Infinite past... with a beginning?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Mar 30, 2019.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,188
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    13,130
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,188
    Here is another on the same subject....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    13,130
    Nonsense .
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,188
    https://www.quora.com/Is-Lawrence-K...thing-a-serious-philosophical-scientific-text
    I've both read Lawrence Krauss' book, A Universe From Nothing (and enjoyed it) and study philosophy of science in school, and coming from this perspective I have to say that it is a pretty balanced text, but it is attempting to popularize or modernize scientific interest for the general public. Lawrence Krauss has a really solid background as a theoretical physicist, and his contribution to the discovery of dark energy is purely remarkable. Yet at the same time, he is somewhat of a science celebrity, among the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye (the science guy), or Richard Dawkins.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss
    Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who previously taught at Arizona State University, Yale University, and Case Western Reserve University. He founded ASU's Origins Project, now called ASU Interplanetary initiative, to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and served as the project's director.[2] Upon investigating allegations about sexual misconduct by Krauss, ASU determined that he had violated university policy and removed him from the Origins Project directorship in July 2018.[3][4] He continued as a Professor at ASU until retiring in May 2019. He currently serves as President of The Origins Project Foundation[5] and as host of The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss.[6]

    Krauss is an advocate for public understanding of science, public policy based on sound empirical data, scientific skepticism, and science education. An anti-theist, Krauss seeks to reduce the influence of what he regards as superstition and religious dogma in popular culture.[7]

    Krauss is the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek (1995) and A Universe from Nothing (2012), and chaired the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    13,130
    The Universe is . And will always be .

    BB needs any theory of nothing that can become something in order for the theory to survive .
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,188
    That is wrong. We don't know.
    The BB is a theory of the evolution of the universe from t+10-43 seconds and is overwhelmingly supported at this time. Even when we finally get a observationaly validated QGT theory, it will most likely encompass the BB.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    13,130
    My statement is right .
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,188
    Can you give us a reputable reference then supporting this statement you say is right?
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    13,130
    No .

    But that has nothing to do with the validity of my statement ; now does it pad !!
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,188
    You mean we should take your word for it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    C,mon river, it's you we are talking about, be a bit fair dinkum ol son!
    Again, reference please for your claim?
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    13,130
    Its common sense pad .
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,985
    Write4U:

    It looks to me like you're just using some jargon to make up a fantasy. Your ideas don't connect to anything, in the sense of being testable, or even intelligible.

    How can a non-physical "potential" create physical things?

    As soon as you start talking about the "duration" of something, you're already assuming things about time. You can't have durations without time.

    That sounds like an unimportant and unsupported assertion. Obviously we're not in a static universe, and you have no general theory of universes that covers both static and non-static ones, so as far as I can tell you're just making this up.

    I don't know what it would mean for spacetime to be drawn into anything. Spacetime, as I understand it, isn't stuff. It's not matter. What would draw it in? What would the drawing in of spacetime look like?

    I appreciate that you have no mathematical description of this, so I wonder what possible reason you could have to suspect it is true. Again, my impression is that you're just making stuff up.

    I see pi and phi as numbers.

    Just above, you defined "potential" as "that which may become reality". How can a number like pi "become reality"? What does that even mean?

    Tell me the specific mathematical value of the color quality of red.

    How can you measure a thing that "may become reality"? We can only measure things that are already realities, can't we?

    Is it? I'd say it's a physical process, not a mathematical function.

    I think you're assuming the map is the territory. That's a mistake.

    Tell me how it could possibly do that.

    A 17 lb rock is not the number 17.

    What's the mathematical value of a 17 lb rock, anyway?

    No. Pi is defined to be a specific number. It has only one value, neither infinitely large nor infinitely small. It's approximately 3.14159.

    You don't think you're doing science with your "potentials" and your "mathematical latencies" etc., do you?

    Science makes testable predictions, for one thing. It quantifies.

    It seems to me that you're just making up stories.

    How could mathematics self-organise?

    The Fibonacci sequence is just a sequence of numbers. It isn't a theory of physics. It makes no reference to time or anything physical.

    You mention Bohmian mechanics a lot. How much study of quantum theory have you done? I ask because Bohmian mechanics is primarily an attempt to put quantum mechanics on a deterministic basis. To understand Bohm, you have to have a good working understanding of quantum mechanics to start with. Speaking for myself, I know a fair amount about quantum physics, but I had trouble following Bohm (admittedly, it was a long time ago that I read some of his stuff).

    Are you able to follow the mathematical arguments that Bohm actually makes, or are you only engaging with a pop-science description of Bohm's work?

    I think you're reading far more into the Fibonacci sequence than is actually there. There is no time-ordering in the Fibonacci sequence. There's no description of past or present or future in it. It's just a mathematical sequence. Look: here's another self-referential sequence:

    $n_1 = 1$
    $n_{i+1} = n_i + 1$

    Do you think this sequence could be a good theory of time or of the big bang?

    Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. It's not science.

    Not really.

