Time and the Multiverse

Here's a Christmas gift for you, Philip:

Gӧdel's theorem demonstrates why an absolutely final theory of everything (TOE)is impossible.

Can you see why this is so? Many dishonest physicists downplay or ignore the ramifications, but more and more honest ones (even Hawking a few years ago) have admitted the reality.

Give it a shot.

KII

Merry Christmas to you, too, KII.

I say again, I am no mathematician. I am not qualified to pass judgment on Gödel's theorem. I am not sure that I understand it after 10 minutes of reading the Wikipedia article on the subject. Off on a tangent, it occurred to me that the continuum hypothesis seems to be at odds with fractal theory, in which fractal sets have fractional cardinality. I thought that meant that certain fractal sets have cardinality between that of integers and real numbers.

If I have misrepresented my model as a TOE, I apologize, though it probably deserves that label as much as most alleged TOEs. (I do admit that, three or four years ago, when my model was just beginning to come together, I did in fact call it a TOE perhaps half a dozen times.) The term, TOE, is often abused; most alleged TOEs are not theories, at all. My model is not a theory, though it does contain the seeds of a number of theories. Nor do I claim that my model can explain everything. The quest of science and philosophy has always been to explain more and more, while reaching toward the unreachable goal of explaining everything. If even a tenth of my model's unique features are consistent with physical reality, I will have contributed a major advance toward understanding more.

If all features of my model are consistent with reality, it may take several generations to discover what remains unexplained. I have difficulty, myself, understanding the relationship between our universe and those immediately above and below it in the scale-wise sequence of universes. It ain't easy thinking in terms of time lines running in opposite directions in the same location. Effect preceding cause, in my model, is not an answer, but a new approach to discussing the question of predestination versus free will. It suggests the possibility of a multiverse at each scale, in addition to universes at every scale.

So I am the first to admit that my model is incomplete. Without understanding Gödel's theorem, I intuitively believe it is impossible for any model or theory to explain everything there is to be explained. I do, however, believe my model encompasses enough of reality to provide a broader context for everything we do know about reality.

No worries, Philip, except I wouldn't rely too much on Wikipedia.

Here's all you need to know about Gödel's theorem to apply its lesson to any alleged mathematical TOE:

The theorem states that no non-trivial system of arithmetic propositions can have its proof of consistency within itself.

As such, all systems of mathematics are subject to this limitation because all embody higher mathematics that ultimately rest on arithmetic. Higher mathematics are also used in the theories of physics.

Hawking finally recognized this and published an essay/speech entitled Gödel and the End of Physics in 2002. You can find it on his website and other places on the web. Check it out.

In the meantime, other physicists ignore or downplay the ramifications of the theorem. I know that Weinberg was made aware of the theorem and its ramifications at a particular conference in 1976. Nevertheless, in 1994 he makes no mention of the theorem in his book on the quest for a final theory, though he could have easily done so. What does this tell you?

Why such hostility to the reality of the theorem? Well, underlying much of the quest for a TOE is an explanation that will take away any hint of contingency involving the universe. Why is this important? Contingency always keeps open the possibility of a creator and a chosen fine tuning that did not have to be the case without a creative decision.

A TOE does not eliminate the possibility of a creator, but it adds considerable strength to the anti-free act of a creator involved in the origin of the universe, and this is just a short step removed from not having a need for a creator.

So again, since Gödel's theorem lends considerable weight to the contingency of the universe, many physicists of an atheistic mindset prefer to extend their non-belief to the theorem as well.

Whatever happened to the more honest agnostic physicist?

KII

The Hawking article is about whether a theory can possibly enable one to perfectly predict the future from knowledge of the present. My model suggests that there is no such thing as THE future. I suspect that, not only will all possible futures happen, but from a sub-universe perspective, they already have happened. I don't expect that question to be resolved for at least another century, if ever.

I have concentrated on finding and resolving inconsistencies in my model. It would be premature for me to claim that the model is entirely self-consistent as it now stands. Several aspects of it still run contrary to my intuition. For example, it seems unlikely that our cosmic foam has always taken the shape of a foam. Near the beginning of time as we know it, it is likely that it went thru numerous phase shifts (something like the evolution outlined by Hawking). Presumably, our ether foam would go thru a similar evolution, but in reverse. Without an ether foam, there would be no bubbles to un-pop. The model would have to be modified to provide a different measure of space, a different cause of expansion, a different source of dark energy, etc. Also, it seems likely that such a phase shift in our ether foam would result in major changes in the laws of physics for our universe. Such matters are unlikely to be resolved in my lifetime, and certainly not without collaboration from other brilliant minds.

I don't think I mentioned, yet, two precedents for reverse time in mainstream physics. Antimatter behaves like regular matter running backwards in time, and the relativistic form of the Schrodinger equation involves mathematical waves that run in reverse time.

As for antimatter, I suspect that our sub-universe may be an anti-matter universe. If we may turn the clock back (as big bang proponents are so fond of doing), we might postulate an epoch in which our cosmic foam existed at the same scale as our ether foam. That would do as well as anything for a definition of the beginning of time as we know it, and I offer that as a substitute for the big bang scenario. Our universe, now, exists as waves in the cosmic foam of our sub-universe. When the cosmic foam of our sub-universe existed at the same scale as our own cosmic foam, it seems likely that both our universe and our sub-universe must have existed as waves in the cosmic foam of yet another universe.

From that beginning of time, the matter and antimatter operated in opposite time scales, so each shrank from the perspective of the other. What happened to all the antimatter? It shrank and became our ether foam.

I am afraid I don't understand the Schrodinger equation well enough to decide if its reverse-time waves correspond to my dark energy pressure waves, which I believe propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light. I realize that those waves are considered to be mathematical entities with no physical significance, but if anyone out there knows, please tell me if Schrodinger's reverse-time waves have an associated speed.

I don't place any theological significance on any part of my model, but I welcome others to do so. Some might consider the greater fractal universe, which exists outside of time, to represent God. I see it as an impersonal, unthinking, unemotional, chaotic system. God doesn't play dice; God IS dice. That's my own bias; but I believe my model can accomodate the opposite view, as well.

[If I have dropped a few "c"s, it's beause my keyboard able has a loose onnetion. I'm getting a new omputer tomorrow, so I won't have to ut and paste the letter "c" any longer. Yea!]

Too much mysticism and non-testable propositions in your model for me, Philip, but it matters not.

Hawking admitted that Gödel's theorem means no absolutely final theory of everything. This will pertain to yours and everybody else's models and theories no matter how close to reality or how far removed.

Speaking of mysticism and matter reminds me of a fun set of metaphysical-type questions (not intended to be strictly accurate; just a gag) and answers that goes like this:

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.

KII

time t is a numerical order of a material change in a 4d space.............Attachment #1: The_Time_of_Photon_Motion_in_Minkowski_4D_Space___arxiv.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Is_Einstein_still_misunderstood.pdf

The computer program to add random physics equations 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 can generate millions of combinations of rules where apples and oranges are added togther.

For 10^500 different universes each having different rules.

But the question of whether these random rules are bable and that real universes need fine tuning to work.

NB. The big crunch may be a universe where time runs backward.

A contradiction.............And a black hole in a Godel type universe may have a penrose equation that can be reversed to give a non contradictory solution to our universe.Attachment #1: physics2.exeAttachment #2: physics.exe

.

By the way, what is time? Time means that a system is energized. What is energy? All kind of energy happen by means of motion. So, energy is always and with no exception,kinetic. Are you in doubt? Think about just ONE kind of energy that don't happens by means of kinetics. Chemical? Electrical? All them are kinetic.

Time is synonym of energy and change. Into an energized system (all are), particles and parts change their spatial position all time. In this case, the position 'before' is different from the position 'after'. Is that change of position what cause "time elapse".

So, when you say 'time elapses', you are saying - first of all - that this system is energized (things change their spatial position).

In an hypothetical unenergized system, at zero absolute degrees, no time could be elapses, because nothing would be energized and - therefore - nothing would change their spatial position.

No movement can be reversed. There is no tool to stop all running particles & parts and say them to run in reverse direction. But, if that were possible, I am in doubt if that could cure the effects of past motion in every aspect.

An unidirectional arrow of time just means that one event succeeds to the next and so on. And it doesn't matter if the spin of particles rotates left or right.

Cheers.

Wilton

Dear Amrit,

Sorry, but I can't agree with this idea.

Time is synonym of energy and change. Into an energized system (all are), particles and parts change their spatial position all time. In this case, the position 'before' is different from the position 'after'. Is that change of position what cause "time elapse".

So, when you say 'time elapses', you are saying - first of all - that this system is energized (things change their spatial position).

In an hypothetical unenergized system, at zero absolute degrees, no time could be elapsed, because nothing would be energized and - therefore - nothing would change their spatial position.

"Time" is just another point of view of energy, and energy is something real, nos "mental". If you say no time is - in fact - elapsed, so you are sayng no energy happens in the cosmos.

Cheers.

Wilton

Joe blogs,

One event succeed the other and no reversion is allowed. What can happen - in fact - is the complexity of a system be dismantled, as happen when a house is burned, a car is cast/melt.

A black hole is such an event, where all matter complexity is reduced to almost none.

The big crunch is the formation of a very big "black hole". It, for sure, dismantle all matter information, and therefore, very fundamental particles are forced to exist in very small space region.

But - lets think together - it does not means time runs backward. Destruction is not a way back. Backward time would be everything walk for the same trail in opposite direction. What we all know is totally impossible, due to the chaotic and fractal nature of Nature.

Cheers,

Wilton

Some fundamental things are discussed here by all persuasions.

However rationality is lauded over imagination, observation over perception, and logic over inanity.

It is as if we must all conform to a single Truth even if that Truth is a lie.

The scienific method is empirical, but being a method it serves as an admirable tool to all of any persuasion who care to use it. What the scientific method does not prescribe or proscribe is the interpretation of the result obtained by its use.

Thus like Newton we may still believe god orders and maintains the universe through angelic administrations no matter how accurate our observations.

Or like Dawkins we may believe in the inherent self administration of the universe, with no God being necessary.

One make these perceptions in varying states of awareness and consciousness, never giving full credit to the interconnected web of dependencies that flow through ones individual subjective and objective understanding, and apprehension.

To talk of time as though it existed in a different way say to water is to unilaterally miss the contribution one makes to the perception itself.

Normally one assumes, by education that light travels in a straight line. but having accepted that idea one does not then question how light bends, or even consider the implications of light "bending" as commonly described.

When one begins the process one obsrves the shifting sands of compromise,ellipsis, obfuscation,bending and general gerrymandering that goes on in constructing a sentence to even describe an empirical experience, and the reliance on hope that exists as a teacher attempts to show a student what he/she has observed.

Ones own views and experiences will never be totally understood by a community of scientists, historians,street gang, or any other conglomeration of animates.

One ha to make do with approximations.

Fundamentally motion is all we have and the observer of motion. From this coupling we may devise all else in our universe.

Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the representation 'I think'. This act performs synthesis. I.e. time is mind processing information. Space is the medium where information is processed. Each qubit has its own processing rate (its own time) and is a parallel Universe.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

This is so ad hoc its astonishing that there are people who would not shoot it down in seconds.

So because you can make more than one shape out of a 10 dimensional object, there is more than one universe? Really?

So if the shape was 5 dimensional and you would only be able to make 10 to the 250 shapes.. That means there are that many universes? Talk about a pathological leap in logic. Seriously, this is embarrassing. The day I hear someone use a complex example that plainly defeats the nonsense that the arrow time is reversable...like brain waves shooting to a person's ear and going back into my mouth and back into my brain ----is the day someone actually thought deeply about the real world and not some fantasy on paper.

Complex Language coming out backwards of my ear is something I'd like to see Along with photons containing the full signal of the Mona Lisa shooting out my eye. Denying Free Will and prime mover causation is what leads to such abysmal reasoning. If you are willing to pay the price that photons of a beautiful super nova explosion that happened a billion years ago can shoot out of my brain and back to its spatial and temporal location you're welcome to it.

People, understand how Bias has destroyed rationale Once the fine tuning was discovered.

@ John : are you J.C.N. Smith?

if so - this is TOO weird

Lyle,

It doesn't sound at all like JCN.

John,

I certainly agree time reversal is nonsense. Here is my argument for why. I'm not sure why denying free will and "primer mover causation" is what leads to this situation. In fact, I'd argue the subconscious premise of a prime mover, ie. that there was an initial cause, now instituted as Big Bang Theory, is part of the problem leading to this formalization of the narrative, beginning to end, modeling of time, which results in the premise of "blocktime,".

Regards,

John M