The Deduction of the Theory of Everything

Assuming that there is a "here", and there is a "nothing", seems to me to be a singular/limited perspective. I am here, it is there. But for me, infinity is everything there ever was and is, always. ie there is no space for the concept of nothing; as nothing doesn't exist; as its definition dictates. And that one must see the concept of infinty as a totality of all, without any without. That is my definition of infintity; and within that definition any area of altered state, or inceptive zone, computational field projector matrix, is included within said definition. Whether the conceptive zone is matter or energy, or something else, doesn't preclude its inclusion within the all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, we still have the TOE, as limited to either something forever or a distribution of nothing, and that is enough for the celebration of it, for now. To go on to decide which one it is, one of the apparent paradoxes has to give, and we know ahead of time that one of them must give, so that helps.

One of them seems to have some confirmation: the balance of opposites constituting nature. Any thoughts on that?

And simpler and simpler things seem to be more and more reactive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would suggest that Nothing spits out stuff not according to any laws, since it doesn't have any. That is, at least, the 'law' of no law that results in what is spit out. A lack of anything wouldn't seem to have any constraints.

In our universe, the stuff worked, presuming it could have been otherwise.

If there really is a wave function of the whole universe, then the ongoing might play a role… somehow…

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there is such a Nothing, how could you possibly find or observe anything it "spits out", or do anything more than suppose it does?
Since, you see, observation requires physics and its physical laws.

Your statement is incongruous. If there are no constraints, furthermore, then anything at all could arise from this Nothing. But we don't observe anything at all, we observe a universe which appears to be the same in all directions. This could be, as Rav says, because of existing properties, but then, how did our universe get these "properties"?

 

In modern physics however, the definition of nothing is different. Yes I agree that it's problematic, yet it is what it is. In my post I just decided to embrace it, even though I have vehemently opposed it myself many times on these forums.

The whole point of my post was, in fact, to try to explore the possible nature of scientific nothingness. To point out that it must have some very basic properties, even if they can not be said to be physical properties according to the existing ideas about what is and isn't physical in modern physics. At the very least, it is often said by physicists themselves that the nothing from which the universe emerged had the property of being unstable. In physics, nothing is not something that logically can't exist (like it is in philosophy), nothing is something that can and does exist.

But if it does exist, but doesn't have any physical properties, yet is still the fundamental basis of physical reality, we saying that reality has an unphysical cause. But then we have an interaction problem. How can something that is unphysical form the first link the chain of physical cause and effect? What does a phase transition from an unphysical state to a physical one look like? Surely it's not like a wave of a magic wand and voila, something physical emerges? Doesn't there need to a process? A basic rule to define the nature of what emerges at the other end of this phase transition?

I would propose that scientific nothingness is a physical state. Perhaps the most simple, the most subtle, and the most fundamental physical state of all. Of course you can't call it a physical state in modern physics, because it has no physical properties. But the scope of what constitutes physicality has historically expanded to include more and more subtle phenomena as science has moved forward.

 

Perhaps there are other universes with a variety of different properties.

There can be no real decider for the causeless basis of all.

 

If nothing is constantly fluctuating, in the quantum sense, then universes are being birthed endlessly. Eventually one of them is going to have the properties that ours has. Those existing properties may then determine the nature of an ongoing causal relationship with the quantum vacuum, if that is indeed the same fundamental ground state that birthed the universe in the first place.

But perhaps it's not. Not quite anyway. Perhaps our quantum vacuum is just a small piece of the fundamental ground state from which our universe emerged. A piece of a greater and completely random whole, that is essentially locked into a certain subset of all potential behaviour by virtue of being actualized.

Still just wild speculation though. I could be so far off base with all this that it wouldn't even be funny. But that's all I've come here to do. Speculate. Wildly. I very much enjoy it.

 

The Vault of Everything:


Story

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdotal-stories/6066-the-vault-everything.html#post163723


Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0mjfLC55Xw​

 

I have some thoughts rattling around, struggling to become properly coherent. If and when they do, I'll reply to that.

 

SIMPLICITY

Occam sharpened his razor,
To a one-dimensional line,
Then cut his beard into strings.

They sprung from the depths,
Vibrating the songs of reality,
For which all composites sprang.



THE RAZOR

In the alphabet, Occam saw the unnecessary,
So he struck out ‘j’, ‘q’, ‘x”, and ‘z’,
Being rarities or duplicates,
And then even cut more,
Those being the vowels taking up space.

n th lphbt, ccm sw th nncssry,
S h strck t ‘’, ‘’, ‘’, nd ‘’,
Bng rrts r dplcts,
nd thn vn ct mr,
Ths bng th vwls tkng p spc.

(But then one could only understand him almost)
(Bt thn n cld nly ndrstnd hm lmst)



CONCISE SIMPLICITY

Writers of few words,
Even the laws that writ reality,
Say more more with less.​

 

William of Ockham

 

As you may have gathered, Nothing for me holds no logical basis, so I don't entertain it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I could agree that the beyond is constituted of something different to what is observed within the physical universe, but I know this doesn't fit into your TOE.

Do opposites in nature point to anything regarding the nature of what lies beyond/beneath/above the physical universe? I myself can't connect these dots . . .

To use my past analogy. Mandelbrot zooms require more computing power the deeper one zooms; but it is possible to keep zooming. The only limit being the power of the computer . . .

 

This is specualtive physics/philosophy though? To label the hypothesised state that matter coalesces out of as "Nothing" would, for me, seem a misuse of the term (Nothing). I have also heard physicists describe protomatter states. If the state of conceptive "Nothing" has any form or structure, conventional (our universe type) or something totally different, I would suggest the term Nothing to not apply, within my own personal nomenclature. If we are indeed just discussing terminology then this debate seems a little moot?

Whatever we call it, I agree that it is fascinating trying to figure out how the transition from this "Other-state" could possibly be systematised

Ok, your Nothing is my protomatter-state. For me to describe to you how I think this could possibly work would be getting mighty close to my own speculative theory of everything; which I don't want to do. However I may be able to dance a little closer without spilling my beans. Let me cogitate on it, and I'll come back and throw a few more ideas into this mix.

 

Again, I agree that using the term "nothing" to describe an actually existing state is problematic. Absurd even. In fact when people like Krauss and Stegner claim that science has an answer for the age old question "why is there something instead of nothing", they are demonstrating a misunderstanding of the philosophical concept of nothingness upon which the question is based. It's common for people to do this, and it's not all that surprising that some physicists do it as well since the study of philosophy is not a prerequisite for becoming a physicist. Even a very successful one.

Nevertheless, science does indeed have it's own conception of nothingness now, and I think the best we can do for the time being is to simply call it scientific nothingness, and work with the idea.

There's nothing wrong with speculating in the philosophy forum, since we are after all talking metaphysics. I think the only time you'll have a problem is if you exhibit an unjustified attachment to your own speculative propositions, simply because they are your own. In other words, if you attach an unjustified objective truth value to them. That's when people are likely to set upon you around here, and we've all seen how that unfolds. In a nutshell, if you stay under the crackpot radar (which is an endeavour that also requires you to be aware of what false positives look like), you should be fine. I say go ahead

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

UD, let's see those beans. It's not like they are going to be worth a lot of money.


We still know that there's nothing to make anything of, which seems to be a truth, but one that has no concrete proof.

 

If a lack of anything were to split, it would spit positive and negative, so as to still amount to nil.

 

To the Depths of the Deep


Story

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdotal-stories/6068-the-depths-the-deep.html#post163740


Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBt2_cUh-zQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxpopjeLzlI
​

 

(+)

C
h
S p a c e
r
g
e

(-)​

 

A lot of the discussion in this thread appears to me to revolve around a confusion between two different senses of the word 'nothing'. 'Nothing' as total lack of existence, and 'nothing' as the most basic kind of something, a sort of primordial chaos.

'Nothing' in the strong sense of non-existence isn't a place. It's not a void or a hole. It isn't anything at all. Instead, it's kind of a boundary-concept, marking the edge of being. There's nothing beyond that boundary. Meaning that 'nothing' in this strong sense isn't going to be "spitting out" anything. There's nothing for anything to be spit out of.

'Nothing' in the primordial chaos sense is something very different. It's being in its simplest unformed state. This kind of 'nothing' is indeed a kind of 'something', arguably the simplest form that 'something' can take, before it takes the shape of any particular phenomenal thing. Unformed chaos might indeed give rise to forms and thus "spit out" stuff. I get the impression that physics sometimes kind of imagines a quantum vacuum or whatever it is in this sort of ancient traditional way.

It seems to me that instead of talking about 'nothing' "spitting out" things, or about something 'coming from' nothing, what we should be talking about is whether causal anomalies exist. Because that's what observers would observe. They would witness instances of things appearing in reality at some temporal origin without any prior cause.

And yes, introducing physical laws to explain it, quantum pair-production stuff or something, does seem to be circular. If we are talking about the strong form of nothing, then quantum mechanics and its "laws" wouldn't exist and can't be assumed. We can't very well appeal to one of the things that we want to explain to account for its own existence.

I guess that if we are employing the weak 'primordial chaos' form of 'nothing', we can imagine the laws of physics already being in there, in an as-yet unmanifested potential form. Of course, we would still be left with the questions -- 'Why those laws rather than different ones?' 'Why "laws" at all?' 'Why a primordial void?'

My own feeling is that none of this really addresses what I believe to be the ultimate question of being itself --

Why is there something rather than nothing (in the strongest sense, referred to above). That's not a question about why phenomenal forms have been "spit out" of some hypothetical primordial state, even if that's imagined as being some kind of void. It's a much more fundamental question of why anything at all exists in the first place, including hypothetical primordial voids.

My suspicion is that it's a question that will never be satisfactorily answered.

 

We may never solve it, but we have it right in hand. It is either from nonexistence causing existence or it is that the same exact base existent(s) are/were forever. There are no other choices. Must be either a distribution of Nothing or stuff forever. Can't get much closer than that to the answer right now, and that is pretty darn close. Each proposition seems to be paradoxical, but we know for sure that one is correct, so, we must reevaluate what we think makes a paradox for either.