existence without space

[mooeypoo]

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

How does that answer my question? I asked you how you can simulate a system without fully understanding what affects it. How does the above answer is any form of reply to this?

 

Are you really saying that you could create a reliable simulation of a system - one that you could then derive conclusions from - without fully understanding how that system works and what the affecting factors are?

 

 

 

And please, please, be a bit more respectful and quote my name correctly. I'm choosing to assume you made a typo in my nickname. Please try to avoid doing that. My nickname is very well stated in every post I make.

[Royston]

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

 

I realise this is off topic, though I haven't the foggiest what the topic really is in this thread. However, it's statements like this that make me wonder if an SR basics GUT (ground up tutorial) is needed. Although, judging by czimborbyan's posts it would fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes in this case), but I may knock something together in the next few weeks.

[granpa]

if the ether is not empirically observable then it should be ignored. to do otherwise is unscientific.

nothing could be gained by trying to understand it.

Edited January 14, 2009 by granpa

[mooeypoo]

if the ether is not empirically observable then it should be ignored. to do otherwise is unscientific.

nothing could be gained by trying to understand it.

Observation is not the only empirical method to obtain proof.

 

That said, there are many phenomena that affect our reality while being either hard to observe or just impossible to directly observe. If you ignore them, you lose the ability to explain how the universe works.

 

General Relativity and Special Relativity are great examples. You can't observe them, and yet without them you can't explain many phenomena we DO observe, and otherwise would have remained unexplained. Like the pertrubations in the orbit of Mercury (as I keep giving as an example, it seems, since it's such a damn good one for how wonderfully predictive Relativity is).

 

So what you seem to be suggesting, grandpa, is that we should build a system according to what you want to have in the universe, and not necessarily according to how the universe actually operates.

 

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Just any conclusion you draw from such a system is absolutely irrelevant to our own *TRUE* reality.

 

~moo

[north]

I think post 3 answered that better than I could.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

of course

 

think of the space that is IN the object its self

 

 

 

 

 

what if you've got it backwards. maybe 'space' is just a description of how the objects that exist interact.

 

above

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

 

even waves need the space to move in and out of

 

if you eliminate the " space " in which you can move , meaning total confinement

 

how does time come to be or gravity ? both are based on movement

 

inotherwords think as confinement of space , as shrunk to absolute zero

 

space has no dimension , no movement and no change

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

further

 

quantum particles are about the continuous combinations and recombinations

 

thats the importance of the quantum realm

 

flexability

Edited January 16, 2009 by north
Consecutive post/s merged.

[granpa]

these entities wouldnt have that property. stop trying to visualize it. you cant visualize it because it isnt visual. its a concept. you conceive of it.

[mooeypoo]

these entities wouldnt have that property. stop trying to visualize it. you cant visualize it because it isnt visual. its a concept. you conceive of it.

Does't that make it philosophical, though? Not that I have anything against philosophy, I think it's very interesting - I'm just wondering how you would go about simulating a philosophical concept..

 

A computer is logical - input/analysis/output. The analysis needs to go about according to some rules (otherwise how would the computer analyze?) - and if you're speaking strictly philosophically, then how would you define the rules of analysis that the computer can handle?

[granpa]

I dont know what you mean. a computer could easily simulate what I am talking about. but obviously you cant visualize a system that doest have the property of space.

[mooeypoo]

I dont know what you mean. a computer could easily simulate what I am talking about. but obviously you cant visualize a system that doest have the property of space.

okay, then show me how?

 

What type of rules would you put into a computer that it would simulate the universe?

 

If you don't know what the rules that make our universe work are, then you can't put in empirical logical rules. I'm not sure how you would get a computer to simulate any system this way, let alone simulate it in a way that will be useful in analyzing any type of conclusion out of.

 

Give me an example of a set of rules, maybe that will make me understand how this can be done?

[granpa]

what?? go back and read post 32. we were talking about simulating 'those entities' that dont have the property of space. now you are talking about 'the universe'. make up your mind.

[mooeypoo]

what?? go back and read post 32. we were talking about simulating 'those entities' that dont have the property of space. now you are talking about 'the universe'. make up your mind.

Yes, and then you spoke about the universe, and then went back to "entities".

 

My question still stands. You don't know how to define those "entities" properly, it seems. So my original question holds:

Show me an example of which rules you would "feed" a computer in order to simulate a system when you don't know how the system works or how it interacts with outside influences.

 

 

 

 

Grandpa, this is a discussion, not a lecture on your part. I am asking a valid question, which you seem to be avoiding a proper answer for about 3-4 posts.

 

~moo

[granpa]

I never said anything of the sort. maybe you should read this post:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2036985#post2036985

[mooeypoo]

Yeah, you did:

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.

 

After which I have asked you more than four times to answer how you would go about simulating a universe (which you mentioned in the above post) or such entities, or any sort of system you don't know the fundamental nature of, in a computer, or at all.

 

Stop beating around the bush. I am asking a question, and you seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid giving me an answer.

[granpa]

your question is absurd. I neither said nor thought nor implied any such thing. your misrepresenting what I said just so you can argue with me. the post I linked you to explains it perfectly. if its too much trouble for you to go there and read it then I will post it here:

 

It is not a question of what one observes (what behavior is), it is a question of how the model produces the observed behavior.

