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

surreptitious57
Posts: 3638
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:55 pm

Logic wrote:
I cannot disambiguate the following possibilities :

The universe has no beginning but it APPEARS that it does
The universe has a beginning and it APPEARS that it does

Can you think of ANY experiment where we could distinguish the two ?
No but it isnt actually necessary as I have no problem in not knowing what the answer is
It is fine to hypothesise but untested hypotheses are no substitute for actual knowledge

It is alright to simply say I dont know

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 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:01 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
Who the fuck says I can't generate a testable hypothesis? You're begging that I can't by your own "apriorism". And given you don't think logic is real, then your apriorism of my incapacity here is also non-scientific because you are just asserting that something does not exist positively simply for not being able to point at it.
Uh. Yeah!!!! Do you have a hypothesis or not?

Maybe you do - maybe you don't. I am at 0 decibels of belief. 50/50. I don't have an opinion either way.
The longer you keep not-presenting a theory the more I will lean towards "you don't have a theory"

It is really that simple.

Also, when did I ever claim that logic is real or not real?
Logic is logic. It stands on its own theoretical feet.

I keep repeating this metaphor: Logic is LEGO for your mind. You use logic to construct models of the world.
Some models work better than others.
Some models are so bad you are better off flipping a coin to get the right answer.
I'm not biting. Sorry.

As to logic, you clearly hold logic and math as mere 'tools' distinct from reality. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The calculator IS the reality. But you need the simplest inputs that begin with mere nothing to get this. It is the first-stage calculation mechanisms of reality needed.

While logic true of Totality's "origins", it is not possible to interpret this in a scientific way by holding an extreme stance on ONLY observations are 'real' and logic superficially toys we use to construct in your imaginative way. The senses require having structural logic to validate what goes IN, transfer it as data in a different form to the brain, then use that logic to redirect outputs to motors. Cycle and repeat.

Play and creativity are mere side evolutionary effects needed to prune our logical mechanism simply to seek the environment for nutrients, protect the environment from killing or harming your cells, and the SLEEP. Cycle complete. To interpret the mere 'tool' aspect of reasoning is only about what come IN BETWEEN 'finite ends' (actually 'finite' means "fin" thing....an end thing or concept).

If you have closed the door on this, that's your choice. But don't beg me to require agreeing with your interpretation. My requirement is to demonstrate that the origins of our own space and time limits are illusive. I can't tell or not if you agree with this or not. Do you? If you 'agree' that nothing can 'originate' that's fine. But then at least you MUST agree then that you can't have an origin in time and space, my intended goal to this point.
logik wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
I know this is difficult for you to understand. But IF you think that reasoning is not a reality itself, you can't have a functioning brain. The conscious state of the brain, its activity is LOGIC IN ACTION. Otherwise you may as well have no brains as your senses can suffice to 'see', your ears to 'hear', etc, without requiring something to combine these inputs together. You cannot escape the fact that if you sense something, it has to be CONNECTED in some way. THAT connection IS a logic machine.
Yes! That's what I have been saying. It's a Turing machine. I will happily adopt a better model when you provide one.

Whatever man. You're welcome to call a cave a mountain if you'd like. I tired of fighting with you on what is or is not defining facts or terms of the incompleteness class of theorems. What should matter is what you mean by them. And I am still confused. For my purposes, I am building a foundation for argument. So just tell me if you agree or not to my position, even if you opt to different strategies moving forward.

That is, in words that should accord to your practical side: Can we ever infer through interpretation of a singularity that there truly is an end and should the kind of theories proposing a literal origin of anything be valid or sound without having 'empirical' evidence to determine what is on the other side of it?
logik wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
When discussing 'science' that is only about AGREEMENT between different subjective minds collectively. If I see X and you 'agree', then we can use that as input data to a REAL logic machine to determine or 'predict'. But if you can't believe that the logic machine that connects inputs together to output something novel, they even 'prediction', verification, or anything is moot.
On its own? Yes it's moot. if it has no contact with the actual ground (empiricism) it's just a castle in the sky.

That is why most Mathematics is sterile and has no practical value.

We are not talking about PLAYING LEGOS here. That's your preferential interpretation of denying initial apriori (not necessarily, tautological) realities, like the states of absolutes of nothing as an 'empirical' truth by exhausting the options OF 'empirically' knowing that somethings or everything.

I gave you a perfect example earlier of one such apriori truth: Either No-reality exist, All-realities exist, or a middle: some-real and some non-real. Note that this is accepting a middle possibility to be sure we don't bias anything.

Now tell me if this is not an example of a real non-lego (non-pretended) FACT of reality that Nature itself has to have as a minimal property?

[
I can't respond to the rest. I need to determine these questions above [in bold] and am not getting into a dictionary debate with you.]

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 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:56 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:39 pm
Logic wrote:
I reject all dogma and YET The human mind needs SOME foundation
Axioms dont have to be dogmatic they can be flexible and subject to revision when required
But they should nonetheless be supported by evidence or logic that is as rigorous as possible

Nothing in science should be treated as absolute truth because of the problem of induction
Math is different because it is deductive and so therefore deals with what is definitely true

But even there one should simply accept something without treating it dogmatically
And, to add to this, math is able to BE 'inductive' with sufficient closure too when it 'exhausts' all its possibilities over its domain.

@logik "probability" is a model logic at its lowest level. I used it with my apriori example above. If you determine all that some unknown's set of possibilities are exhaustively, the 'reality' of it is conditioned upon its domain of inputs, even if they might be lego blocks. Then you 'test' each one out to reduce the list of possibilities to its minimum. Probability is only about determining or assigning each possibility's statistically. Statistics are something you have to take care with or it easily misleads. It is generally an 'uncertain' but practical-only math and is only useful in hard science where we cannot observe certain things directly. It certainly is not a foundation level logic but an observational logic by human bias.

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 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:30 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
As to logic, you clearly hold logic and math as mere 'tools' distinct from reality.
They are not distinct from reality. Nothing is distinct from reality - they are parts of reality. They are languages.
Invented by humans used for describing reality.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
You can't have your cake and eat it too. The calculator IS the reality.
No. Reality is the reality. To "say the calculator is the reality" is to contrive an analogy in which you compare compare reality TO a calculator.
Which is a neat thing to do because:
1. Everybody knows what a calculator is and how it works.
2. We can talk about the calculator AS IF it was reality and then we can understand each other (even metaphorically)
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
But you need the simplest inputs that begin with mere nothing to get this.
Leptons and quarks.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
While logic true of Totality's "origins", it is not possible to interpret this in a scientific way by holding an extreme stance on ONLY observations are 'real' and logic superficially toys we use to construct in your imaginative way. The senses require having structural logic to validate what goes IN, transfer it as data in a different form to the brain, then use that logic to redirect outputs to motors. Cycle and repeat.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
Play and creativity are mere side evolutionary effects needed to prune our logical mechanism simply to seek the environment for nutrients, protect the environment from killing or harming your cells, and the SLEEP. Cycle complete. To interpret the mere 'tool' aspect of reasoning is only about what come IN BETWEEN 'finite ends' (actually 'finite' means "fin" thing....an end thing or concept).
Again. More words. What's your point here?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
If you have closed the door on this, that's your choice. But don't beg me to require agreeing with your interpretation. My requirement is to demonstrate that the origins of our own space and time limits are illusive. I can't tell or not if you agree with this or not. Do you? If you 'agree' that nothing can 'originate' that's fine. But then at least you MUST agree then that you can't have an origin in time and space, my intended goal to this point.
It's not an interpretation. I am telling you how I use my tools. There is nothing to interpret about a hammer. It does what it does.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent. Pursuit of the "origin" question or answer does not interest me. All of the theories we have contain glaring errors. None of them are satisfactory to me.

I prefer not knowing to having wrong answers.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
I know this is difficult for you to understand. But IF you think that reasoning is not a reality itself, you can't have a functioning brain.
The fact I am communicating with you is evidence that my brain is functioning. Your hypothesis is falsified as soon as you have uttered it.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
The conscious state of the brain, its activity is LOGIC IN ACTION.
I've seen brains. There is no logic in there. Just grey matter and blood vessels.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
Otherwise you may as well have no brains as your senses can suffice to 'see', your ears to 'hear', etc, without requiring something to combine these inputs together. You cannot escape the fact that if you sense something, it has to be CONNECTED in some way. THAT connection IS a logic machine.
I was perfectly happy right until you uttered "THAT connection is a logic machine". That is just your MODEL of the mind.

