Re: I need a philosophical opinion ...

.... from the end of your post ...

As you see, I have slightly different views. Can we make something out
of this???

Certainly can ... I have attempted to state my counter argument as
clearly as possible! I look forward to your reply.

<snippety snip>


xxein: I enjoy a puzzle. I hate it when there is no real solution.
So, I do physics to remedy that.

Is everywhere the same in/to anywhence? Is a universe (or beyond) in a
motion of expansion while certain segments of it are in a motion of
contraction (gravity)? Is this included in your Mandlebrot set of
fractality? If so, you are on the right road to totality.

Yes, in my description of spacetime, every point contains the entire
structure of spacetime. If you start at point A and zoom in (or out)
for ever, you'll arrive back at point A. I think an irreducibly complex
object with possibly infinite fractal dimension is a much more elegant
picture than a 3d/4d/11d "box with stuff in it." Be they corpuscles,
particles or strings :)


There is only so much energy in a system (say a universe, by our
standard). By this I mean that energy used to induce expansion rate
can be used by gravity. It will reduce the increasing rate of
expansion. But this is neither open nor closed-ended. If there is no
end, why should there be a beginning?

I personally think the big bang/crunch and the expansion of the
universe are some sort of grand "optical illusion". ;) I have no
evidence to this effect. Intuitively, think of the BB singularity as
occuring at an infinitely distant point in the past ... The universe is
infinite and closed. It is precisely incomplete (from our POV) and
consistent (from the universes POV)!


Long ago, we invented 'god' to give short shrift to unanswered
questions. We endowed that god with 'eternity', "always was and always
will be". Why can't we use the same reasoning for a mere physic that
we don't understand yet? Are we THAT blueprinted?


God is our concept of 'the sum of all unknowns'. It is easy to see why
our primitive notions of "god" were as a human-like being (heavenly
father, all that bull***.) Our brains evolved to deal with social
interaction, it is little suprise that our earliest explanations of the
unknown were social. "The force that I do not understand *must* be a
person". Some of us are somewhat more enlightened these days.

I do agree with you, at some point we will simply have to accept that
the universe "just exists." We can explain everything that happens in
the universe with logic, but we can never explain why it ever came into
existence in the first place. Some things are just utterly unknowable.

Even if we manage to poke our heads out of the Brane we are on and look
at the wider 'multiverse' (if it exists, I think string theory is
gobbledegook. Mathematically beautiful, but physical hogwash) then we
will be left with the same damn conundrum. What space is the multiverse
embedded in? There is only the "universe" and it contains absoultely
everything that exists, including itself. (It's a fractal)

It may be more proper to compare a scalar existense 'here' (macro) to a
scalar existense 'there' (micro). Is that a different look and feel
for out skewed observation? We don't have the same observation quality
in a herewhence or a therewhence either. We have to anneal that to a
successful description of a physic. No, we haven't done that yet.

Mapping one to the other (M, U) involves more than one set of
infinities. They are of a different breed and composed only from our
feeble minds (no gods, please).

I suggest that you read up on the differences between the various kinds
of inifinities. (the wikipedia page about Cantor is a good place to
start) Aleph nought is the 'countable infinity.' An inifinitely large
set that can be ordered (like the natural numbers) has cardinality
aleph nought.

The set of all real numbers has cardinality Aleph one. This is because
the set of all real numbers is the powerset of the natural numbers. (a
countably infinite set of countably infinite sets.)

of course, if you believe of this then it means you are accepting the
axiom of choice, which most mathematicians do.


We can see that different math expressions approach infinity more
rapidly than others. Why, unless we give them that intrinsic? We must
be careful that our real physic is described in such a manner that
correponds to ITS intrinsic. It may be continuous, but still discreet.
We haven't found that level of granularity yet. And that is but one
key to its understanding. The other is the adiabatic question. How
does this granularity lump into what we see and measure as
energy-matter, planets-stars, absorbed photons, etc.

QM is pretty good evidence that various states of the universe are
discretized, even if they aren't isomorphic to the natural numbers!
Examine my paper again, you will see that I am describing exactly and
object that is discreet, but infinitely structured (continuous if you
like.) In addition, have a look at the maximal compression inequality
and then ponder the second law of thermodynamics, total entropy must
always increase. "f" is the unfunction of "u", if you reverse time,
things do not look the same, but if you reverse infinitely many
symmetries, you can swap u and f. (erg, I think, complex argument
behind this)


I almost forgot! QM cannot do it either. While it has an account of
energy and matter, it cannot account for any change of stasis. Iow, it
cannot differentiate universal expansion from gravity at a functional
level. If it recognises an adiabacity at all, it cannot describe the
subtle change between + and - as related to the larger system (above).
Can it?

There are certainly some things that QM can never describe, that is the
point of my thesis! remember under charge symmetry, + and - are just
two sides of the same coin, you can swap +'s with -'s and everything
looks the same. Just consider the fundamental symmetries of the system
:)


You are thinking (exploring, investigating and open-minded). Thank
you.

Thankyou!

.

Quantcast