I still don’t see what you’re trying to prove — simplyG

I'm not trying to prove anything, i'm simply trying to answer the deepest question any philosopher has ever asked; why is there something rather than nothing? I am investigating viable avenues and ideas that can shed light and provide a satisfactory explanation or answer to the question. I believe i have identified a gap in our working knowledge and it has to do with the source of change, and movement. It is as if we were trying to describe and understand the concept of trains without knowing anything about the train tracks. Without the train tracks that literally enables the train to move we will never reach a reasonable understanding of what a train is.

Nothing gives you nothing so I don’t see how your universe could start with nothing. — simplyG

The reason we start with absolute nothing is so that we can build up the universe piece by piece. When you write on a piece of paper do you turn to a full page and start writing on top of previously written material? No you don't.

You are right that nothing by itself will yield nothing, but that's why i'm asking what else is needed without prior contingency; the most bare bones version of a viable universe capable of evolving into one like ours universe today. So we need the basic components. We start with a blank slate, and ask what do we need to have in order to make the next stage of evolution of this universe take place.

Zero by itself can't do anything, it needs something to change its state to a 1. So what can do something like that? Perhaps the field of math and logic could give us a clue?

Matter or energy ? — simplyG

Ok, let's add energy into this universe. What is the main characteristic of energy? is it a substance? is it an activity of some sort? Can it be created or destroyed? Does it change itself or does it need something else to change it?

I have no idea…let me guess…time ? — simplyG

You guessed right. Now what else do we need besides time?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

If we take as our standard the average human intelligence measured by some sort of comprehensive IQ test, then one can define a super-intelligence as intelligence that surpasses human intelligence to a significantly high degree beyond human capacity. A thorough high quality intelligence that is not lazy, does not skip or overlook relevant data, has near unlimited memory, recall, and processing speed.

I believe there is a difference between the quality of intelligence and the speed of intelligence, in that a regular human intelligence sped up by a factor of say 1000 would appear to us to be super-intelligent, but it would simply be accelerated human intelligence (still super but not qualitatively). A super high quality intelligence on the other hand would probably be able to match or even surpass accelerated human intelligence without the need for speed.

I think that's what most people mean by super-intelligence; it's what i kind of mean when i use the term anyway, and it's probably less ambiguous to state it as "superhuman-intelligence" instead of just "super-intelligence".

It's simple, if God is Truth, then anything of God is true. — Isaiasb

That's great once you know it's God but again how do you verify it's God? Which scriptures are acceptable to use for verification, and how do you verify that those scriptures are indeed from God? Is the Quran considered acceptable scripture for this purpose, or the Vedas, etc..? What about the Holy Ghost? How does the Holy Ghost help in determining this "truth"? what is the method? How do you verify that it is indeed the Holy Ghost?

How can one verify that the "truth" given by God is in fact true? Before answering that question; how does one verify that the entity providing this "truth" is in fact God?

Consider turning on captions.

Somebody else take a look and see if they think I'm right. — T Clark

Yes, you are correct. The image used in the experiment is arbitrary, they could have used Mickey Mouse or any other image. I think a Lambda symbol was used in a prior version of the experiment.

This video came up in my YouTube feed a few days ago:

When an object is touched, it does not mean that it occupies the same space as the other object. If that were the case, touching would be impossible. If two objects occupy the same space, they would interpenetrate and pass through each other with no interaction (no touch), like a ghost through a wall. No two objects can occupy the same space. However, waves are an exception to this rule as they can pass through each other and can be said to occupy the same space.

In a society where governments try to control information, the probability of information being true may be lower than in a society with more transparency. It is better to assign probabilities of truth instead of settling on a belief. To critically evaluate the information received using Bayesian logic, one should consider the prior probability of the information being true, update it based on new evidence, and assign probabilities of truth based on the credibility of the sources.

For example, if a news outlet has a history of accurate reporting, you may assign a higher probability to the information they provide. On the other hand, if a source has a history of spreading misinformation or propaganda, you may assign a lower probability to the information they provide. Additionally, you can seek out multiple sources of information and compare them to see if they agree or disagree on a particular topic. This can help you identify biases or inconsistencies in the information you receive. Finally, you can also consider your own biases and beliefs, and how they may influence your interpretation of the information.

This approach is more flexible and open-minded than settling on a belief, which can be resistant to change even in the face of new evidence. Assigning probabilities of truth allows you to acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in many situations, and to make decisions based on the best available evidence. It is a more rational and adaptive approach to navigating the information field in a complex and ever-changing world than simply settling on a belief.

Being: An agent. A complex existent integrated enough to have acquired a concept of identity, self, and other. An entity capable of complex behavior in relation to its environment. The essence of being alive without necessarily being organic.

Awareness: The function of relating information to the sense of self, selective in nature according to internal motivations primed by prior experiences.

Consciousness: The working together in an integrated way of various regions of a brain and nervous system (or neural network) to bring about a coherent informational representation or internal dynamic simulation of both internal body states and external world states in the "global workspace", evolutionarily tuned for survival. (Integrated Information Theory, and Global Workspace Theory)

Thinking: The different neural patterns or modalities that can arise in the brain that are adapted for specific types of information processing (conscious and unconscious).

Time: The most fundamental aspect of the universe. The "thing" that allows or permits change to happen in the universe. It is not just the measurement of change or duration. Time and energy are one and the same. Without time no event could ever have happened, or would ever happen.

Sensation: The specific type of low level information representation derived from different sensory apparatus presented to the "global workspace" where consciousness resides. They take the form of various qualia in the context of a conscious mind.

Perception: The filtering and selective result of raw sensation deemed salient by the conscious and unconscious parts of the brain.

Mind: All the emergent properties of sufficiently complex neural networks or brains that exists in a latent space above and in between the information processing of the network nodes. The part that is more than the sum of its parts.

Body: From the perspective of the mind, the body is its supporting structure and infrastructure; the hardware to its software.

Good: That which confers advantage to an agent.

Happiness: The result of what is good and advantageous, a reduction in the tension and stress of the mind and body especially in relation to frustration. "Don't worry be happy."

Justice: A cultural adaptation aimed at mitigating acts of revenge in a sufficiently complex society. The attempt to resolve feelings of unfairness and injustice in the population in order to foster sufficient trust in the society so that cooperation is possible and/or more efficient/effective.

Truth: Anything that is possible or permitted by the laws of physics or the universe, either in actuality or as potentiality.

Why would a proton be affected by other particles in a 5 light seconds radius? Surely, the zone of being affected would be mere millimetres or even less? — Truth Seeker

Yes, but one must also consider ones time horizon.

The general heuristic that i usually try to apply is to first identify the possibilities in a specific situation and then determine the probabilities associated with each possibility. This approach aims to consider all the factors that can converge on an event.

For instance, when considering the behavior of the aforementioned proton, it is known that light can interact with the proton and alter its quantum state. Given that light travels at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second, it is necessary to take into account all potential interactions within the specified time horizon, such as the next 5 seconds. Within this time frame, a photon that is 1,498,962,290 meters (5 light-seconds) away can potentially interact with the proton 5 seconds later. If the time horizon were extended to the next 10 seconds, then the sphere of influence would expand to a radius of 2,997,924,580 meters (10 light-seconds). However, not every particle within this area would affect the proton. Only those particles on a trajectory towards the proton would have a probability of interaction, with the likelihood increasing as the particles get closer to the proton. Other factors also come into play such as the specific type and nature of the particles. Beyond the termination boundary (surface of the sphere of influence), the probability of interaction drops to 0% for any particle outside the sphere of influence.

Current technological capabilities are limited in dealing with the combinatorial explosion that arises from such calculations. However, technologies like quantum computers and artificial neural networks, which naturally handle probability calculations, could potentially address this challenge for us.

The example i used of the proton simplifies the concept only a little bit. Higher realms of complexity, such as biological, psychological, sociological systems, are much more highly integrated and therefore much more challenging to analyze. However, with the right tools and approaches, it should not be impossible to tackle these complexities.

Approaching 100% certainty in ones predictions or assertions is as difficult as approaching infinity itself.

All one can know is what one perceives, and what one perceives is real at some level in one way or another. Real is anything that has effects in the world and it does not need to be exclusively objective or subjective. Ideas and even fantasies can be as effective in the world as anything else, and thus at a minimum have some measure of reality. The general theory of reflexivity by George Soros i believe illustrates this point well enough.

Certainty is a subjective term that is only applicable from the point of view of an observer with a question. However, the universe is 100% certain in what it will do, which is known as determinism ("the will of the universe"). From an observer perspective, probabilities or certainties fluctuate between 1% and 99%, and are determined by one's level of knowledge about the system in question. All variables that can impinge on the system must be accounted for, and the more complete one's information about the system, the higher the accuracy of one's predictions and thus one's level of certainty. Once an event of interest has passed, it is assigned 100% certainty or 0% if it did not happen.

If one were to calculate for instance what a proton will do in the next 5 seconds, one would need to include every particle state within 5 light seconds from the proton in their calculation. These other particles would all be components of the system that is the proton (everything within 5 light seconds = 1.5 million kilometers radius) that can have an effect on the proton within those 5 seconds. There is no need to calculate the state of the entire universe, but it's still not a thing humans can do yet.

Imperfect information yields imperfect probability projections and low certainty values.

Truth is a word that comes straight from the heart of logic. Truth is the result of a logical operation and symbolically represents the realized condition of a thing, event, or concept; tantamount to saying 100% probability. Truth is arrived at through reason (ratio, part, fraction), and comparison of those parts, and is the essence of logic. To speak of truth without resorting to logic is false.

Humans are notoriously bad at processing logic correctly, we are ill equipped due to our present evolutionary larval state as a species. Digital computational systems will be more efficient and effective at this task, and that is where our future with truth lies. Until then human truth will be in a state of controlled confusion.

See the implications of thinking of PU as digital in its structure ? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, and i do have a way of explaining it (theory under construction), but people don't like to discuss it since it involves something coming from nothing. So i regrettably decline to give my explanation in public. I yield my time Sir.

I had an experience in my younger years when i experimented with all kinds of drugs that made me forget an entire day, and didn't even know it. Briefly, i had drank a 22 oz of beer with a bar or two of xanax and then i had some more beer. I hung out with my friends went to an arcade, played pool and won, met new people, went to IHOP.. it was a busy night. The next day when i see my friend whom i thought i had not seen in at least a week told me what had transpired the night before. He was there the whole time with me and i could not remember him at all, it was funny but concerning. I could not believe i couldn't remember any of yesterday at all, it was as if it was the universe that forgot me.. so strange.

Thinking about it later, felt so strange to not have existed the day before. I don't really know the words to describe the feeling but i'm glad i had it. I believe it's informed my perspective on myself and consciousness, existence, and time.

There may be a way to reconcile the two concepts of analogue and digital in nature at a fundamental level. For me as i currently think about it; a true analogue form would be informationless, it would simply have one bit, 1 datum. The fundamental structure of space is digital and the energy which can be considered as analogue can travel and differentiate itself in the Planck field in effect producing emergent information structures. The energy travels in packets due to certain thresholds in the Planck field.


The nerve signaling mechanism in the brain and nervous system is a digital one where action potential spikes carry and process information. This is why it appears that our perceptions may be of a digital quality, but i don't think that proves that nature itself is purely analogue, for me it's the contrary.

I find it very interesting that you an i have many similar ways of think about this, and yet seem to fundamentally disagree. So interesting.

Just adding my two cents to the pot. :smile:

Physical nature is analogue — Gnomon

If nature is analogue at the fundamental level then what causes 'difference'?. How does analogue acquire structure? Atoms are a form of digital organization, all matter is. Quanta come in discrete packets, why not something in between like one would assume if it were analogue?

Good luck! Your quest is perennial and honourable. — universeness

Thank You and good luck to you as well. May your journey take you home.

A digital system can appear from a distance as analog, but analog never appears digital at any scale. The nature of reality appears to me to be digital. Like @180 Proof mentioned, The Planck volume is no different than a pixel (voxel) on a screen, and it's quanta determines if that pixel or voxel is on or off.

I think wheel theory can help turn the wheels a little in the light of what i'm trying to say, as well as modular arithmetic with an equivalence set of 0 and 1. The video helps illustrate what i mean by the infinity of zero, and how it is the potential for everything that can be.

Division by Zero:


The concept of the unitary logical NOT operator i've been harping about is present in wheel theory as an involution function.

Absolutely! If it can do as you suggest and any new 'understanding,' is testable and falsifiable. — universeness

When we test and verify we are using logic, we can't test or verify anything without it. This means that what logic suggests is that physical reality is based on logic (and number). It may sound a bit circular but it's what i would expect at the end of the road; a maximally simple (minimally complex) self interacting creative system.

o me, you 'blur the lines,' between the terms 'simulation,' 'emulation,' and 'reality.' — universeness

Yes, i am obliterating that distinction. There is essentially no difference in the context of a computational system like our universe, based on the fundamental of information and its processing (physics = computation).

This would also suggest that there exists a reference frame 'outside' of our universe which views this universe as a simulation. This let's god posits in again imo. — universeness

The reference is purely hypothetical for the purpose of seeing the big picture perspective. This model or theory i'm expounding on can actually destroy any possible notion of the god posit. It will show that it all originates from a simple non-conscious process. As long as science or philosophy does not address this gap in out understanding the god posit will always seem viable to some. People will always hide their gods where we can't see them, inside the gaps of our understanding. Explain the gap and you kill the god.

But what label are you assigning to your 'chaos' model? Real? Simulated? You are still left with 'well where did the 'chaos,' come from? — universeness

When i think to myself about these things i really don't use the labels of real or simulated. I'm more concerned with the structure of the idea and if it's accurate in it's description of what we know happens. That's how we do science. If we have preconceived ideas of what is real or not apart from the math and logic then what are we really looking for. It's not that different than a religious mindset that just wants to believe what is comfortable.

"Man prefers to believe what man prefers to be true." - Sir Francis Bacon

The point is that the 'initial conditions' you mention were SET BY A HUMAN called John Conway. He is the prime mover and the 'will'/intent, that caused the slider critters to become existent. He is the vital or it could even be claimed (and IS claimed by theistic doctrines of where humans came from) 'divine' spark! — universeness

Conway had to set it up because he was using a human made instrument or computer. He wasn't trying to prove or assert how the universe came about, he was interested in complexity. The universe doesn't have to set up anything, it is the way it is eternally at the most fundamental level.

Information as a universal fundamental, unfortunately, does not increase the ability of science to disprove god more than it can at the moment. — universeness

I think it can, and it is what i am currently attempting to do. I'm really not trying to prove or disprove god, i just want to know how things really are, as they are and not as i prefer them to be.

Again you suggest an 'outside' to our universe. Do you support 'outside' posits such as a multiverse? — universeness

It depends on what side of the bed i woke up on that day. I have not come to a definite conclusion about that yet, although it seems possible.

So if we know absolute somethingness exists 1, then absolute nothingness 0 would be infinitely away/forever intangible. If we as existants can never prove absolute nothingness as we exist and existant things cannot ever encounter total non existence, nor can it ever be proven because "proof" is a criterion based on existence itself, does it really exist outside the realms of theory/imagination? — Benj96

Absolute nothingness is a transcendent concept in which everything and nothing is latent within. Absolute nothingness is not infinitely away, but the ground on which existence stands. We are in it and not outside it (vice versa), nothing is outside nothing. If nothingness was a blanket then somethingness and nothingness are just two sides of the same blanket, one could not be without the other. Nothingness can be thought of as the inactive form of energy, while something is the active form of energy. All that happens is that some parts are inverted (NOT operator).

The difficulty comes because we are used to using logic to analyze everything, but we have a hard time in thinking about logic from it's own perspective. Logic is a non physical thing, but yet we depend on logic with no exception to prove things physically and empirically. We utilize the physical and the imperial as scaffolding to hold our ideas while at the same time it is logic at it's foundation. We already believe in logic so why not make it the absolute basis for everything instead of by physical proxy.

I wouldn't fully rely on theoreticals/mathematics as a basis for how reality works. At most I would say maths can be applied to things that exist. Nothingness is outside that set. — Benj96

If you don't rely on theory and mathematics and logic then what? What else do you have? All sets are either manifest or unmanifest within nothingness not outside it. It would be arbitrary to place it outside, and besides there is no outside to nothingness except more nothingness.

We cannot prove infinities outside of maths. As in practically speaking we are not sure if they apply to the real world. — Benj96

Infinity is a property of nothingness and it's inverse finiteness is a property of somethingness.

The paradigm i am working under is that the universe is not really a physical place as we conceive it, what it really is, is an information system, with entities made of information perceiving information, and that's why things seem so real and solid to us. What we call physics is actually computation.

As long as we depend on the purely imperical we will never get to the bottom of things. People have already given up stating that it is impossible or it doesn't make sense because it's not how i already think about things.

Pseudoinfinity? Boundless but finite? — Agent Smith

You could say it like that.

:chin: — Agent Smith

:zip:

Leibniz and Newton both hit upon the idea known to us as calculus without sharing notes. This is convergence at its best. In nonmathematical domains, divergence is the norm. — Agent Smith

Solve et Coagula.

Well absolute nothingness has no opposite. — Benj96

The opposite of "absolute nothingness" (0) is "absolute somethingness" (1). Between 0 and 1 there is infinity.

A good yardstick for whether aliens will see the world in the same way as we do is mathematics (discovery of e.g. the independent discovery of pythagoras' theorem by multiple isolated cultures). — Agent Smith

I agree, mathematics and logic is most fundamental, so naturally. :up: