Re: space-time + matter/energy OR space-time-matter


Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
Michael Hell wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
Michael Hell wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
MobyDikc wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:

[snip]
Space-Time-Matter(STM) is a fine concept and ideally that is how an
ultimate model would go. We've gotten to the point of accepting time as
knit with space and certainly we have to admit that it's all one thing
knit together in the spirit of universality, but how we instantiate
'things' is of crucial importance isn't it? We are discussing a basis
concept, a place where a few minor tweaks can have resounding
consequences. So I would validate your position Moby but also suggest
that it is going to go a lot deeper than you've constructed it.

Yes. You're exactly right.

The first step is to realized that much of what is true about space and
time is also true about matter.

I would describe them as memes, and I think your description is nearly
identical to what I mean by that:

Qualities come to our senses and we incorporate the notions of space
and time and matter as segmented after many generations of information
transfer. [snip]



So how does it all work.

Try this:

The physical space-time-matter is also the phenomenal space-time-matter
; the physical and the phenomenal are one in the same.

However, they are just expressions of the neuronal wiring in our
brains.

But our brains and their neuronal wiring are space-time-matter, so how
can that be?

We need to differentiate between absolute space-time-matter and
relative space-time-matter.

Absolute space-time-matter is a deterministic and perfect binary
system.

In this binary system happens to contain things that may act like
electrons and protons, and atoms and molecules, and organs and brains.

If the absolute space-time-matter happens to contain a structure that
is acting like a brain, creating a memeplex (many generations of
information transfers) it is literally defining an new relative
space-time-matter.

That relative space-time-matter will have incomplete and skewed
knowledge of matter, space, and time.



This is all of course the ideas of Newton's contemporary and adversary,
Leibniz.



This is close to where string theory is going. Right now they're
packing all these hidden dimensions onto the existing ones.

Sooner or later, someone will say "What if we start with the hidden
dimensions, and try to derive the ordinary ones from them?"

Then they'll have the idea that the mind is the what creates the
relative dimensions from the absolute ones, and walla.

You seem to take an anthropic approach.


Perhaps. It is more related to the mind than human's in particular.

The important point is that the relative space-time-matter we
experience in life, and study in science, is really the mind's attempt
at creating a model of the abosolute space-time-matter where it exists
and operates.

Relative reality is the mind's model of absolute reality.

Again, ideas that have been around as long as Newton. But until physics
started getting wierd last century, these ideas were too wierd
themselves, and so mostly forgotten.


I'm not much for that but if we allow for human existence I would argue
that we must then allow for tremendous complexity and stability. Is
stability an assumption of a model or is it yielded by the model?


Not sure what your question means entirely.

We don't want an artificial model. This model is supposed to actually
be reality, though we have to admit that we are not capable of making
that ultimate conclusion; we might be wrong. We cannot simply start
with nothing. Something must be granted. The more slender that granted
basis the better, presuming that it yields the appropriate
consequences. If we allow that our model is not the ultimate model then
we would merely like a jump in the right direction. Partial theories
are OK. That is how science works. I think that a strong model will
yield stability rather than take it as an assumption, but I still leave
this open.


The grounds for the universe (and models of it) requiring a human being
are based on the empirical fact that there are humans in the universe.
Right?

I don't see humans as a necessary part of the universe. We are
optional.
I accept that a model's consequences should match observed reality.
To do this down to instantiating a planet Earth and a homo sapiens et
al is beyond my realm of expectation. A general yield of complexity and
stability will be sufficient. Determinism will not necessarily ensue.
Upon predicting a human being have we entered a deterministic system?
I think so.


Interesting that you would expect the Earth to be necessary for the
human being, but not so.

The model should be a computer simulation of charged particles. With
enough fooling around, one should be able to arrange the particles into
the basic atoms. Those programs can then be saved and recalled with a
single line.

The intent of all this would be to create programs that can instantiate
in a single line anything from oxygen molecules, to transistors, to
organisms.

So the earth shouldn't be necessary for the observer, which doesn't
necessarily need to be a human being either.


I've seen it mentioned that Einstein believed that "underneath" the
Lorentz transformation was an objective reality, where things like
length contraction and time dilation didn't exist.

I'd venture to say that quantum wierdness didn't exist there either.

These strange phenomena only occur in our subjective realities.

In relativity and quantum mechanics there are mathematical
transformations and techniques to make up for our subjective
observations.

My suggestion is that the theory of everything will replace those
mathematiacal transformations with the algorithm of an entire brain
(memeplex) to transform a single set of raw data (objective reality)
into the subjective experience, which is relative and uncertain.

So is reality deterministic?


Absolute reality is.

Not relative reality.


This question takes time in a context that I am not comfortable with
any more.
With your STM paradigm truly formed the ability to remove time from
space and matter would go away right? Then the context of determinism
may be a broken context. The isolation is not valid. Even just taking
spacetime as unified we can enter this argument.

Your theory (last paragraph above) sounds humancentric. Physics is
about discovering the basis. To place a complex brain in the basis is a
conflict. If by brain you mean something which repeats the same
fundamental operations over and over yielding complexity then I can go
there, but the focus would then be the fundamental operations. That
they can happen over and over comes for free.



Science is about explaining our observations, and physics is about
finding a basis to all thoe observations.

I would think putting the observer (brain with instruments) itelf into
the basis would be a reasonable suggestion.

Why do think there is conflict?

.

Loading