Theory of everything of final theory

[PrimalMinister]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have completely failed to explain why.

You have said that the reason your super laws don't need to be enforced is because they are super laws that don't need to be enforced. This is bad, even as philosophy. It is an example of the fallacy of begging the question.

I am simply applying your own "logic": if the currently known laws need to be "enforced" then why shouldn't your new laws also need to be enforced?

Your only answer seems to be: "because they don't".

Does the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 need to be enforced? If so, by what?

Ok, let take this one step at a time.

Lets look at the first super law, this is that space, which is infinite in space and time, is composed of cubes, all identical, that cannot be created or destroyed, are eternal, immortal. What sort of laws would enforce that? You don't need to enforce it with another set of laws, its just a simple fact.

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

Do you or do you not require a container, other than the universe itself to hold whatever purpose you describe?

No I don't require a container, the purpose is implied. Fuck it, I think the purpose is for life. But life is a whole other discussion, its probably best to keep it to physics.

Edited January 1, 2019 by PrimalMinister

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What sort of laws would enforce that?

You still haven't explained why any law needs to be enforced. As your contention is that laws need to be enforced, you need to explain what enforces this law.

Let's take a real example of a scientific law, Newton's law of motion: F = ma. What sort of laws would enforce that?

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Lets look at the first super law, this is that space, which is infinite in space and time, is composed of cubes, all identical, that cannot be created or destroyed, are eternal, immortal.

That is not a "law" in the scientific sense. It might be an assumption, or a hypothesis or a postulate. But you would need to provide a mathematical model and some evidence before it could be accepted as part of a theory.

[PrimalMinister]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not a "law" in the scientific sense. It might be an assumption, or a hypothesis or a postulate. But you would need to provide a mathematical model and some evidence before it could be accepted as part of a theory.

Ok, in this hypothetical universe, the first laws is that space is composed of immortal cubes. What sort of laws govern that?

 

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Let's take a real example of a scientific law, Newton's law of motion: F = ma. What sort of laws would enforce that?

Well I have described reality as coming in and out of existence, that reality, like a film or tv show is a series of stills strung together to make a sequence. So reality in this context is a sequence of shifts from one state to another. Its evolving, it creates a generation of reality, then destroys it, the next generation of reality is slightly different from the last, and so on and on, this is movement. All movement in the universe is governed by this slight shift occuring again and again, so the universe (spacetime) is constantly moving everything about. Spacetime, as I have expressed, is moving everything about according to laws I don't yet fully understand, but I know I only have to account for this slight shift to have a complete theory of everything. Yes, this is all speculative and so on, maybe I am right and this is how the universe actually works, or I am wrong, it doesn't really matter. What is interesting about it, is it is a fresh way to look at how the universe works, it needs work for sure, but for so little, you get quite a lot.

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, in this hypothetical universe, the first laws is that space is composed of immortal cubes. What sort of laws govern that?

That is not a law. It is a hypothesis (being generous).

It is up to you tell us what (mathematical) laws govern that. 

39 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Yes, this is all speculative and so on, maybe I am right and this is how the universe actually works, or I am wrong

And that is why you need to start doing some science. So we can tell if your guess works or not. 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Do you or do you not require a container, other than the universe itself to hold whatever purpose you describe?

No I don't require a container, the purpose is implied. Fuck it, I think the purpose is for life. But life is a whole other discussion, its probably best to keep it to physics.

 

If the purpose is somewhere else other than the universe, where is it then?

 

If your purpose is to convinve anyone of anything,

This is about as unproductive a conversation as I could imagine.

Edited January 1, 2019 by studiot

[Ghideon]

On 12/31/2018 at 5:21 PM, PrimalMinister said:

I know this disagrees with an expanding universe but I don't believe in the big bang, an eternal universe does't have the messy bit of what came before it, the big bang does.

Thanks for the answer, I had prefered more details. Can you describe how the cubes/tiles/pixels/cells in your idea is connected to the existing scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory?

[beecee]

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

That it is chance is just an opinion. And I can provide a basic logic that requires no designer/creator. I think the universe has a design, a purporse, but no intelligence created it, it wasn't created, it just is. But chance, no, its no accident.