    I'm not familiar with the work you refer to by Tegmark. If what you are saying is right, then I have the same problem with his ideas that I have with yours: I don't see how anything purely mathematical can possible turn into anything physical. I don't see how any physical thing can be made of mathematics. Mathematics can be used to describe or model physical things, but I think it's a category error if you start imaginging that mathematics can create or constitute physical things. When you draw a map, you don't create any lands or seas, except as concepts.

    There are lots of theories (hypotheses) about the big bang. I'm surprised that you haven't found any alternatives to your pet theory, especially given the apparent amount of time and attention you've put into thinking about this. How widely have you read? And what have you read?

    To any use, scientifically, speculations have to connect to what is already known. More importantly, they need to be testable.

    As things stand, it is difficult for readers like me to even unpack your ideas, let alone to try to mould them into a scientifically respectable hypothesis about anything. I think you have a lot of work ahead of you if you're serious about any of this. The way I see it, your faith-based approach on the topic of microtubules doesn't auger well for your making any progress on explaining the big bang, but I could be wrong.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,188
    No actually lack of any sense at all and wrong to boot.
    Let me guide you some.....The universe can possibly have one of three topologies, closed, open or flat...Closed denotes a finite universe, open denotes an infinite universe and flat can denote either when exotic topologies like a torus are considered.
    Now overwhelming evidence from Boomerang, MAXIMA, and WMAP experiments, which have shown the universe to be flat to within very small tolerences.
    So as I said, while the observable universe is undoubtably finite, the universe as a whole can be considered to be very large and "near infinite" in extent, but still not really known with certainty.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Infinite_or_finite

    And of course the universe does have an end many hundreds of billions of years hence, when stars have gone supernova, BH's evaporated and the universe will be cold and dead.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,436
    Please note that I qualified everything as speculative on my part. I do not pretend to have proofs.[/quote]
    Well, I qualified my posit as speculative. I believe that means I admit I have no proof. Is it necessary to provide proof when something has been qualified as speculative?
    It can emerge as a physical property.
    I'll try to explain. A mountain lake has the potential to be used as a power source for electricity. The water in that lake provides the potential for such a conversion, but as long as the water is contained this potential is a latency. Now we build a pipe from the lake down the mountain to let the water flow down and acquire a kinetic force which drives a generator to produce electricity. Now the potential of the water as a source for generating power has been realized?
    I disagree with the assumption that time for an event has to exist before an event occurs. IMO, time is an emergent property of duration and is a measurement only of the duration of that specific event. The production (emergence) of time is a simultaneous result of duration. This might fit Krauss' perspective of something emerging from nothing?
    I cited that in support of my proposition that time is an emergent property of dynamic change. We have spacetime because the universe is dynamic. If the universe were static (without measurable duration) the concept of time becomes moot? Is time itself a measurable property without a relationship to a physical event? How does one measure time?
    A massive Black Hole of unimaginable density and mass? We know mass does warp (bend) spacetime toward its center. i.e mass has influence over spacetime. Perhaps sufficient mass might actually swallow spacetime along with everything else?
    I defer to my answer above. Is it necessary to provide mathematical measurements to make a speculative general proposition?
    I agree, they are human symbolic representation of mathematical values.[/QUOTE]
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,436
    Just as time is an emergent measurement, Pi can be derived at (emerges) from dropping a needle multiple times on a flat surface that has straight lines (spaced by the length of the needle). This is a proven fact according to Mario Livio.
    The number of the wave frequency determines the appearance of a color, just as the frequency of a sound wave determines the pitch.

    How are frequency and wavelength of light related?
    https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/physics-terms/frequency-wavelength-light.htm

    I have to qualify your question that a potential is a "thing", I see "potential" as a latency with a mathematical value, that may become reality. How that may be measured depends on the thing that contains the latent potential. (see my example of the lake above)
    IMO, it is both. It is a physical process along strict mathematical parameters. You cannot measure physical things without assigning symbolic relative values and a mathematical function (is it an addition, multiplication, division, etc?).
    I have struggled with that for some time now. IMO, it is both. Using fractals a map can represent the terrain accurately down to Planck scale.
    I admit that's speculative and more probative than declarative.
    It's the weight of the rock relative to other rocks weighed on the same arbitrary scale. It is a symbolic mathematical property of the rock as compared to the same symbolic mathematical properties of other rocks in the same gravitational frame of reference.
    see above.
    i think you just answered your own question. Pi is an irrational number and has no specific value into infinity (as far as I know)
    no I am not, scientists are. I believe it's called physics. Give me a non-mathematical equation of a universal constant that can be used in any calculation. The Higgs boson was mathematically (not physically) predicted. Mathematical values and functions (patterns) are the informational language of universal phenomena. he universe is essentially mathemayical. Physics is the symbolic descriptive language of humans we assigned to mathematical values and functions of universal mathemaytical patterns.
    I agree, quantification is a mathematical function.
    Quantifier
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_(logic)
    I hope I have cleared up a few misconceptions about my veracity.
    I used Chaos theory to clarify this in my mind.
    Chaos theory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
    I beg to differ.
    Fibonacci sequence
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
    That is, F0 = 0, F1 = 1, F1 = 1, F2 = (1+1), F3 = (2+1)....... note that the second number always refers to a number in the past. i.e. the current number (2) and the past number (1) combine to form a new present number (3)
    To me this directly points to a self referential function utilizing the present value and the immediate preceeding past value to form a new present value, etc......
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020 at 1:44 PM
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,436
    I am enamored with Bohmian Mechanics, because it does away with that pesky wave/particle duality and formulates a purely deterministic physical reality. I do not understand any of the mathematics he used to formulate his hypothesis, but I also liked the concept of the universal Pilot wave function, which IMO, perfectly explains the dynamical movement of quantum fields.
    I have watched the wave inteference patterns of oceans and the emergence and disappearance of individual droplets when wave interference causes waves to break into individual droplets. This sounds to me very much like the emergence of individual particles from the wave interferences of quantum fields.
    I admit that I seldom read the mathematical justifications of physics. If I understand the narrative and some of the most fundamental maths used, I feel that I fundamentally understand the conceptualization of the hypothesis. I liked Bohm's narrative of the Pilot wave as a grand universal river flowing but with waves and eddies and whirlpools and all the wave interference patterns encountered in dynamic fluid mediums. Havng spent many months at sea, I can identify with that illustrative mindscape.
    Note: I have never claimed that mainstream science is wrong or argued against concensus science. I would not presume.
    I beg to differ. The FS is not a straight forward chronology. It takes a present value and adds a past value to arrive at a new present value....etc.
    Maybe I'm confused by the symbolics, but it looks to me like a straigh forward addition without reference to a present and an identified past value. Does this example form a spiral? I maybe wrong but I like the simplicity of the FS, which is clear as rain. It uses only related mathematical symbols and does not introduce unrelated foreign values to yield a specific growth pattern.
    No, I don't. I see initial inflation as a fundamental exponential function (i.e. 1,2,4,8,16....etc. It is only when spiral galaxies began to form that the FS emerged as part of the physical evolution of patterns. The FS creates a mathematically balanced growth pattern, the Golden Ratio.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020 at 1:48 PM
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,436
    I am not qualified to make that distinction. I use both mainstream science and intuitive logic to form my world view. To me the distinction is too subtle. As I understand it science evolved from philosophy and at one time was named "natural philosophy".
    Is philosophy a science? - Quora
    IMO, the fabric of spacetime itself is a mathematical pattern. I came to this perspective from reading about Causal Dynamical Triangulation.
    CDT
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

    Which together with Tegmarks work points toward a fundamental mathematical essence to the spacetime fabric and by extension throughout the entire universe.

    Tegmark avoids this comparison by stating that lands or seas are themselves mathematical patterns, which allows us to draw maps to begin with. It is really a very logical hypothesis and potentially will allow us to unlock all of nature's mysteries. He postulates all that is required is some 32 relative values (numbers) and a dozen equations (constants). The problem does not lie in the mathematics themselves, it lies in the inconceivably large quantities of mathematical information. He draws a comparison with a modern computer game which imitates natural functions (such as gravity) by using the same mathematics as nature does.
    Above I cited colors as possessing mathematical values (pixels). Visualize that mountain lake (above) and the number of color pixels (mathematical values) it contains. The amount of mathematical information throughout the universe is incalculable, but is fundamentally very simple, which allows for the self-organization of physical patterns. Robert Hazen, esteemed minerologist estimates that the earth has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions during its 4 billion years of mineral evolutionary ecology.
    Big Bang Theory
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,436
    https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

    Thats about it and then David Bohm's hierarchy of orders, from the very subtle to gross expression in reality. "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". (free pdf is available)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ElectronPdf&page=Wholeness and the Implicate Order&action=show-download-screen.

    I have asked many times to steer me to reliable scientific sites which are narrative friendly and don't overwhelm with pages of "mathematical" calculations and references to other scientific papers filled with pages of mathematical calculations.
    I completely agree, but as indicated in the Big Bang quote above, testing of pre-BB conditions is impossible, so I cannot get any information from anywhere, except generalized speculations, which I have no quarrel with.
    Thanks for that advise. It is true, that I struggle sometimes with presenting an idea clearly and concisely. As English is my second language it does occasionally present semantic problems.
    I do object to the label "faith-based".
    I have presented overwhelming evidence from many sources (which apparently no one deigns to read) which conclusiely identify microtubules as self-organizing functional information processors, which for one are responsible for the critically fundamental process of mitosis (cell division). How that can possibly be regarded as a faith-based belief is completely beyond me.
    I submit that the critics have not bothered to inform themselves (by their own admission), of this functional common denominator in all Eukaryotic organisms and is responsible for locomotion in even the most primitive organisms, and may be the network that allows for emergent consciousness in brained organisms.

    IMO, this is IMPORTANT science, and has nothing to do with any belief system or metaphysical phenomena.
    This is (neuro) Physics with a big P!
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020 at 1:55 PM
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,436
     

Share This Page