I am perfectly happy to admit that I have no idea how my brain works, I have no idea how I see, feel, taste smell or touch.
But I DO have a CONCEPTUAL MODEL of my own mind which is LIKE a computer. Inputs (senses), outputs (words, actions, etc). CPU, memory.

It's as good a model as any to talk about Metaphysics. Better than most actually.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
Whatever man. You're welcome to call a cave a mountain if you'd like. I tired of fighting with you on what is or is not defining facts or terms of the incompleteness class of theorems. What should matter is what you mean by them.
Dude, you have done the exact same thing - you called the universe a calculator, you called the brain a "logic machine".

You are literally hurling your conceptual models at me.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
And I am still confused. For my purposes, I am building a foundation for argument. So just tell me if you agree or not to my position, even if you opt to different strategies moving forward.
I don't know how to "agree" or "disagree" with arguments. At least I don't have any idea how to do that without clear goals/objectives/criteria for success.

Arguing is for philosophers. I don't do much philosophy if I can avoid it.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:38 pm
That is, in words that should accord to your practical side: Can we ever infer through interpretation of a singularity that there truly is an end and should the kind of theories proposing a literal origin of anything be valid or sound without having 'empirical' evidence to determine what is on the other side of it?
Already told you. Don't know - don't care.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:36 pm
I gave you a perfect example earlier of one such apriori truth: Either No-reality exist, All-realities exist, or a middle: some-real and some non-real. Note that this is accepting a middle possibility to be sure we don't bias anything.

Now tell me if this is not an example of a real non-lego (non-pretended) FACT of reality that Nature itself has to have as a minimal property?

No, it's not. It's just a silly word game.

You have made absolutely no propositions about either of the three scenarios. We know nothing about either of the three to compute any logical consequences and so there are no testable claims.

Given your three possibilities above, right now, at this very moment we COULD be in any one of those three universes.

Can you give me an experiment which will help you determine which universe we are in?
Just on pure luck you will guess it right 1/3 times, so whatever mechanism you propose to disambiguate the three cases - it needs to work better than 1 in 3.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:25 am

@logik,

I don't believe you are intending to be real here. If you won't ask those questions, I have no more reason to discuss anything with you.

Thank you.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:34 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:25 am
@logik,

I don't believe you are intending to be real here. If you won't ask those questions, I have no more reason to discuss anything with you.

Thank you.
I am as real as it gets. If my realness triggers your cognitive dissonance - so be it.

You are free to choose dogma as much as you are free to choose knowledge.

Freedom of thought lies on the other side of an existential crisis. When you figure out that science/logic doesn't contain ANY of the answers you are looking for you are going to end up re-inventing all the gods you rejected ;)
Last edited by Logik on Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:42 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:34 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:25 am
@logik,

I don't believe you are intending to be real here. If you won't ask those questions, I have no more reason to discuss anything with you.

Thank you.
I am as real as it gets. If my realness upsets your cognitive dissonance - so be it.

You are free to choose ignorance as much as you are free to choose knowledge.
No, I just don't approve of "Lego" constructs with an anonymous name and avatar that appears labeled as "logik" expressing how I cannot 'prove' anything logically here for not being able to present something empirical for it. :roll:

If you disrespect philosophy and logic, how can I prove or disprove anything in the construct of this forum to you that you default to being unable to. I'm wasting my time with you.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:43 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:42 am
No, I just don't approve of "Lego" constructs with an anonymous name and avatar that appears labeled as "logik" expressing how I cannot 'prove' anything logically here for not being able to present something empirical for it. :roll:

If you disrespect philosophy logic, how can I prove or disprove anything in the construct of this forum to you that you default to being unable to. I'm wasting my time with you.
OK. Reality doesn't require your approval.

I told you how to prove it to me. I disrespect philosophy but I respect empiricism. Measurable consequences, and distinctions in measurements.

Tell me HOW you will determine which universe you are in from the decision-space you have outlined.
I will even let you reduce it down to just two cases: A and B. No need for complexity.

What experiment will you contrive to distinguish whether you are currently living in universe A or B.

HOW is the core of empiricism. If you can't tell the difference there is NO difference.

From the father of pragmatism himself:
It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one. -- WIlliam James

There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove Solipsism. For all I know you are just a voice in my head.

I just think Solipsism is fucking boring. So I reject it.

It all comes down to choice. A or B.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:14 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:43 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:42 am
No, I just don't approve of "Lego" constructs with an anonymous name and avatar that appears labeled as "logik" expressing how I cannot 'prove' anything logically here for not being able to present something empirical for it. :roll:

If you disrespect philosophy logic, how can I prove or disprove anything in the construct of this forum to you that you default to being unable to. I'm wasting my time with you.
OK. Reality doesn't require your approval.

I told you how to prove it to me. I disrespect philosophy but I respect empiricism. Measurable consequences, and distinctions in measurements.

Tell me HOW you will determine which universe you are in from the decision-space you have outlined.
I will even let you reduce it down to just two cases: A and B. No need for complexity.

What experiment will you contrive to distinguish whether you are currently living in universe A or B.

HOW is the core of empiricism. If you can't tell the difference there is NO difference.

From the father of pragmatism himself:
It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one. -- WIlliam James
Don't attempt to use logic that I value as sufficient for something you treat as insufficient to prove anything real outside of wordplay. You PROVED to me that the probability of getting you respond to my questions is un-realistic. That's my empirical interpretation as I'm throwing it back in your own face. I can't give you an 'experiment' that you'd approve of when all we can use here are words...constructs of the mind.

Pragamatically, most of us here wouldn't be here asking questions of reality if we could already get what we want for merely thinking it. There is nothing we can do here outside of 'thought experiments'. And you've expressed and proven logically and empirically that my capacity to prove anything to you is not possible by default.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:15 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:14 am
Pragamatically, most of us here wouldn't be here asking questions of reality if we could already get what we want for merely thinking it. There is nothing we can do here outside of 'thought experiments'.
OK. Double-down on your confirmation bias then.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:14 am
And you've expressed and proven logically and empirically that my capacity to prove anything to you is not possible by default.
This is an outright lie. A character despicable character assassination if there was one.

I will say it, one final time. COMMUNICATE TO ME the DESIGN of real-world experiment that you might use to distinguish whether you are living in universe A or universe B.

That WILL convince me.

The CONCEPTUAL DESIGN of a real-world experiment is a fucking THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
Einstein didn't ACTUALLY chase after a beam of light you know! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_e ... In_science

You pay only lip service to empiricism. What you are doing in this thread is you are trying to bully the "testability" criterion.

Nature doesn't care about your bully tactics.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:19 pm

diminish_size_003.gif
Tree-world Singularity
diminish_size_003.gif (10.85 KiB) Viewed 438 times
Is this 'model' merely an art piece that has no relevance to reality? Is that 'vanishing' point merely an artistic invention when understood as a map of how we perceive something? Could you even FIND a real 'proof' empirically that the point represents an 'origin' if you were not permitted to any other observation?

The possibilities enumerated are:

(1) There is a REAL origin at that vanishing point to which space and time prevents you from possibly finding anything beyond. [finite]

(2) There is no REAL origin at that vanishing point as space and time still goes on beyond it. [infinite]

(3) There is a possible real origin as it appears but the reality of getting there is never possible because if space literally gets smaller towards zero as we approach it, time ALSO becomes smaller as we approach it. [infinitesimal == both finite (as 'bound') and infinite (as towards zero but never AT zero)


You are GIVEN this. It is a logical construct but it IS representative of the reality or you 'empirically' cannot perceive such a phenomena this model represents.

Maybe you can add more? The point: you CAN use reasoning to prove something about reality without anything more than your mind. If the construct were not real, a mind cannot exist to construct it.

You cannot demonstrate the appearance of a real singularity we interpret through empirical evidence to mean it IS a real singularity.

"(1)" is a Big Bang type of interpretation if all space and time beginning there. "(3)" is a Steady State type where the space and time is infinite but bound. A Big Bang type POPS a fixed amount of matter into that point whole, like as though the tree at the end would be a 'first' fully grown one but with no further trees nor space nor time beyond there. The "(2)" is an infinite but linearly OPEN possibility that is still of a Steady State type as it doesn't POP material existence into being.

Neither theory can be determined with closure empirically. But you CAN deduce which ones are not the case. And you cannot do it outside of logic itself. The Big Bang version has presented its interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as empirical proof OF a hot 'origin' and thus seems to suggest that this is sufficient to POP a fixed amount of energy and/or matter into existence there, something contradicting our local lack of 'empirical' observation that things explode into sudden existence all around us. You CAN conceive of this possibility IF we could KNOW there is an actual concept of existence beyond that vanishing point of the singularity....(particularly the 'material' one, or the general without concern to matter).

But logically, if we are to trust the empirical hint at what might be the correct case, we cannot escape the logical fact that we cannot know what is outside of our range. The probable case is to default to one of either the infinite or infinitesimal interpretation of that singularity because it would otherwise make OUR SPECIFIC universe be treated as absurdly egocentric and specially 'designed' for us, just as we used to think our world was the center of the present known universe in times past.

This is 'practical' for all purposes if it suits you or doesn't limit you from other things in life. But what of other people's interpretation of what is 'practical' for them? Can I not be free to go beyond what others won't accept unless I can demonstrate something 'practical' for them too?

I'm digressing. The logic now is to ask, IF this world is to be defaulted to by only what we can speak of, then is even the interpretation of evidence for theories that fix that singularity, such as the Big Bang theory, imposing us to then PRETEND our universe IS Totality unless we can prove otherwise? This would then mean treating that singularity AS an absolute origin, not merely one universe of many. If we ONLY accept the 'empirical' and pragmatic interpretation of our ONLY Universe as on of the Big Bang theory's interpretation, we have to assume it IS and then logically test its validity from the perspective of its dependence on our universe to BE THE ONLY one.

This means that we treat "Totality" as identical to our world. Now lets do so.

IF that singularity IS our absolute origin, then it has to be either an absolute nothing or it would require meaning it is greater than that. If it is greater than a mere absolute nothing, then this means that singularity has to be treated as being at least one. But one what?

This unit, "what", would still require something to 'create' more of itself. It would require having some 'parts' of itself that is at least 'one' and also 'infinite' to CAUSE anything. Thus this unit would not be a unit ...unless it was something both (a unit AND not a unit). Thus we have this contradiction.

So why not nothing itself? If 'nothing' is apparently paradoxical, it too may possibly not be creative because it is not restricted to some SPECIAL apriori laws that are themselves not 'empirical' without some ESSENCE to judge it to be 'observed' from BEYOND that singularity.

The only logical possibility is to accept nothing as what we assign to that point but an illusion itself. If not, we'd have to place an 'observer' there to witness this point, ....a magical being, that can't both be outside of the universe to 'ex-per-i-ence" (out each "I" stance) as well as inside. This being is what would be considered 'outside' and then requires extending Totality to include it in something greater.

We could repeat this question and we'd again end up requiring to treat the singularity we originally questioned as logically requiring to be infinite or infinitesimal. ...not an origin of totality itself. If our "Universe" is NOT Totality then, the point of a singularity that 'originates' it cannot be one of a SPECIAL origin. The concept of a ''bang" has to be abandoned, including any special quantified material count of matter and energy that pops into existence at any 'time' after that singularity.

If you see or interpret literal evidence of a wall, you have to logically interpret that observation as being misinterpreted itself. The observation doesn't speak for itself. Nor can we GAMBLE a guess at some prediction of an observation we could see when the concept of the guess is sufficient to assure we CAN conceive such as real. For instance, I can safely predict that a unicorn exists because I can conceive of some horse with a spiraled 'corn' on its head. But this CAN become true because we can make it true if we played around with genetics long enough. But should we create or discover a unicorn in the future for PREDICTING one, does that PROVE it existed all along?....that the one who 'predicted' it from some past was correct?

Also, is the prediction unique to one theory? I can rationally argue that given we accept nothing can actually exist at zero Kelvin (an absolute infinitesimal concept similar to Steady State theory), that this must mean if we look out and measure the mean temperature of the universe, that it should be a bit above absolute zero. I might be safe to 'predict' that measure to be greater than 0 K but less than 5 K.

Voila, the Steady State is confirmed if those proposing the theory were the first to make the prediction. And if the Big Bang theory just lacked a guess, this must be proof they were wrong. :?

