The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280148 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2275 on: 13/09/2016 20:10:23 »
There are different ways to see it. As static slices of 'reality' presented to us in 'time', which then presumes some sort of predestination as far as I can see, not unlike watching a movie unfold, with you too inside the same. Another way might presume information exchange inside that 'plane', still with 'time' giving you those 'slices' though.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2276 on: 13/09/2016 20:12:01 »
And that's also a question of if 'free will' exist, or not.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2277 on: 13/09/2016 20:13:07 »
so, information exchange, does it exist?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2278 on: 13/09/2016 20:29:14 »
I think it does, and defining it so, 'c' can't be surpassed. This universe depends on exchanging information, which means that any situation in where information only pass one way, will become meaningless to us inside it. A black hole then either exchange information, or it doesn't. If we assume Hawking radiation to be a tangibly real phenomena it then should mean that black holes doesn't 'open' somewhere else, they are stuck in the same 'universe' as we. Alternatively, assuming this to be wrong, a black hole becomes a one way passage that won't tell us a thing. A 'white hole', on the other tentacle, should then be a opposite, the refutation of all ideas I have on the importance of information exchange inside a universe, for it to exist.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2279 on: 14/09/2016 08:46:08 »
You could also see our universe as some sort of four dimensional container, but that one clashes with the idea of a unrestricted volume, a 'infinite space'. So, not a container in a ordinary sense then. Still contained in the sense of rules defining it though. I don't hold with the idea of those rules 'changing' with for example distance myself. The reason for that is that I differ between local definitions versus global. It's the local definitions of rules that sets the global for us, as I see it, and assuming that they will be different 'somewhere else' inside our universe makes no sense. Those rules are local measurements first, then becomes our infinite universal description of what communications existing. And you need to see that those local rules are the exact same, equivalent in each point of this universe, no matter a later global description of time dilations and length contractions etc, etc. Quantum mechanics is the way to go there, to see how it builds up, at least the way I think of it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2280 on: 14/09/2016 08:50:40 »
And scales. Everything comes down to what scale you use. Is one scale more 'right' than another? Is string theory more true than quantum mechanics? And quantum mechanics more true than SR and GR?

It's about scales, isn't it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2281 on: 14/09/2016 08:54:50 »
We get fooled by the way we look out, seeing this infinite universe communicating with us, and us with it. It's communication that builds it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2282 on: 14/09/2016 09:00:54 »
And no, all scales are equivalently 'true', presuming we can prove our ideas for how they/it behaves naturally.

They 'co-exist'.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2283 on: 14/09/2016 09:03:51 »
One simple reason for all those scales being true is that they all communicate. It's not as if there is layers of 'logic' scales unrelated to each other. All of them is our universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2284 on: 14/09/2016 09:12:07 »
seen from a field perspective the idea of real touchable matter existing becomes strange, and the idea of living even stranger. In my eyes what we call 'emergences', building up/emerging from foundations of rules. But all leading to it 'co-exist', all of it constantly present. Then there is 'time', a one way arrow of time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2285 on: 14/09/2016 09:23:26 »
Think about it, a one way arrow of time? Why not 'two way' :). As the assumption seems to be that everything communicates? Which one is simpler for a communication, a one way arrow, or a two way? I prefer a one way arrow. That lays the logic of 'two way communications'. A arrow in where you somehow would be free to choose direction would give me a infinite headache.
=

and a infinitely convoluted logic too
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2286 on: 20/09/2016 10:24:06 »
Let's discuss 'now'. Does 'now' exist?
Sure, although we will miss it as soon as we notice it, sort of :) That's the philosophical aspect of a 'now'. We can't catch it, it's already passed as we conceptualize it. Then again, 'mow' is where we constantly are. In physics a 'now' becomes a question of relative 'what' you want to define it, it's about ones coordinate system, in space and time. Different speeds. 'accelerations', mass, presents different answers as one compare events trying to define a simultaneity of events.

what one can notice though is that there is needed a observer, and that this observer use local definitions relative what he/she observes. Even when using coordinate systems that won't be local you will need a base from where to construct them, and that one should be local.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2287 on: 20/09/2016 10:31:49 »
Locally defined now always exist, including everything that communicates with you at any given instant, all of it belonging to that 'now'. It won't matter that it takes some minutes before we notice the sun extinguished, when its light disappear will be your local 'now' of at what time it happened, for you. You act on the universe, and the universe act on you.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2288 on: 20/09/2016 10:35:34 »
another thing that works for us, is that we happen to have a one way arrow. That means that we should be able to agree on in what order events happen, even at those times where we can't agree on the 'simultaneity' of those events. Without that order?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2289 on: 20/09/2016 10:38:44 »
A 'now' is also abstract, it's not really about defining particles relative each other. It's an abstraction of 'pure events', not unlike thoughts :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2290 on: 20/09/2016 10:39:52 »
We live in our thoughts.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2291 on: 20/09/2016 10:52:38 »
It might be particles, it might be discontinuous, or, a flow and 'waves', it might also be both, and then a 'field'. You won't notice a 'flickering universe', because you are that universe. No way to observe 'flickering' from a inside of it. And time is what 'moves it'. So, maybe it's a static flow :) eh, don't ask me what that means. It's not a movie in any ordinary way though, if you accept your inability of observing 'in between' those flickers that define your consciousness.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2292 on: 20/09/2016 10:55:09 »
So, a 'flow' then, at least macroscopically. But I always liked the idea of 'particles' myself, it goes so well with QM and 'light quanta'. Then again, a 'field' is something different, isn't it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2293 on: 20/09/2016 11:12:52 »
So, what gives the 'field'?
Time?

Where would the field be without a observer? And what are the prerequisites for anything being able to observe anything? I don't mean eyes, although it's one partial answer naturally :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2294 on: 20/09/2016 11:18:29 »
Communication.

And the prerequisite for communication then?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2295 on: 20/09/2016 13:46:21 »
I would expect you to need 'a one way arrow' for it, aka 'time'.

Assume 'time' to be a construct though, created inside, failing to do so becoming this 'in between'. Would it matter how it behaved? I don't see how one could prove 'reality' to be flickering or not. Maybe one could imagine a weak proof if finding regular fluctuations though? Most probably not. And in the end it won't matter anyway, as we won't be able to place ourselves outside SpaceTime, looking 'in'. And then there is a question of durations too, well if so :) also meaningless, but but still interesting. Anyone with an idea of how to test a flickering universe?

My own definition of a 'observer' is the one in where a 'communication takes place', doesn't need to presume consciousness for that, although any observation that leads to hypothesis's by its own nature implicate a conscious minds effort to cogitate and draw conclusions. We use 'observers' in the meaning of the later definition normally , where one implying that 'gravity communicates' falls more under the first definition to me, and also fits the universe better. especially if you define it as a four dimensional continuum.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2296 on: 20/09/2016 14:00:19 »
This global definition of a universe communicates, and it started everywhere. The Big Bang was where you are, and where I am too. We look out to define lights limits/age but the same can be said of any species, anywhere in this universe, having the same experience as us. They may define us as being the 'earliest light', depending on from where they measure. No center to it, as far as I see. And if that is true then defining it as 'growing' ftl in those first 'instances' becomes rather misleading to me, as it then should do so everywhere. Where would my 'pivot' of reference be for that?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2297 on: 20/09/2016 14:06:14 »
Using the surface of a balloon to describe it is misleading, as it assume this balloon, then involving dimensionalities to further obfuscate it. The Big Bang is local  :) Just as local as your other standards of measuring, although we from those draw all kinds of conclusions about our global environment.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2298 on: 20/09/2016 14:09:34 »
Now, what would that say about a entanglement?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2299 on: 20/09/2016 14:12:35 »
'c' is about limits of communication. And it 'propagate' in this global definition we use.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2299 on: 20/09/2016 14:12:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums