• Verdi
    116
    Verdi,
    Veni, vidi, velcro: I came, I saw, I stuck around.
    PoeticUniverse

    :lol:
  • Verdi
    116
    These 2 theories if merged together may form a new more plausible theory that could explain infinite amount of BB that follow the same cause and shouldn't break the laws of physics (except "infinitely dense mass")
    Unfortunately shrinking universe is not observed and dark matter (which is responsible for expansion) is unknown.
    SpaceDweller

    A shrinking universe is no necessary condition for a new big bang to occur. Big bangs can follow each other up even if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity.

    Just to be precise: dark matter is normal matter that can't be seen, like all kinds of non-observed hypothetical particles, or better, primordial black holes:

    https://www.livescience.com/dark-matter-made-of-black-holes.html

    Dark matter keeps galaxies together and dark energy pushes them apart at an ever increasing rate.
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    Big bangs can follow each other up even if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity.Verdi

    What do you mean by this? how can there be BB if the universe never stops expanding?

    Dark matter keeps galaxies together and dark energy pushes them apart at an ever increasing rate.Verdi

    Indeed, my mistake, I confused the 2.
  • Verdi
    116
    What do you mean by this? how can there be BB if the universe never stops expanding?SpaceDweller

    There is a model, the pyrotechnic universe, in which our universe is a 3d brane in a 4d space, and there is another such 3d brane floating near. If the galaxies have accelerated away from each other, to infinity, the two virtual empty 3d spaces approach each other, which results in a new big bang. The two move away again and inflation is stopped, after the same happens again (expansion of stars and accelerating away after).

    See here: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pyrotechnic-Universe-Kallosh-Kofman/48c65d9dfd514d6fc92d9e52da8d28b913f4c49c

    I'm not in love with this model, based on string theory, in which I don't believe, but have a somewhat similar view. The two universes have to approach each other everywhere to an incredibly high precision. I like the negative tension part though and the embedding in a higher dimension. Could explain dark energy.
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    I'm not in love with this model, based on string theory, in which I don't believe,Verdi

    lol me neither, string theory and multiverse is a good story for kids before sleep.
  • Verdi
    116
    lol me neither, string theory and multiverse is a good story for kids before sleep.SpaceDweller

    :lol:

    Indeed. And also for me...
  • SpinOwOza
    2
    I have not read many of the comments here, so forgive me if someone said something similar to this effect. First, the idea of nothing in itself does not contradict the idea of a God. Note, I am not even specifying a particular religion, so whether this God is typical theism, Panentheism, or so on. This will come in handy later when we actually talk about what does a God mean.


    Next imagine you have two figures representing squares labeled α. And β. With a middle a square seperating the two, ρ. Let ρ. be the contained nothingness between the two objects. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson will point out you have just quantified nothingness, which is therefore not really a nothingness especially if it is taking up space. Therefore, for this problem, we must remove ρ. completely from the equation.

    This would plug the new equation as just α. directly across from β with no space between them. Now there really is NOTHING between them, but themselves. But then, does ρ. (Read: nothingness,) actually go? Because the nothingness itself is now effecting how α. and β. Interact with one another. And as such has properties in the way in which it effects one another. As much as α and β may exist seperately from each other without synthetic relation, they each have a synthetic relation with the nothingness present, i.e ρ.so while ρ is not demonstrated physically it is ultimately there, and ultimately creating a relationship between to two objects. This nothingness, which is colourless odorless touchless, and unobservable by its very absence of atoms is still a "thing" in as much as it is a "nothing." It is nothing in the sense of it being a lack of physicality, but it cannot be a nothingness in-itself as it is intellectually understood.

    This reminds me of a point Descartes brought up in which Descartes could understand the idea of certain impossible geometric figures but not visualise it. In the same sense, there is the experience of understanding what nothing is, yet without ever experiencing such a thing. Nothingness exists a priori.

    For what we might call "true nothingness" would appear to us to be an impossibility, for it's complete absence seems to defy all logic that I am aware of. Nothingness as described before is both non physical yet having a relationship with the physical world. This "nothingness" exists outside of human experience, but not outside of human thought. As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ρ still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical.

    Maybe this is bad Philosophy, but if you're interested in correcting me or engaging with me I'm happy to learn and change my stance. Or if this didn't make sense.
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    This nothingness, which is colourless odorless touchless, and unobservable by its very absence of atoms is still a "thing" in as much as it is a "nothing."SpinOwOza

    What you described is the same thing as:
    1 - 1 = 0
    

    Zero is not nothing, it's a number with no value!

    Zero represent "no count" or "no value" but it's still a number.
    One has value, it's count is 1 for each

    Problem is however, for zero to become anything else it must be added to something ex. 0 + 1 = 1
    however 0 + 0 = 0 is still zero, so nothing come out of nothing, there must be something to get any result.

    For what we might call "true nothingness" would appear to us to be an impossibilitySpinOwOza

    Indeed, that would be absence of number 0, true nothing.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    The religious thinkers . . . . . but don't question that since they've granted immunity to its prosecution by merely just declaring it to be supernatural and hyperphysical, and, to protect it even more add infinite scope to its MindPoeticUniverse
    It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? They are literally super-Science in that they go beyond the pragmatic & legal limits of the scientific method. But then, philosophers are not sworn to abide by the laws of Science.

    I would think that a practicing programming poet would feel a kinship with those who explore imaginative What-Ifs instead of just prosaic What-Is. Poetry is not subject to empirical testing, only to subjective meaning. Poetry is neither True nor False, but Fictional Facts that resonate with human feelings. My "religion", if you insist on calling it by that name, is to appreciate the poetry of Reality and Ideality. Philosophy is an onerous search for hidden truths, but Poetry reveals the truths that are right in front of us. Poetry doesn't have to prove anything to you ; it makes no claim to objectivity. :cool:


    As a moralist, Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood. He is of the view that philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea / truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion.

    Despite the clear dangers of poetry, Socrates regrets having to banish the poets. He feels the aesthetic sacrifice acutely, and says that he would be happy to allow them back into the city if anyone could present an argument in their defense.


    “That which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.” ― Albert Einstein


    What happened before the Big Bang? :
    Before the beginning
    https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html

    "According to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public was: what came before the Big Bang?"
    6098430.jpg
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ρ still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical.SpinOwOza
    Throughout history, and probably pre-history, humans have generally agreed that the notion of a Creator makes sense. What they argued about was specific attributes (human form?) & interests (chosen people) of that axiomatic deity. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of a meaningless godless world become imaginable. Ironically, in that case the rational designing deity is typically replaced with, not Nothing, but irrational random accidents & chaotic cosmic coincidences. Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there. :smile:
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)?Gnomon

    Yes, nonsense, and worse nonsense if they aren't referring to something physical.
  • Verdi
    116
    Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there. :smile:Gnomon

    I agree 100%! String theory even invented a string landscape with 10exp500 possible universes to be chosen from at random, which one day just must give rise to our universe. It (ST) merely places it's ignorance in a virtually infinite domain. Which only goes to show how infinitely stupid the theory is. Even if..., then from where that landscape made its entrance? In a sense that model looks like a model of God. On closer look... no! There must Indeed something out there. And the universe is proof.
  • Verdi
    116
    I like the way this question is posed: if a ToN can challenge God, instead of a ToE.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    Yes, nonsense, and worse nonsense if they aren't referring to something physical.PoeticUniverse
    True, but trivial. What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?

    Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke:

    MetaPhysics :
    The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

    Meta-Physics :
    4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    "Metaphysics, it turns out, is the science of essence." [not objects]

    Metaphysics : " It is an inquiry to the nature of the Reality as a whole." [not the parts]

    "Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality." [not proximate]
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    True, but trivial.Gnomon

    True, but true.

    What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?

    Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke:
    Gnomon

    No, my main categories are the human condition, science, and the universe. I don't post the non physical.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    No, my main categories are the human condition, science, and the universe. I don't post the non physical.PoeticUniverse
    Are Love & Hate included in the "human condition"? Can you show me a picture of such "physical" things? Are questions about the "human condition" limited to Quantitative physics & chemistry, or do they include the intangible Qualia that discriminate between "animal condition" or "vegetable condition" and "human condition"? Does your "universe" include "happiness" or "sorrowfulness", or "ugliness", or any of a zillion other mental states? Does your "Science" include Principles that are universals, not particulars? If so, what's physical about a Principle? :wink:

    Admittedly, some posters on this forum seem to imagine they are doing physics, when they take a Materialist or Naive Realist philosophical stance. But, that frame-of-Mind itself is still Meta-physical, unless you know of a physical instance of an Attitude. :joke:


    -ness. a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state
    Note -- are "abstractions" real & physical? Can they be found in Brains and dissected? Or, are they limited to abstract Minds, and analyzed rationally?

    Naive Realism :
    In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

    What's going on here, in physical terms? :
    1391948.0.jpg
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    human conditionGnomon

    All is physical. The Earth is physical and it physically gave rise to life and then a long physical time went by during which physical happenings went on… In the present day, life is higher and more diverse; so, life is purely physical in that all that progressed in between was physical. For example, consciousness is physical.

    In short, there was once no life on Earth and now there is.

    In the picture, Socrates is being given hemlock because he spoke too much nonsense about some invisible non physical goings on being so.
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms.Gnomon

    In other words, "God" (however you define it) is logically necessary but completely unknown?

    If yes, explanation of God forks into 2 possible parts:
    1. God is necessary but does not reveal or manifest it self.
    2. God exists and it reveals or manifests itself.

    Point 1 is critical because the question is: Why does God not reveal or manifest itself?
    Point 2 leads to religious revelations, that is specific religions we have today.

    For point 1, there are 2 possible explanations:
    A. God does not want or is unable to reveal\manifest itself.
    B. God existed but no longer exists.

    For point 2, there is only one logical path
    A. Logically only one religion (revelation) can be true and all other are necessary false.

    Do you have anything to add or to correct these propositions? and if not what would be your conclusion and why?
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    All is physical.PoeticUniverse
    Physicalism is indeed a fairly common philosophical position among Materialists. But Quantum & Information Theories have undermined the confident assumptions of that outdated Classical worldview. My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter. The "material" element of reality is what we see with our senses, but the "form" is only known via the sixth sense of Reason. Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms). Of course, the quantum foundation of Reality remains under the purview of Physics. But it is so close to nothing that quantum Information theory overlaps with the concerns of Philosophy. Like poets, quantum scientists use concrete metaphors to describe their indescribable abstractions. :nerd:

    Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

    Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

    Quantum Field :
    In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientist to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html

    Quantum Philosophy :
    https://theconversation.com/quantum-philosophy-4-ways-physics-will-challenge-your-reality-150175

    In the picture, Socrates is being given hemlock because he spoke too much nonsense about some invisible non physical goings on being so.PoeticUniverse
    Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death. :cool:

    Socrates spent his early years studying astronomy, geometry and other areas of sciences. ... Disappointed Socrates turned his attention to the study of the human character.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+and+socrates

    Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
    ___Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    "God" (however you define it) is logically necessary but completely unknown?SpaceDweller
    Yes. Like the Quarks of sub-atomic theory, the First Cause is logically necessary, but known only by rational inference. Some people claim to "know" God directly & personally via meditation or prayer or revelation. But that is a Gnostic form of "knowing" (by faith) instead of the usual knowing by physical experience. Personally, I don't find those alternative methods useful, but if it works for you, who am I to denigrate your subjective knowledge. :cool:

    Quarks :
    any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms).Gnomon

    They see the jets of the quarks. The virtual particles are but the non-quantum level excitations that can't be at a stable quantum rung of energy and so they collapse rather instantly. We make all sorts of devices based on QFT.

    The physical did it all on the physical Earth, forming life from none, unto the complexity of today’s life. It didn’t need any help from a ‘non-physical, and it couldn’t even receive any ‘non-physical’ input because it can’t entertain the ‘non-physical’, plus the ‘non-physical’ can’t speak the physical.

    This is also what doomed Decartes’ distinct mental and physical realms: they couldn’t exchange energy.

    The addition of a ‘non physical’ or 'intangible' only enlarges the question to produce a regress.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death.Gnomon

    Life and death are as physical as can be for the Earthly creatures.

    A scientific poem on the quantum 'vacuum' first cause physical example:

    On the One and Only Base Existence

    Prolog


    In this lost haunt on the Orion arm
    Of the galaxy, safe from the core’s harm,
    The philosophers meet in the forum,
    As sleuth-hounds unweaving the Cosmic yarn.

    We search for the Start of the Universe,
    The End, the Before, the After, the Kinds,
    The Measures, and All That Lies Between:
    The Music of the Spheres’ Magnificat.

    Reveal
    We follow every single avenue,
    Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
    Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,
    Until cornered where the Truth is hiding.

    Since we all became of this universe,
    Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
    Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
    The Theory of Everything shines through!

    We are ever in touch with the unknown,
    For that’s ever the reach of science shown.
    Reality is grasped by focusing
    On what interacts with what and the means.

    There is a realm of happenings, not things,
    For ‘things’ don’t remain the same on time’s wings.
    What remains through time are processes—
    Relations between different systems.

    An Eternal Basis has to be so,
    For a lack of anything cannot sow,
    Forcing there to be something permanent,
    As partless, from which the particles grow.

    Consider quantum fields of waves atop
    One another: waves are continuous,
    And so qualify as Fundamental;
    Quantized lumps are particles; they move.

    Note that there is no other absolute:
    Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
    Particle spigots making fields are mute;
    Classic fields have no fundamental loot.

    There’s a lightness to elemental being
    Since any more would have to be of parts,
    And thus go beyond the fundamental arts.
    The vacuum puffs of energy are small.

    On the Forced Defaults for the Only Existence

    There can only be the one Existence,
    Forced, with no option for it not to be,
    Which is no mystery because a ‘Nil’
    Cannot be, even as spacers within.

    There is neither ‘Full’ nor ‘Null’,
    But a lightness of being near ‘Zero’,
    As that’s what the universe amounts to,
    Nor ‘Nil’s kin as ‘Still’, since there’s constant change.

    This must-be partless Existence Eterne
    Can’t end, so it must remain as itself,
    Transmuting into multiplicity
    Of the temporary as ‘elementaries’.

    Since The Eterne has to be, of not ‘null’,
    ‘Supernatural Magic’ isn’t required;
    So, there’s only the natural as the base;
    One degree of freedom is its forced default.

    Motion is a must, or naught would happen;
    It can’t have parts, so it’s continuous;
    No end, it must e’er return to itself.
    There can’t be anything else but it.

    It is everywhere, with no gaps of ‘zilch’;
    It waves, as is ubiquitous in nature,
    Rearranging to the elementary
    Particles at stable rungs of quanta.

    Only quantum fields fit the criteria;
    Particles as spigots failed to flow,
    Newton’s ‘Space’ and ‘Time’ disappeared via
    Einstein’s relativity special and general.

    Quantum field points that must spring up and down
    Form the field’s waves by dragging on others.
    These sums of harmonic oscillations
    Force the fixed quanta energy levels.

    So the wave estimate proves to be right;
    An electron/photon goes through both slits
    Because it is a spread out field quantum.
    Quantum jumps cannot be wave fractionals.

    The universe is a large quantum field,
    For the 25 quantum fields interact,
    This containing the whole of physics.
    There’s no ‘God’s’ eye view; anything happens.

    The anything of the massive universe
    Is a lot of needed extravagant junk,
    For on Earth the right conditions obtained,
    Our planet being where and what it has to be.

    Cosmic and biological evolution were forced,
    Stars collecting the elementaries,
    Producing all the atomic elements
    That went on toward molecules, cells, and more.

    All this took 13.5 billion years,
    Since, again, there were no hoodoo shortcuts.
    Life and consciousness emerged, no ‘Mojo’—
    Since long ago on Earth they were not there!

    Our planet is very good at promoting life,
    But it is much better at extinguishing it.
    Of the billions upon billions of organic things,
    99.99% are no longer around here living.

    Of all extinctions, the Permian was the worst.
    245 million years ago, for 95% of species perished,
    Suddenly disappearing from the fossil recording.
    Life had almost come to a total obliterationing.

    “Hurray,” said the shrew; now I can evolve!

    ‘You’ were once a lucky shrew, darting all about,
    But then attached to a favorable evolutionary line…
    Every single one of your forbears on both sides
    Being attractive enough to locate a loving mate,
    And they fortunately had the good health to celebrate!

    Our blind-fated path was the further paved
    When disasters finished most of the species.
    Far from a feature of Intelligent Design,
    It opened up the space that was needed.

    The Downfall of ‘Beyond’ and ‘Extra’
    ‘Magic’ has fallen by the wayside, it
    As trancendence an intangible writ,
    Unable to be distinct from matter,
    Having to talk/walk the talk/walk of it.

    An extra distinct realm isn’t needed,
    As ‘intangible’, ‘ineffable’, etc.,
    For it only begs the question—regress!—
    And as separate couldn’t have effect.

    The ‘immaterial’ and ‘nonphysical’
    Haven’t shown anything at all to date,
    Plus, all the more they’d have to be explained;
    The ‘supernatural’ claim has to fail.

    Five billion years ago there was no life
    Or consciousness, and now they are both here,
    Thus, they emerged, evolving during that time;
    So, there’s no need for any ‘hyperphysical’.

    Where’s the esoteric among atoms?
    What inside their doings would be else wise?
    Do molecules swirl into spooky states?
    What their secret patterns hidden away?

    The light atomic elements were prime,
    And the stars made more, on up through iron,
    And the rest were from collisions/novae;
    So, what unknown secrets would they contain?

    The ‘God’ idea has fallen from its throne;
    Forever quantum fields’ excitations’
    Elementary quanta roll on the fields
    That are everywhere and remain intact.

    Epilog

    The quantum fields’ unity is the Whole,
    Being ever, exhausting Reality,
    Unbreakable and Unmakeable,
    As partless and continuous monads.

    All that emerges is still the fields at heart,
    Though secondary and temporary,
    Arising and at some time returning;
    The quantum fields are indivisible.

    Quantum fields are the fundamental strokes
    Whose excitations at harmonics cloak
    The quanta with the stability
    To persist and thus obtain mobility.

    The elementary particles beget,
    As letters of the Cosmic alphabet,
    And combine in words to write the story
    Of the stars, atoms, cells, and life’s glory.

    Why Something?

    Quantum states melt via uncertainty,
    And this means that no quantum property
    Can e’er be zero—a precise amount,
    And so it is that motion can ne’er cease.

    The Something

    The quantum field is the bridge between ‘Nil’
    And basic matter, and can ne’er be still;
    Thus the ‘vacuum’ is the quietest field—
    The closest approach to ‘Nothing’ that can be.

    No ‘Null’ nor Matter Full

    ‘Nothing’ had no chance to be the hero,
    Plus QM scrubs the idea of zero
    Out of the physical world of being;
    ‘Vacuum’ ne’er sleeps, but’s e’er up to something.

    A Mere Blip

    But for the small quantum uncertainty,
    The Cosmos sums to naught, its lunch being free:
    No net electric charge; a weightless brick;
    Minus-potential = plus-kinetic.

    The Impossibles

    Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!
    Such as Nought, Stillness, and the Block’s decree,
    As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
    The Unfixed Will, Blame, Fame, and Theity.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    So, 'Nothing' does not challenge 'God', but the necessity of a single, simple base physical substance does, in that it required no creation.

    My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter.Gnomon

    This physical information, to speak of it in a holistic way that you might like, can operate without a programmer and her problematic regress…

    The Great 'IS' that is the monistic One would already have all possible realities of universes in it in a superposition, as it being Everything since what has no beginning can't have a direction inputted to it.

    This is as a multi-verse, which also be deduced by another way: If their is a Fundamental One from which our universe came forth, the One ever remains and so it could just as well make another universe. Alternately, if one wants the universe to have been a spontaneous event, then more universes could become the same way. The ‘spontaneous’ can also be regarded as a capability that is the One.

    Anyway, the One is as complete in its information in the same way that a Library of Babel would be in having all possible books. The overall information content is zero, but there is still all the information that could ever be.

    Of course, in any universe that creates thinking life, such as in ours, the thinkers would wonder how such an apparently fine-tuned marvel could have happened.

    The next philosophy to all this would be to explain which of all the possible universes get realized and actualized, and how, unless they all do.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    This is also what doomed Decartes’ distinct mental and physical realms: they couldn’t exchange energy.
    The addition of a ‘non physical’ or 'intangible' only enlarges the question to produce a regress.
    PoeticUniverse
    As usual, your material-mind arguments are reasonable . . . from the classical Physicalism perspective. Through that ground-glass lens, only the physical senses make sense. And that's probably how non-rational animals see their world. Fortunately for reasonable people, theoretical Philosophy, unlike empirical Science, is not limited to the 5 senses (perception) for information (useful knowledge) about the world. Instead, it enlarges the scope of investigation by using the sixth sense of Rational Inference (conception). Only a rational mind can deal with the non-physical mysteries of existence, such as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. Physicalists can't see Consciousness, because they are looking through the transparent lens of Sentience.

    By that meta-physical means, we now know how Mental (Information) and Physical (Matter) can exchange energy. And I'm not talking about reductive Shannon Information (digital bits), but holistic Conscious Information (holistic semantic meaning). From that angle, the Mental & Physical realms are distinct philosophical categories, while empirical Science has no category for the Mental aspects of the world. But if Information is indeed fundamental, as some physicists now infer, then Matter & Energy can be reduced to a single universal (monistic) substance : Information -- the power to transform. Pace Descartes *1.

    Thus, the modern scope of Quantum & Information physics has been enlarged to encompass both the Mental (non-physical) and Material (physical) aspects of the real world. And to eliminate the need for an infinite regress of physical worlds, to explain how our cosmic domain could be born from an "undefined", hence non-physical, mathematical point of Potential. Pace PU. :nerd:

    Property dualism :
    It asserts that while mental states are physical in that they are caused by physical states, they are not ontologically reducible to physical states.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

    Physics + Math = Is Information Fundamental? :
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

    The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
    https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

    Energy is meta-physical Potential :
    Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    Information transmission without energy exchange :
    We show that it is possible to use a massless field in the vacuum to communicate in such a way that the signal travels arbitrarily slower than the speed of light and such that no energy is transmitted from the sender to the receiver. Instead, the receiver has to supply a signal-dependent amount of work to switch his detector on and off. Because of that, this kind of communication without energy exchange may be called "Quantum Collect Calling".
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3988

    In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined . . . . lacking differentiability or analyticity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

    *1 Pace is Latin for “in peace,” and in footnotes it means something like “no offense intended” toward a person or source that you are contradicting.

    can-fish-see-water.jpg
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    So, 'Nothing' does not challenge 'God', but the necessity of a single, simple base physical substance does, in that it required no creation.PoeticUniverse
    Yes. From your Physicalist perspective, "God" is No-Thing. But in my Enformationism view, G*D is Every-Thing, and is necessarily self-existent. Even a tower-of-turtles multiverse would have to be self-created in order to lay the foundation for the tower *1. :smile:

    This physical information, to speak of it in a holistic way that you might like, can operate without a programmer and her problematic regressPoeticUniverse
    Yes. But in my thesis G*D is both Programmer and Program, both Creator and Creation, both Sculptor and Marble. This is the holistic worldview of PanEnDeism (all in god). And it's only reasonable if ALL is omni-potential Information -- both the power-to-enform and the substance enformed ; both Mind and Matter. Similar to Spinoza's "universal substance", except updated to allow for a Big Bang beginning. :halo:

    Panendeism holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time,
    https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Panendeism

    The Great 'IS' that is the monistic One would already have all possible realities of universes in it in a superposition, as it being Everything since what has no beginning can't have a direction inputted to it.
    This is as a multi-verse,
    PoeticUniverse
    Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition. In Quantum Physics that trigger is a measurement (technically, the decision of what to measure). No-Thing could not make such a fateful choice, but Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds. And that essential "something" is what I call "Teleological Intention" (purpose ; design). Unfortunately, we time-bound creatures don't know the intended End of evolution. So, the term Eutaxiological may be more appropriate than "Teleological". Like the hero in the movie Tron, we don't know how the game will end, but we are motivated to win, i.e. to survive long enough to have an impact on the outcome. :sweat:

    Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
    Note -- Superposition of a world-creating system can be in all possible states (infinity) and all possible times (eternity) until a non-random intention is chosen. How? In Infinity/Eternity all things are possible. :brow:

    Teleological :
    Purpose-driven evolution, as opposed to Eutaxiological, meaning simply that evolution must have had a First Cause, even if the Final Cause (purpose) is unknown.
    http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page12.html

    Of course, in any universe that creates thinking life, such as in ours, the thinkers would wonder how such an apparently fine-tuned marvel could have happened.PoeticUniverse
    Yes. And here's how that could have happened. :nerd:

    The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
    “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”.
    http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

    *1 Tower of Turtles -- an infinite regress of causation
    turtles.jpg
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds.Gnomon

    You have recognized the multiverse. That accords well.

    Enfernity" : similar to Einstein's "Block-Time" or "Space-Time", but in a holistic sense, timeless & spaceless.Gnomon

    You have recognized the block multiverse. That is the answer! Accords well with timeless eternalism.

    Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition.Gnomon

    The superposition collapse problem is no longer needed for this direction of analysis, for it's more of a presentism notion for real time passing when measuring where a particle probably is.

    Thus, all possible universes are real in the block multiverse, as timeless and all done, finished, most of them not having life or being outright flops. 'Everything' is a big spender overall, as well as in our universe of so much stuff!
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    You have recognized the multiverse. That accords well. . . .
    You have recognized the block multiverse. That is the answer! Accords well with timeless eternalism.
    PoeticUniverse
    Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser.

    Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS.

    That's why I interpret "Block Time" in terms of Aristotelian Potential, the notion of infinite possibility, which requires a trigger (First Cause) to actualize. Potential is not Real, but merely Ideal, until an intentional directional choice causes something specific to actualize. This is not magic, but similar to a physical phase change, such as liquid water to solid ice. The potential for solidity was always there in H2O, but an external trigger causes the change from Possible to Actual. Besides, as you pointed out : "Thus, all possible universes are real in the block multiverse, as timeless and all done, finished, most of them not having life or being outright flops".

    The Materialism, Reductionism, Physicalism worldview leaves no role for Philosophy. In which case, this forum is a monumental waste of time, since we typically discuss things that are not things, but possibilities ; not actual or physical, hence unverifiable --- only arguable. Terence Green, in Philosophy Now, regarding A.J. Ayer and Logical Positivism says : "this is philosophy as a barren wasteland --- stripped of all that philosophy had . . . . traditionally been concerned with : why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?". Logical Positivism has no answer for such illogical questions. Logic is about mechanical formal processes, but human Reason is about meaningful Forms (potential desiderata). Again, Green says about scientific Logical Positivism, "it can't deal with statements such as 'God exists'.". :nerd:


    Desiderata : something that is needed or wanted. but does not yet exist.

    Inert Potential : the voltage of an electric battery is simply a promise of future current. The promise is only fulfilled after some outside force completes the circuit, allowing useful current to flow. Eternal Ideal Potential likewise requires a Cause (intentional choice) to allow it to actualize into reality.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser.Gnomon

    How come you are always referencing turtles when the buck clearly stops at my One as the base?

    This Self-Existent, as the overall quantum field as the quantum vacuum, for example, doesn't go away as it rearranges into the elementaries.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS.Gnomon

    The Block Universe is a picture of change, but anyway, back to the presentism-like cause and effect mentioned: Potential Everything would then still come about linearly in a dynamical real physical way.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?Gnomon

bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.