An Accidental Universe

Constantinos

"Consider the "what is" to be a person".

OK, so we have a complex physical entity of blood, water, bone, etc, etc. What is the problem, in generic terms. It is the same as considering a brick. Obviously, establishing the physically existent state of such a complex entity as at any given time, is an impossible task. But that is a practical, not existential point. In respect of the label 'person' you are intimating non-existent characteristics that we 'experience'.

"Knowing Nature truly as Nature "is" is no more possible than knowing another human being. Don't you think?"

No. You can see (ie you are receiving a light representation thereof) a wall in front of you. Now kick it. Did you feel it? There is a physical existence independent of the mechanism whereby sentient organisms are aware of it. You did not create that wall. You could invite several friends over, and each would confirm the existence of that wall. The question is, what physical process is underpinning this. And just in case you want to argue ( I almost know you do not), that there is some form of collective telepathy at work, ie physical existence is a function of sensory/brain systems, ie 'actually' there is nothing there/it is 'really'completely different, that is a logical possibility, but we can never know it, so it is irrelevant.

Re your second post. We are trapped in an existentially closed system, because we are part of existence, so we cannot transcend it. So within that, assuming it is defined correctly, what is 'of ' the system is real, within it. There is 'of the system', 'not of the system', and again that depends on answering the question, what independent physical process underpins this. We can then deem validated knowledge to be 'is', ie correct, ie the system as knowable to us. We cannot know what is not 'of the system'. And as I keep on saying, this might be complete rubbish, but we cannot view the system extrinsically, so we can never know. We can only know what it is possible for us to know, and there is a simple (well, generically!) physical process determining that. What your sensory sytem/brain makes of the physical input is not physics.

Paul

Hi Hector and Paul,

I agree with a lot of what you`ve both said.

I wrote in the thread on my essay in the `Nature of Time` contest, entry dated June 13th, 2,010, "Time is a measurement system that actually measures duration elapsing. It`s measurement baseline is the duration that elapses while the planet rotates."

I wrote in the thread on Amrit Srecko Sorli`s essay in the second essay contest, entry dated September 10th, 2,009, "Events do have duration. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe. In our conscious experience of duration, we assume time is passing.

We move at a surface speed in excess of 1,600 kilometers per hour. The constant physical changes that this planetary rotational motion creates, supports the illusion of time passing. Our clocks are in concert, since we use this same motion as the measurement baseline for our time keeping systems.

For most intent and purpose, time exists on a rotating planet for it`s conscious inhabitants. Had we evolved on the moon, it would be easier to see that time passing is an illusion, that it`s really a case of duration elapsing, that there is no such thing or force as time, in reality."

Anonymousse

I cannot understand your reply. How does time move or not move, it doesn't even exist physically. It is a measuring system.

And please do not respond with the notion that timing devices 'tick' at different rates if moving a different speeds. 1 Timing devices are not time, they tell the time. 2 Even if timing devices were affected by differential motion, why should this be a uniform affect. This concept is a legacy of the first reaction to Michelson, whereby Lorentz postulated dimension alteration.

Simultaneity over distance. So why does the distance between entities affect the time at which they existed. If they existed at the same time, they did so, whether they were one inch or a billion light years apart.

Paul

Paul

Jim

We have exchanged posts before, and as I have said previously, you are on the right track.

""Time is a measurement system that actually measures duration elapsing"

I know what you mean, but this as such is a tautology. What timing is measuring, the unit of measurement being duration (or time), is the rate at which physical existence alters.

It is not specifically related to earth movement, the fact that the units are expressed in days, etc, is because the language has fosilised, the first clock being earth movement. Neither is it specifically related to movement, that is just one exampe of alteration. It applies to any alteration, and it is the rate at which that alteration occurs. The reference for timing being a conceptual constant rate of change. Think about it, what does synchronising watches entail.

Paul

Paul,

It is specifically related to the Earth`s rotational motion.

As Hector points out, after 2,600 years of looking, FQXi has recently held the Nature of Time essay contest.

There is a reason for our confusion over the Nature of Time. It`s my contention that the Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for our confusion over the Nature of Time.

Two quotations from the article:

"This led Albrecht to a dramatic realization: We may think that we understand the fundamental physical laws around us - gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces - but we may have been fooled into seeing one form of reality based on the way that we have chosen to measure time."

"If the thought that the universe could quite easily contain vastly different laws leaves you reeling, don't worry - there are signs that the laws we know and love would have more of a chance of emerging than others."

We did not choose how processes, other than human technological ones, measure time. If we did not select the choice, what did? What makes you think the selection would be done randomly, or independently of other variables? Natural Selection is not done randomly or independently. The probabilities of various possible laws surviving into the present, cannot be assumed to be even remotely equal, if they were the result of any natural selection process.

Assuming that the statistics for random, independent variables has any relevance to such choice and selection processes, is what lead thousands of professionals to make fools of themselves in the infamous "Monty Hall Problem"

If I throw 100 coins into the air, and then selectively pick-up all the heads, after the coins land on the ground, and then you come along and observe about 50 tails, one need not hypothesize 2 to the 50th power multiverses, in order to produce a reasonable model of how such a wildly improbable outcome might have come to be. It is only wildly improbable, if your choice for a statistical model of the process, was very badly done.

The problem is not with nature's choice of time. The problem is with the human choice of a bad model of the natural choice process.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

"The problem is not with nature's choice of time. The problem is with the human choice of a bad model of the natural choice process."

"Consequently it may be formulated as follows: if two ideal clocks are going at the same rate at any time and at any place (being then in immediate proximity to each other), they will always go at the same rate, no matter where and when they are again compared with each other at one place. If this law were not valid for natural clocks, the proper frequencies for the separate atoms of the same chemical element would not be in such exact agreement as experience demonstrates.""

Every action is its own "natural clock." Even those which are synchronized, either by nature or by man.

Different Gravitational Fields = Different Spacetime curvatures = Varying Cosmological Constants (actually non-constants) = Different Spatial Temperatures (Horizon Problem) = Different Times (dilations) = Different Rates of Travel (%"c" of traveling mass) = Different degrees of Matter (Standard Model, Stellar Masses, Heavy Dark matter, Light Dark matter, Dark Energy, 100% Cocoa) = MTS = Different Volumes of Space (the expanding Universe) = Different Densities of Matter (Black Holes being one) = Different Masses (>rate = less mass)[E = mc2; hold Energy constant, rate goes up, and mass goes down) = CIG Theory

To have "c", we must start at zero velocity; for "c" to be massless, it must have started with mass; It lost that mass as it approached rate "c". The Matter (mass) offered itself up as nnew Spacial Volumes. MTS. CIG Theory.

The Spacetime Curvature becomes the Matter. It is one and the same, only different in its degree of being one another.

Time isn't just a measuring system - while we've been discussing this we've been ageing (rather more than necessary). To you that ageing process of matter is just part of the world, you accept it. But in modern physics we don't just accept it, because we have reasons not to. If you understand them you'll understand the question, and then you might even find an answer.

"The problem is not with nature's choice of time. The problem is with the human choice of a bad model of the natural choice process."

I don't agree with your statistics, Rob.

*Perfect* randomness in the initial condition -- like a single fair coin toss probability -- guarantees perfect information of the initial condition. Your statistics assumes dependent variables, while the Albrecht assumption (and this is also the Joy Christian assumption) is that of a continuous range of random independent variables.

Tom

Rob,

Perfect information, however, is still perfect information -- six sides of a die, two sides of a coin -- and equally likely initial conditions at creation.

The way you're doing it is not truly based on a cosmological initial condition. There's no real possibility of creation in your assumptions.

Einstein's essential question that was already answered by Joy Christian's framework has been rediscovered by Albrecht -- God did have a choice in creating the world.

Tom

Tom,

But there is indeed a real possibility for creation in my assumption. In fact, by your criteria, my initial condition is even more perfect than yours seems to be:

two sides of a coin -- and equally likely initial conditions (1) the cosmos had a beginning, and (2) the cosmos had no beginning; it has always existed, it just changes form.

Rob McEachern

John,

I do not believe that: "Every action is its own "natural clock."." I believe many actions can occur with no need for a clock. And many descriptions of those actions also have no need for a clock. For example, describing a system as having a specific, constant energy, or momentum etc., can be a very useful description. But since the attribute being described is constant, no clock is required to keep track of the time. In a sense, it is this very property that makes the conservation laws important. It is very easy to predict any future value of a constant.

Rob McEachern

What is creation? Does it originate instantaneously, from no prior states? Once it has started, are the initial conditions recoverable, if the result is random independent variables? If not, how do we know there was an initial condition and not just eternal random variables?

The idea seems quite mathematically convenient(simplistic), but physically illogical. What about conservation of energy, if a universe worth can just pop into existence?

I think an entirely worthwhile question would be; What is math? Is it conceptual reductionism, or the underlaying state of reality? Is there a platonic realm of mathematical laws, or do they emerge as definition?

An initial condition would seem to be conceptual reductionism, since the underlaying state of reality seems continuous and it is only the subsets, the nodes in the network, the organisms in the ecosystem, that have beginnings and ends. The energy goes onto other forms. Think of it as process vs. product; The process is constantly consuming material and expelling finished product, while the product moves the opposite direction, from initiation to completion. Life is like that, as the species is constantly moving onto the next generation and shedding the old, while individuals go from birth to death. Even multiverses follow this model, as new universes form from the old, as the old ones fade away. The hands of the clock move to the future, as the units of time go to the past. So it would seem the concept of start and finish only applies to entities, not the system, where every finish is another start.

Rob,

" For example, describing a system as having a specific, constant energy, or momentum etc., can be a very useful description."

That is what a clock is. The point is there is no such thing as a vector of time, or anything external to motion. It emerges from action. "Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates."

Consider this image of Schrodinger's cat; Now rather than think of it as the present moving left to right, think of it as the frames of film moving right to left. The future possibilities becoming past events, as opposed to moving along a time vector, from a determined past into a probabilistic future.

As I pointed out in my essay, by focusing on the measure of interval, physics emphasizes the past to future effect, rather than the underlaying dynamic change. The reality is what is physically, dynamically present. It is the events that are transitory, not fixed forever in some four dimensional geometry.

Tom / Rob

We are arguing in circles! So let me try to 'square the circle'. I will again take it one idea at a time, listed and numbered, and you can pick and choose and agree or disagree (True / False). With well reasoned arguments of course!

1)Physical laws are different from mathematical identities.

2)Physical laws depend on certain physical assumptions for their derivation, or on empirical evidence for their validation. They are simply assumed to always be true as long as their premises are true. In this sense, they could be thought as "identities" but that's NOT what I do. A "postulate" for me is NOT an "identity". A=A is logically very different from assuming F=ma is always true when m is constant.

3)Mathematical identities do not depend on any physical assumptions, unlike physical laws.

4)Both physical laws and mathematical identities can only be applied to situations where all their premises are known to be true.

5)Newton's Laws are considered to be physical laws. I do not call these mathematical identities "true by definition". That's sophistic play on words. They are not! Since these depend on empirical validity.

6)Planck's Law for blackbody radiation is also considered to be a physical law, since in its derivation the physical assumption of "energy quanta" is used.

7)I have shown (through my derivation of it) Planck's Formula to be a mathematical identity and not a physical law per se. This mathematical identity is a functional relationship between the incremental change of a quantity E(t) over an interval of t, the average of the quantity E over the same interval and the value of E(t) at the beginning (or end, if we reverse t) of that interval. When E(t) is a simple exponential of t, then this relationship is exact. For any other integrable E(t), this relationship is a limit. (See my chapter, The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law).

8)All physical laws contain physical assumptions. All physical assumptions presuppose a physical view. All physical views are descriptions of "what is" the Universe (Nature). Any description of "what is" is metaphysical in essence. Basing Physics on mathematical identities instead of physical laws (assumed to be true) keeps physics from 'morphing into metaphysics'. I argue we can have Physics without assuming 'physical laws'.

Tom you write:

"Your claim that physical laws are mathematical tautologies is either falsified ... or trivial"

Physical laws are different from mathematical identities. What I am arguing is that we can and should formulate Physics in such a way that what otherwise would have been physical laws are instead derived as mathematical identities without any physical assumptions.

"There are any number of mathematical tautologies that have nothing to do with physics." True! But so what!

"you neglect that Planck's law applies only in the case of blackbody radiation. To take this special case -- (albeit an important case, since it is the limiting case of a body's heat content, which is why it is a "law") -- and declare that it is general, ignores, e.g., radiation effects in out of equilibrium conditions, such as LASER, which do depend on the quantization hypothesis."

Nothing changes about Planck's Law but its derivation using no physical assumptions. Planck's law as was derived by Planck applies only to ideal blackbody conditions. But the same result can be obtained as a mathematical identity and without the "quantization of energy hypothesis". If E(t) is a simple exponential of time, than Planck's Formula is exact. For any other integrable E(t), Planck's Formula is a limit. There are no other premises to my derivation. Just a very simple mathematical identity I am using. I fail to see how you conclude I "declare that it [Planck's Law] is general". Unless you mean this Formula generally applies whenever we want to express the quantity E(t) knowing its incremental change and average value over a duration of t. Which it does! And this is pure math with no physical assumptions made.

"If you are just saying that the mathematics describes a limiting case in every instance of physical law, how is that nontrivial?"

I am not saying or doing anything of the sort! I am only suggesting Physics can be so formulated that Basic Law of Physics can equivalently be derived as mathematical identities. The advantage would be that no physical assumptions are made which could ultimately lead to metaphysics.

Rob, you write:

"force is the first derivative of linear momentum, with respect to time."

That is also how I am considering force. No problem here!

Constantinos

Paul,

A person is not a "Body". It is a "Being".

Constantinos

Constantinos

No, a person is a physical entity. So too is a brick. But a person has certain qualities, such as temperament, which whilst not physically existent of themselves are a function of something physical. Probably to do with brain structure and 'wiring'. Indeed, we attribute different qualities to different bricks, say hardness, but we know immediately that this is a function of the materials used and the method of construction.

Paul

Anonymousse

"To you that ageing process of matter is just part of the world, you accept it"

What do you mean "just", both in the sense:

-it is just part of physical existence, what else is it? It is an example of alteration in physical existence. The rate at which this sequence of alteration occurred is what timing is measuring

-I do not just "accept" it, ie and then want to do nothing more, which is apparently, according to you, what "modern physics" does. What have I said that implies that?

Incidentally, what is this question you refer to, which, by virtue of the way you make the point, I apparently have not addressed?

It would also be useful in this exchange, ie would not take up so much of the ageing process, if you addressed the points I make, rather than posting new ones and/or just saying 'no it isn't'

Paul