A Quest for a Personal View of Reality

[quantum_wave]

quantum_wave,

You will have to bare with me as I provide you with a theory that relates reality to mind whereas normally, scientific theories ignore the former of the two halves and pontificate only on the latter, the external, the observable, etc.;

Ok, I can stand that. A look at the CTMU website, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe seems to address many issues related to creation, intelligent design, evolution, life and consciousness.

From Common CTMU Objections and replies;

The universe is expanding.

• Nothing that leads to logical inconsistency is "confirmed by evidence". Expansion leads to logical inconsistency analytically. To wit, if there were something outside reality that were sufficiently real to contain the "expansion" of reality, it would be contained in reality. That's a contradiction; ergo, the hypothesis is false.

• The overall size of the universe is externally undefined and can only be defined intrinsically (as curvature), the sizes of objects change with respect to this curvature.

• The cosmos can’t be expanding in any absolute sense, because there’s nothing for it to be expanding into. Therefore, we must invert the model in a way that “conserves spacetime”; the total “amount” of spacetime must remain constant. When we do so, the cosmos ceases to resemble a balloon inflating (extending outward) over time, and instead becomes an inward superposition of sequentially related states. The best way to think of it is in terms of a cumulative embedment of Venn diagrams (of state) on the inside surface of a sphere of extrinsically indeterminate size.

• "Intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then it has to be expanding *with respect to* a fixed referent, and if it is, then it has to be extending into an external medium with respect to which the fixity of the referent has been established. On the other hand, saying that something is shrinking relative to that which contains it presents no such problem, for in that case, nothing is really "expanding". An inclusive relationship, like that whereby the universe includes its contents, can change intrinsically only if its total extent does not change; where its total extent is just that of the inclusive entity, this means that the extent of the *inclusive entity* cannot change. Ergo, no expansion; it's logically analytic. Reason in any other fashion, and the term "expansion" becomes meaningless.

Self-containment" is an oxymoron.

• In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets)."

Conspansive duality is false. Objects move through a background called "space".

• If there were something outside reality that were real enough to topologically contain it, it would be intrinsic to reality (and therefore contained within it). We can make a similar statement regarding matter: if there were something outside matter that were material enough to contain it, it would to exactly that extent be intrinsic to matter. In order to accommodate matter, space must be potentially identical to it... must "share its syntax". In other words, matter doesn't "displace" space, but occupies it in perfect superposition...intersects with it. So space consists of material potential and is thus a "potential phase of matter". Denying this leads to a contradiction.

Thanks for responding with a "creation" view of the universe, making all three of the major explanations for the existence of the universe represented. Feel free to weigh in from the CTMU perspective, on the various characteristics of the different views of reality that might be discussed as we go along.

 

[Spellbound]

Thanks for responding with a "creation" view of the universe, making all three of the major explanations for the existence of the universe represented. Feel free to weigh in from the CTMU perspective, on the various characteristics of the different views of reality that might be discussed as we go along.

Certain theories of everything may no doubt fall short of CTMU and therefore lack tautological self-containment. However, these are all subjective interpretations of reality from one's own point of view. It has no bearing on the true nature of God and does not resolve the set of all sets paradox. It has been shown that the edge of the universe must be self-perceptual in order to resolve the self-inclusion paradox.

Thus, the real universe is not a static set, but a dynamic process resolving the self-inclusion paradox. Equivalently, because any real explanation of reality is contained in reality itself, reality gives rise to a paradox unless regarded as an inclusory self-mapping.

Taken from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/159745643/Chris-Langan-Introduction-to-the-CTMU#scribd

Beginner's introduction

Here is a rudimentary, overall, "big picture" impression of Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU).

Matter can be reduced to atoms, atoms can be reduced to subatomic particles, etc, etc. Eventually, if we keep reducing in this matter, we get to the most fundamental constituents of reality: information. The universe can be conceived as a vast arrangement of information: ones and zeros and the mathematical relationships between them. Since this is basically analogous to "content" and "grammar," the universe is thus conceived as a language. The thing about this particular language is that it is so tautological that it contains all of the conditions necessary for its own existence. The mere possibility of this language is enough to ensure that it generates itself. It is sort of like a self-executing algorithm that generates the mind in which the algorithm itself is known.

Although this mind (God's mind) sits in knowledge of itself in an unchanging, eternal way, it contains within it all of the processes required for it to refine itself into existence out of nothingness. As such, consciousness is stratified: the bottom stratum is the all-knowing mind of God, and within this all-knowing mind of God is contained all of the more superficial strata of consciousness that are inherent in the creation process. In other words, God is aware of all the steps in its own creation. However, from the vantage point of these more superficial strata, the universe appears as a physical entity unfolding in physical space. Our human minds are pieces of these more superficial strata. To us, things look like they are still unfolding.

And recall that our conscious minds are contained within God's consciousness. As such, we retain the creative power of God on a scale that is localized in time and space. We can choose to act in a way that facilitates the execution of the self-creating algorithm that creates God, or we can choose to act in a way that is not useful to this end, which is known as the "telos" of this particular reality. If we choose to act in a way that is in line with the telos, those parts of our minds that match the mind of God get preserved and we basically move closer to the all-knowing substratum, or the consciousness of God. If we act against the telos, what happens may be that those elements of our minds that do not match the mind of God get recycled endlessly or something until they properly refine themselves. The eternal unchanging nature of the overall God consciousness is preserved despite our free choices because the system continually adjusts itself in such a way that even though it is changing internally it remains eternal overall.

In short, reality itself is a self-refining linguistic system which, due to its form, cannot NOT exist. Even if there is nothingness, this system will exist and know itself and all of the localized conscious minds within its creation process will experience its informational structure as real, physical, etc. It is thus self-creating, as it requires nothing outside of itself to exist.

Taken from: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Beginner's_introduction

 

[brucep]

Always existed?

The expansion of the Universe is an observed fact of reality.

Extrapolating backwards into the past, the Universe was much smaller then than it is now. A reasonable conclusion is that the Universe had a beginning, after which the expansion started.

Therefore, the notion that the Universe has always existed seems inaccurate.

He thinks science has something to do with opinion. Empirical evidence associated with cosmology isn't his thing.

 

[quantum_wave]

Certain theories of everything may no doubt fall short of CTMU and therefore lack tautological self-containment. However, these are all subjective interpretations of reality from one's own point of view.

Exactly. A personal view of reality is not generally going to be congruent with any particular popular Cosmological model. Familiarizing one's self with many models and with many personal views built with knowledge of those models is part of a methodology that can be used in an individuals quest.

It has no bearing on the true nature of God and does not resolve the set of all sets paradox.

I appreciate that a "Creation or God did it" perspective on cosmology will put forth a rigorous concept of God, compatible with the physical aspects of the model.

It has been shown that the edge of the universe must be self-perceptual in order to resolve the self-inclusion paradox.

This is an interesting statement, and full of possible interpretations by someone like me who invokes infinities of space, time, and energy. The concept that there is an edge to the universe does not apply given the infinities I invoke. So please explain a little more fully what you meant by the edge being self-perceptual, and also, stating the self-inclusion paradox would be helpful.

Taken from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/159745643/Chris-Langan-Introduction-to-the-CTMU#scribd

Beginner's introduction

Here is a rudimentary, overall, "big picture" impression of Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU).

Matter can be reduced to atoms, atoms can be reduced to subatomic particles, etc, etc. Eventually, if we keep reducing in this matter, we get to the most fundamental constituents of reality: information. The universe can be conceived as a vast arrangement of information: ones and zeros and the mathematical relationships between them. Since this is basically analogous to "content" and "grammar," the universe is thus conceived as a language. The thing about this particular language is that it is so tautological that it contains all of the conditions necessary for its own existence. The mere possibility of this language is enough to ensure that it generates itself. It is sort of like a self-executing algorithm that generates the mind in which the algorithm itself is known.

That explanation certainly is based on the concept of God that accompanies the CTMU model. Within Intelligent Design by God, i.e. the act of creation, the possibility that such a self-executing algorithm that generates the mind and intelligence to know the language of the universe, would be in place at the beginning of the physical universe. But taking the perspective that I have, i.e. that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes, would preclude such an act of creating. Instead, in a universe that has always existed, I consider it possible that there is an intent that has always existed within the natural scheme of things, to assure that there are always natural hospitable environments across the universe, and that nature has life generating and evolutionary capabilities.

Given those differences between my personal view or reality and the CTMU model, you might say that it is a comparison between Intelligent Design by a Creator, vs. Eternal Intent of a infinite and eternal Natural universe.

...

In short, reality itself is a self-refining linguistic system which, due to its form, cannot NOT exist. Even if there is nothingness, this system will exist and know itself and all of the localized conscious minds within its creation process will experience its informational structure as real, physical, etc. It is thus self-creating, as it requires nothing outside of itself to exist.Taken from: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Beginner's_introduction

Well said, and very much in need of faith and hope as any view, such as mine, where an Eternal Intent may be naturally residing within and along with everything else that has always existed.

 

[Spellbound]

Exactly. A personal view of reality is not generally going to be congruent with any particular popular Cosmological model. Familiarizing one's self with many models and with many personal views built with knowledge of those models is part of a methodology that can be used in an individuals quest.
I appreciate that a "Creation or God did it" perspective on cosmology will put forth a rigorous concept of God, compatible with the physical aspects of the model.
This is an interesting statement, and full of possible interpretations by someone like me who invokes infinities of space, time, and energy. The concept that there is an edge to the universe does not apply given the infinities I invoke. So please explain a little more fully what you meant by the edge being self-perceptual, and also, stating the self-inclusion paradox would be helpful.

When I use the word "edge" I mean "limit" or "boundary". It really is just a semantic preference. I could have easily meant the "center of the self-perceptual".

Because reality is nested within reality, which equates to self-inclusion and therefore containment, it is absolutely essential that it provides itself with all the necessary conditions for its existence. Your model is a bit simplistic, it leaves out the fact that we are contained in a higher dimension. Now, I will provide you with an example of topological and descriptive containment. If I touch an object like a table, am I touching a table or a piece of wood carved and sold as decor? The table carries a description of the universe and we do too.

That explanation certainly is based on the concept of God that accompanies the CTMU model. Within Intelligent Design by God, i.e. the act of creation, the possibility that such a self-executing algorithm that generates the mind and intelligence to know the language of the universe, would be in place at the beginning of the physical universe. But taking the perspective that I have, i.e. that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes, would preclude such an act of creating. Instead, in a universe that has always existed, I consider it possible that there is an intent that has always existed within the natural scheme of things, to assure that there are always natural hospitable environments across the universe, and that nature has life generating and evolutionary capabilities.

[...]

Given those differences between my personal view or reality and the CTMU model, you might say that it is a comparison between Intelligent Design by a Creator, vs. Eternal Intent of a infinite and eternal Natural universe

Atheistic tendencies abound in your perspective and is therefore incorrect. Allow me to demonstrate. To an atheist, God is simply a model of the human ego. The ultimate example of the human intellect realizing itself in an isolated universe of no significance or importance. Where the need to belong is so strong that belonging must be the prime objective to existence.

The self is truly real and thus the collective will of the human species through its history became powerful enough that God was realized.

That explanation certainly is based on the concept of God that accompanies the CTMU model. Within Intelligent Design by God, i.e. the act of creation, the possibility that such a self-executing algorithm that generates the mind and intelligence to know the language of the universe, would be in place at the beginning of the physical universe.

Yes. That is correct.

But taking the perspective that I have, i.e. that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes, would preclude such an act of creating. Instead, in a universe that has always existed, I consider it possible that there is an intent that has always existed within the natural scheme of things, to assure that there are always natural hospitable environments across the universe, and that nature has life generating and evolutionary capabilities.

An infinite set would be an interesting idea if one invokes ideas such as "nothing encompasses everything" or "existent and non-existent are one" or "timeless and spaceless existence". And God would equate to an infinite and eternal universe. But that would assume that matter is eternal as well, and that human beings have no free will nor special creative powers/ abilities. God would then fall to the wayside as but a secondary manifestation of existence next to an infinite universe. And man would therefore no longer be agent level observer-participants. Or am I wrong?

Given those differences between my personal view or reality and the CTMU model, you might say that it is a comparison between Intelligent Design by a Creator, vs. Eternal Intent of a infinite and eternal Natural universe.

That sounds fair.

 

[quantum_wave]

When I use the word "edge" I mean "limit" or "boundary". It really is just a semantic preference. I could have easily meant the "center of the self-perceptual".

Because reality is nested within reality, which equates to self-inclusion and therefore containment, it is absolutely essential that it provides itself with all the necessary conditions for its existence.

Granted. When I draw a comparison between my Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, and the CTMU, in regard to them providing themselves with all of the necessary conditions for its existence, I see no difference. The universe is as it is, always has been, and will always be; it could be no other way on the basis that the natural laws that govern it are invariant. That is what the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" is all about as well.

Your model is a bit simplistic, it leaves out the fact that we are contained in a higher dimension.

Let me remind you that we are in a non-judgmental zone, lol. I won't argue the simplicity of the model, because on one hand simple is often better, and on the other hand, the mechanics that are at work in accord with the natural laws are the epitome of complexity. There is one very key aspect of the ISU model and that is that there are "as yet unknowns"; natural laws that we don't yet understand, and effects that we are not yet even aware of. The highest dimension in that regard is the complete set of invariant natural laws, and the known and understood laws are a subset contained in the whole set. All are in accord with Eternal Intent which is included in the whole set, and its nature is substantially "as yet" unknown.

Now, I will provide you with an example of topological and descriptive containment. If I touch an object like a table, am I touching a table or a piece of wood carved and sold as decor? The table carries a description of the universe and we do too.

Yes, and I would put that description to be both about composition and function, both of which must be governed by the natural law; everything that has existence would be explained by natural laws, and any particular functionality would be at the convenience of the user.

Atheistic tendencies abound in your perspective and is therefore incorrect. Allow me to demonstrate. To an atheist, God is simply a model of the human ego. The ultimate example of the human intellect realizing itself in an isolated universe of no significance or importance. Where the need to belong is so strong that belonging must be the prime objective to existence.

The self is truly real and thus the collective will of the human species through its history became powerful enough that God was realized.

I'll acknowledge that perspective on atheism, but would be short of agreeing. Another perspective would be Pantheism which is closer to the worship of Nature, and further, there is the concept of Eternal Intent, where God and the universe might be one and the same.

That is for the individual to decide for themselves. An individual can invoke Atheism, or the CTMU, or Eternal Intent, or a variety of variants that might be religions, or cosmologies, or philosophies. Individuals can set themselves apart in a subset of the set of all individuals across all time and space, but the ISU is all inclusive, based on any perspective that individuals adopt, in any environment, across infinite space and time.

An infinite set would be an interesting idea if one invokes ideas such as "nothing encompasses everything" or "existent and non-existent are one" or "timeless and spaceless existence".

I don't see that set of paradoxes arising. I think sound logic is a characteristic of high evolution.

And God would equate to an infinite and eternal universe.

Yes, with the stipulation that Eternal Intent would be included along with the infinities, and the other invariant natural laws.

But that would assume that matter is eternal as well, and that human beings have no free will nor special creative powers/ abilities.

Not a all. In the ISU, matter and energy are interchangeable, and energy is conserved; wave energy in the medium of space is all that exists physically. It is the natural laws that govern what matter exists within it based on the mechanics re. limits and thresholds of energy density. In fact it is hypothesized that matter is composed of wave energy in quantum increments; particles are complex standing wave patterns with inflowing and out flowing waves, and gravity is the nature of particles to move in the direction of the net highest source of inflowing gravitational wave energy.

God would then fall to the wayside as but a secondary manifestation of existence next to an infinite universe. And man would therefore no longer be agent level observer-participants. Or am I wrong?

No, God and the universe could be taken as one and the same. Intelligent, self-aware individuals that are generated in the various hospitable environments would be natural, and high evolution would be in accord with Eternal Intent. I see no reason that freewill would not be natural, or that creativity wouldn't be a natural part of highly evolved life forms.

It is interesting to discuss, so feel free to respond and take exception, in a non-judgmental way.

 

[Spellbound]

You should take the time to go through this Q_W: http://quantum-mind.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Quantum-Ph-rev-def-2.pdf

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks for that link. I went over the table of contents and there are some great topics, and there are about 18 pages of references and many of them actually link to sourced material. A person could reall get up to date on the qunautm nature of the mind.

 

[Spellbound]

Alternative Candidates for the Standard Model of Metaphysics

 

[Spellbound]

Q_W,

Does your model of the universe meet the following requirements:

1. Closure (Reality is closed with respect to all operations)

2. Comprehensiveness (Your model can refer to anything real)

3. Consistency (It is reproducible and re-combinative in all fields and areas of science or Philosophy and can be extended further leaving no gaps)

?

 

[Spellbound]

I don't see that set of paradoxes arising. I think sound logic is a characteristic of high evolution.

Thanks for the compliment. But they are not paradoxes. Give them a little more thought and you will see how they make possible an infinity.

 

[quantum_wave]

Q_W,

Does your model of the universe meet the following requirements:

1. Closure (Reality is closed with respect to all operations)

2. Comprehensiveness (Your model can refer to anything real)

3. Consistency (It is reproducible and re-combinative in all fields and areas of science or Philosophy and can be extended further leaving no gaps)

?

I don't see why not, BUT, it is a personal view of reality. Even though it works for me, it quite logically would not work for everyone, or even for a small set, given that it would be full of personal speculations, hypotheses, and ultimately, individual opinions. So I would say, taken as a whole, among the quests for a personal view of reality, no one will nail it to the satisfaction of very many others :shrug:.

Thanks for the compliment. But they are not paradoxes. Give them a little more thought and you will see how they make possible an infinity.

I do see where you were coming from. I have noticed that many members on various forums stiff arm the three infinities that I invoke axiomatically. Of course I have thought about it over the years, and one conclusion I draw is that many science type forum members are very anti-God and religion, and the infinities come too close to the traditional characteristics of God to suit many members.

I saw the following image and it sort of exemplifies what others might think of my model

... or anyone else's for that matter, lol.

 

[kx000]

Singularity is imperfect. If time and nature precipitate singulary we will suffer forever and have suffered always. You can't count new moments forever and remember the old moments at the same time, so knowledge (the bare life essential) will cease or flux capacitate.

 

[quantum_wave]

Singularity is imperfect. If time and nature precipitate singulary we will suffer forever and have suffered always. You can't count new moments forever and remember the old moments at the same time, so knowledge (the bare life essential) will cease or flux capacitate.

You seem to say that from a perspective that what you describe doesn't have to be that way. It might come from a deeper belief, so why not say what your perspective is in regard to a personal view of reality.

 

[quantum_wave]

The following ten paragraphs update my personal quest as the thread unfolds:

The Perfect Cosmological Principle

Paramount to my personal view of the universe is the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The PCP proposes that the universe is infinite, and has always existed. On a grand scale it appears the same in all directions (homogeneous), from all points (isotropic), and always has. That means it doesn't change its gross features over time; is without a beginning, is boundless, and is without grand-scale phases or changes of state. On a grand scale it is a dynamic steady state scenario that defeats entropy.

Grand Scale vs. Local View

Invoking the PCP results in the discussion having a grand scale focus and a local focus. The grand scale discussion is about the multiple big bang arena landscape, where arena action is continually playing out; big bangs occur, expand, intersect and overlap each other, producing big crunches that subsequently collapse/bang into new big bang arenas. On the other hand, locally there are major cosmic events of various degrees, right up to the maximum individual events, Big Bangs, which makes the local discussion about the individual big bangs, their preconditions, the mechanics of "arena action", and the actual observations, given our "Hubble view" and WMAP/Planck surveys, and modern physics.

The Three Infinities and the Concept of the Medium of Space

The "Three Infinities" are axiomatic, and essential to my individual view. Simply stated, they are space, time, and energy, characterized as the boundless medium of space that hosts various types of waves, notably gravitational and light waves, that carry energy. The medium of space is infinite and eternal, and has the characteristic of compressibility or "sponginess", meaning that it can accommodate multiple wave energy "fronts" converging in the same space; wave energy at a given point in space is thus the cumulative sum of all wave energy fronts passing that point, and can range from a minimum of wave energy as if there was a waveless medium, to a maximum wave energy where nature's compressibility limit is reached.

Introducing the Concept of "Collapse/Burst" Wave Action

Reaching that maximum compressibility of the local medium of space results in a "burst event", the most notable of which are, perhaps inappropriately, named Big Bangs, featuring the collapse/burst of a big crunch, but by far the most common are the seemingly insignificant tiny foundational wave convergences that are continually occurring at every point in space. The collapse/bursts are called "collapse/bangs" at the big bang level.

Local Wave Energy Density

The local "wave energy density" is variable, and is determined by the sum of the energy carried by the accumulation of tiny wave convergences occurring in a defined volume of space. The local wave energy density, governed by what ever degree of compressibility that is present, determines the amount of wave energy required to cause a burst, and conversely determines the amount of energy that the burst redistributes spherically into the surrounding space. As the local energy density increases, the resulting wave energy out flow from local wave convergences increases, right up to the maximum wave energy event, the big bang itself.

Wave Intersections and Overlaps

Waves traversing space cannot help but intersect as they expand, and the intersecting waves are called "parent waves". Continuing that analogy, parent waves produce new waves that emerge out of the overlap space. A wave intersection, overlap, and burst redirects the directional wave energy of the parent waves at the point of intersection, into a new spherical wave. Thus every wave (from tiny foundational waves, right up to big bang arena waves) have the precondition of the intersection of two or more parent waves.

Time and Time Measurement

Time simply passes. The measurement of the rate that time passes varies relative to the wave energy density of the local environment. There are many varieties of clocks, or means of measuring the local rate that time passes, and the measurement of time, utilizing clocks, is influenced by the local wave energy density. Identical clocks utilized to measure time in environments with differing levels of wave energy density will show that the "measurement of the rate that time passes varies" relative to the local level of energy density.

Time Delay Caused by Wave Convergences

On that premise, there is a time delay, characterized by an interruption (density change) encountered by converging waves, that changes the rate of expansion of the individual wave fronts at the point of intersection. The rate of expansion at that point is interrupted since the energy density in the space that the new spherical wave emerges into is higher than the space into which the individual parent waves were expanding before they intersected. "The increase in energy density is the result of the energy of the two parent waves converging into the same space" at the point of intersection. That time rate variance allows the energy of the parent wave fronts to begin to equalize with each other in the overlap space. The overlap space fully encompasses the new spherical wave that redistributes the directional parent wave energy into all directions (spherically); the initial lens shaped overlap space quickly equalizes, achieving the spherical shape of the new wave front.

The Impact of Time Delay vs Spacetime (General Relativity)

General Relativity quantifies the varying rate of time, and distance, that appear to change when events are observed from different inertial frames of reference. The relativity of simultaneity is an expression of how observations from different frames will mathematically be reduced to different rates of time passing, and different lenghts of rulers (rods) from one frame to the next. Those effects however, are caused by the different energy density that exists in those environments or frames that are in relative motion. The explanation for the change in energy density between inertial frames is the fact that at all points, there is wave energy coming and going in all directions, from the history of wave producing events across space and time. Time and distance will be measured to be different by identical measuring devices as the local energy density changes, and it will be different between frames wherever there is relative motion through the wave filled medium of space. "Spacetime, and variable energy density" are two different ways of explaining the observed anomalies that were eventually recognized in classical cosmology.

Ripples in Spacetime

There is one "reconciling" concept in General Relativity, that makes the two approaches equal; gravitational waves, referred in by GR as "ripples in spacetime" from catastropic high energy encounters like the collision of black holes or the collapse of stars. They are necessary in GR for the conservation of energy and momentum. However, in the energy density approach, they are incorporated in the time delay concept. By invoking the energy density explanation, the curvature of spacetime and geodesics are not necessary, but the three infinities are necessary in their place. It sorts out to there being axiomatic differences between two approaches. In GR you have the curvature of spacetime telling mass how to move, and at the same time mass telling spacetime how to curve, and in the energy density approach, energy density causes changes in the measurements recorded on identical devices in different density environments.

 

[Spellbound]

A New Way of Thinking About Spacetime That Turns Everything Inside Out
http://gizmodo.com/a-new-way-of-thinking...1741498475

EXCERPT: One of the weirdest aspects of quantum mechanics is entanglement, because two entangled particles affecting each other across vast distances seems to violate a fundamental principle of physics called locality: things that happen at a particular point in space can only influence the points closest to it. But what if locality — and space itself — is not so fundamental after all?

[...] Jenann Ismael and others question the assumption, made by nearly every physicist and philosopher from Democritus onward, that space is the deepest level of physical reality. Just as the script of a play describes what actors do on a stage, but presupposes the stage, the laws of physics have traditionally taken the existence of space as a given. Today we know that the universe has more to it than things situated within space. Nonlocal phenomena leap out of space; they have no place in its confines. They hint at a level of reality deeper than space, where the concept of distance ceases to apply, where things that appear to lie far apart are actually nearby, or perhaps are the same thing manifested in more than one place, like multiple images of a single shard of kaleidoscopic glass.

When we think in terms of such a level, the connections between subatomic particles across a lab bench, between the inside and the outside of a black hole, and between opposite sides of the universe don’t seem so spooky anymore. Michael Heller [...] says: “If you agree that the fundamental level of physics is not local, everything is natural, because these two particles which are far apart from each other explore the same fundamental nonlocal level. For them, time and space don’t matter.” Only when you try to visualize these phenomena in terms of space — which is forgivable, because it’s hard for us to think in any other way — do they defy comprehension.

The idea of a deeper level seems natural because, after all, it is what physicists have always sought. Whenever they can’t fathom some aspect of our world, they assume they must not yet have gotten to the bottom of it all.

[...] “Spacetime can’t be fundamental,” says the theorist Nima Arkani-Hamed. “It has to come out of something more basic.”

This thinking completely inverts physics. Nonlocality is no longer the mystery; it’s the way things really are, and locality becomes the puzzle. When we can no longer take space for granted, we have to explain what it is and how it arises, either on its own or in union with time.

Clearly, constructing space isn’t going to be as straightforward as melding molecules into a fluid. What could its building blocks possibly be? Normally we assume that building blocks must be smaller than the things you build out of them. A friend of mine and his daughter once erected a detailed model of the Eiffel Tower out of popsicle sticks; they hardly needed to explain that the sticks were smaller than the tower.

When it comes to space, though, there can be no “smaller,” because size itself is a spatial concept. The building blocks cannot presume space if they are to explain it. They must have neither size nor location; they are everywhere, spanning the entire universe, and nowhere, impossible to point to. What would it mean for things not to have positions? Where would they be? “When we talk about emergent space-time, it must come out of some framework that is very far from what we’re familiar with,” Arkani-Hamed says.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things. If physicists are to succeed in explaining space as emergent, they must claim the concept of spacelessness as their own.

Einstein foresaw these difficulties. “Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.”

John Wheeler, the renowned gravity theorist, speculated that space-time is built out of “pregeometry,” but admitted that this was nothing more than “an idea for an idea.” Even someone as irrepressible as Arkani-Hamed has had his doubts: “These problems are very hard. They’re outside our usual language for talking about them....”

 

[quantum_wave]

... Even someone as irrepressible as Arkani-Hamed has had his doubts: “These problems are very hard. They’re outside our usual language for talking about them....”

Those kinds of sources of thought cover a lot of territory, and it is territory that I have been familiarizing myself with over the years. The possibilities are endless, and the varying ideas from reputable sources and respected thinkers is vast. I'm often reminded that my own quest for a personal view or reality has a long ways to go, just to satisfy me, and I always hope for members to chime in on topic to nudge me.

I place a lot of importance on my stated position that there are many "as yet unknowns". All of the great thoughts out there that call upon "not yet" science are still possibilities, given the as yet unknowns. Much of it can't be falsified, and then it just becomes a matter of opinion, but still, much of the kind of thinking you reference has merit and is worth consideration.

I would like to see you post something here that says what you think, in your own words, and not in links or references to other thinkers. This being a non-judgmental zone means two things; say what you think freely, and if someone gets judgmental, ignore them. ... Look where that has gotten me, lol.

From the material you just posted, I can make associations with some of the material I have on my drawing board ... I'm working on going deeper into the connections between the ten topics mentioned in my last post. This post has some material that is a work in progress ...

The speed of light and the speed of gravity through the medium of space... So if this and that are true then we would observe this and that, and do we? I say we do ...
... some things in my view of reality won't seem compatible and internally consistent according to current standard views of cosmology and particle physics.

I hope you get this ...

I don't invoke GR ...
but instead ...

I consider the medium of space to be filled with wave energy [traveling at the speed of light](coming and going) in and from all directions (at all points). That means that no matter what velocity you travel relative to a start point and slower than the speed of light in vacuum, you are surrounded by inflowing wave energy, light and gravitational energy coming from all directions. Your velocity, relative to the microwave background (light wave energy) which converts to a temp of about 2.7K, will determine the wave length of the inflowing wave energy reaching you (the redshift and the blueshift). It gets warmer around you as you move in any direction from a position in the CMB "rest frame". That also has the effect of increasing the wave energy density in the directions of motion, according to my hypothesis.

So there is a real, measurable increase in wave energy density in the direction of motion. Consider, that along with the low frequency CMB light wave energy, the background is also filled with gravitational wave energy on the basis that particles are standing waves of gravitational wave energy, inflow is directional, out flow is spherical (and the out flow traverses the background just like the microwave light energy), and particles (their complex standing wave patterns) move in the direction of net highest gravitational wave energy inflow from the background (as explained in some detail in my thread about "Fleshing out wave-particle duality").

Consider that your clock is composed of particles, and particles are composed of wave energy coming to it from that very same light and gravitational wave energy source that causes the existing cosmic background. The change in energy density that those particles will be operating in is determined by their velocity through the background relative to the rest frame. The intensity of that inflowing wave energy increases as you accelerate.

Consider the premise that there is a local rate at which particles function and interact, and if you increase the local energy density by accelerating them through the background, they will function slower relative to their rate of functioning when at rest relative to the background. That explains how clocks in relative motion will measure time to pass at different rates. It isn't time that slows or speeds up, it is the functioning of the particles that make up the clock, whether that clock is a Timex, or an aging human body. Accelerated astronauts will come home having aged slower and their Timex will be behind local time because it ran slower in the increased energy density environment of acceleration through the background. It is the same effect as is quantified by spacetime, without the curvature and geodesics, but with changes in energy density relative to a rest frame; they should have nearly the same mathematical solutions.

(If that is true) So if there is no GR and therefore no space time, that is an hypothesis to explain time dilation and length contraction...

As for quantum mechanics, there are a set of postulates, and from those postulates there are many interpretations ...

There is a lot of current discussion about new ways of proving entanglement ... still it is not yet quite presented in terms that my layman background fully allows me to comprehend, but getting all of that into my personal view of reality is on the drawing board ...

My "view" is a continual work in progress ... a hobby of employing my gray matter to keep it fresh, lol...

Member input is always a spark ...

 

[quantum_wave]

I'll put this link here for future reference:
http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/lee/courses/g503/Einstein_review.pdf

It is an interesting background on Einstein's thinking about gravitational waves and coordinate systems.

 

[river]

Sure Gr and Plasma science can help with ones view of reality ; but where is the understanding of life as well.

So far in this thread all have talked nothing but GR and the implications of; but reality is more than just this kind of thinking; if thats ALL reality is ; then life would not become nor even exist.

Reality is both galaxies, suns, planets, moons , astriods , comets etc.

And life .

My personal view of reality is that life needs a solid foundation on which to take hold; to flourish; and the galaxies provide such a place.

Reality is both living and non-living .

 

[Spellbound]

Sure Gr and Plasma science can help with ones view of reality ; but where is the understanding of life as well.

So far in this thread all have talked nothing but GR and the implications of; but reality is more than just this kind of thinking; if thats ALL reality is ; then life would not become nor even exist.

Reality is both galaxies, suns, planets, moons , astriods , comets etc.

And life .

My personal view of reality is that life needs a solid foundation on which to take hold; to flourish; and the galaxies provide such a place.

Reality is both living and non-living .

Reality is a conscious being.