Thought Experiments

[Ghideon]

Could we test the idea in the following way? 

1: the proposed idea will have profound impact of humanity:

5 hours 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.

2:

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

the universe is composed of pixels

Combining 1 and 2: What if I go to two classes tomorrow. In the first class I teach the students that the universe is composed of pixels. In the second class I teach the students that the universe is composed of hexagons*.

Ideally I would like to have some scientific evidence but, as a start, can you explain why the students in the first class will have a chance on a very different future than the ones in the second class? 

 

*) or cubes or whatever, just not something mistaken for pixels.

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

Why is that any different from the same laws applying everywhere in a non-pixelated universe (which seems self-evident)?

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Look, have we solved the mystery of the universe or not?

What is "the mystery"? We have solved lots of different puzzles but there are still many questions.

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

In that case you need to explain, using your pixels:

1.  the source of the CMB
2. why it has the spectrum it does
3. why it has the temperature it does
4. the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium
5. the redshift-distance relationship (Hubble's law)

Can you do that?

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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

Irrelevant. This is about your "theory" not other people's opinions.

 

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am going to start pointing it out so we can get a true picture of science.

Does this mean that there is more to your theory that "its all pixels"? I certainly hope so, because that doesn't explain anything.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Strange

[swansont]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

We don't want a story, we want some science. And the speculations forum guidelines require some way to test you ideas — a model, some specific predictions, some comparison with evidence. Some path to falsification.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And the speculations forum guidelines require some way to test you ideas

Better move it to Speculations then 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Better move it to Speculations then 

Workin' on it...

[PrimalMinister]

I don't mind you moving the post, I was unsure where to place it anyway. I have explained the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion with the table, would you agree this is a useful explanation of the two? We can use it to point out what is opinion and what is fact, so we can remove the chaff from the wheat, you want an explanation on you will get one, and it will be obvious to you that the following evidence, although it is opinion, it actually a fact:

“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.”

I cant state the obviousness of it, it so straight forward its laughable. The universe is truly a remarkable place, its design is absolutly sublime.

[Strange]

When do we get to your theory?

[PrimalMinister]

We have to agree on things otherwise this is not going to work, which is ok, this is literally only the start of my journey to reveal the truth, I still have plenty of avenues, the truth is powerful. As I have said, do you agree that the table is a good example of objective truth and subjective opinion? Surely you want the objective truth and not subjective opinion? How do I know you know the difference if we cant agree on what is objective fact and subjective opinion. It will be trying to explain something to a religious person who holds up their subjective opintions as objective fact, just a nightmare. I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, do you? I am being serious, I am looking for us to get some agreement on things first else it will just be a muddle like it has been so far. So I have said its simple and it is, the question is, is the table a good example of objective truth and subjective reason? If we are clear about this, we can move forward, one step at a time. But you have to honest and be able to tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, so I will repeat the question again, is the table a good example of objective fact and subjective opinion. If it is a bad example, please provide another, hopefully we can get some agreement on the facts, which is very important in understanding it.

 

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

As I have said, do you agree that the table is a good example of objective truth and subjective opinion?

Not sure why this is relevant. But I don't think it is a great example. For example, when I first moved into my house we had to use a cardboard box to eat off. Was it a cardboard box or a table? Both? Neither? It changed from one to the other? Sounds pretty subjective to me.

I would prefer to say that something that we can measure is objective.

As for "fact", that isn't really a term used much in science. I would say that the closest thing we have to a "fact" in science are theories that are so well established that is impossible to see how they could be wrong (evolution, GR, Big Bang, etc)

But you claim to have a theory that explains everything, so it shouldn't matter whether we agree on what is subjective or not. This is supposed to be a science forum, not an opinion forum. But whatever. If you want to use your definitions of subjective and objective, go ahead.

Just get to the point.

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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

I do not agree that pixels are simple. A pixel is indeed the smallest controllable element of a picture represented on a screen. But the pixel is the result of a rather complex set of underlaying technology and very different on a CRT or LCD screen.

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Each pixel contains all the laws of the universe

 That is far more complex than the pixel on an LCD screen. Can you explain what a pixel is within your theory and how the pixel behaves? Why is a pixel a good analogy? 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

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

Maybe OK in a very limited context, but I fail to see the connection to your theory. I want to get to the point where we look at a scientific experiment, agree and state "That is a pixel!" That point may be far into the future but at least try to guide my reasoning in the right direction.

[PrimalMinister]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not sure why this is relevant.

Ask yourself a simple question, can you explain every mystery in the universe? What is the honest and objective answer?

You have claimed you are 'not sure' but it will become clear because its obvious. Can we agree your box was a temproray table? I don't know, what you have said doesn't make much sense, we can measure a table and its usually (although not universal) the height is somewhere convient for people sitting on chairs. The table of course, if you had thought about it properly, which you didn't, is irrelvant, the point is there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity (otherwise called fact and opinion respectivily). Whats the difference exactly between objectivity and subjectivity, how do you tell the difference? You said you are 'not sure' why it is relevant, if you want the truth, if you want the facts, you have to have agreement, we can start simple and get more complex as things move on, but we have to have agreement, you have to understand the problem first to understand the solution. You can find the problem by questioning science (and scientists) and ideally (if they are honest and objective) have them admit its a problem. There is no escaping starting at the beginning. If we were to have an honest and objective debate, based on sincere, penetrating questions and honest objective answers, I can explain essentially the whole of reality and there is nothing extraordinary about it, its just simple and straight forward. Look at what John Wheeler said, he is bang on correct, he uses the word 'obvious'. Is John Wheelers statement not evidence? He is a respected scientist. What does his statement mean? Why did he say it? Why am I bringing it up? This is no cult, there is no disappointing mystery behind the mystery behind mystery, this is the glourious truth. You have mistaken me for another creationist and are just spewing the usual 'evidence' stuff, I know this, you do not have to preach to the converted, science wins over religion. I am sorry but you are going to have to do better, you are going to have to actually think about stuff, sometimes going over old ground, sometimes new. I have already thought about this a lot, and well there is a lot to explain, it is after all a theory of everything (its not a theory of everything, but it is 'essentially' a theory of everything, and its what science is looking for whether they know it or not.)

You can ask me to get to the point all you like, and I will but you have to work with me, you actually have to use your imagination (which Einstien himself is more important that knowledge).

You can't be all handwavy with me and treat me like a creationist, saying the universe is pixel based in rational, reasonable, its not wild and out there, its scientific. And its profound whether you realise it or not. I have thought long and hard about this and I know its the truth, and I will convince you, but we have to work through it step by step, there is no escaping starting from the beginning, in all our wonderful complexity, its actually a back to basics paradigm shift, I only have the opening, I believe the universe has more to offer us, this is not an end to science, its a beginning of a new science.

So I will go back to my excellent table example, can we agree there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity and that they are both real? Can we agree objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent? The table is a brilliant example, but of course the table is irrelavent to proper thinkers. Do you agree that objectivity is context independent and that subjectivity is context dependent? Are you going to be all wavyhanded with someone who is stating the universe, in a reasonable, rational, scientific way, is pixel based. So can we find agreement? Surely as people who love rationality, reason and science, we can come to agree on things. John Wheeler was a good philopospher, other scientists are terrible philsophers. Some of you on here are terrible philosphers, Strange I am looking at you for the poor comprehension of the excellent table example.

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ask yourself a simple question, can you explain every mystery in the universe?

Of course not. How is this relevant.

Yesterday, I almost posted a comment saying, Don't be one of those people who just spends page after page tap-dancing around the subject, claiming to have some great insight but never saying what it is. It turns out that you are one of those.

If you don't present your theory in the next post, I will request that the mods close this thread.

[PrimalMinister]

But I have already got to the point, the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based, I am not tip tapping around it, I am getting blatanly to the point and you are simply not being sincere with me. The insight came to me as tile based, but pixel is more wide spread and known, the basic principle is the same though, that the universe is composed, for want of a better word, pixels. Maybe you would prefer if I use the word tile? Its all the same really, its just an analogy.

I know you want more and I will explain, I have nothing to hide, but we have to start somewhere.

Consequently, do you understand that objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent? Its a simple question, has science taught you not taught you this truth?

I am being objective when I say objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent, its the same for everyone, it is an immortal truth. If you cant' understand this simple truth you have no hope of understanding the theory of everything because you won't be able to tell whether what you are looking at is real or not. I know you don't think something so simple as context independence and dependence is important, but it is. And if I am going to convince you the universe is pixel/tile/cell based we are going to have to find some agreement, some basic objective facts that we know to be true.

How is saying the universe is pixel/tile/cell based somehow tip tapping around the point, the great insight (here I go again if you are actually listening) is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. But you are not thinking about this post at all, its easier for you to dismiss me as a nutter, or what you call them, cranks. I know this and I know this is what you are doing because I am very much into science and you are predictable. I am hoping for some surprises but if people can't even give a clear explantion of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, between fact and opinion, such as in the table example, proving that objectivity is context independent and subjectivity is context dependent, how can you claim to know the truth, are you holding up subjective opinions as objective facts? I don't know is the honest answer, I don't know you at all.

But through what I hope is engaging conversation, is that we talk pure science, objective facts only, no subjective opinions. I am stressing this point because its important.

Closing the thread is in bad taste, I have not danced around (even though I was going to) the point, I decided to make it nearly straight away as I can't be arsed with subjective opinion, I am only interested in objective fact. So why again to you think my context independent/context dependent example of objectivity and subjectivity is a bad example?

2 hours ago, Strange said:

But you claim to have a theory that explains everything, so it shouldn't matter whether we agree on what is subjective or not. This is supposed to be a science forum, not an opinion forum. But whatever. If you want to use your definitions of subjective and objective, go ahead.

So how do we agree on things if there is no clear definition of objectivity and subjectivity. How can we talk pure science with so much opinion? Its not my definition of objectivity and subjectivity, it is 'THE' definition of objectivity and subjectivity, and scientists should know this because it is a self-evident truth, it doesn't evidence to explain it, it is the evidence, its self evident. I am sorry but philosophy is important and I honestly thought people would enjoy some thought experiements, but I know you are not thinking about it, you are not being sincere. You say I am skipping around the point, I say the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. How can you be reading my posts and say I am not getting to the point, I have repeatedly made my point but you insist I am not making one? I know you are not thinking about what I am saying and you are not being sincere, this is not very scientific and is not what we expect from a civil society, if you are going to participate in this forum I think the rules of the forum imply sincerity.

Please provide a better explanation of objectivity and subjectivity if you can, but I doubt you will be able to because the explanation it is basically right, its the truth, and you are not happy with the truth, seriously? And this is a pattern I am introducing. This is all totally relevant to explaining everything, I know you may not see it now, but it takes some time to get use to, its easy (as you are doing) to dismiss it at first and not realise it is the fundamental truth about the universe. I don't know what to say, theres a lot of people who highly regard their own opinion, enough to say the thread should be closed. Please again explain how I am tippy tapping around the point when the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based, whats your logic in me tippy tapping around the point? I know you want more, evidence and so on and I will present it. But one step at a time, all based on agreement on every stage, this is important for me 'proving' it to you, so you can know that what you are seeing is real.

If you can't properly distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity how do you know whether what you are looking at is real or not.

I know I am babbling a bit, but this headline could appear in papers, "scientists don't know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, need to learn some philosophy" and it would be true. Please, I beg of you, give me a better explaintion of objectivity and subjectivity, one better than the truth which is what I shared with you. You cant' come up with a better explanation, I gave the only defintion of objectivity and subjectivity that exists, the true one, you can provide a better explanation that that. So can we agree on anything or is the no such thing as objectivity?

 

Look, I said the big problem with physics is how the laws of the universe operate in apparently empty space and the solution is a pixel/tile/cell based universe, I am not tippy tapping around the subject, I am being quite consise and to the point. How can you say I am tippy tapping round the point and not explaining? Closing this thread is a shameful and not in the spirit of honest, objective science. I am being perfectly upfront, honest and objective in everything I say. You can't say I not being objective because I am.

Take John Wheelers quote, hes an authentic scientist, he said "some principle", obvious", "MUST be built in such an such a way that it could not be otherwise", and he is bang on. You dont have to believe me for the moment, but surely you trust someone like John Wheeler. He said some principle and that principle is a pixel/tile/cell based universe. You can't say John Wheeler is a crank and he wouldn't of said that without good reason. Please, Strange tell me how exactly I am skipping around point? I making my point and you are not even reading it properly,

Edited September 20, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[StringJunky]

54 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

But I have already got to the point, the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based,...

 Scientists have explored whether space is discontinuous but, so far, they find it's smooth.

[PrimalMinister]

 

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Scientists have explored whether space is discontinuous but, so far, they find it's smooth.

