existence without space

[granpa]

Pre-space existence:

Imagine a universe consisting entirely of discrete entities that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them because space itself would not exist.

 

To make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

Now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

 

Origin of chaos:

Whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

 

It just occurred to me that if all the particles are the same then it would be meaningless to say that there was more than one. the very idea of dividing into 2 particles requires that they be different in some way.

 

In our universe a particle could divide into 2 identical particles. but they wouldnt really be identical because they would have different positions. in such a universe as described above there is no such thing as 'position'. so it would be meaningless to say that a particle had divided into 2 if the 2 resulting particles were not distinguishable in some way.

 

Something from nothing?

Why do people assume that existence came from nothing?

Why not from everything?

Time wasnt created.

Being created would require time.

you can only go back to the very beginning and then you just cant go back any further.

Asking whats before that is like asking whats north of the north pole

At the very beginning, 'everything' was a singularity but it wasnt 'nothing'

 

What caused the first cause?

Instead of saying that every event is 'caused' by previous events

maybe we should say that every event is 'influenced' by previous events.

Then the question of can an event occur without a cause

becomes can an event occur that isnt influenced by a previous event.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34196-origin-of-the-universe-matterantimatter/page__p__437141#entry437141

Edited March 14, 2011 by granpa

[ydoaPs]

How could you have multiple particles without space?

[Sisyphus]

How could you have multiple particles without space?

 

You couldn't have particles, per se, but you could distinct "entities" with various relationships between them. It's basically the same as the question of whether life could evolve in a computer program that doesn't simulate a physical world.

 

I have to ponder this more, but it seems to make sense. On the other hand, what we perceive as "space" could just be described as a certain sort of relationship between fundamental entities (particles), and so the proposed universe wouldn't actually be as different as it seems. Or something.

 

Whatever, I have last minute shopping to do.

[north]

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

 

I hate to repeat and disagree with you but how could any " bit " exist without space though ?

 

you see space " allows " for the existence of things any thing

 

space gives " room " into which a bit or thing can manifest its self into

[granpa]

I think post 3 answered that better than I could.

 

anyway, what you say is exactly what I am saying may not be true.

 

I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be

 

 

thousands of years ago it was common sense that the earth couldnt be round because everyone knew that objects would fall 'down' off the sides. we know now that they had it backwards. 'down' is whatever direction objects happen to be falling.

 

you say that its common sense that objects require 'space' to exist. what if you've got it backwards. maybe 'space' is just a description of how the objects that exist interact. what if objects could interact in ways that are not space-like? like quantum entanglement for instance.

Edited December 25, 2008 by granpa

[czimborbryan]

I think you are onto something because I have been wrapping my brain around the idea that the root of matter is nothing more than waves through time/gravity and in that thought, space isn't real, just an illusion.

[granpa]

I've been meaning for some time to link to these 2 posts but figured nobody would read it

 

whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

 

it just occurred to me that if all the particles are the same then it would be meaningless to say that there was more than one. the very idea of dividing into 2 particles requires that they be different in some way.

 

in our universe a particle could divide into 2 identical particles. but they wouldnt really be identical because they would have different positions. in such a universe as described above there is no such thing as 'position'. so it would be meaningless to say that a particle had divided into 2 if the 2 resulting particles were not distinguishable in some way.

Edited January 10, 2009 by granpa

[czimborbryan]

The mind-blowing thing here is that the ultimate tool for perceiving these things is our brain. The world we live in now may be as virtual as pacman and we may be perceiving things and measuring things that are not real (similar to TV). The perception of 3 dimensions and space may be a front. This reality may all be somewhat digital.

[mooeypoo]

right.. well, that's philosophy, czimborbryan, not physics.

 

Proof? Reference? Even a mere explanation on your logic on this one, would upgrade this to a slightly elevated status.

 

Nice philosophy, but.. far from being anything substantial. I guess it all depends on what you want to achieve; a nice story or an actual grasp on reality.

[Baby Astronaut]

One philosophical thought I'd like to contribute, which I suspect many in this community might already privately harbor, is that mathematics which detail existence is reducible far beyond its usual framework into very simple components.

 

One reference I can point to is E=mc2.

 

I believe all mathematics can achieve this simplicity or better. However, if even one variable were off, an increase of complication ripples through the framework until it nears its current state.

 

The variable I mentioned has many faces. Conclusive evidence is one -- and what if it turns out to be incorrect? When Einstein proved that energy and matter were one and the same, I would imagine it had a ripple effect that simplified other formulas. Consequently, a lot of divergent theories may have been collapsed into a simpler framework.

 

The leap of insight with electromagnetism most probably accomplished a similar thing.

 

I've noticed in researching mathematical origins that the authors of certain formulations had used personalized notations. The implications of this leads me to hope a few will realize that our mathematical architecture in its formal state might need a complete overhaul and redesign, in order to accommodate new explanations for reality which might be lurking just beyond its range yet within the grasp of a less complicated system of notation.

 

One day, computers will be able to rearrange the math system by tinkering around with many variables in novel ways, until it hits an approach that collapses a lot of formula notations down to unforeseen sizes. The key might be a different base number than we're used to, or a combination of two base numbers. And such might later be combined with an elegant method of arrangement for notations.

[throng]

Are you aware of the creation theory buddhism, and ancient lore (celtic, egyptian etc). It is a metaphorical story that uses imaginary points to create 3D space time starting with a void.

 

Have you heard this philosophy before? It is based on the concept that the universe is a phenomena of consciousness, which some more radical Q physicists also profess.

 

You familiar with that philosophy?

[czimborbryan]

Are you aware of the creation theory buddhism, and ancient lore (celtic, egyptian etc). It is a metaphorical story that uses imaginary points to create 3D space time starting with a void.

 

Have you heard this philosophy before? It is based on the concept that the universe is a phenomena of consciousness, which some more radical Q physicists also profess.

 

You familiar with that philosophy?

 

This sounds possible, but I haven't ruled out the possibility of space as being real.

 

Is there a kicker or any idea that would seem to make this theory make more sense than real space?

[granpa]

complex loops of such 'entities' could oscillate between different states much like the 'strings' of string theory. if such a complex structure seems unlikely then consider the vast number of 'bits' involved. after only 1000 divisions there would be 2^1000 bits. thats far more the number of protons that would fit in the observable universe. now imagine 10^40 divisions.

 

 

and before this thread gets totally off topic I want to link to these posts of mine:

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1897259&postcount=7

 

Originally Posted by kasse

 

1. Is it true that time was created in the big bang? In that case; what was it created from?

2. Is it possible that the universe is infinite in space, matter/energy or time?

3. Will the universe continue to expand forever?

4. If time was created in the BB, does it need to have a cause? I've heard physicists say that all the laws of physics - and thus the concept of cause and effect - break down in the singularity, so that BB doesn't need a cause; it just happened. To me this sounds no more convincing than a Christin claiming that "God just did it".

 

why do you assume that it came from nothing? why not from everything?

 

time wasnt created. being created would require time. you can only go back so far. to the very beginning. and then you just cant go back any further.

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1897278&postcount=12

Originally Posted by kasse

 

Can't time be infinite?

 

neither in duration nor in divisibility. time like everything else is finite and discrete.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1897303&postcount=18

Originally Posted by kasse

 

I thought we didn't even know WHAT time is...but then, since time is finite, does it mean that will have an end?

 

So we actually know that the energy/matter in our universe (and possible other universes) is finite?

 

time will never end but at no time will an infinite amount of time have passed.

 

this is just common sense.

Edited January 13, 2009 by granpa

[czimborbryan]

My 2 cents.

 

I do not believe that time moves. Time is static in the here and now and there is no past or future.

 

Time must have existed at the point of the big bang (only God knows if it was there first or if it was simultaineous), but there is no way that time was created by the bang (otherwise there would not have been a bang or anything).

 

I am not sure how to explain the improbability of the universe as finite. There are some important consequences of this. If the universe is finite, there is a geographical point at which time/gravity does not exist and therefore matter and light are impossible. What is the nature of this state of nothingness? Or does this alternative state have properties that do not accomodate the properties of time/gravity.

 

I am more inclined to think that the universe is infinite within it's own boundaries of time/gravity. This means that the universe can accomodate varying amounts of mass and that mass is not finite.

[granpa]

If the universe is finite, there is a geographical point at which time/gravity does not exist and therefore matter and light are impossible.

 

you mean that space must end somewhere? that misconception is exactly what this whole thread is about.

[czimborbryan]

you mean that space must end somewhere? that misconception is exactly what this whole thread is about.

 

Not necesarily that space ends somewhere, but that time and gravity end somewhere or somehow (not sure how to explain this when I leave out space).

 

I just confused myself. I feel as though i just walked around the block and ended up in Japan.

 

I guess that if we are saying that space is not real, then time and gravity may be just as much an illusion - back to the idea of a digital universe. The question that i have is what is behind this illusion?

[granpa]

I guess that if we are saying that space is not real, then time and gravity may be just as much an illusion - back to the idea of a digital universe. The question that i have is what is behind this illusion?

 

back? when did we leave it?

whats behind it? who knows. maybe this:

 

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

Edited January 13, 2009 by granpa

[czimborbryan]

There would have to be some type of underlying structure to organize the bits in a perceivable way (similar to a computer).

[granpa]

obviously

 

thats what I was getting at with post 13

 

but as I've said elsewhere I think we shouldnt even be asking what the fundamental nature of reality 'really' is. I think we should just concentrate on how we would simulate the universe in a computer. once we figure out 'how' it works then we can argue over 'what' it really is.

Edited January 13, 2009 by granpa

[mooeypoo]

How can you simulate anything in a computer without knowing, in advance, what you're simulating?

 

A computer requires input and programming in logical, methodological manner. If you don't have basic rules of what and how your simulation behaves -- the basic rules of your universe -- how would it be simulated?

[granpa]

this is a perfect example of people on the internet always taking everything others say in the worst possible sense. if I had said we must answer the question of 'what' things are and not just worry about 'how' things work then you would have argued vehemently with me saying that science answers 'how' not 'why'.

 

to program a computer all we need to know is 'how' things behave. computers know 'how' to do what you tell them to do but they dont know 'what' they are doing so what good would it do to tell it 'what' things are?

 

do we need to know if there is an ether to know how to simulate fields? no. we just need to know how the fields interact.

 

moreover my point was that different theories should be judged by the results they give when used in a simulation. also we should stop saying things like quantum mechanics doesnt make sense so it must be wrong. if a computer can be programmed with it and the simulation gives the right results then we shouldnt worry about whether it 'makes sense' or not.

Edited January 14, 2009 by granpa

[czimborbryan]

I like the idea of simulation, but it's even difficult for computers to simulate the weather 5 days down the road, let alone a universe. A super-computer may do the trick. This would be a tremendously fun project. Tiny variables could be changed to produce answers to really big questions - or at least give clues.

[granpa]

well yeah. by 'simulate the universe' I meant 'how we would hypothetically simulate the universe in a computer if we had a computer big enough'. I was really thinking in terms of simulating molecules.

[mooeypoo]

this is a perfect example of people on the internet always taking everything others say in the worst possible sense. if I had said we must answer the question of 'what' things are and not just worry about 'how' things work then you would have argued vehemently with me saying that science answers 'how' not 'why'.

 

Did the thought that my question was sincere, asked to get input, ever cross your mind?

 

The question I asked was valid, whether you like it or not, and I expected an answer as part of a debate, not a lecture on why my question was a bad one...

 

to program a computer all we need to know is 'how' things behave. computers know 'how' to do what you tell them to do but they dont know 'what' they are doing so what good would it do to tell it 'what' things are?

That's right, I agree, but you said in the previous post:

but as I've said elsewhere I think we shouldnt even be asking what the fundamental nature of reality 'really' is. I think we should just concentrate on how we would simulate the universe in a computer. once we figure out 'how' it works then we can argue over 'what' it really is.

And I was wondering that if you shouldn't be asking what the fundamental nature of reality "really" is, how can you program the computer to act realistically?

 

Whatever conclusions are drawn can be physical or philosophical, and can relate to the "why" or the "how many". But if you want the simulation to show reality, you need to first understand reality fully..

 

If you want to simulate a car, you need to know how *everything in it* works. You don't have to know why and you don't have to know who made it, but if you want the simulation to be realistic (and hence,your conclusion to have any merit on reality) then of course -- you have to take into account all that affects your car. Your computer simulation will have to know how everything inside works, and how the interaction between the parts affects the car.

 

Otherwise, the simulation is meaningless.

 

do we need to know if there is an ether to know how to simulate fields? no. we just need to know how the fields interact.

I am not sure I understand what fields interaction you're refering to, but if the interaction is affected by whether or not ether exists, then yes, you should first know it, otherwise you are simulating fields wrong.

 

You shuold know how the universe - and all that "affects it" - acts and how it operates (you don't have to know the why, I agree, but you do have to know the how) - to make your simulation of the universe as realistic as possible.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I like the idea of simulation, but it's even difficult for computers to simulate the weather 5 days down the road, let alone a universe. A super-computer may do the trick. This would be a tremendously fun project. Tiny variables could be changed to produce answers to really big questions - or at least give clues.

Which just emphasize my point -- the reason we have problems predicting the weather (with or without computers) is because the system is so complex, we don't know everything that affects it.

 

One day, perhaps, when we *do know all the reality of weather systems*, predictions will come with that knowledge.

 

You have to know the entire parts of the system to be able to simulate it, and predict how it will react to different situations.

[granpa]

no moneypoo. science should be content to merely observe and describe.