[Ethos_]

Heh

You need to define what you mean by bulk Ethos.
Do you suspect it to preexist?

Yes; I believe it to have an eternal past and an eternal future.

I can imagine this Bulk to be an infinity of nothingness wherein many, if not an infinity, of universes could exist. This is where true space exists, the empty void where a vast number of universes might reside.

I've made a point in other threads to suggest that I believe there is no space empty of field. But this remark is only applicable to the space within our own universe. It may or not be true within the Bulk.

I prefer to think that the Bulk is devoid of field, where no spatial fabric exists, only emptiness separating the many possible universes. But alas, this is only conjecture on my part without proper substantiation and will likely remain so for a very long time.

[yor_on (OP)]

Never mind Ethos

Just make it into a mathematical space, equivalent to that mathematical space in where many worlds theory lives. That's a better type of bulk than any other I can come up with.

[yor_on (OP)]

although, if you do, you need to leave the arrow. That type of bulk isn't about a arrow. There will be no way to sort things as being before something else. It's more of a static reality in where everything that ever has been and ever will come to be 'co-exist'.

It's the same 'bulk', if so, that I think of when referring to HUP and indeterminacy.

[yor_on (OP)]

that's another problem with the many worlds theory actually. As far as I get it, it is about outcomes, ordered as a string of pearls, each 'pearl' then initiating its own mathematical space in where all outcomes, imaginary possible from that event, will initiate somewhere, with universes included. There are other ways to look at it, but they are all unsatisfactory to me. They don't have the logic I prefer.

As a static mathematic space though of its own, no arrow involved, I have no problems with it though. I think that way is simpler, and also, highly possible.

but when it comes to events creating a infinity of alternative events I find the logic lacking in simplicity and beauty. As well as it has to use a arrow. but the arrow isn't in that mathematical space at all.

[yor_on (OP)]

Why people like it, and why I too has a sweet spot for it. I think is a result of it promising some sort of 'eternal justice' and equilibrium. As we all then are in equilibrium, no one totally a victim and no one totally a perpetrator, as long as we accept those 'alternatives' as being part of ourselves.

But if you don't, and I don't, then it has no specific ethics of 'justice' involved. Although it still could be seen as some sort of equilibrium. But the equilibrium we refer to here, doesn't need this string of pearls to exist. It's already apparent in HUP and indeterminacy.

[yor_on (OP)]

Using a mathematical space, without involving arrows, makes it impossible to define a many worlds theory I suspect. They may exist, but if dimensions are a result of a SpaceTime, and with it this arrow, obeying a same physics, then why can't those 'universes' communicate?

Because to call them 'separated' involves limitations, and if it isn't non-equivalent physics, then? What have you left? Degrees of freedoms maybe, or 'dimensions', separating them.

[yor_on (OP)]

the important thing to remember before losing oneself into the mathematics, is that I presume dimensions to be coupled to a SpaceTimes existence, as described from its inside. And that is connected to a arrow. So you can't really invoke any eye of a God, to look at a infinite sea of 'alternative universes' constantly bifurcating under some eternal arrow.

The arrow is a result of a universe existing. That's also why it makes most sense discussing it as a symmetry break.

[yor_on (OP)]

And why I do it? A long story, but it started with observer dependencies. Either you believe them to be true, or you think of them as an man made and physical artifact. I tried to find a reason for them and this is what it lead me too. It's as real as anything you ever will know in this universe. Einstein seems overall to be a person QM find uncomfortable, but he really isn't. He's perfectly on the spot when it comes to how the universe works, the thing with him that first confused me was his preference for a 'container universe' in where time dilation and Lorentz contractions becomes a proof for times illusionary existence. But that I think, goes back to his trust in logic, and that there's should be a reason for things happening. In the end maybe also on a trust in something more than just us.

The only thing needed to make a better sense of Einstein from a quantum realm is to exchange the container idea to one where the container is the artifact, created from physics. The problem there is that it is not only Einstein that thinks of containers, of different kinds. You can find it, if you look hard enough, almost everywhere.

[yor_on (OP)]

You might summarize it into a question of time. Either time is a illusion, or it is a constant.

and as I adhere to the point of there being several way to describe this universe, yet expect one of them to make more sense, to me I use it as a constant, and that one is so simple. from that follows that a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation is a result of frames of reference interacting. And decoherence makes a lot of sense too, as it is about conglomerates, giving you that ideal constant of a arrow, locally defined as equivalent to the concept of 'c'.

And doing so there became more and more questions to my mind, about preconceptions that we don't even notice in ourselves. The final one, I think? Is the one about 'containers'. Lose the container and you will find new ways to define a universe. Although it might end in a 'container description', that container should be one of logic building from the very small.

