Gravity and Space-Time Do Not Exist In The Observable Universe

[EmDriver]

For anything to exist in the observable universe, it must be real and not real.

Why is this true but not (true and false)? The observable universe is real and not real because of quantum entanglement and the waveform.

The universe is not applying values to it's particles unless an observer is perceiving that part of the universe. The observer makes the universe real from their perception of the universe. Quantum entanglement is the universe's way of creating new information. When particles are entangled in waveform, this allows for the function of creating new information when the waveform collapses.

What is a subjective truth? A subjective truth is real to an observer who perceives that it is real, but another observer with a different perception may perceive it as false. Both of these perceptions cannot be proven to either observer.

Why is this true? This is true because the observable universe is real and not real.

Why does Gravity and Space-Time not collapse into a particle? Why aren't these made up of atoms and particles? Why can't we see them directly?

Gravity and Space-Time are unique in the universe. Their effects are observable anywhere in perceivable space of our universe so they can't be false. Their effects become real and not real in observable space. Gravity and Space-Time still occur when their are no observers to perceive the effects of Gravity and Space-Time so they can't be a subjective truth. Light is still moving across the universe when no observers are looking at that part of the universe. Therefore Gravity and Space-Time exist in truth but are not (real and not real).

 

 

[MigL]

WTF are you talking about ?

This isn't Physics and it isn't Philosophy.

[EmDriver]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

WTF are you talking about ?

This isn't Physics and it isn't Philosophy.

How so? 

[MigL]

Entanglement does not create new information.
The universe was as 'real' as it is now even before there were any observers.
The universe is not subjective, or perception based, as every observer will make the same observations; that is a principle of science.

We have a Physicist/Philosopher member who has set the bar fairly high.
And this just doesn't make the cut.

[EmDriver]

Your right.

From my perception though I am combining the physics proof of quantum entanglement (which proves the universe isn't locally real, only relatively real) with the scholar and philosopher who figured that out back in 600ish BCE. He didn't have the technology to prove the universe was real and not real back then. That didn't happen until over 2500 years later or so.

Oh yea, check this out too: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2021/CP/D0CP05781A#!divAbstract

Quite interesting if you ask me.

[Genady]

6 hours ago, EmDriver said:

I am combining the physics proof of quantum entanglement (which proves the universe isn't locally real, only relatively real) with the scholar and philosopher who figured that out back in 600ish BCE.

Has somebody figured out quantum entanglement back then?

[EmDriver]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Has somebody figured out quantum entanglement back then?

I believe so. It is true we perceive semantics slightly differently then back in 600 BCE due to differences in technology and culture. Through syntax and semantics translation, it ends up being the same thing. Siddhartha Gautama (the scholar and philosopher) was using the computational power of his brain, and did not have computational power of the technology we use today. When he said the universe is real and not real ends up being the same as us saying the universe is relatively real, and not locally real. We are defining what type of real here (new information). The semantic and syntax of the words relatively and locally can translate into many other things if we wish within our own language, such as locally->3-D and relatively->4-D->Space-Time for example.

I find that a philosopher from BCE times talking about the universe being real and not real is highly interesting considering what we have proven. His perception of dialetheism being true (which was proven to exist in truth when we proved it through quantum entanglement) also solves several paradoxes such as how to define a set. The more recent way some have tried to solve it was by changing their perception of how to define a set. Because the universe has been proven to be real and not real means that something can be (true and false)->(real and not real) at the same time. When we look at the languages on our planet and the six different word orders we use, we see that one of the modern way to solve this paradox is also a subjective truth. How to define a set is subjective depending on the perception of the observer.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

I believe so. It is true we perceive semantics slightly differently then back in 600 BCE due to differences in technology and culture. Through syntax and semantics translation, it ends up being the same thing. Siddhartha Gautama (the scholar and philosopher) was using the computational power of his brain, and did not have computational power of the technology we use today. When he said the universe is real and not real ends up being the same as us saying the universe is relatively real, and not locally real. We are defining what type of real here (new information). The semantic and syntax of the words relatively and locally can translate into many other things if we wish within our own language, such as locally->3-D and relatively->4-D->Space-Time for example.

I find that a philosopher from BCE times talking about the universe being real and not real is highly interesting considering what we have proven. His perception of dialetheism being true (which was proven to exist in truth when we proved it through quantum entanglement) also solves several paradoxes such as how to define a set. The more recent way some have tried to solve it was by changing their perception of how to define a set. Because the universe has been proven to be real and not real means that something can be (true and false)->(real and not real) at the same time. When we look at the languages on our planet and the six different word orders we use, we see that one of the modern way to solve this paradox is also a subjective truth. How to define a set is subjective depending on the perception of the observer.

How did he describe quantum entanglement?

[joigus]

Real excludes "non-real". Therefore it excludes "real and non-real".

Unless you're speaking from a different kind of logic. Fuzzy logic, etc.

1) Identity (A is A)

2) Non-contradiction (A is not the neg. of A)

3) Excluded middle (B always is either A, else neg. of A)

As to entanglement, etc, I concur with @MigL and @Genady. It certainly doesn't multiply information. If anything, it "compresses" it, whatever that would mean.

What it does, perhaps, is bring a brand new kind of entropy to the game: Entanglement entropy => more ways in which we can be ignorant. 

[EmDriver]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

How did he describe quantum entanglement?

Same as above. We could define it even further I guess. Conceiving of something and proving something are 2 different things. To prove something, it must first be conceived of.

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

Real excludes "non-real". Therefore it excludes "real and non-real".

Unless you're speaking from a different kind of logic. Fuzzy logic, etc.

1) Identity (A is A)

2) Non-contradiction (A is not the neg. of A)

3) Excluded middle (B always is either A, else neg. of A)

As to entanglement, etc, I concur with @MigL and @Genady. It certainly doesn't multiply information. If anything, it "compresses" it, whatever that would mean.

What it does, perhaps, is bring a brand new kind of entropy to the game: Entanglement entropy => more ways in which we can be ignorant. 

δι- di ἀλήθεια alḗtheia (dialetheism) is when something can be true and not true at the same time. A true statement where it's exclusion (contradiction) is also true. If something is (relatively real, but not locally real), it is also (real and not real). Because we can observe the state of the waveform and the state of particles this makes it different from gravity for example. We can observe the effects of gravity but we cannot observe gravity directly.

Entanglement entropy actually rolls off the tongue quite nicely, I like it!

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

1 hour ago, Genady said:

How did he describe quantum entanglement?

Same as above.

You did not say above, how he described quantum entanglement.

 

7 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

we can observe the state of the waveform and the state of particles

No, we cannot observe state of wavefunction, nor state of particles. They are not observable.

[joigus]

6 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

δι- di ἀλήθεια alḗtheia (dialetheism) is when something can be true and not true at the same time.

It's been a long time since I first understood the difference between being able to explain something, and being able to give a name to something.

Eg, is what you're saying now subject to dialetheism? That is, can I believe, or trust, or take for granted what you're saying now, and not believe, not trust, not take for granted anything you're saying now, both at the same time?

Is dialetheism itself true and not true? Can it be applied to itself?

In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, I foresee all kinds of unforeseen problems...

[EmDriver]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, we cannot observe state of wavefunction, nor state of particles. They are not observable.

Do you mean a one particle complex wavefunction or a real classical field or both?

[joigus]

BTW, what is a waveform?

[EmDriver]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

It's been a long time since I first understood the difference between being able to explain something, and being able to give a name to something.

Eg, is what you're saying now subject to dialetheism? That is, can I believe, or trust, or take for granted what you're saying now, and not believe, not trust, not take for granted anything you're saying now, both at the same time?

Is dialetheism itself true and not true? Can it be applied to itself?

In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, I foresee all kinds of unforeseen problems...

I'm saying that dialetheism is true because the of the universe being (relatively real and not real).

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

Do you mean a one particle complex wavefunction or a real classical field or both?

As we are talking about quantum entanglement, I mean wavefunction and a particle state in quantum mechanics.

[EmDriver]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

BTW, what is a waveform?

Oh good point. Waveform as in superposition/ quantum superposition.

Edited March 25, 2023 by EmDriver

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

universe being (relatively real and not real)

The universe is real. It is not 'not real'.

[EmDriver]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

The universe is real. It is not 'not real'.

But how can the universe's particles lack spin-down and spin-up prior to their measurement then?

Edited March 25, 2023 by EmDriver

[joigus]

8 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

Oh good point. Waveform as in superposition/ quantum superposition.

Huh... I wasn't making a point. It was a simple question.

What is a waveform? Is it a wave function? Is it the equivalence class of all gauge-equivalent wave functions? Is it the modulus square?

I'm not familiar with the concept.

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

But how can the universe's particles lack spin-down and spin-up prior to their measurement then?

They don't lack it. They are spin-down with some probability amplitude and spin-up with some probability amplitude, also spin-left with some probability amplitude, spin-right with some probability amplitude, spin-toward-Andromeda with some probability amplitude, spin-toward-Mecca with some probability amplitude, etc.

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, EmDriver said:

But how can the universe's particles lack spin-down and spin-up prior to their measurement then?

Maybe they're a lapsed buhdist, they do everything a buhdist does, but without a measurement...😉 

Edited March 25, 2023 by dimreepr

[swansont]

14 hours ago, EmDriver said:

For anything to exist in the observable universe, it must be real and not real.

Why is this true but not (true and false)? The observable universe is real and not real because of quantum entanglement and the waveform.

Define what you mean by “real”

14 hours ago, EmDriver said:

The universe is not applying values to it's particles unless an observer is perceiving that part of the universe. The observer makes the universe real from their perception of the universe. Quantum entanglement is the universe's way of creating new information. When particles are entangled in waveform, this allows for the function of creating new information when the waveform collapses.

What new information is created?