An interesting idea but would such not mean that the cosmological principle was not true a.k.a a homogenous and isotropic universe would be untrue? — universeness
I don't think so - that it's not the basis, at least - but tbh, there are so many different multiverse formulations that this is probably true for some of them. The breadth of those theories is probably something that you know more of than me, since my experience, if more technical, is much more focussed.Is the idea of different laws of physics applying to different regions not part of the basis of the many world theory and the 'bubble' universe as a label for 'conceptually' different universes in a multi-verse or different 'regions' in an alternate use of a label such as 'Cosmos?' — universeness
I am not sure if you only recently edited your comment to say this, or I only just noticed it, but I was very happy to see it.(IMO Zeno should be dead and buried) — jgill
I second that emotion! Especially when we all know that you can get from point A to point B, despite Zeno's rather boring thought experiment. All Zeno did, was the very trivial finding that the concept of infinity is problematic. No shit Sherlock!(IMO Zeno should be dead and buried) — jgill
Wife & I are still registered Democrats. You might be surprised at where we would agree on politics. For example, I have always felt there should be free education all the way to professional degrees and PhDs, and there should be free health care for all. I firmly support Medicare and Social Security, along with defined benefit retirement plans. — jgill
That's some good and wide common ground we are on sir! I would be proud to stand firm beside you in any fight on any of those issues. — universeness
and is probably a bit more to the left of both of yours in terms of the other policies I support. — Jaded Scholar
I feel like he kind of owes me one anyway since I was obligated to buy his astrophysics textbook twice because Pluto's demotion happened during my undergraduate degree. — Jaded Scholar
But I will read up on it more thoroughly and get back to you. — Jaded Scholar
However, I am going to stick to my other stated principles and am now going to do my best to ignore you until after I have time to fully reply to universeness and jgill, because they seem, like me, to be primarily motivated by the desire to learn, instead of your objective of, like, pwning noobs or whatever it is. — Jaded Scholar
The first multiverse theories (namely, Everett's) were founded wholly on the goal of finding some interpretation of quantum uncertainty that did not result in genuine randomness being a feature of nature. I. E. Reinterpreting quantum randomness not as randomness in the outcomes of physical laws, but in seemingly-randomised measurements actually giving every possible result by bifurcating our universe at every such measurement point, and the true randomness being just in which one of those universes we "observers" happen to be in. — Jaded Scholar
Especially when we all know that you can get from point A to point B, despite Zeno's rather boring thought experiment. All Zeno did, was the very trivial finding that the concept of infinity is problematic. No shit Sherlock! — universeness
Good idea! Time for you to read a bit ,instead of spouting your mouth off in ignorance. Regardless of whether you hold the degree you claim, it's never a good idea to make assertive claims of certainty about that which you know not. Like I've pointed out, this attitude of conceit has already led you to "change your tune" significantly, concerning the problem which mathematicians have and have not resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yet another example of the absolute BS you offer. There is no infinite rate of acceleration. When I move from A to B I do not need to infinity accelerate to get there, or else I would never get from my seat to the toilet! As I am incapable of infinite acceleration, so stop positing absolute piffle!!!!!This is what creates the need for an infinite rate of acceleration at the moment when an object changes from being at rest to being in motion, which I referred to. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's only misleading in YOUR imagination sir! I don't need to model that which I can DEMONSTRATE!!!!I would not be so adamant with such a misleading statement universeness. Of course, it appears to be an obvious truth, "we all know that you can get from point A to point B. However, we cannot truthfully model this procedure, getting from being at one point to being at another point, mathematically. That's exactly what makes Zeno's paradoxes so compelling, the mathematics cannot represent what appears to be so obvious to us. — Metaphysician Undercover
I create purpose and I create meaning so I can assign point A and point B.Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover
Again, all you do is point out what science does not know for sure yet, and you imagine that in some way, that means you know what you are talking about. — universeness
Yet another example of the absolute BS you offer. There is no infinite rate of acceleration. When I move from A to B I do not need to infinity accelerate to get there, or else I would never get from my seat to the toilet! As I am incapable of infinite acceleration, so stop positing absolute piffle!!!!! — universeness
I create purpose and I create meaning so I can assign point A and point B. — universeness
Hey, you did some research! — Jaded Scholar
He just points at ever reducing gaps and exclaims 'look! everyone! look, look look! gap there, gap there, gap there! — universeness
This, unfortunately, puts me somewhat in MU's camp: we don't truly understand either time or space. — jgill
Sure, if it's pointed out by those who are working hard to close/narrow such gaps, but not when it comes from the 'na na na na na,' crowd of noodnik thinkers who do nothing to help and everything they can to hinder because they are so envious of the real experts that they utterly failed to become.Most people appreciate having the gaps in their thought pointed out to them, that's a sign of healthy intellectualism, and the route to self-improvement. — Metaphysician Undercover
What significant academic quals do you hold MU and what field of expertise do you have that others may benefit from? — universeness
This is where the uncertainty principle steps in. Instead of pursuing infinite accuracy in either frequency or time, we can harness the uncertainty principle, allowing us to gain insights into both quantities at a reduced resolution, all the while maintaining balance. — https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953
I don't brag about owning titles. — Metaphysician Undercover
What field of expertise can you offer service in which is worth anyone paying for?If I was charging you a fee for my work I would show you credentials so that you'd feel confident in paying me. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you do realise then that I already rejected your so called 'work,' ages ago. You are now just trying to special plead that I consider it more fully on threat of you thinking that I am prejudiced against you and i have not critically analysed your viewpoints to YOUR satisfaction. Perhaps you now know what I meant when I suggested that you were a bit of a deluded diva.I offer you my work on a take it or leave it basis, the choice is yours. You'll have to judge my work for yourself however, or else you just demonstrate prejudice, and this judgement requires critical analysis which you are showing a lack of in your rejection. — Metaphysician Undercover
:lol: This from the guy who does not engage in ad hominem.Here, I'll explain in simple terms for simple minds. — Metaphysician Undercover
Zeno's arrow paradox shows that there is an incompatibility between occupying a space (having a location), and being in motion. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its common representation, says that the more accurately a particle's position (location) is known, the less accurately its momentum (a property inherent to its motion) can be known, and vise versa. Do you see the resemblance between these two? — Metaphysician Undercover
It is clearly not the case that the mathematicians have resolved Zeno's arrow paradox. They have produced a workaround which is adequate for many applications, but the consequence of this workaround is the uncertainty principle. The very problem which Zeno pointed out more than 2000 years ago persists today as the uncertainty principle. — Metaphysician Undercover
and we should accept that in mathematical terms, the distance between A and B cannot be traversed unless 'infinite acceleration' is a real thing? — universeness
But the space itself is expanding within any duration of time. Is it more accurate to say that every 4D coordinate is moving away from its adjacent points during every time duration or that 'new' 4D spacetime coordinates are being formed in Minkowski spacetime, within any instant of time duration? So what is 'no movement in space,' really referring to. I will understand If I am making some physics or maths 101 errors here. I appreciate your tolerance, if that is the case and I hope I am not causing you too much exasperation.But, in Minkowski spacetime it seems progression in the time variable requires no movement in space. — jgill
What is laughable, is that you really do think you are making a really important statement here!
Any uncertainty principle shows a current problem that we have no current solution to Sherlock. It does not mean that science is absolutely incapable of ever finding a work around or a direct solution to such issues. You make mundane points that most on TPF are already very familiar with and you think you are being deep and profound. — universeness
We have progressed from Zeno to Heisenberg. Do you really think our scientific findings will end there? — universeness
But the space itself is expanding within any duration of time — universeness
My understanding is that two objects move further apart with time; space itself (whatever it is) doesn't change. — jgill
My opinion remains that he shot you down in flames, and you have been trying to pick up little trivial pieces since. — universeness
Remember, JS's tune has been changing ever since we first engaged. First JS said, "Whatever the gaps are, they are not what you described - if we could label them, we could have fixed them by now". But then what was said was: "I challenge you to point out one such problem that has been labelled, and is not something that modern mathematicians want solved...". Obviously there is a big difference between 'if they were labeled they'd be fixed', and 'if they are labeled mathematicians want to fix them'. — Metaphysician Undercover
:rofl: I have bolded some of the utter piffle from the quote above, as an example of the type of nonsense shiny you hold up!To begin with, we can ask whether it's really true to say that one is at point A, or at point B. And then we see that this is just an over simplification, an approximation. The physical principles of relativity are premised on the proposition that we cannot know anything to be at any specific point. Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover
You have already agreed that the point you made about 'uncertainty' in science is trivial, and it also may be simply down to the currently available tech, methodology or understanding needed to completely solve most or all levels/manifestations of uncertainty. — universeness
Despite this, you continue to way overblow the significance of such points and you also hold up esoteric style shinies to distract from your unimportant points, such as: — universeness
I have bolded some of the utter piffle from the quote above, as an example of the type of nonsense shiny you hold up! — universeness
My understanding is that two objects move further apart with time; space itself (whatever it is) doesn't change. — jgill
However, I don't think it is proper to call this "motion" because the activity known as spatial expansion is not consistent with our conceptions of "motion", and the physical laws which describe "motion". — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, space does expand. The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time¹. This is an intrinsic expansion; the universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it¹.
. . .
However, it's important to note that this is not a generally covariant description but rather only a choice of coordinates. It is equally valid to adopt a description in which space does not expand and objects simply move apart while under the influence of their mutual gravity¹. Although cosmic expansion is often framed as a consequence of general relativity, it is also predicted by Newtonian gravity¹.
but denying that a trivial problem is a real problem, turns a trivial problem into something substantial — Metaphysician Undercover
So, while Zeno's paradoxes, including the arrow paradox, are not considered unsolved problems in mathematics or physics, they do continue to inspire ongoing philosophical discussions¹³.
The degree of triviality of the problem is irrelevant. That the problem is very real is all that matters. — Metaphysician Undercover
No science field or scientist (worthy of the label,) would ever, ever, ever do this. To do so would be anti-science. Unlike theists, scientists are 'real' truth seekers who MUST have no 100% 'loyalty' to ANY scientific /theory/principle or law. Again, you are making totally false claims.That is because we are inclined to forego the search for truth because the stand-in is already accepted as the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm still waiting for your rebuttal, to demonstrate why you think my statement is "nonsense". Clearly, nothing is ever really at point A or point B, according to the principles employed in modern physics. Obviously it's your talk about moving from point A to point B which is nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover
is therefore piffle and nonsense.Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.