PrimalMinister

Mustn't you ponder the mystery to penetrate it and gain insight? This is what I have done, I have took in all the evidence and come up with a solution. And some of the maths out there is abstract mathematics and not real. Take relativity, spacetime isn't real, its abstract, its just a mathematical tool, its just that it explains the properties of gravity to the best of our knowledge. It's not a deeper insight into the nature of reality.

I mean what are you looking for in a theory of everything? Something eternal? Or temporary? Or is it just eternal for this universe? A theory of everything will give us some insights into the laws of the universe, what do you think these insights will be?

Ok, so I am doing the philosophy of physics. The laws of the universe are everywhere, work in any orientation, and are relative to the things they are supposedly governing. Philosophy asks how the universe manages to pull that off, and maths describes how things move. In the standard model, there is no explanation for how the laws of the universe got everywhere, they just magically do. This begs the question and needs an answer, my framework, or outline gives a credible answer. I mean, can you tell me how the laws of the universe got everywhere? You are the specialists.

I would argue that is what I am doing. I am taking a principle from holography (but the same idea is in other fields as well) and applying it to the universe as a whole, and suddenly, I get all this explanatory stuff before I even get to the maths. So I reckon this is a good place to start. And if true it will be self-evident so while supporting evidence is nice it is not required.

Ok, but if I was going to do the maths I would start here, as I get so much from so little. Do you think it is a bad starting point?

Physics isn't some magical thing only people who do maths can participate in. I read about and listen to physicists talk. If my life had been different I might have the maths, I don't. But existing physicists can't explain the origin of the laws of the universe so it begs an answer. My abstraction polymorphic spacetime is rich and economical, it explains a number of fundamental mysteries about the universe with a simple framework.

I don't know if this is the right forum but as I am an amateur physicist this one seems appropriate. My threads, much to my frustration usually get shut down and I don't think it's very much in the spirit of science, especially because it addresses a very serious subject. I may be an amateur but that doesn't stop me from understanding and solving problems within physics. I don't have the math but I do have a simple abstraction that explains numerous things about the laws of the universe. At present, our current models just assume the laws of the universe kick in at the big bang, there is no explanation for why this happens, it just magically does. You might as well say that an all-powerful God is willing things to be the way they are and at a moment's notice could change it. At present, physicists have got as far as understanding that we have laws, but not 'why' we have laws (this isn't a dig at scientists, I am just stating a fact). And I am not talking about the metaphysical reasons why we have the laws we do, I am talking about the physical reasons why we have the laws we do. So while my theory doesn't have the math it's an excellent start to a theory because if right it explains the following: The origin of the laws of the universe (in space at least, not in time) The ubiquity of the laws of the universe (how they get everywhere) How the universe is imbuing reality with the laws of the universe The physical reasons for why we have the laws we do Current models have no explanation for the above and are also based on questionable assumptions. And this is why I think it's worthy of a discussion because it is essentially, if right, a theory of everything. And that's the thing, if I am right, then the human race makes the greatest discovery of all time, the final eternal truth about the universe. That is why I come here, to see if I can inspire someone to look at it closer. I am not sure physicists are asking the right questions of the universe and its laws which is why they are struggling to uncover the secrets of the universe. But the thing is, they are so close, there is not that much to work out. I think physics has stagnated because physicists are no longer interested in the philosophy of physics anymore and are therefore not asking the right questions thus not getting the right answers. My simple abstraction is called polymorphic spacetime, it takes a principle found in a number of scientific and engineering fields and applies it to the universe on the whole. There is nothing unscientific about it and I think it deserves discussion because it touches on so many interesting topics, like the title of this post. I mean the origin of the laws of the universe seems so obvious to me now but it is a complete mystery to the billions of other humans on the planet. I think a discussion on the origin of the laws of the universe is a worthy discussion to have, especially when I am offering a simple, reasonable, uncomplicated explanation of the origin. So what do the moderators think? Can I have one thread so I can join in on the discussion?