 

Modeling behavior has two basic approaches. One approach is to produce the behavior (get the correct mathematical results) the other is, from a postulated model of the underlying fundamentals by combining the effects of the fundamentals to result in the observed behavior.

 

For example, one can develop a mathematical model to produce human behavior and given the set of stimuli this psychological attribute based model produces the observed human behaviors. This model does not require neurons to exist.

 

One can also, produce a model of behavior based on the postulate (theory) that it is the result of neurons (underlying fundamentals). This neuron based model also produces the correct human behavior.

 

The first psychological model does not address the source elements, the second model does. (This does not mean that the neural hypothsis is correct but it says something about the fundamental nature of the source of behavior rather than just producing the correct results.)

 

The first model does not distinguish between the behavior coming from the medulla, pons, cerebellum or neocortex not does it destinguish between the reaction of the neocortex to the cerebellum and thus does not destiguish between the source(s) of the behavior (just as the present model doen't destinguish between the source of the behavior, i.e the photon or the reaction of the particle to the photon but only the resultant behavior.).

 

In QM, QED, QFT, there are not underlying fundamentals postulated (separate photon model elements and massed particle model elements were the interaction between the elements are the source) from which the behavior results. In fact many believe there can be no underlying elements (``hidden variables''?).

 

Note, it has six differnet views of the nature of Nature (Copehagen, Stochastic, Many Worlds, etc.) where if it answered the question "What is the electron", "What is the photon", etc. there can only be a single answer, not multiple answers ("what the electron is" deliniates the nature of Nature).

 

Note, it is a wave particle duality while the actual entity by the first law of logic (either something is A or not A) must be wave particle unity. (Actually the SM is a spread out over all of space wave point particle duality, i.e. conflicting behavior duality if it represents the particle! While if it does not represent the particle only requires the underlying fundamentals to be a particle with point effective behavior and wave effective behavior.)

[mooeypoo]

grandpa, you're talking about creating a model of a system.

 

Whatever system it is, it doesn't matter; my question is how you plan to build this model if you don't know how the system operates or reacts.

 

Neither posts answered my question. In your post in the other forum, you again speak of creating a model. I'm asking you how you will go about creating such model.

 

 

If you think I misunderstand your answers, then perhaps you should help me out here and post *clear* answers, and not just single-line retorts that don't help the argument. I am not here to listen to a lecture, I'm asking a question which you seem to have a hard time explaining. Instead of accusing me of having an intention to argue, I urge you to read my question and think about it.

 

I have yet to recieve an answer, and it is a valid question. If you think it isn't, then please explain *why* it's not valid with a bit more than a slightly-disrespectful one-liner.

 

~moo

[granpa]

they answered your question perfectly.

 

you are asking me to defend something that I never asserted. it is absurd. not to mention off topc

Edited January 16, 2009 by granpa

[swansont]

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.

 

Sounds like the Ising model, which came up in another thread recently. And sure, you can model it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ising_model

 

 

 

I think that if your rules are internally consistent, you'd end up with a completely deterministic system.

[mooeypoo]

Sounds like the Ising model, which came up in another thread recently. And sure, you can model it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ising_model

 

 

 

I think that if your rules are internally consistent, you'd end up with a completely deterministic system.

That might be, but I don't understand how can a simulation be consistent with reality (hence, how could you effectively simulate reality..) if you don't know how that system *operates* in reality, or what makes it tick..?

 

Isn't that the entire point of, say, the weather system? (as it was pointed out earlier) -- the fact that we can't accurately predict the weather has to do with the fact we don't have the full set of rules that govern that system, or what the reactions and interactions within it are.. so how can we take such simulation with something even bigger and a lot more complex (the universe) or even with something unknown and unspecified ("the entities") ?

 

 

I might be missing something here, but I'd appreciate being pointed out what exactly I am missing, if I am.. ?

 

~moo

[Martin]

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.

 

A fly on the wall at either MIT or Perimeter Institute would have been plentifully exposed to these ideas during the past 3 years, not so granpa?

 

The buzzword term is emergent. Space and spacetime are not fundamental but are emergent. There was even a conference at MIT about this a few months ago*. Seth Lloyd was there--someone who in 2005 or earlier proposed representing space as a network of cellular automata, finite state automata. He published that in Science in 2005 as I recall. Has given talks about it at Perimeter. But a lot of people work on emergent space or spacetime. There are a number of other approaches besides a network of automata. Some names that come to mind Dreyer and Lloyd (at MIT) Smolin and Markopoulou (Perimeter) possibly Yidun Wan, possibly X.G. Wen (again at MIT). I don't follow this so cant really give a representative list. I'm just aware that these topics are fashionable.

 

It isn't bad to be fashionable, or to fall in with fashionable ideas! What is troubling is a show of naivety or a pretense of originality. You don't give links, but on the other hand you don't say these are your own ideas, so I can't tell what's what. Too much ambiguity.

 

What initially bothered me about this post was that the ideas are presented as if they are your original ideas. As if you thought of them in isolation.

 

You may have, of course! It seems unlikely but maybe you did! But then I should think a cursory check of the research literature would have shown you lots of connections with others' talks and papers. A creative person would, I think, find encouragement in that and be motivated to search even diligently to find tie-ins.

 

The ideas you present here are commonplace, and I suspect that you may be well-aware of this. So when you offer them I would expect some references, some mention of other's work. So then if I respond I don't feel like I'm walking into a false situation, some kind of pretense.

But suppose you are NOT aware that they are commonplace ideas, being talked a lot about! Isn't it your responsibility to check around some?

I really don't know what it is proper to expect.

 

Or, if you really did think up emergent space and web of automata in isolation, in a flash of inspiration, please say so explicitly and make the claim. As it is I'm confused. Had to let it pass.

 

I know that if it were my post I would include plenty of source links and I would think of that as making the post better, giving people more to work on. And more honest---not seeming to take credit.

 

Maybe you can clear up my confusion on these points.

 

*Olaf Dreyer organized it. It was in late August or early September 2008. I have to go out now but I will find the link to the list of participants and talks when I get back, in case anyone is interested. Some name like Emergent Gravity....don't recall. Oh, here: http://www.rle.mit.edu/emergent/

Edited January 17, 2009 by Martin

[swansont]

That might be, but I don't understand how can a simulation be consistent with reality (hence, how could you effectively simulate reality..) if you don't know how that system *operates* in reality, or what makes it tick..?

 

Ah, but the original proposal was a simple set of rules, before the idea morphed*. I agree that modeling the real universe require knowledge of the laws, but the "simplified universe" of a two-state system is much simpler. Two spin states and an interaction.

 

 

 

* and I think that's a source of confusion in this thread, because we have multiple ideas being discussed.

[mooeypoo]

Ah, but the original proposal was a simple set of rules, before the idea morphed*. I agree that modeling the real universe require knowledge of the laws, but the "simplified universe" of a two-state system is much simpler. Two spin states and an interaction.

 

 

 

* and I think that's a source of confusion in this thread, because we have multiple ideas being discussed.

 

BTW, that is the point -- my initial question wasn't a "ha ha I'll get you grandpa!" .. it was a true question, which I wanted clarification over. If he only took the second to explain himself - or just post the link you did, and tell me he didn't mean the *UNIVERSE* but a "limited" universe, the entire thing would've been solved right there, probably with a thank you from me.

 

He mentioned universe, he mentioned modelling, and he was arguing that he doesn't need to know the "how" of the system.. I am not a model-builder, but I am a hobbyist-programmer, and I was truly wondering how could anyone do any accurate-modelling of anything wtihout having a set of rules.

[Baby Astronaut]

He mentioned universe, he mentioned modelling, and he was arguing that he doesn't need to know the "how" of the system.. I am not a model-builder, but I am a hobbyist-programmer, and I was truly wondering how could anyone do any accurate-modelling of anything wtihout having a set of rules.

Not entirely sure, but I think grandpa might've had an idea that a computer would be able to run endless simulations using different combinations of variables until it found one that worked for the data you gave it.

 

For example, let's say we hadn't known that E=mc2. You input all other info possible, like matter, energy, speed of light, and whatever else. The computer runs various mathematics using what you do know, and homes in on formulas that seem to work yet don't alter the other formulas except to simplify them. One possible result could've been E=mc2, which doesn't harm classical physics, just expands on it and features simplicity.

[mooeypoo]

Not entirely sure, but I think grandpa might've had an idea that a computer would be able to run endless simulations using different combinations of variables until it found one that worked for the data you gave it.

Well, in that case it won't simulate reality, it will just be used to find a working hypothetical model.

That's not a bad method, but I thought the goal was to use this model to reach conclusions about our *real* universe.. how can we do that if the computer operates on various, not-necessarily realistic, rules?

 

For example, let's say we hadn't known that E=mc2. You input all other info possible, like matter, energy, speed of light, and whatever else. The computer runs various mathematics using what you do know, and homes in on formulas that seem to work yet don't alter the other formulas except to simplify them. One possible result could've been E=mc2, which doesn't harm classical physics, just expands on it and features simplicity.

Two problems here:

1. I don't see how we can do the equivalent with the universe, or how we can feed all the details in.. we can plug in the known variables, and try to see how the computer can help us get on a certain track, maybe, but it won't necessarily conclude the right answer if we don't have *all* the info in, that was my point.

 

2. That isn't a simulation of the universe or of any entities, it's an attempt to analyze what we already have mathematically.

[Baby Astronaut]

Well, in that case it won't simulate reality, it will just be used to find a working hypothetical model.

That's not a bad method, but I thought the goal was to use this model to reach conclusions about our *real* universe.. how can we do that if the computer operates on various, not-necessarily realistic, rules?

You're correct, it'd be highly improbable for the output to actually model reality. Yet if we only had to verify its results, it'd speed up the trial and error process by reducing the number of avenues we still need to explore.

 

Just a guess.

[mooeypoo]

Well, it's worth a try, I guess. Any ideas what the type of rules that could be used to achieve this, though? it's such a vast phenomena...