An Accidental Universe

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

Jim:

I just read your post, when I read your essay I thought you were really close to know "the time nature" it seems that being close is far from being there. It is not for nothing that nobody knew it, since the Greeks till know, that we humanly can know. You suspect there are a big number of people that understand "the nature of time", I never meet one. but you, who also knew it and let it sleep for many years, like I did. Thanks for your advise, which is not too encouraging.

Hector

Hector,

I have thought a lot about my last post of March 2nd, since writing it. On reflection, I`m not at all sure about my assumptions involved in making those statements. Allow me to retract my statements in that post.

As you have said, "It`s not for nothing that nobody knew it,"

Rick,

Pleased to hear you too think physical laws can and should be formulated and derived as mathematical identities. This would settle the philosophical question why Nature follows our calculations and mathematical derivations.

I have been alone debating this very claim with Tom and Rob and others for several years now. I have shown Planck's Law, Newton's Laws of Motion and many other 'physical laws' are in fact mathematical identities and not physical laws per se. I think you will find my chapter, The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law, where I mathematically derive these and many other results, an interesting and easy read. Please read and comment.

Constantinos

Hector,

I do not think there is any kind of thing or force in reality, as time. Our clocks simply measure durations elapsing.

I think we have motion in our timeless Universe.

My argument is that we have difficulty in understanding the Nature of Time, principally because we are completely immersed within the Earth`s constant rotational motion. It`s our natural state in reality. In my view, the Earth`s constant rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the Nature of Time.

Constantinos

"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".

This clearly exposes the flaw in your thinking. What we know, given that this is generated on the basis of valid presumptions and due process, must be deemed to be what is (with the caveat 'as at this time', but that is irrelevant to the point, just a reflection of how knowledge must accumulate). Indeed, we will know it is what is when, after some appropriate duration, no new knowledge emerges. That is, we can only know 'what is' on the basis of what we are enabled to know. That may or may not be 'what is', but it is what is for us. Because we are trapped in an existentially closed system. So the question becomes, not what existence might be, which is an unanswerable question, but what form of existence is potentially knowable to us. And since this is determined by a definable physical process, that, which is what physics should be analysing, has a definitive physical form.

You are creating a false differentiation between different forms of knowledge, on the basis of a confusion between what existence possibly could be, and what it is to us. Then declaring one of those forms to be valid on the basis of that flawed differentiation. Knowledge is either valid or not valid, it is not a function of its form, but of its correspondence with the proper reference. And anyway, declaring one form of knowledge valid begs the question as to on what reference is this validity being deemed. Which then comes back to the point that we can only know what we are enabled to know, ie what must, logically, be presumed to be just one possible form of existence. But since we cannot know any other, this is irrelevant, for us, it is what is.

You then invoke some conditions on 'what is'. That is, you start the very process I keep referring to, ie we can only know one possible form of existence. You state: "For me, something "physically exists" if it occupies "physical space" and takes "physical time".

Of itself, there is nothing wrong with this statement, but it is a derivative of the fundamental point, because the question arises as to what, physically, is 'it', 'space', 'time', and how do we know of it. What physically exists (ie is what is for us) is what is physically received by the sensory systems, and what existed which physically created that. In other words, what is, as far as we can know, what is independently 'out there'. Independent being independent of the process which upon physical receipt, then processes what is received. That is, we, as physically existent entities, are as much 'out there' as any other entity. The reference for validity of knowledge is correspondence with that physically independent existence. Since the physical processes whereby sentient organisms are caused to be aware of it (ie receive physical input) are not perfect, then there is a need to hypothesise in some circumstances, ie calculate, on the basis of knowledge as to how the processes function, what would have been received had there not been some identifiable impediment to that. Also, obviously, 'individualism' has to be eradicated from the results of the processing. But these 'adjustments' should not be confused with the generation of beliefs, ie attempts to create knowledge which we cannot know.

What can be investigated has a definitive form, and the process of accumulating knowledge of it must respect that, not presume it is an abstract concept, nor invoke unproven presumtions about how it occurs.

Paul

Anonymousse

"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'"

Let us assume, for the sake of this argument that this occurs. That is, movement affects the rate at which timing devices tick. The question then is, so what. I remember stating this early on. Because what you have failed to understand is that timing devices are just physical entities, they tell the time. The reference for timing is a conceptual constant rate of change, because timing is measuring rate of alteration. This is why timing devices are synchronised, as far as is practically reasonable to do so, otherwise the measuring system is useless, just like rulers with different spatial divisions would be useless. If timing devices are indeed affected by movement, then that would need to be quantified and factored into calculations. In the same way that heat affects some rulers, so we know that these will have expanded, and have to make adjustments accordingly.

Timing is calibrating the rate of alteration in any given circumstance, and that occurs independently of its measurement/observation. Obviously. Because to be able to measure/observe something must happen first. The rate at which alteration occurred cannot be affected by something which happens subsequently, and is not a physical process anyway. There is no 'time dilation' in physical existence. There is a time differential in the receipt of a representation of that existence (eg light) when the recipient observers are in different spatial relationships with that existence, and that is further complicated if there is alteration in that spatial relationship whilst the representation (eg light) is travelling.

Paul

Constantinos

Rather than me keep on repeating the point in two threads, please see my reponse above, where, as you have finally attempted to define 'what is', it is much easier to point out the fundamental flaw in your conception, which then causes you to assert that maths is 'inherently valid'.

Paul

I was semi-joking when I said:

"No doubt you'll try to give a separate explanation for the difference between the two clocks, involving points like 'time is a measurement'."

But you did just that - when you can't explain something, and your previous explanation has been clearly shown to be wrong, you then just define it, and then say 'so what'. You could do that with any of the unsolved mysteries in physics, just define things as being that way, and then say 'so what'.

What I see is an unsolved mystery about time, with a set of very interesting clues. Something is going on underneath these clues, but we don't know what. It may well be something we can understand. There are some good physicists trying to solve the mystery. And then there are all these different kinds of people, some very well read and even at the top of the field, others not well read at all, all of whom for one reason or another refuse to accept the clues, or try to shrug them off. These people who are in denial don't get a chance to solve the mystery, they cling onto other things instead. But if you ever want a crack at solving it, good luck, it's great fun! But before you start, you have to admit that there are things you don't know. Some of the main clues are set out in rough form in my posts above, and there's a page with a list of links to papers with experimental results posted there too.

Rob,

The multiverse hypothesis has nothing to say about intelligent life forms. Indeed, there are an uncountable infinity of universes with no capacity to produce self aware organisms.

It's trivial that of a countable infinity of equally likely initial conditions, at least one will have the potential necessary to create and sustain organisms with the capacity to question how they came to exist (weak anthropic principle).

The premise of Everett's many worlds hypothesis, or the multiverse hypothesis -- is that branching probabilities are randomly binary for every trivial decision. That is simply conventional quantum theory.

The probability of a multiverse is therefore 100%. ("trivially true," as Hawking is reported to have said.)

The issue here is not over the existence of a multiverse which can neither be proven nor observed and is therefore only metaphysically real -- the issue is whether we can use the multiverse hypothesis to calculate a singular initial condition of our own universe. Albrecht's tentative answer is "No" -- there is no measure of time independent of the spacetime of all probable universes that would give such an answer.

As I have said or implied: this hypothesis is exactly equivalent to converting Einstein's general relativistic description of a universe finite in time (bounded at the cosmological singularity) and unbounded in space -- to one finite in space and unbounded in time. I found previously that this inverted description leaves general relativity unchanged as a mathematically complete theory of gravity.

Tom

John,

"Perfect" information means that we know in advance that a fair coin has 2 distinct sides or that a fair die has 6 distinct sides.

As I have said countless times, one must have a grasp of the technical meaning in these discussions before offering irrelevant opinions. You are far from the only offender.

Tom

"The real question is how does math deal with absolutes?"

John, how can possibly have read the dialogue I linked, and even pose this question? Seriously, man.

Tom