually a multiverse of omniscient Fred's all reproducing, then fair enough. Perhaps this even gives some value to a monotheistic deist position. Again, such musings, are all pure conjecture.
We and many many others will think about this stuff until we die but I predict that every human alive today and their children and their children and..... will be dead before we get anywhere near the answer. Perhaps when the transhumans arrive then who knows if that will speed things up or not.
I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will."
I don't think 'wants to' comes into it, in a similar sense to you not being asked if you wanted to exist before you did. Murphy's law may be Universal. "If it can happen, it will. So, if the Universe could do as you suggest then it already would have, but not just to one of us, as that would be rather inefficient. It would have 'shown herself' to all of us, in the same way as the theist god would appear to all of us if it existed and could.
I hold to "none of the above, because we don't know the answer".
It may not be 'sexy', but isn't this the only honest answer?
But if Fred needs us to procreate, is Fred just masturbating then?
Fair enough, it's Saturday night! Beer Time again! have a good evening EugeneW!
Thanks for sharing your views with me!
Good question during the drinking: "Is the...hick...universe...hick...hick...masturbating and...hick!...eja-hick!-culating into empty HICK..."
Have a good time Stephen! :starstruck:
It's a very modest answer. And if you don't know the answer then it's honest. But what if we know?
I was thinking perhaps it would be true (or false for that matter) if you just stopped and didn't ask the next question in the infinite regression that the liars paradox creates.
To be honest, I think I know. Not because I'm the chosen one or whatever BS, but because I'm interested, gave it a lot of thought, and somehow my subconsciousness made all parts "click". The puzzle pieces fell into the right place. It clicked.
Thanks, It was a nice wee evening but everyone is down due to Putin's War on the Ukrainians.
Quoting EugeneW
I don't, I see you as someone who is taking part in Pascal's wager.
Such an action on your part is an example of what I am trying to say. Your act of will would be effective in that it would allow you to prevent that which cannot yet be understood from having a possible detrimental affect on your psyche. In my opinion, this is a sensible/logical/valid/healthy response until new knowledge is gained. Constant contemplations of infinity has sent some deep thinkers mad.
I don't believe in infinities, but I cannot currently explain them so I acknowledge them, I don't spend time thinking about them, Impose a personal value and I move on and I think about that which I can conceive/perceive.
I also don't care if anyone calls me a 'cowardly thinker' for not 'smashing my brain' against 'infinity/paradox/impossible/immovable meeting irresistible etc,' I prefer my mental health and I don't care about the opinion of such people.
I think that it is valid, by 'act of human will' and within an 'instant/measure of time' to 'observe' a proposal of logic such as 'this statement is false' and impose, using a simple measure of personal preference, any ONE of the values true/false/paradox and then just move on without causing any important detrimental effect on the rigor of your current scientific or philosophical deliberations.
A very reasonable position to take. One that allows people to just 'move on' and try to concentrate on the areas of science and philosophy which we can advance. We should never abandon the search for the true origin story but we have hardly learned how to crawl towards correct knowledge let alone walk or run towards it. We just don't have the know-how or the technology yet. Only our best geniuses can move us any distance at all, towards the correct origin story and I for one, am not in that league.
Quoting noAxioms
I'm not sure I fully understand your algebraic/relational argument here but are you talking about Rovelli's proposal regarding the measurement problem?
The collapse of the wave function due to the act of observation?
I think he suggests that this affect is only local, between the two systems X and Y involved.
The waveform only collapses from the standpoint of the observer not from the standpoint of the Universe.
Is this what you are referring to? and do you mean you cannot find out the origin story of the Universe by the act of experimental measurement?
Interesting, and that's fair. Despite my comment about 'honesty' it's genuinely not my intention here to simply accuse others of dishonesty.
What answer would you give to the OP's question? I looked back in the thread a bit but didn't find your answer. Apologies if I missed it.
Nor am I. :smile:
As usual, when you can see the functioning of something, you say "of course, how else?"
I felt puzzle pieces falling in place, after absorbing all kinds of theories. My subconsciousness helped me. The universe showed itself to me in it's great and amazingly simple true being.
The basic form is an open spatially 4D torus. A 4D Planck-sized (in width) wormhole connects two infinite 4D spaces on which two closed spherical 3D spheres, like two closed 3D branes, move away from the central wormhole, the singularity. Somewhat reminscent to pyrotechnical models and models that allow gravitons to travel in a 4th space dimension while matter is confined to 3D. The gravitons coming from virtual particle states, which are the only ones present in the initial 3D state around the wormhole, can induce negative curvature of the 4D space needed for that state to expand.
Quarks and leptons are made from two massless base fields and are almost pointlike. In reality they are Planck-sized torus shapes, ie, three large dimensions of a 6D space rolled up to circles, like a 2D space can be rolled up to a cilinder on which we can image a tiny circle for a particle. So 3D space is actually 6D and the 4D substrate actually 7D. The small torus shape in 6D is such that the 6D shape fits nicely on the thin 7D wormhole (which has an appearance of 4D).
For visibility, consider the inside part of a 2D torus. The mouth connects two spaces and has negative curvature. Consider the mouth Planck-sized. From this mouth, because of its negative curvature, can inflate two circles with matter into real existence. From the virtuality around the mouth the real particles are excited. BANG! Two mirrored universes.
The 3D branes, expanding on the 4 dimensional space, temporarily are decelerated. As observations have shown. Currently, the universe is expanding again and this will continue into the future, and when all stuff has turned to photons and has diluted into infinity, this will be a signal for a new pair of branes (3D universes), to get virtual particles inflated into reality again. A new time takes off, and again it accelerates all into oblivion again, only to signal for a new start at the source.
This is only a popular outline, but as Einstein said, if you can't explain it to a six year old, then you're on the wrong track. So let's see what's in store...
Does the term skeuomorphic ontology mean anything to you? Any sense can be applied to both of these words.
Or rather, if such a concept were valid in some sense, what could it mean?
What would it mean if I say, for instance, that the liars paradox was a skeuomorphic ontology? What sense could be made of that? This term could be applied and superimposed on any other concept. But what could it mean do you think?
That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation. It makes it sound like humans or things that 'observe' make any difference, which couldn't be further from what he says.
Any interaction between two causally separated systems results in a collapse of the wave function of the 'cause' system in relation to the 'effect' system.
The view, driven to its logical conclusion results in an ontology that doesn't suggest an 'existence' in need of being brought into existence, hence being an elegant solution to the problem posed in the OP. That was my point.
Exactly, except I'd not have used the word 'observer'. Measurer maybe.
The universe (as a whole) doesn't need an origin story, lacking anything that measures the universe. That would require an external observer. Internal interaction only results in self-consistent state.
Rovelli says no system can measure itself, which doesn't mean I can't see my arms, but it means the cat in the box cannot collapse its own wave function relative to the observer outside the box. The live cat cannot measure dead parts despite being in superposition of being dead and alive.
I'm not in a position to critique this at the level of mathematics or even to evaluate whether it's mathematically meaningful at all. As such, I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I don't see how it answers the OP's question. These 4D Plank-sized toruses and expanding 3D branes - where did they come from? How did they come to have the properties they have?
Why shouldn't a system be able to measure itself? If an observer measures Schrödinger's cat, it is said that the whole of the observer and cat is still in a superposition and that a second observer collapses that superimposed state. So the last observer will always remain in a superposition. Which means the whole universe stays in one. Weird. But it logically follows. So time for a change.
If the universe is eternal and as I described I can think of no other than "them up there".
Basically it says the beginning in time happens in series. After us a next beginning and thereafter again. And before us. Ad infinitum. On that, eternal and infinite 4D space the 3D branes expand in two pieces of infinite bulk connected by a thin wormhole. The branes emerging backfire to their source (the wormhole) and inform when the next two universes (branes) can be inflated into reality (from virtuality).
Before beginning, it's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which the mind would not be there. When I use the term "nothing", I'm talking about "nothing" itself. While one can't visualize this directly, it's important to try and get close and then extrapolate to what it might be like if the mind were not there.
I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". If this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice if we start with "nothing" is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing” but was in fact a "something". Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".
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. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This leads to the idea that a thing only exists where and when the grouping exists. For instance, groupings can exist inside a person's mind or outside the mind. For outside-the-mind groupings, like a book, the grouping is physically present and visually seen as an edge, boundary, or enclosing surface that defines this unit whole/existent entity. For inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.), the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.). 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.
Related points are:
1. 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".
2. Because the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself are two different things, our talking about "nothing" itself (which is derived from the mind's conception of "nothing") doesn't reify "nothing" itself. Our talking about it has nothing to do with whether or not "nothing" itself exists or not.
3. 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. In visualizing "nothing" one has to try to imagine what it's like when no minds are there. Of course, this is impossible, but we can try to extrapolate.
Secondly and a bit more formally, a system at a time is not local, and it takes time to measure something non-local, so no non-local thing can measure itself:
A system at a given time (Y) can measure its past state (X), but its past state cannot measure the later state, so while X exists in relation to Y, Y does not exist in relation to X. If X and Y were the same thing, that would be a violation of law of non-contradiction, so X and Y are not the same thing, and thus no self-measurement has been done by any system.
Yes. That seems to be a statement that X might be measured by Y, but Z may not have measured either, so the state of X and Y is not collapsed in relation to Z. So no objective state for anything. The state of any (X say) is a relation with some other system Y or Z, and not necessarily the same state, as your example illustrates. Hence it being meaningless to say something like 'X exists' without a relation, similar to saying that events 1 and 2 are simultaneous without specification of a reference frame.
Which means the whole universe stays in one. Weird. But it logically follows. So time for a change.[/quote]Unintuitive maybe, but you seem to be able to follow it. Most don't get that far, balking when it rubs the intuitions/biases the wrong way.
Point is, the universe is not in need of existence if there's no external observer relative to which it is need of being.
OK, but how do we "know" this? You seem to find it extremely plausible, but do we have any way of confirming it, or of eliminating alternative theories?
You might consider rethinking your analogies. :roll:
There are lots of alternatives. But considering the current observations, this model fits the best as far as I know, and offers a dark energy mechanism (the 4D space).
What I meant is, why can't the Schrödinger cat actually collapse without someone looking, observing. Standard QM says this doesn't happen but there are theories with an objective collapse.
First of all, I balk at the word 'looking', since it makes it appear that humans or life forms play a preferred role. I can think of only one interpretation that suggests that, and even it was abandoned by its author (Wigner) due to it being driven to solipsism.
Secondly, I am not offering a falsification of objective collapse interpretations, but the relational interpretation isn't one of them. Relative to what system would the cat collapse without said system measuring the cat?
In standard QM, human observers play that special role, and together with the probabilistic interpretation, this leads to strange scenarios (like many worlds).
The bottle with poison breaks and kills the cat or not. If the superposition of, say, spin (thumb,) up and down interacts with a photon from outside, the photon can make it collapse to up (cat lives) or down (cat dies). Before the photon hits the superposition, the cat is just alive. So it's the spin that gets realized relationally. Likewise, all positions of particles make sense only because of interaction. Only relative to other positions they are meaningful.
Such terms are easily looked up using internet searching.
From the internet, Skeuomorphs are typically used to make something new feel familiar.
My career is in computing and we use emulators so I am familiar with this concept.
Computing also uses ontology all the time as a way to group and categorise data into types.
So I would assume you are describing a method of categorisation into familiar types.
So the liar's paradox is categorised as a paradox found in the mathematical sub-topic of propositional logic. Paradoxes don't happen in real-life, in real human experiences. They are merely constructs of mathematical logic. You don't get a barber who won't shave themselves or a liar who makes the statement 'I am a liar' as no human being tells lies exclusively. Other paradoxes such as 'The only true fact is that there are no true facts,' are also flawed as there is no rigorous definition of the term 'true fact.'
I have no idea if this relates to what you are trying to say by using the term 'skeuomorphic ontology,' but I gave it a shot anyway. Perhaps it would be easier if you were less cryptic about the points you are trying to make.
Ok, It could well be that I was not attentive enough when watching Rovelli on YouTube.
So, I assume you are saying that according to Rovelli, it's not the observer that's causing the waveform collapse it's the local interaction between x and y.
Quoting noAxioms
An observer can measure, whether it's human or sensor, I think you are making an unimportant distinction here.
Quoting noAxioms
Humans desire an origin story for themselves and therefore for the Universe. I think that desire is significant even though I agree with all of Carl Sagan's great demotions.
I understand your narration of Rovelli's view of Schrodinger's cat from the reference frame of the cat but you said earlier that only an observer from outside of the Universe can make measurements on the Universe that would reveal its true structure (is that what you are saying?). Does this not suggest that an observer outside of the box containing Schrodinger's cat should be able to know if the cat is dead or alive or is it merely the fact that the observer outside the box cannot see through the box?
If so, then surely you are assuming that anything outside of the Universe would have an ability to interact with the Universe. As I have said before, my expertise is computing not cosmology but cosmology is of great interest to me.
In the standard interpretation of QM, this distinction is made and together with the fundamental probability this gave rise to many worlds interpretation, decoherence, and other mechanisms.
Thanks for taking a stab at that. I just made that term up. Sometimes phrases will come to mind that I think hold some key to further understanding. It's just a weird quirk of mine.
I've never understood Schrödinger's cat. You put a cat and poison in a box, and at some point, the cat will be alive and dead at the same time.
Can you explain this to a 6 year old? I will be the 6 year old of the forum here if anyone wants to bounce any ideas off of me.
Also, are the numbers on unscratched lotto tickets in a state of superposition?
Throw away the macroscopic objects in superpositions. In a superconductor, Bose-Einstein condensates, or other exotic states of matter, there are a lot of constituent particles in superposition, but a cat in a superposition of a live state and dead state is nonsense, as the 6 year old would testify to. The standard rules of QM assign such state to a cat because it inherits the superposition of the superimposed state which leads to poison or not, upon measurement. The wavefunction of the cat-up-down-superposition becomes is a superposition of a poison-deadcat and a nopoison-livecat state. That's the weird implication.
The better way to look at it is to consider only the spinup-spindown state in superposition. The cat is just alive and an act of measurement collapses the state to up (cat alive) or down (deadcat). In alignment with the expectation of the six year old.
Quoting universenessYouTube almost always uses human observers in their examples, and yet in real experiments, the human is often not present during any of the measurements, all of which are taken and recorded by inanimate equipment, say a screen upon which an interference pattern appears.
According to quantum mechanics theory (rather than any metaphysical interpretation of that theory), there is no evidence that humans play a special role in physical waveform collapse. Humans do play a role in epistemological collapse: Even if somebody else watched, one particular lab guy isn't going to know where the photon was detected without at some point measuring the result, however indirectly. That doesn't mean that the photon didn't in fact get measured at a particular location.
I'm balking at the connotations of using human verbs (like 'looking') when describing an interaction of any kind between two arbitrary systems. It is precisely that language usage that caused the naive readers back in the day to conclude that QM somehow provided evidence that humans were special. And, the 'oberver' need not be a sensor at all. It need not be anything designed with the purpose of specifically measuring the system. A photon can hit, instead of a photo-sensitive screen, just a black wall and be lost forever. The wavefunction is still collapsed relative to the system containing that wall.
Totally agree. Humans want this. How to explain the reality of whatever it is that you must assert to be objectively real to satisfy your desire for warm fuzziness. But the explanations always require dancing around an inevitable contradiction, and it seemed far simpler to not assert the objective reality in the first place.
By definition, there can be no such observer. Any such observer would be part of the universe.
I grant that similar to a simple quantum system in a thought experiment, the structure of the entire universe can be considered from 'outside', but that's different than measuring. No wave function collapse results from objective analysis of a wavefunction of some closed system.
I have no idea what I wrote that might suggest the outside observer could acquire knowledge concerning the state of the unmeasured cat.
Again, that would make the observer part of the universe, and not outside it.
Cool. I'm a software engineer myself, hardly a cosmologist.
Superposition is collapsed by a virtual photon. An interaction is involved.
Ok EugeneW! I defer to your more detailed knowledge of the topic in comparison with mine.
Quoting noAxioms
I took this to mean that only an external observer of the Universe could make measurements/perform experiments on the Universe (as a whole) and by doing so, discover its structure and workings.
I took it that you were basing this view on your other view that internal measurers (human or electronic sensor) cannot gain the necessary data as they are part of the Universe.
You then typed in your last response to me:
Quoting noAxioms
Are you using the argument that no observer can exist 'outside' of our Universe?
If that is the case then are you saying we can never know the origin story of the universe based on the points you make that an outside observer would be needed and such cant exist and internal observers cant do what's required and this view is Carlo Rovelli's viewpoint. Is that what you are saying?
If an observer can be conceived as 'outside' of the Universe then how would they be part of it?
That makes no sense to me.
What evidence are you calling upon that demonstrates that objective analysis of a waveform is a closed system? What if there are > 3 dimensions or the multiverse is real, or the Universe is layered, or time is not linear and is in fact, multidimensional etc, what are you defining as 'objective' and 'closed'?
I am trying to follow a smooth line of logic in your narration of 'The structure and workings of the Universe,' as suggested by Carlo Rovelli. I have tried to narrate the basics of his viewpoint as I conceive it, based on the youtube videos he offers. You may have a better understanding of his viewpoint than I do. I am merely trying to understand what you are presenting based on my limited grasp of the cosmological theories involved.
A state of superposition remains superimposed without interaction. A superposition of spin up and down won't collapse by emission of a photon carrying info to the observer. Measuring the spin means placing the superposition in an external field.
Which sounds more abstract, even mystical, than most of mathematics. Are things really that bizarre in the quantum realm, or is a dramatic paradigm shift over the horizon, awaiting an Einstein? How much of the weirdness is due to limitations of experimental investigations?
Long, long ago I thought of majoring in physics, but found the concepts of mathematics were clearer to me.
All particles interact by coupling (by their charge) with the virtual particle field between them. So the up/down superposition, two simultaneous paths in spin space, gets collapsed to up or down after this coupling. The virtual particles are not virtual in the sense that they don't exist but in the sense that their energy and moments (or times and positions) are independent, delivering the right values for the transition. Mathematically, the propagator for a virtual particle is the integral over all momenta and energies and in a larger diagram, with external legs representing real particles, deltas ensure the right momenta and energies are picked for the interacting real particles. :cool:
That could because one speaks of values only, without yet a content.
You seem to envision poking the cat with a stick, but measurement of the moon does not seem to involve virtual photons, so collapse does not necessarily involve such a virtual interaction.
Quoting EugeneW
You have a reference for any of this? This seems to violate locality for one thing.
Quoting universenessI didn't mean that with that comment, which was specific to the relational interpretation.
I don't see how 'experiments' could be performed by an external observer given definitions and models where such an observer is meaningful.
A model could in principle be simulated by something not part of the universe modeled, and experiments might consist of different initial conditions or something.
I forget the context of when I said that. Data necessary for what again?
By definition, given the relational (or any non-counterfactual) interpretation, nothing external (or even sufficiently distant) can exist since it cannot be measured. But given a different definition of 'exists', the rules might be different.
There is no origin story. Only a realist interpretation requires an origin story to explain the reality of whatever is asserted to be real. Positing an 'outside observer' doesn't change that.
Totally agree. So if it interacts, it is not outside. If it's outside, it can't interact.
I'm not suggesting it necessarily is. The wavefunction of the universe is supposedly by definition closed, and thus an analysis of 'the universe' (defined as that wavefunction) would be an analysis of a closed system, but open systems can also be objectively analyzed.
Objective is an adjective which I am using in opposition to 'relative'. Objective existence is realism: The ontological property of existence even in the absence of observation. Relative existence is a relation: A exists to B, but A might not exist to C.
I'm not trying to convey Rovelli's views. I've not read the work you name. But the view is at least loosely based on his concept, but driven to its logical conclusion.
Or not... Not sure if I'd score better than you on a test of his works.
Even the Moon is measured with virtual photons. Though they are almost real.
I think we have been mostly talking past each other. I thought you were narrating Rovelli's views as your first response to me stated:
Quoting noAxioms
I think Rovelli's posit that the measurement problem and waveform collapse is a localised phenomena which only occurs between interacting systems X and Y and is not a 'Universal/objective effect,' is very interesting. The waveform does not collapse from the reference point of the whole Universe.
I don't think Rovelli has ever suggested that the structure and fundamental workings of the Universe are unknowable because those who are trying to discover such are part of the Universe they are trying to explain.
Quoting noAxioms
This is an example of what I mean by 'talking past each other' or misunderstanding.
I have WATCHED his youtube videos, his lectures and his discussions with Sean Carroll etc.
I haven't READ any of his publishings.
It says 'loosely based'. Rovelli certainly has the physics part down, but not having read his works, I don't know if he's explored the philosophical implications of his ontology, such as that of identity for example.
I restored some of the context. That reply of mine referred to your usage of "act of observation" which sounds like a pop wording at best, and not how a physicist might have put it.
'Act' makes it sound like some action or intent is required, and 'act of observation' makes it sound like a human is required to be involved in the act. There's never been evidence of this. A rock can take a measurement and collapse the wave function of some non-rock system just fine, all without actually observing or knowing anything. So it was the pop-representation that I meant to label a poor representation of the science, and not of Rovelli's view in particular.
With that we seem to both agree. It implies that a wavefunction has a location (which I would not have intuitively suggested), and that a wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'.
I would not have said that spatially systems can 'interact' since I consider a system to be essentially an event and not say a worldline like Rovelli implies. We obviously differ on this point, but I can drive the worldline view to contradiction, a philosophical problem which seems not to concern Rovelli, being a physicist mostly interested in empirical consistency.
Two events cannot 'interact' since that would require each to be in the other's past light cone.
Did I suggest anything along those lines?
Perhaps you can recommend some Rovelli vids, even though I don't usually get my science from videos. Then I can point out places where I might not agree with Rovelli.
I don't recall much mention of any philosophical aspects/consequences of his theories, that he discussed in his YouTube offerings but I was too busy trying to gain some understanding of his scientific musings.
Here is an audio podcast between Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli. It is an episode from Sean Carrolls 'Mindscape' series and is titled: Episode 2: Carlo Rovelli on Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime, and Reality.
Quoting noAxioms
I have no idea what you mean by this? A rock can take a measurement? in what sense?
I assume you don't mean this literally but I don't get it, if it was meant as a metaphor for something else.
I assume you just mean that you don't need the presence of a human conscience to collapse the wave function of a process such as the interference pattern produced by the double split experiment or entanglement.
Quoting noAxioms
Well, a wave function will produce a waveform, will it not? and all waveforms moving in 3D space will produce a worldline as it traverses space from its origin. Like a drop of water in an ocean that will cause only a localised disturbance and then settle as it dissipates its energy. It does not affect the entire ocean. I don't know what you mean by the wavefunction of a distant system relative to 'here' is nevertheless 'here'. light waves from a distant star still have to traverse the distance between here and its origin, which is why we see what was, not what is. maybe I am being a bit dense here but I am not following your logic very well.
Quoting noAxioms
I think I understand your words but then how do particles 'interact.' Perhaps can explain to me what you mean more clearly. I often turn to him, regarding cosmology stuff that I dont fully grasp.
Quoting noAxioms
Not about Rovelli, no I don't think you did. You stated that observers cant fully understand a system that they are a part of so it's that which I disagree with. A system which is capable of successful self-diagnosis and self-maintenance would have to know how all of its parts worked individually and as sub-systems and as a whole system. If this can be achieved electronically then it must be possible in the case of the universe. I am not claiming that we have produced such an electronic system yet but we are getting much better at it.
Quoting noAxioms
Here is another one you might like that I watched a few months ago:
In standard QM this is actually the case.
An event in physics is not actually an event. It's the time and position of a particle. If particles were devoid of charge all individualities of partìcles would be lost and the universe would spread out into a uniform mass in which nothing could be defined or have outlines. All would be one. When particles interact, by their charges coupling to the omnipresent field of virtual particles, their evolving wavefunctions (which are, loosely speaking, the temporal cross sections of quantum fields) collapse every time upon an interaction. The standard view doesn't speak of collapse but the objective collapse approach does.
So particles tract characteristics and identity because a relation with other particles. Their condensations in spacetime are relational.
It's easy and difficult at the same time. There is a field of virtual particles in empty space. If a charged particle moves through space it couples to this field. How can they couple if they are point? Simply because they are no points. Their coupling to this field cause that field around them to change. Same for other particles. This means that if a particle enters a region of space where that virtual field is disturbed by another charge (say both charges are electrical, which couple to virtual photons only), it will not move the same as before (unchanging velocity, apart from the "Zitterbewegung"). It's accelerated because of the potential created by the other charge (which actually is a so-called virtual photon condensate). These interactions happen in measurements, and take place continuously to maintain individuality of the parts. Bosons though don't have individuality when in groups.
I might disagree with you about the gods issue, but here I agree! If sub-systems collapse, I think the whole collapses. What is the whole though? If the spin inside the Schrödinger cat cage is measured the superimposed spin state is projected on one of the two states, up and down. Even for the observer observing the combined cat-observer state.
I think the 'event' label is a perfectly reasonable/logical one from the standpoint of natural human perception. Surely time and positional data are 'details of the event.' Why is such a distinction important?
Quoting EugeneW
But is magnetism or repulsion/attraction the only reason for the existence of quanta?
If the universe is made up of multidimensional vibrating strings for example then an electron and its properties are merely due to a particular string state.
Quoting EugeneW
I get that an interaction between two electrons involves the exchange of a virtual photon from one to the other and this causes a change in momentum of the receiving electron and this causes them to repel each other. At least I got that from a question posed to a physicist on Quora. Is it the collapsing waveform that causes the repulsion or the change in momentum? Is the waveform collapse, similar to disturbed, undulating water, becoming still again?
Quoting EugeneW
I have no idea what this means.
Quoting EugeneW
So space is therefore not empty, it's full of 'virtual particles.'
By 'coupling' do you simply mean 'connects to' or is 'affected by' or 'reacts to'?
What do you mean by 'Point'? a dimensionless point which has coordinates only or a tiny 'packet' or 'concentration of mass or energy?
So the charge/spin direction causes a disturbance in the 'virtual field' (why is the field virtual rather than real?) and the result is that the particle gets accelerated away? Am I understanding this correctly, so far?
Quoting EugeneW
So this virtual field must permeates all space if it is omnipresent, yes?
So why does the particle not accelerate forever if it encounters a constant expanse of 'virtual field'?
Nope, sorry I don't think I understand this. Are you simply saying the cat is alive (spin up state) or dead (spin down state) Does spin up mean spin faster and spin down means spin slower? or does spin up mean 'starts to spin' and spin down mean 'stops spinning'?
The observer has to open the box to find out which possibility is true, I get that. If the box remains closed these both outcomes remain possible so one state is 'superimposed' on the other.
Are you saying that in your opinion, the structure and workings of the Universe are knowable, even though we are trying to discover such, as component parts, inside the universe we are trying to understand? Do we have to open all the Schrodinger style boxes and do all the measurements?
No. I mean the direction of spin. It can be up and down. If they are in superposition there is no connection with a dead or alive cat. As long as the cat is in the cage it doesn't care about us or the superposition. Only when a spin up or down is measured (projected on an eigenstate) the cat will notice
Everything in the universe that interacts collapses, if we measure or not. All structural identities stem from interactions. When we measure or when we don't.
But two galaxies can interact by colliding and they don't collapse, they effectively merge!
Collisions within accretion disks merge into planets, I know my examples are of the very large rather than the very small but I still don't really understand.
I think I will just raise the white flag for now and keep watching Youtube cosmology vids and continue my reading on the subject until I can demonstrate more depth of understanding. I will continue to make some comments now and then however.
I think so to. That's why in physics it's a bit strange. An event is something that happens, a happening. A glass can't break at a point in time or space.
Quoting universeness
Photons are not exchanged. An electron doesn't emit or absorb photons. It couples to a virtual photon. On their own (so without charged particles) such photons are present through all of space (quantum bubbles). Charged Dirac fields couple to them, in accordance with the Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian) and charges. So it depends which energies and momenta of the virtual photons are needed (they have them all and independently, and give what the asymptotic conditions require).
Quoting universeness
A 0d point. Which causes misery. The field is virtual as opposed to real. Virtual fields have independent p and E. In a sense, a real particle is a virtual particle with p and E depending on each other and with a direction in time.
Yeah, definitely the white flag from me for now.
Haha, yes! Of course. I meant their wavefunctions. The wavefunctions of both galaxies interact with other galaxies and will result in two collapsing wavefunctions of galaxies that merge. If the two galaxies were the only ones in an infinite flat space then in a very long time both galaxies would diffuse in space, like the wavefunction of a single non-interacting particle spreads.
So do you mean all interacting wavefunctions (which produce actual waveform disturbances yes?) in the Universe collapse?
Let me put it in a different way. Consider a single virtual photon. Represented as a single circle in a Feynman diagram. One of the quantum "bubbles" (wrongly imagined in popular science to be a short appearance of a particle and its antiparticle). The virtual particles dont go in one time direction. They oscillate in time. Constantly and everywhere. Electrons couple to them. They "break" them open and from a circle they become a line (in Feynman diagrams) between two vertices (with associated vertex factors which quantify the coupling strength).
Rìght!
is this mathematical modeling or something that actually happens?
Oscillate in time in what sense? Current/past or current/future?
All I really understand about Feynmann diagrams is they have inputs and outputs and nobody really understands what happens in the middle
Quoting EugeneW
I, like many people, I think, only understand wave interactions based on water waves, waves passing along strings from either end and meeting up with each other. Waves passing through prisms etc, peaks, troughs, frequencies, trig etc. Waves can interfere, cancel each other, merge etc.
When you say all interacting wavefunctions IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE collapse, what do you mean by collapse. I assumed that this means the function no longer produced a waveform.
So you get nothing when you try to measure what happened due to the interaction between system X and system Y because the action of trying to measure, stops the wavefunction from producing waveforms so you don't get the interference pattern you get in the double split experiment if you try to detect which slit each photon(massless) or electron(mass) went through. I thought this was the basics of 'the measurement problem,' yes/no?
I have had direct communication with Tegmark and don't disagree with any of his physics, but there are some metaphysical points on which we disagree. The quantum suicide thing for instance makes some serious errors, and does not in fact constitute evidence of his favored interpretation.
My time is limited, and I've yet to get to the videos.
I mean it very literally. It is the effect end of a cause-effect relationship. Any superposition of the measured system is lost relative to the rock. Some molecule of Napoleon's dying breath interacts with the rock, changing the state (the momentum perhaps) of at least one particle of the rock. The rock is now different than it would have been without that measurement, thus Napoleon exists relative to that rock (as if he didn't already, but it's this particular measurement we're using in the example). The world cannot be measured to be in the state of that rock's exact state, but with Napoleon never having been.
I don't know how EugeneW would have expressed that since he seems to assert the necessity of a two-way 'virtual' interaction, which implies that Napoleon cannot exist relative to me (I cannot have measured Napoleon) unless I also exist relative to him (Napoleon has measured me, which violates locality).
That you have no idea about this means you need to spend more time learning physics from reviewed textbooks and not pop videos and articles, which almost always focus on the more relatable humans, their actions, and the epistemological aspects of knowledge of a system instead of the actual metaphysical state of a system.
It is a description of a system (somewhere) from a point of view. It doesn't necessarily 'produce' anything, but the future state of the system in question, if closed, can be described by evolving the wavefunction over time using Schrodinger's equation. Not sure if you'd consider that the production of a waveform. So maybe it's an atom with a half-life, and the wavefunction will give the state of the unmeasured system at any time. Upon measurement, the wavefunction collapses into a simpler state (typically decayed or not) instead of the superposition of all possible states of
No. Wavefunctions are not objects that move around. They're descriptions.
EugeneW worded it that way, giving a wavefunction the location of the point-of-view in question, hence measurements here collapse the local wavefunction here that describes the non-local system elsewhere. This makes sense in a local interpretation (of which RQM is one). If I measure one particle of an entangled pair, it doesn't physically make any change to the other particle elsewhere. No local interpretation supports 'spooky action at a distance' the way that non-local interpretations do. No reverse causality, with actions now having effects billions of years ago. There are very much interpretations that suggest otherwise.
Agree with this. Say the star is a light year away (impossible of course). To word it differently, only the state of the distant star a year ago is in our past light cone, and thus the wavefunction of that star from the point of view of Earth is collapsed only to its year-old state, and its present state is not in any way fact, relative to us. Likewise, a star sufficiently distant (say 50 GLY) doesn't meaningfully exist at all relative to Earth. Unmeasured state is not meaningful to a local interpretation. That's a very hard pill to swallow, but I find it an even harder pill to abandon locality, that information can travel backwards in time or anywhere else outside its future light cone.
I cannot understand EugeneW, so I don't think an explanation of what I mean is going to come from him.
I don't think I disagreed with that either. I said a system cannot collapse its own wavefunction. Superposition would be nonexistent if it were otherwise.
Quoting EugeneWAre you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
None of this seems at all relevant to my comment quoted above.
None seems not at all relevant? So all seems relevant?
It depends how you view the wavefunction. In the standard Copenhagen view it's a mathematical aid. A complex function in Hilbert space. The square, a real number, represents the probability of finding a particle. Contrary to a dice, this probability has no determining substrate. That's the difference with etymological chance, where chance is due to lack of knowledge. The standard says there is nothing to know.
The other approach, which I use here, is that there is a layer of determination beneath the chance: hidden variables. These are real features. The wavefunction describes them. So the particle has a well determined position but hops around in space due ti the hidden variables. You could say the hidden variables are the space-sauce around the particles. If there is no interaction, the particles get lost in space.
True. Copenhagen is/was an epistemological interpretation, and as such, the only way anybody is going to learn about the state of some system (like the existence of Napoleon and TutCommon, the latter being the more ordinary brother of Tutankhamun) is to take a measurement (like read a history book) which collapses your knowledge from
As such, an act (reading a book, getting a sunburn) is required to change your knowledge.
It's like the shell game: the ball is under one of three shells and you don't know which until you life the shells. But not knowing where the ball is is absolutely not the same thing as the ball being in superposition of those three places. That's a metaphysical state which means (for the purpose of this discussion) that a real possibility exists for it to be anywhere instead of in fact under the left shell, unbeknownst to you. Superposition (QM definition this time) means that those three states can be made to interfere with each other in some way, which would be a metaphysically different state.
I am admittedly, in my posts, talking about metaphysical wavefunction collapse (or lack thereof) which narrows the interpretation choices to the metaphysical ones (which includes a metaphysical version of Copenhagen in which humans once again play no role).
You've been speaking of locality before, and now there's hidden variables, used only by interpretations which abandon locality.
For the most part, and for purposes of this topic, I don't care. My observation was that RQM is an elegant solution to the origin problem. I really don't care that the other interpretations don't solve the problem the same way, or don't solve it at all. There are no hidden variables in RQM, and humans do not play any preferred role.
Quoting noAxioms
:up:
Especially you... Tedious indeed... :fire:
How do you know there are no hidden variables? It's the only solution that solves the problems, and the nature of space.
It's not like the shell game.
Locality and non-locality can co-exist. Only the hidden variables are non-local.
"In Feynman's language, such creation and annihilation processes are equivalent to a virtual particle wandering backward and forward through time"
So, a virtual particles have no direction in time. They just go up and down. Since the beginning of time and before.
Haha.
Who said I heard my name 180Booze? I defend those who don't understand... according to you. They might understand after all...
Wtf are D-kers?
:lol:
Wtf????
Perhaps you would be more interested in offerings from Carlo such as:
I have not watched this one myself but I probably will do at some point.
Quoting noAxioms
Quoting noAxioms
I think we are in a 'similar' league when it comes to command of physics. If by 'pop' you mean popular then I think there is value in using any source of physics-based facts or musings. I am happy with my own attempts to improve my knowledge of physics and philosophy and require no advice from you on how I could best progress.
Quoting noAxioms
That's good to hear! There you go @EugeneW, some of these guys will enter a discourse with us humblebums! I have mixed emotions when it comes to the term 'metaphysical.' Definintions like 'after physics' or 'beyond physics' don't help but I normally do find some value when I read/view 'metaphysical' discussions.
Quoting noAxioms
I may have garnished more value from this if you had typed something like 'Some molecule of Napoleans consciousness (not his dying breath), as his physical body starts to disassemble, after his death...interacts with a rock.' I personally think this idea is nonsense and that such an interaction would leave the rock completely unchanged. I think it's much more likely that disassembled component parts of a dead human consciousness (whatever such quanta might be) could only 'interact' with a live conscience or a forming fetus in a woman or perhaps any living creature, but not a rock.
Quoting noAxioms
Thank you for this one. It made me search the internet with 'Wave function and the quantum world.'
I clicked on wikipedia for 'wave-function' and read about A wave function in quantum physics. I think I have been confusing wave function and wave equation. Wikipedia states:
"A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it."
and
[b]The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.
For a given system, the choice of which commuting degrees of freedom to use is not unique, and correspondingly the domain of the wave function is also not unique. For instance, it may be taken to be a function of all the position coordinates of the particles over position space, or the momenta of all the particles over momentum space; the two are related by a Fourier transform. Some particles, like electrons and photons, have nonzero spin, and the wave function for such particles include spin as an intrinsic, discrete degree of freedom; other discrete variables can also be included, such as isospin.[/b]
and
According to the superposition principle of quantum mechanics, wave functions can be added together and multiplied by complex numbers to form new wave functions and form a Hilbert space. The inner product between two wave functions is a measure of the overlap between the corresponding physical states and is used in the foundational probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the 'Born' rule, relating transition probabilities to inner products. The Schrödinger equation determines how wave functions evolve over time, and a wave function behaves qualitatively like other waves, such as water waves or waves on a string, because the Schrödinger equation is mathematically a type of wave equation. This explains the name "wave function", and gives rise to wave–particle duality. However, the wave function in quantum mechanics describes a kind of physical phenomenon, still open to different interpretations, which fundamentally differs from that of classic mechanical waves.
I also used the linked pop-ups for more info on terms such as 'degrees of freedom and 'commuting observables' as used in quantum physics. I think I now understand more about the term wave function as used in quantum physics.
Quoting noAxioms
I was referring to waveforms not the term wavefunction as I now conceive it based on the wikipedia stuff above. I was referring to something like a light wave with traditional peaks, troughs, wavelength, frequency etc, physically traveling through 3D space. All such will produce a 'worldline' based on my understanding of the term. I base this on a comment made by a physicist on Quora:
"the worldline of light behaves as ligtht-like curves in spacetime"
Quoting noAxioms
Yes, so the picture of hubble deepest field image (I have a very large framed print of it in my bedroom)
mainly contains objects which probably don't exist anymore.
Quoting noAxioms
He has been quite patient with me when I have demonstrated my limited knowledge of physics. He has demonstrated his deeper grasp of the topic and has not 'dismissed' me as 'not worth his efforts.' As a retired school teacher myself, I appreciate and celebrate his approach and passion for physics and I prefer it to the more pretentious and unwarranted, almost sad, aloof attitudes of other members of this forum, be the thread philosophical, scientific, religious or political. Thankfully, such attitudes are also in the minority on this forum.
Hi,
Could you answer a few quick questions for me. How do you refer/mention another member in a post?
I have seen the @member handle, reference used by other members. But I just tried @Garret Travers and it did not appear as a link.
Oh, I've just realised, his handle is Garrett Travers (two t's in his first name), is that the reason it didn't work?
A couple of other questions.
Is there no way to change the size of text in a post?
Can you insert a direct link within a current post, to a previous post earlier in the same thread or to an earlier post you have made in another thread? If so, how do you do this?
Are you referring to traveling analogue waves as data packets are transmitted through the air using from source (DAC (Digital to analogue converter)) to destination ADC (analogue to digital converter)?
or digital waveforms (Castle turret shaped)?
Based on the wikipedia entry I pasted on my most recent response above, to noAxioms, I think the waveforms of computing would be described as belonging to the 'classical' category and differ from that produced by a 'wavefunction' in quantum physics.
As a maths expert, do you have anything to add that would aid my understanding of the difference between the terms wave /function/form/equation as they are used in maths compared to quantum physics?
Well said! :clap: :wink:
But up and down are opposite DIRECTIONS on a straight line. This could be perceived as the universe of 'lineland,' such a universe could still support linear time (past present future), so I don't get your 'virtual particles have no direction in time,' proposal. If they have no direction in time then they have no direction in space by virtue of spacetime. Does this not mean they can't actually exist and they are merely a convenient 'tool' to aid some current theories of the structure and workings of the Universe.
Quoting universeness
Is it the quote above from wikipedia, that 'marries' with your 'goes up and down' proposal?
The idea of a wave 'amplitude,', if so, an amplitude must take time to form an it forms in a direction from rest to up (in the case of a crest) or rest to down (in the case of a trough). Does this marry with the proposal of 'rest up to crest as current to future' and 'rest down to trough as current to past?'
Real particles have a direction in time. They move forward in time. A virtual particle goes forwards, backward, forwards, backwards, forwards, etc. This fluctuation is often popularized as a pair, a particle-antiparticle pair, created and annihilating each other, while in fact there is just one eternal particle (seen from the collective of real particles going forward).
Thank you @universeness ! That's good to hear!
A wavefunction, in relation to qft, can be considered as a temporal cross section of a particles free field. A particle litterally travels on all possible pathways through spacetime. All paths have a probability, and are taken at the same time. In hidden variables theory, they hop from one to the other. No wonder these variables are non-local, and I have never understood why the fact that there are no local hidden variables is such a big deal. That's exactly what they don't have to be. In that theory, the wavefunction is a physical entity. Its squared, that is. It's a wavefunction because it's derived from the same equation as a real wave equation.
How did you do that @universeness profile link. That's one of the things I was asking the elusive 'Baden' mod about and relates to the 'general' post I made at the top of this page.
Here's a fun aside, every time I type 'mod' instead of moderator, I get images of a large group of mad teenagers wearing fishtail parkers with Harrington jackets and turtle neck pullovers underneath and mostly white drainpipe trousers, driving Lambretta scooters whilst heartily singing in loud unison:
"We arra mods, we arra mods, we are we are we arra mods! repeated ad Infinitum and ad nauseam.
As they search for an equivalen group on 'Rockers' on real motorbikes who they invariably got beat up by. Go figure my thought processes? Perhaps I need some time with an analyst:
We arra mods, we arra mods...............
I'm not sure I understand. You mean time going forwards and backwards in a wavefunction, depending on the position in the wavefunction?
It's a bit hard to visualise, because we are used to particles going forward in time with definite position and energy, mutually related. If energy is zero then momentum squared is [math]-m^2[/math], according to [math]E^2-p^2=m^2[/math], and this relation doesn't hold for virtual particles. They can have independent values to fit the boundary conditions of two asymptotically free particles. In other words, if the two incoming particles have specified E and p, as the outgoing ones, the virtual particle adjusts to fit these values. It could also adjust to other values. All have certain amplitudes to occur. Qft calculates these scattering amplitudes by means of Feynman diagrams.
I ama member... press the @, and fill in the name you wanna link: @universeness
Oh, This is Richard Feynman's mind, isn't it. Yeah, I have read about this many times in relation to the double-slit experiment. Never been able to get my head around this one. How can every possible path be traversed by the 'same' particle in an instant of time? I know I should not conceive of the speed of light as a limiting factor here but I don't understand how to do that.
That's exactly why hidden variables are invented! How can a particle have a probability to be here or there? Where is it then?
But I did so in my post at the top of this page, have a look! It did not produce the link, why not?
Let me try again here: @EugeneW
Isn't there an @ on top of the comment space? With all the other symbols?
On my computer, the @EugeneW appears as just black text. Does it show as a profile link on everyone else view?
Right of the fat, quote, list, picture, and link...
Ah! I was just using my keyboard @ symbol. Lets try the site @
@EugeneW
Gotcha!
Another problem solved, thanks EugeneW!
Well, I understand the probability of an outcome as simply 1/all possible outcomes.
The probability of a particle having a particular 4 coordinate position (3 spacial and 1 of time), would I assume depend on its starting position and its known or predicted path.
But I would also assume that the 'geometric expanse' of the particle involved would also be a factor as to how much space it occupies at any instant of time.
I second that emotion!
I was reading something similar to this on Wikipedia and a physics site. I also read a discussion on this on quora. I understand some of it but will have to do a much more detailed reading on it to improve my understanding. I think I need a very detailed example from a starting title such as:
'a day/hour/minute/second/plank time in the existence of an electron.'
There must be such worked examples available. If you know of such a link then I would appreciate it but I can do my own searching as well.
One to add to my 'to do' list or more accurately, my 'to improve my understanding of quantum physics' list.
You should thank God on your knees!
SILENCE, YOU PEASANT!
I wish I could imagine such and I have quite a vivid imagination, in my opinion.
I can only imagine virtual as it is proposed in virtual reality simulations, which I think is a very acceptable manifestation of the term applied to the 'science of reality,' as a human being might perceive it.
Earlier in our discussions on another thread, you stated that you had difficulty with the logic/evidence behind my predictions of the possible future transhuman manifestations which may become possible due to technological advancement.
I have similar or perhaps even more difficulty with the logic/evidence behind:
"You travel on all possible paths, with all possible values of E and p, forward and backward in time"
and
"A real electron does the same"
I know this is from Feynman and I hold him, as most people of science do, in very high esteem but it's when the words "This literally happens" that an electron travels on all possible paths through the slits in the double-slit experiment, that I have great difficulty with. I understand it as a 'mathematical thought exercise' of Feynmans and that he used this thought exercise to collapse all these paths into a single 'average' REAL physical path. I can make that 'logical jump,' but I can't conceive or accept that all possible paths are literally traversed by an electron or photon emitted by a source towards a screen behind two slits in a card placed between the source and the screen, producing the wave interference pattern viewed.
If you understand the wavefunction, then you should understand this. If you put cards parallel to the screen (in the double slit experiment) you would see the wavefunction (as on the screen). I don't think the particle travels on all paths at once. It rather jumps from one to the other, within the confines of the wavefunction the wavefunction accompanied the particle.
Some molecule of Napoleon's dying breath interacts with the rock, changing the state (the momentum perhaps) of at least one particle of the rock. The rock is now different than it would have been without that measurement, thus Napoleon exists relative to that rock
— noAxioms
That breath was made of atoms, and electrons and protons and such. Those particles are still around to this day. They'd be somewhere else had Napoleon never existed, so they constitute a measurement of him.
To phrase it in MWI terms: It is not possible that there is a world that contains you (now and in your current state) and does not contain Napoleon.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
I don't think human consciousness is an assembly of components. More of a process that takes place, like combustion, involving not necessarily the same matter at any given time, just like a candle flame's atoms are almost completely different than the 'same flame' a minute later.
Not to say anything against that particular quote which seems accurate, but I find Quora to be one of biggest sources of misinformation on the web due to the lack of mechanism to promote correct answers to questions. Physics.StackExchange is far better in this regard and I usually look there first. I'm not a registered user on either site.
Depends on your definition of 'exists'. They've been measured, so they exist to us by that definition. They're galaxies, and separate galaxies might merge into bigger ones, but they hardly just cease being there after only several billion years
Quoting EugeneW
I didn't say there are no hidden variables.
Quoting EugeneW
You seem all over the map with your 'facts', but without framing them with a specific interpretation, and almost all of them are interpretation-dependent 'facts'.
You seem to mix bits from RQM, Copenhagen, and Bohmian mechanics, only the latter of which actually suggests that a particle has a location even unmeasured. Bohm's efforts seem a desperate attempt to explain quantum mechanics in classical terms as if classical physics is the more fundamental of the two.
The interpretation (and only one other that I know of) holds to the principle of counterfactual definiteness: that any given particle is in fact in some defined state at any time even in the absence of measurement. In doing so, he discarded the principle of locality (that cause must precede effect), a principle I find harder to sacrifice. No valid interpretation holds to both principles.
Okay. That's all I asked. Which means they offer an explanation. In BQM, the wavefunction just collapses. As a matter of fact, experiments can be done to discern if they exist or not.
"Desperate"... Typical. Bohm was called names by his contemporaries. But he was right.
If anyone was desperate, it was Everest. Or Rovelli, for that matter, but he shows some signs of intelligence.
You see hidden variables as classical variables? Don't think so. They are non-local. Classical variables are local, except maybe tidal forces but they can be considered in arbitrary small regions of space. Maybe space itself is made of hidden variables. I don't see what Napoleon or Casar have to do with QM.
"Seem" indeed, because I don't mix them. I just say there are hidden variables. Unfashionable, exciting lots of irrational underbelly feelings, just as the existence of preons. They are not metaphysical but physical.
The things that appear on oscilloscopes, old fashioned stuff.
Quoting universeness
In math a simple wave is a time-dependent vector field defined, say, on the complex plane as
[math]F\left( z,t \right)[/math]. One can elaborate on this, but I don't think that will help. Fourier series, of course, are associated with waves. But the closest I've come in recent years to producing a wave-like result might be these notes: Wave tunnels to centroids, Compressed wave of infinite length.
Perhaps the most illuminating way to connect the easiest of math waves with QP is to take a look at the foundational equation of the subject, the Schrodinger equation. Recall from basic calculus the mathematical relationship describing the rate of change of something compared with the quantity of that something. This is fundamental to so so much. It says the instantaneous rate of change of a quantity is proportional to the existing quantity at that moment.
[math]\frac{d}{dt}Q(t)=KQ(t)[/math]. Easily solved to [math]Q(t)=Q(0)\cdot {{e}^{Kt}}[/math]
Compare this with the Schrodinger equation in simplest form:
[math]\frac{d}{dt}|\Psi (t)\rangle =-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)|\Psi (t)\rangle [/math]
Notice that the capital K if replaced by [math]-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)[/math]
gives
[math]{{e}^{Kt}}={{e}^{-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t}}=Cos(\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t)-iSin(\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t)[/math]
And this, as t=time progresses, can produce a wave in the complex plane.
My comments are heuristic and descriptive, avoiding complexities beyond my grasp.
An electron fired ONE AT A TIME from the source, through the slits forms an interference pattern on the screen, unless you put a detector behind the slits. Doing so, will 'collapse the wavefunction' and you will see two lines on the screen instead of the interference pattern. This is the 'measurement problem.' As far as I have read, further efforts have been made to show that it is not some 'affect of the detector' (such as the detection method used by the detector causing the electrons to change their path). So Feynmann suggested that each single electron passes through both slits and effectively 'interferes with itself'. His 'thought experiment' was that the single electron takes all known paths. You say it 'jumps from path to path.' This idea is just as confusing for me. How would 'jumping' allow a single electron to pass through both slits? The logic of 'jumping' would suggest passing through one slit, then stopping, changing direction, moving back, and onto another path and then moving through the second slit. Even as I type this, part of my conscience is telling me that my thinking of QM here is 'too conventional' but my brain fog continues for now on this topic. I get some relief from Feynman's comment of 'Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics. Sorry EugeneW, I appreciate your efforts so enlighten me on this topic but I must be too dense to fully grasp your logic. You seem quite convinced you understand exactly what's going on in the double-slit experiment. I am completely stumped by it for no. I defer to an old song by Toyah Willcox, 'Its a mystery,' (to me)
I could be wrong, but doesn't [math]e^{-iHt}[/math] describe a rotation of a complex vector as time goes on? The magnitude of this vector, is proportional to the probability in standard interpretation, is constant in time. How does that reflect a wavy probability in space? What propagates a probability wave in time? We know the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translations ([math]e^{-iHt}[/math] being the translator and H the generating operator associated with a conserved energy). What does it translate? The wavefunction in space. If you multiply the spatial part (also an e power for a free particle) by this translator than the wavy space part propagates in time. If H=0, the space-wavepart is stationary. The zero energy generates no propagation in time. Nevertheless, the particle can have momentum, if the spatial extent is bound.
Confusing indeed! Let's say the electron just explores all possible paths to reach for other particles to interact with. It goes through one slit and during this transgress it hops to the other. Then to the other again, passes through, goes to the left to the right, over all possible path parts. The wavefunction accompanying it, determines which path it can move on, so a wavefunction from one slit, or one that's already collapsed after passing through both, will give a different pattern, which builds up from many one particle interactions and reflects the shape of the single particle wavefunction.
How does the particle hop from one path to another? How often does this happen? Well, that's indeed mysterious. It does it fast and instantaneous (seems like c is superseeded, and in a sense it does, I mean, imagine you are that particle; you're here and the next on the other side of the slit, instantaneously, without delay!).
I don't agree with this interpretation. Physics makes predictions of the results of a particular experiment but it then accepts the actual results as what is.
Metaphysics is decribed as:
"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space."
and
"abstract theory with no basis in reality."
I prefer the scientific method employed by physics to the nonetheless interesting philosophical musings of metaphysics.
Quoting noAxioms
Hey, Right back at you!
Quoting noAxioms
Hey, whatever floats your boat!
Quoting noAxioms
Well, it might have been more accurate for me to say that the print in my room of that area of space looks nothing like that anymore.
Thank you, I downloaded the two pdf's but the maths is quite advanced (at least for me) so I will attempt to understand it at some point.
Brian Greene talks about this type of 'quantum weirdness' and 'quantum fluctuations.' A particle which is on one side of a barrier simply 'almost spontaneously' appears on the other side and he just says 'we don't know why or how, it just does. So I go back to a previous point I made. Thinking about and discussing QM with others will remain good practice and good fun, if somewhat frustrating, but I think we probably need another million years of science and scientists before we 'know.'
Well, hidden variables offer an answer. They are non-local variables. Bohm was ridiculed for it. He was literally called names by his contemporaries (a frustrated Troskyan, having an unmatured brain, etc.). Hidden variables were not done. You can even considering them being space itself surrounding the particle. Virtual particles wavefunctions could make up the bulk of space and curve empty space negatively (these kinds of things are what you're banned for on physics sites...).
What he means with "almost" spontaneously?
To me, this almost suggests that the electron has some kind of cognisant intent, almost 'deciding' when to jump and things get difficult and almost 'magical' when it gets to two slits and its only one electron.
I may be being a little anthropic here but your suggested behavior of these electrons sounds as if they have panpsychist aspects to them. Maybe some unknown or misunderstood conditions of the double-slit experiment causes an approaching electron to 'smear out' or 'stretch its expanse' so that it passes through both slits and under other conditions it only passes through one of them. Has the experiment been done, whereby the distance between the slits has been incrementally increased and the experiment repeated?
https://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=919863
I assume he meant 'almost no passage of time,' so I assumed he was suggesting that in some cases the appearance on the other side may happen faster that c but I am just guessing. He said it during a discussion he was having with a large panel of cosmologists which included, krauss, carroll, guth and about 6 others. I watched it on youtube a few years ago but I cant remember its title.
Yeah, its hard to judge someone like Bohm but he suffered badly from depression and he was friends with some mystic called Jiddu something.
I think the nature of reality will always remain a mystic mystery somehow. Maybe the basics of nature are geometric structures made of hidden variables reaching out for other structures, and when near their coupling to the vìrtual field offers a means to interact, collapse and get identity. What particle likes to get lost in space...?
But why call hidden variables immature or related to being Trotskyan? Just look in this video... Its written in it.
No wonder he got depressed...
Seems he is the modern Galilei. In a modern church.
Quoting EugeneWI don't. I see an interpretation that attempts to get as close as possible to classical intuitions at whatever cost in additional complexity. I prefer the simpler ones (Occam's razor and all), but I am not so naive as to assert any particular interpretation as 'the truth'.
Quoting EugeneWYou say this stuff like it is fact, when it is only your personal opinion, which is misleading when replying to one who is trying to learn. Last I checked, Bohm does not suggest that the electron goes through one slit and then hops to the other. It takes one path in that interpretation.
The interpretation suggests that the electron detours to the side a bit to migrate to the next positive interference concentration, but it never doubles back and 'takes both paths'. From wiki:
"Trajectories of particles under De Broglie–Bohm theory in the double-slit experiment."
Note that the picture is not entitled: "Trajectories of particles under Quantum Mechanics theory in the double-slit experiment."
Note also that none of the paths double back and pass through more than one slit.
Quoting EugeneWBut has anybody proven him wrong? The pilot wave tank thing died a horrible death, but the interpretation lives on.
Quoting universenessThat's like saying the cat is both dead and alive. It isn't. The electron is said to be in superposition of going through each slit, and the cat is in superposition of being dead and alive. Even then, the latter is wrong since superposition requires a coherent state: the electron states in superposition can interfere with each other and produce a measurable interference pattern. The live cat cannot measurably interfere with the dead cat, and so it not a true superposition.
They done the double-slit thing with buckyballs, which is a huge molecule which they've nevertheless managed to get to interfere with itself.
Quoting universenessIf I am looking for my coffee, and see it sitting on the counter, that's a measurement. That I infer that the cup is actually over there is a metaphysical conclusion, but one that works very well for me, so it's second nature in everyday life. Physics says that if I actually go there and reach for the cup, I'd expect it to be measured by my hand when I do that, but physics actually says that that expectation can be made regardless of the metaphysical overhead.
It's a thin distinction, but an important one to me. I named myself 'noAxioms' precisely because there's nothing I refuse to question. I've a long list of things that pretty much everybody believes (including myself) which are nevertheless lacking in hard evidence. The result is a conflict: I believe some things that I know to be likely false, as if there are multiple entities in me with conflicting ideas, and only one of them can be in charge.
What something looks like is what you see if you look at it. Galaxies are huge and take ages to change. I assure you it that it still looks like that now from here. Sure, you move a few billion light years in some direction and point the telescope the same way, the view will look different. The picture is definitely dependent on point of view and looks different from significantly elsewhere.
One would need very precise measurements of arrival times. At the moment these measurements are extremely difficult to realize but it could be done in principle. Hidden variables give almost exactly the same predictions as the standard. But not totally.
It's not Bohm who says a particle hops from one path to another. It's me. An electron travels on parts of all possible paths, directed by non-local variables. This actually happens.
Nobody did, as a matter of fact. Just irrational prejudices about QM made Pauli and most others condemn him. Everything was fetched to defend the standard view. Sleazy methods included (he was friends with a mystic... can't be any good coming from them!).
Thanks! I downloaded the pdf and I will read and study its contents and see if it improves my understanding of what's happening in the double split experiment.
Yeah, but why did he turn to characters like Jiddu Krishnamurti?
Don't ask me but he was, like Bohm a holist (Bohm's holographic universe):
"His interests included psychological revolution, the nature of mind, meditation, holistic inquiry, human relationships, and bringing about radical change in society. He stressed the need for a revolution in the psyche of every human being and emphasised that such revolution cannot be brought about by any external authority, be it religious, political, or social."
Maybe they were lovers, who knows? JK was no quantum theorist, I think. I think they strengthened each other's view. On physical nature as well as soul.
I particularly like 'there's nothing I refuse to question.' I think Scientific rigor benefits from such an approach and such an attitude.
"as if there are multiple entities in me with conflicting ideas, and only one of them can be in charge"
I think we have three. The RComplex(me), The Limbic system(myself), and the Cerebral Cortex (I).
Combined, they are all my thoughts, my consciousness. That's of course only the result of my internal study of what I am. In a similar way to us trying to figure out what the Universe is from inside it.
I have a sister who is a fan of Jiddu Krishnamurti. I glaze over when she gives him plaudits. She despairs at my refusal to give him the credits she thinks he deserves. She even sent me a calendar which contains one of his inane statements under a pretty picture of nature for each month. It's in a drawer somewhere.
I personally put him with characters like the Maharishi, the mystic that managed to fog the brains of the Beatles or L Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame.
I just see such characters as engaging in pure sophistry as a means of earning a living.
Yeah, Capra (Tao of physics) and Pirsig (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance), and more of them. I can't see a connection between QM and eastern philosophy though, and Bohm's implicate order presents a different reality. I'm not sure what his friendship with K means for hidden variables. These were already thought up by Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, 7th Duc de Broglie. They give exactly the same measurable stuff but the ontology is more satisfying. At least, to me. I can't imagine particles taking all paths at once with unfounded probabilities. Probabilities must have an underlying mechanism. 't Hooft is one of the few defenders. Luckily. He has no career to loose. Can express his mind freely. Many physicists don't have the guts, afraid of not being accepted.
Wave from circle
or, another interpretation
[math]F(t)=t+iCos\left( \left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t \right)[/math]
Just some rough analogies between elementary math and QP.
I think for wavebehavior you need the space part of the wavefunction. A Gaussian wavepacket is a wavelike structure (composition of different momenta and omega exponentials: [math]u(x,t)=e^{i(kx-\omega t)}[/math], from which momenta/position and energy/time connections can be discerned). It's also a complex vector varying in space. If t evolves, the shape propagates.
From Wiki:
"In the coordinate representation of the wave (such as the Cartesian coordinate system), the position of the physical object's localized probability is specified by the position of the packet solution. Moreover, the narrower the spatial wave packet, and therefore the better localized the position of the wave packet, the larger the spread in the momentum of the wave. This trade-off between spread in position and spread in momentum is a characteristic feature of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle"
The product of complex time and position vectors gives the dispersing Gaussian wavepacket of a free particle (due to a momentum spectrum). The square gives the probability density, which is a density of probability traveling through space, in a wavelike shape. Not all wavefunction solutions have a wavelike nature though. But free particles always have.
I haven seen F(t) before. Nice one.
It seems rather strange though that F(t) equals real time plus a fluctuating imaginary part.
You've given more info on the physics part, which is admirable. I don't attempt to add physics I'm not familiar with.
In F(t)=t+icosHt, is the unit time?
OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. I don't think you're the best for trying to educate another.
Quoting EugeneW
By definition, all quantum interpretation must make the same predictions as quantum theory. If it doesn't, it isn't an interpretation of that theory. So by saying this, you're asserting that all quantum physicists are wrong, and you alone have sole access to some kind of special truth, and not just a deluded belief.
Kind of arrogant, no? I'm just saying that your claims are unbacked and waaay over the top.
Quoting universeness
Well, I don't label them me, myself, and I, but sure. I notice that the authority hierarchy goes left to right in that list. The cortex is the slowest and least in charge, but that's where the rational part of us is. Not being in charge, I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
One physicist to another, eh? The peanut gallery awaits eagerly. :chin:
Haha! All physicists are monkeys at the base. But monkeys know what gravity is better than Einstein... :wink:
With what should I back them up?
So?
Does F(t) have a physical interpretation? It's a remarkable formula!
Go back and click on that second math note about extending the diagonal paradox. It occurs there. As far as something physical I don't know.
I think this is ill-judged commentary and sounds rather bitter and somewhat presumptuous.
You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse?
Hopefully @EgeneW remembers the DIMP guys theory that I posted for him to peruse. That guy certainly had his own private physics, but based on accepted physics. He like many others are convinced they know exactly what the basic workings of the Universe are and they know what its basic structure is. Most of them feel that the currently established cosmology hierarchy will not (rightly or wrongly) give them an adequate public hearing.
If you want to encourage new thinking, you need to welcome any attempt at new physics.
As a teacher of 30 years, I fully endorse all 'true seekers.' Encouraging Original thinking is a very
sound approach when 'trying to educate another.'
A software engineer, who I am sure, is often tasked with creating ever more efficient algorithms should know that.
Quoting noAxioms
We all need our own little forms of personal whimsy!
Quoting noAxioms
This is a more negative view of a human than the one I hold myself but I do respect your right to hold 'your own private humanism viewpoint now.'
Considering your name, noAxioms, I'm surprised you dislike an interpretation that goes against the basic axioms. I don't say quantum physists are wrong. Newton was not wrong either, in the domain of application. It's just that hidden variables make the same predictions as standard QM, except in a domain that's difficult to access experimentally (but it is in principle).
:up:
I just watched Rovelli talking to a big public. I like how he says "consequences": consequences.
I think Italians always sound quite 'cool' when speaking their version of English.
But I feel the same about Spaniards, French, Americans, Africans, Australians, Scots(so me!) .......everyone who is not actually English....and even some of them who are....Liverpudlians, Mancunians, Geordies etc
That isn't physics since it makes no empirical predictions. It's just a system of categorization of different kinds of multiverse that falls out of standard physics theories and interpretations, with the fourth level being his own philosophical addition, but again, nothing that was asserted as any kind of necessary truth.
To quote Tegmark: "I don’t think it’s my job as a scientist to “believe” in particular theories, and prefer being quantitive and discussing the probability p I’d estimate for something being correct."
No I don't. They're more professional than that.
If you 'know' something for which the evidence is yet to be found, then it's blind faith, which I find unprofessional.
I never said I didn't. But new ideas (especially ones that are contradicted by empirical evidence) shouldn't be asserted as truth, just 'because I know'. Proper new thinking is presented in the form of hypothesis. That's how the scientific method works.
I don't find that comment negative at all, just my best assessment. Declaring something fit (or at least more fit than the alternative) seems a positive trait, not a negative one.
Quoting EugeneW
But no such experiment has been identified, even an impractical one. If the experiment has not taken place, how is this assertion known?
I thought it was abandoned. So I posted something to it, given the invite.