• Blog

  • The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

The world IS inherently mathematical, let’s face it. It is no freak accident that people are able to send and track spacecraft, and at the other end of the scale, investigate the smallest particles and atoms: it is because the world IS in fact mathematical, with categories, numbers and relationships.

But, more importantly, the world is a moving SYSTEM, and in a moving SYSTEM, the equations are pretty well arbitrary. The only necessary aspects of a viable, moving SYSTEM are that the system must know itself, and the system must move itself.

These necessary aspects of a SYSTEM are the same aspects of the world that can’t be explained, when the question is asked: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

    Lorraine Ford
    Mathematics lets us express and communicate ideas. Well written it very precise avd very succinct and unambiguous. We are taught with simple problems that there is a right or wrong answer. Later on we may come across the idea that the maths we are using only applies if there are certain background assumption built in, an example is what's known about Euclidean geometry does not necessarily work in a non Eucidean World/Universe. Our assumptions about the existing World/Universe may be different from what we imagine to be true. Complience of results or observations with the mathematics description is not enough to say 'certainly correct'. There may be another explanation for the result, that has been overlooked. We do not know that what we have assumed the metaphysics that actualy applies. The correct dimentional arrangement, for a start. Is the mathenmatics actually modelling the World/ Universe we live in.

        Georgina Woodward
        Mathematics, correctly written, can describe all sorts of hypothetical existence and relationship bewtween parts which do necessarily exist. Physics is about the real World/Universe, Maths can be about anything or their relationships. Being mathematically self consistent is not the same as being realistic.

            Georgina Woodward
            Maybe we don't exist within a Minkowski space. Relic information being confused with matter existing wholly -Now. History is given the same status as what is happening currently in such a model. Paradox results from allowing real living history to exist and be available to get interfered with. The paradox indicating something is not right with the model.
            How does 2D hilbert space relate to the space occupied by existing material things? Does it have any relevance or is it a fiction on paper pretending it can be a fact in the real World?
            Before we marvel at the fit betwen theory and exprerimental results, and take it as support for the theoretical structure of the UNIVERSE proposed, we should get the metapyhysical background behind the results that happen 'straight' in our minds. By accepting the supremacy of mathematics for representing and communicating we've give up some of our ability to disciminate and reject ideas that are not science
            We forget that mathematics is an art, not science, and belongs to the imaginred platonic ideal realm.

                Georgina Woodward
                Georgina,

                Get over it.

                You seem to have deep feelings of distrust in everyone and everything including climate science. But, hundreds of years of work by honest physicists and their predecessors has shown that the world is inherently mathematical. It is no freak accident that people are able to send and track spacecraft, and at the other end of the scale, investigate the smallest particles and atoms: it is because the world IS in fact mathematical, with categories, numbers and relationships. The only thing that one can question is the particular mathematics used to represent the world.

                In any case, the issue is (or one of the issues is) "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

                    Lorraine Ford
                    Relevant to the question 'what exists?' is 'How are we aware of anything at all, 'Is it true that if we are not aware of something it does not exist' ,as a singular material object with a definite location.
                    Einstein asked his friend Pais,'Is the moon there when I don't look ?'or words to that effect. There is a difference between the seen moon and the material moon object that exists, I would say. the seen moon only remains seeable so long as the sensory input is recieved. Looking away or closing eyes it's no longer produced. However others can still see the moon when I can not and the material object called 'the moon' iIs uneffected by my behaviour on Earth,

                        Georgina Woodward
                        That an observation product is not formed when there is a lack of sensory information available , is used by illusionists ,who will deliberately conseal, obscure or disatract ,to prevent the audience being fully informed. In this way things can appear to vanish and appear, from non existence. Physisits beware of situations where information is limited.
                        From experience a baby soon learns that an object out of sight continues to exist materially.

                            Georgina Woodward
                            What if our senses werre different than they are? Would it change what we think about what exists? If we could see ultra violet markings on flowers like bees and butterflies or infra redlike a hunting snake, or feel the gravity of the Earth like a migratory bird or the electrical discharge of prey like a shark or had another unknown sense?
                            Do we have to give up on locality because maths says so and theory says that as no luminiferous ether was detected there must be no space filling substance that hosts photon particle induced waves? Even though this overcomes the problem of non locality only happening at the smallest scale, fits with the self similarity of nature at different scales, helps interpretetion of the double slit and various quantum experiments ,making them fit common sense, is fully copatible with the effects of wave interference

                                Georgina Woodward
                                Get over it Georgina. lol.

                                How do you know that you exist? lol.
                                How do you know that you have a hand on the end of your arm? lol.
                                How do you know that you are a mother? lol.

                                    Georgina Woodward
                                    Georgina,

                                    If the world is as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is, I wonder that you would even dare to walk down the street.

                                    I wonder how any animal or person ever survives for even a day, if the world is as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is.

                                    lol.

                                      Georgina,

                                      You seem to be denying that science can even exist because you seem to think that people are full of illusion and delusion about the world.

                                      As I said, it is a wonder that any animal or person could survive for even a day, if the world were as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is.

                                      In fact, it is only on the high-level details, of human analysis of the world, that people disagree.

                                      All (except, seemingly, you) agree on the fundamentals, i.e. that the sky is blue, and the grass is green, and they can all agree when a tiger is chasing them. But people might disagree on the high-level details of human analysis of the world, i.e. what political party to vote for; or what is the best physics’ theory of the world.

                                        Lorraine Ford "Lorraine Ford"#p168923
                                        Your own maniacal laughter and vain attempts at ridicule are not an appropriate response to presentation of serious ideas worthy of sensible consideration. Perhaps you are incapable of addressing the ideas themselves and think you are clever by denigrating other people and making statements repeatedly calling their character into question. I'm neither detered or impressed by the level of debate you demonstrate. How does your ignorant, dismissive, attitude help?

                                          Lorraine Ford
                                          Get over it Georgina. lol.
                                          How do you know that you exist? lol.
                                          How do you know that you have a hand on the end of your arm? lol.
                                          How do you know that you are a mother? lol.

                                          Feedback from senses giving the brain information about the body internally and on the surface.
                                          Feedback from my body allowing homeostasis, e.g. I am cold, I am thirsty, I am tired.
                                          Proprioception is your body's ability to sense its own position and movements. It's an automatic or subconscious process. Proprioception allows your brain to know the position of your body in space without having to rely on visual input alone. It's also crucial to maintaining balance (By google)
                                          Senses and feelings, including pain, allowing appropriate behaviour and learning.

                                              Georgina Woodward Georgina Woodward Lorraine Ford
                                              It is an important overloooked fact, that needs serious consideration.
                                              Illusion is a real phenomenon that professional il.lusioists and others use to decieve people for entertainment.
                                              Its role in science needs consideration
                                              I do not think that 'all people agree on the fundamentals', or 'it is only on the high-level details, of human analysis of the world, that people disagree'. Quotes by Lorraine Ford.You offer no ebvidence to support either of your claims. You are not the spokesperson for every human being.

                                                           

                                              Georgina Woodward

                                                      Georgina,

                                                      You clearly don’t care that your writing is always full of spelling mistakes, which is a very strange and slack attitude for a person who claims that they were once a schoolteacher.

                                                      As I said, no animal or person could survive for even a day, if the world were as full of fundamental-level illusion and delusion, as you seem to think it is.

                                                      You’ve tried to say that people are deceived and tricked by the world in a very fundamental way, and that this somehow explains the physics of the world, or something or other. You’ve talked about: blind men and an elephant; a pair of socks; black cats; aeroplane wings; and termite mounds. And your latest gem, seemingly once again about how the world tricks people, is about moons that might not be there at all if people don’t look.

                                                      As I said, apart from you, no one seems to be suffering from illusion or delusion; no one is getting tricked by the world. Everyone can agree about the fundamental stuff, e.g. that the sky is blue, and the grass is green; and they can all agree when a tiger is chasing them. No animal or person could survive for even a day, if the world were as full of fundamental-level illusion and delusion, as you seem to think it is.

                                                      Where people disagree, naturally enough, is on the high-level stuff, the high-level analysis of the world, the sort of analysis that leads people to decide on what political party to vote for, or what physics’ theory of the world makes the most sense to them.

                                                        Lorraine Ford
                                                        The spelling mistakes were not due to attitude but a combination of the keyboard available and inadequate dexterity. Things like keys presssed simultaneously, insuffucient force to register ,or an entirely different key pressed acccidentally. I was aware of the errors in the last message and made several attempts to correct it but the site was not working in such a way that I was able to chabge the text only delete, I chose to leave it alone, knowing you would be judgemental.

                                                            Georgina Woodward
                                                            So you personally do not understand or see the point of analogies. I am aware of that from previous interaction, it's nothing new, You are not all people. I do not write for you exclusivly.
                                                            Some people do understand and enjoy analogies. If that is not you , the analogy was not written with you exclusivly in mind. ( It's not all about you. )
                                                            Magic shows are a form of popular entertainment. Most people do not think the magic is real, but realise but not know how they are being decieved. Part of the fun is working out how the trick is done. Smoke and mirrors are associated with magic shows, as they are tools used to prevent informing potential sensory input reaching the audience.

                                                              Lorraine Ford"#p168927
                                                              Science shouldn't be decided by democracy. Reality is what it is, regardless of what the majority of people think.

                                                              There is no essential difference between the particle interactions that are happening in a living thing, like a human being, and the particle interactions that are happening on the ice planet Neptune. What is possible, what intrinsic aspects of the world are emphasized, the difference between a person and a planet or a rock, depends on what the particle environment of the particles will allow (1).

                                                              Contrary to what Georgina seems to be saying, the particles, and any subsequent atoms, molecules, and living things, are not deceiving themselves in their interactions with their environments; they are not being tricked by their environments.

                                                              The world, with its interactions, is a moving system, but it has often been noted that a set of equations cannot represent a viable moving system. I’m claiming that a viable moving real-world system requires logical aspects, as well as the aspects of the system that are represented by the equations and the numbers.

                                                              And when it comes to living things, different intrinsic aspects of the real-world moving system have more emphasis. With living things, the aspects that have more emphasis are the logical aspects of the real-world system.

                                                              These logical aspects of the real-world system are the very same aspects of the world that can’t be explained when the question is asked: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

                                                              …………………………………………….

                                                              1. This “possibility” and probability are high-level human ways of analysing the world; possibility and probability are not actually existing low-level component parts of the world.

                                                                Lorraine Ford
                                                                Contrary to what Georgina seems to be saying, the particles, and any subsequent atoms, molecules, and living things, are not deceiving themselves in their interactions with their environments; they are not being tricked by their environments.
                                                                Lorraine you are completely misrepresenting what I have said, once again. I have not said that particles are tricked by their environment or particles, molecules, simple materials are decieving themselves ,in their interactions with the environment. I am not a pan psychist . I think these simple things do what they must, obeying the local laws of nature. Given the local matter, energy, space fillling substance and relationships between. The animation of the Milky way is likely is due to the energy it inherited at formation, since energy is not created or destroyed, only changes kind .