REALITY CHANGES WITH TIME

[Ostronomos]

Wheeler wanted to reduce physics to geometry in an even more fundamental way than the ADM reformulation of general relativity with a dynamic geometry whose **curvature changes with time. **

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics

If there is a way to verify that curvature is a reality, then we may have laid the first piece of evidence for Wheeler's Quantum Geometrodynamics.

 

Nicholas Ibrahim Hosein, 2016.

[Strange]

Well, it is pretty clear that curvature of space-time is a reality.

 

(Modulo the usual caveats of what "reality" means and the fact that it is impossible to know anything about it, etc.)

[Ostronomos]

Correct. Which implies that spacetime is capable of being warped, twisted and curved. Which does not preclude the possibility of it having a beginning.

 

IMPLICATIONS:

 

We know that spacetime is real. And Wheeler proposed a more fundamental idea than the ADM reformulation of General Relativity in which the dynamic geometry of a spacetime (reality) curvature changes with time. Suppose that Reality (which is supposedly absolute and not relative to anything as a whole) changes with time, then are we speaking about absolute reality (as a whole set?) or relative reality (objects existing within reality itself?) which changes with time? And does absolute reality change at the same rate as relative reality? Hence, the implications of this answer to General (and special?) relativity.

 

OTHER THINGS THAT ARE REAL THAT CHANGE:

 

If language is more than just human created gibberish, then the universe possesses it's own language, the SCSPL (see CTMU). This means that it really does evolve through its grammatical processors. As time moves forward, grammar moves foward as we utter the rhythm of each letter of a word.

Don't forget entropy.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Ostronomos

[Ostronomos]

Why was this thread moved to speculations? I only speculated about one point. And I used the word "If".

If I remove the CTMU bullshit comment will you return the thread to its appropriate subforum? I take it as an insult.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Ostronomos

[swansont]

Why was this thread moved to speculations? I only speculated about one point. And I used the word "If".

 

If I remove the CTMU bullshit comment will you return the thread to its appropriate subforum? I take it as an insult.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you know it's BS, why did you include it in the first place? And if you know it's BS, why are you surprised it was moved? (These questions are rhetorical. Please don't respond to this modnote.) Also, please spare us your indignation.

 

Prove this is discussion is mainstream, and it will be moved back.

[Daecon]

A topic about "reality" that references Langan's CTMU is an automatic red flag.

[Markus Hanke]

We know that spacetime is real. And Wheeler proposed a more fundamental idea than the ADM reformulation of General Relativity in which the dynamic geometry of a spacetime (reality) curvature changes with time.

 

 

I don't really understand the point in this - even the standard field equations admit dynamic ( i.e. time-dependent ) metrics as valid solutions, so you don't even need the ADM formalism for this. Why is that so special ?

[disarray]

Am an amateur who just read that SCSPL suggests that models of reality can get more and more accurate until the model becomes the reality:

"what does the SCSPL coding of a tennis ball look like?";- the answer is the tennis ball itself!"

 

Perhaps SCSPL is used differently in physics, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in by mentioning that I have read that Kant thought that what the noumena was really like was impossible to know since, to use my metaphor, we can never take off the sunglasses (e.g., the "manifold-like filter," to get back a little to Kant's phrasing) through which we perceive things such as time and space. However, Kant said that, via science, we can make better and better approximations...so that our mental reality "changes with time" as we asymptotically get better and better approximations about what we are trying to describe or "picture."

 

I am gathering that one might make a list of those things in which the representative model (and science is supposed to be one big treasure chest of models) is like the thing that it is trying to replicate and those that are quite different (aka signs similarity to the signified OR shadows on the wall of Plato's allegorical cave similarity to the objects seen in the light of day).

 

We might have some sort of (verisimilitude) scale to rate the appropriateness of model to modeled. Of course there has to be some parameters as to what you are looking for:

A painting of the Mona Lisa visually looks, if perhaps put the painting next to Michelangelo's model, from the waist up, just after he painted her, one of hist students perhaps could not tell which one was "real" at a distance of 100, but apart from that, the painting is not alive, is pretty much 2 dimensional, cannot carry on a conversation, etc.

 

So Onomatopoetic words, for example, would be higher on the scale that other words....saying the word "buzz" mimics the sound of a bee more than does the word hippopotamus.

As another example, a candle would be higher up on the scale when trying to represent a star to someone who had never seen one, than, say, a log.

 

I could list similar examples with respect to smell, taste, movement, touch, etc. I guess the "rub" comes, if I may allude to Hamlet, when we cannot perceive reality with our senses, e.g. in trying to describe a quark, or dark matter, etc.

 

Indeed, we scoff at Viking who thought that thunder was caused when Thor threw his hammer, preferring our own modern day explanation for a thunder waves speed:

 

v=sqrt of k over p

I would suggest that on my verisimilitude scale of modeling that the image of thor’s hammer shattering the air with its vibrations might give a person who has never heard thunder a more representational “image,” in terms of what a person experiences with his/her sense of hearing, and thus of what thunder is, (or is like), than the mathematician’s symbols on a chalkboard.

 

Finally, I would suggest that some symbolic descriptions (aka representational models) just cannot continually get better and better. We can perhaps draw more and more accurate pictures of the Mona Lisa, but they will never be the Mona Lisa, sort of thing. Dante could write better and better poetic descriptions of Beatrice, but at some point his efforts would bring diminishing returns, so that, were I to read his descriptions now, I would never get much better than an extremely vague impression as to what what she was like in person.

 

Hope this side comment is not too far off topic.

[imatfaal]

...

 

I could list similar examples with respect to smell, taste, movement, touch, etc. I guess the "rub" comes, if I may allude to Hamlet, when we cannot perceive reality with our senses, e.g. in trying to describe a quark, or dark matter, etc.

 

Indeed, we scoff at Viking who thought that thunder was caused when Thor threw his hammer, preferring our own modern day explanation for a thunder waves speed as

 

V = square root of k over p

 

I would suggest that on my verisimilude scale of modeling that the image of thor’s hammer shattering the air with its vibrations might give a person who has never heard thunder a more representational “image,” in terms of what we experience with our sense of hearing, of what thunder is (or is like) than the mathematician’s symbols on a chalkboard.

 

 

...

 

I could list similar examples with respect to smell, taste, movement, touch, etc. I guess the "rub" comes, if I may allude to Hamlet, when we cannot perceive reality with our senses, e.g. in trying to describe a quark, or dark matter, etc.

 

Indeed, we scoff at Viking who thought that thunder was caused when Thor threw his hammer, preferring our own modern day explanation for a thunder waves speed:

 

v=sqrt of k over p

 

I would suggest that on my verisimilitude scale of modeling that the image of thor’s hammer shattering the air with its vibrations might give a person who has never heard thunder a more representational “image,” in terms of what a person experiences with his/her sense of hearing, and thus of what thunder is, (or is like), than the mathematician’s symbols on a chalkboard.

 

...

 

Long posts are one thing - frankly I think they are a touch self-indulgent - but copynpasta of oneself in multiple posts on varying topics is asking too much of the membership.

[dimreepr]

 

 

 

Long posts are one thing - frankly I think they are a touch self-indulgent .

 

 

I’ll go a little further; ‘disarray’ you’re clearly an intelligent person, maybe top of your class, but academic intelligence isn’t the only type of intelligence that counts, to assume otherwise moves self indulgence into the arrogant box.

[Strange]

 

Am an amateur who just read that SCSPL suggests that models of reality can get more and more accurate until the model becomes the reality:

"what does the SCSPL coding of a tennis ball look like?";- the answer is the tennis ball itself!"

 

Perhaps SCSPL is used differently in physics

 

It isn't used in physics. It is, a far as I can tell, a pile of steaming wombat's poo.

[Ostronomos]

 

It isn't used in physics. It is, a far as I can tell, a pile of steaming wombat's poo.

 

The only reason I made reference to it was simply because it merges language (which it claims is more than just gibberish) with reality.

A topic about "reality" that references Langan's CTMU is an automatic red flag.

 

In this case I will talk about reality without reference to CTMU.

[Strange]

A discussion of "reality" belongs in the philosophy forum. It doesn't really have anything to do with science.

 

The only reason I made reference to it was simply because it merges language (which it claims is more than just gibberish)

 

Who claims language is gibberish?