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

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

Logik wrote:
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?
It's irrelevant. All of them have value to me. The point isn't about minds. The point is about the reality. I'm presenting a disproof of the current Big Bang interpretation of a fixed singularity, including the material one I posted above in my illustration. [The illustration has more content that I was using elsewhere. So the top images represent the issue I'm discussing:
2016-11-25_074330.png (33.23 KiB) Viewed 523 times
I don't care about your option to distinguish logic from science. That's a whole other thread's topic that's distracting from the point. I disagree to the assumption that any of the singularities perspectives are correct on logical grounds FROM the evidence I have no contention with. It's the logic that is the problem, not the factual observations being used for the theories involved.

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

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:20 pm
It's irrelevant. All of them have value to me. The point isn't about minds. The point is about the reality.
Remember me saying at one point to you that you ignore your own Anthropic Bias.

This is what I am talking about. Any and all mind-independent theories of reality are bunk.

All of your understanding is based on that which your mind is able to conceptualise. Your mind is your only tool for understanding reality - there is no getting around that.

To ignore it without consideration for its limitations and to try to speak of 'reality' is what I call 'the ontological error'.

EVERY.SINGLE.PHILOSOPHER keeps making it!

Ontology IS magical thinking!

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:55 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:20 pm
It's irrelevant. All of them have value to me. The point isn't about minds. The point is about the reality.
Remember me saying at one point to you that you ignore your own Anthropic Bias.

This is what I am talking about. Any and all mind-independent theories of reality are bunk.

All of your understanding is based on that which your mind is able to conceptualise. Your mind is your only tool for understanding reality - there is no getting around that.

To ignore it without consideration for its limitations and to try to speak of 'reality' is what I call 'the ontological error'.

EVERY.SINGLE.PHILOSOPHER keeps making it!

Ontology IS magical thinking!
How does a logical argument against some theory require being a counter scientific theory?

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

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:37 am
How does a logical argument against some theory require being a counter scientific theory?
I have no idea what you mean.

The anthropic principle is logical. It's based on probability theory.

-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
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.)
There are tiny black holes as well. The force of gravity for some reason or another breaks through the intra-atomic repulsion, and makes the pieces (quarks if you like) fall into each other. These things may grow or not grow, but they are tiny, tiny black holes, with not much of a mass. Discounting their increased mass due to forces of relativity when they reach high speeds in their inter-galactic travel.

One theory of the giant explosion in Northern Siberia in the beginning of the 20th century states that a tiny black hole crashed through the earth, and it compressed the air above the point of impact with the surface of the earth with such force, that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was transformed into black diamonds (they did find tons of black diamonds, tiny ones, around the crater of the entrance.)

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

-1- wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:39 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
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.)
There are tiny black holes as well. The force of gravity for some reason or another breaks through the intra-atomic repulsion, and makes the pieces (quarks if you like) fall into each other. These things may grow or not grow, but they are tiny, tiny black holes, with not much of a mass. Discounting their increased mass due to forces of relativity when they reach high speeds in their inter-galactic travel.

One theory of the giant explosion in Northern Siberia in the beginning of the 20th century states that a tiny black hole crashed through the earth, and it compressed the air above the point of impact with the surface of the earth with such force, that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was transformed into black diamonds (they did find tons of black diamonds, tiny ones, around the crater of the entrance.)
I don't believe tiny blackholes are possible, though some in the Hadron experiments were guessing this might be true. What they likely interpret it to mean is a very dense state. In fusion experiments (other colliders) they are attempting to create a sustained fusion reaction by using lasers aimed at one point. This they believed would increase the density of the seed particles there to the degree fusion would occur. This too is not viable in my opinion without an actual star. Fusion is not able to continue on but the investment in this may be used to redirect it for other purposes the general public are not permitted to know....like military purposes(?).

On the Tunguska event, that was a meteorite of some sort. There was no science to investigate that and so it would have been impossible to speculate anything beyond some meteorite of probable ice (from a comet?) that exploded higher in the atmosphere.

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

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

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?
Somewhere in this thread you used this image....
2016-11-25_074330.png (33.23 KiB) Viewed 468 times
Notice that you ask the question "can we have time and space origin point". while at the same time you are using symbol-notation as "t = -0" (the point in time before time?) .

This (at the very least) suggests to me that you acknowledge that our current conception of "time" (constant change) didn't exist before the singularity e.g that which we call "time" today was CAUSED by the expansion of the singularity.

Which raises a far more interesting question to me than the speculation you are undertaking in this thread.

If change didn't exist at "t = -0" then there is no reason for the singularity to have expanded at all. It could have simply remained in the steady state at t = -0 for eternity.

What caused the singularity to begin changing/expanding? Origins...... magical thinking all of them.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Well, thank you for finally looking at it.

Yes and no. We agree on this and we don't agree on this. Let me explain.

I began a prior diagram using the Big Bang 'material' origin because of the initial confusion I had of the theory when I first heard of it. (or at least first begun to think deeper on it.)

What confused me was how I kept hearing of some specific number (quantity) of something existed of what we collectively call matter and energy yet couldn't figure out how this fixed number required to be conserved for all time yet we had something called a beginning. For now, to be fair to my thinking back then, I understood matter versus energy in the same way the ancients thought of at least two distinct forms of matter (the word matter suggests "anything that matters."

So the contradiction is: that if all that matters in reality has and will always be considered to remain the same, how could we have any beginning at all such that there was a time that had nothing that matters. We know that matter is just a form of energy by E = mc². Although I figured this out in a different way, I'm using this as a 'fact' we can share as true without delving into that personally. So let us just use the single word 'energy' or E to represent the collective meaning of both matter and energy. Then, in general, the fact is that ...

Total E is conserved in the Universe.....It is one finite quantity

So, If we have an origin, we went from at least some relative Nothing to a sudden fixed positive number of Something. That means logically,

If Something is true, then Nothing was true [at some 'original' time]. This is contradictory and unsettled my mind.

To add to this confusion is that space expanded yet was considered as a 'nothing' itself. What is it supposed to mean that something that doesn't exist has some magic spirit of its own that parts Energy? I felt this was a cheat to grant this 'nothing' as what originates and grows yet that fixed E is there all along. And then why do we define matter as something that OCCUPIES space if space is what all that is being added.

I drew the first image above with the matter singularity ONLY as:
A paradox of Expansion.3...png (10.06 KiB) Viewed 461 times
And so I was beginning with the kind of assumption the Big Bang was saying had to be the case. The 'T=0' was the singularity with the fixed quantity of E which what you might think of as prior to something that 'occupies' space that wasn't there. The red squares I treated as this E and the spaces as space.

This is why I later added the other point and called it "-0" such that all E, [I pretended the four blocks, A, B, C, and D as this conserved amount]. The "T = -0" would have this number of stuff without space. But if that was the case, what is that 'fixed' amount of E mean without space.

When you try to alter one interpretation to repair this mess, you do it by sacrificing something else. If 'space' begun at some time, then space has two distinct kinds of meaning to "nothing", one Relative and one non-Relative (and possibly absolute if there were still other parallel worlds we can't see.)

You can also think of each, energy, time, and space as three distinct kinds of nothing as well. So everything can be of one thing but only of different "dimensions" distinctly.

It gets more confusing. But the point is that the 'origin' means nothing only if it is treated as meaning nothing. Thus, given 'existence' that we are a function of, requires coming out of an absolute nothing in totality. That is, if you take in all the universe and include even any possible "other" places, then anything that 'is' is a DYNAMIC concept to us. So because we can't escape from it, from our perspective, there is not such thing as a non-time.

We have to treat that T=-0 singularity concept as an APPROACH to a point that "never" was but that nevertheless binds us as the infinitesimal real numbers between any finites.

It also means that the 'state' of reality is "Steady", even if it appears to us to converge, similar to the vanishing perspective of parallel lines going off in the distance.

I'm not sure why you seem at odds before, but you seem to agree that the origin concept is an illusion. But that the confusion is contradictory suggests further that "contradiction" (a state of at least a third factor), like 0, 1, and , IS the 'causal' force of nature. And using this, it overrides the 'limitation' theorems to nature. An origin in an absolute state of nothing for Totality as a whole is the only 'point' that can 'originate'. But it is everywhere...and why I also have the other two threads tied in to this. Nature has its cake and eats it too.

One last point...another way of interpreting expansion is this:

A paradox of Expansion.41...png (9.47 KiB) Viewed 461 times
This is another way of showing the same conflict by treating the Universe being one unit conserved that contains (bounded) reality. But note if the Big Bang interpretation is a better explanation in fact, than this shows that you can fix space as conserved but matter as 'shrinking' towards nothing! It works but lacks a means to explain as well as a Steady State type cosmologies.

So now are we in agreement with this?

By the way, if you want, I can explain the T = 1 to T = 3 part if you'd like. Just let me know.

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

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:52 am
Well, thank you for finally looking at it.

Yes and no. We agree on this and we don't agree on this. Let me explain.

I began a prior diagram using the Big Bang 'material' origin because of the initial confusion I had of the theory when I first heard of it. (or at least first begun to think deeper on it.)

What confused me was how I kept hearing of some specific number (quantity) of something existed of what we collectively call matter and energy yet couldn't figure out how this fixed number required to be conserved for all time yet we had something called a beginning. For now, to be fair to my thinking back then, I understood matter versus energy in the same way the ancients thought of at least two distinct forms of matter (the word matter suggests "anything that matters."

So the contradiction is: that if all that matters in reality has and will always be considered to remain the same, how could we have any beginning at all such that there was a time that had nothing that matters. We know that matter is just a form of energy by E = mc². Although I figured this out in a different way, I'm using this as a 'fact' we can share as true without delving into that personally. So let us just use the single word 'energy' or E to represent the collective meaning of both matter and energy. Then, in general, the fact is that ...

Total E is conserved in the Universe.....It is one finite quantity

So, If we have an origin, we went from at least some relative Nothing to a sudden fixed positive number of Something. That means logically,

If Something is true, then Nothing was true [at some 'original' time]. This is contradictory and unsettled my mind.

To add to this confusion is that space expanded yet was considered as a 'nothing' itself. What is it supposed to mean that something that doesn't exist has some magic spirit of its own that parts Energy? I felt this was a cheat to grant this 'nothing' as what originates and grows yet that fixed E is there all along. And then why do we define matter as something that OCCUPIES space if space is what all that is being added.

I drew the first image above with the matter singularity ONLY as:

And so I was beginning with the kind of assumption the Big Bang was saying had to be the case. The 'T=0' was the singularity with the fixed quantity of E which what you might think of as prior to something that 'occupies' space that wasn't there. The red squares I treated as this E and the spaces as space.

This is why I later added the other point and called it "-0" such that all E, [I pretended the four blocks, A, B, C, and D as this conserved amount]. The "T = -0" would have this number of stuff without space. But if that was the case, what is that 'fixed' amount of E mean without space.

When you try to alter one interpretation to repair this mess, you do it by sacrificing something else. If 'space' begun at some time, then space has two distinct kinds of meaning to "nothing", one Relative and one non-Relative (and possibly absolute if there were still other parallel worlds we can't see.)

You can also think of each, energy, time, and space as three distinct kinds of nothing as well. So everything can be of one thing but only of different "dimensions" distinctly.

It gets more confusing. But the point is that the 'origin' means nothing only if it is treated as meaning nothing. Thus, given 'existence' that we are a function of, requires coming out of an absolute nothing in totality. That is, if you take in all the universe and include even any possible "other" places, then anything that 'is' is a DYNAMIC concept to us. So because we can't escape from it, from our perspective, there is not such thing as a non-time.

We have to treat that T=-0 singularity concept as an APPROACH to a point that "never" was but that nevertheless binds us as the infinitesimal real numbers between any finites.

It also means that the 'state' of reality is "Steady", even if it appears to us to converge, similar to the vanishing perspective of parallel lines going off in the distance.

I'm not sure why you seem at odds before, but you seem to agree that the origin concept is an illusion. But that the confusion is contradictory suggests further that "contradiction" (a state of at least a third factor), like 0, 1, and , IS the 'causal' force of nature. And using this, it overrides the 'limitation' theorems to nature. An origin in an absolute state of nothing for Totality as a whole is the only 'point' that can 'originate'. But it is everywhere...and why I also have the other two threads tied in to this. Nature has its cake and eats it too.

One last point...another way of interpreting expansion is this:

This is another way of showing the same conflict by treating the Universe being one unit conserved that contains (bounded) reality. But note if the Big Bang interpretation is a better explanation in fact, than this shows that you can fix space as conserved but matter as 'shrinking' towards nothing! It works but lacks a means to explain as well as a Steady State type cosmologies.

So now are we in agreement with this?

By the way, if you want, I can explain the T = 1 to T = 3 part if you'd like. Just let me know.
I have a much, much simpler explanation for all of the above. The singularity always has and always will exist and it still does.

The singularity is the universe.

What happened, instead is that within the Singularity consciousness appeared . A Boltzman brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

This brain began perceiving and it perceived itself AND the singularity.

The Boltzman brain, a.k.a consciousness is a fixed point in a Singularity without any fixed points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Rogers's fixed-point theorem. If F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

If F is the singularity/universe it has a fixed point. We are it.

Any and all notions of "expansion", "contraction" "beginning" and "end" are all relative notions.

Relative TO the fixed point.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

I can't use your preferred language although it is the same. I am trying to combine both past understandings of origins to science and logic. I am developing a 'theorem' of reality (versus a mere theory) that requires an ideal non-classical logic (that you approve of) that encompasses everything. For a theory of everything, I have to show that the present explanation of the Big Bang theory is not as powerful as an explanation as a Steady State type, ....and a type that I'm developing. I have to use a language that encompasses logic, science, and even religion to have universal approval. [not that it matters what I have to say or that nature requires me to particularly, of course.]

The essence of the three threads is the same: that Absolutely Nothing = Absolutely Something = Absolutely Everything AND that this 'contradiction' is itself 'constructive' of reality (THE force) because it is the "rule" of the patterns of all possible worlds that are consistent in a larger totality that includes both consistent and non-consistent worlds. Our particular one is a mix: a "contingent" one.

We are just the combination of all possible arrangements of an infinite set of pointers to ineffable absolutes that act like puzzle pieces. The 'worlds' are just EACH relatively 'finite'-like puzzle yet also like motion pictures that create 'stories' whereby any 'world' can have an infinite different new set of endings.

-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 am
I don't believe tiny blackholes are possible,
How big is a black hole, actually? In its material expanse. Is it big, or is it tiny? On a human scale. Our sun is big, a billion of our sun's worth of a single celestial body is even bigger.

But a black hole?

On a human scale?

Could be the size of a thimble (though it may contain enough matter to make a billion of our Sun out of it.) On a human scale, a thimble is small. Tiny. A tiny thimble. Or it could be as little as a few angstroms in diameter. That's tiny too.

How big is an average black hole, anyway?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

-1- wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:57 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 am
I don't believe tiny blackholes are possible,
How big is a black hole, actually? In its material expanse. Is it big, or is it tiny? On a human scale. Our sun is big, a billion of our sun's worth of a single celestial body is even bigger.

But a black hole?

On a human scale?

Could be the size of a thimble (though it may contain enough matter to make a billion of our Sun out of it.) On a human scale, a thimble is small. Tiny. A tiny thimble. Or it could be as little as a few angstroms in diameter. That's tiny too.

How big is an average black hole, anyway?
A "Black Hole" is just a description of the phenomena of an unseen object that is inferred by the kind of eclipse it makes on the background of stars behind it. It traps light and so looks like a swirl of black. It is actually of a super-duper star and/or stars of a collection of stars that is so absurdly big that it steals even the light that passes by it.

Most assume that light has no 'mass'. But if you understand that mass is itself just a kind of 'illusion' of the motion of space, then normally light, being the fastest phenomena, is treated 'massless' because all its information is translated in one direction normally. So a 'tiny' black hole means nothing contrary to some who think it is. IF it 'exists' it would just be a perfect non-moving (or infinitely spinning) point that, while normally 'shadowing' space, would just 'disappear'. It can 'exist' but would have absolutely no affect because everything would actually travel straight 'through' it....or jump over it instantaneously. A "tiny black hole" would be the ideal PERFECT SOLID. But....

Black holes are actually the center of galaxies where the collection of stars fall into each other. The density that compacts atoms would force the point(s) in its center to be either non-moving, infinitely spinning, or, spit out at the poles (generally, that is)

That would be more useful for a different thread to tackle, like the one in I discuss as the 'wall' at a point: Bricks IN Space and Time This thread asks if there is an origin whereas that one asks if every point in space is its own origin. A black hole argument might fit there to explain an END rather than a BEGINNING of space, time, and matter, etc.

bahman
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

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

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?
I think that everything should be explicable at the origin. I don't think that the origin is singular since singularity is inexplicable. The origin however should be unstable, therefore you don't need a mover.

-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 am
I don't believe tiny blackholes are possible,
-1- wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:57 am
How big is a black hole, actually? In its material expanse.
How big is an average black hole, anyway?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:16 am
A "Black Hole" is just a description of the phenomena of an unseen object that is inferred by the kind of eclipse it makes on the background of stars behind it.
If it's black, and / or never been seen, then we don't know how big it is. Ergo, you can't rule out that it's tiny.

The expanse of blackness that we observe in the backdrop of a starry heavenly bode, may be not the size of the black hole, but the spere of influence where it captures light (due to its gravitational force on light).

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

-1- wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:24 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 am
I don't believe tiny blackholes are possible,
-1- wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:57 am
How big is a black hole, actually? In its material expanse.
How big is an average black hole, anyway?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:16 am
A "Black Hole" is just a description of the phenomena of an unseen object that is inferred by the kind of eclipse it makes on the background of stars behind it.
If it's black, and / or never been seen, then we don't know how big it is. Ergo, you can't rule out that it's tiny.

The expanse of blackness that we observe in the backdrop of a starry heavenly bode, may be not the size of the black hole, but the spere of influence where it captures light (due to its gravitational force on light).
It is "massive" and derived of the word "mass" to which requires gravity to be what causes the effect.
From Goodby Big Bang |Hello Hyper Black Hole
black-hole-2.jpg (31.85 KiB) Viewed 416 times
1.13743-C0141244-Black_hole_artwork-SPL-1.jpg (60.27 KiB) Viewed 416 times

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests