Let's ignore our troll......
https://www.google.com/search?q=a+u...+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i64.10911j0j7&sourcei
https://www.google.com/search?q=a+u...+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i64.10911j0j7&sourcei
Here is another on the same subject....
Nonsense .
https://www.quora.com/Is-Lawrence-K...thing-a-serious-philosophical-scientific-text
I've both read Lawrence Krauss' book, A Universe From Nothing (and enjoyed it) and study philosophy of science in school, and coming from this perspective I have to say that it is a pretty balanced text, but it is attempting to popularize or modernize scientific interest for the general public. Lawrence Krauss has a really solid background as a theoretical physicist, and his contribution to the discovery of dark energy is purely remarkable. Yet at the same time, he is somewhat of a science celebrity, among the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye (the science guy), or Richard Dawkins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who previously taught at Arizona State University, Yale University, and Case Western Reserve University. He founded ASU's Origins Project, now called ASU Interplanetary initiative, to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and served as the project's director.[2] Upon investigating allegations about sexual misconduct by Krauss, ASU determined that he had violated university policy and removed him from the Origins Project directorship in July 2018.[3][4] He continued as a Professor at ASU until retiring in May 2019. He currently serves as President of The Origins Project Foundation[5] and as host of The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss.[6]
Krauss is an advocate for public understanding of science, public policy based on sound empirical data, scientific skepticism, and science education. An anti-theist, Krauss seeks to reduce the influence of what he regards as superstition and religious dogma in popular culture.[7]
Krauss is the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek (1995) and A Universe from Nothing (2012), and chaired the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors.
That is wrong. We don't know.The Universe is . And will always be .
The BB is a theory of the evolution of the universe from t+10-43 seconds and is overwhelmingly supported at this time. Even when we finally get a observationaly validated QGT theory, it will most likely encompass the BB.BB needs any theory of nothing that can become something in order for the theory to survive .
Can you give us a reputable reference then supporting this statement you say is right?My statement is right .
The Universe is . And will always be .
river said: ↑
My statement is right .
Can you give us a reputable reference then supporting this statement you say is right?
You mean we should take your word for it? C,mon river, it's you we are talking about, be a bit fair dinkum ol son!No .
But that has nothing to do with the validity of my statement ; now does it pad !!
The Universe is . And will always be .
You mean we should take your word for it? C,mon river, it's you we are talking about, be a bit fair dinkum ol son!
Again, reference please for your claim?
It looks to me like you're just using some jargon to make up a fantasy. Your ideas don't connect to anything, in the sense of being testable, or even intelligible.Please note that I qualified everything as speculative on my part. I do not pretend to have proofs.
How can a non-physical "potential" create physical things?The definition of potential is "that which may become reality", i.e. potential is not physical and therefore not causal to the emergence of time.
As soon as you start talking about the "duration" of something, you're already assuming things about time. You can't have durations without time.IMO, time emerges as a result of duration of change (action).
That sounds like an unimportant and unsupported assertion. Obviously we're not in a static universe, and you have no general theory of universes that covers both static and non-static ones, so as far as I can tell you're just making this up.In a completely static universe, time would not exist
I don't know what it would mean for spacetime to be drawn into anything. Spacetime, as I understand it, isn't stuff. It's not matter. What would draw it in? What would the drawing in of spacetime look like?I suspect that entire areas of spacetime itself are drawn into a BH. Hence my use of "blocks".
I see pi and phi as numbers.IMO, potential is a mathematical latency contained in everything regardless of size, from Infinity to Planck scale. I see Pi and Phi as infinite potentials.
Tell me the specific mathematical value of the color quality of red.A quality is a measurement with a specific value, i.e. the color quality of red consists of a mathematical value
How can you measure a thing that "may become reality"? We can only measure things that are already realities, can't we?Value = a quality that can be measured mathematically as a real property or as a potential.
Is it? I'd say it's a physical process, not a mathematical function.Collapse from one physical state into another pysical state is a mathematical function.
Tell me how it could possibly do that.Perhaps a mathematical function might collapse metaphysical state into a physical state?
A 17 lb rock is not the number 17.Throw a 17 lb massive rock in a BH and watch it become infinitely small while maintaining its mathematical value.
No. Pi is defined to be a specific number. It has only one value, neither infinitely large nor infinitely small. It's approximately 3.14159.Pi is an irrational number which can be infinitely large or infinitely small.
You don't think you're doing science with your "potentials" and your "mathematical latencies" etc., do you?The causality of the BB. Please note that I am not advocating for an motivated supernatural intelligence. It is my attemp to seek a scientific explanation for the event, if it had any causality at all, which to me it should have.
How could mathematics self-organise?I believe in self-organization, but before the BB, what could possible have self-organized, unless it is of a mathematical nature.
The Fibonacci sequence is just a sequence of numbers. It isn't a theory of physics. It makes no reference to time or anything physical.This is a free interpretation of Bohmian Mechanics which postulates a mathematical self-referential function between future and the past events. The Fibonacci Sequence seems to fill that mathematical requirement.
I think you're reading far more into the Fibonacci sequence than is actually there. There is no time-ordering in the Fibonacci sequence. There's no description of past or present or future in it. It's just a mathematical sequence. Look: here's another self-referential sequence:Each new number is the exponential result of the addition of the present number and the immediate prior past number, etc. To me that makes sense, because I cannot see a relationship between the present and a distant past. i.e. the Fibonacci sequence is the perfect mathematical function for such self-referential action.
Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. It's not science.I understand that metaphysics is not ruled out as a universal potential.
Not really.Mathematics are metaphysical...
I'm not familiar with the work you refer to by Tegmark. If what you are saying is right, then I have the same problem with his ideas that I have with yours: I don't see how anything purely mathematical can possible turn into anything physical. I don't see how any physical thing can be made of mathematics. Mathematics can be used to describe or model physical things, but I think it's a category error if you start imaginging that mathematics can create or constitute physical things. When you draw a map, you don't create any lands or seas, except as concepts.... and to my knowledge Tegmark has the only theory of a mathematical universe that potentially could lead to real answers. He postulates that all physical things are no more than mathematically arranged patterns in accordance with 32 relative "values" and a few handfulls of equations (constant functions). I cannot conceive of any other logical explanation of how the universe might self-assemble into the patterns we see today.
There are lots of theories (hypotheses) about the big bang. I'm surprised that you haven't found any alternatives to your pet theory, especially given the apparent amount of time and attention you've put into thinking about this. How widely have you read? And what have you read?If there are other current theories for the causality of the BB, I am not aware of it.
To any use, scientifically, speculations have to connect to what is already known. More importantly, they need to be testable.I am not claiming anything other than a speculative proposition, which may strike a resonant chord here or there in more educated minds than mine.
I am not presenting a formal scientific hypothesis. I am asking for a tolerant examination of possible logical implications of these thoughts.
This is why I posted this in the hopefully appropriate sub-forum. I am here to learn, not to instruct.
No actually lack of any sense at all and wrong to boot.Its common sense pad .
Please note that I qualified everything as speculative on my part. I do not pretend to have proofs.[/quote]Write4U:
Well, I qualified my posit as speculative. I believe that means I admit I have no proof. Is it necessary to provide proof when something has been qualified as speculative?It looks to me like you're just using some jargon to make up a fantasy. Your ideas don't connect to anything, in the sense of being testable, or even intelligible.
It can emerge as a physical property.How can a non-physical "potential" create physical things?
I disagree with the assumption that time for an event has to exist before an event occurs. IMO, time is an emergent property of duration and is a measurement only of the duration of that specific event. The production (emergence) of time is a simultaneous result of duration. This might fit Krauss' perspective of something emerging from nothing?As soon as you start talking about the "duration" of something, you're already assuming things about time. You can't have durations without time.
I cited that in support of my proposition that time is an emergent property of dynamic change. We have spacetime because the universe is dynamic. If the universe were static (without measurable duration) the concept of time becomes moot? Is time itself a measurable property without a relationship to a physical event? How does one measure time?That sounds like an unimportant and unsupported assertion. Obviously we're not in a static universe, and you have no general theory of universes that covers both static and non-static ones, so as far as I can tell you're just making this up.
A massive Black Hole of unimaginable density and mass? We know mass does warp (bend) spacetime toward its center. i.e mass has influence over spacetime. Perhaps sufficient mass might actually swallow spacetime along with everything else?I don't know what it would mean for spacetime to be drawn into anything. Spacetime, as I understand it, isn't stuff. It's not matter. What would draw it in? What would the drawing in of spacetime look like?
I defer to my answer above. Is it necessary to provide mathematical measurements to make a speculative general proposition?I appreciate that you have no mathematical description of this, so I wonder what possible reason you could have to suspect it is true. Again, my impression is that you're just making stuff up.
I agree, they are human symbolic representation of mathematical values.[/QUOTE]I see pi and phi as numbers.
Just as time is an emergent measurement, Pi can be derived at (emerges) from dropping a needle multiple times on a flat surface that has straight lines (spaced by the length of the needle). This is a proven fact according to Mario Livio.Just above, you defined "potential" as "that which may become reality". How can a number like pi "become reality"? What does that even mean?
The number of the wave frequency determines the appearance of a color, just as the frequency of a sound wave determines the pitch.Tell me the specific mathematical value of the color quality of red.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/physics-terms/frequency-wavelength-light.htmThe frequency of a light wave is how many waves move past a certain point during a set amount of time -- usually one second is used. Frequency is generally measured in Hertz, which are units of cycles per second. Color is the frequency of visible light, and it ranges from 430 trillion Hertz (which is red) to 750 trillion Hertz (which is violet). Waves can also go beyond and below those frequencies, but they're not visible to the human eye. For instance, radio waves are less than one billion Hertz; gamma rays are more than three billion billion Hertz.
I have to qualify your question that a potential is a "thing", I see "potential" as a latency with a mathematical value, that may become reality. How that may be measured depends on the thing that contains the latent potential. (see my example of the lake above)How can you measure a thing that "may become reality"? We can only measure things that are already realities, can't we?
IMO, it is both. It is a physical process along strict mathematical parameters. You cannot measure physical things without assigning symbolic relative values and a mathematical function (is it an addition, multiplication, division, etc?).Is it? I'd say it's a physical process, not a mathematical function.
I have struggled with that for some time now. IMO, it is both. Using fractals a map can represent the terrain accurately down to Planck scale.I think you're assuming the map is the territory. That's a mistake.
I admit that's speculative and more probative than declarative.Tell me how it could possibly do that.
It's the weight of the rock relative to other rocks weighed on the same arbitrary scale. It is a symbolic mathematical property of the rock as compared to the same symbolic mathematical properties of other rocks in the same gravitational frame of reference.A 17 lb rock is not the number 17.
see above.What's the mathematical value of a 17 lb rock, anyway?
i think you just answered your own question. Pi is an irrational number and has no specific value into infinity (as far as I know)No. Pi is defined to be a specific number. It has only one value, neither infinitely large nor infinitely small. It's approximately 3.14159.
no I am not, scientists are. I believe it's called physics. Give me a non-mathematical equation of a universal constant that can be used in any calculation. The Higgs boson was mathematically (not physically) predicted. Mathematical values and functions (patterns) are the informational language of universal phenomena. he universe is essentially mathemayical. Physics is the symbolic descriptive language of humans we assigned to mathematical values and functions of universal mathemaytical patterns.You don't think you're doing science with your "potentials" and your "mathematical latencies" etc., do you?
I agree, quantification is a mathematical function.Science makes testable predictions, for one thing. It quantifies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_(logic)In mathematical logic, in particular in first-order logic, a quantifier achieves a similar task, operating on a mathematical formula rather than an English sentence. More precisely, a quantifier specifies the quantity of specimens in the domain of discourse that satisfy an open formula.
I hope I have cleared up a few misconceptions about my veracity.It seems to me that you're just making up stories.
I used Chaos theory to clarify this in my mind.How could mathematics self-organise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theoryChaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos—states of dynamical systems whose apparently-random states of disorder and irregularities are often governed by deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.[1][2] Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.
I beg to differ.The Fibonacci sequence is just a sequence of numbers. It isn't a theory of physics. It makes no reference to time or anything physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_numberIn mathematics, the Fibonacci numbers, commonly denoted Fn, form a sequence, called the Fibonacci sequence, such that each number is the sum of the two preceding ones, starting from 0 and 1.
I am enamored with Bohmian Mechanics, because it does away with that pesky wave/particle duality and formulates a purely deterministic physical reality. I do not understand any of the mathematics he used to formulate his hypothesis, but I also liked the concept of the universal Pilot wave function, which IMO, perfectly explains the dynamical movement of quantum fields.You mention Bohmian mechanics a lot. How much study of quantum theory have you done? I ask because Bohmian mechanics is primarily an attempt to put quantum mechanics on a deterministic basis. To understand Bohm, you have to have a good working understanding of quantum mechanics to start with. Speaking for myself, I know a fair amount about quantum physics, but I had trouble following Bohm (admittedly, it was a long time ago that I read some of his stuff).
I admit that I seldom read the mathematical justifications of physics. If I understand the narrative and some of the most fundamental maths used, I feel that I fundamentally understand the conceptualization of the hypothesis. I liked Bohm's narrative of the Pilot wave as a grand universal river flowing but with waves and eddies and whirlpools and all the wave interference patterns encountered in dynamic fluid mediums. Havng spent many months at sea, I can identify with that illustrative mindscape.Are you able to follow the mathematical arguments that Bohm actually makes, or are you only engaging with a pop-science description of Bohm's work?
I beg to differ. The FS is not a straight forward chronology. It takes a present value and adds a past value to arrive at a new present value....etc.I think you're reading far more into the Fibonacci sequence than is actually there. There is no time-ordering in the Fibonacci sequence. There's no description of past or present or future in it. It's just a mathematical sequence.
Maybe I'm confused by the symbolics, but it looks to me like a straigh forward addition without reference to a present and an identified past value. Does this example form a spiral? I maybe wrong but I like the simplicity of the FS, which is clear as rain. It uses only related mathematical symbols and does not introduce unrelated foreign values to yield a specific growth pattern.Look: here's another self-referential sequence: $n_1 = 1$, $n_{i+1} = n_i + 1$
No, I don't. I see initial inflation as a fundamental exponential function (i.e. 1,2,4,8,16....etc. It is only when spiral galaxies began to form that the FS emerged as part of the physical evolution of patterns. The FS creates a mathematically balanced growth pattern, the Golden Ratio.Do you think this sequence could be a good theory of time or of the big bang?
I am not qualified to make that distinction. I use both mainstream science and intuitive logic to form my world view. To me the distinction is too subtle. As I understand it science evolved from philosophy and at one time was named "natural philosophy".Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. It's not science.
Is philosophy a science? - QuoraPhilosophy precedes science. Science used to be called natural philosophy, but then it branched off. So it can be said that science evolved from philosophy. Philosophy is simply our intuitions given words.
IMO, the fabric of spacetime itself is a mathematical pattern. I came to this perspective from reading about Causal Dynamical Triangulation.Not really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulationCausal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Tegmark avoids this comparison by stating that lands or seas are themselves mathematical patterns, which allows us to draw maps to begin with. It is really a very logical hypothesis and potentially will allow us to unlock all of nature's mysteries. He postulates all that is required is some 32 relative values (numbers) and a dozen equations (constants). The problem does not lie in the mathematics themselves, it lies in the inconceivably large quantities of mathematical information. He draws a comparison with a modern computer game which imitates natural functions (such as gravity) by using the same mathematics as nature does.I'm not familiar with the work you refer to by Tegmark. If what you are saying is right, then I have the same problem with his ideas that I have with yours: I don't see how anything purely mathematical can possible turn into anything physical. I don't see how any physical thing can be made of mathematics. Mathematics can be used to describe or model physical things, but I think it's a category error if you start imaginging that mathematics can create or constitute physical things. When you draw a map, you don't create any lands or seas, except as concepts.
Big Bang TheoryThere are lots of theories (hypotheses) about the big bang. I'm surprised that you haven't found any alternatives to your pet theory, especially given the apparent amount of time and attention you've put into thinking about this. How widely have you read? And what have you read?
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical formulas and models
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.
I completely agree, but as indicated in the Big Bang quote above, testing of pre-BB conditions is impossible, so I cannot get any information from anywhere, except generalized speculations, which I have no quarrel with.To any use, scientifically, speculations have to connect to what is already known. More importantly, they need to be testable.
Thanks for that advise. It is true, that I struggle sometimes with presenting an idea clearly and concisely. As English is my second language it does occasionally present semantic problems.As things stand, it is difficult for readers like me to even unpack your ideas, let alone to try to mould them into a scientifically respectable hypothesis about anything. I think you have a lot of work ahead of you if you're serious about any of this.
I do object to the label "faith-based".The way I see it, your faith-based approach on the topic of microtubules doesn't auger well for your making any progress on explaining the big bang, but I could be wrong.
James R said;
I don't know what it would mean for spacetime to be drawn into anything. Spacetime, as I understand it, isn't stuff. It's not matter. What would draw it in? What would the drawing in of spacetime look like?
W4U said; A massive Black Hole of unimaginable density and mass? We know mass does warp (bend) spacetime toward its center. i.e mass has influence over spacetime. Perhaps sufficient mass might actually swallow spacetime along with everything else?