The field as continuum -Split from How does a higg's field

[kristalris]

But this is just the view that is contradictory and paradoxical. It is not solving the problem but ignoring it. An infinite space filled with atoms takes us back to Democritus and this is not progress. It cannot be a fundamental view. It does not answer any questions but is just our usual folk-psychological and paradoxical view of spacetime. The only person I know who argues for Democritus (Victor Stenger) finds, as a consequence, that he has to argue for ex nihilo creation. This is a contradiction and a paradox. It is the abandonment of reason for untestable and incomprehensible speculation. This doesn't mean it is wrong, of course, but if is right then the universe is a true contradiction.

 

I do not see how atoms can 'form a continuum'. If we assume they can,then we'd have to ask what keeps the atoms apart, and then we are back to the OPs question.

 

You may be right that a paradox is not always a contradiction and vice versa, but I'm struggling to think of a case where they are not the same thing. In philosophy, as a far as I'm aware, they would always be the same thing. A true paradox would be a true contradiction.

 

I believe that it is possible to get 'more to the bottom of the issues than this'. But probablistic reasoning won't do it. You'd have to reason deterministically all the way to the answer, since it would be untestable in physics.

Well, if we take an infinite space filled with say un-splittable identical spheres > c one thing is clear that it will constitute perpetual motion. If they go to order instead of disorder that present theory would dictate yet observing to much inexplicable order, it would explain this in a fundamental non contradictory way. If the order would be that of a dynamic crystal it would not bring us back to Democritus. A dynamic crystal in which each "atom" would remain in its virtual box within a very short time-frame. Thus forming in that time frame a solid continuum. Yet in any point in time an absolute void with static extremely small lumps (i.e. atoms). (The particle to be extremely hard and thus conductive, observed already as super conductivity and shows why movement doesn't stop at zero Kelvin as we observe.) This is testable via a computer simulation with such balls in a box. Accuracy is then critical.

 

Because one particle IMO can't ever form the observed Yin and Yang of order and disorder you need another particle a much larger one as a sphere of the same mass > c yet slower than the small particle. One of these will in the other crystal have a standard deviation both horizontal and vertical for every forward move. Mathematics will, I predict, then show this particle to go into a spiral ending up in the skin of a huge sphere light-years across. The slower one losing out in the movement game.

 

And infinite amount of these will make a medieval chain mail like structure. Adding even more will cause chaos in the fast crystal that will be counteracted by pushing the larger ones into a multi-verse of beginning slow dynamic crystals of these larger particles. Adding more particles the crystals will grow. At a point letting the crystal collapse in the center will cause less rise in the chaos in the fast crystal than rising of the sphere.

 

After that you can see that our visible universe most probably is in the skin of a huge double crystal sphere: the continuum of the Higgs field. In the center of the universe the large particles are crushed so much that they start to spin and are shot out of the center up through the collapsing Higgs crystal into that crystal where a yet to form galaxy nearly stops, and starts to form strings becoming unspun. Strings of particles in a surface tension scenario holding the strings in order. A string spiraling up side down to another is anti matter. If they hit head on they disintegrate. A left string and a right turning string can interlock to form say a photon cept at c in the crystal.

 

Larger particles are slower and get more mass added as they pas through the Higgs field. They take it in like a little black hole and thus accelerate. Law of Hubble. And at the same time create a underpressure in the continuum of the Higgs field. Causing gravity. And causing photons in such a gravitational field to curve in at twice the Newtonian value as the become un-spun i.e. accelerating back to c as we observe by becoming red-shifted as we observe.

 

If all galaxies slowly accelerate we will have the illusion of standing still whereas we are all accelerating out of the crystal. To the sides the acceleration is the same because it is a sphere. I predict thus that a large gyro will show a rise in its gravitational pull. This ca be tested.

 

Galaxies will end up in the black hole in the center and speed up further popping out of the crystal and disintegrate and fall back into the crystal as loose parts. Forming a crystal again slowly moving to the center like a glacier, collapsing again and being crushed again in an endless cycle.

 

Entanglement is nothing more than the forming of an electro-magnetic field of a string breaking and the large particles becoming up-spun > c. It also explains why you can float a living frog in a very strong magnetic field.

 

And it explains why the double slit experiment the energy packet is slowed down in the glass in a way that the wave front can overtake it via the other slit. Causing interference. When observing this act causes an electro magnetic field that either slows down the wave front or lets the energy packet speed up. Hence then no interference.

 

With strings like I mentioned you can of course build the SM.

 

You have then got both a Euclidian and non Euclidian space at the same time with no contradiction at all. The later we observe. In the double crystal the SM exists and so do all our known laws of physics such as GR & QM work brilliantly. Outside the crystal and at the deepest level it is all Newton again.

 

Slowly the galaxies will have a mounting entropy from the perspective of the SM, in which all possible scenarios are played out all the time. No contradiction with anything of current science and a pure logical deduction.

 

So yes: all explained and testable. And, a near perfect continuum.

[PeterJ]

Well, if we take an infinite space filled with say un-splittable identical spheres > c one thing is clear that it will constitute perpetual motion.

Hang on. You cannot start with an idea that is paradoxical. If you do this you are doomed. To start by assuming the answer to the question we're trying to decide is cheating big time. .

 

It is not for no reason that Democritus' view has not been successful. You need to go back further, reduce the atoms and void. .

.

.

[kristalris]

Hang on. You cannot start with an idea that is paradoxical. If you do this you are doomed. To start by assuming the answer to the question we're trying to decide is cheating big time. .

 

It is not for no reason that Democritus' view has not been successful. You need to go back further, reduce the atoms and void. .

.

.

? Cheating? Starting off with a contradiction? What contradiction? There is none. Of course not. You may/ must assume on Occams razor. The question is not where you start but where you end. I only need two particles un-splitable (no doubt perfect spheres) > c in an absolute void & the physics of Newton and bingo it fits all ALL known observations and answers all ALL relevant questions at a conceptual level in a common sense way. No infringement whatsoever on current science. This then is so simple that (on Occam) this idea beats all other idea's hands down because its so simple it can be explained to any high school kid who knows Newton. (= nice on Occam as the probably (= probabilistic reasoning) the best. Mainstream science likes Occam. So this is defend-ably mainstream philosophy Disprove this by showing where this infringes on logic or is incompatible with known observations. I've even explained entanglement and the double slit experiment for crying out loud (and can do more if you like). Albeit on a concept level but still. Who has as well then? Since I started this idea it has with slight alterations and improvements got stronger and stronger under scrutiny. That is a good sign, and shows rising in stead of declining probability of being correct.

 

It is to science to put it to the test of mathematics if it can't show where I infringe on (possibly) explaining any observations or logic.

 

BTW all other idea's I've come across either are highly implausible, inconsistent, illogical or don't address all relevant problems and can't conceivably do so or are not falsifiable. This idea deals effectively with all that. And science at the moment admittedly doesn't have a clue apart from Krauss (et all). Who's idea is far less probable then having a God. God contrary to something from nothing doesn't constitute a contradiction.

 

The method of reasoning of mine is exactly the same as what the Greek philosophers did. With hindsight with astounding success even Democritus idea of the atom was brilliant. Not absolutely correct, but who is? That is not the issue, absolute proof. The issue is the quickest way to further science in order to reach TOE. Which is in effect the deeper insight when you ask the question on it being a continuum. Do the tests and see.

 

I can even explain God if you like. Either as a further hidden variable or if God is part of the SM as a possible scenario. Yet this model doesn't need a God. Even if I would introduce God to take away our entire universe inclusive all the particles, it would in time only cause a ripple in the cosmos and restore itself. The whole shebang would restart with all subsequent possible scenario's played out all the time for ever. (And we haven't observed such a ripple either.)

 

BTW I'm not saying this is true. I'm saying it is a proven prime suspect yet to be proven on an appropriate norm to be the culprit. The need of which is a given because MN is a mass murderer on the loose (cancer, malaria, et cetera to be more easily cured when a TOE is reached).

 

It is mainstream science to use probabilistic reasoning when not all relevant data are known to this extent. As is the case here. I've done just that. If you demand deterministic proof that simply can't be had. At a deepest level it is IMO both deterministic from a given begin state but then subsequently more and more by all possible chances being played out. I do however believe that at the deepest level we never will have absolutely the same scenario twice. Like two industrial glasses are the same yet absolutely different at the deepest level. The need for this stems from the need that the system never should become repetitive in a way that constantly repeats itself. For then life as a possible scenario would never return. Because this hasn't happened as we can observe it never will. So it makes a difference what we do or don't do. For us it's IMO a one off, so enjoy the ride. (Whether or not you at this moment in a trillion universes from here are doing the same as now, is immaterial. It's not you. And if I'm correct not even exactly you. It's just a scenario being played out. The future is in an increasing way uncertain, yet impossible scenario's will never happen.

 

BTW the practical reason for this way of philosophy is to get ways to test. This idea provides that by providing these tests. And if it's busted well then it is wrong. Trial and error, try again. If indeed the most possible scenario is true i.e. that MN is an illusionist then this per definition can't be that difficult if one goes about it in the correct way. The used method is the proven scientific correct method that also successfully is used in solving crimes.

 

And like Plato in his cave showed us: absolute proof can't be had.

 

ps I forgot to ad earlier on that two dynamic double crystals so very nicely explain why we have waves. Science at the moment can't BTW.

Edited March 25, 2013 by kristalris

[PeterJ]

Okay. Thanks for explaining your position. I can't see what problems it solves, but then as yet I can't understand it, and that may be just me.

[kristalris]

Okay. Thanks for explaining your position. I can't see what problems it solves, but then as yet I can't understand it, and that may be just me.

 

You stated in your OP IMO correctly that looking at a Higgs field etc as a continuum will provide profound insights.

The insight it provides IMO is a route to a TOE. Not reaching a TOE quickly is a problem (I guess you would agree on that (?))

I claim to have reached a proven concept on a TOE. Why? My idea is consistent with all relevant observations known to science (at least known to me) and addresses all relevant questions in a simple common sense way. And, in a simply falsifiable way. BTW it is the - ONLY - concept of that nature I know of. So there is no clogging of the system, with bad idea's. Prove me wrong on the latter. A proven concept doesn't need mathematics. That is division of labor. I'm a taxpayer I do my job and may expect scientists to do theirs. On them thus if what I say is true to put the test of further science and mathematics to this in order to falsify it. Apart from that I don't have the funding needed for time on a super computer for the simulation, or for the programmers to write the program. If these balls in a box go to (whatever) order it would be an indisputable profound insight on a route to a TOE. In its own right even without my concept that led to the idea of the test. Now explain to me why doing the test can reasonably be ignored? It's a test on building a continuum. Your question BTW.

 

The same goes for the test of a gyro. It doesn't need the full mathematics for the entire concept. It only needs some quick and dirty mathematics to relate the amount of extra gravity is needed to keep a galaxy from spinning apart in relation to the spin and acceleration of the galaxy due to the law of Hubble. I.e. how large and how fast should the test with a gyro be in order to get a measurable result? If we need a gyro the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm we have a measurement problem if it means that everything in the room should fling itself to the toy gyro of my kid the idea is busted. If it is something in between that can be done, then tell me why we don't test it? It would provide a profound insight as well if indeed the gravity rises with acceleration. As I predict. Why should I state by how much exactly? If it rises it rises and then thus provides a profound insight, period. All directly linked to seeing the Higgs field as a continuum BTW, and answering your question in the OP.

 

Getting there via philosophy by first asking the right question (Socrates) then reducing it to either something from nothing that is busted or lumps in a void as a choice, following first where Diocritus took us with one atom, seeing on the more observations than he had that it can't be one. If it fits all observations and answers all questions logic dictates that a pure reduction up to that level can be done.

 

The reason it can't be one atom is that you then get a one off non cyclic affair. Nothing followed by something giving a bang ending in nothing. Further more something like God would to have got it started or keep it going. The observed order and disorder can then not be explained. This leads to the deduction that it then must be another sort of atom. Seeing entanglement it must also be > c yet to solve the problem must be larger and slower than the other atom. Pure deduction and reduction (though I've taken short cuts.)

 

The thing is however: given that I'm right will mean that it will be an insurmountable measurement problem to prove the existence of the smaller atom (and probably the larger one as well) other than via indirect methods Because if you get the fundamental formulas right that will show because the predictions will fit.

 

Do please bear in mind that if I'm right a pure and full mathematical description of say the movement of one photon though the Higgs field to describe one if not all possible ways it would cause a change to that field and the photon would require the mathematical description of the exact movement of say somewhere between a million or a trillion of two sorts of atoms. And that would be only one way the fields go to order in less than a split second. So if I'm right a pure mathematical description will never be possible. That said we can however get extremely close IMO, and much closer than we are now. The mathematics and work to be done is enormous even if I'm right, to ascertain the size, mass, speed and shape of both different atoms and to ascertain how many there are per volume of the Higgs field in its four different stages. Do we need to do that immediately? No of course not. First do the quick and dirty math's on the tests and do the tests.

 

You have to make up your mind what you want. Absolute proof is not a scientific but a religious issue. Demanding a pure mathematical answer on a reality subject of this magnitude is asking to much. Ultimately it is at best going to be very close, but we will remain in the cave of Plato looking at the shadows. Yet we can and must try to narrow it down. And fast. There is no case to argue that MN might not be an illusionist, and a lot to say that she is. If so it must be possible to reach a TOE quickly. That it up till now hasn't been tried has no doubt to do with a confirmation bias. For which there is a enormous amount of evidence.

 

Not in the least by the fact that key laws of physics such as GR & QM aren't defined as such. The best laws we ever had. That key issues are stated as observations yet are conclusions: i.e. time doesn't slow down when accelerating an atom clock the clock does. Stating that photons are mass-less where correct definition would entail them to be matter-less (= not exerting gravity). Seeing my idea it shows why this is important. But mainstream science per definition says it to be important to rigorously look at all relevant evidence and address all relevant questions in the most simple way by using correct definitions. Yet science on this issue indisputably hasn't.

 

Several (not the least BTW) nuclear physicists have taken pot shots at my idea. They aren't convinced it to be correct and want me to provide the mathematics. For the reasons stated that is not reasonable. Yet understandable. No one in the field can run the danger of committing themselves on an issue like this running the risk of being wrong. Everyone would need funding and thus have to put their cards on the table. Even if I had the mathematics it would still be a hell of a job to get a test in. Look what happened to Higgs.

 

So my concept must be:

 

a. improbable / less probable than another availeble concept

b. illogical

c. un-falsifiable

d. incomplete

 

For it to be allowed to be ignored in science. Yet it is none of these.

[PeterJ]

What problems does your idea solve?

 

It certainly won't solve any philosophical proplems, and it is therefore noreductive, It is therefore not a TOE.

 

But I can't make head or tail of it.

[kristalris]

What problems does your idea solve?

 

It certainly won't solve any philosophical proplems, and it is therefore noreductive, It is therefore not a TOE.

 

But I can't make head or tail of it.

Which form of philosophical reduction do you mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction

 

 

Philosophy

• Eidetic reduction, a technique in the study of essences in phenomenology whose goal is to identify the basic components of phenomena
• Intertheoretic reduction, in philosophy of science, one theory makes predictions that perfectly or almost perfectly match the predictions of a second theory
• Reduction (philosophy), the process by which one object, property, concept, theory, etc., is shown to be entirely dispensable in favor of another
• Reductionism, a range of philosophical systems

 

Please also bear in mind science at the moment doesn't have a TOE. Nor any concept and not even an idea. So even the act of providing a testable idea not even a concept solves those problems of not having a clue on such a major issue.

 

The problems it - even discarding the idea all together - solves, is it provides two in principle simple tests.

 

If balls in the box simulation go to order that would have major ramifications not only in physics but in philosophy as well IMO. You would have a simulation of a continuum as a theoretical basis for further research into the Higgs field mechanism. That is indisputable. As is the fact that science doesn't know the answer to what will come out of the test. Present day physics says the balls in the box should not go to order, yet have to agree that under the conditions of this test that isn't certain, seeing more order in the universe than present science and philosophy can account for. The latter being the problem possibly solved by the test.

 

If the gyro test shows that speeding up matter causes a rise in its gravity especially if the rise fits the rise needed to account for Dark Matter, then again this would have major ramifications not only for physics but philosophy as well. Normal physics would say it wouldn't rise yet seeing the problem of Dark matter can't be shore of that either.

 

In science as a whole not being shore on these key issues is intolerable. The more so given the possibility of two simple tests both with low cost and effort for possible enormous gain of then actually solving two core issues. To much order and DM.

 

A further ramification for philosophy would be the fact that it has been the use of philosophical reasoning that generated the tests. (I guess if one or both of the tests render a positive result you'd study the idea now wouldn't you? Then you would be able to make head and tails of it I guess, granted I've been very brief in describing the idea.)

[PeterJ]

Hmm. It seems we are on different planets. I'll leave you to talk to some physicists about your idea. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with philosophy.

[imatfaal]

Hmm. It seems we are on different planets. I'll leave you to talk to some physicists about your idea. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with philosophy.

Agree. So Peter, can you give your definition/explanation, in broadly theoretical terms, of a continuum - with one proviso - you are not allowed to use the term "unity". I think I have given a good definition of continuum that is distinct and worthwhile; I realise you do not agree with that definition - but I still feel it is becase you are defining something else. Alternatively can you give a name to the concept of a homogeneous, unsplit-up-able (sorry abut that), continuous, and boundless of extent entity which I call a continuum?

[ACG52]

Hmm. It seems we are on different planets. I'll leave you to talk to some physicists about your idea. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with philosophy.

Nor with physics.

[kristalris]

Okay, on a final note then: a strict division between pure mathematics and the rest is not adhered to where it should be. You in fact are working a pure mathematics problem this way, without the pure mathematics Yet the division between philosophy (meta physics) and physics is strictly applied where it shouldn't be. Physicists ignore the problem because they deem it meta physics and in philosophy the same problem is deemed physics and thus also ignored.

[SplitInfinity]

Okay, on a final note then: a strict division between pure mathematics and the rest is not adhered to where it should be. You in fact are working a pure mathematics problem this way, without the pure mathematics Yet the division between philosophy (meta physics) and physics is strictly applied where it shouldn't be. Physicists ignore the problem because they deem it meta physics and in philosophy the same problem is deemed physics and thus also ignored.

 

Continuum...the explaination and model you seek has it's basis in this word.

 

There is a reason why we use the term...Space/Time...as one cannot exist without the other. So to bind all aspects of Reality, Mind and Probability...a Universal Model must exist in Infinite Number in a Multiversal System. This Multiveral System would provide an explaination for Quantum Mechanics and thus would show an intrinsic Quantum Interconnectivity and Transfer among all Divergent Universal States specific to our Universal Grouping within a Multiverse.

 

This would mean that every possibility MUST EXIST in such a system as well as Time being Non-Linear in it's nature when looking at a Universal Grouping of Divergent Universal States. Here in lies the Continuum. Time being Non-Linear in such a state will not allow for beginning or end but just existence.

 

Quantum Particle/Wave Forms in such a system would be interconnective and transfering between Divergent Universal States which would be the Glue that connects the Quanta of one version of a Person to another in a different Divergent State.

 

Split Infinity

[kristalris]

Continuum...the explaination and model you seek has it's basis in this word.

 

There is a reason why we use the term...Space/Time...as one cannot exist without the other. So to bind all aspects of Reality, Mind and Probability...a Universal Model must exist in Infinite Number in a Multiversal System. This Multiveral System would provide an explaination for Quantum Mechanics and thus would show an intrinsic Quantum Interconnectivity and Transfer among all Divergent Universal States specific to our Universal Grouping within a Multiverse.

 

This would mean that every possibility MUST EXIST in such a system as well as Time being Non-Linear in it's nature when looking at a Universal Grouping of Divergent Universal States. Here in lies the Continuum. Time being Non-Linear in such a state will not allow for beginning or end but just existence.

 

Quantum Particle/Wave Forms in such a system would be interconnective and transfering between Divergent Universal States which would be the Glue that connects the Quanta of one version of a Person to another in a different Divergent State.

 

Split Infinity

1. You don't have to split infinity you can just take a cube of space containing one universe out of the multi-verse (that correct deduction shows to be most probable, yet inherently un-falsifiable.) And observe that as containing roughly speaking four different fields or continua one of which is the seeming void of our visible universe. All scenario's are then played out all the time. Solving your Schrodinger's cat problem.

2. All the laws of QM must be seen as brilliant laws of physics that only apply IMO as best probable and testable idea in the double dynamic crystal of the Higgs field where we are at. So, what you say is totally correct as long as you stay within our visible universe and don't go smaller than (part?) of the SM. All those particles simply don't exist at a deeper level or outside the Higgs field, neither the laws that are based on those observed particles (our current laws of physics such as GR & QM). Anyway seeing QM & GR etc. as laws and having limits if the continuum is built an other way that also can be a continuum that is limited in scope as the term "field" also implies. I.e. outside or in between the crystal / other continuum with atoms forming a solid within a time frame (choice c thus, see above) they don't apply. Only then can you explain the observations that don't fit current science such as entanglement in a simple (Newtonic) way without resorting to the magic of something from nothing. Being the only other alternate as logic dictates, unless you want to ignore the problem. If you take something as c max that is in fact > c you would indeed observe objects being here there and nowhere at the same time. Simple error in reasoning stemming from an incorrect conclusion that time slows down when speeding up the atom clock. The clock slows down, that is the correct observation. Thus speeds > c are not in contradiction with GR & QM as long as we are talking other particles than SM. The hidden variables that must be assumed on basis of otherwise inexplicable - other than using magic - observations. My way makes it Newton again. MN unveiled as an illusionist.

3. Then you can use "the Holy trinity" of space time within those limits where they apply. Extrapolating that to infinity puts you in the Escher Institute. You extrapolate a formula out of its regime. The wacky and ultra strange phenomena that predictably ensue when you do that, we indeed observe. The idea I postulate solves the problem by having different fields that each can be seen as a continuum. Though not a perfect or infinite single one (of course, might I add.) Again MN doesn't need a clock or a concept of time to run around. We do in order to describe what she's doing and to predict where she's going and where she has been. You can thus in principle use any scale you like, use what ever is the most convenient given the problem at hand: relative, absolute or what not (Occam dixit). Time is what the clock reads, and in physics you use the most accurate one available of course the atom clock. In my idea the crystal of the Higgs field adds mass to the atom clock if you accelerate it more added the higher the speed. This in a very accurate way. Hence the illusion of time slowing down.

4. It is all mindbogglingly larger than we think IMO. The flat expanding "space cake with raisins" idea of the universe is somewhere were we have been with observing our flat earth. This expanding can also be seen as five trains (train = galaxy) accelerating one after the other out of a station. If you are in the middle one when the last train has left the station you have the illusion of standing still, and the other trains speeding away from you in alternate directions, the furthest the fastest. An illusion. To the sides the angular momentum that is "accidentally" (illusion of the mathematics that are involved.) the same (railway tracks diverge). So this continuum is not expanding IMO but moving slowly inward like a (crystal) glacier (= railwaytrack) yet being perceived as stationary.

Edited March 27, 2013 by kristalris

[kristalris]

As an other attempt for a final note:

 

In lieu of the list I gave earlier: Look if you take "choice c" a continuum of sorts with lumps (historical atoms) then you are forced by logic to deal with the question of a TOE. This due to the rule of main stream science that you should address all relevant observations and answer all relevant questions on a given problem. The given problem in the OP is a Higgs field of sorts as a continuum for profound insights. Well that is a TOE as topic then.

 

If you are after absolute truth you should go to the religious section and not science.

 

If you want neigh absolute truth you are talking pure mathematics on the problem of continua of sorts that fit Higgs fieldish problems. A worthwhile en-devour if mathematicians agree that it still has unsolved area's. I don't know that. What I do know is that that question then belongs in the mathematics forum IMO.

 

If you want to deal with the void of our visible universe as a continuum without looking at, thus ignoring, all the relevant questions and all relevant observations, then you are talking mainstream physics. I.e. of the Higgs field. That belongs in the physics forum then IMO. (Although I agree with Feijerabend that physicists should do more on philosophy (meta physics) so it should be possible to deal with your OP there as well. Albeit that mainstream physics has a production department stance to the issue and not a R&D stance. As the latter would include meta-physics.)

 

You (PeterJ) called my way of reasoning earlier on "cheating" .

 

That depends what you expect and what you are looking at. Historically I started off with what I don't believe: Krauss et all something from nothing, pretzel shaped universes and what not, to subsequently answer the question what I do believe. To do that I first dreamt up the relevant question (Socrates). What would be the simplest way to unify it all (Occam)? Then I dreamt up the dynamic crystal with one atom. Nearly fits but needs a God to keep it going. Two atoms fit the entire bill very elegantly. If so, this inductive reasoning also works deductively via reduction the other way as a dictate of logic. It, because it will never constitute absolute truth, will always leave you with the - then most probably correct - prior assumptions. We know this since the cave of Plato (and Occam).

 

This then proves the best concept on Occam if it has the least assumptions. It has, because I can explain this to any high school kid, contrary to the - ONLY - alternate of Krauss et all with his something from nothing. Nobody including Krauss himself understands that yet "mathematics show it to be true". Mathematics does no such thing when you put garbage in you get garbage out dear Krauss et all.

 

This of course - GIVEN - the prior assumption that MN is an illusionist. I.e. that the basic rules of the absolute truth (that we will never absolutely know) are simple. Now that may be different, however given my elegant explanation in fact marrying QM to Newton to GR, with words in a logical way that on Occam gives proof of concept at that level. It is on Occam also the prime suspect. I.e. the first thing to investigate further. The first thing on Occam is the simplest explanation and that is per definition that MN is an illusionist (i.e. that the basic truth is simple). This is thus no speculation but pure logical deduction. Occam is mainstream science BTW.

 

That the concept is new, doesn't make it speculative. That would only be the case if the assumptions you end up with are appreciably more than any other concept that does the same. Present day science has none. None whatsoever. That Krauss et all have mathematics for their position proves nothing, for they agree that what they say is extremely improbable yet true as they say. Yes, though extremely improbable you can win the lottery. I however wouldn't bet my money or life on that lot however. You are betting your and other lives on not reaching TOE quickly if you bet on Krauss et all. A TOE will more quickly solve all sorts of problems such as finding a cure for cancer.

 

(Edit: Same goes if you assume that ignoring the problem will be the fastest way to a TOE. There is no evidence of that, yet my idea and reasoning, as does the history of science show a lot of compelling evidence to the contrary. BTW)

 

In philosophy you don't need to use mathematics. My idea is the only one that reduces all observations to the fewest possible assumptions and explained it all in a common sense way. Division of labor puts it then on science to further it by trying to falsify this concept or come up with a better one. My idea is presented in a falsifiable way, so no problem there. That is a mainstream rule of science because it is indisputable logic.

 

And, like I said earlier mainstream (proper) philosophy is a contradiction in terms.I.e. it may always be new as long as it's logical.

 

Ergo I dealt with the OP in an on topic way given this forum. I can now I've only recently found out how to publish pictures on this site provide pictures of my concept, for those who have difficulty in picturing what I'm on about with this concept, but I'll do that in another thread.

Edited March 28, 2013 by kristalris

[PeterJ]

Imatfaal - I've just been following up your reference to Weyl's work on the continuum. I found myself reading this essay.

http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Hermann%20Weyl.pdf

 

It completely amazed me.

 

I can't thank you enough for pointing me at Weyl. I can now say 'what he says' when anyone asks what I think about all this.

 

 

Agree. So Peter, can you give your definition/explanation, in broadly theoretical terms, of a continuum - with one proviso - you are not allowed to use the term "unity". I think I have given a good definition of continuum that is distinct and worthwhile; I realise you do not agree with that definition - but I still feel it is becase you are defining something else. Alternatively can you give a name to the concept of a homogeneous, unsplit-up-able (sorry abut that), continuous, and boundless of extent entity which I call a continuum?

 

Well, what you would call a continuum would to me be an impossibe object. If it has no parts it could not be 'boundless of extent'. I read Weyl as saying the same thing. A boundless continuum can only be a concept, not a real object.

 

I would define a continuum in two ways, following Weyl as far as I can tell.

 

1) An intuitive continuum would not be a mathematical object. It would continuous and would not have parts. In Weyl's co-ordinate system as described in the essay above it is described as a point. It would a uni.. oops.

 

2) A mathematical continuum would be an extended series of points or locations. It would have parts. It would be a conceptual construction, and within the limits of intelligibility and usefulness we would be fee to define it how we like,

 

Weyl suggests that this is not an idle matter of definition but has implications for the reality of time and space. In a far more muddled way I am suggesting the same. .

 

I could not follow the entire essay but it is interesting to watch Weyl try to reconcile these two version of the continuum. He seems to end up with the view that both contain an aspect of the truth, and that the law of the excluded middle must be questioned for a resolution. This is roughly my suggestion, that there are two valid ways of looking at spacetime, contradictory but also complementary to each other, and the problem we have with it is that we assume that there is only one correct way. .

 

His explanation of the distinction we require between the continnum of intuition and experience (which I have been calling 'pure' or 'ideal') and the continuum of the natural sciences and everday thought, (the continuum of the 'transcendental' or imputed world) is brilliant. It annoys me when people say in a few words what would take me a few thousand.

 

It's the second best essay I've ever read on the mathematics of Buddhist cosmology.

 

Many thanks again for mention Weyl. How about we follow his terminology?

[imatfaal]

I have had a quick read through - but need to cogitate for a while; one thing though, after that essay I am happier to talk about my intuitive ideas! Not from the essay - but do you understand the sort of entity (whether possible or not) that I would describe as having the characteristic that a portion has exactly the same characteristics as the whole

[PeterJ]

I depends exactly what you mean. If a part really is a part, and not just an arbitrary region of a continuos whole, then it would have a boundary, while the whole would not. So they'd have this different characteristic. But this is probably not what you mean. If you mean that each portion of a line looks the same on any scale as we zoom in and out then I understand that. If you mean that the parts are not truly separate from the whole, which would be indivisible, but are notional or conceptual, then I cannot conceive of such an entity, but I know what you mean.

[SplitInfinity]

As an other attempt for a final note:

 

In lieu of the list I gave earlier: Look if you take "choice c" a continuum of sorts with lumps (historical atoms) then you are forced by logic to deal with the question of a TOE. This due to the rule of main stream science that you should address all relevant observations and answer all relevant questions on a given problem. The given problem in the OP is a Higgs field of sorts as a continuum for profound insights. Well that is a TOE as topic then.

 

If you are after absolute truth you should go to the religious section and not science.

 

If you want neigh absolute truth you are talking pure mathematics on the problem of continua of sorts that fit Higgs fieldish problems. A worthwhile en-devour if mathematicians agree that it still has unsolved area's. I don't know that. What I do know is that that question then belongs in the mathematics forum IMO.

 

If you want to deal with the void of our visible universe as a continuum without looking at, thus ignoring, all the relevant questions and all relevant observations, then you are talking mainstream physics. I.e. of the Higgs field. That belongs in the physics forum then IMO. (Although I agree with Feijerabend that physicists should do more on philosophy (meta physics) so it should be possible to deal with your OP there as well. Albeit that mainstream physics has a production department stance to the issue and not a R&D stance. As the latter would include meta-physics.)

 

You (PeterJ) called my way of reasoning earlier on "cheating" .

 

That depends what you expect and what you are looking at. Historically I started off with what I don't believe: Krauss et all something from nothing, pretzel shaped universes and what not, to subsequently answer the question what I do believe. To do that I first dreamt up the relevant question (Socrates). What would be the simplest way to unify it all (Occam)? Then I dreamt up the dynamic crystal with one atom. Nearly fits but needs a God to keep it going. Two atoms fit the entire bill very elegantly. If so, this inductive reasoning also works deductively via reduction the other way as a dictate of logic. It, because it will never constitute absolute truth, will always leave you with the - then most probably correct - prior assumptions. We know this since the cave of Plato (and Occam).

 

This then proves the best concept on Occam if it has the least assumptions. It has, because I can explain this to any high school kid, contrary to the - ONLY - alternate of Krauss et all with his something from nothing. Nobody including Krauss himself understands that yet "mathematics show it to be true". Mathematics does no such thing when you put garbage in you get garbage out dear Krauss et all.

 

This of course - GIVEN - the prior assumption that MN is an illusionist. I.e. that the basic rules of the absolute truth (that we will never absolutely know) are simple. Now that may be different, however given my elegant explanation in fact marrying QM to Newton to GR, with words in a logical way that on Occam gives proof of concept at that level. It is on Occam also the prime suspect. I.e. the first thing to investigate further. The first thing on Occam is the simplest explanation and that is per definition that MN is an illusionist (i.e. that the basic truth is simple). This is thus no speculation but pure logical deduction. Occam is mainstream science BTW.

 

That the concept is new, doesn't make it speculative. That would only be the case if the assumptions you end up with are appreciably more than any other concept that does the same. Present day science has none. None whatsoever. That Krauss et all have mathematics for their position proves nothing, for they agree that what they say is extremely improbable yet true as they say. Yes, though extremely improbable you can win the lottery. I however wouldn't bet my money or life on that lot however. You are betting your and other lives on not reaching TOE quickly if you bet on Krauss et all. A TOE will more quickly solve all sorts of problems such as finding a cure for cancer.

 

(Edit: Same goes if you assume that ignoring the problem will be the fastest way to a TOE. There is no evidence of that, yet my idea and reasoning, as does the history of science show a lot of compelling evidence to the contrary. BTW)

 

In philosophy you don't need to use mathematics. My idea is the only one that reduces all observations to the fewest possible assumptions and explained it all in a common sense way. Division of labor puts it then on science to further it by trying to falsify this concept or come up with a better one. My idea is presented in a falsifiable way, so no problem there. That is a mainstream rule of science because it is indisputable logic.

 

And, like I said earlier mainstream (proper) philosophy is a contradiction in terms.I.e. it may always be new as long as it's logical.

 

Ergo I dealt with the OP in an on topic way given this forum. I can now I've only recently found out how to publish pictures on this site provide pictures of my concept, for those who have difficulty in picturing what I'm on about with this concept, but I'll do that in another thread.

For some reason I missed your reply to my post and since you obviously took some time and alot of thought typing this...I figure better late than never to reply. LOL!

 

I would ask you to think about this as it pertains to the possibilities you have outlined here...as I feel you have not included this concept I am about to state into your thoughts.

 

If we are living in one universal state within a Multiverse...and I believe this to be not only highly probable but perhaps the only explaination for how and why Quantum Mechanics works as it does....our Universal Reality is but ONE of Infinite Divergent Universal States....existing within ONE UNIVERSAL GROUPING OR GROUP within the MULTIVERSE.

 

Within a Multiverse there would have to be Infinite Universal Realities specific to ONE SPECIFIC Universal Group. The must also be Infinite UNIVERSAL GROUPS...each one containing infinite Divergent Universal Realities.

 

So each Universal Groups Infinite number of Divergent Universal Realities must all have the SAME NATURAL LAWS.

 

Each other Universal Group would have again Infinite Divergent Universal Realities that themselves all have the SAME NATURAL LAWS but different from any other Universal Group.

 

Thus...each Universal Group has it's own set of Natural Laws that are different from any of the other Universal Groups and some of these Natural Laws would be so alien in their nature that we as humans could neither understand or even DREAM of those laws realities.

 

Split Infinity