knowing absolutes — Jack Cummins

One begins with the true knowing of what proposed absolutes have fallen by the wayside:

Newton's proposed space and time as absolutes were given the boot by Einstein, so, they are but emergent, and not fundamental, so, the ultimate foundation can't have them.

Classical particles as spigots producing fields turned out to be mute and so they cannot be so as the fundamental loot. In addition, composites cannot be First, for their parts would have to be more fundamental than they, so composite particles, like atoms, are out, and thus are but secondary.

Quantum fields do fit the bill, for they are continuous and thus but only made of themselves, as non composite. Note that 'Nothing' cannot exist, nor even be meant, and so there can't be any spacers of 'nothing' in the fields, Einstein having already noted this continuity in "All is field".

What is left as a a candidate?

Quantum fields can be modeled as harmonic oscilators, which necessarily implies quanta of energy, such as in that an electron in an atom can only be at or only jump to certain quantum energy levels, so, the model is thus correct.

Before one asks how an Absolute can be made from no parts, note that Absolutes are ever, as eternal, and so they are neither breakable nor makable, having no beginning and no end.

One still wonders how they can just be there forever and never made, but, again, Something has to be, since there is undeniably something and and there could not have been 'Nothing'; thus Existence has no alternative. That we already have this necessity as truth obviates its Why; yet there can be no true paradoxes.

An electron, then, is an excitation ripple in the quantum electron field, kind of like a kink in a rope, as are the other so-called elementary particles.

These quantum fields in no time or space would have to be all atop one another, being not in a coordinate system. We have background independence! Their excitations didn't so much 'get quantized, but are the energy quanta.

Anything but the Absolute Permanent is thus temporary. We further note that not anything in particular remains but in an instant changes, adding to the notion that the Absolute is energetic; yet, the Absolute can never change, but the temporaries ever do.

Since their can be no design point for an absolute, since it has no beginning and thus no 'before' or 'outside', we might deduce that it could itself be not anything in particular, and thus an Everything, either in a linear way, as in presentism, or all-at-once, as in eternalism, both of which time modes would appear to be the same to us. We don't know the mode of time.

OK, so much for Absolutes, and how they would be, but can they be at all?

If not, there is Relationism, with no absolutes at all, the relations being all. Quantum entanglement suggest that everything is connected everything.

Wrap up:

'God', too, is out, as an Absolute, for a system of mind cannot be non composite.

'Nothing' ever tries to creep back in as a source, but note, say, if you want something from 'it' like that it divides into positives and negatives, there had to be a capability for this 'unstableness' and so because this is a something you didn't have a 'Nothing' in the first place as claimed.

Indeed, there appears to be an zero balance in the Cosmos, with the negative potential energy of gravity seeming to cancel out the positive kinetic energy of stuff… but for perhaps some quantum wavering as necessity prohibiting the definite quantum state of zero.

So, either way, as an Absolute or as Relationism, we we lean toward Everything being, yet soon learn another lesson, which is that the information content of Everything such as a Library of Babel containing very possible book, would be the same as that of 'Nothing': zero.

So, we have two TOEs in hand, and thus we are indeed very close to knowing.

Your arguments seem good, but I am just wondering to what extent can we rely on physics? I think that it is extremely important, and do try to keep as up to date as I can, given that I don't really come from a physics background. I think that physics is extremely important, but even the ideas of physics need to be taken apart, like all ideas, and any perspective of knowledge. That is not to undermine the importance of the ideas but to approach all knowledge with a spirit of questioning rather than mere acceptance.

I am just wondering to what extent can we rely on physics? — Jack Cummins

Well, in the case of QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and the Standard Model derived from it, we rely on its physics all the time, in all our myriad electron devices and more.

So, Philosophy works best when its derivations can get confirmed by/with science; otherwise, as we see in some of the forums, people say a lot of things that sound good on the surface, such as having 'free will', 'infinity', and 'Nothing' that quickly evaporates when delving into the definitions.

Science always questions, never stopping wondering, which is a lot better than having a philosophy that leaves all the questions out at the onset.

Seek out the clues… winnow the possible answers more… wishing and hoping doesn't do very much.

Why are all electrons exactly the same?

Why does just one electron or photon go through both slits in the experiment?

How come the complexity of humans becomes greater as we head toward the future, yet was simpler and simpler back into the past? Why would people claim the Greatest Complexity possible as First and Fundamental?

Why both matter and antimatter? Why the polarity of charge?

Why only two main particles (proton and electron) being stable in free space , with opposite charge (neutrons decay with in 12 minutes)? Why only one stable energy particle in free space, the photon, with neutral charge.

Anyone have more clues that can beget more real progress?

I am not disagreeing with you, but don't know how to interpret what you are saying. Perhaps, you or someone else can point to where this leads, because, at the moment, it is leading me to feel rather confused...

I have looked at your idea again, and I am sure that it has so much to argue in its favour, but the question which I would have is how could such an idea have for thinking about reality, in terms of living. But, I am not saying that your answer is wrong, but simply that the nature of reality is a question which is probably connected to the meanings of individuals. In some ways, we may all ask this question and it can only be answered in a way which makes sense to us individually.

Philosophy works best when its derivations can get confirmed by/with science — PoeticUniverse

If a set of statements are confirmed by science, then they are more science, and not philosophy.

You seem to have missed something important about the nature of philosophical discussion.

I don't know how much sense of humour you have but ever since we discussed the philosophy of the solidity of tables I keep recalling a certain scenario. I had a manager who ordered a table and I think that she got her metrics wrong. A van arrived with an enormous table, and it would have needed to be chopped up because it was so large that it could not have fitted into a room. So much for the philosophy of the solidity of tables...

At a place I worked at, there was a large table in a small room. The boss wanted it moved, but it was too wide to fit through the door. He took a saw to the legs, removing them, moving the table and re-attaching the legs in a most ungainly fashion.

But then he was unhappy with it's new location and wanted it returned, so a workmate and I flipped it on it's side, manoeuvring first one set of legs then the other through the door, returning the table to its original location without removing the legs.

Our boss had not considered turning the table on it's side.

I changed jobs, procuring a better boss.

Well, it is the universal of "difference" which really intrigues me. If a state of existence where only one particular/entity exists could be possible (a state of existence would require at least one existing thing), why a state of existence populated by many different things. There is the question of why something instead of nothing. A question in a similar format would be why many things instead of just one, two, three or a handful? why are things that exist different from each other?

It is so complex. We could ask what is anything?

We could ask what is anything? — Jack Cummins

A limited thing? :)

We are indeed limited, looking beyond ourselves for meaning. But, such a view may contribute to our seeing of ourselves as if reality is from the top. We may be at the bottom, or the base of experience, but this may be the most accurate position, especially if we have no evidence of higher beings. So, it may be that the view from the lowly perspective of the human being is the best vantage point, as far as we able to conceive reality.

A question in a similar format would be why many things instead of just one, two, three or a handful? why are things that exist different from each other? — Daniel

Ah, a good clue, in what you said, plus adding to it: why the humongous amount of material in the universe, namely 2x10**76 particles or so (the '2' is for matter and antimatter)? Originally, there were 2x10**85 particles, but since there are a billion photons for every proton we had to take away 10**9 due to the annihilations of matter and antimatter in the early universe. Now all the material is far apart and so the annihilations are much less.

We have to conclude that material stuff was very easy to come by, this allowing for a lot of combinations leading to many differences.

At first there was mostly hydrogen, like 99%, before the rest of the atomic elements became to reduce the hydrogen result a few percent lower, but initially the other atomic elements were but traces of the simplest ones of lithium, helium, and, I forget, beryllium, maybe, until stars formed from protons by gravity, which produced perhaps 15 more of the atomic elements, but no more, for lack of the energy needed, until supernovae and/or colliding neutron stars produced the rest of the atomic elements.

I have looked at your idea again, and I am sure that it has so much to argue in its favour, but the question which I would have is how could such an idea have for thinking about reality, in terms of living. — Jack Cummins

Yes, not much to be gained for living at the human being level, as either TOE is just simple, as it must be at that level, and so is not all that interesting but for obliterating some superstitions and demonstrating a kind of pointlessness.

Each level of reality gains its own set of new circumstances relevant to that level.

Our human level is where all the interesting action is, as we are very complex, although the universe is only about .02% along. We are still quite limited, as you note in another post, and will probably be looked upon as primitives by the higher human beings of the future, if we can even make it past becoming but a footnote of history by colonizing space and thriving on.

Our reality consists of all sorts of different minds and wills that have to do what they do, making for a kind of mass confusion but still providing for many interesting discussions.

Above all, experiencing life seems to feel quite rewarding, as the main benefit, if there are any, or at least a great consolation prize.

We could ask what is anything? — Jack Cummins

That is a wonderful piece of art you have put on the thread. It is rather psychedelic and metaphysical. Do you know who the artist is?

Do you know who the artist is? — Jack Cummins

I am the artist. It depicts the level of reality of human being, based on the transitional past to future orthogonal to the oppositional matter and space, with the derivative pairings onward from that.

From ToE to HUMAN Being

Here’s the theory of how the Who of Being
Becomes of Existence’s Why and How,
Via the transitional Then to When
And the oppositional What and Where.

The Real’s Why is that Nothing cannot be;
Its How is that of Possibility,
Since all methods must be open, due to
The ‘IS’s never-birthed eternity.

Matter vs. Space, from the Formless ‘IS’,
Makes for the realm of appearances, which,
Since crossed by the passage of time, builds life’s
Pyramid from Movement-of-Appearances.

Past that was leads to Future that will be,
Transformational—‘Now’ in the middle,
Rolling smoothly, through recall, sensation,
And anticipation. Time is movement!

Space/Matter, oppositional, crosses,
From the Where/What top and bottom corners,
The left to right sweep of Past into Future,
Which is really as Then-into-the-When.

Where/What plus Then-to-the-When grows to blend
The Spirit of Life in the pyramid’s core,
After some more pairing relationships,
Subsequent, toward the life of our species.

Then+What is History—what has occurred,
While When+What will become Progress.
Then+Where begets Memory—remembrance,
While When+Where induces Wishes, as hopes.

Progress+Wishes combines into Vision;
Progress+History grants Change-in-Structure;
Memory+History makes for Learning;
Memory+History births Change-of-Outlook.

Change-in-Structure + Vision = Planning,
Change-in-Structure + Learning = Creating,
Change-of-Outlook + Vision = Growth;
Change-of-Outlook + Learning = Direction.

Finally, Planning, Growth, Creating,
And Direction make for Being’s Who.

( Matter vs. Space ) [Being] ( Past —> Future )


Five Forces



On the physical forces:

We note that two of them are transitional,
The Electric and the Magnetic,
Each giving rise to the other,

And that two others are oppositional,
The Weak and the Strong,
The Weak promoting changeability,
The Strong promoting stability.

Gravity is then left as the blend of all.

( Strong vs. Weak ) [Gravity] ( Electro <—> Magnetic )

At the molecule level, another oppositional
changeability/stability balance occurs since molecules
are neither inclined to stay together nor to break apart.

There is also 'patient' time restricting
energy's relentless changes from being precipitous.


Another depiction, with more in it:




Provisional simple answers to the How and Why at a low level:

They are fantastic and I hope that my thread survives a while longer, so that your art and what you have written are seen by others. I do art myself, but most of my art is on the wall in my mother's house. I did study art therapy, but haven't done much art in the last few years but would like to do so.

I imagined you would be rather creative, having chosen the name PoeticUniverse. I see the creative arts as being as essential to philosophy as physics and the other physical sciences. When I started this thread I was thinking partly about the nature of reality in relation to physics, but I was also thinking of it in the widest possible way. So, thanks for your input and fantastic input, and I hope that this thread continues for a while longer, as a little gallery...

Reality seems maybe to be more than it seems. Does materialism make too much or too little of reality. The fundamental part is how we see reality at each moment. We understand one thing at time with one part of our mind and many things, maybe everything, with the other

"Reality" is one of those classic concepts that will end up in endless metaphysics - you go to Descartes or Hume or Kant or Nietzsche, the usual army of the unalterable law... I would say, pragmatically, that reality, for a large part, is the part, the overwhelming part, of the material world that we experience that doesn't bend to our will. As much as I want the Moon to be made of Camembert, it just stubbornly stays a rock (as far as we can reasonably know). Etc.

:up:

I like your work :up:

As much as I want the Moon to be made of Camembert, it just stubbornly stays a rock (as far as we can reasonably know). — hwyl

Well, but that's what happens to cheese when it gets left out!

Our boss had not considered turning the table on it's side. — Banno

His error was more fundamental than lacking enough of a mechanical mind to have turned the table. His error was in overlooking the absolute obvious: the building was not built with a table inside it, so if it was in there intact, it must be able to get out intact. That he turned to a saw before turning to someone who could decipher the puzzle for him was what made him the fool.

What I so enjoy of automotive repair is the certainty I have that there is an answer because I know if it worked yesterday, it can be made to work today. It's very much unlike philosophy where there might never have been an answer.

All of this may be entirely unrelated to this thread. I don't know. I was summoned here from the Shoutbox. I heard there were lovely original drawings here and saw your post.

I was summoned here from the Shoutbox. I heard there were lovely original drawings here… — Hanover

Here they are:





There was a time warp around you.

Here they are: — PoeticUniverse

You did not disappoint. Very nice.

You have added a couple of new pictures, and they are a little different, but extremely powerful. I am interested to know what media you are working in. I did wonder if the initial ones were done using computer graphics. However, the latest look more like paintings, and it is possible that you are combining the two, because I think that is one of the ways in which graphics and illustrations is going_ the new reality emerging within art.

I do agree with you that one important point of focus is how we see reality in the moment. Whether to reduce it all or enlarge it is a good question. Perhaps, it is all about perspectives, and the shifts in them.

I am interested to know what media you are working in. — Jack Cummins

Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, iclone …

I don't draw or paint anything; I just move parts around to make a scene.

See my Youtube channel for more pics in videos, some of which move…

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAqzcN340HXpDqHXmAy3SwA

I am just adding the following quotation for anyone who is still interested in the question of what is reality. It comes from an interview by a lecturer in sociology, Martin Savransky, who specialises in the intersection between philosophy, post colonial studies and political ecology. The reference comes from an interview in 'Philosophy Now' (June/July 2021) .

. He says:
'A great number of realisms, including some of the most speculation ones, tend to be profoundly concerned with the question of how to draw the line between what is real and what is not. In a sense, each form of realism is its own way of drawing that line. But that, to my mind, ends up transforming realism into a belligerent gesture '

He goes on to say,
'What I call pluralisistic realism, meanwhile, is first and foremost characteristiesed by a refusal to draw that line. I'm more interested in problematizing the very distinction between reality and unreality, not by claiming that there is no such thing as reality, but by wagering that everything is some sense real, and not just what is intedenpent of us...Instead of seeking to determine once and for all what the structure of reality is so that we can draw the line that enables us to disqualify some things from it, we connected the risk of metaphysics with the question of what reality is capable of? I mean, let's go out there and find out what's real. ..Yet "going out there" is not a rejection of metaphysics. Quite the contrary! It is rather an attempt to put the test of metaphysical speculation to the test of experiences.'

In this way, we are not talking about speculations about hidden reality, but about potentials for becoming and of creating future realities. I thought that I would add this final reflection to the the thread before it becomes lost and buried forever more.