The point of this thread is to show that a real singularity of apparent space and time cannot be interpreted to by anyone to 'fit' better to reality on mere logical grounds with only the simple exhaustion of our potential options available to us that we DO 'empirically' know at a minimum. I believe I've argued this fair but am doubting this is sufficient nor likely appealing to those not liking the repercussions this leads to in practical terms. I recognize that certain TRUTHS can truly harm us if not taken care to present it from doing so. It is that 'curse' of the Adam & Eve story that I believe was a secular one telling us how with knowledge, we cannot undo knowing what we know, and thus then must take the consequences of knowing our innocence is dead. If we learn the secrets of the gods, then we discover that the gods are themselves not real (dead) and so then recognize that our only 'salvation' is itself death for us too.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:57 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:19 pm
diminish_size_003.gif
Is this 'model' merely an art piece that has no relevance to reality? Is that 'vanishing' point merely an artistic invention when understood as a map of how we perceive something? Could you even FIND a real 'proof' empirically that the point represents an 'origin' if you were not permitted to any other observation?

The possibilities enumerated are:

(1) There is a REAL origin at that vanishing point to which space and time prevents you from possibly finding anything beyond. [finite]

(2) There is no REAL origin at that vanishing point as space and time still goes on beyond it. [infinite]

(3) There is a possible real origin as it appears but the reality of getting there is never possible because if space literally gets smaller towards zero as we approach it, time ALSO becomes smaller as we approach it. [infinitesimal == both finite (as 'bound') and infinite (as towards zero but never AT zero)


You are GIVEN this. It is a logical construct but it IS representative of the reality or you 'empirically' cannot perceive such a phenomena this model represents.

Maybe you can add more? The point: you CAN use reasoning to prove something about reality without anything more than your mind. If the construct were not real, a mind cannot exist to construct it.

You cannot demonstrate the appearance of a real singularity we interpret through empirical evidence to mean it IS a real singularity.

"(1)" is a Big Bang type of interpretation if all space and time beginning there. "(3)" is a Steady State type where the space and time is infinite but bound. A Big Bang type POPS a fixed amount of matter into that point whole, like as though the tree at the end would be a 'first' fully grown one but with no further trees nor space nor time beyond there. The "(2)" is an infinite but linearly OPEN possibility that is still of a Steady State type as it doesn't POP material existence into being.

Neither theory can be determined with closure empirically. But you CAN deduce which ones are not the case. And you cannot do it outside of logic itself. The Big Bang version has presented its interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as empirical proof OF a hot 'origin' and thus seems to suggest that this is sufficient to POP a fixed amount of energy and/or matter into existence there, something contradicting our local lack of 'empirical' observation that things explode into sudden existence all around us. You CAN conceive of this possibility IF we could KNOW there is an actual concept of existence beyond that vanishing point of the singularity....(particularly the 'material' one, or the general without concern to matter).

But logically, if we are to trust the empirical hint at what might be the correct case, we cannot escape the logical fact that we cannot know what is outside of our range. The probable case is to default to one of either the infinite or infinitesimal interpretation of that singularity because it would otherwise make OUR SPECIFIC universe be treated as absurdly egocentric and specially 'designed' for us, just as we used to think our world was the center of the present known universe in times past.

This is 'practical' for all purposes if it suits you or doesn't limit you from other things in life. But what of other people's interpretation of what is 'practical' for them? Can I not be free to go beyond what others won't accept unless I can demonstrate something 'practical' for them too?

I'm digressing. The logic now is to ask, IF this world is to be defaulted to by only what we can speak of, then is even the interpretation of evidence for theories that fix that singularity, such as the Big Bang theory, imposing us to then PRETEND our universe IS Totality unless we can prove otherwise? This would then mean treating that singularity AS an absolute origin, not merely one universe of many. If we ONLY accept the 'empirical' and pragmatic interpretation of our ONLY Universe as on of the Big Bang theory's interpretation, we have to assume it IS and then logically test its validity from the perspective of its dependence on our universe to BE THE ONLY one.

This means that we treat "Totality" as identical to our world. Now lets do so.

IF that singularity IS our absolute origin, then it has to be either an absolute nothing or it would require meaning it is greater than that. If it is greater than a mere absolute nothing, then this means that singularity has to be treated as being at least one. But one what?

This unit, "what", would still require something to 'create' more of itself. It would require having some 'parts' of itself that is at least 'one' and also 'infinite' to CAUSE anything. Thus this unit would not be a unit ...unless it was something both (a unit AND not a unit). Thus we have this contradiction.

So why not nothing itself? If 'nothing' is apparently paradoxical, it too may possibly not be creative because it is not restricted to some SPECIAL apriori laws that are themselves not 'empirical' without some ESSENCE to judge it to be 'observed' from BEYOND that singularity.

The only logical possibility is to accept nothing as what we assign to that point but an illusion itself. If not, we'd have to place an 'observer' there to witness this point, ....a magical being, that can't both be outside of the universe to 'ex-per-i-ence" (out each "I" stance) as well as inside. This being is what would be considered 'outside' and then requires extending Totality to include it in something greater.

We could repeat this question and we'd again end up requiring to treat the singularity we originally questioned as logically requiring to be infinite or infinitesimal. ...not an origin of totality itself. If our "Universe" is NOT Totality then, the point of a singularity that 'originates' it cannot be one of a SPECIAL origin. The concept of a ''bang" has to be abandoned, including any special quantified material count of matter and energy that pops into existence at any 'time' after that singularity.

If you see or interpret literal evidence of a wall, you have to logically interpret that observation as being misinterpreted itself. The observation doesn't speak for itself. Nor can we GAMBLE a guess at some prediction of an observation we could see when the concept of the guess is sufficient to assure we CAN conceive such as real. For instance, I can safely predict that a unicorn exists because I can conceive of some horse with a spiraled 'corn' on its head. But this CAN become true because we can make it true if we played around with genetics long enough. But should we create or discover a unicorn in the future for PREDICTING one, does that PROVE it existed all along?....that the one who 'predicted' it from some past was correct?

Also, is the prediction unique to one theory? I can rationally argue that given we accept nothing can actually exist at zero Kelvin (an absolute infinitesimal concept similar to Steady State theory), that this must mean if we look out and measure the mean temperature of the universe, that it should be a bit above absolute zero. I might be safe to 'predict' that measure to be greater than 0 K but less than 5 K.

Voila, the Steady State is confirmed if those proposing the theory were the first to make the prediction. And if the Big Bang theory just lacked a guess, this must be proof they were wrong. :?

The point of this thread is to show that a real singularity of apparent space and time cannot be interpreted to by anyone to 'fit' better to reality on mere logical grounds with only the simple exhaustion of our potential options available to us that we DO 'empirically' know at a minimum. I believe I've argued this fair but am doubting this is sufficient nor likely appealing to those not liking the repercussions this leads to in practical terms. I recognize that certain TRUTHS can truly harm us if not taken care to present it from doing so. It is that 'curse' of the Adam & Eve story that I believe was a secular one telling us how with knowledge, we cannot undo knowing what we know, and thus then must take the consequences of knowing our innocence is dead. If we learn the secrets of the gods, then we discover that the gods are themselves not real (dead) and so then recognize that our only 'salvation' is itself death for us too.
You are trapped in you own confirmation bias.

Your picture already encodes your error. The inductivist turkey problem - the problem of induction.

You have framed the discussion with a false premise.

I am not playing your stupid game.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:19 pm
You are GIVEN this. It is a logical construct but it IS representative of the reality or you 'empirically' cannot perceive such a phenomena this model represents.
^^^^^^^^ THIS is you error.

You have brought UNTESTABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE hypotheses to the table of empiricism. You fail to recognise your own anthropic bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_Bias_(book)

It's not even wrong!

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:11 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:19 pm
diminish_size_003.gif
The problem of induction in one, single diagram.
Turkey.png
Turkey.png (62.92 KiB) Viewed 424 times
Surprise!

Infinitists value consistency over precision.
Turkeys value precision over consistency.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:10 pm

The post you responded to is not for you. I already know what you think, logik.

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 » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:41 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:10 pm
The post you responded to is not for you. I already know what you think, logik.
That's fine, but we are yet to establish what YOU think.

Given the choice of finitism (A) and infinitism(B) you still haven't told us how you've navigated around the ambiguity of:

1. Finite universe, finite mind (AA)
2. Infinite universe, finite mind (BA)
3. Finite universe, infinite mind (AB)
4. infinite universe, infinite mind (BB)

I am in the AA/AB corner. I reject infinite minds. Beyond that I can't tell where I am.

Which universe do YOU exist in?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests