A lingual theory of everything

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,

 

Since the tube is a folded plate, is not the "fold" more basic than the tube? And the plate more basic than the fold?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

There is something in what you say.

 

I have thought through what you were saying about the plate, The fold and the tube.

 

I have worked it through with some simple shapes, in progressing dimensions. see diagrams below.

By starting with a line ( one dimension ) pulling into a circle ( 2 Dimensions ), pulling by inflating into a bubble ( third dimension). Similarly with a Plate , ( 2d ) pulled into a Fold (3d ) then the Fold (3d ) rotated into a Tube (? Dimension ) .

 

I could be certain I saw Plato snooping around the entrance to my cave

 

All these shapes, lines, circles bubbles ,folds , tubes have a ' ring of geometrical truth' about them . Which is no wonder they are found , used in the machinery of nature.

 

I think the tube is the efficient transport system of the cosmos.Whether the thing transported is an idea, item, or complex system.

" If there is a will, there is a way is an old saying " its finding the entrance to the " tube of opportunity " that is important.

 

As is the case . ( now where did I hear that ?)

 

I think a very good example or EVIDENCE that these shapes exist ,in what might otherwise be construed as a terribly complex mix with no chance of finding these ( bubbles, plates, folds, tubes ) in the 'Broth' of the swirling Cosmos is :

 

When travelling by plane , long distance , climbing to 33,000 ft and down again, the plane goes through turbulence. This is felt, experienced but not seen. If you could see them no doubt among other more complex shapes, you would see some :-

 

" PLATES, FOLDS and TUBES " of turbulence

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We skim along PLATES easily We turn and accelerate in FOLDS . We drop like a stone in TUBES.

 

during these periods of turbulence , apart from complex parts of the turbulence, this is what we feel ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Mike

Edited August 24, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike,

 

I used the fold idea in a thread mostly inhabited by Gees and Moontanman and me, in reference to abiogenisis. (Belief in the Supernatural and Superstition, in the Philosophy section.)

 

Bubble works well too, in that a single cell is like a bubble, a concentrated, or defined and separate area of space that can contain something different than is "outside" it. Also referenced the spiral folds of DNA.

 

Took in essence the reflection of the world on the surface of a still lake (plate) and folded it up in the folds of a human brain.

 

Doesn't fit well with tubes of opportunity exactly, but its something like it, in reverse. Not that tubes exist and we must find the openings, but that there is opportunity for concentration created when surfaces fold together or meet. Related in a way to the idea of "focus" and important I think, in terms of "the lingual theory of everything", in that its through our eyes that an image of the world "gets inside", And the universal grammar that we all use, subject and object and predicate, may be based exactly on the fact that we all "internalize" the world through similar senses (sight, sound, smell and heat and pressure sensors in our skin) and build an analog model on the inside of our skin (in our brains), of that which is outside.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited August 25, 2013 by tar

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,

..............................................

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Tar I agree with a lot of what you say as an internalising of the World into or onto the curved nature of our Brain.

 

However I am mainly interested in the external universe as a whole [everything]. Again a however, in the end I realise if I am to comprehend fully and meaningfully any " Lingual theory of everything " at least with me personally I have to consider its validity IN SIDE MY BRAIN.

 

Because EVERYTHING is a Big, Big, Big entity, I must persist in testing, probing , as well as exploring the ways and wiles of the universe at large, within the context of this " Lingual Theory of Everything " .

 

Mike

Edited August 30, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike,

 

Well if its any help, we do seem to be talking about the "same" external reality, that we each have what we consider to be a "complete" model of, inside our individual "tubes". Since it is impossible for the universe to exist "completely" in your brain, AND exist completely in my brain, we must be "imagining" a consistent and real thing that has such a "complete" existence, outside our brains.

That we have this ability to imagine the whole thing exists, beyond and bigger than our abilities, sounds paradoxical and impossible, but actually serves to verify the existence of external reality.

 

Sort of "neat" that we do this, and all "know" the same world, at the same time.

 

Under the circumstances, I don't think its required to come up with something "better". Its rather fine, the way it is. And unlikey to change a whole hell of a lot, according to something going on separately within the confines of a single "image" holder. Nice to come up with a thought that fits the case. But better to come up with a thought that REALLY fits the case, so much so, that it makes complete sense to any other image holder, as well.

 

Somewhere in there I think one can find the difference between an internal thought, and a thought about external reality. Also some where in there the literal and the figurative can get jumbled. Easily.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,

 

Well if its any help, we do seem to be talking about the "same" external reality, ......

Regards, TAR2

 

What mainly I am interested in , is not so much what model I have inside my tubes, but What the actual Reality is that is out There.

 

Then what possible all pervading Principle could possibly run through the whole of reality from beginning to now.

 

What I have posited in a "A Lingual Theory of Everything " is what possible principle could apply to the whole shebang from beginning to now.

 

That means from the start ' say with a nothing , to a God , to a cosmos , to a universe, to matter, to everything to Today Now '

 

The only one that i can think of is what i have posited:-

 

 

Quote

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

1 * The ' Nothing ' is absolute. namely absolutely nothing

2 * The ' GOD ' could be the only possible ' entity ' that could self originate out of nothing, namely the initiatory ' idea ' which when substantiated # and expanded ,could have come from ' nothing ' and yet stand in its own right. The whole of history, is full of expressions and ideas as to what constitutes this prime mover [ whether it is made up of an extraordinary body of super intelligent life forms or somehow contained in one Super Being ]. Our link across to NOTHING! . { This middle bit is an interesting subject in its own right }

The evidence for its existence is the VERY COSMOS/UNIVERSE that we find ourselves in. Namely :-

3 * The ' rest of Everything ' is the cosmos as we are exploring and discovering it.

Three Stages from Nothing to Everything 1,2,3 [from top to bottom ]

.ps # ( how does an idea substantiate or get to become substantiated , is by the very Lingual theory itself )

Edited September 21, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

The inbetween stuff.

 

That is evidently where we are. Well distanced from the tinest and most numerous. Little current access do we have to a quark in an atom in a sun in a galaxy 100,000,000lys from Earth. And distanced as well in scale, from the quark within an atom of carbon in our own pinky finger.

 

Its interesting to me, that we each try to contain it all. Find that "principle" that explains the all of time, the all of space. I am thinking its rather too big, in at least size and number and duration, to fall into just one pattern, or be contained in a simple thought. And its only "from here" that we can make any assessment, anyway.

 

Kant might say, that it is rather undoable to know the thing as it is. It is more likely that we can only know a thing, by how we judge it, and what we can say about it, or think about it.

 

Your theory is fine, except it does us no good. Whatever the universe is, however it came about, it is not now, and never will be, under our complete control, and while it is locally affectable by our manipulations, and globally understandable, by our ability to shift grain size and thusly contain huge and tiny things in our concepts...a monk on a hilltop, reaching nirvana, does not cause the universe to instantly merge to a singularity.

 

We are quite insulated from that. It took too long for the universe to get this big, and this complex, and this detailed. It cannot undo itself in an instant. It perhaps does not have the ability to undo itself, now that it is manifest.

 

In anycase, three rules, are not going to cover it. They simply can't. You cannot describe a peanut butter cup with only three rules.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

The inbetween stuff.

 

That is evidently where we are. Well distanced from the tinest and most numerous. Little current access do we have to a quark in an atom in a sun in a galaxy 100,000,000lys from Earth. And distanced as well in scale, from the quark within an atom of carbon in our own pinky finger.

 

Its interesting to me, that we each try to contain it all. Find that "principle" that explains the all of time, the all of space. I am thinking its rather too big, in at least size and number and duration, to fall into just one pattern, or be contained in a simple thought. And its only "from here" that we can make any assessment, anyway.

 

Kant might say, that it is rather undoable to know the thing as it is. It is more likely that we can only know a thing, by how we judge it, and what we can say about it, or think about it.

 

Your theory is fine, except it does us no good. Whatever the universe is, however it came about, it is not now, and never will be, under our complete control, and while it is locally affectable by our manipulations, and globally understandable, by our ability to shift grain size and thusly contain huge and tiny things in our concepts...a monk on a hilltop, reaching nirvana, does not cause the universe to instantly merge to a singularity.

 

We are quite insulated from that. It took too long for the universe to get this big, and this complex, and this detailed. It cannot undo itself in an instant. It perhaps does not have the ability to undo itself, now that it is manifest.

 

In anycase, three rules, are not going to cover it. They simply can't. You cannot describe a peanut butter cup with only three rules.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

O.K.

 

But if I were able to approach a " PRIME MOVER " if that were possible, which I realise is not everybody's view of things.

 

however if one could "suspend ones disbeleif" for a passing moment, and

 

One was able to approach the "Prime Mover" and ask could ' IT ' please sum up the generation of the whole "shebang " in three lingual statements, what would they be ?

 

Then my stab at the statements is 'IT ' would say :- or there about. however I could be wrong. !

 

.

Quote

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

mike

Ps.

I have had a very intense discussion this week, with a long standing Science/Art friend of mine. We have discussed these and many scientific and Philosophical questions over many years. He is very much on the side of " there can not be a " Prime mover as who made the Prime mover stance. "

We did manage to come to a way forward, which I will introduce as a new separate thread, which could unblock this particular " Empasse"

mike

Edited September 29, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

Well before I check out your new thread. Let me say this about the current 3 rules under consideration.

 

The second rule is a restatement of the first, but adds the requirement of "some sort of initiative". In this, for the second rule to have import, you speculate on the existence of a prime mover. Some sort of "reason" for things to "get started" in the first place...so what if this prime mover is not the case? Do the rules come crashing down?

 

And all the rules, talk about possibilities, which require a pair of dice, or a deck of cards, or some sort of already set up stage, with rules, characters, and a schema already in place, upon or in which to then figure the odds...again presupposing a director to set the stage, cast the characters, and hold to the script.

 

My personal determination is that the universe does not know what it is doing, and its writing the script as it occurs. Ad lib universe, so to speak. But we are 100% of the universe, and can thusly claim rights as producer, director, screen writer, stage hand, lead character, supporting cast, audience, or critic, in that we can take these various perspectives, and find on some level that our role is true. Concurrent with each role though, are some limitations, and areas where in truth, one must acknowledge that there is stuff going on outside the theatre...so to speak.

 

So my conclusion is that the universe does not know what its doing, and is doing everything its doing, for the first time, currently, as that this particular arrangement of materials and energies, this "pattern", has not occurred before, and can only have a "next" pattern, based upon the previous one. Something already manifest which evolves and becomes the next manifestation.

 

This eliminates the prime mover, as your friend would agree, because the mover would be static, if it itself was not doing the next appropriate or possible thing given its circumstances.

 

It perhaps requires an infinite cosmos, or at least a one universe at a time theory that can "come from" a past universe, and set the stage for "the next" universe, but it is not a consideration any more of a stretch than to consider an infinite God.

 

Bottom line, it appears to me that we, as universe material, are able to "do it by ourselves", and act and react, form enities made up of smaller entities, and constitute larger entities, without any outside help.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

[quote name="tar" post="769414"

Mike Smith Cosmos,?....................Let me say this about the current 3 rules under consideration................



Tar.

I have been off this subject for a while. However not wishing to drop it as I personally believe it to be fundamental.


Firstly , while having a discussion with a colleague from Florida who had done some research on identical electrons that two were faced with changing to an alternative state, stultified , as they were identical. There was no advantage one over the other. So they stultified into a meta stable state and so did nothing ! So an advantage or initiative IS required to lead into a new development.

So if this IS a property of nature. Then an initiative IS required to set a new direction.

So what ever the prime mover is ! One Prime mover , in some form or another , would appear necessary !.

See electron states on http://www.thenatureofthecosmos.com/blue-sky-ideas.html [ Blue Sky Ideas Electron Choices

 

By Wolfhart Willmczik ]

 

Also is relevant to say , that the last I heard . The perimeter institute set up to explore the issues at the forefront of science . Was getting all it's resident scientists to explore

" What came before the Big Bang to see what could have been necessary for the Big Bang to happen.?"

Mike

Edited October 31, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

[quote name="tar" post="769414"

 

Also is relevant to say , that the last I heard . The perimeter institute set up to explore the issues at the forefront of science . Was getting all it's resident scientists to explore

 

" What came before the Big Bang to see what could have been necessary for the Big Bang to happen.?"

 

Mike

 

P-------------- ----------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------

 

Recalling the depths of electronic design, and some of the horrific maths that was required to accurately describe the effect of different, electrical components.

 

One way of dealing with this was to use the :-

. " BLACK BOX " idea. in other words. When you found a circuit too difficult to handle, you could draw a "box" around a whole section and say " I am going to put to one side for the moment " what is in the box" .,I will go back to that later. For now " I will look at "The Black Box " as an entity with inputs, processes and outputs" and not worry myself with whats going on in. the "Black Box" or how it does , what it does.:-

.

Well we have done a lot of work on what has come out of the :-

.

"Big Bang" the Black Box of All "Black Boxes ".

 

Now the time has come to Open the "Black Box " and see what could possibly be going on to give the various :-

 

[ INPUTS, OUTPUTS, and PROCESSING ] namely the contents of the :-

 

. " Black Box" at the start of the Universe

 

 

This whole method can be quite iterative if required.

 

In other words, should you wish to bring in some form of prime mover into the argument, within the "Black Box " and say for instance," It was some form of Prime Mover " and be met with the objection :- "Yes but who or what made 'The Prime Mover ' .

Then using the Black box principle, you can put the Prime Mover into a New Black box and say "We will deal with what goes on in the 'OTHER' Black Box Later !

 

If one thinks this through, this does allow getting into a New Area of ' Before the Big Bang '

You now have an area DEFINED RED in PICTURE which can be developed rather than being limited to

."Oh it came from just nothing." Which to many scientists and non scientists is not terribly comfortable.

 

Similarly, if you are the sort of scientist or person who is not comfortable with the idea of a ."prime mover"

Then you can totally black over the "other box" black and pink outline. Make it another black box and leave what goes on in it to one side " for the time being" like who made the things in the other black box? .

 

. BUT you can get on with defining in more detail , quite what must be going on in the first black box ,now opened to red. And one can start to say things like, well , the constants needed to be defined , energy vast energy, needed to be obtained somehow, duplication had to be organised , some form of natural selection process made integral in the system to keep system progressive, etc etc , you can have a field day, like the tv presenter in England 2 days ago. Made a planet, then made a universe. All this from the top of a very high tower ..... Worth seeing I will get a reference.

 

 

mike

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

Your post reminded me of a thought I had a long time ago, about the "other" universe that may have been required for this one to have come from.

 

My thought was, that perhaps this universe, while being the only current universe, was not as it used to be, while being a previous universe. It did, or does not matter substantially what it used to be, because it is not that way, anymore, and there is not a way to be that other way, any more. You can't get there, from here. Like you can not undo a done deed.

 

But the thought was, that the current laws of physics, were, and are, the result of how the previous universe had played out, and in some way are "messages" from the former universe, or reminders of what used to be, with a new twist or addition, or element, or perhaps as you are thinking, a new initiative.

 

I was thinking in terms of the nature of a black hole, that draws all matter and energy to it, until there is no distinction, just one point, like the start of this universe, which then procedes to be a universe with distinctions again, with lessons learned from the last time. With a "new" character, and new initiatives, that are not "from nothing" but are from the way it was before...with some "gifts" perhaps left by something previously aware of its condition.

 

Sort of a universe evolution thought. Impossible really to track back to an actual start, it just always was something, just not this. Of course at the time, it was everthing.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

Your post reminded me of a thought I had a long time ago,................................................

 

Regards, TAR

What do you think about using a " BLACK BOX " to define the requirements for the original generation of the Big Bang . So as to progress "The Lingual Theory of Everything " to deal with the BIG BANG

 

Using the First Black Box Then you can make a list as long as your arm , if you want, put ALL the requirements in the " BLACK BOX " and you can worry about it later where or how all the list in the black box is provided.

. [ eg : initiative, energy, constants, models, molds design , change etc etc etc ] If one can 'Suspend disbelief' for a while, it allows 'one' to make a MAJOR step forward. It is how engineers have been able to design Huge complex equipment and ships and ....who knows what for about 100- years

 

Then we can visit the black box , [ or Black Boxes , one at a time ] even making another black box if necessary in a recessive way , to cover any further difficulties

! ?

 

Mike

a " BLACK BOX " to define ...!!

 

Then we can visit the black box , [ or Black Boxes , one at a time ] even making another black box if necessary in a recessive way , to cover any further difficulties

! ?

 

I

 

In fact , it has to be said :- that an argument could be put, and in roundabout ways has already been put, that the universe itself has already been assembling, , or is being assembled in such a process of black box within black box, within black box.

 

This sequence could be traced back from human consciousness ,all the way back . Each stage acting with the previous black box before it. This going back from human consciousness , back through multicellular life, to individual cells to mitochondria to DNA to amino acids to molecules to atoms to planets, to solar system to galaxy to Big Bang and so on back in the way described earlier for the Big Bang itself to before the Big Bang to ..........the ultimate black box.

 

 

Now there is a thought. A big thought !

What do you think about using a " BLACK BOX " to define the requirements for the original generation........

 

. A really BIG THOUGHT if ever I thought one !

 

. THE BLACK BOX COSMOS. I Like it !

 

. I think I just struck " The Mother Lode "

Mike

Link.

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box

 

In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings......

 

‎Black box (disambiguation) - ‎Flight recorder - ‎Black box theory

Edited December 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Using the First Black Box

In fact , it has to be said :- that an argument could be put, and in roundabout ways has already been put, that the universe itself has already been assembling, , or is being assembled in such a process of black box within black box, within black box.

 

. THE BLACK BOX COSMOS.

 

Link. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box

 

I think I just struck " The Mother Lode "

 

Link. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_lode

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

]

.

. Now the mother lode.

 

If we accept the principle as itemised in Wikipedia regards Black Box, and used by engineers, and scientists for over 50 years, as being a region or item having a function yet not understood or calculable in detail at this time. Then we CAN apply this to the origin of the "Big Bang " .

 

So preceding the Big Bang was a black box responsible for supplying the initial conditions necessary for the Big Bang to 'go off' the way it did.

 

If we then say but what was the 'prime mover' responsible for that black box, then we can say , a previous black box which at this time is unspecified.

 

All interested party's can then take a side step to debate the nature of that previous black box to discuss, was it pre existing super engineers in a super society, a God, a nothingness or what.

 

Mean while one can carry on with discussing origins without being stultified at the Big Bang.

 

Mike

Edited December 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike Smith Cosmos,

 

I generally take with a grain of salt, "mother lode" insights.

 

I have had two such incidents, one about a month ago, and one about a year before that. Perhaps I will have one each year in the fall, from now on. In retrospect, the insights are not as powerful as they were at the time. Perhaps that is because I just intergrate the thing into everything else and just sort of take it as normal, after a few days or weeks, and it is no longer something so special.

 

One aspect of insights that is interesting to me, is that you really can't "unhave" them. Once you have had a certain one it just becomes part of the way you think, part of the consistent world view that you hold.

 

Perhaps this alligns well with your black box universe, in the sense that the universe cannot undo what it has already done, and can only do next what will now be possible with the results of the previous events and positionings of matter and energy.

 

An analogy in the computer field, would be the wide spread use of Java applets and library code, to build a new program. The particular pieces are little black boxes that have been tested and perfected to perform a particular function in the most elegant and stable way, given to other coders, so the wheel need not be reinvented every time one designs a car.

 

Evolution wise, it is also interesting to note, that a woman is born with a lifetime supply of eggs. That means that half of your code, was alive and existing, when your mother was born, and a quarter of you, alive and existing when your grandmother was born... a 1/whateverth of you was alive and existing when Lucy was born in Africa however many 10s of thousands of generations ago, that was.

 

One thing that could be said about the big bang, is that certainly conditions where such, at the time, for it to have happened.

 

 

One line of thought is that all matter and energy came into being, along with space and time, at that moment. In such a case, the black box is not required, because there are no precursors required, no design required or even possible, since there is no designer possible, and nothing to use as canvas and paint, if there is not yet matter and energy, space and time.

 

Yet we seem to have this notion that the universe is one thing...that can somehow be considered as a grain of reality, that we can somehow hold in our minds and manipulate and visualize as a something amid a void. A spaceless space, a timeless moment, a still energy, a bodiless matter, that becomes, at once, everything (space, time energy and matter).

 

There was something wrong with your diagram of the Universe as whisps on the left, the big bang in the middle and the "something else" on the right.

 

I am thinking it is the fact that we are viewing the diagram from the "outside", and there is no way to "get" outside reality...but by shrinking the universe down to a grain size, we can hold, and wrap our mental arms around.

 

An interesting thing that Hawkings (or an aide of his) wrote me once, correcting an incorrect image of the universe I had written to him, was that the Big Bang is not an explosion whose position is a certain distance from here, in a certain direction. We are rather AT the position of the big bang.

 

Regards, TAR2

[hoola]

I see the universe as a manifestation of mathematics itself, as it has created (and still creates) information, which describes particles, fields, energies and maintains their existence. What get expressed in the extant universe passes the "logic" test, or has it's appearance supported by the same logic base that allowed mathematical structure to form. Mathematics is the (theoretical) program "software" that is in the ongoing process of creating a "hardware" (physical reality) by describing that hardware in moment to moment plank lengths of time. Hence, I believe we are only quasi real beings, but that is not to discount that free-will, love and beauty cannot realized, even with the limitations as to the underlying solidity of the world we live in. This seems to jibe with the quantum mechanical strangeness of matter, and demonstrate the extremely baroque nature of mathematics, to the point of it becoming capable of producing sentience and self-examination. In keeping with the topic of a "linguistic" TOE, mathematics is the language spoken by logic. This is not to mean logic is "god". As logic itself must have had an evolution itself, perhaps from an area of reduced entropy that arises in the sea of chaos from time to time and occasionally persists long enough to form a region of sustained logic outgrowth. There may be other, competing logic structures, that define other universes with an unknowable set of logic restraints that are self-referencing and internally consistent to produce a form of sentience such as ours, arising out of the same miasma of chaos. The commonality to ours is that mathematics is still used as the "linguistics" to express the foreign logic dictates. To extrapolate further, given a common language of mathematics, communications between differing universes may be possible.

Edited December 14, 2013 by hoola

[Popcorn Sutton]

Wow that was brilliant.

[hoola]

john wheeler said it.....why the quantum and why anything? All the thinking in the previous entry of mine are based on the "information is the basis of everything" ideas of his.....edd

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I see the universe as a manifestation of mathematics................... This seems to jibe with the quantum mechanical strangeness of matter, and demonstrate the extremely baroque nature of mathematics, to the point of it becoming capable of producing sentience and self-examination.

Quite a bit stated in your post "hoopla".

 

However to pick out a couple of points for discussion.. This idea that baroque or ornate maths is able to achieve sentience, could be said to be a presumption, which sort of ties in with the other point I wanted to discuss..about maths being capable of being ALL you need to make a universe.

 

I have struggled a bit with whether maths is bedrock ,and that is all you need. Mike Tegmark believes thus.

But I have come to the conclusion that maths can only give you the hard bits of the universe, the bits purely based on determinism, the bits solely based on formulae. These bits are nonetheless essential for giving some of the structure, stability, etc. etc but lack the loose, free, probabilistic nature so essential for a MAJOR part of the development of the current state of the universe.

 

This might give you the box of Lego or Meccano but not the project you make.

 

Mike

[hoola]

given an infinite set of legos, the universe perhaps could be built...but where did these legos come from? Maths are theoretical and have no substance, yet can be used to describe substances. It is a stretch to think that these descriptions are so complete so as to give arise to substance itself, especially our own bodies...but at what point does breaking atoms into parts do you come to something akin to a only a discription of smaller parts? This is what I can see as the string theory's modus, or that "strings of numbers" are emanating from discrete points of space to maintain matter, energy, fields, and even the dimensions. I see that this occurred with the big bang. Information built up in an area of reduced entropy in the sea of chaos, creating a "void" in the chaos, logic if you will, culminating in a singularity with the adding maths upon maths in a theoretical sense, until a particular set of logic algorithms coded for the dimensions. At the point that dimensionality was expressed, the first information appeared outside the singularity. With the description of the dimensions, matter and energy had a release from containment, space was created, and appeared as the big bang. Since then, the information is ongoing, but dispersed throughout the universe, appearing as dark energy instead of being sequestered within the singularity. This dark energy maintains reality and has some form of memory or informational inertia, that maintains the material universe in a substantially consistent manner in a quantum sense, being essentially the same moment to moment in plank-time units, unless acted upon informationaly by inputs from other sources impinging upon the algorithmic output of a particular dark energy source. When I say it "remains substantially consistent", I mean it's ongoing expressions of a certain numerial sequence continue....a constant flow of energy(data stream) is required to refresh a certain bit of matter or component of a field as remaining, say keeping a proton tending to remain a proton, This leads to a thought of creating matter bit by bit, by creating the informational components making up a particular set of nucleons, with a computer doing the same thing as by essentially mimicing the action of a particular set of dark energy point sources. Having a matrix of data streams creating and then maintaining in a theoretical sense, like a present day video game, but with paralleled quantum computers, perhaps something as big as a photon could be created to actually appear to an observer and be indistinguishable from a "normal" photon. In a sense being a synthetic form of energy. Extrapolating on all this over-the-top silliness, if we were understand the basics of informational reality, why couldn't we create novel forms of matter in the lab? Or develop useful things such as dark energy drive for vehicles, eliminating messy exhaust fumes here and in space, the only energy needed for propulsion being the power to run the computers that creates the required manipulations of synthetic dark energy expression? Hoopla indeed, sir.....

Edited December 15, 2013 by hoola

[hoola]

speaking of linguistics, if logic preceded maths then what information medium did proto-logic use to internally communicate with itself in order to evolve to a final logic set? Maths were yet to be possible, so I imagine some sort of "logic-latin" was used in the process, which was discarded, or perhaps added to, much as a dead language, when maths became expressed as the outgrowth of formal logic. In modern-day languages, latin itself isn't used, but many languages have latin roots evident.

[tar]

Hoola,

 

Well I didn't quite follow your logic. Math and logic seem to be things that a human has, and a cow does not. Not that a cow is not a logical arrangement of stuff, but a proton, or an electron, while possessing a rather certain and logical form and structure, had that form and structure, before cows came about, or humans, or logic and math.

 

On the linguistic front, I tend to go with Kant, that language consists of things we can say about something in general. He carefully laid out the kinds of understandings or discriptions, or "types" of judgements we can make, in his categories. The "thing as it is", remains something difficult, if not impossible to grasp.

 

Math and logic are internal manipulations of the forms that we have internalized, that are already extant. We see a super nova in another galaxy, and that particular explosion not only has already existed way prior calculus, but way prior to Plato and Socrates and formal logic systems.

 

You say that the universe is just information. I disagree. The word information means to me somewhat the opposite. The form gets in to our minds. The form itself I think of as more the "thing as it is". Building an internal model of this form, is quite a secondary thing, not liable to be the primary consideration.

 

Consider information in a computer. Something "standing" for something else. Zeros and ones put together in a particular code and structure, to represent something else, already existant.

 

Now the planck length distance thing is a good thought, but there are a tremendous amount of planck lengths between here and the cosmic microwave background radiation, and here and there are not immediately connected, or the same place, in the sense that both here and there can be considered "in" the same place, at the same time, as a form in ones mind can be considered.

 

This, to me is a limitation of math and logic, as that what can be contained in a thought or a judgement, is but a mimick or analogy of what already is the case.

 

Quite unlikely, under these conditions, that one could build "another" universe, with models of this one.

 

It would be rather like trying to make a formula or computer program that described the position and spin and momentum of every quark in a peanut butter cup, and then expecting you could take a bite of the formula and it would be sweet and chocolately. It actually would not be a peanut butter cup, at all, now would it?

 

Regards, TAR2

[hoola]

well, cows have some logic...all species that exist wouldn't have been able to survive a hazardous world without some logic...the amount to allow a cow's survival, reproduction, rearing their young long enough to permit the continuation of their species is probably quite high as they are in the large mammal class with us. They can't discuss the subject, but that doesn't mean they have none. You are right in your asessment they have no math, despite the reports that their cousins, the horses can add....you talk about Kant and his classifications of human language categories and that there are various ways of looking at or describing something and there is a limitation to any description. The ability to describe many properties of the thing is all good and well as far as humans go, but we have a smaller informational base compared to the entirety of the maths. Further, I believe that as vast as the maths are that built and sustain this universe, that is only a portion of the entirety that is allowed to appear in our universe. The rest is inconsistent with our universe's logic and perhaps used to build and sustain other universes, perhaps concurrent with ours, and having some properties close enough that we have some features in common...say gravity, which might explain dark matter. .....as far as information in a computer as "representing something else" - novel things can appear either written or visual in a computer. Take computer generated images for example...yes, a primitive state still, but probably not for long. How long before plank-speed quantum computers will generate "real" matter ala Robbie the Robot on the movie forbidden planet...? Never?...possibly.....you mention "plank-length" in regards to the CMB...I'm not sure what you mean...the CMB reference was regards to plank-time, which I mention above, but I must admit I have been blogging so much in so many forums, I may be getting confused...but the mention of plank-time above has to do with the maintenance of reality by the dark energy points of space "refreshing" reality in the plank-lengths of time. ....finally, in the peanut butter cup analogy, you have conveyed some information as to the item in question with a few keystrokes.....I can "imagine" one now...taste and smell...so you have created, a mental description of the item. Now, if you were to have a quantum-speed computer and could build it quark by quark, by creating the ingredients of the cup, such as the water and organic molecules of various types, you could mix the water and the organics and pop it in the oven.... or a sentient robot (robbie) could do even this last kitchen task. If the molecules are indentical in structure to present day ingredients, you would not be able to tell the difference. An electron is an electron and you can't taste the difference. However, as reality is sustained moment by moment by dark energy, would the synthetic peanut butter cup disappear if you were to turn off the computer used to make the ingredients? Or would the natural dark energy step in an take over it's sustained existence, not recognizing it as "foreign" material? This is just an odd thought I just had, and will have to think about this.....it seems the universe is big enough to squeeze in a fake peanut butter cup....but, if a person ate a computer generated peanut butter cup, and it did disappear after the computer is turned off.... You could have your cake and not eat it... In all likelyhood, the "cake" would persist after the computer that made it is turned off. Perhaps, some small variation could be made to the ingredients that would mimic the exact food to a human taster, but be different enough on a quantum level so as to disappear or break down, with some sort of sped up proton decay to makes the cake decay to heat before if reached the stomach or maybe just the unhealthy ingredients like the sugars.

just a quick follow-up on the sugar thing...I read years ago that if we could synthesize "left-handed" sugar in the lab, it would taste the same as regular sugar, but wouldn't get absorbed by the gut....that shouldn't require any extraordinary physics to accomplish.

[tar]

Hoola,

 

Are you sure left handed sugar wouldn't taste like backward sugar?

 

Anyway, you were arranging molecules. Where were you getting the molecules. The computer can not generate them, just arrange them and charge them and order them and so forth.

 

I think the dark energy points, refreshing the universe, needs some work.

 

Besides, why is there no dark energy around here? Or is there, and we just call it something else?

 

The plank length thing, that I related to the CMB was to illustrate that one part of the universe is not immediately known to the rest. Well it is, but only later, much later, does a photon emission on one side of even our own Galaxy get known by a receiver at the other end. That is to say that a lot has happened, even in the Milky Way, that will not effect us for everywhere from next second to next year, to next decade, to next millenium, to 100,000 years from now.

 

Such a "setup" is quite outside the realm of a momentary model, that can be considered "at once". That is to say, that we are insulated from the rest of the universe, by not only the vast unimaginable distances involved, but the time it would take any impulse or photon, to get from there to here. Not the kind of place one can actually "get outside of" and take an objective view of. And certainly not the kind of thing you can see all at once, in any manner other than we actually do receive it. Close stuff right away, and far stuff after millions or billions of years. Interesting that the whole universe is actually within our view, so we can see it all at once. Doubtful though that there is a way to do it better. Seems quite grand enough, and unreachable enough, and complicated enough, the way it stands.

 

Regards, TAR2

[hoola]

not too sure as to the taste of left handed sugar, only what I read, it does seem like a good idea........if (and a very big if) everything is information, then this can be produced by a computer, as that is what computers do, so therefore, with knowledge of how matter is described by the universe, we will learn the routine of making our own. Possibly neither the universe or us will have to "maintain" matter with a constant refreshing by dark energies....perhaps it can stand on it's own once created. It does seem like a cumbersome idea and I am liking it less and less as I think about it........Sure there is dark energy here... it's everywhere isn't it ? I say this as I see dark energy being exactly this "virtual particles" phenomena as detected in the casimir effect experiments.....which seem to be everywhere as long as there is no "confinement" beneath a certain physical size so as to suppress their expression. That is one more reason to not like the "refreshing" idea...if dark energy (virtual particles) expression is only apparent without being constrained physically, that is ok for energy floating through space, or a single bit of matter floating about freely, but what about all the matter in the earth, or some solid material? There wouldn't be "room" for the energy to do it's job.. I can see a partial case for energy such as magnetic fields, light, and etc. free of encumberments in space being refreshed moment to moment by dark energy, but not matter....so I am restricting any thought of "maintenance by dark energy" scheme to energy only........as far as the "setup" - are you referring to entanglement enabled instant communications ? I was writing on another forum about that. I really have to get out pencil and paper and write down what I said and where so I can refer to it in cases like this...but on that subject, doesn't entanglement supposedly cause an instantaneous reaction between 2 entangled particles if one is disturbed, regardless of distances involved? And isn't the speed of gravity (not gravity waves) have to be near infinite in order to get newtonian equations to function correctly?.It seems that there are two superluminal speeds here and I have been trying to get a response from someone as to their possible relationship, if any. I would love to hear speculation on that one...it sure seems like a fertile field with regards to gravity having some "resettable casual entanglement" property between every material object in the universe...of which entanglement is constantly breaking, then resetting somehow, providing an on, then off again condition at a particular "clock frequency", and this pulsing of entanglement make and break, is gravity and each pulse of on and off is a "graviton"...just a starting thought which is pretty silly, but might give a few days of interest. Are there any other superluminal speeds in the universe? That seems a safe question....lets start there .....anyway.....do you still think cows have no logic? I feel that is the only subject we have talked about that I may be on the winning side of......later tar..hoola