An Accidental Universe

We allow for that effect, and include it in our calculations. It's called the Doppler effect. We measure both it and time dilation. They're two separate effects, and we understand both of them very well (both mathematically, one conceptually too), even students do. You're confusing them because you haven't studied physics, as you admit. This is like talking to a deaf person, except that that might be nicer in some ways. Go away and study phyiscs - your intuition is wrong. It seems right to you, and you can't concieve of it being wrong, but it's wrong. That's why you repeat ideas I've taken apart already. Please no more discussion, as what I'm saying isn't going in. You just got away with your ideas up till now, no-one bothered to put you right, for utterly obvious reasons. So you believed you knew what was going on, but you don't. Bad physics can look right VERY easily if you're vague about things, and if you don't hold it up to the reference points we have carefully. Read the posts above again, they may make more sense after a while. I hope that helps.

Here is the "Multiverse Hypothesis probability computation" as I see it:

Let p(Un) be the probability that Universe number "n" has initial conditions and physical laws, such that they result in "intelligent life-forms", that attempt to understand how they came to exist.

The Multiverse Hypothesis can then be stated as:

The probability, P, that every such life-form exists, somewhere within the multiverse, is:

1) P = p0*{p(U1)+p(U2)+p(U3)+...} = 1,

2) since {p(U1)+p(U2)+p(U3)+...} = 1

3) and it is an unstated assumption, that p0 = 1

Statement (2) is the standard hypothesis that if you sum up an infinite number of all possibilities, the result is an inevitable total, cumulative probability of 1.

But what is p0, and why is it assumed to be exactly equal to 1?

p0 is the *a priori* probability that such a life-form must *necessarily* exist.

p0 = 1 means a lifeless multiverse is *known* to be impossible, even before any such life comes into existence.

The problem with this hypothesis is that, because its proponents do in fact *know* that p0 =1 *a posteriori*, they have unwittingly assumed that it must *necessarily* also be the case that p=1 *a priori*. But this assumption is false.

In other words, because they know, after some game has been won, that a winner actually exists, they have assumed, incorrectly, that it is impossible to create a game that can *never* be won.

Since it is not *a priori* necessary for a multiverse to exist, it cannot be *a priori* necessary for a multiverse with intelligent life-forms to exist. So p0 cannot equal 1. So the hypothesis fails to explain the only fact that it was created to explain; why p0 is known to equal 1, *a posteriori*.

Rob McEachern

Paul, you write "Whether it[mathematics] is valid or not is, of course, a different point altogether, and maths cannot be presumed to be inherently valid."

This is a self-contradictory statement! Math is valid but "maths cannot be presumed to be inherently valid".

Math is inherently valid! The applications to Physics may not always be. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, why not just say so instead of contradicting what you say. And misunderstanding what I mean.

Try to be clear here! Hard to reason when all you do is argue and misunderstand!

Constantinos

Tom,

The real question is how does math deal with absolutes? The singularity, zero point, inertia, the Higgs, spacetime, void/vacuum, etc. "Has physical effect, but is not affected."

Is zero a point, a field, a state? If a point really has zero dimension, does it exist, or is it a useful contradiction? If it can be localed as a point, can it really be zero, or would it just be one point?

Tom,

In your post above to Rick, you state "that dynamic physical relations must capture continuous measurement functions."

I would say that the measurement functions must capture the dynamic physical relations. Maybe we have different understandings of what the word "measure" means, but my understanding is that it is an effort to define/"capture" some feature or quality.

Tom,

Sorry about that, you were describing Rick's and Lisi's work. I guess my mistake is the assumption you view spacetime and thus blocktime, as "physically real." Which I would describe as "like a painting filled with beautiful and interesting objects, frozen in time."

Do you view time as inherently dynamic and thus the measure of it merely an effort to capture/define it??????

Paul,

In answer to your question, "a definition of Universe is required ... Is this an allusion to what is 'really' there (ie what existence 'really is'), or is this meant to refer to existence as in what is knowable to us?"