No, chance in reality is the scientific answer based on our current knowledge and observational data. Any design and/or supposed purpose suggests a designer. But you are correct in stating that it simply just is and that's exactly what I am saying. Anything else is entirely hypothetical and at this time totally unevidenced.

Quote

Anyway, Einstien said imagination was more important that knowledge.

Einstein was simply suggesting that Imagination has its place and is and must be on an equal footing with knowledge. And of course any imagination can be either supported or debunked by following the scientific methodology.

Quote

What makes you think its all just chance, why can the universe not have a design? Maybe that is the insight a theory of everything will provide?

Current data I believe supports the concept that the universe was purely by chance.

Quote

For the record, I think religion is nothing more than a cult and that its people are exploited, its verging on being mental illness and is probably as close to being mentally ill you could be without actually being mentally ill. I think the idea of an all powerful God with his heaven/hell creation is absurd and should be banished from our culture, its just the biggest load of nonsense I have ever come across.

It certainly is not science.

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Anyway, Einstien said imagination was more important that knowledge.

Here is that quote in its entirety.....

“At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the [solar] eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” [From A. Einstein, Cosmic Religion: With Other Opinions and Aphorisms, p. 97 (1931).]

Edited January 1, 2019 by beecee

[PrimalMinister]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Current data I believe supports the concept that the universe was purely by chance.

So I throw a ball in the air and by chance it falls to the floor according to gravity, that doesn't make sense. If there was a element of chance every once in a while the ball wouldn't come down, it would continue going up. But its not chance, the same thing happens repeatedly, the ball comes down according to gravity. Where is the chance? At the point of creation? Do you mean there is a chance the universe, at the point of creation, could go this way or that way or whatever way, and by chance it goes our way? Is that what you are talking about when you talk about chance?

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Here is that quote in its entirety.....

I should stick with my guns, there is no point me believeing the big bang, lots of people all ready do. The modern world tells us diversity is good, I have original thinking and there is a *chance* I am right.

 

6 hours ago, Strange said:

And that is why you need to start doing some science. So we can tell if your guess works or not. 

I said it is just a framework for a theory of everything, not an actual theory of everything, there are just some good reasons for thinking along these lines.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I said it is just a framework for a theory of everything, not an actual theory of everything, there are just some good reasons for thinking along these lines.

Maybe you should come back when you have something of substance to discuss. Not just some vague guesswork.

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So I throw a ball in the air and by chance it falls to the floor according to gravity, that doesn't make sense. If there was a element of chance every once in a while the ball wouldn't come down, it would continue going up. But its not chance, the same thing happens repeatedly, the ball comes down according to gravity. Where is the chance? At the point of creation? Do you mean there is a chance the universe, at the point of creation, could go this way or that way or whatever way, and by chance it goes our way? Is that what you are talking about when you talk about chance?

The universe we inhabit certainly as far as we know, and according to current knowledge, was most likely by chance, while being also consistent. The laws and constants that we recognise were imparted when our BB arose, evolved and expanded from a fluctuation in the quantum foam, is our best educated guess.

Quote

 

I should stick with my guns, there is no point me believeing the big bang, lots of people all ready do. The modern world tells us diversity is good, I have original thinking and there is a *chance* I am right.

 

That sounds like that old adage we often hear, "change for change's sake" or in your case, "opposition to generally accepted mainstream astronomy, for opposition's sake" certainly not in anyway due to any preponderance of evidence or observations supporting your cause. 

When and if any modification, change, or addition is needed, it will proceed according to the scientific method.

 

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So I throw a ball in the air and by chance it falls to the floor according to gravity, that doesn't make sense.

No, that doesn’t make sense. 

However, balls do follow predictable paths. We are able to capture this behaviour in mathematical laws. 

We don’t really know why the universe should behave consistently like this. 

You believe (for no good reason) that something needs to “enforce” this regular behaviour. 

You also seem to believe that dividing space up into “cells” will explain this constistent and predictable nature of the universe. 

However, that is as far as you have got. You don’t even know what size or shape the cells might be. You can’t show, mathematically,, that these cells could reproduce the behaviour we see.

And yet, there are real scientists who have started with the same basic concept and have been can show that spacetime, gravity and at least some of quantum theory emerges from it.

So, while Einstein may have said that imagination is important, it is clear that you can’t get very far with just imagination, because the people using knowledge and expertise have got a lot further.

 

[PrimalMinister]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not just some vague guesswork.

Its not guess work, the are good reasons for thinking along the lines that I am thinking. I have not just randomly come up with it. There are things science doesnt understand, when people are being honest they say 'we don't know'. That means we don't have the knowledge. Science, scientists, say that, that is why they also say the universe is mysterious, because we don't know everything,

 

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

The laws and constants that we recognise were imparted when our BB arose, evolved and expanded from a fluctuation in the quantum foam, is our best educated guess.

So the quantum foam, this existed prior to the big? What happened to this quantum foam when the universe came into being? Did the quantum foam exist for an infinite amount of time prior to the big bang? And if there was no universe prior to the big bang, what was this quantum foam in exactly?

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Its not guess work, the are good reasons for thinking along the lines that I am thinking.

What are these reasons? Without either theory or evidence, it looks just like guesswork.

But we could be generous and call it an unsupported, speculative hypothesis. But that just sounds like a fancy way of saying "guess".

I mean, its not a bad guess. After all, there are several plausible (but currently untested and untestable) scientific theories based on the concept. But you need to do a lot more than just "maybe the universe is made of cells and that's what makes everything work consistently". 

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

There are things science doesnt understand, when people are being honest they say 'we don't know'.

Obviously. But I fail to see the (specific) relevance to this thread.

 

12 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So the quantum foam, this existed prior to the big? What happened to this quantum foam when the universe came into being? Did the quantum foam exist for an infinite amount of time prior to the big bang? And if there was no universe prior to the big bang, what was this quantum foam in exactly?

This thread is for you to present your theory. If you want to discuss mainstream cosmology, you should start a new thread (or there may be several already going).

[PrimalMinister]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Obviously. But I fail to see the (specific) relevance to this thread.

Because you have to look at what we dont know and try to make it into something we know, knowledge.

We know the laws of the universe are everywhere but we don't know why, embedding all the laws of the universe in cells (like a tv, holographic plate, tile based world) would explain how to get the laws of the universe everywhere, it may not be *the* explanation, but is *an* explanation. For sure it needs work, but there are reasons for it being so.

What we know, our knowledge is all good and well, but it is the unknown that requires imagination.

[beecee]

35 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Its not guess work, the are good reasons for thinking along the lines that I am thinking. I have not just randomly come up with it. There are things science doesnt understand, when people are being honest they say 'we don't know'. That means we don't have the knowledge. Science, scientists, say that, that is why they also say the universe is mysterious, because we don't know everything,

Of course it is guess work. You have no evidence whatsoever to support any concept of logic behind the BB, other then incredulity. Science is honest...they freely admit they do not know why or how the BB arose, although they do have some reasonable speculative scenario, supported by current knowledge.

Quote

So the quantum foam, this existed prior to the big? What happened to this quantum foam when the universe came into being? Did the quantum foam exist for an infinite amount of time prior to the big bang? And if there was no universe prior to the big bang, what was this quantum foam in exactly?

The quantum foam probably has given rise to many BB's, some which have dramatically recollapsed immediately, others expanding at too fast a rate and so burst, others till just not conducive to life as we know it.

How long did it exist for? There was no time or space, as we know them before the BB, but If it is correct according to reasonable speculation, then it may have existed for eternity, and simply be as close to 'nothing" that we can ever envisage. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Please note, the article concludes thus.....

"If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours".

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

In essence to even be able to contemplate such is extraordinary to say the least, while all being in line with present knowledge.

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What we know, our knowledge is all good and well, but it is the unknown that requires imagination.

The "Unknown" tinged of course with a reasonable knowledge of current theories, laws and knowledge.

[PrimalMinister]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

There was no time or space, as we know them before the BB

 

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

The quantum foam probably has given rise to many BB's

These two statements seem to contradict each other, if there where other big bangs before this one, that implies things where changing and therefore time. And how can this quantum foam be fluxulated if there is not time, if its changing, there is time.

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

These two statements seem to contradict each other, if there where other big bangs before this one, that implies things where changing and therefore time. And how can this quantum foam be fluxulated if there is not time, if its changing, there is time.

Not really...If you go back through my contributions, I will mostly say [as a respected astronomer pointed out to me] that time and space "as we know them" evolved from t+10-43 seconds. in other words whatever existed before, [if anything] existed in a time and space we are ignorant of. Plus again the finality of the link I did give again is, "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours"

[PrimalMinister]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours

So our universe has an edge, beyond which other universes exist? And inbetween them there is quanutm foam?

You see some times I feel like the kid in the crowd who shouts the king is wearing nothing when he is supposedly garments of the finest material. Some things physicts say, I just can't believe. Maybe the big bang happened, maybe I am wrong, but personally, I can't accept it. Somehow the logic is no where near as elegant as the equations.

 

 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

So our universe has an edge, beyond which other universes exist? And inbetween them there is quanutm foam?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Again, all we have for anything before t+10-43 seconds is speculation, but at least all that I have speculated/linked to on this thread, has been reasonably logic speculation that in no way defies any known laws. 

What we can be pretty sure of is that we have absolutely no reason to believe the universe was anything more then an accident and chance.

The onus of course is on you to show any reason or any observational evidence to show otherwise. That so far you have failed to do.

Quote

You see some times I feel like the kid in the crowd who shouts the king is wearing nothing when he is supposedly garments of the finest material. Some things physicts say, I just can't believe. Maybe the big bang happened, maybe I am wrong, but personally, I can't accept it. Somehow the logic is no where near as elegant as the equations.

I've seen many trolls and others pushing alternative propositions with no evidence, raise that issue amongst other poor excuses and expressions of incredulity. The fact remains that the BB is overwhelmingly supported by observational evidence, and fits hand in glove with GR. 

My advice, first no fully and thoroughly  what you are attempting to debunk.

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by beecee

[Strange]

7 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Because you have to look at what we dont know and try to make it into something we know, knowledge.

And that needs to follow the scientific method, not just guesswork 

7 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

We know the laws of the universe are everywhere but we don't know why, embedding all the laws of the universe in cells (like a tv, holographic plate, tile based world) would explain how to get the laws of the universe everywhere, it may not be *the* explanation, but is *an* explanation. For sure it needs work, but there are reasons for it being so.

So you say. But you can provide nothing to support this claim. 

Maybe physics is the same everywhere just because the universe is the same everywhere. Maybe they can’t be any different. 

Until you can provide a scientific (evidence based) reason why tour cells are needed and that they do what you claim, this is just guesswork 

6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

You see some times I feel like the kid in the crowd who shouts the king is wearing nothing when he is supposedly garments of the finest material.

“No, dear. That’s not the king. And she is fully dressed.”

[beecee]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Again, all we have for anything before t+10-43 seconds is speculation, but at least all that I have speculated/linked to on this thread, has been reasonably logic speculation that in no way defies any known laws. 

What we can be pretty sure of is that we have absolutely no reason to believe the universe was anything more then an accident and chance.

The onus of course is on you to show any reason or any observational evidence to show otherwise. That so far you have failed to do.

I've seen many trolls and others pushing alternative propositions with no evidence, raise that issue amongst other poor excuses and expressions of incredulity. The fact remains that the BB is overwhelmingly supported by observational evidence, and fits hand in glove with GR. 

My advice, first know fully and thoroughly  what you are attempting to debunk.

 

From my previous post...know not no!!!! Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin!

Edited January 2, 2019 by beecee

[Eise]

On 12/31/2018 at 10:58 PM, PrimalMinister said:

How are the laws of the universe enforced?

They are not. 'Laws' of nature do not enforce anything: they describe how nature factually behaves. Science tries to find these descriptions at abstract level. The abstracter they are, the more phenomena can be subsumed under the terms of the theory. 

On 1/1/2019 at 5:02 AM, beecee said:

Newton's law of gravity dictates that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down to Earth: we are pretty certain of that.

No, Newton's law of gravity dictates nothing. It correctly (in very good approximation) describes how things fall. The great thing, as illustration of what I wrote above, it also describes the movement of moon and planets. 

On 1/1/2019 at 5:02 AM, beecee said:

No philosophy has no answer either.

On the contrary. Philosophy has here a very easy answer, as given above. The answer however is not a straight answer on the question, it shows the question is nonsensical. A not uncommon movement in philosophy: showing that hidden in the question are already hidden assumptions, that are wrong, or at least unproven.

 

 

20 hours ago, Strange said:

That is not a "law" in the scientific sense. It might be an assumption, or a hypothesis or a postulate. But you would need to provide a mathematical model and some evidence before it could be accepted as part of a theory.

Exactly. If it would turn out to true, it is on the basis of science, i.e. it would comply to the idea I gave above: a still higher level of abstraction, from which other abstract descriptions follow. So I would say, the topic (quantum structure of space) is a viable hypothesis, on which actually is worked, but to be a theory about the universe, one must show that one can logically derive the laws of nature as we already know them.  I cannot imagine that PrimalMinister has the knowledge and mathematical capability to do that. Without this, his idea is just that: an idea, without any scientific value.

[PrimalMinister]

Look, we know the universe evolves according to laws (which you seem to think by keeping telling me I will somehow understand further) but we don't know why (at this point you could say its Gods will). This to me is a problem looking for a solution.

You may say its philosophy but if you examine the problem further the question becomes this:

We know the universe evolves according to laws, we know the laws are enforced, but we don't know why/how they are enforced. This is a problem looking for a solution.

I have studied the facts and the theorys and was encouraged to think for myself.

When phycists say there was no time or space before the big bang, I just cant believe that.

And we had it wrong before, we thought the sun revolved around the earth.

I have a framework for a theory of everything, not a theory of everything, I am not claiming to have the things you say I don't have. Its quite literally the beginning of this hypothosis, it needs more work for sure.

But what I do have is interesting, even if you don't see it yet. I brought Einsteins quote imagination is more important than knowledge because of the lack of imagination in the answers.

Stephen Wolfram showed that simple processes can have complex outcomes, it doesn't take a lot to get complexity, I think underlying the complexity of the universe is essentially a simple process. The question is, can this simple process account for all we see around us, and even at this early stage there is a possibility that it can, considering all a theory of everything has to do is explain the movement of all things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ghideon]

I see no answer to my question above, maybe you missed it. Here’s the question again, a little more detailed*. Can you please use your pixels/cells to describe or explain:

The source of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background)
Why CMB has the spectrum it does
Why CMB has the temperature it does
The relative proportions of hydrogen and helium
The redshift-distance relationship (Hubble's law)

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

there is no point me believeing the big bang

For the continuing discussion, please clarify; do you mean that the mainstream scientific explanations regarding expanding universe from an early hot, dense state is incorrect? Or that the observations regarding expanding universe etc are incorrect?

 

*) I borrowed details from another thread where @Strange had already created better formulations than my attempts.

[PrimalMinister]

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you please use your pixels/cells to describe or explain:

No, it is a framework for a theory of everything, not a theory of everything.

 

27 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

; do you mean that the mainstream scientific explanations regarding expanding universe from an early hot, dense state is incorrect? Or that the observations regarding expanding universe etc are incorrect?

I think there could be problems with both of them, I don't know enough to say what might be incorrect about them. Maybe the universe did come into being via a big bang as described, I accept I could be wrong. But every fibre of my being tells me something is not quite right with it. This is worsened by the fact I have my own ideas about the universe and believe (I could be wrong) that I have read the mind of God. What I mean by this is, is that God doesn't roll dice. I don't believe in any God, but the universe, I believe has a design, a profound and sublime design, its not chance, its not a random accident. That is my own personal belief, I can't prove it at this stage.

Now I may not have *the* solution to a perplexing problem with physics, but I have *a* solution and it could be, there is a chance, that it could be *the* solution. I am intelligent enough to know this.