Continuum & Multiverse?

[kristalris]

Because I attempted a last note in the thread of Peter J on the slit thread continuum of the Higgs field, I'll post a reaction to Split infinities post here:

 

 

Posted Today, 07:22 AM

kristalris, on 28 Mar 2013 - 12:06, said:

 

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

• 
• 
• 0

• Quote
• MultiQuote

Well Split infinity, I don't quite see why you see the need for a group of multiverses.

 

Given that the fact whether or not logic gives as stated earlier in the other thread a multiverse depends if you take to see the Higgs field a priori to contain (thus inherently unsplitable) lumps, leads to the logic conclusion of the assumed existence of an inherently unfalsifiable multiverse. As most scientists as far as I know of agree on that a multiverse is most probable.

 

If you take lumps then the question is which lumps of matter is that? Something out of the SM and/or one or more sorts of hidden variables?

 

If you take one or more hidden variables as the lumps then the question is, is it cyclic? Well if you already have a given multiverse then you have already arrived at that point. Then the question is could it be absolutely repetitive i.e. cyclic in a way that we are having this conversation at this moment an absolute amount of times, as we have had in the past and will have in the future? I'd say that is logically extremely improbable because that would entail the chance that it would become repetitive without life in an endless cycle without life ever returning in the system. Given an extremely small chance of that happening on an infinite timescale means it should have already become repetitive without life ever returning. That hasn't happened as we can observe.

 

So it thus logically can not be absolutely the same. Thus then we are unique. Yet logic then dictates this being in an endless cycle of nearly being the same like two industrial glasses are the same and also absolutely different at a deeper level.

 

This then logically means that all - possible - scenario's can be played out an infinite amount of times in the multiverse. I see no reason why we must assume that different laws of physics (at a deepest level ) should be among-st those possibilities. (I.e. all impossible scenario's given the sorts of lumps in the continuum don't happen.)

 

And, might I ad the only reason to assume a multiverse in the first place is just to show logical consistency with everything we hold true in science at the moment for a stated test of sorts consistent with that and potentially falsifying the position yet potentially bringing us closer to answering fundamental questions in a measurable (/ falsifiable) way.