I do not wish to debate philosophy. This can easily lead to a 'blackhole of thinking' where no light can escape. When I speak of Universe, I have something very simple in mind. Namely the subject matter of Physics. When I say "knowing the Universe truly is no more possible than truly knowing another person", I am not equating the physical existence of a person with that of the Universe. Rather, I am making an analogy. And I mean 'knowing another person' in the sense of knowing their experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc. What makes them 'human beings'. And I don't reduce these to bodily physical states. We cannot know truly and completely another person because the other person is independent of us; our will and experiences. They are their own actors and behave as they wish. Just like the Universe!

Constantinos

Tom,

"The impossibility of the ass to choose a haystack rests on the ideal of perfect information

-- just as the only solution to a perfect chess game is stalemate. Yet only probabilistic

information can be extracted from a continuous range of variables, assigning arbitrary

boundary conditions. Because quantum mechanics (and by extension, computer

mechanical functions) assumes binary outcomes based on agent decisions, the middle

value is null -- a stalemate or a tied election. The ass (metaphorically speaking) does

change position, however -- from live to death by starvation. The haystacks, in the sense

of general physical information, are a whole order of infinity away from Buridan's ass, just as a chess win or an election win is an infinity away in other examples."

It still seems what needs unraveling is the absolute. Perfect information is no information, the flat line on the old heart monitor. Describing continuity as an infinity of points gets into "frozen time" territory. Math has to find a less confusing method for modeling action. Zeno's paradox only works if they decelerate proportional to fractions.

Peter:

RE:Lipp's Law seems a bit of a mess.

I'll say! And in more beers than one!

The states of any two systems having the same rate of motion see equal states of equilibrium to dis-equilibrium.

Restated: (maybe...more beers than one) -

The ratios of any two systems having the same rate of motion to one another have the same degree of ratios of time equilibrium [entity ones] to dis-equilibrium[entity twos] to one another.

Constantinos

"I do not wish to debate philosophy...When I speak of Universe, I have something very simple in mind. Namely the subject matter of Physics."

I do not, and am not, debating philosophy. Which is why I asked the question, what are you referring to, physically, with the label 'universe', and you have not answered it. So we are no further forward in an understanding of your analogy. Indeed, I even gave you the choice as to what 'universe' could be, ie it is either an allusion to what is 'really' there (ie what existence 'really is'), or it is existence as in what is potentially knowable to us. Which of those are you using with your concept 'universe'?

Paul

Anonymousse

"That's why you repeat ideas I've taken apart already"

! Mostly you make contrary assertions, as you have at the start of this post, without any substantiation. You keep referring to specifics/books/experiments and not addressing the point as I am making it, ie at the generic level. There is certainly nothing you have put forward which has countradicted, factually, what I have said, and therefore validated what is your belief system. If you think there is, please refer to the post.

Paul

Constantinos

I wrote, as you quote: "Whether it is valid or not is, of course, a different point altogether, and maths cannot be presumed to be inherently valid"

What is "self-contradictory" about that statement, as you assert?

You then assert: "Math is inherently valid". Which it is not, validity depends on the reference. As I said in the post which sparked off this particular exchange, maths is no more inherently valid, than any other methodology of representing physical existence.

You then ask: "The applications to Physics may not always be. Is that what you're trying to say?.

No, as is abundantly clear from what I write. That is the next issue. The point is we exist, we are part of the existence being investigated, therefore it must be presumed that we are making presumptions. But we cannot prove anything, because we cannot externalise ourselves from existence. So we can only prove within that closed system, and we therefore need to understand what determines that closed system, and hence what is the reference for validity. Indeed, more generally, what is it that can be studied (I am still waiting for a definition of 'universe' in the other thread). We cannot presume any given representational device, and system constructed with it, is just inherently valid. Physical existence has a definitive form, and must occur in a specific way, it is not an abstract concept. Any given representational device must correspond with that, and not be somehow just correct according to its own internal structure. Otherwise we can get philosophy with maths.

Paul

I thought you understood the way I addressed your points, but I kept finding that you understand less than seemed possible. To address the point you're making very specifically, if the mechanism you describe in this quote was what causes the apparent slowing of time...

"The observed rate at which the actual sequence is altering will appear to change if there is variation in the spatial relationship between source and observer. Because if the distance is increasing then light conveying the existent sequence, so that it can be observed, will take ever longer to reach the recipient observer, thereby creating the impression, to the observer, that the sequence is slowing down."

...then if we chose to turn the receding source object around and bring it back to the observer, we'd find that their clocks were in exact agreement. But as even you know, we don't find that, we find the two clocks are out, and exactly as theory predicts, which includes time dilation. No doubt you'll try to give a separate explanation for the difference between the two clocks, involving points like 'time is a measurement'.

Peter - Sir,

Allow me a week or two & I'll attempt to rewrite the thoughts in very explicit sensible language, removing all ambiguities, and further provide example ratios and rates, and time equilibriums, even whatnots and wherefores, perhaps some withouts.

Seperate: so in CIG, the entire Standard Model represents various manifestations of the actual spacetime. The spacetime(s) itself become the particle dependent upon the spacetime's degree of curvature. And the degree of curvature determines the particle's spatial size. Are all identical (more or less as nothing is identical) particles (i.e. muons, photons, electrons, omega, k, sigma, pi, nuetron) the same size and travel the same rate? YES - and that's what makes them th same particles.... Exactly because they travel the same rate, and therefore exhibit themselves as the same size! CIG attempts to explain why the particles are the particles they are. It explains why big things are big (and slow) and little things are little (and fast). I believe you had an earlier note tying in the Standard Model with Dark Matter and this suggests to me that you are understanding the manifestation of traveling mass to Dark Matter, Dark energy, etc. very clearly.

What shall I think about today? I shall think about what shall I think about tomorrow.

THX

doug

Paul,

For me the physical universe is "what is" for Physics. But we cannot know "what is". We can only know our measurements and observations and understanding of "what is". I have said so repeatedly in all of my papers, essays and posts. I am surprised you ask! I don't want an endless metaphysical debate about what is "physical existence".

But I will make the following comment. Physics has not and cannot answer this question. But in my view, Physics begins with this. And depending on how physicists answer this question (whether explicitly or implicitly) a "physical view" of "physical existence" is created.

For me, something "physically exists" if it occupies "physical space" and takes "physical time".

And this does not bring us any closer to knowing any of these! But that's as far as I wish to go with this at this time.

Constantinos

Paul,

Your view of mathematics is not mathematics. There is indeed an "inherent validity" to mathematics that is independent of anything having to do with Physics or any other application of math. The Pythagorean Theorem, for example, can be proven to be true independently of any physics. It is true irrespective of any "references". It is ABSOLUTELY TRUE! Too much of your reasoning is mistaken because you just fail to realize this.

Constantinos

Constantinos,

It would be preferable for the laws of physics to be mathematical identities. In my Octonion work, what I call homogeneous equations of algebraic constraint are identities that will always sum to zero. The energy/momentum conservation equations arise out of rewriting the force-work differential equations with an outside differential. Equating the two forms an identity which is the Octonion equivalent of the divergence of the EM stress-energy-momentum tensor, which by the way is exactly represented in the Octonion framework. I think these will take things pretty far done the road to understanding. It will take zero stress for stable particles, and unlike earlier efforts to hand-insert into the SEM tensor, nothing needs to be added to the Octonion representation, it should all be there for it is all the algebra permits. I just need more physicists to wake up and smell the coffee. I can't do it all by myself.

Rick

sorry, wrong thread

Constantinos,

It would be preferable for the laws of physics to be mathematical identities. In my Octonion work, what I call homogeneous equations of algebraic constraint are identities that will always sum to zero. The energy/momentum conservation equations arise out of rewriting the force-work differential equations with an outside differential. Equating the two forms an identity which is the Octonion equivalent of the divergence of the EM stress-energy-momentum tensor, which by the way is exactly represented in the Octonion framework. I think these will take things pretty far done the road to understanding. It will take zero stress for stable particles, and unlike earlier efforts to hand-insert into the SEM tensor, nothing needs to be added to the Octonion representation, it should all be there for it is all the algebra permits. I just need more physicists to wake up and smell the coffee. I can't do it all by myself.

Rick