Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:17 pm

If at the side of the infinitely large, I asked if we could reach, observe, touch ...The Universe's Wall, this question is to whether we can have a time and spacial origin point, a Singularity?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3615
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:14 pm


Not possible because singularities are forbidden by quantum mechanics

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:44 pm

You may want to look into the physics of black holes. The mathematics gets weird and space-time gets inverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram

Some of the more esoteric theories out there is that the universe is not expanding, but we are falling into the Singularity of the black hole we find ourselves in.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:08 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:44 pm
You may want to look into the physics of black holes. The mathematics gets weird and space-time gets inverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram

Some of the more esoteric theories out there is that the universe is not expanding, but we are falling into the Singularity of the black hole we find ourselves in.
Too much weird speculation on Black Holes too. Basically they are just absurdly giant stars built up of many stars in the centers of galaxies. They are just massive enough to trap light ....and return 'matter' back to energy approaching infinite or infinitesimal frequencies. They are the same because it just implies straight lines that are also not 'sensed' for losing frequency or any breadth. I can expand on this but this particular problem is the one thread of the three these relate to as the Bricks of Space and Time themselves. (as anything in between infinity and infinitesimal.)

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:42 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:08 am
Too much weird speculation on Black Holes too. Basically they are just absurdly giant stars built up of many stars in the centers of galaxies. They are just massive enough to trap light ....and return 'matter' back to energy approaching infinite or infinitesimal frequencies. They are the same because it just implies straight lines that are also not 'sensed' for losing frequency or any breadth. I can expand on this but this particular problem is the one thread of the three these relate to as the Bricks of Space and Time themselves. (as anything in between infinity and infinitesimal.)
And when you look at it holistically - that's true.

But there is that MINOR detail. That 1 in <almost-but-not-quite-infinity> black swan. Hawking radiation.

You will keep banging your head for as long as you keep accepting infinities.
The universe may or may not be infinite. But our minds are finite and so any "understanding" of an infinite universe necessarily happens using a finite machine.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Age » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:35 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:17 pm
If at the side of the infinitely large, I asked if we could reach, observe, touch ...The Universe's Wall, this question is to whether we can have a time and spacial origin point, a Singularity?
Singularity may well exist, but that in no way infers an origin point.

For example if, as some of you BELIEVE, that the Universe had a point of origin, and let us say that that point was singularity. Even if ALL of the Universe was at that point of singularity before expansion began, then what was there, which obviously there HAD TO BE some thing, then that is the Universe, Itself, already existing.

Now, if we are calling It a singularity, which composed of ALL of the NOW Universe, then that singularity obviously had a reaction, (which some call a big bang), with an expansion, which has lead up to now, when this is written. Now, before that so called "big bang" either of two things were happening:

That singularity, which is just nothing more than an infinite compression of matter of the whole or part of the Universe, was having some sort of "internal" reaction (imagine nuclear reaction) for some "time" until finally It "exploded" with a "bang" and expanded. Or,
The whole of or part of the Universe was collapsing back on Itself until that caused a reaction, which set of some sort of "explosive bang", which then set of an expansion (once more maybe?), leading to us being here NOW, whenever this is being read.

Either way whatever 'action' that happened, which caused the reaction, which caused "a bang", which started an "expansion", happened in the concept of BEFORE. Whatever state the Universe was in BEFORE that state human beings can only go back to and conceive IS still the Universe, just existing in another way, shape, and form.

IF the 'Universe' means ALL-THERE-IS, then the Universe has ALWAYS existed. Just in different ways, shapes, and forms.

The Universe, in relation to the concepts of "space" and "time", is infinite and eternal.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Age » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:37 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:14 pm

Not possible because singularities are forbidden by quantum mechanics
Does 'quantum mechanics' provide THEE answer to ALL things?

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Age » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:39 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:44 pm
You may want to look into the physics of black holes. The mathematics gets weird and space-time gets inverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram

Some of the more esoteric theories out there is that the universe is not expanding, but we are falling into the Singularity of the black hole we find ourselves in.
There is NOTHING "weird" about black-holes.

MORE theories, again made up of ASSUMPTIONS and GUESSES, which do NOT LOOK AT what IS actually occurring.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:46 am

Age wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:39 am
There is NOTHING "weird" about black-holes.

MORE theories, again made up of ASSUMPTIONS and GUESSES, which do NOT LOOK AT what IS actually occurring.
Well you can't LOOK AT "what IS actually occirring" because LOOKING AT things requires them to reflect some light for you to LOOK AT.

But black holes don't reflect light. That is why we call them BLACK HOLES.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Age » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:57 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:42 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:08 am
Too much weird speculation on Black Holes too. Basically they are just absurdly giant stars built up of many stars in the centers of galaxies. They are just massive enough to trap light ....and return 'matter' back to energy approaching infinite or infinitesimal frequencies. They are the same because it just implies straight lines that are also not 'sensed' for losing frequency or any breadth. I can expand on this but this particular problem is the one thread of the three these relate to as the Bricks of Space and Time themselves. (as anything in between infinity and infinitesimal.)
And when you look at it holistically - that's true.

But there is that MINOR detail. That 1 in <almost-but-not-quite-infinity> black swan. Hawking radiation.

You will keep banging your head for as long as you keep accepting infinities.
The universe may or may not be infinite. But our minds are finite and so any "understanding" of an infinite universe necessarily happens using a finite machine.
There is NO such thing as "our minds". Thoughts may be finite but that is just because of HOW they come about and WHERE exactly they come from. But there are NO "minds". There is only One Mind, which is Truly infinite, and that is WHY it is so very simple and easy to SEE and UNDERSTAND exactly how the Universe works and IS infinite. LOOKING AT things from thee one and only Truly OPEN and INFINITE Mind IS what allows ALL things to be SEEN and KNOWN. Looking at things, however, only from the finite brain and from its finite thoughts, beliefs, assumptions, et cetera sadly is WHY human beings are stuck where they are now, searching for answers and left wondering what It is all about.

If "you" STOP believing things, then you are some what closer to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Age » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:58 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:46 am
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:39 am
There is NOTHING "weird" about black-holes.

MORE theories, again made up of ASSUMPTIONS and GUESSES, which do NOT LOOK AT what IS actually occurring.
Well you can't LOOK AT "what IS actually occirring" because LOOKING AT things requires them to reflect some light for you to LOOK AT.

But black holes don't reflect light. That is why we call them BLACK HOLES.
So, the Truth IS ...

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:05 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:58 am
So, the Truth IS ...
Define "Truth"

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:21 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:42 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:08 am
Too much weird speculation on Black Holes too. Basically they are just absurdly giant stars built up of many stars in the centers of galaxies. They are just massive enough to trap light ....and return 'matter' back to energy approaching infinite or infinitesimal frequencies. They are the same because it just implies straight lines that are also not 'sensed' for losing frequency or any breadth. I can expand on this but this particular problem is the one thread of the three these relate to as the Bricks of Space and Time themselves. (as anything in between infinity and infinitesimal.)
And when you look at it holistically - that's true.

But there is that MINOR detail. That 1 in <almost-but-not-quite-infinity> black swan. Hawking radiation.

You will keep banging your head for as long as you keep accepting infinities.
The universe may or may not be infinite. But our minds are finite and so any "understanding" of an infinite universe necessarily happens using a finite machine.
I think the contradictions act as the 'force' of reality between finite and infinite things where they both have to be true (and false) simultaneously. Thus, add a dimension. Time is one such factor that 'resolves' a prior static state of contradictions. Thus a 'creative' logic is what nature is about.

I got the impression that "Hawking radiation" was treated as coming off everywhere of the sphere's horizon. It may be the same as what I'm talking about in essence but my opinion (speculation?) is that it comes out at the poles of a black hole. We see residual radiation from them but most of it is likely still 'invisible' and non-interfering (does not affect matter except as one source of 'gravity').

[I thought you were FOR a creative logic? Such are only due to accepting contradiction as a function within the system, versus stopping at contradiction. ]

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:37 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:21 pm
I think the contradictions act as the 'force' of reality between finite and infinite things where they both have to be true (and false) simultaneously. Thus, add a dimension. Time is one such factor that 'resolves' a prior static state of contradictions. Thus a 'creative' logic is what nature is about.

I got the impression that "Hawking radiation" was treated as coming off everywhere of the sphere's horizon. It may be the same as what I'm talking about in essence but my opinion (speculation?) is that it comes out at the poles of a black hole. We see residual radiation from them but most of it is likely still 'invisible' and non-interfering (does not affect matter except as one source of 'gravity').

[I thought you were FOR a creative logic? Such are only due to accepting contradiction as a function within the system, versus stopping at contradiction. ]
Yes and no ;)

There's a saying in statistics: A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.
A theory of everything predicts everything. Oops.

But we didn't need physics to tell us this, right? We already have a theory of everything and it's being rejected left, right and center: God did it.

It's a double-edge sword. The very reason WHY science is useful is BECAUSE it is falsifiable ergo - because it's wrong.
And even more precisely - because it's incomplete. Every contradiction contains information. Every contradiction drives us towards completeness.

Logic is not empiricism. Logic is the narration of empiricism. Language - is all.
As our knowledge becomes more complete - we require new languages. New logics.

At this point in the Human Understanding we have only one complete logic. Turing-completeness.
When we narrate everything in that language and we discover new knowledge, we may have to invent somethign better than Turing-complete logics.

May not be in our life-time.

Consistency and completeness are simply our epistemic ideals. As a human I quite enjoy incompleteness and inconsistency. Especially on weekends :)

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:37 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:21 pm
I think the contradictions act as the 'force' of reality between finite and infinite things where they both have to be true (and false) simultaneously. Thus, add a dimension. Time is one such factor that 'resolves' a prior static state of contradictions. Thus a 'creative' logic is what nature is about.

I got the impression that "Hawking radiation" was treated as coming off everywhere of the sphere's horizon. It may be the same as what I'm talking about in essence but my opinion (speculation?) is that it comes out at the poles of a black hole. We see residual radiation from them but most of it is likely still 'invisible' and non-interfering (does not affect matter except as one source of 'gravity').

[I thought you were FOR a creative logic? Such are only due to accepting contradiction as a function within the system, versus stopping at contradiction. ]
Yes and no ;)

There's a saying in statistics: A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.
A theory of everything predicts everything. Oops.

But we didn't need physics to tell us this, right? We already have a theory of everything and it's being rejected left, right and center: God did it.

It's a double-edge sword. The very reason WHY science is useful is BECAUSE it is falsifiable ergo - because it's wrong.
And even more precisely - because it's incomplete. Every contradiction contains information. Every contradiction drives us towards completeness.

Logic is not empiricism. Logic is the narration of empiricism. Language - is all.
As our knowledge becomes more complete - we require new languages. New logics.

At this point in the Human Understanding we have only one complete logic. Turing-completeness.
When we narrate everything in that language and we discover new knowledge, we may have to invent somethign better than Turing-complete logics.

May not be in our life-time.

Consistency and completeness are simply our epistemic ideals. As a human I quite enjoy incompleteness and inconsistency. Especially on weekends :)
I wish you would get off that "Turing-completeness" thing. Turing-complete refers specifically to his creative mechanisms, not to his conclusions. He needed a meta-logic system that was complete in the same way a chip design in a GENERAL computer, has to be 'complete'. It has to exhaust ALL possible inputs in its domain to be 'complete'. A 'Turing' machine is a specific architecture design, like a particular Intel model chip. Each chip CAN be designed differently. But he had to require ONE specific architecture PRIOR to doing the experiment to demonstrate incompleteness of all possible PROGRAMS written in it. Each program on its machine level speaks the same to its architecture. But the programs that are made act as distinct machine VIRTUAL designs, ...meaning they can be used to design distinct "embedded" electronics that are less than the 'general' computer. Then he showed that of all possible arrangements of ones and zeros that make up a program within the memory of an 'ideal infinite' general computer's memory that could be designed to be as large as possible, could not 'finitely' complete all computing tasks without requiring NEW hardware.

In essence you CAN do everything computationally with computing but to be able to actually solve all problems would itself require to be infinitely CONSTRUCTED.

I know we agree intentionally but notice you are using the term "Turing-complete" inappropriately.

[It reminds me of how my brother used to use the word, "anal", to describe someone being an asshole, that many still do, ...not knowing that the word didn't come from the meaning of one's rectum but from the old Latin, "yearly" review of public information that was absurdly detailed as mostly 'dull' records of accounting transactions and notes of significant meetings, etc. Thus the word is appropriately used to define what one does excessively that seems trivial, boring, and obsessive out of context.]

We do agree that an 'origin' cannot be "empirically" induced with closure (completeness). That is my first point. The second is that it CAN be logically deduced as such (via incompleteness theorems).

The point about origins is the IF there is one, is that there LOGICALLY cannot be an inference that is anything short of an assumption of Absolutely Nothing itself or Infinite. We can't empirically draw closure to theories that infer singularities that are 'real' without breaking 'rank' with the empirical process (the method). As such, the domain of inference is appropriately one of logic.

For one to determine an actual singularity, we require knowing that time and space continue with certainty on the other 'side' of this point. Otherwise, we have to default to interpretations of cosmological origins as having nothing specially biased to our observations that infer 'weirdness'. If someone says Jesus literally walked on water in a time where Gods truly walked the world and used magic, we cannot default to trusting this as a literal functional theory of the times when we cannot do this without trickery in the present.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest