# Infinite past... with a beginning?

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.
I have always favored the image of a torus (donut) shaped unierse with a supermassive black hole in its center, with a super energetic white hole (BB) on the other side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-torus_model_of_the_universe

If the universe exists on the 2 D plane on the outside of the torus, and movement is perpendicular to the center, it creates an expanding universe until it passes the equator and begins to contract along the toroidal geometry.

The shape of the universe is toroidal. This gives us the four known forces of Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Strong and Weak nuclear forces plus the forward motion of Time.
This seems to me a perfect illustration (concept) of an endless loop, beginning with a Singularity White Hole (BB) spewing energy from the (bottom) center of the toroid, geometrically expanding (and cooling) along the 2D surface of the toroid until it passes the equator and begins to contract towards the center of the universal Supermassive Black Hole (SBH). What can present a more fundamental geometry to explain everything?

To me this presents a very simple yet elegant answer to a lot of unanswered questions. It just "feels" right for an infinite looping self-referential system, which offers a conservation of energy but a periodic renewal of the universe.
Moreover it does not forbid a possible multi-verse of toroidal universes which are completely independent of each other, but might share the same mathematics imposed by their geometrics.

It would also explain any distant echo of a BB event, the SBH-->SWH continues to recycle this universe.

p.s. @ James R, this might involve the the process of spacetime itself being swallowed (compressed) by the SBH only to be realeased by the SWH. Everything recycles and there will never be a static universe that has expanded horizontally until it..... ????

From post #133
n1 = 1
n
i + 1 = ni + 1

James, can you explain this sequence to me? Something seems wrong here .

Write4U:

The problem here is that you seem to think you're doing science, when really you're not doing it at all.

What appears to have happened is that you've come across some descriptions of various hypotheses that you find aesthetically appealing. You've sort of mashed them together in your own mind to construct a fantasy about what the universe might be like. No doubt it's all loosely tied together for you and it all makes intuitive sense. But it's not science, because none of it connects to any real-world data or makes testable predictions.

Trying to get to the detail of your beliefs promises to be a pointless exercise on my part, because you admit that you don't/can't follow the relevant mathematics. Your arguments seem to be driven entirely by appeals to imperfect analogies, combined with your own ungrounded speculations.

Science works with unproven hypotheses all the time, so it's not a problem that you don't have proof for your beliefs. The problem is that you have no way to distinguish between any of your beliefs being true and it being false. Pick any one of them at random. Say we look at your hypothesis that the universe is a torus. What test are you going to rely on to tell whether the universe is or is not actually a torus? What experiments do you propose to tell the difference? What observations do we need to make to tell if the universe is a torus? See, if nothing can possibly disprove the idea that its a torus, then that idea is non-scientific. It's no better than asserting that the universe rides on the back of a giant tortoise.

I will comment on your replies to me, although I doubt it will shift you away from your fantasy and lead you towards using your time more productively - e.g. to learn some real science. I actually feel sorry for you, in a way, because you seem to spend a lot of time on this kind of stuff, and its fundamentally a waste of your time. The only reason it wouldn't be is if you regard it as pure entertainment - like watching a sci-fi programme on TV, say. If it's just a time-waster for you that distracts you from more important life matters, then I can understand that. But if, on the other hand, you are actually interested in cosmology or quantum physics or consciousness, then you're currently sitting in a blind alley that you've created for yourself.

You might object that you are merely drawing on the ideas of well-credentialled scientists, adopting their hypotheses as your own. If that is the case, then at best you have a faith-based belief. You trust Tegmark, or Hammeroff or whoever, and you're not making any efforts to put yourself in a position where you can honestly evaluate whether their ideas are any good, or even to tell which parts of their ideas are based in established science and which are wildly speculative.

Is it necessary to provide proof when something has been qualified as speculative?
It's a question of what kind of speculation is useful in science. I can speculate that fairies are real and live at the bottom of country gardens. When a scientist asks me how I know that, it's not really going to fly as a defence if I say "I'm not really saying they do. I haven't said I have any actual proof. It's purely speculative." The scientist will justifiably say I am wasting everybody's time by making the claim with nothing to support it. If I then argue that "But fairies fly, and we know that other things, like insects, can fly so it's not an unscientific hypothesis" that does nothing to help make the case that fairies exist.

(continued...)

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?
You didn't answer the question I asked you, which was: how can a non-physical "potential" create physical things?

In your hydroelectric example, the lake's "potential" to be used as a power source doesn't create the pipe or the generator. People do that. That "potential" on its own does nothing.

Your argument, you will recall, is that the entire universe came about because a non-physical "potential" somehow created everything out of nothing. But how?

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.
Okay, so you have an opinion. Based on what?

Tell me, in detail, how time emerges from "duration". What does that even mean? Does it mean anything, in fact, or is it just words?

This might fit Krauss' perspective of something emerging from nothing?
I don't think anything Krauss has written is remotely like what you just claimed.

We have spacetime because the universe is dynamic.
How does the universe's dynamicism create spacetime? Explain.

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?
Spacetime is the background against which events occur. It isn't a thing that can be swallowed. The bending of spacetime is a metaphor, or a model if you prefer. We describe it that way because the mathematics of gravity turns out to be closely related the mathematics of curved surfaces.

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.
You're referring to a measurement of the probability of a dropped needle falling randomly across a line. Dropping a needle doesn't cause the number pi. It just happens that the relevant probability calculation involves the number pi in the result. The reason for that, I think, has something to do with the fact that the needle has a random orientation when it lands - i.e. it has rotation, and as we know pi is related to circles. In other words, in a sense pi was "built into" the experiment from the start.

The number of the wave frequency determines the appearance of a color, just as the frequency of a sound wave determines the pitch.
There's a separate discussion going on about this in a different thread. For present purposes, it is enough to say that the numerical value of the wavelength of a certain type of light is a measurement of a quantity (wavelength), not of a quality (color).

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.
Part of the problem I'm having is that you are inconsistent with the way you are using words like "potential". For example, just above, you said "A mountain lake has the potential to be used as a power source for electricity." So, am I to take it you meant "A mountain lake has a latency with a mathematical value to be used as a power source for electricity"?

Is the type of "latency" you refer to the same in every example, or does it change with the example?

Can you please be more specific about the particular thing that is latent with a mathematical value in the mountain lake? Is that the same thing that was latent in the big bang, or is it something different?

You say:
How that may be measured depends on the thing that contains the latent potential. (see my example of the lake above)
So it seems that your "potential" varies along with the particular situation. What is the use of the word "potential", if its meaning is different for every example?

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.
You took what I wrote literally rather than figuratively. Haven't you heard that saying before?

The point is: the description of a thing is not the thing itself. For instance, you quoted with approval the idea that "color is the frequency of light". But color isn't a frequency of light. The frequency of light is a number we assign when we take a particular kind of measurement. Color is a physical property that we perceive with our eyes. We find, of course, that the frequency of light is correlated with the color we observe, but it is a mistake to imagine that the frequency therefore is the color, or vice versa.

James R said:
Pi is defined to be a specific number. It has only one value, neither infinitely large nor infinitely small. It's approximately 3.14159.
Write4U said:
Pi is an irrational number and has no specific value into infinity (as far as I know)
Wrong. pi is a number that has a specific value. It is theoretically possible to calculate the exact value to as many decimal places as you require. It couldn't be any more specific than that.

Recall your original claim: "Pi is an irrational number which can be infinitely large or infinitely small."

Pi is an irrational number. The term "irrational number" has a precise technical meaning in mathematics; it doesn't mean that pi is crazy or follows no rules or anything like that. It is certainly not infinitely large or infinitely small. It is finite. It's value is close to 3, which is neither infinitely large nor infinitely small.

Please tell me we are on the same page about pi, after all this. If you can't get a simple piece of mathematics like this straight, then everything else is bound to be an almost insurmountable battle.

no I am not, scientists are. I believe it's called physics.
The term "potential" is well defined in physics (it is related to energy). It is not used in the sense you have been using it. "Mathematical latency" is not a term I have ever come across in physics.

Give me a non-mathematical equation of a universal constant that can be used in any calculation.
What on earth would a non-mathematical equation look like? Please give me an example so I know what you're talking about.

The Higgs boson was mathematically (not physically) predicted.
The Higgs boson was the prediction of a mathematical, physical theory. Its existence was hypothesised in an attempt to solve an unsolved problem in particle physics. The theory was testable in that it predicted the existence of a particular particle with particular properties. It was tested in the Large Hadron Collider and found to be consistent with observations made there - i.e. the LHC found the predicted particle.

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.
The ongoing problem I'm having with you here is that you seem to believe not merely that mathematics is useful for describing the universe, but that the universe is mathematics. In doing that, you're again mistaking the map for the territory. By that I mean that mathematics is used as a tool to build testable physical models of the universe. But you appear to think that those models are the universe, or that the universe is the models.

It's equivalent to saying that 17 lb is a rock.

(continued...)

James R said:
How could mathematics self-organise?
Write4U said:
I used Chaos theory to clarify this in my mind.
[/quote]
But chaos theory is mathematics used to model the physical world. In other words, it provides a description about how unpredictability can emerge in certain kinds of physical systems that are deterministic. It says nothing about mathematics organising itself.

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......
When you say "preceding", you are invoking time where there is none.

Earlier, I gave you the following sequence as an example:

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

You weren't clear how to interpret the notation I used, so let me explain. The terms (numbers) in the sequence are given symbols \$n_1, n_2, n_3, \dots\$. The notation says that the first number in the sequence is the number 1 (\$n_1 = 1\$). To get all the other numbers we apply a recursion relation, which is the second line. The "i" in that relation is a variable - an index number. For example, if we let \$i=3\$ we get

\$n_{3+1} = n_3 + 1\$

or

\$n_4 = n_3 +1\$

In other words, if we know what the 3rd number in the sequence is (\$n_3\$) then we can use the equation to find the 4th number (\$n_4\$).

In this particular example, we have the first number (\$n_1 = 1\$), so the second number is \$n_2 = 2\$, the third is \$n_3 = 3\$ and so on, generating the sequence:

\$1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, \dots\$

In other words, this is just the sequence of counting numbers starting with the number 1.

Notice that there has been no mention of time in this. In no sense does \$n_4\$ come "earlier in time" than \$n_5\$ or \$n_{27}\$. You might argue that we can't know \$n_{27}\$ until we know \$n_{26}\$, but that's not a problem inherent in the sequence. All the information is already provided as to what \$n_{27}\$ is. If we haven't calculated it yet, that's our problem, not anything to do with the time ordering of the sequence (it doesn't have one).

The Fibonacci sequence, by the way, is this:

\$n_1 = 1\$
\$n_2 = 1\$
\$n_i = n_{i-2} + n_{i-1}\$ for \$i\ge 3\$.

For instance

\$n_5 = n_3 + n_4\$

The result sequence is:

\$1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, \dots\$

There is no time ordering in the Fibonacci sequence, any more than there's a time ordering built into the counting numbers.

Last edited:
(continued...)

I am enamored with Bohmian Mechanics, because it does away with that pesky wave/particle duality and formulates a purely deterministic physical reality.
I don't think it does away with wave/particle duality at all. It uses the theoretical concept of "pilot waves" to describe the results of things like the two-slit experiment carried out with electrons, for instance.

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.
What you're telling me is that you find Bohm's ideas aesthetically pleasing, which is fine if you're doing art, but not enough if you're trying to do science.

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.
You're relying on analogies to try to understand the theory. Analogies can be useful - they are used a lot in science - but they almost inevitably break down, and then you have to deal with the actual theory in all its mathematical complexity.

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.
That's a bad assumption. Personally, I've read a lot of scientific papers that use complicated mathematics, and I would never presume to say that I properly understand the arguments being put just because I have some grasp of the "most fundamental maths" used. Nor would I pretend to be in a position to decide whether those arguments are valid based on my understanding of some lower-level maths.

Note: I have never claimed that mainstream science is wrong or argued against concensus science. I would not presume.
It seems to me that what you think you're doing is building on existing scientific foundations to construct a new and more powerful theory of the universe. But you really aren't, because the foundations you're attempting to build on are shifting sand.

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.
No. There is no "present" or "past" or "future" in a mathematical sequence. The sequence as a whole just is, once you've defined it sufficiently.

Let me give you a slightly different example: the value of pi, again. There are lots of ways to calculate pi. One way is to make a series of additions of terms, and gradually refine the value of pi little by little. It's similar to calculating each term of a sequence one at a time and adding it to an existing sum. For example, adding the first term we might have pi = 3. Then adding the next term gives us pi = 3.13, then the next one gives 3.1414, etc. You might argue that, therefore, pi is time-ordered, in that you have to have 3.13 before you can calculate 3.1414, and so on.

But this isn't the only way you can calculate pi. There are actually formulas can produce any given digit of pi, without calculating any other ones. Want the 157th decimal digit of pi, or the 500718th? There's a formula for that. So it is not true that you need to know the 156th digit before you can find the 157th digit. In no sense does the 157th digit of pi come "after" the 156th digit, except in the sense that we write the decimal digits in a particular order by convention when we write the whole number.

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.
I hope things are clearer for you, following my post above.

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.
No!

You're still confusing the map for the territory. The Fibonacci sequence creates nothing. It's just a mathematical sequence of numbers. It might well turn out that the sequence can be used to describe various features of physical systems, but the sequence itself is just a mathematical abstraction. The map of the territory is not made of dirt and grass; it's made of paper and ink. Drawing the map can't make dirt and grass.

I am not qualified to make that distinction. I use both mainstream science and intuitive logic to form my world view.
I'm not seeing much logic in your intuition. Logic implies reasoning, not just unfettered imagination. I'm also not seeing much in the way of mainstream science.

IMO, the fabric of spacetime itself is a mathematical pattern.
... Just like the trees and the grass are the lines on a map. You see the problem, yet?

Oh right. So now you're pretending you have a working understanding of quantum loop gravity as well as Bohmian mechanics.

Really, is there any point in our discussing Causal Dynamical Triangulation? I don't think so. I don't believe you're equipped to have the discussion, and I doubt I am either. We could both talk about our fantasies, disconnected from any actual scientific theory, but where would that get us? It would just be a waste of time, wouldn't it?

Tegmark avoids this comparison by stating that lands or seas are themselves mathematical patterns, which allows us to draw maps to begin with.
It doesn't sound to me like this Tegmark guy is worth taking seriously, if you're describing his ideas accurately.

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)
I'll tell you what. How about you give me a brief description or summary of Bohm's idea about "heirarchy of orders" or "implicate order". If I can make any sense of what you're saying, we can discuss it further. I don't really see any point in reading through a downloadable paper that might not actually relate to anything you've been saying here.

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.
How do you hope to understand something like quantum loop gravity without studying any of the mathematics, or gaining the necessary background in quantum or gravitational theory? Surely the best you can hope for is to be able to follow some imperfect analogies.

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.
Not here you haven't. I can't recall a single source that has "conclusively identified" any information processing capabilities in microtubules.

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.
If you believe you're equipped to argue with actual experts on this, what are you doing here arguing with us amateurs?

You have disagreements with the critical, peer-reviewed literature on the topic? If so, and if you're so well informed about it all, why aren't you publishing your own papers and debating directly with the relevant experts in the field?

Last edited:
No doubt it's all loosely tied together for you and it all makes intuitive sense.
Well, thank you for the recognition that I am not pulling these ideas out of thin air. Are you familiar with the science I cite and if this is woo or serious science as discussed by the scientific community?
What test are you going to rely on to tell whether the universe is or is not actually a torus? What experiments do you propose to tell the difference? What observations do we need to make to tell if the universe is a torus? See, if nothing can possibly disprove the idea that its a torus, then that idea is non-scientific. It's no better than asserting that the universe rides on the back of a giant
Are you claiming that the shape of the universe is settled science? That nothing can disprove current science? Or is current science a best guess based on available information.
But if, on the other hand, you are actually interested in cosmology or quantum physics or consciousness, then you're currently sitting in a blind alley that you've created for yourself.
That is pure speculation on your part. You're assuming that I am not following mainstream science. I have already stipulated that I am not arguing against settled science. I only speculate when everyone else is speculating.
You trust Tegmark, or Hammeroff or whoever, and you're not making any efforts to put yourself in a position where you can honestly evaluate whether their ideas are any good, or even to tell which parts of their ideas are based in established science and which are wildly speculative.
Are you familiar with these scientists and can you prove they are wrong or that I am wrong using their science? You admitted yourself that you are not familiar with Tegmark's or Hameroff's or Renate Loll's work. Yet you claim they are wrong, because you I am wrong using these hypotheses in my "intuitive conceptualizations". Are you familiar with Hameroff's work? How can you claim I am wrong for using his science? Roger Penrose seems to think Hameroff has something to offer as do several other scientist who do know about these subjects in great depth. Are you familiar with Renate Loll's work? Are you familiar with CDT (causal dynamical triangulation)?
The Loops '05 conference, hosted by many loop quantum gravity theorists, included several presentations which discussed CDT in great depth, and revealed it to be a pivotal insight for theorists. It has sparked considerable interest as it appears to have a good semi-classical description. At large scales, it re-creates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but it shows spacetime to be 2-d near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work. A brief article appeared in the February 2007 issue of Scientific American, which gives an overview of the theory, explained why some physicists are excited about it, and put it in historical perspective. The same publication gives CDT, and its primary authors, a feature article in its July 2008 issue.
Fairy tales? Give me a break!
When a scientist asks me how I know that, it's not really going to fly as a defence if I say "I'm not really saying they do. I haven't said I have any actual proof. It's purely speculative." The scientist will justifiably say I am wasting everybody's time by making the claim with nothing to support it.
I say it is purely speculative on my part, but in effect you are claiming that all the science I cite as my source is wrong, without actually having studied their works.
I can also say that my use of E = Mc^2 is speculative on my part. I can't prove GR or SR. Should I need to be able to prove E = Mc^2. If not, are you going to claim that Einstein was wrong based on my use of that universal constant?

See, there is a certain duplicity at work here. Scientists always qualify that current science is never completely settled and absolute and is always open to revision if new information demands it. This flexibility is one of the strengths of science. It is open to revision when that is warranted. Time usually is the judge of the constancy a scientific claim.
Yet you treat my speculations as if they are absolutely false, in spite of your admission that you are not even familiar with the scientific sources I cite. I find that a priori prejudicial and unscientific.

No one has as yet factually disproven anything I have posited. All I hear is that I am a stupid fool to even entertain such weighty problems as what came before the BB and whether an "Infinite past can have a beginning"?

If not, please refrain from comparing my speculative answers as equal to proposing the existence of fairies. That's ad hominem in my book and it is certainly not conducive to a free flowing discussion of questions to which no one has any answers yet.

Write4U:

Well, thank you for the recognition that I am not pulling these ideas out of thin air. Are you familiar with the science I cite and if this is woo or serious science as discussed by the scientific community?
I am certainly not an expert on most of the ideas you have mentioned, but I don't believe you are either. I have heard of some of the ideas. I have done a little reading on some of them. I have not personally attempted to disprove any of them.

Are you claiming that the shape of the universe is settled science?
No. I'm not even sure what the "shape of the universe" might mean, without a detailed context.

That nothing can disprove current science?
It's precisely the fact that things can potentially disprove current science that helps to make it science in the first place. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are generally considered unscientific.

Or is current science a best guess based on available information.
Science is always a "best guess" based on available information, although it is, at this point in history, a very well-informed best guess.

That is pure speculation on your part. You're assuming that I am not following mainstream science. I have already stipulated that I am not arguing against settled science. I only speculate when everyone else is speculating.
It's not pure speculation. I see what you write here. You're an enthusiast for some hypotheses that most experts in the field consider to be fringe science at best. But that's not the main problem. Your own speculations aren't really grounded - not even in the fringe science that you constantly refer to. At best, you seem to have a puppy dog-like trust in certain people you consider to be authorities, and you're more or less willing to follow them wherever they want to lead you.

Are you familiar with these scientists and can you prove they are wrong or that I am wrong using their science?
No. I have never claimed I can prove them wrong - other than Tegmark's claim that mathematics can be physical reality, but I'm relying on your report of his ideas there rather than going direct to the source.

You admitted yourself that you are not familiar with Tegmark's or Hameroff's or Renate Loll's work. Yet you claim they are wrong, because you I am wrong using these hypotheses in my "intuitive conceptualizations". Are you familiar with Hameroff's work? How can you claim I am wrong for using his science? Roger Penrose seems to think Hameroff has something to offer as do several other scientist who do know about these subjects in great depth. Are you familiar with Renate Loll's work? Are you familiar with CDT (causal dynamical triangulation)? Fairy tales? Give me a break!
Where have I claimed that any of these people are wrong (Tegmark excepted)?

All of them have speculative hypotheses. I have some familiarity with Penrose's work and I don't find it persuasive, but then again some of it is out of my field of expertise so I can't absolutely say he's wrong. The stuff on microtubules that I have seen is very far from persuading me that any kind of quantum information processing happens there, but I could be wrong.

As for CDT, I'm not an expert in quantum loop gravity, so I wouldn't presume to weigh in on whether it's right or wrong. Do you think you're better equipped to judge it than I am? You're the guy who says he doesn't do maths, remember.

I say it is purely speculative on my part, but in effect you are claiming that all the science I cite as my source is wrong, without actually having studied their works.
Not at all.

What I'm saying is that you're not adding anything to their work with your own speculations. Nor are you gaining any understanding sufficient to allow you to judge whether there is actual value in the work.

In terms of what you're doing here, on sciforums, it's similar to proselytising. You want us all to jump on your implicate order, microtubule bandwagon, without being able to make a good argument as to why we should be enthusiastic about that.

I get it. You have a faith and you want to share it with us all. But I'm a critical thinker. Sorry to disappoint you.

I can also say that my use of E = Mc^2 is speculative on my part. I can't prove GR or SR. Should I need to be able to prove E = Mc^2. If not, are you going to claim that Einstein was wrong based on my use of that universal constant?
If \$E=mc^2\$ was a hypothesis that I was not convinced is true, then sure, I'd want to see your argument for why you think it is valid, especially if you were relying on it to draw wide-ranging conclusions about a whole lot of other things. I wouldn't be claiming it was wrong unless I could make a good argument that it was wrong, obviously.

See, there is a certain duplicity at work here. Scientists always qualify that current science is never completely settled and absolute and is always open to revision if new information demands it. This flexibility is one of the strengths of science. It is open to revision when that is warranted. Time usually is the judge of the constancy a scientific claim.
Yet you treat my speculations as if they are absolutely false, in spite of your admission that you are not even familiar with the scientific sources I cite. I find that a priori prejudicial and unscientific.
Where have I said that your speculations are absolutely false? I don't believe I've said any such thing (Tegmark excepted, again).

I have merely questioned whether your speculations are justified or justifiable. For the reasons I have given, I don't think they are well-grounded. I think they amount to arguments from authority, at best.

Now I'm not saying that it's impossible I could change my mind if I were to spend a lot of time studying the arguments using the original sources. The fact is, I don't have that kind of time to spend. Nor do I see why I should do the leg work that you obviously haven't done yourself, before coming here to preach the faith.

No one has as yet factually disproven anything I have posited. All I hear is that I am a stupid fool to even entertain such weighty problems as what came before the BB and whether an "Infinite past can have a beginning"?
Everybody thinks about the big questions from time to time. Most people don't get very far with them because they are operating in an information vacuum when they think about those things. Knowledge comes from standing on the shoulders of giants. There are experts on the big bang and on the biology of microtubules and all that stuff. There are professional research communities working on quantum loop gravity. If you're motivated enough, you can go to a university and study up for 8 to 10 years, after which you might be equipped to weigh in on a debate about some detail of quantum loop gravity, perhaps by publishing a paper or two in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Here's an analogy. Suppose you go along and watch a performance by a virtuoso pianist of one of Beethoven's piano sonatas. Having read a few critical reviews of his playing, you go up to him after the concert and start telling him how his technical execution and artistic interpretation of Beethoven are flawed. He asks you what your own experience is with Beethoven and the piano. You say that you can't read music but you've listened to lots of recordings by other artists. You also say that you agree with Critic X, who says that the pianist's technical piano skills are lacking in various ways (some of which he lists). You repeat a line from one of Critic X's reviews, saying that in bars 117-128 of the sonata, the pianist would be better off executing the trill with his thumb and forefinger, rather than with his second and third fingers. The pianist asks you what your own experience of playing the piano tells you about that, and you tell him that you can only play chopsticks, but it's your speculation that Critic X might have a valid point.

What do you think the pianist's reaction might be to your criticism? Note: it is important here to distinguish between your criticism of his playing and that of Critic X, for starters.

(continued...)
You didn't answer the question I asked you, which was: how can a non-physical "potential" create physical things?
Because it doesn't. Where did I use the phrase "non-physical potential"? I believe I used the phrase "latent potential", no?
In your hydroelectric example, the lake's "potential" to be used as a power source doesn't create the pipe or the generator. People do that. That "potential" on its own does nothing.
Right, I don't think I posited that.
Your argument, you will recall, is that the entire universe came about because a non-physical "potential" somehow created everything out of nothing. But how?
Are you sure, I don't recall saying that. I may have used "metaphysical potential", as in
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship[1] between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Okay, so you have an opinion. Based on what?
IMO, there is no such thing as future time. Is there future space? Prove it. Only existing things can be asociated with time, because time emerged along with physical existence.
Tell me, in detail, how time emerges from "duration". What does that even mean? Does it mean anything, in fact, or is it just words?
What would be the duration of travel a distance of 60 miles @ 30 mph? What would be the duration of travel a distance of 60 miles @ 60mph? The time of duration of travel emerges from the moment of departure and is different relative to the speed of change in each example even as the distance is the same. Time is relative (and emerges simultaneous) to chronological change and has no independent existence. Time is an emergent dimension along with the emergence of a chronology of change.
I don't think anything Krauss has written is remotely like what you just claimed.
If I recall, Krauss cited an empty building lot with nothing on it and 2 weeks later a house had emerged on that empty lot where there was nothing 2 weeks before. Apparently he did not consider causality in that analogy. He merely stated factual conditions.
How does the universe's dynamicism create spacetime? Explain.
Einstein (Minkowski). (actually there seems to be no such term as "dynamicism", so I'm really not sure what you are asking).
Spacetime is the background against which events occur. It isn't a thing that can be swallowed. The bending of spacetime is a metaphor, or a model if you prefer. We describe it that way because the mathematics of gravity turns out to be closely related the mathematics of curved surfaces.
Are you saying that we must use a metaphor because we are not quite sure if spacetime is a thing or not? I do like your mention of mathematics in reference to spacetime curvature as related to gravity. Apparently gravity does affect the fabric of spacetime.
You're referring to a measurement of the probability of a dropped needle falling randomly across a line. Dropping a needle doesn't cause the number pi. It just happens that the relevant probability calculation involves the number pi in the result. The reason for that, I think, has something to do with the fact that the needle has a random orientation when it lands - i.e. it has rotation, and as we know pi is related to circles. In other words, in a sense pi was "built into" the experiment from the start.
According to Mario Livio circles have nothing to do with this, yet pi emerges and changes along with the amount of times the needle is dropped.
There's a separate discussion going on about this in a different thread. For present purposes, it is enough to say that the numerical value of the wavelength of a certain type of light is a measurement of a quantity (wavelength), not of a quality (color).
A measurable spectral power distribution?

Part of the problem I'm having is that you are inconsistent with the way you are using words like "potential". For example, just above, you said "A mountain lake has the potential to be used as a power source for electricity." So, am I to take it you meant "A mountain lake has a latency with a mathematical value to be used as a power source for electricity"?
Yes.
Is the type of "latency" you refer to the same in every example, or does it change with the example?
It depends on the context.

Potential
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people. Examples include: In linguistics, the potential mood.
The mathematical study of potentials is known as potential theory; it is the study of harmonic functions on manifolds. This mathematical formulation arises from the fact that, in physics, the scalar potential is irrotational, and thus has a vanishing Laplacian — the very definition of a harmonic function.
In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived. Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained.
Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential. In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, standard electrode potential.In Thermodynamics potential refers to thermodynamic potential.
https://www.definitions.net/definition/potential
Can you please be more specific about the particular thing that is latent with a mathematical value in the mountain lake?
The water mass that may be converted into kinetic power.
Is that the same thing that was latent in the big bang, or is it something different?
I would not compare that to the kinetic potential in a water mass of a mountain lake.
So it seems that your "potential" varies along with the particular situation. What is the use of the word "potential", if its meaning is different for every example?
See above.
You took what I wrote literally rather than figuratively. Haven't you heard that saying before?
Yes I have, and I answered you that if the map of a terrain contains sufficient mathematical detail, they are the same.
Everything in the universe are collections of mathematical patterns and in principle everything can be represented mathematically.
The point is: the description of a thing is not the thing itself. For instance, you quoted with approval the idea that "color is the frequency of light". But color isn't a frequency of light. The frequency of light is a number we assign when we take a particular kind of measurement. Color is a physical property that we perceive with our eyes. We find, of course, that the frequency of light is correlated with the color we observe, but it is a mistake to imagine that the frequency therefore is the color, or vice versa.
Rather than trying to attempt to make sense of this,
I defer to this excerpt from the "Information Integration Theory" by Giulio Tononi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Tononi
While this may sound strange, fundamental quantities associated with physical systems can also be characterized as dispositions or potentialities, yet have actual effects. For example, mass can be characterized as a potentiality – say the resistance that a body would offer to acceleration by a force – yet it exerts undeniable effects, such as attracting other masses. This too has intriguing implications. For example, because in this view consciousness corresponds to the potential of an integrated system to enter a large number of states by way of causal interactions within it, experience is present as long as such potential is present, whether or not the system's elements are activated.
https://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42#Sec29

Wrong. pi is a number that has a specific value. It is theoretically possible to calculate the exact value to as many decimal places as you require. It couldn't be any more specific than that.
I submit that depends on the chance that at some point the number reverts to a whole number, short of infinity.
Recall your original claim: "Pi is an irrational number which can be infinitely large or infinitely small."
Pi is an irrational number. The term "irrational number" has a precise technical meaning in mathematics; it doesn't mean that pi is crazy or follows no rules or anything like that. It is certainly not infinitely large or infinitely small. It is finite. It's value is close to 3, which is neither infinitely large nor infinitely small.
Depends on your definition of "close", it may be finite but it is not an exact value, because it is a ratio dependend on other factors.
Please tell me we are on the same page about pi, after all this. If you can't get a simple piece of mathematics like this straight, then everything else is bound to be an almost insurmountable battle.
I'm not sure, is pi a whole number or a ratio? I refer to wiki:
The number pi, π (/paɪ/) is a mathematical constant. Originally defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, it now has various equivalent definitions and appears in many formulas in all areas of mathematics and physics. It is approximately equal to 3.14159.
Also, π is a transcendental number; that is, it is not the root of any polynominal having rational coefficients. This transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
The term "potential" is well defined in physics (it is related to energy). It is not used in the sense you have been using it. "Mathematical latency" is not a term I have ever come across in physics.
See above.
What on earth would a non-mathematical equation look like? Please give me an example so I know what you're talking about.
2 = 3 ?
The Higgs boson was the prediction of a mathematical, physical theory. Its existence was hypothesised in an attempt to solve an unsolved problem in particle physics. The theory was testable in that it predicted the existence of a particular particle with particular properties. It was tested in the Large Hadron Collider and found to be consistent with observations made there - i.e. the LHC found the predicted particle.
Looks to me that without the mathematics the Higgs boson would still be an unknown quanta.
The ongoing problem I'm having with you here is that you seem to believe not merely that mathematics is useful for describing the universe, but that the universe is mathematics. In doing that, you're again mistaking the map for the territory. By that I mean that mathematics is used as a tool to build testable physical models of the universe. But you appear to think that those models are the universe, or that the universe is the models.
I suggest you may want to revisit Max Tegmark. He proposes that the universe does not have some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematicl properties.
It's equivalent to saying that 17 lb is a rock.
No, its equivalent to saying that on earth a 17 lb rock weighs 17 lbs (by a common scientific standard) and not 18 lbs as it might on a more massive planet than earth.

Last edited:
Here's an analogy. Suppose you go along and watch a performance by a virtuoso pianist of one of Beethoven's piano sonatas. Having read a few critical reviews of his playing, you go up to him after the concert and start telling him how his technical execution and artistic interpretation of Beethoven are flawed. He asks you what your own experience is with Beethoven and the piano. You say that you can't read music but you've listened to lots of recordings by other artists.
I would say that I spent 7 years on the road as a professional musician (bassist) and that I can read music, and have a musical "ear", and listened to several of Beethoven's piano sonatas, which tells me the execution was flawed and not performed as the composer intended.

While I'm at it, after my 7 years on the road, I got married and settled down and spent 7 years as full charge bookkeeper/payroll for a multi-million non-profit organization with 6 seperate bank accounts for 8 federal grants, dealing with federal funds and responsible for filing quarterly reports of every penny spent, plus a combined monthly report to the board. I do have some mathematical experience.
James R said; For instance,
n5=n3+n4
The result sequence is:
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,…
There is no time ordering in the Fibonacci sequence, any more than there's a time ordering built into the counting numbers.
I completely disagree with that statement.
The number 1 comes before the number 2 in the chronology of time.
The universe did not start @ t2, it started @ t1.

Therefore: where n4 is a present number, n3 comes before n4 in the chronology of time.
Thus : (past) n3 + (present) n4 = (new present) n5 in time
and continuing: (past) n4 + (present) n5 = (new present) n6 in time

The result of this chronology in time is: Fibonacci Sequence as an emergent growth function in spacetime (reality).

Sorry, getting tired... need some rest......nite, nite.

Last edited:
(continued...)
But chaos theory is mathematics used to model the physical world. In other words, it provides a description about how unpredictability can emerge in certain kinds of physical systems that are deterministic. It says nothing about mathematics organising itself.
Let's see.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos—states of dynamical systems whose apparently-random states of disorder and irregularities are often governed by deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.[1][2] Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[3]
The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[4] A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.
This can happen even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior follows a unique evolution[8] and is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[9] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[10][11] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as: Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, and self-assembly processes.
When you say "preceding", you are invoking time where there is none.
In a mathematical universe a chronological mathematical function does involve time
There is no time ordering in the Fibonacci sequence, any more than there's a time ordering built into the counting numbers.
When the Fibonacci sequence is employed in a tree's growth of branches, or a sunflower growing its spiral seed formations, the self-ordering sequence is very much time dependent.

As one scientist observed; "Does a sunflower know math? No. It just sets up a little machine (microtubules?) that logically self-organizes the seed growth formation via the Fibonacci sequence".

The reason is that natural selection selected a spiral as the most efficient way for packing long sequences in small closed areas and for (symmetrically) balanced vertical growth.

IMO, you see mathematics as merely a tool to describe a physical universe. In a mathematical universe the values and functions are not descriptive but a sequential (chronological) functional ordering of physical interactions in accordance to extant values and related mathematical functions and is very much time dependent.

E = Mc^2 is a mathematical equation and can theoretically be reversed into Mc^2 = E on a blackboard.
But in the real world, (the value) of E came long before the formation of (the value) M in time.
In a mathematical universe the chronology of the process is the only possible functional mathematical sequence.

Last edited:
(continued...)
I don't think it does away with wave/particle duality at all. It uses the theoretical concept of "pilot waves" to describe the results of things like the two-slit experiment carried out with electrons, for instance.
Yes, as I understand it Bohm postulated that it is the Pilot wave which causes the interferencepatterns and guides the physical particle. IOW, the particle is never a wave form in itself but like a tiny boat carried by the ocean's waves.
There is no particle/wave duality .
What you're telling me is that you find Bohm's ideas aesthetically pleasing, which is fine if you're doing art, but not enough if you're trying to do science.
I find it more credible than the assumption of a particle/wave duality.
You're relying on analogies to try to understand the theory. Analogies can be useful - they are used a lot in science - but they almost inevitably break down, and then you have to deal with the actual theory in all its mathematical complexity.
You are using mathematics as analogical descriptions of physical phenomena.

According to Tegmark, there is no great mathematical complexity, there are great amounts of just a 32 numbers and a dozen mathematical equations. The complexity does not lie in the maths, it lies in the sheer quantities of information.
That's a bad assumption. Personally, I've read a lot of scientific papers that use complicated mathematics, and I would never presume to say that I properly understand the arguments being put just because I have some grasp of the "most fundamental maths" used. Nor would I pretend to be in a position to decide whether those arguments are valid based on my understanding of some lower-level maths.
Are you prepared to argue
physics with Tegmark (a professor at MIT)
Max Erik Tegmark (born 5 May 1967) is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
No. There is no "present" or "past" or "future" in a mathematical sequence. The sequence as a whole just is, once you've defined it sufficiently.
OK, try writing a result before you have performed a calculation.

You are still clinging to the blackboard version of mathematics.
Let me give you a slightly different example: the value of pi, again. There are lots of ways to calculate pi. One way is to make a series of additions of terms, and gradually refine the value of pi little by little. It's similar to calculating each term of a sequence one at a time and adding it to an existing sum. For example, adding the first term we might have pi = 3. Then adding the next term gives us pi = 3.13, then the next one gives 3.1414, etc. You might argue that, therefore, pi is time-ordered, in that you have to have 3.13 before you can calculate 3.1414, and so on.
Yes I cited that in Mario Livio's example of dropping the needle a million times and adding the number of times the needle crosses a line or falls in between the lines.
But this isn't the only way you can calculate pi. There are actually formulas can produce any given digit of pi, without calculating any other ones. Want the 157th decimal digit of pi, or the 500718th? There's a formula for that. So it is not true that you need to know the 156th digit before you can find the 157th digit. In no sense does the 157th digit of pi come "after" the 156th digit, except in the sense that we write the decimal digits in a particular order by convention when we write the whole number.
I don't know what you mean with this, but AFAIK, Pi is never written as a whole number.
2. Since the exact value of pi can never be calculated, we can never find the accurate area or circumference of a circle.
https://www.piday.org/pi-facts/

I hope things are clearer for you, following my post above.
I truly appreciate the time you have taken to point out flaws in my logic. I do not agree with all you have presented, but it has definitely forced me to examine my intuitive logic.

James R said; No!
You're still confusing the map for the territory. The Fibonacci sequence creates nothing. It's just a mathematical sequence of numbers. It might well turn out that the sequence can be used to describe various features of physical systems, but the sequence itself is just a mathematical abstraction. The map of the territory is not made of dirt and grass; it's made of paper and ink. Drawing the map can't make dirt and grass.
Please note I am not introducing map drawing into this conversation, you are. It is really an often used diversionary tactic.
As I understand it, dirt and grass are mathematical patterns with specific mathematical values.
Can you tell me what grass is? What dirt is?
I'm not seeing much logic in your intuition. Logic implies reasoning, not just unfettered imagination. I'm also not seeing much in the way of mainstream science.
Well I base my intuitive logic on Tegmark's hypothesis and that sounds very logical to me.
... Just like the trees and the grass are the lines on a map. You see the problem, yet?
No I don't. Trees and grass are mathematical objects and have nothing to do with crude drawings on a piece of paper.
Oh right. So now you're pretending you have a working understanding of quantum loop gravity as well as Bohmian mechanics.
Do I need a working understanding or just a general understanding? I am not pretending to be a scientist.
Really, is there any point in our discussing Causal Dynamical Triangulation? I don't think so. I don't believe you're equipped to have the discussion, and I doubt I am either. We could both talk about our fantasies, disconnected from any actual scientific theory, but where would that get us? It would just be a waste of time, wouldn't it?
I am not equipped to engage in an in-depth discussion of the fractal nature of spacetime fabric. I am satisfied with narrative of the wiki link I provided. Apparently, Renate Loll et al, do know what they are talking about and their hypothesis has drawn considerable interst in the scientific community.
It doesn't sound to me like this Tegmark guy is worth taking seriously, if you're describing his ideas accurately.
I have provided actual dialogue by Tegmark lest my narrative is flawed. Why do you waste your time by picking my understanding apart instead of taking 15 minutes listening to what Tegmark has to say about his hypothesis.
I'll tell you what. How about you give me a brief description or summary of Bohm's idea about "heirarchy of orders" or "implicate order". If I can make any sense of what you're saying, we can discuss it further. I don't really see any point in reading through a downloadable paper that might not actually relate to anything you've been saying here.
OK, in short, "hierarchy of orders" is the emergence of mathematical/physical orders from an original state of chaos, each order representing a emergent refinement of mathematical values and functions from the very subtle to gross expression in reality.
The "implicate order" as I understand it is the deterministic probability (potential) of the occurrence of a future event based on current extant conditions.
Implicate order and explicate order are ontological concepts for quantum theory coined by theoretical physicist David Bohm during the early 1980s. They are used to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. In particular, the concepts were developed in order to explain the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles which quantum physics struggles to explain.
In Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, he used these notions to describe how the appearance of such phenomena might appear differently, or might be characterized by, varying principal factors, depending on contexts such as scales.[1] The implicate (also referred to as the "enfolded") order is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order include the abstractions that humans normally perceive.
As he wrote;
In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order
How do you hope to understand something like quantum loop gravity without studying any of the mathematics, or gaining the necessary background in quantum or gravitational theory? Surely the best you can hope for is to be able to follow some imperfect analogies.
Not if I use the narrative of knowledgeable scientists. I trust the accuracy of their mathematics used to prove their theories.
Somebody had to trust Peter Higgs' mathematics to invest 13 billion dollars in the collider at Cern, no?
Forbes: Finding The Higgs Boson Cost \$13.25 Billion
Not here you haven't. I can't recall a single source that has "conclusively identified" any information processing capabilities in microtubules.

I'll leave you with this. I am adding this link to my thread in "Alternative theories". There are about 20 pages of available evidence that I have linked.
If you believe you're equipped to argue with actual experts on this, what are you doing here arguing with us amateurs?
If you are not experts what are you doing arguing with me, instead of perusing the some of the links to experts I provide? Just because you may not be familiar with cutting edge science (by your own admission), does not mean it is wrong. I am merely drawing attention to recent developments and my considered logical perspective. You seem intent on killing the messenger in order to stifle the message, without reading the message.
You have disagreements with the critical, peer-reviewed literature on the topic? If so, and if you're so well informed about it all, why aren't you publishing your own papers and debating directly with the relevant experts in the field?
What gave you that idea? You keep insisting that I am arguing against mainstream science. I am not trying to replace anything. I have stated numerous times that I have no quarrel with mainstream science. It is the areas that are still speculative that I am addressing the best way I can, because I am an interested advocate of new areas of scientific investigation. I always thought that was a good thing, instead I am treated as a charlatan that is trying to sell "invisible clothing" to the emperor. Jeez......give me break! I am too old to engage in ad hominem and name calling.

Last edited:
Write4U:

I don't really think it's going to be very productive for me to try to engage with you on many of the details of your faith-based beliefs. The reasons why I engaged with you in the first place in this thread are largely apparent in posts \$143 and #148, above, the content of which you appear mostly to have ignored.

I will make a few comments on matters that aren't huge unopened cans of worms.

Because it doesn't. Where did I use the phrase "non-physical potential"? I believe I used the phrase "latent potential", no?
I quote you, from post #98:

The definition of potential is "that which may become reality", i.e. potential is not physical and therefore not causal to the emergence of time.
Also, in post #149 you refer to a "metaphysical potential". Metaphysics is philosophy, so any metaphysical potential is necessarily non-physical.

This is part of the problem. You use a word like "potential" and you shift its meaning around in every second post, according to your needs. Truth be told, I don't think you even have a clear idea of what a "potential" is in your mind. It's just a useful jargon to inject into your posts.

IMO, there is no such thing as future time.
So what? You have lots of opinions.

What would be the duration of travel a distance of 60 miles @ 30 mph? What would be the duration of travel a distance of 60 miles @ 60mph? The time of duration of travel emerges from the moment of departure and is different relative to the speed of change in each example even as the distance is the same. Time is relative (and emerges simultaneous) to chronological change and has no independent existence. Time is an emergent dimension along with the emergence of a chronology of change.

You give an example asking me to calculate the times required for something to travel a certain distance at a certain speed. Quoting those speeds in the first place assumes that you have a standard of time already in place. You can't use them as an argument for how time itself "emerges" from anything. Dressing it up in fancy jargon, as you have in your last sentence here, doesn't add anything useful

James R said:
How does the universe's dynamicism create spacetime? Explain.
Write4U said:
Einstein (Minkowski). (actually there seems to be no such term as "dynamicism", so I'm really not sure what you are asking).
You know that "Einstein (Minkowski)" is not an answer to the question that I asked. It's nice to know that I may have invented a new word, though. Here's a suggested definition:

dynamicism (n.): the property of being able to change and adapt.​

Write4U said:
Are you saying that we must use a metaphor because we are not quite sure if spacetime is a thing or not?
I'm saying that science is about building descriptive models of the physical world. It often uses metaphors and theoretical constructs. Spacetime is one of those. It is a mistake to think that a mathematical description of spacetime is the physical space and time that the model is describing.

According to Mario Livio circles have nothing to do with this, yet pi emerges and changes along with the amount of times the needle is dropped.
I think part of the difficulty I'm having in communicating with you about this is that you're using the word "emerges" in a bizarre way. The mathematical constant pi doesn't "emerge" from anything, other than the human practice of doing mathematics. It is certainly not brought into being by dropping needles on the floor.

I defer to this excerpt from the "Information Integration Theory" by Giulio Tononi.
From that quote, it seems possible that Giulio Tononi might need straightening out on a few matters, too. I didn't read the article you linked. Something about neuroscience? It seems peripheral to the discussion you and I are having.

(continued...)

Let's talk about Fibonacci and pi (again).

I submit that depends on the chance that at some point the number reverts to a whole number, short of infinity.

Look:

\$pi = 3.1415926535...\$

Pi is not a "whole number". See those digits after the decimal point? Those are what tell you it isn't a whole number.

Pi can't "revert" to a whole number, or to any number other than what it is. It is a fixed mathematical constant. Its value doesn't change over time.

Depends on your definition of "close", it may be finite but it is not an exact value, because it is a ratio dependend on other factors. I'm not sure, is pi a whole number or a ratio?
Pi can be defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It has an exact value, given above, because every circle has the same ratio of the circumference to the diameter. Defining pi this way is not the only way to define it, but all the others ways give the same value, however.

Write4U said:
Try to keep track of what you've written earlier. Remember that you asked me (post #136):

Give me a non-mathematical equation of a universal constant that can be used in any calculation.
I asked you what a non-mathematical equation would look like, and your response is now "2=3". Okay, in light of that, here's my answer to your question:

A non-mathematical equation for a universal constant that can be used in any calculation is \$G=0.00458\$. Since a non-mathematical equation appears to be any equation that is incorrect, according to your example, then here is an equation for a universe constant that is incorrect. You can use it in any calculation you like. You won't get any meaningful answers, but don't let that stop you.

Now, the more important question is: why did you ask for such a thing in the first place? What on earth were you thinking?

Looks to me that without the mathematics the Higgs boson would still be an unknown quanta.
And so....?

I suggest you may want to revisit Max Tegmark. He proposes that the universe does not have some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematicl properties.
Sounds nuts to me.

Can you please link me to an actual quote from him that says that?

I do have some mathematical experience.
All I can say is that the only mathematics we have discussed here so far has involved pi and the Fibonacci sequence, and you haven't had much of a clue about either of those, so far.

Here's the latest from you:
James R said:
There is no time ordering in the Fibonacci sequence, any more than there's a time ordering built into the counting numbers.
Write4U said:
I completely disagree with that statement.
The number 1 comes before the number 2 in the chronology of time.
The universe did not start @ t2, it started @ t1.
The first thing to note here is that your comment about the universe is completely irrelevant. We're talking about counting numbers.

The second thing is that there is no "chronology of time" in the counting numbers. The numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. exist out there in mathematics land as a complete concept. Time is not there in mathematics land with them. There's nothing that says the number 3 comes earlier in time than the number 28.

You're probably confused because when you count, you say "One, two, three..." and you say the word "one" before you say "three", so you think that therefore "one" comes "before" (i.e. earlier in time than) three. But what if you count backwards: "Three, two, one, blastoff!" There, "three" comes earlier in time than "one".

Can you see that there's no time inherent in the counting numbers?

You might argue that 3 o'clock comes after 1 o'clock on your clock. But in that case you're talking about events that happen in time. You're not just dealing with the counting numbers themselves. (Also, 1 o'clock comes after 12 o'clock.)

For all the same reasons, there is no time ordering in the Fibonacci sequence. The number 8 is smaller than the number 21 in that sequence, but it does not "come before it", in the sense of being earlier in time.

Therefore: where n4 is a present number, n3 comes before n4 in the chronology of time.
Thus : (past) n3 + (present) n4 = (new present) n5 in time
and continuing: (past) n4 + (present) n5 = (new present) n6 in time
You're talking about the process of calculating there, not anything intrinsic to the resulting sequence of numbers. Can you see?

Look. Suppose I define a new sequence like this:

\$n_1 = 21\$
\$n_2 = 13\$
\$n_i = n_{i-2} - n_{i-1}\$ for \$n_i > 0\$

Then, applying the rule we will find the following sequence of numbers:
\$21, 13, 8, 5, 3, 2, 1, 1.\$

This is part of the Fibonacci sequence. Does the number 13 come before 21 in this sequence? Is it earlier in time?

The result of this chronology in time is: Fibonacci Sequence as an emergent growth function in spacetime (reality).
No! The Fibonacci sequence has nothing to do with spacetime. There's no mention of spacetime in any definition of the Fibonacci sequence. It isn't mentioned because it's not necessary.

Last edited:
(continued...)

When the Fibonacci sequence is employed in a tree's growth of branches, or a sunflower growing its spiral seed formations, the self-ordering sequence is very much time dependent.
The growth of the tree is time dependent. The Fibonacci sequence is not.

IMO, you see mathematics as merely a tool to describe a physical universe.
Let's assume I do, for now.

In a mathematical universe the values and functions are not descriptive but a sequential (chronological) functional ordering of physical interactions in accordance to extant values and related mathematical functions and is very much time dependent.
Okay. How are you going to tell whether our actual universe is a "mathematical universe" of the kind you describe, or not?

In a mathematical universe the chronology of the process is the only possible functional mathematical sequence.
I've just given you an example above of how we can generate the Fibonacci sequence either "forwards" or "backwards". Where is the absolute mathematical chronology in that?

Are you prepared to argue
physics with Tegmark (a professor at MIT) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
Sure, as long as it's on a topic where I can match my relevant expertise against his. He isn't a God, you know. He's just a man. There's no reason to deify him, as far as I can tell.

You are still clinging to the blackboard version of mathematics.
What else is there?

Please note I am not introducing map drawing into this conversation, you are. It is really an often used diversionary tactic.
As I understand it, dirt and grass are mathematical patterns with specific mathematical values.
Can you tell me what grass is? What dirt is?
Sure! Grass and dirt are physical materials made from atoms, which are also physical things. Grass is not made of mathematics; it is made of physical "stuff". Grass is not a mathematical pattern. You might discern some mathematical patterns within the physical structure of grass, but that's hardly the same thing as claiming that the grass is mathematical patterns.

Well I base my intuitive logic on Tegmark's hypothesis and that sounds very logical to me.
That's not intuition. That's you blindly following whatever Tegmark says.

No I don't. Trees and grass are mathematical objects and have nothing to do with crude drawings on a piece of paper.
This is the sticking point. How can mere mathematics create anything physical? You never really answer this crucial question. A mathematical pattern is a concept, something that exists on paper or in somebody's mind. How can that turn into some real grass that you can sit on, feel, touch?

Do I need a working understanding or just a general understanding? I am not pretending to be a scientist.
If you're going to claim that, for example, quantum loop gravity is the "correct" theory of everything, then I think you're going to need a fairly detailed understanding of the theory in order to justify your claim. If, on the other hand, you're merely saying it's one theory among many that should be considered, then a general understanding might be enough.

Somebody had to trust Peter Higgs' mathematics to invest 13 billion dollars in the collider at Cern, no?
They had to believe it was worth investing money to investigate it, certainly. In that case, the people advising the people putting up the money were expert scientists with a detailed knowledge of the relevant theories and the practicalities of testing them.

If you are not experts what are you doing arguing with me, instead of perusing the some of the links to experts I provide? Just because you may not be familiar with cutting edge science (by your own admission), does not mean it is wrong.
For the most part, I am not engaging with you in order to try to disprove any of your beliefs. I am questioning whether you have good reason to be as confident as you are about those beliefs.

Write4U:

I don't really think it's going to be very productive for me to try to engage with you on many of the details of your faith-based beliefs. The reasons why I engaged with you in the first place in this thread are largely apparent in posts \$143 and #148, above, the content of which you appear mostly to have ignored.
First, I am not doing science, I am not a scientist, I have never claimed that I am a scientist. I am an interested layman who likes to discuss science. Does that clarify my position?
I will make a few comments on matters that aren't huge unopened cans of worms.
I quote you, from post #98:
The definition of potential is "that which may become reality", i.e. potential is not physical and therefore not causal to the emergence of time.[/quote[ I quoted this from the official definition asI already have posited.
potential
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actualitypotential benefits
2: expressing possibilityspecifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in "it may rain")
potential

noun
1a: something that can develop or become actuala potential for violence
b: PROMISE sense 2
2a: any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may be readily calculated
b: the work required to move a unit positive charge from a reference point (as at infinity) to a point in question
c: POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential
Also, in post #149 you refer to a "metaphysical potential". Metaphysics is philosophy, so any metaphysical potential is necessarily non-physical.
OK.
This is part of the problem. You use a word like "potential" and you shift its meaning around in every second post, according to your needs. Truth be told, I don't think you even have a clear idea of what a "potential" is in your mind. It's just a useful jargon to inject into your posts.
I use the word as I believe is applicable in context.
If you have problem identifying the context, I must not have made myself clear enough. Can you point to a specific instance where I used the word out of context?
So what? You have lots of opinions.
So nothing. I reserve the right to have opinions.
Reread it. I'm sure it'll make sense.
You give an example asking me to calculate the times required for something to travel a certain distance at a certain speed. Quoting those speeds in the first place assumes that you have a standard of time already in place. You can't use them as an argument for how time itself "emerges" from anything. Dressing it up in fancy jargon, as you have in your last sentence here, doesn't add anything useful
Speed is time?
You know that "Einstein (Minkowski)" is not an answer to the question that I asked.
It's nice to know that I may have invented a new word, though. Here's a suggested definition:
dynamicism (n.): the property of being able to change and adapt.​
Sure, submit it to Wiki, I'm sure it'll become popular.​
I'm saying that science is about building descriptive models of the physical world. It often uses metaphors and theoretical constructs. Spacetime is one of those. It is a mistake to think that a mathematical description of spacetime is the physical space and time that the model is describing.
It is not, if you accept that the universe does not have some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. Which is Tegmark's claim and I like the simple clarity of that concept. No mystery or magic, just mathematical values and functions.

Let me ask you; do you think the universe has any mathematical properties?

I think part of the difficulty I'm having in communicating with you about this is that you're using the word "emerges" in a bizarre way. The mathematical constant pi doesn't "emerge" from anything, other than the human practice of doing mathematics. It is certainly not brought into being by dropping needles on the floor.
Yes it is, ask Mario Livio. Of course you'll need to draw the lines spaced the exact size of the length of the needle. Livio makes a point of drawing attention that this specific example has nothing to do with circles, but with probability. Look it up, he demonstrates it in the Nova presentation of "the great math mystery" which I have posted several times in other threads.
From that quote, it seems possible that Giulio Tononi might need straightening out on a few matters, too. I didn't read the article you linked. Something about neuroscience? It seems peripheral to the discussion you and I are having.
Have at it.
Integrated information theory (IIT) attempts to explain what consciousness is and why it might be associated with certain physical systems. Given any such system, the theory predicts whether that system is conscious, to what degree it is conscious, and what particular experience it is having (see Central identity). According to IIT, a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system.
IIT was proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi in 2004. The latest version of the theory, labeled IIT 3.0, was published in 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

It is tangently related to Tegmark's work in that it proposes that consciousness itself is a mathematical phenomenon. It also seems to connect with the Hameroff/Penrose ORCH OR hypothesis.
Giulio Tononi (Italian: [ˈdʒuːljo toˈnoːni]) is a neuroscientist and psychiatrist who holds the David P. White Chair in Sleep Medicine, as well as a Distinguished Chair in Consciousness Science, at the University of Wisconsin. He is best known for his IIT, a mathematical theory of consciousness, which he has proposed since 2004 and the symbol of which is Phi (φ)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Tononi

Last edited:
Write4U:

So nothing. I reserve the right to have opinions.
Yes, but you can't hope to convince anybody of anything merely by stating that you hold some opinion or other on it. Not unless you expect people to merely take the truth of what you say on trust, which would be another argument from authority (in this case, your own).

Speed is time?
Speed is distance per unit time. In other words, you can't meaningfully talk about a speed unless you have a pre-existing notion or definition of time.

Einstein in the name of a man. CDT is an abbreviation of the name of an idea. Throwing names at me is not an answer to the question I asked you. Never mind. Let's move on.

Let me ask you; do you think the universe has any mathematical properties?
Depends what you mean by mathematical properties. The universe is 13.7 billion years old (or whatever the number is). That's a mathematical property, in a sense. The universe contains light that has a relativistically invariant speed. That's another property that you could describe as mathematical.

Neither of these things implies that the universe is made of mathematics.

Yes it is, ask Mario Livio.
You're saying (Livio is saying?) that the mathematical constant pi did not exist until somebody dropped a needle on the floor for the first time?

Of course you'll need to draw the lines spaced the exact size of the length of the needle. Livio makes a point of drawing attention that this specific example has nothing to do with circles, but with probability.
It's both, actually. The result of the experiment has something to do with the way that the needle can rotate (in a circle) as it drops onto the floor. I doubt that Livio would contest that.

The details of the calculation, by the way, are available on wikipedia. There are several different ways the problem can be solved.

Look it up, he demonstrates it in the Nova presentation of "the great math mystery" which I have posted several times in other threads. Have at it.
It's not a mystery. It's a completely solved mathematical problem. Multiple proofs are available if you search.