I hope this thread has a good conversation on the topics I will post about because I don't want the thread prematurely shut down again. This is serious business as forwarding human understanding for everyone on earth is at stake. I do not have a degree in physics but I think that may have been an advantage as I was able to ponder the problems I wanted to without the pressure of conforming to academia, funding and prizes. For example, many physicists may believe a theory of everything is the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics, but that may not be what the theory of everything is. I know the emphasis is on me to explain this framework however, it answers questions contemporary physics does not so if you are going to stick with orthodox theories you also have a responsibility to explain the things that are not explained, things I am explaining. I think it is only fair you provide alternative explanations within the orthodoxy. Saying and accepting we don't know isn't acceptable, as Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. You have to know as much about the unknowns as you do the knowns, hence I think this thread is worthy of being kept open as it is a discussion about serious subjects. This framework bucks the trend in the big bang theory to add more to explain more and goes in the opposite direction, explaining more with less. In fact, Stephen Wolfram's work is good evidence for this framework because he proved that is not hard to get complexity from simplicity. My intellectual contribution is the reduction of physics, the universe and reality to a single object, what I have called a unit of polymorphic spacetime. You will notice I said the universe AND reality because in this theory they are two different things. I have taken a principle from holography and applied it to the universe as a whole. Immediately the origin of the laws of the universe is explained, along with their ubiquity, plus you have the reasons why we have the laws we do. Not the metaphysical reasons why we have the laws we do, the physical reasons we have the laws we do. The big take on this is that things do not move around spacetime, instead, spacetime moves things about. So what is a unit of polymorphic spacetime? Well in holography you will find that if you take a holographic plate and fire a laser at it you get a 3D image. However, if you cut the holographic plate into quarters and fire a laser at one quarter you will not get a quarter of the image, you will get the whole image a quarter of the size. This is because the whole image is in every part of the plate. This is what polymorphic spacetime is, it is space and time packaged up in units that contain ALL the laws of the universe in abstract. This explains the origin of the laws of the universe because the universe, like a holographic plate, contains the whole in every part. This also explains the ubiquity, the fact the laws of the universe are everywhere. Furthermore, it explains the physical reasons for why we have the laws we do, it explains how they emerge out of the void. Alas, this cannot be a theory of everything because the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds true meaning the universe dies in a heat death the same as in the big bang. Stars are never created, you have to play God and create the initial conditions for stars in simulations. I have a theory on stars, it includes introducing an object that is like the units of polymorphic spacetime but different. Many people won't like it because it will mean that the universe has a remarkably simple, highly sophisticated, incredibly beautiful design that is not only a marvel of engineering but is also a profound, sublime work of art. The universe is already quite incredible, it may be even more incredible. It doesn't need a God however, not a creator God anyway, as the units of polymorphic spacetime, and the universe itself being entirely composed of them, are immortal. So this post is about units of polymorphic spacetime, not the second object, so there is no discussion about whether the universe has a design, just whether or not you can provide a better origin story. Anyway, back to the theory. As I said earlier the universe and reality are two different things, the universe is real but reality is virtual, spacetime is real and everything that occurs in spacetime is virtual. This is because the units of polymorphic spacetime are generating reality in a never-ending process of creation and destruction with every generation of reality popping in and out of existence and strung together to animate us. So we have this principle of having the whole in every part. A unit of polymorphic spacetime is a cube that contains all the laws of the universe in abstract, as potential. Space is composed of units of polymorphic spacetime. Everything is touched by space. Time is how matter and forces manifest going from potential to actual in a never-ending process of creation and destruction. The input for a unit's creation process is the output of its direct neighbour's destruction process and likewise, the output of its destruction process is the input for its neighbour's creation process. The creation and destruction of reality is what causes things to move around and hold their state according to the laws we already know. Physicists dont have a lot of room for manauvre but it just so happens this framework is within that space.

We have oceans, land and an atmosphere, is it any surprise that we have things swimming in the water, walking on the land and flying in the air? I mean the design of a wing comes from the aerodynamics of the air, wasn't it inevitable wings ended up the way they did? I mean there is light, we end up with eyes, there is sound, we end up with ears, what else was going to happen?

Well I have a theory of everything that explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe so apparently science can answer the question leaving the fact that the current crop of scientists in the field of physics cannot. So science can, scientists cannot. All I did was to take a principle from holography and apply it to the universe as a whole, origin and ubiquity of the laws explained. I am unable to talk about the problem though because of the politics of the website and the prejudice that only someone with 'official' scientific training can do such a thing. Despite me always wanting to talk about the problems and how to solve them, the discussion never seems to be technical but is always full of website politics and prejudice. Science can explain the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe, its scientists that cannot.

I think you meant to say as far as scientists are concerned rather than science because science has no concerns, science is knowledge, not a being. This is just opinion and while I am thankful for your answer it fails to answer the question. I want to know about the technicalities, not what is currently fashionable science philosophy. Why cant physicists explain the origin of the laws of the universe? What is the problem exactly?

As I understand physicists cannot explain the origin or ubiquity of the laws of the universe. How did the laws of the come from somewhere unknown and get everywhere? If you cannot explain this, can you instead explain why we cant explain it?

I will leave this for prosperity, from: If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended. Now the word hypocrital is defined as: "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case." That perfectly describes the admins on here.

There is evidence as I have tried to dicuss before, the main evidence being the fact it self evidently explains itself, that it does not need supporting evidence, even though there is supporting evidence for it, the whole of reality is evidence of it. My complaint is that you are critising it before you even understand it making your critisms pretty pointless because they seem to miss the point I am making. I am a self critical person and always question myself and in the post I refered to in the beginning I didnt particulary make things clear, but I thought you would somehow want to understand it so would ask questions. You didnt, maybe I just dont get internet forums and its nothing to do with the actual science. I will be honest with you, I dont believe the big bang, but not because I am religious, but rather because I have examined it critically and found it wanting. This does not mean I dismiss it, I am simply not convinced by it and would need fundamental questions answered before I was. Furthermore, I have become disillisioned with scientists because I find they are a bit like what people experience with the priesthood when asked questions they cant answer, they will answer its just to complex to fathom for our feeble minds and just trust they know what they are talking about. But I dont trust physicsts, there is this wall of ignorance they do not talk about, they will say the laws of the universe are mysterious but not really talk about why they are mysterious. In that thread someone said that asking questions like 'why is reality mathematical' is the domain of philosophy and religion however what I am suggesting, which is perfectly scientific, clearly and unambigiously would explain 'why' reality is mathematical. So the idea that questions like 'why reality is mathematical' are not questions science can answer is simply not true, science can indeed explain 'why' reality is mathematical. I have listened to people try to answer the question 'why is reality mathematical' and it ends up being philosophical because they are completely and utterly lost. They dont understand the question which is why they cannot answer it. The question of 'why' reality is mathematical is not a philosophical one, its a technical one. People are just plain wrong on this. When asking 'why' reality is mathematical, what you are really asking is 'how is reality imbued with laws', this is not philosophical, it is asking 'what is the physical mechanism by which reality is imbued with laws'. I am sorry, scientists are briliant people but they are fallable too. I mean, if you cant answer this question, if you admit you dont know, that despite all your knowledge there is a wall of ignorance you cant see beyond, if you have nothing to offer of terms of insight, then show some humility.

Ok, as I understand it the letter of the law (the rules I am violating) come from the spirit of the law. If one follows the spirit of the law the letter becomes pointless, its only for people who are not following the spirit. The title of the post is 'The Spirit of Science Forums', so please tell me what the spirit of these forums are?