At the Beginning was the Word

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Cerveny »

It is written that At the Beginning was the Word. How can we understand it? The "word" itself (even within particular context) generally does not give the sense. Important message thus we are to try find just in the "be(com)ing". Cited affirmation brings a message that there was "put" something. Something that has a structure, an order. Notice please the every structure must be build, put (in the order). One element after the other. The chain of acts, one follows the other. See please the time, the causality is ... somehow dually to the meaning of the "structure".
Now, back to the physics. Before BB was "only" the "Future". Not-causal, timeless empire of the ideas. Perhaps with some disordered stem cells of future space ... At the Beginning of the time the first grain of the order, the first chain of causality, the first Planck cell of physical space / vacuum / aether apeared. Since this event the condensation / crystallisation of physical space started. Elementary particles are (replicating) deffects in the regular structure of physical space (see e.g screw dislocations). The source of such defects can be e.g the adhesion of crystal grains or strain / tension in vacuum structure or (temperature) vibrations ... The space does not "expand", it grows / crystallizes from the Future. Every singularities / bangs are nonsense, the space is limitted and grained...
Last edited by Cerveny on Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:26 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Obvious Leo »

Forget the space and it'll all be clear. Without an observer of it there would be no such thing as space because it's purely an observer effect. The REAL universe only has an extension in time because the real universe is not a place. The real universe is an eternal event.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Cerveny »

Perhaps I should have noted that the Time (growing) axis is perpendicular to the surface of the Universe. The history is frozen 4D ~ ball, its 3D surface is our "live" presence, time of "Now" and the Future does not "exist" by our common perception of causality yet... I see it as the Platonic empire of ideas:)
Some details you can see at viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Obvious Leo »

In that case we aren't going to find much common ground for discussion. I reckon Plato was an idiot.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Cerveny »

Obvious Leo wrote:In that case we aren't going to find much common ground for discussion. I reckon Plato was an idiot.
I am sorry :( Bye, bye...
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Obvious Leo »

Cerveny wrote: I am sorry
So am I because I often find your posts very thoughtful ones. However a universe with an external causal agent is not something which I regard as a legitimate subject for philosophical enquiry.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Greta »

Cerveny, a bold post. If I attempt to trace my schemas back I find myself positing phenomena that I'm not sure I believe. Scale is what always flummoxes me because we don't know if what we posit to be the universe is actually everything. Unlike Leo, I'm open to the possibility of parallel universes in a multiverse but also to that of serial universes (which is Leo's preferred model).

"The word" as you put it would be the first movement, the start of the expansion. In string theory this would be akin to a particular string vibrating in a certain way that, unlike its peers, did not appear and immediately disappear as virtual particles but it continued to expand.

Certainly it seems that the process of nature is one where flowing entities increasingly particulate, and the particulates aggregate to form larger bodies, which in turn aggregate again, and again. While each scale aggregates similarly, the relationship between the product and its constituents is never the same, eg. the relationship between our cells/microbes and us is not the same as the relationship between stars and the Milky Way, nor that between atoms and molecules. Each "level" of aggregation has its own character or flavour.

I agree with the concept of growth rather than an explosion. It may be just poetic, but I like the analogy of the universe and biological growth. The relationship between geology and biology has a grey area, eg. viruses, prions. Geology effectively underwent its own version of evolution which lead to life, from inorganic to organic molecules. So the story of life doesn't truly start with abiogenesis but is a long tale of geological metamorphosis staring with "the big grow" (or earlier) and leading to abiogenesis and subsequent biological and, now, technological evolution. Logically, that suggests that the entire universe is alive - not technically, obviously, but in a sense - but much of it is relatively dormant to the perspective of living things.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Obvious Leo »

Basically all you're saying is that same thing as I've been saying from the outset, Greta. To say that the cosmos is a living system in the same way that the biosphere is a living system would be an unconventional way to use the term "living" as we commonly understand it. However the causal mechanisms are no different because they are both self-causal non-linear dynamics systems which evolve from the simple to the complex. In the Lovelock/Margulis model of living systems no distinction is made between the behaviour of organic and inorganic molecules within them and this is more a coherent way of regarding evolutionary processes within the cosmos more generally. We need to think in terms of a causal network instead of the simple linear causal chain which Newtonian mechanics mandates.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Greta »

Yep, we agree on a lot. I just express it in a way that evokes the reality for me. When things get too technical I start just falling into abstractions.
Obvious Leo wrote:In the Lovelock/Margulis model of living systems no distinction is made between the behaviour of organic and inorganic molecules within them and this is more a coherent way of regarding evolutionary processes within the cosmos more generally. We need to think in terms of a causal network instead of the simple linear causal chain which Newtonian mechanics mandates.
I like it. The relationships between things are extremely complex because there are innumerable micro-influences on everything.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Obvious Leo »

If we continue to use the biosphere as an analogy we also get a good idea of the notion of integrated and embedded causal hierarchies where causation operates both top-down and bottom-up between different causal domains. If your cells need water they send a message all the way up through the causal network until it eventually reaches your conscious awareness, motivating you to go to the tap. If you then have a drink of water the message that you have done so then finds its way all the way back down to the cells again.

Much the same thing occurs at the atomic and molecular scale. If an electron jumps into a different orbit this affects the behaviour of the atom of which the electron is a component. This emergent behaviour of the atom then in turn affects not only the behaviour of all of its other constituent subatomic particles but also the behaviour of the molecule which it forms a part of, whose emergent behaviour is then affected etc etc. In this way all the matter and energy in the universe are interconnected in a gigantic self-causal web which brings about the entire spectrum of complexity we observe in the world around us. No "law of physics" is necessary to account for this emergent complexity because self -causal systems evolve from the simple to the complex for the simple reason that they cannot do otherwise.

Unfortunately physics remains moribund in its own creationist bottleneck.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Cerveny »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Cerveny wrote: I am sorry
So am I because I often find your posts very thoughtful ones. However a universe with an external causal agent is not something which I regard as a legitimate subject for philosophical enquiry.
To be clear, I 'm not even a Christian nor a Muslim, perhaps tepid Buddhist. But many years of experience convinced me that there's something outside, that strongly support the life as whole. Moreover, it is clear (for trained people) that all living creatures are somehow related / connected. It's also strange to me that (for example) the theory of complex variable or e.g distribution theory would have rise from "nothing" :(
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Obvious Leo »

Cerveny. Surely nothing comes from nothing. Don't overlook the first law of thermodynamics.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by JSS »

"The Word" in scriptures means "The Spell".

In the beginning was the Spell, and the Spell was with God, and the Spell was God. - The Go-spel that causes all things.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Cerveny »

Obvious Leo wrote: Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:15 pm Cerveny. Surely nothing comes from nothing. Don't overlook the first law of thermodynamics.
Hegel understanded/saw the “nothing” as a “being”. The word (physical) “nothing” itself should be banned in physics, because it does not specify “lack/nothing of what”. We can not say that “physical/real nothing” (no anything) exists, because it is not ”from the definition” the real/physical, it is only a pure platonic category/idea. “Nothing” (special) thus does not specify anything (particular) in the spacetime (on the contrary, it is included in everything) - from effective/another point of view, it can be seeing as all being. In case, we work with the idea that “at the beginning was nothing”, we supose that the real world has been created from an idea. Suposing next, that at the beginning was (here) only the Future, lead me (by another way) to consider the Future as a platonic empire of posibilities, of ideas.. It is one of my objections against the theory of relativiy - the History is a frozen solid, the Future is not constituted 4D matter yet, and the Presence is just (3D) a live quantized/born history (certain cambium level for the history)... Sorry for poor English:(
Last edited by Cerveny on Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: At the Beginning was the Word

Post by Greta »

For all we know, the first word may have been, "Oh bugger!" ;)
Cerveny wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:36 pm
Obvious Leo wrote: Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:15 pmCerveny. Surely nothing comes from nothing. Don't overlook the first law of thermodynamics.
Hegel understanded/saw the “nothing” as a “being”. The word (physical) “nothing” itself should be banned in physics, because it does not specify “lack/nothing of what”. We can not say that “physical/real nothing” (no anything) exists, because it is not ”from the definition” the real/physical, it is only a pure platonic category/idea. “Nothing” (special) thus does not specify anything (particular) in the spacetime (on the contrary, it is included in everything) - from effective/another point of view, it can be seeing as all being. In case, we work with the idea that “at the beginning was nothing”, we supose that the real world has been created from an idea. Suposing next, that at he beginning was (here) only the Future, lead me (by another way) to consider the Future as a platonic empire of posibilities, of ideas.. It is one of my objections against the theory of relativiy - the History is a frozen solid, the Future is not constituted 4D matter yet, and the Presence is just (3D) a live quantized/born history (certain cambium level for the history)... Sorry for poor English:(
FYI, Leo died a couple of years ago so he will be fine with whatever you type.

If you are effectively saying that nothingness is just an abstract notion with no reality, Leo would have agreed. The fact is that there is something, so "nothing" is always relative. In other words, something came from something, wit the latter "something" being popularly characterised as "nothing" but being more seriously posited to be "quantum foam" / dark energy.
Post Reply