The universe is cube shaped

AlienFromEarth

1)The universe cannot be perpetually reducible. If it were, then it would take forever for any event to take place, since you would have to wait for the smallest particle or string or wave or whatever you want to call it to affect the larger scales of anything physical so that it may cause some kind of event.

2)of course, if the universe is perpetually reducible, there is no smallest particle.

Therefore,

3)The universe must have some kind of fundamental level of existence. In other words, it can't be reduced beyond a certain point.

4)This fundamental level of existence must therefore have some kind of shape.

5)This shape cannot leave gaps in between any other fundamental point of existence, whether larger or smaller than the shape itself. As if it were larger, we know we can go smaller than that as the shape is already smaller. If it were smaller, then our shape is not actually fundamental, rather, the shape we are looking for would exist somewhere within the small gaps.

6)This shape cannot be irregular, because any irregular shape always consists of larger and smaller faces, which obviously contradict the need for the larger shapes, similarly as explained in #5.

7)Therefore, our shape must be a regular shape, and again, cannot leave any gaps between it and the other ones.

8)Our shape is a cube. The cube is the only solid that is regular and leaves no gaps when stacking them, no matter how many of them you stack.

tim wood

↪AlienFromEarth

Clever, but how about a soft universe that just always mushes together?

AlienFromEarth

ok now, i will just comment that these cubes aren't really energy, they can't move or be destroyed, they are merely like a coordinate system that just happens to be cubic in shape. Like 3-dimensional pixels, where energy travels across them constantly, never actually being able to stay still on one cube. You can have a cube "light up" if you will, a certain way and stay that way, but this is only a result of energy constantly moving into and out of the cube creating a cycle, or equilibrium. We know this because energy is movement, and there cannot be true non-movement, except fot he cubes themselves, which by themselves, are not actually energy, and merely a coordinate system.

Interestingly enough, this coordinate system of universal cubes could be used to accurately determine distances in space, at least from cube to cube, as objects are made of energy and energy always moves a bit, always giving different readings of distance, therefore.

AlienFromEarth

↪tim wood

It is soft. The cubes are not really "objects", they are more like coordinates but do have a definitive shape. But is conceivably measurable. Although on planet earth, we're moving pretty fast through all these cubes so we couldn't see them properly we'd have to somehow "approximate" their locations at any given time. Perhaps a probe in space that somehow can hover over a certain area of cubes.

FrancisRay

1)The universe cannot be perpetually reducible. — AlienFromEarth

Agreed.

2) of course, if the universe is perpetually reducible, there is no smallest particle.

Agreed.

3)The universe must have some kind of fundamental level of existence. In other words, it can't be reduced beyond a certain point/

Agreed.

4)This fundamental level of existence must therefore have some kind of shape.

Muddled thinking. For a fundamental theory extension must be reduced. This deals with propositions 5, 6, 7 and 7 and 8.

Ø implies everything

1)The universe cannot be perpetually reducible. If it were, then it would take forever for any event to take place, since you would have to wait for the smallest particle or string or wave or whatever you want to call it to affect the larger scales of anything physical so that it may cause some kind of event. — AlienFromEarth

What if the events happen faster and faster the smaller the scale is?

4)This fundamental level of existence must therefore have some kind of shape. — AlienFromEarth

Why not multiple kinds of shapes? Why must there be one fundamental building block instead of multiple ones equally fundamental?

Agree-to-Disagree

8) Our shape is a cube. The cube is the only solid that is regular and leaves no gaps when stacking them, no matter how many of them you stack. — AlienFromEarth

The fundamental unit of the universe is wombat poop.

Wombats produce cube-shaped poop - the only known species to do so.

The Australian marsupial can pass up to 100 deposits of poop a night and they use the piles to mark territory. This also explains how the universe was created in the first place. The original poop is called the "big bang".

The shape helps to stop the poop rolling away (there is nothing worse than having your fundamental unit of the universe roll away).

javi2541997

Why not multiple kinds of shapes? Why must there be one fundamental building block instead of multiple ones equally fundamental? — Ø implies everything

Because the author of this thread considered the universe as an individual entity of existence, and not a multiple of divided shapes. I partially agree with his argument, because we would have multiple universes otherwise. This would lead us to multiple realities, and there would be chaos. Don't you think?

That's what I understood from the author's argument, sort of.

javi2541997

The Australian marsupial can pass up to 100 deposits of poop a night and they use the piles to mark territory. This also explains how the universe was created in the first place. The original poop is called the "big bang".

The shape helps to stop the poop rolling away (there is nothing worse than having your fundamental unit of the universe roll away). — Agree-to-Disagree

:up:

punos

4)This fundamental level of existence must therefore have some kind of shape. — AlienFromEarth

I believe the most fundamental level of existence is time. Time is the 0th dimension and can visually be conceived of as a 0-dimensional POINT (no height, length, or width). Any traditional sense of shape must include at least 2 spacial dimensions to represent the relationship between POINTS that informs a shape. These spacial dimensions are extensions of the 0th dimension which can be represented as a LINE (dimension). Shapes are thus formed within the CIRCLE (a SPHERE in the case of 3D) of these extended dimensions.

These fundamental POINTS need not suffer the limitation of leaving gaps between themselves, which is how together they are able to form the LINE (dimension), then the PLANE (space), and consequently the SHAPE (a thing).

So according to me at least the "shape" of the most fundamental level of existence is the POINT, and the shape of the universe is a SPHERE of n-dimensions.

180 Proof

The universe must have some kind of fundamental level of existence. In other words, it can't be reduced beyond a certain point. — AlienFromEarth

My candidate for the "fundamental level of existence" – the constitutive, dynamic ground state – is planck events (i.e. vacuum fluctuations / field excitations). As far as metaphysic goes, IMO this "fundamental physics' corresponds to the Democritean void (or natura naturans of Spinoza).

simplyG

I believe the most fundamental level of existence is time. — punos

It’s debatable if time really exists fundamentally as it’s very different to the types of measurements of length, height and width.

Time only occurs in terms of events happening even the ticking clock is itself an event and if you had no dimensions what is it that would be ticking ? It wouldn’t be the clock as it wouldn’t exist.

bert1

↪AlienFromEarth

Love the OP. This is what philosophy should be. Planck cubes? Are we living in Mincecraft?

punos

↪simplyG

Well according to my own current understanding, time is fundamental in that it acts as the effector of change, movement, and duration, rather than it being the effect itself. The commonly accepted notion of time is actually the "arrow of time", which is what is measured by instruments such as ticking clocks and such. The arrow of time is made possible by the principle of cause and effect, which creates a chain of events that we perceive and experience as time ("1st order time": thermodynamic or entropic process). However, if we can imagine time while excluding the principle of cause and effect, the arrow disappears, and time becomes immeasurable. I refer to this concept as "0th order time", "effector time" or "primordial time".

More over, the reason quantum fluctuations occur is because of time. Energy is how time is expressed in space, and the two concepts of time and energy are interchangeable in my mind. Time is the reason why nothingness or the quantum vacuum is unstable and why it must change state and produce energy in the form of POINT quantum fluctuations. This concept of "effector time" or "0th order time" is the origin and source of all energy in space; the source of everything, the prime mover.

simplyG

More over, the reason quantum fluctuations occur is because of time. — punos

If there was nothingness you are saying time would still exist and because time does exist even if there was nothing it would have an effect on non-existence - I find this hard to accept.

Nothingness would exclude the existence of time too and with it quantum flux. Time cannot affect change, change just happens and time is simply the measure at which change happens and does not exist without it.

If you had an eternal unchanging object time would not be necessary as no actual change is happening or time would be meaningless.

Agree-to-Disagree

I believe the most fundamental level of existence is time.
— punos

It’s debatable if time really exists fundamentally as it’s very different to the types of measurements of length, height and width.

Time only occurs in terms of events happening even the ticking clock is itself an event and if you had no dimensions what is it that would be ticking ? It wouldn’t be the clock as it wouldn’t exist. — simplyG

I think that time does not exist fundamentally. Time comes into existence when things change in the other dimensions. If nothing changed in the other dimension then time would not exist. Time is related to the speed of changes in the other dimensions.

Imagine that everything in the universe changed so that they were happening at 2x the original speed. Our perception of time would not change (things would not seem any faster or slower) because things are happening at 2x the original speed but we are measuring time with a "clock" that is running at 2x the original speed.

punos

If there was nothingness you are saying time would still exist and because time does exist even if there was nothing it would have an effect on non-existence - I find this hard to accept. — simplyG

No, i'm saying that all that exists is 0th order time, and everything including space emerges from it. Absolute nothingness is an impossible state condition is what i'm saying. If the case were that nothingness was just pure nothingness then truly nothing would ever happen, but because the nature of time is change itself something is always happening.

Nothingness would exclude the existence of time too and with it quantum flux. — simplyG

Correct, but since i'm saying that time is all that exists then it's not really nothing, in the same way that 0 is not really nothing when you understand that [-1 and +1 = 0 = -1 and +1] (something is nothing, and nothing is something), that is the nature of primordial nothing.

Time cannot affect change, change just happens and time is simply the measure at which change happens and does not exist without it. — simplyG

If it is not time that affects change then what does? That change that you say "just happens" is what i call 0th order time, and any measurements made are from 1st order time (entropy). 0th order time is the cause of 1st order time, one is emergent from the other.

If you had an eternal unchanging object time would not be necessary as no actual change is happening. — simplyG

What unchanging object? My point is that there is no such thing as something that doesn't change; everything changes. The only constant in the universe is change, and that change is time itself.

Why does anything move or change? What makes change possible? If not time then what? what should we call this principle in the universe that not only allows things to change, but forces change to happen.

Why do you think absolute zero is an impossible temperature?

simplyG

Why does anything move or change? — punos

Things move because they’re set in motion by something else which is in turn set in motion by something else etc. you’re positing that 0th time whatever that is, is the prime mover and I’m having a hard time accepting this premise because time is a concept and not something real so cannot produce change it’s not physical. How could a concept have an effect on the natural world?

Change happens because atoms decay they lose energy not because of time. Plants don’t wither because of time they wither because they’re deprived of nutrients during seasonal changes etc.

Why do you think absolute zero is an impossible temperature? — punos

Absolute 0 is not attainable because the amount of effort required to remove all heat from an object would be infinite…what does this have to do with time ?

punos

Things move because they’re set in motion by something else which is in turn set in motion by something else etc. — simplyG

What sets the first thing in motion?

time is a concept and not something real so cannot produce change it’s not physical. How could a concept have an effect on the natural world. — simplyG

What if it's not just a concept, but the realest thing possible? If you define time as just a concept then the concept of it being a concept precludes you from accepting the reality of time.

Change happens because atoms decay they lose energy not because of time. — simplyG

Why does an atom decay and lose energy? what causes that?

Plants don’t wither because time they wither because they’re deprived of nutrients during seasonal changes etc. — simplyG

Why do seasonal changes happen?

Absolute 0 is not attainable because the amount of effort required to remove all heat from an object would be infinite…what does this have to do with time ? — simplyG

That is correct, but more fundamentally it's because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A quantum particle can never stop moving or vibrating no matter how hard you try to get it to stay still. 0th order time is the cause of the uncertainty principle in this context.

To gather the clues necessary to understand this kind of time, which is virtually unknown (or hidden) one must probe the coldest places and the coldest things.

simplyG

What sets the first thing in motion? — punos

Well whatever it is it’s not time, how could it be ? Please explain the mechanism of how time would be able to do so.

What if it's not just a concept, but the realest thing possible? If you define time as just a concept then the concept of it being a concept precludes you from accepting the reality of time. — punos

I’m not denying the reality of time at all, I’ve previously stated that time is used for measuring change, you say it causes change. It does not, change happens because of entropy not because of time, time just measures the rate of change so it’s like a measuring tape would be to the 3dimensions and not the 3 dimensions themselves.

That’s like saying clocks created the Big Bang which is what your theory ultimately entails.

To gather the clues necessary to understand this kind of time, which is virtually unknown (or hidden) one must probe the coldest places and the coldest things. — punos

And since this is impossible due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that you brought up your theory is unprovable. In addition to time not being a thing but a placeholder of the arrow of time in relation to events occurring sequentially in space.

punos

↪simplyG

One way to think about what i'm saying is to compare time and gravity. When one measures gravity it is measured in the form of weight, but weight is not gravity; two related but different things. In the same way a measurement of time is not time, and we don't have a word for that distinction, which is the source of most of the confusion about this topic. That is why i created my own terms of 0th order and 1st order time to try to remedy that problem.

Consider for example how Eskimos have many words for the one concept we have for snow. Because Eskimos have so many words to distinguish between different types of snow, they are able to notice things about snow that we can't. Words are like handles or containers for concepts, and if you don't have a handle or container for a concept then it becomes a slippery concept. Know what i mean?

simplyG

Just because you have a placeholder for 0 (nothing) does not mean that nothing exists, it’s just a placeholder. That’s like saying adding 0 to 1 makes two, no it doesn’t which is what you appear to be saying with your 0 order time theory which is why I’m critiquing it. @punos

Correct, but since i'm saying that time is all that exists then it's not really nothing, in the same way that 0 is not really nothing when you understand that [-1 and +1 = 0 = -1 and +1] (something is nothing, and nothing is something), that is the nature of primordial nothing. — punos

punos

What sets the first thing in motion? — punos

Well whatever it is it’s not time, how could it be ? Please explain the mechanism of how time would be able to do so. — simplyG

Fundamental things can not be explained in terms of other more fundamental things. 0th order time is itself.

change happens because of entropy not because of time, time just measures the rate of change so it’s like a measuring tape would be to the 3dimensions and not the 3 dimensions themselves. — simplyG

Why does entropy happen? I've already explained that measuring time is measuring 1st order time, and that 1st order time is just another term for "the arrow of time" which is entropy. You're only getting half the picture.

That’s like saying clocks created the Big Bang which is what your theory ultimately entails. — simplyG

No, my theory says that 0th order time has always existed even before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang happened when the "arrow of time" began.

simplyG

↪punos

No, my theory says that 0th order time has always existed even before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang happened when the "arrow of time" began. — punos

Yet you have failed to distinguish the difference between these two orders of time 0th & 1.

You also claim in a previous post that 0order time brings about 1st order time but have not provided any explanation or mechanism as to how they come about. You have invoked two types of time for the sake of your argument which still doesn’t explain how it brought about the time that we ordinarily perceive.

punos

Just because you have a placeholder for 0 (nothing) does not mean that nothing exists, it’s just a placeholder. That’s like saying adding 0 to 1 makes two, no it doesn’t which is what you appear to be saying with your 0 order time theory which is why I’m critiquing it. — simplyG

I'm not sure what you're saying here, and it doesn't appear to be what i'm saying. You may be misunderstanding what i'm saying.

simplyG

↪punos

Just addressing your claim that 0th order time brings about first order time is that what you’re saying? And I stated that time cannot effect change as it’s only a measuring tool not a thing that can act on another thing and certainly not a prime mover. If so you have to explain how it does so.

This concept of "effector time" or "0th order time" is the origin and source of all energy in space; the source of everything, the prime mover. — punos

punos

Yet you have failed to distinguish the difference between these two orders of time 0th & 1. — simplyG

0th order time (non-spacial and scalar): The innate ability of "nothing" (0) to change state to "something" (1). Equvalent to the application of a unitary NOT logical operator. No arrow of time, and no entropy.

1st order time (spacial with vectors): The innate ability for things in space to change scalar and vector states. Has an arrow of time, and has entropy.

simplyG

0th order time (non-spacial and scalar): The innate ability of "nothing" (0) to change state to "something" (1). — punos

That’s impossible, how do you get something out of nothing? Explain please.

punos

↪simplyG

Lets start simple, and let me ask you a question:

Imagine absolute pure nothingness with no time, space, or energy, or anything. Now how can we get a universe from that? what is the first thing we need?

simplyG

↪punos

I have no idea…let me guess…time ?

punos

That’s impossible, how do you get something out of nothing? Explain please. — simplyG

If you believe that the universe is purely mathematical, and that numbers are not just concepts in our heads but represent real things, then what is the fact that a 0 can be split into a -1 and a +1 means? Is this a concept that can be used to understand something about the universe or is it just fantasy?

The universe is cube shaped

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions