1)The universe cannot be perpetually reducible. — AlienFromEarth
2) of course, if the universe is perpetually reducible, there is no smallest particle.
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.
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
4)This fundamental level of existence must therefore have some kind of shape. — AlienFromEarth
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
Why not multiple kinds of shapes? Why must there be one fundamental building block instead of multiple ones equally fundamental? — Ø implies everything
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
4)This fundamental level of existence must therefore have some kind of shape. — 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).The universe must have some kind of fundamental level of existence. In other words, it can't be reduced beyond a certain point. — AlienFromEarth
I believe the most fundamental level of existence is time. — punos
More over, the reason quantum fluctuations occur is because of time. — punos
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
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
Nothingness would exclude the existence of time too and with it quantum flux. — simplyG
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 you had an eternal unchanging object time would not be necessary as no actual change is happening. — simplyG
Why does anything move or change? — punos
Why do you think absolute zero is an impossible temperature? — punos
Things move because they’re set in motion by something else which is in turn set in motion by something else etc. — simplyG
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
Change happens because atoms decay they lose energy not because of time. — simplyG
Plants don’t wither because time they wither because they’re deprived of nutrients during seasonal changes etc. — simplyG
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
What sets the first thing in motion? — punos
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
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
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
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
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
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. — 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
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
Yet you have failed to distinguish the difference between these two orders of time 0th & 1. — simplyG
That’s impossible, how do you get something out of nothing? Explain please. — simplyG
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.