Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Son, Oct 5, 2013.
It would seem so since inside would imply uncausation. Hence, they are not set in stone.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Current knowlege is that we really don't know where they come from. Physicists have a hard enough time trying to find out what they are.
What do you mean 'inside/outside', Fork?
Who says they come from anywhere? The "laws" are just our observations. Someone may observe that I put out the trash every day at 6 pm. Where did that "law" come from? It's just my neighbors observation.
That makes no sense. The laws of physics ARE reality.
Not necessarily. The CTMU says otherwise.
O brother, here we go again. Sorry, but that stuff is crap, dude. Try another line, that one doesn't work anymore.
What I don't understand is why so many have no problem with a 1Kg brick remaining with 1Kg mass without any one, including some postulated God, keeping it constant, but start to talk about some of the physical constants, like speed of light or mass of the electron, or the fine structure constant, etc. they seem to think God, or some "out side agent , is required to make them stay with their constant values.
If they are asking why the speed of light has the value it does - Maxwell explained that in terms of the dielectric constant of the material and its permeability, two measurable properties even vacuum has. Etc. for most, if not all other constants of physics - they can be computed from other constants of physics too, like charge on electrons, etc.
AFAIK, the mass of the electron is the mass of the electron period. The mas of molecules is the mass or their electrons + atoms (and binding energy, via E=Mc^2) The mass of the atoms is the mass of their quarks (and binding energy, via E=Mc^2) - that is just the way it is and no reason for it require an outside agent to make it so.
The laws of nature are born in the Big Bang. They have no direct cause since the Big Bang has no direct cause. They have a web of indirect cause, in that they must all operate jointly. But since there is no direct cause, the rest of what you said doesn't follow.
There is nothing outside of reality; that concept makes no sense. That is, there is no law without space and time. All physical laws only pertain to and/or operate in actual space and time - you can try to break down mass, energy, charge, spin etc. in this way but they have no meaning outside of space and time. Billy T stated very well what it means to be intrinsic (uncaused) and/or, to be the natural consequence of something uncaused (as in the natural or transcendental constants from which certain states or properties can be derived.)
Besides, there can be only one state at the edge of the universe -- and that's the universe being born. It never wasn't being born, certainly not when you rewind to the closest fathomable moment that you think it wasn't being born. You simply can't get there -- it's a boundary, nothing more. And it has to go on being born forever, since that's the nature of giving birth to time itself.
In short, you have no choice but to accept that the universe simply has no cause. It always was being born, and never wasn't. That nixes causation. Besides we already have issues in relativity concerning causation, in which we have to conclude that it's not "the Outside" that connects us to cause, but rather the question of how one event stands causally connected to another in the context of some inertial reference frame. The same problem arises when changing scale from the macro world to the microcosm. The laws have to be restructured. Now we have to deal with quantum states, and a ton of situations that are simply invalid at the macro scale. In this context the macro world is "outside" the microcosm, but not at all in the way you pose it.
Assuming the universe was caused is simply a faulty assumption. Once you correct that, there is no "outside".
The problem is that most people think they can understand the expansion of space. They think of balloons etc. But the expansion of space actually requires a notion of higher dimensions that is impossible to humans to imagine. So the Hubble expansion is falsely understood buy us. We think we understand it because we can in our minds hold one dimension as a reference and expand or contract the other 2.
The idea that time can expand is a much harder thing to imagine and so is discounted by laymen. It also requires a higher dimensional and therefore impossible to imagine. There is only one dimension of time and so we have nothing to compare it to. No temporal reference.
Einstein showed us that the relationship between time and space is simple but non-intuitive. It is not a technically difficult notion but it counter-intuitive from the laymen's perspective. The concept of space expanding from a singularity is not an any different that time expanding from a singularity. But we have no way to comprehend time expansion. And as I have said the common notion of space expansion is likewise incorrect.
Both space and time seem to have come from a singularity. This means that there was no creation. No before time to be created from. It is a thing beyond our imagining because time is so universal. Space is something we think we understand better. But Hubble expansion is space-time expansion, not just space expansion like a balloon. We have no intuitive way to imagine it. Both space and time appear to have originated in a singularity. A space-time singularity.
I would say that there is was no space or time before the singularity, but even that statement is wrong. There was no before, just as there was no beyond. It is beyond human knowledge or understanding. Talking about such things is confusing.
In fact, relativity tells us that "time" is expanding at the speed of light. But is time really a dimension like one of the three spatial dimensions, or is it just a direction in which spatial coordinates "change"?
I stick to the CTMU because it mirrors reality as a theory and constitutes absolute truth. To say the laws of Physics are uncaused would imply that we live in a random, nonsensical universe. Hence they came from somewhere. They were caused.
What's CTMU - in a nutshell ?
Don't give me links, reams, just one paragrapph at the most.
IMO, the one condition that may be scientifically acceptable as being present before the BB, is the concept of Potential, in it's most fundamental form of "that which may become reality" which implies near infinite possibilities from which fewer probabilities emerge, all the way down the ladder from pure energy to the potential Implication for an individual event and Expression in reality.
This is why it is impossible to fit a square peg in a round hole. The conflicting potentials inherent in the shapes of each object forbid this event from becoming expressed in reality. The Implication for such a mathematical application cannot exist and therefore the event cannot become expressed in reality.
There is nothing random or nonsensical about this. Every event in the universe is preceded by the potential (a permissible probability) for that event. David Bohm calls it The Implicate.
Thus the implication must have preceded the BB. But this implication happens at quantum level and duration.
Thus, I believe that the BB was an "inevitable" singular mega-quantum event where near infinite potential was released during the inflationary epoch and after which some of the resulting energy was transformed into the most fundamental particles, which by their inherent potential are able to bind only in certain specific ways. Ways which we later recognized as the laws of physics.
At the moment of Expression in reality (change), Real Time began along with the expanding space and the evolutionary process of spacetime in accordance to its inherent potentials for expression in reality..
I tried to keep this very short, but this is my interpretation of David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".
That's the claim, but it merely cloaks religion as something more than superstition, which is nonsense.
That premise in nonsensical. It denies the nature of all things intrinsic. There is no cause for the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter, or the sum of interior angles of a triangle being that same amount. As Billy T noted, you can at best derive intrinsics from some lower more elemental form, but causality is entirely another thing.
There are countless ways nature manifests randomness. It's one of the most ubiquitous intrinsic aspects of natural processes. It's frivolous to deny this as well . . . which is what distances religion from all benefits of an imagination. We can construct countless experiments as common as the roll of dice to confirm various ways that nature is random . . . that is, if we're so uncertain whether we're actually awake that we need to keep pinching ourselves. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The quest to murder stochastics arises out the desire to impose determinism on reality. Religious people feel strangled by the death of God and eternal life. It's purely psychological. There is a deep natural urge to survive, which religious people have projected onto the universe. They have convinced themselves they will live beyond the grave, and now defend that position with the same instinctual drive as a cornered animal. There is nothing wonderful and sparkly about religious ideation. It's as primal as the motives that cause a snake to strike at warm flesh. This is why the hindbrain of religion spends so much time sinking its fangs into science. Even in better equipped brains such as Langan's.
There can be no roll of the dice at the dawn of time; hence "random" has no meaning at the moment of the Big Bang. Those are your if-then clauses to hold up in the light of some ostensibly pure and bulletproof logic.
It's the same as fumbling with the idea "what happened to causation?" in a world that exists in the instant of the birth of causality. No rolling of the dice can occur without time and space for it to occur in. It's purely a superstitious fabrication imposed on what evidently is the intrinsic nature of creation. Or maybe the problem is the word. Maybe we need to be talking about uncreation. Replace the uncreated God with the uncreated universe; it conforms to the socket carved out by indoctrination.
Get out a red pen, open to page 1 of the playbook, scratch out the first line, and insert: In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no time. There was no space. Once you remove superstition from the cause of religious ideation, it, too, vanishes.
From one crucial false hypothesis come a endless litany of fallacies, invalid inferences, and false conclusions.
How or why Langan misses this is unclear. :shrug:
In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no space.
In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no time.
In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no cause.
In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no reason.
In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no Prime Mover.
In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no God.
In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no _____.
Fill in the blank.
Langan ought to be able to construct this far more eloquently. He just needs to let go of his superstition and his fear of death. I guess I could say: In the beginning there was no beginning because the superstitious insistence on causality devoid time or space has no bearing on anything outside of the imagination, insofar as it is acting purely out of primal fear of the finality of death, and projecting this imagined sense of eternal life onto nature. But nature will kill us all.
And even Langan has an active imagination. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But so did Mozart, Lang Lang, Fermi, Pauli . . . even Piaget. But you notice what separates Langan from this crowd: they gave us news we can use.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have our own genius already, Victor Espinoza.
His theory of the Veegtron and his new particle the Eyestron is sufficient for us.
The Kremmenal investigation reveals hard evidence: Fork & Victor are two biscuits short of a tea party.
They rely on numbers even though the question of whether or not numbers are real has not been resolved.
Just really WTF does that mean? http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciArt.pdf
I still believe I can count to ten, but is it heresy?
"Relying on numbers." The FOOLS!
Why not rely on Gobbledegook?
Did you know that every Atom is made of 128 Farsicals.
That is 2 to the power 7, the primary angelic number of the ancient Prelators,
whose wisdom was lost with the sinking of Atlantis.
Separate names with a comma.