[yor_on (OP)]

Actually it made me start to reread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

Neither Erik Verlinde, nor Gerard 't Hooft, are easy to fool I think. I still have a problem with holography, and objective dimensions existing, as the reason though.

[yor_on (OP)]

And naturally, determinism as the reason for a universe. I think that what allows the concept of free will is indeterminism. That 'space' in where everything co-exist is where we go to find that free will, ideally described. You might also consider it from the opposite, a totally logic, linear, deterministic system, in where only the outcome chosen ever could be? Does that fit you, and your actions? All assuming that we still can define probabilities. A perfect system like that shouldn't have probabilities btw. Because a probability assume that there are several opportunities equally existing, only differed by how we find nature to behave most of the time.

So a perfectly deterministic system should be one where probability won't exist at all, only one outcome possible.

[yor_on (OP)]

That should mean that QM cease to exist. As well as Einsteins observer dependencies. And your free will.
=

Maybe you could incorporate some type of determinism locally though? I see it as we have local constants after all, but when combining it into this seamless picture of a universe described by observer dependencies?

Then again, would a perfect determinism allow HUP?

[yor_on (OP)]

There is one more point to it. Indeterminism does not state that 'this is what it is'. Determinism though, does. To me it seem to want what I call a 'container logic', a 'isolated system' that is 'controlled' in all aspects, unknowable for now but when known, taking us back to a 'Newtonian era' of full understanding.

Maybe the universe is like me not entirely sure on anything and so like to keep its possibilities open,. that's also what I mean when asking if you might be able to introduce some kind of determinism locally. As what I think we should meet, isolating a 'point', are just constants.

But we also find a indeterminism there, don't we?
As HUP?

It also depends on how you want to define HUP naturally. As a indeterministic principle in itself, or as a deterministic principle statistically seen? Or both?

[yor_on (OP)]

Entanglements are a perfect illustration to why I think we can't know it all. A deterministic model of a entanglement must rest on hidden variables, that steer the down converted photon into opposite spins. In such a model there should be no possibility of randomness. As well as I also see it as a support for our free will, as there is no known way to predict the spin beforehand, although there should be statistical rules for its proportionality, 'up' or 'down' when repeating experiments a sufficient amount of times.

That is not too far from that situation in where you find yourself 'of two minds', not sure of what you will choose, uncertain. So what you find to be macroscopically true isn't isolated to that, it exist everywhere.

[yor_on (OP)]

You might say that the universe make at least one choice. that choice isn't about this opposite spin we expect the unmeasured photon to have. It's about the spin you will see as you measure. Because even though the probability for 'up' or 'down' is 50% each way, once you've measured it it is set. And the choice of how that spin would turn out wasn't yours, unless you cheated. That the other photon then 'knows' the way it turned out is a added treat.

[yor_on (OP)]

And I don't think it matter for this how you want to 'isolate' your system. If you want to include the experimenter as well as the equipment, or how ever you want to set limits. It won't change the fact that there is no way to know that first measured spin, before you do it. So you can build out this 'isolated system' as far as you like, as far as I can see it won't change a thing here.

[yor_on (OP)]

Looking at it statistically we always 'know' the opposite spin, because as far as experiment goes this is what we see repeating itself, ideally now. Practically there are all kinds of complications involved in this kind of experiments. But we can also remark that this 50& probability of what the first spin will be measured as, is unknowable. but something 'decided' it, otherwise we wouldn't have a outcome.

[yor_on (OP)]

So you don't only, in a deterministic system, need hidden parameters for why there always seem to be opposite spins, you also need some hidden parameter for defining the first spin. If you don't set that, only set why the spins are opposite you end up with a incomplete deterministic system.

[yor_on (OP)]

To assume that hidden parameters would be a result of the whole of the universe communicating, 'everything' setting the state of 'everything', somehow, is a possibility naturally. But as a entanglement is presumed 'instant' you then need parameters that communicates faster than 'c'. Although iIf you to it add modern ideas, differing between communication that is useful/meaningful in some motto, from communication that you can't use for anything meaningful, then it might work?

That one can be seen two ways, as a conventional 'container model' of this universe. Or, possibly also working from some local definition. Maybe you will need both to prove it, if so.

And it doesn't change that I seem to presume ftl for it. A more preferable way (to me) would be to prove that is is a consequence of the way the universe exist. Not ftl as such, instead a question of what makes a universe, and dimensions?

[yor_on (OP)]

what does that state about our preconceptions? The idea that we can differ between meaningful and not meaningful information? Allowing the non meaningful to be faster than light in a vacuum? To me it says that we believe this universe to be logical, the things that makes a difference to us must make sense. And what about those things that doesn't make sense? As a entanglement?

Well, they are allowed, but they won't make a difference to us.