Is that fact or opinion? You say "so far", that stinks of opinion. I am not interested in discussing subjective opinions, I will only discuss objective facts. I will make distinctions between objective fact and subjective opinion by using the context independence/dependence principle which is fundamental to understanding this theory. Strange has somehow got to say I am not explaining despite explaining, I am really interested to see how he explains how I am not explaining it, he is going to have to take a step back and see that I am, its just that he is not paying attention. Every other comment on this post was completly predictable, I enjoy science and I like that my brain thinks scientifically, objectivily. I don't let subjective opinions influence my scientific view and I certainly don't raise my opinion up as fact.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

Is that fact or opinion? You say "so far", that stinks of opinion. I am not interested in discussing subjective opinions, I will only discuss objective facts. I will make distinctions between objective fact and subjective opinion by using the context independence/dependence principle which is fundamental to understanding this theory. Strange has somehow got to say I am not explaining despite explaining, I am really interested to see how he explains how I am not explaining it, he is going to have to take a step back and see that I am, its just that he is not paying attention. Every other comment on this post was completly predictable, I enjoy science and I like that my brain thinks scientifically, objectivily. I don't let subjective opinions influence my scientific view and I certainly don't raise my opinion up as fact.

The experiment involved tracking low frequency and high frequency photons over billions of light years of space. The idea was that: if space was not smooth then the HF photons would arrive behind the LF photons because they have a shorter wavelength and, so, more likely to be delayed by a discontinuous space. They both arrived effectively at the same time. Maybe someone here can remember and link to it.

Edited September 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[PrimalMinister]

I guess I am saying are a lot of scientific opinions masquerading as fact, but it you sort objective fact from subjective opinion, you are left with one important question:

How are the laws omnipresent and isotropic in apprently empty space.

Once you use the principle of context independence/dependence to seperate fact from opinion, that is the only real question you are left with.

And a pixel/tile/cell based universe explains how the laws of the universe are omnipresent and isotropic. Because like a hologram, you have the whole image (all the laws of the universe) embedded in every part (in each pixel/tile/cell).

I can explain in all but its probably not what you are expecting, if you are expecting anything.

But things have to be honest and objective or this endeavour will be a waste of time.

Science doesn't need a theory of everything, its already got one, the universe started in a big bang, is expanding, stars are created by gravitational collapse, life emerged and evolved on this planet. Why are we looking for a theory of everything, whats wrong with our current theory of everything. Is our current theory of everything the right one, how sure are you?

 

 

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Science doesn't need a theory of everything, its already got one, the universe started in a big bang, is expanding, stars are created by gravitational collapse, life emerged and evolved on this planet. Why are we looking for a theory of everything, whats wrong with our current theory of everything. Is our current theory of everything the right one, how sure are you?

The 'theory of everything' is about having a common description of the four fundamental forces: gravity, weak force, strong force, electroweak force. This is, in part, is related to your OP whereby the latter three forces in my list are quantised i.e.pixellated, but gravity has been stubbornly resistant to being quantised because it's not yet been satisfactorily mediated by a particle description, which the others have been. Gravity is, thus far, only satisfactorily described by curved spacetime in General Relativity, and that says space is 'smooth'; not pixellated. Scientists want to chop space up into little bits to tie it in with the description of the other forces but no-go, so far. They are currently being forced to use two theories, depending on the scale they are looking at; quantum theory for sub-atomic stuff and GR for  bigger stuff. Space joins the two scales and they can't get GR to behave mathematically at sub-atomic scales.

Edited September 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[PrimalMinister]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The 'theory of everything' is about having a common description of the four fundamental forces: gravity, weak force, strong force, electroweak force.

Ok, but that is a subjective opinion right? Its just an idea, not without good reason, that we can unify the the four forces and this would constitute a theory of everything. But its just subjective opinion, not an objective fact. You believe, you are of the opinion, that unifying the four forces constitute a theory of everything, but I can say objectivily that unifying the four forces does not constitute a theory of every thing and a pixel/tile/cell universe does. There is a lot of science masquerading as fact when it is actually opinion.

I know I repeating things a lot, but to be honest you are just repeating things at me, I am all for science, knowledge, progress. I am avid follower of science and what scientists have to say.

Look, I know I am evading what you want to see, you want to see evidence and so on, but I can prove it to you, with thought experiments, that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. I don't know about an experiment to prove it, but because its self-evident it doesn't need evidence to support it, even though there is evidence to support it.

We need to start with some objective facts that we all agree are true. Isn't that "being scientific"?

I have tried to steer the conversation but no one is really responding to what I am saying, most people are just spouting science, which is wonderful. But no real engagement, I am human being you know, I suffer from the human condition. And when you look at the evidence, its obvious its that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based. Its the best possible explanation for how the universe is actually implemented and to repeat John Wheeler again as he succiently boils down his whole knowledge and experience in to a single elegant statement:

“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.”

[zapatos]

I can't believe this thread is allowed to continue.

[PrimalMinister]

Sorry, are you saying I am not being scientific?

Some people are posting here are not being scientific.

For example, many of you know dont understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, despite being intelligent, creative and a whole lot of other probably fantastic stuff, and I can prove that. So if you shut this thread I will open a new that asks " some scientists have declared philosophy is not needed, but it is because some scientists cant tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and I can prove that. But, I suspect, subjective opinion will get in the way of pure science, which is what I want to talk about. Most of the posts here are subjective opinions, nobody is coming at me with objective facts, its all appearances.

When John Wheeler succiently boils down his whole knowledge and experience in to a single elegant statement, what do you make of that statement? Is this evidence in our puzzle?

Edited September 21, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[StringJunky]

38 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Sorry, are you saying I am not being scientific?

Some people are posting here are not being scientific.

For example, many of you know dont understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, despite being intelligent, creative and a whole lot of other probably fantastic stuff, and I can prove that. So if you shut this thread I will open a new that asks " some scientists have declared philosophy is not needed, but it is because some scientists cant tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and I can prove that. But, I suspect, subjective opinion will get in the way of pure science, which is what I want to talk about. Most of the posts here are subjective opinions, nobody is coming at me with objective facts, its all appearances.

When John Wheeler succiently boils down his whole knowledge and experience in to a single elegant statement, what do you make of that statement? Is this evidence in our puzzle?

I have given you, to the best of my knowledge - not my opinion - the scientific consensus, which is based on objective data.

[PrimalMinister]

I am happy to sit on this forum and questions of current science, to show I am science orientated, but also to show you that our current theories do have problems. I simply have to point out that you can't explain what happened before the big bang, this is a huge problem with that explanation, you have to accept something extraordinary with no evidence, but if we accept this you can explain the rest. You have to take a leap of faith accept the whole universe was once compressed to a point or whatever, there is no explanation for the big bang, you can only explain what happened after. The big bang is not objective fact, its subjective opinion. It is a theory. I am happy to ask the questions and have you answer them, they are only going to prove my point. But nobody is answering my questions, like "can tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion" if you can you can clearly explain the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. This is basic philosophy you appear not to have grasped.

So lets say I am fresh on this forum and this is my first question.

What does science have to say about the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, how do you tell the difference, how do you tell when someone is presenting opinion as fact? That is my scientific question to you, thank you in advance for your answers.

[StringJunky]

43 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Sorry, are you saying I am not being scientific?

There is no substance in your words; it's just vapour, so far.

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What does science have to say about the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, how do you tell the difference, how do you tell when someone is presenting opinion as fact? That is my scientific question to you, thank you in advance for your answers.

Objective facts are always repeatable under the same conditions. Subjective facts, not so much. 

[PrimalMinister]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Objective facts are always repeatable under the same conditions. Subjective facts, not so much. 

Ok, but how do I tell the difference, I don't want to confuse objective facts with subjective opinions, I want to know the difference in clear, consise, scientific langauge.

Can i have a clear, consise scientific explanation of the difference between objective facts and subjective opinions so that I can understand in its fullness.

Thank you.

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Objective facts are always repeatable under the same conditions. Subjective facts, not so much.

This statement is not very scientific, its not as elegant as the mathematics is it? Ahh, the beauty of it all. I will be honest, people are being well lazy and unscientific with this post and that would be obvious to the objective observer that people are being lazy and unscientific.

There is a scientific difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, there is a logic behind the difference, which we SHOULD all agree on is the objective truth.

So please give me a clear, consise, scientific explantion of the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and then agree with me that objective fact is context independent and subjective opinion is context dependent. I know I have banged on about a pixel/tile/cell based universe but lets put that aside, let this be the first question and we will talk modern science for a bit.