[deleted]
Perhaps future theoreticians are beaming the holographic projection from the center for untestable postmodern pseudo-science, which was created in 2016 after a rift with experimentalists who kept generating inconvenient results.
Perhaps future theoreticians are beaming the holographic projection from the center for untestable postmodern pseudo-science, which was created in 2016 after a rift with experimentalists who kept generating inconvenient results.
Boundary element method is applicable as an alternative to FEM for wave fields in a medium. When Strominger is sticking to his equations he ignores that these equations belong to a model that is fundamentally at variance with reality. What does he mean with the notion "the infinite future"?
While I dislike attempts to escape from paradoxes with mainstream speculation by even more silly phantasm, I guess, we might possibly benefit if Strominger points us to what he considers the most unwelcome paradoxes. Let's ask for relationship to what might be wrong in most basic but commonly confirmed assumptions. Of course, I wonder if hints are to be found in winning essays.
John,
Struere: struo, struxi, structus, means to build; structure means (something) was built (passive). Is the future something that has been built, a structure?
Yes, however not in reality. The future is merely a mental construct. The past is both a mental structure of fading relevance and an objectively unchangeable "structure".
Eckard
There is no true/real/actual experience OF OUTER SPACE. It is impossible.
I disagree.
You should live in my brain. It is empty.
I have experienced outer space.
True seriousness and/versus clowns. Experience and being are integrated and interactive. This is one of the main reasons that you all are so lost.
Send in the Clowns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvZex3Qf7QQ
Lost in Space
Warning Warning Dr. Smith....
OK so I deserved the clown remark
But please, try www.CIGTheory.com [ where does your space come from ?]
I'll try and be more serious. It's very hard these days as we are about to go off the fiscal cliff. [send in the politicians]
True Seriousness 5 / Clowns 1
Happy New Year & thanks for the interactive experience
doug
The ACTUAL experience OF OUTER SPACE is impossible. Hence, all experience is interactive and integrated with the observer (of necessity) -- dreams and waking. Accordingly, the red shift and astronomical/telescopic observations are integrated and interactive experiences involving observer AND observed.
Regarding outer space:
1) Being is never experienced apart/alone from experience.
2) You cannot experience outer space (AS IT IS, and separate from being) because it is [inherently] separate from being. Being and experience are integrated and interactive, of necessity.
Final Statement - CIG Theory -
Quantum dynamics approaches Classical dynamics as the rate of matter (of traveling particles) approaches pure stillness (velocity = zero). At zero velocity, the two (quantum & classical theory) are indistinguishable. At velocity = c, Matter becomes Space. In between is everything else [Dark Matter & Dark Energy & other variations of the "dark entities" (that term which represents all that inclusive of and in between Dark Matter & Dark Energy), Standard Model]. Further, the Quantum Gravity conundrum is resolved as the spacetime continuum [the various fields of gravitational matter (Dark Matter/Dark Energy/The gravities/Mass)] becomes the quantum particle [or at zero velocity, the classical black hole particle]. MTS being the equation, where M = Matter(s)(the extreme being a Black Hole), T = % "c" travel [forward vector (increasing rate) for Space / reverse vector (slowing) for Black Hole), and S = Space]. And, the Fourth Law, not herein repeated (but worth a read). This is CIG Theory. And, things are explained as a result of this interpretation of nature (double slit, horizon problem, red shift anomalies, expanding Universe among other things).
My Latest Thoughts: Why do large things move slower than small things?
Answer:
Larger things (i.e. planets) move slower than smaller things because unlike small faster things (i.e. electrons that turn into a more spatialy manifested entity), larger things can accumulate in a more massive matter form & remain large, since they, as a slow entity, do not manifest their spatial charachteristic as much as faster particles do. Slower things can accumulate into larger things. Faster things can't, because they remain more spatial, and hence smaller. This is why large things are slow, and small things are fast.
But even the largest thing is comprised of fast & small things! Go figure!
[Which came first, the fast or the small?]
www.CIGTheory.com (final answer)(Where does yor space come from?)
Farmers Almanac Predicts CIG Theory !
THX & Happy New Year !!!
PS : you can experience Outer Space - go ask Wavy Gravy
While the very first 'present' contained nothing, the future following that present filled in the void suffered by that 'nothing' present by passing an existing universe backward in time disguising itself as the 'nothing' that becomes everything. Is that what this article is saying or suggesting?
If so then: I think that this is the theoretical 'reach' that makes clear that theory is not the solution. I think that this is an example of inventions of theoretical substitutions for the unknown. Theorists don't let what they don't know stop them. Rather, the unknown becomes fertile ground for 'blackboard' imaginings. I think that, in addition to the problem of lack of knowledge, theory is also the problem.
James Putnam
James,
That was very thoughtful.
We'll never know anything, that's the problem.
Even if we run out of problems, with everything answered, we'll still never know anything. How can we? Where are we? How can we be sure? So things agree with experimental verfication? So what. Who are we to say this has meaning and why should we believe it? Anarchy of existence, of thought, of theory. Heresy.
When everything becomes a problem we can always lick the ice cream cone on a hot summer's day, the probabilities collapse, it's chocolate with sprinkles, and everything again becomes real. She glances this way with a slight smile. The reality starts to blur again. I look down to make sure my cone is still there.
The hologram containing all the past and the future of "THIS" universe is touching (only touching) my perception of Total Simultaneity, where all pasts and all futures of all probable and unprobable universes are "available".
The hologram that is "reaching" back to the point where we are has however some interesting aspects I think :
1. In this perception the "history" goes further as our 13,7 billion years, which of course can be a good thing, we would be able to back eternally, because the hologram has to be infinite on the illusion of time.
2.Once we are accepting the infinite time aspect on the hologram, we no longer have the trouble that the so called "going back" is needed (This so called "going back" is the reason that FREE WILL is not available in this perception, the life/time-line is fixed !!!) Just see the moment we are consciouss and the thereby belonging "block universe" as one point on the infinite surface of the hologram, from that point you can both reach an infinity of pasts and an infinity of futures, the Free Will is conserved, we are no longer a movie with a fixed beginning and end.
In my essay "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" I treated this subject deeper.
Happy new year (the life line in TS that gives you and the ones you love the most of well being)
Wilhelmus
Doug,
Thank you for your kind words. I have expressed, in the past, an appreciation for Pascal's description:
"Scientific learning is composed of two opposites which nonetheless meet each other. The first is the natural ignorance that is man's lot at birth. The second is represented by those great minds that have investigated all knowledge accumulated by man only to discover at the end that in fact they know nothing. Thus they return to the same fundamental ignorance they had thought to leave. Yet this ignorance they have now discovered is an intellectual achievment. It is those who have departed from their original condition of ignorance but have been incapable of completing the full cycle of learning who offer us a smattering of scientific knowledge and pass sweeping judgements. These are the mischief makers, the false prophets."
There are other translations, but, this is my favorite. I have found it to be greatly resisted and have never received feedback in agreement with it. For me, it is clear and correct. It applies to me as well as all others. I see it as representing the acknowledgement that all we ever learn about are effects. They are our body of knowledge. We do not know what cause is. An example of the smattering process is, I think, the mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe presented to us by theoretical physics. I see this as a severely limited artificial perspective. The achievement of this universe is the existence of human free-will. A mechanical universe is incapable of producing even the first step in understanding the existence of human free-will. That is my opinion. I don't presume that you agree with my position. Thank you for sharing your view.
James Putnam
I have free-will. I believe in free-will. I don't have free-will. I can't believe in free-will. God does not play dice. HE can throw doubles at will. Can free will and physics co-exist? The Free Will to Believe in Physis. The Physics of Free Will. I swear I didn't do it. I was framed by Physics.
Can free will and physics co-exist?
Physics applies up to the point free-will kicks in?
Free-will destroys physics.
I do believe in free will. I said that on my own accord, right?
I have the free will to believe in free will.
Does God have free-will.
Take responsibility and believe in free will.
Do I not have the free will not to believe in free will? Does that mean I have free will? That free will is TRUTH. Only if had the free will.
Pointless meaningless everything. Pointful. Meaningful. Nothing.
Presume what you may James, for your presumption is as good as my own, perhaps even better. Today I will let you decide if I have free will. I can do that, right?
& Happy New Year - wweeeeeeeeeeee
Doug,
Theoretical physics does not offer us free-will, but, the empirical evidence of physics shows that we must have free will. Theoretical physics says the world is about motion of objects. There are attempts to sell the idea that uncertainty in that motion invites free-will. I don't buy that argument. The mechanics of the motion of objects has nothing to offer about the existence of intelligent life. There is far more to the operation of the universe than that offerred to us by theoretical physics. Information arrives to us in a wildly mixed storm of photons from innumerable directions and sources. Yet we discern meaning from that mess.
The only way in which that is possible is if we already know how to search for sense in the possible forms of patterns first and then use our existing innate intelligence to attach meanings to those patterns. The meanings are already ours inside us. We know the meanings before before the first interpretation is made and for all interpretations that we will ever make. Choices are a part of that process. That is the way I see it and have written about it in my essay Human Free Will.
There is another presentation of the origin of all learning written by St Augustine titled 'Concerning The Teacher'. He uses language to demonstrate the same conclusion. Both approaches involve recognizing the role played by signs. Words are signs and photons are signs. Those signs, in both cases, merely point us to where we must look to learn. In both cases we look within ourselves. Learning comes from within. We teach ourselves that which we already know but is buried in our subconscious mind. Again, that is the way I see it and that is what physics empirical evidence tells me must be the case.
James putnam
James,
I read in part your theory online and agree with your statement that "The Universe is under control". May I quote you from time to time, attributing the observation to you of course?
We are better than Physics.
Physics does not choose for us. But our choices are confined by physics nonetheless insofar as I can see things large and small.
Or, can I fly to the stars?
Are you saying that we can consciously collapse the wavefuction to our benefit. Can we think that small?
Or, are our thoughts and powers bigger than that such that we can collapse a multitude of them, thus feeling our way through life.
My CIG Theory brings determinism back into the realm of physics but only at the level it contemplates physics. It does not delve deeper than it delves.
I still know nothing.
Dear Doug,
It is not easy to know always what is original. I think that my theoretical work is almost all original. You are certainly welcome to quote from it. The statement that "The Universe is under control." does make a point which is a certainty to me. I am sure that that statement is not original to me. However, perhaps my reasons for saying so do include originality. Anyway, my feeling about quotes is that while a source should be given credit, including myself if I am someone's source, it remains absolutely necessary for me to invite anyone to offer earlier sources. I have no need or desire for credit that rightfully belongs to someone else. I wish I had enough knowledge to always give credit where credit is due. Thank you for wanting to use something that I have said.
James Putnam
So..the instant of the Big Bang is an illusion?..and of course the Maths must themselves be judged to be illusionary!..so say the math-emagicians?
Mathematical structures can support any idea because the constraints are based on whatever the mathematician choses. The real world illusion or otherwise has constraints that must be defined and tested. A hologram still operates on well known optical principles so with that in mind holograms have nothing to do with illusions. Strominger should try another word, an imaginary theory rather than a holographic theory because we have a theory of holograms.
You can find anything mathematically but cannot find anything physically. These ideas are really challenging logic at a fundamental level.
FQXi should really have an "Anonymous Competition". I suspect when you remove all the academic titles and institutional affiliation, many of these ideas will be viewed more clearly. I suspect many great thinker would lose. Steven King did something similar to see if he could still get published if no one knew who he was