Thought Experiments

[PrimalMinister]

I am 42 now but when I was about 23 I had what I believed was a profound realisation about the universe, I still think about it today and it is no less profound to me. This realisation was related to what science calls the theory of everything. It wasn't and isn't a theory like todays, but it is an idea, an insight into how the universe is actually doing what it does. Although I am not classically trained in physics this does not mean I am bad at maths or can't read about the maths, its just not that important to this insight. In fact, the insight is about explaining why the universe is mathematical in the first place. Anyway, this realisation took about 6 years to unfold, until I had another profound realisation about this insight. The end result is that I had realised what must be the perfect universe, and it could be possible that our universe is also perfect, if this idea matures in to a full fledged theory subject to the scientific method, and it turns out be the actual truth, the final theory of everything.

 

This insight came about because I was thinking about a subtle problem in physics, which with the utmost respect to those with degrees, is likely not in the curriculum, even if you have done a Phd. I am not saying that Phd's don't think about this problem, its just that you could have gone through you whole science career and simply not thought about it. The thing is, if I am for example right with this idea, then I happened to solve a very abstract problem that is critical to understanding the theory of everything. Anyhow, I think it is worthy discussing this problem because otherwise you could say the whole universe is powered by 'magic' and be valid. I do not think the universe is powered by magic, I think there must be an explanation for what appears like magic.

 

So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented.

 

And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic.

 

I was not lucky enough to have gone through university and have people with the same interests to talk to about it, so I am here to now claiming that this idea or insight is worthy of discussion and may turn out to be true. There is evidence for it and it is supported by logic, its complementary to current science and is a sort of third way between our current paradigms.

 

This is how I envisage the conversation going:

 

1. That knowledgeable, skilled physicists can say that, after consideration, the problem I am trying to explain exists and needs a solution.

2. That, understanding the problem, people offer up solutions.

3. That I offer a solution and see if it solves it.

 

It should be noted that I am not religious, I don't believe in God or all the stories in holy books, but I am not convinced by the big bang either, or aspects of evolution. I am not convinced with explanations of how life came about, the emergence of sexual dynamics, the emergence of flight, I am not convinced adaptation by natural selection can take us from a single cell to human beings. I am squarely on sciences side, its just I don't think we have got it right yet, and for some reason, which I am sure some people will speculate on, believe I could be on to something.

 

So my first request is to knowledgeable, skilled physicists, is this a problem and does it need a solution. Thanks for any responses.

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

The questions of why the universe has rules, why they are what they are, where they come from, could they be different, are they different in different parts of the universe etc. are real questions that many people, from philosophers to physicists have given thought to.

There are various possible explanations. For example, there are multiverse models where different universes may have different laws - maybe we just happen to live in one with the rules we see - there is a version of this where the rules have "evolved" over multiple universes to some sort of "best" solution. Maybe the rules that exist are the only ones possible (anything else would not create a stable universe). Or maybe there is some underlying theory that the physics we see emerges from. I'm sure there are others - those are just the ones that occur to me immediately.

It will be interesting to hear if you have any suggestions...

[studiot]

Have you posted this material elsewhere, I'm sure I've seen something very similar somewhere?

You also have a couple of related threads here that you seem to have abandoned following answers and comments by other folks?

 

 

[swansont]

17 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented.

 

That's an issue that people working in "foundational" physics might think about, and also one of philosophy. For most physicists, it probably has no impact on their work.

17 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic.

 

There is certainly discussion about whether certain phenomena are "emergent" properties or whether they are fundamental. 

But I fear you have not actually provided a solution. Rather, you have just kicked the can down the road, so to speak: Where do the "higher" laws come from? Is it turtles all the way down?

[Strange]

There are theories that the universe may be in a metastable, "false vacuum" state. There could be multiple such states with different laws of physics. I mention this because a paper related to this has just been published and Katie Mack has just written an article about it: http://astrokatie.blogspot.com/2018/09/extra-dimensions-black-holes-and-vacuum.html

[beecee]

On 9/14/2018 at 4:47 AM, PrimalMinister said:

I am 42 now but when I was about 23 I had what I believed was a profound realisation about the universe, I still think about it today and it is no less profound to me. This realisation was related to what science calls the theory of everything.

Hmmmm, sounds like a "mystical experience"  These happen on occasion and is evidence of nothing more then the randomness of one's own subconcious and the brain...

Quote

This insight came about because I was thinking about a subtle problem in physics, which with the utmost respect to those with degrees, is likely not in the curriculum, even if you have done a Phd. I am not saying that Phd's don't think about this problem, its just that you could have gone through you whole science career and simply not thought about it. The thing is, if I am for example right with this idea, then I happened to solve a very abstract problem that is critical to understanding the theory of everything. Anyhow, I think it is worthy discussing this problem because otherwise you could say the whole universe is powered by 'magic' and be valid. I do not think the universe is powered by magic, I think there must be an explanation for what appears like magic.

 

We already have a working model of how the universe works from t+10-43 seconds and supported by four pillars of cosmological observations. It's not in the least magic, just gravity as the prime mover.

 

 

Quote

So what is the problem I am talking about? It is that phenomena of the universe, matter, forces and so on, appear to be subject to rules (what we capture in our equations) while not giving away how they are governed universally in apparently empty space. Why are the laws here the same everywhere we look, why are there laws, how are they being implemented.

 

Simply put, the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. If it wasn't, we would not have evolved. This is known as "the Anthropic Principle"

 

 

Quote

And the insight is simple, that all these laws are governed by a set of laws higher or lower level than the ones we are use to. Like to date, we have only be studying the software of the universe and this insight is into the hardware of the universe, like what we have been studying is all virtual while the insight is about what is actually real. This means that there is a relatively small number of super laws that govern all other laws and that these super laws constitute a theory of everything. But these super laws are implemented in such a way that they actually solve the problem of how phenomena appears to be powered by magic.

 

It can only be seen as powered by magic, if we did not have models/theories that describe what we observe, although certainly there are still questions left to answer.eg: Why do we perceive warped/curved spacetime as gravity? Again, this would get back to the Anthropic Principle. 

 

 

Quote

I was not lucky enough to have gone through university and have people with the same interests to talk to about it, so I am here to now claiming that this idea or insight is worthy of discussion and may turn out to be true. There is evidence for it and it is supported by logic, its complementary to current science and is a sort of third way between our current paradigms.

 

I don't really see any problem or magic...I see some questions that are still to be answered that's all.

 

Quote

 

This is how I envisage the conversation going:

 

1. That knowledgeable, skilled physicists can say that, after consideration, the problem I am trying to explain exists and needs a solution.

2. That, understanding the problem, people offer up solutions.

3. That I offer a solution and see if it solves it.

 

 

OK, clearly, what in your opinion is the problem and what is the solution?

 

 

Quote

It should be noted that I am not religious, I don't believe in God or all the stories in holy books, but I am not convinced by the big bang either, or aspects of evolution. I am not convinced with explanations of how life came about, the emergence of sexual dynamics, the emergence of flight, I am not convinced adaptation by natural selection can take us from a single cell to human beings. I am squarely on sciences side, its just I don't think we have got it right yet, and for some reason, which I am sure some people will speculate on, believe I could be on to something.

 

Beliefs are a personal concept and what people believe is there business, as long as those beliefs don't infringe on my rights .  What problem do you find? Considering that the BB is overwhelmingly supported by many observational aspects. Do you know what the BB entails?  With evolution and your doubts, on that you are totally wrong. While any theory is always open for modification, addition etc, the theory of evolution is as certain as any theory could ever be. 

 

 

Quote

So my first request is to knowledgeable, skilled physicists, is this a problem and does it need a solution. Thanks for any responses.

Like you I am not a skilled physicist, but I have read plenty of reputable books by many reputable professionals, and know who the knowledgable people are on forums such as this.

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by beecee

[PrimalMinister]

On 14/09/2018 at 10:46 PM, beecee said:

Hmmmm, sounds like a "mystical experience"  These happen on occasion and is evidence of nothing more then the randomness of one's own subconcious and the brain...

 

Maybe it was a mystical experience, maybe the universe is a mystical place. But no, it's about how to practically implement a universe such as ours. I have thought about it a lot since and it still makes sense.

 

On 14/09/2018 at 10:46 PM, beecee said:

We already have a working model of how the universe works from t+10-43 seconds and supported by four pillars of cosmological observations. It's not in the least magic, just gravity as the prime mover.

 

The magic is that the laws of the universe seem bound to everything but when you try to pin them down they are bound to nothing. This is a very subtle feature of every single physical law. They pop in and out of existence as needed, but where do they pop in and out from exactly, thin air? Magic could be an explanation, and I am talking real life magic, not fantasy magic. Anyhow, I don’t believe the big bang, I have been told that before the big bang:

 

1. There was no space and time.
2. Two branes collided to create the big bang.
3. That we will eventually experience a big collapse of the universe where the universe collapses into a new big bang.

 

These are quite extraordinary, and different, claims and to me personally I think that these claims about the big bang, with looking back at history, are not correct. If we had a full understanding of the universe, a theory of everything, everyone would be in complete agreement, not dishing up their opinions as explanations as to what happened before the big bang. Anyhow, science is about predicting the future, not explaining the past. How often to you hear scientists and philosophers ask, “how far does the universe go?”, what is the maximum level of complexity the universe supports?”. To me, the big bang is just the final step on the journey to the truth, but it is essentially wrong.

 

On 14/09/2018 at 10:46 PM, beecee said:

 

OK, clearly, what in your opinion is the problem and what is the solution?

 

 

The problem needs some explaining because its subtle, I can see it clearly but trying to explain it is something else, as I say I don’t discuss it with people, I just think about it. Some people think the ‘spacetime’ entity explains gravity, I disagree, I think this is a mathematical abstraction, not a real phenomena. How does the bending of spacetime keep me rooted on the earth, I can see it working on a planetary scale, but how does it work here on earth, I don’t see that. Also, like the big bang you have to make counter-intuitive acceptance of extraordinary claims. Anyway, the problem can be addressed directly:

 

That laws appear to exist that are everywhere and work in any direction in apparently empty space.

 

But asking these other questions is also useful:

 

• Why do we have the laws we do?
• How is the universe implemented?
• Why do we have these laws and not other laws?

 

You have to ask deep questions to get deep answers. They make not make sense if you have not tried to answer them before.

   

On 14/09/2018 at 10:46 PM, beecee said:

 

Like you I am not a skilled physicist, but I have read plenty of reputable books by many reputable professionals, and know who the knowledgable people are on forums such as this.

 

   

Maybe you, I or others can explain the problem better than I have here, this is why I want to focus on the problem first. I respect that people have degrees and so on but it's only fate or whatever which stops me from having one. I look at what the best minds say, I agree with a lot of it. However, I am sceptical of some of the bigger more extraordinary claims, so I sit on the fence really. It only happens that the solution to this subtle problem is magic in that it looks quite astonishing when you don’t know how it done, but when you do know, it becomes obvious. There are no extraordinary claims in what I am proposing, its all quite natural, straight forward.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Anyhow, I don’t believe the big bang, I have been told that before the big bang:

 

1. There was no space and time.
2. Two branes collided to create the big bang.
3. That we will eventually experience a big collapse of the universe where the universe collapses into a new big bang.

1. That doesn't really mean anything. And there is no real science behind it. It sounds like a journalistic extrapolation from what we know.

2. This is a hypothesis based on theoretical ideas for which there is zero evidence. So not worth worrying about at the moment.

3. This was thought to be likely (because of gravity) until it was found that the rate of expansion is accelerating.

As for "not believing the big bang", that is a rather silly thing to say. Science is not about belief but about what the evidence shows or, more accurately, which models work best. Currently, the Big Bang model is the best model we have for the evolution of the universe. It is supported by overwhelming evidence so it seems unlikely to be completely wrong. However, there are still many unknowns and possible variations on the basic model so the details may change as we discover more.

24 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

But asking these other questions is also useful:

 

• Why do we have the laws we do?
• How is the universe implemented?
• Why do we have these laws and not other laws?

I think those are useful questions, but I'm not sure that they can ever be answered. Or at least, not fully. So choosing an answer might be down to personal preference.Or there might be different answers for different laws. It may be that, in some cases, other laws (or different values for fundamental constants) make the existence of a universe (or at least one populated by intelligent organisms) impossible. For example, is seems that only a universe with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension is stable:

But then, I suppose, that just raises the question why the other combinations are not stable. And that is the problem with these sort of non-science questions. Any answer you get just prompts another level of "Yes, but why ..."

[PrimalMinister]

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

As for "not believing the big bang", that is a rather silly thing to say. Science is not about belief but about what the evidence shows or, more accurately, which models work best. Currently, the Big Bang model is the best model we have for the evolution of the universe. It is supported by overwhelming evidence so it seems unlikely to be completely wrong. However, there are still many unknowns and possible variations on the basic model so the details may change as we discover more.

 

The thing is, once the evidence said the sun revolved around the earth (because thats what looked like happened). As for not believing, history tells us we have gotten it wrong before and current affairs suggest there is disagreement on what exactly goes on. The reason I think I am on to something is that I look at the 'evidence' and come to a different conclusion. The same evidence is there for everyone, its how we look at it is what is important, history teaches us that. So looking at the evidence isn't enough, you have to take into account our minds. And this is the beauty of what I am putting forward, the basic explanation can be understood by a child. It is also final, in that doesn't need to explain how it came to be, its final, its immortal, the universe is immortal, the laws of the universe are immortal, you can't understand the universe until you grasp infinity, then it all becomes clear. If I am right, then we have gotten to the most basic and fundamental root of the universe, a set of super laws that underly everything. The universe was never 'created', it does not have a creator or designer, but I would argues that is does have a design and the design is sublime.

 

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

But then, I suppose, that just raises the question why the other combinations are not stable. And that is the problem with these sort of non-science questions. Any answer you get just prompts another level of "Yes, but why ..."

 

Then if that's the answer you are getting, maybe its not the right one, with what I am suggesting, is that you get to a bottom layer in which those questions actually get answers.

I mean, imagine what a theory of everything might look like, I am sure you are creative, what qualities must it have?

Surely, it will be straight forward to understand, its not magic right, there is some practical way to explain it all, something that clears up all the mysteries and something everyone can agree on. And they agree on it because after reflection it is obvious, to quote John Wheeler:

“Some principle uniquely right and compelling must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way that it could not possibly be otherwise.”

If a respected scientist can say something like this, I think its possible. Yes, you can play with stuff you know, research interesting and worthy topics, but surely these are still the important questions, its the mystery that intrigues the best of us, how, why. How the universe has the same laws everywhere is actually explained in what I am suggesting. But it took me time to adjust to what was at the time, was a new reality.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

The magic is that the laws of the universe seem bound to everything but when you try to pin them down they are bound to nothing. This is a very subtle feature of every single physical law. They pop in and out of existence as needed, but where do they pop in and out from exactly, thin air? Magic could be an explanation, and I am talking real life magic, not fantasy magic.

 

They do not pop into and out of existence They are not physical, material things. The laws always apply, even if there isn't anything there to follow them at a particular time and place.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Anyhow, science is about predicting the future, not explaining the past.

 

It's about both.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

 Some people think the ‘spacetime’ entity explains gravity, I disagree, I think this is a mathematical abstraction, not a real phenomena.

It's both. Any physics explanation is going to involve mathematical abstraction.

 

 

[PrimalMinister]

This is a challenge for me, what do you do if you have realised how the universe works, billions of people all over the planet believing different things, how do you face them and say "look, this is the truth about the universe and in five years times this will be taught in schools." Religion has no chance, not in the light of the truth, to use their terminology. I am asserting I am have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. It has taken me a long time to come to terms with this, but there is no denying, I have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. The truth is powerful, in five years times what I share with you on this forum will be taught in schools (children will probably know it before school) and religion will be largely dead. The world will, I believe, unite around this scientific breakthrough and celebrate by introducing a new global calander, starting from year 1. To me, this is inevitable, I have no scientific career to ruin so I am not bothered if I am proved wrong, I really have nothing to lose. But if you want to know the truth and I am willing to share it, you have to come to terms with eternity, there is no creator, but the universe itself is infinite and immortal. It is different to how it is portrayed by science currently, but it is perfectly complimentary. Its a sort of third way, different to science and religion, but encompassing questions and answers from both. There won't even be a discussion on whether the universe has a design or not, it has a design, and I am going to reveal, slowly, but with out a doubt, surely. It is for the best.

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is a challenge for me, what do you do if you have realised how the universe works, billions of people all over the planet believing different things, how do you face them and say "look, this is the truth about the universe and in five years times this will be taught in schools." Religion has no chance, not in the light of the truth, to use their terminology. I am asserting I am have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. It has taken me a long time to come to terms with this, but there is no denying, I have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. The truth is powerful, in five years times what I share with you on this forum will be taught in schools (children will probably know it before school) and religion will be largely dead. The world will, I believe, unite around this scientific breakthrough and celebrate by introducing a new global calander, starting from year 1. To me, this is inevitable, I have no scientific career to ruin so I am not bothered if I am proved wrong, I really have nothing to lose. But if you want to know the truth and I am willing to share it, you have to come to terms with eternity, there is no creator, but the universe itself is infinite and immortal. It is different to how it is portrayed by science currently, but it is perfectly complimentary. Its a sort of third way, different to science and religion, but encompassing questions and answers from both. There won't even be a discussion on whether the universe has a design or not, it has a design, and I am going to reveal, slowly, but with out a doubt, surely. It is for the best.

I really do appreciate the offer but I'm kind of busy at the moment. I think I will wait and take the class when it is taught in school.

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is a challenge for me, what do you do if you have realised how the universe works, billions of people all over the planet believing different things, how do you face them and say "look, this is the truth about the universe and in five years times this will be taught in schools." Religion has no chance, not in the light of the truth, to use their terminology. I am asserting I am have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. It has taken me a long time to come to terms with this, but there is no denying, I have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything.

The next step is to actually test this notion by making specific predictions and see if they hold true. As in, do science.

People making assertions that they have uncovered the secrets of the universe are a dime a dozen. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

The thing is, once the evidence said the sun revolved around the earth (because thats what looked like happened). As for not believing, history tells us we have gotten it wrong before and current affairs suggest there is disagreement on what exactly goes on.

It is true that scientific theories are contingent and always subject to change with new evidence. However, there comes a point when there is so much evidence for a theory it is almost impossible to see how it could be wrong (see, for example, the theory of evolution by natural selection). The Big Bang model / general relativity fall into this category.

There are very few theories in the history of science that have actually turned out to be completely wrong. Geocentrism was one. Phlogiston another and the steady state universe a third. I struggle to think of any others.

Even Newtonian gravity, which has been superseded by GR does not fall into this category. It is still good enough for many (most) purposes.

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

The reason I think I am on to something is that I look at the 'evidence' and come to a different conclusion.

Then you would have to provide a mathematical model that is consistent with all the evidence and produces equally good or better predictions than GR.

Unless you can do that, I don't think your (unspecified) conclusions are likely to be worth much.

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

So looking at the evidence isn't enough, you have to take into account our minds.

I don't believe that is true. One of the reasons that the scientific method has evolved to what it is today is to eliminate, as far as practical, the various biases introduced by the human mind. Hence double-blind trials, etc.

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

And this is the beauty of what I am putting forward, the basic explanation can be understood by a child. It is also final, in that doesn't need to explain how it came to be, its final, its immortal, the universe is immortal, the laws of the universe are immortal, you can't understand the universe until you grasp infinity, then it all becomes clear. If I am right, then we have gotten to the most basic and fundamental root of the universe, a set of super laws that underly everything. The universe was never 'created', it does not have a creator or designer, but I would argues that is does have a design and the design is sublime.

Maybe you should start another thread in the Speculations forum where you present this new theory.

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Then if that's the answer you are getting, maybe its not the right one, with what I am suggesting, is that you get to a bottom layer in which those questions actually get answers.

I don't see how this can work (but it will be interesting to see what you suggest as the "bottom layer"). 

For example, there are various suggestions that space-time and quantum theory (lets call them A) are emergent from some lower level theory (lats call that B). So, in he world everything in A is explained as being a result of B. But now we can ask, "why B" and so we look for some underlying theory (C) which explains that. And then we ask "why is C the way it is" and so we look for D and the E and then ...

I cannot imagine how that can ever bottom out (except by saying "God", but that is just a way of stopping any further enquiry).

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I mean, imagine what a theory of everything might look like, I am sure you are creative, what qualities must it have?

Surely, it will be straight forward to understand

All our experience so far seems to be that each better theory is more complicated than the previous.

I see no reason why a theory of everything should be simple. That seems like wishful thinking. Why should the universe be easy for a random ape on a small planet on the unfashionable side of the galaxy?

 

 

4 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Some people think the ‘spacetime’ entity explains gravity, I disagree, I think this is a mathematical abstraction, not a real phenomena.

That depends on what you mean by "real". If it is the best, and currently only, explanation we have, does that make it real? Is the Newtonian "force" of gravity real? Or did it used to be real but isn't any longer?

Until you define what you mean by "real" and how it can be tested, the statement is fairly meaningless.

We can only know what our senses and measurements tell us. That may or may not be the same as "reality". They tell us that the universe behaves exactly as if space-time were a real thing. Thats as close as we can ever get to saying something is real, as far as I am concerned.

4 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

How does the bending of spacetime keep me rooted on the earth, I can see it working on a planetary scale, but how does it work here on earth, I don’t see that.

That is an argument from incredulity or ignorance. The fact that you don't understand how GR works, doesn't make it wrong.

 

44 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am asserting I am have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. It has taken me a long time to come to terms with this, but there is no denying, I have realised how the universe works, I have realised the theory of everything. The truth is powerful, in five years times what I share with you on this forum will be taught in schools

I have heard the same claim hundreds of times from different people with wildly different ideas (and in some cases, wild ideas). They may say the "truth" is vortices or string or aliens or god or their own brain or ... In all cases, they are absolutely convinced that they, uniquely, have had the vision and insight to find The Truth. 

None of them can offer any evidence why we should believe any one of them and not the others. I somehow doubt you can either. But I am always open minded to see what evidence people can provide.

49 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The world will, I believe, unite around this scientific breakthrough and celebrate by introducing a new global calander, starting from year 1.

OK. So are you going to tell us what this amazing theory is, or just keep making empty boasts about it?

[PrimalMinister]

Sure, but the deepest, darkest secrets of the universe can be a bit of an anti-climax. That said, with the beginning being an anti-climax, the story builds into a wonderful theory of everything.

Any way, the theory of everything is not an equation, it is a concept that can be explained in under a mintute, its very simple, but after contemplation, is obviously the truth.

There is more to this story but the short version is "we live in a pixel, tile based or cellular universe".

That is the theory of everything in a sentence.

It will be taught in schools in five years time, maybe less, and its inevitable, because its the truth and its obvious its the truth. I know you want more and there is more, but that is what a theory of everything looks like.

I am not starting a cult, I am sharing what is a profound truth about the universe, even if you don't see it or believe it.

No God, no more questions about what lies underneath that, its final, the universe is composed of pixels (the best analogy of the three) and you can't break them down any more, thats it, thats the end, thats the universe. Each pixel contains all the laws of the universe and is repeated adinfinitum, like a hologram where the whole image is embedded in every part.

I told you it would be an anti-climax, the theory of everything is that the universe is, for want of a better analogy, a pixel based universe.

I know that in the end you will agree with me but I am interested in seeing how this plays out. I think I am finally ready to make my case, however people react to it and whatever they think of me. This is not easy for me, but its inevitable, the truth is the truth, science wins in the end. Yes, the mystery is gone, but the universe has more mysteries, the mysteries of eternity. The pixels are immortal, the universe is immortal, this is the new source of mystery in what is a paradigm shift.

I know what to expect, but if you think about it properly, give it proper consideration, you can answer this quote:

“Some principle uniquely right and compelling must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way that it could not possibly be otherwise.”

That principle is pixels, tiles or cells. From here on in pixels because everyone knows what a pixel is and how it works.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

There is more to this story but the short version is "we live in a pixel, tile based or cellular universe".

That is the theory of everything in a sentence.

As a concept, this is not new. One of the best known advocates of this approach is, perhaps, Stephen Wolfram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wolfram#A_New_Kind_of_Science

Apart from that, many theories of quantum gravity (in which 4D space-time is an emergent property) are based on similar ideas; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

And there have been many others. 

So now you need to show (quantitatively, not in a hand-wavy kind of way) that your approach actually produces results that match what we see in the real world.

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

It will be taught in schools in five years time, maybe less, and its inevitable, because its the truth and its obvious its the truth.

We will need evidence to support that claim (as will the schools).

 

[Ghideon]

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

science wins in the end

I think I agree on that but not much else in the post.

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

From here on in pixels because everyone knows what a pixel is and how it works.

I think I know in detail what a pixel is in the context of digital imaging but I do not get this:

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Each pixel contains all the laws of the universe

Is that the current laws that there are evidence for? Can you maybe explain, in detail, what a pixel is, what properties you think it has? What tests do you suggest to show that these pixels explains everything we have evidence so far?

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

It will be taught in schools in five years time, maybe less

Good, then it must be something that is both simple and straightforward to explain and to understand. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Ghideon
posted before seeing Strange's comment that says pretty much the same.

[PrimalMinister]

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

We will need evidence to support that claim (as will the schools).

Thats the beauty, it doesn't need evidence, because it self-evident, it explains itself.

I am well aware of science but it takes a philosophical approach.

We are approaching the end of science as we know it, and its going to take some time to shift but it will.

Look at the science we have done so far, its incredible, but where is it all going?

Science has covered a lot of ground but its running out of places to go.

Some people believe that it will just be endless puzzles and we will never get to the bottom of it, I disagree, saying the universe is pixel based is a final end to the mystery of the physical universe.

It needs a breakthrough and this is it, its a practical way to implement a complex universe, a simple set of super laws that exist in every pixel.

They go through a simple cycle, they construct the universe, they deconstruct the universe, all at the same time, over and over again, literally for eternity, just constructing, then desconstructing the universe, very fast of course (think Planck scale). The whole universe just goes through this cycle endlessly.

Therefore reality is a series of never ending instances of reality, the next one slightly different to the last, depending out how the pixels unfold and fold.

And there is evidence for believing the universe is pixel based from science and just general experience.

For example, we know pixels are simple, but when there is a lot of them together you get a bigger complex looking picture.

 

Lets keep this simple, first of all, what evidence do you want to see, do you understand the problem I am claiming to have solved?

You really have to ask yourself what does a theory of everything look like, what do you expect of it?

Modern science isn't conclusive, its all "thats what the evidence suggests" but the pixel based universe is the science behind the science, its a magic trick and the universe, like when we thought the earth was flat, again when we thought the sun travelled around the earth, has fooled us again with the expanding universe. The evidence has always been the same, there are somethings that change, and some things that don't change. What do you want? Surely you want to know how the universe is doing what it is doing, its doing it for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

Thats the beauty, it doesn't need evidence, because it self-evident, it explains itself.

It needs to do more than that to be useful. What calculations can you perform with this model? What new technologies can we develop based on it?

But maybe we should leave those questions until after you have told us what your theory is. When are you planning to do that? After all, it is apparently very simple, so what are we waiting for?

[PrimalMinister]

What do you want? I am explaining it. The universe is composed of, for better want of a word, pixels, that go through a cycle of constructing the universe then deconstructing the universe. And it is an interesting question, what do you want? There must be a point to sciences explanations of the universe. I know this is true, but I don't think you are thinking about it properly. Like why do you think I am suggesting this is a theory of everything, because the thought took my fancy? No, its not that, its well thought out but it needs some getting used to. So think about what exactly you want from me, considering how much we already know about science,. Do you want it to be an unending puzzle and mystery or would you like a final truth? It has got to be one of them and personally I am on the side that there is a final truth, and that truth is a pixel based universe.

You have to remember I am for science, I listen to sciences explanations, you don't have to preach to me about 'evidence' and so on, I know exactly what I am doing.

I asked for other peoples input first to see if I could get some agreement on things, like despite our best efforts the universe is still largely a mystery to us.

I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, very clearly. So it come back to this, what evidence do you want? And have you thought about it properly?

 

I would say the question 'how does the universe implement a myriad of different laws uniformly' is the most important question in physics and is answered by a pixel based universe.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

What do you want? I am explaining it. The universe is composed of, for better want of a word, pixels, that go through a cycle of constructing the universe then deconstructing the universe.

Huh?

Do you mean that your theory, in its entirety, is: "the universe is made of pixels"? That's it? That's all there is?

It might or might not be made of pixels. You need something more than this bald assertion to convince people this is right. In an intro to philosophy class you might get away with some sort of logical argument based on, say, the fact that integers exist or something.

Ideally, you would go on to show that this idea has some explanatory power; that it can answer unanswered questions or explain why charge is quantised (and has the value it has) etc. 

But as this is a science forum, you need something a little more concrete: you need evidence. You need something that indicates that the universe is "pixellated" or quantised. As I say, this is a very old idea (with many variations) and attempts have been made to find evidence for it. So far, all the evidence is that the universe is continuous, not discrete.

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Like why do you think I am suggesting this is a theory of everything,

I am beginning to think it is because you don't know what "theory" means.

Quote

So think about what exactly you want from me, considering how much we already know about science,.

I hope I have made it clear what I want from your theory: I want to see the evidence that supports it; I want to see what questions it can answer.

If it is a theory of everything, then presumably it resolves the conflict between GR and quantum theory (this is what most people mean by "theory of everything") in which case, it should be able to tell us what happens inside a black hole (what replaces the singularity, do wormholes exist, etc) for example.

So far, all we have is your claim that this idea is true. We need some reason to believe that.

[PrimalMinister]

I would say the question 'how does the universe implement a myriad of different laws uniformly' is the most important question in physics and is answered by a pixel based universe.

I have repeated this because its key, I think this is the most important question in physics, its deep and mysterious and it needs an explanation.

Do you agree its deep, mysterious and in need of an explantion or not? Do you agree it is the most important question in physics or not?

[Strange]

Just now, PrimalMinister said:

I would say the question 'how does the universe implement a myriad of different laws uniformly' is the most important question in physics and is answered by a pixel based universe.

I have repeated this because its key, I think this is the most important question in physics, its deep and mysterious and it needs an explanation.

Do you agree its deep, mysterious and in need of an explantion or not? Do you agree it is the most important question in physics or not?

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The important point is that you need to show that the question is answered by a pixelated universe. Can you do this?

[PrimalMinister]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The important point is that you need to show that the question is answered by a pixelated universe. Can you do this?

Of course, but if you think about, its self evident that a pixelated universe could explain how the universe manages to populate space with laws so that they work everywhere and in any direction, as if by magic.

Look, have we solved the mystery of the universe or not? I believe that if you ask science objectivily and honestly the answer is no, we have not. Somehow, despite our advanced knowledge and technology, the universe is still a mystery to us. If you want to understand the explanation, you have to come to it objectivily and honestly.

This is my opinion, so take it will a pinch of salt, but the big bang didn't happen, the pixel based universe is a far superior explanation and is ultimatly very satisfying.

You can't solve the problem if you don't admit there is a problem in the first place.

So whats your opinion on design? Does the universe have a design or is a random accident.

I think the universe has a design, and that design is pixel based.

I can assure you that despite this being tiny, this is big. I say current science has had a good innings but has nowhere left to go. Isnt it crazy that we don't know how the universe works if we are objective and honest? Shouldn't we know by now?

[PrimalMinister]

We all walk into a room with a table inside, we all look at the table and say "that is a table" and that is objective fact, its independent of its context, you can move the table into another room and we still all agree its a table, its objective fact. Some of us think the table is too big for the room, some of us think the table is too small for the room, they are subjective opinions and are context dependent, they change if you move the table to another room. I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and I am going to start pointing it out so we can get a true picture of science.