Your knowledge claim is a strong one. Can you justify it? Or at least explain it — bert1

Let me give it a try. If I hold two magnets in my hands I imagine them to be elementary particles (the micro world is really not that different from the micro world). The particles long for each other or want to get away from each other. What exactly this will is, I can't tell. I mean, it can't be explained materialistically. You can describe it with charge, three kinds even (electric and two color), but what it is...? You can feel it though.
Like the hate felt towards Wilhelm Reich (a scientific outcast, who made a very astute observation of the drives in Nazi Germany and whose books were burnt in the US, in the fifties! How can you not love the man, who died after a year in prison...).
(I just had to mention it.) As we all are combinations of these charged particles, we are conscio⁸us, with a will, with faces, arms and legs, etc. Our consciousness is derived from these basic longings (+ and -). We have not evolved according to what people like Dawkins claim. It's just love and hate we are, or driven by.
God is love. God is hate.

Articulating a metaphysics for the manner in which the structure of the world yields that which we call ‘atoms’, ‘molecules’, etc. is a tricky business, but the core point remains: that which we call a ‘table’ is nothing but a manifestation of that fundamental structure. — Ignoredreddituser

True atoms have no mass like a table. On the fundamental level matter is kinetic only. With a will to reach out. The table is an example of satisfied will. Love and hate are almost perfectly balanced in the table. The balance can be disturbed in time. An evil black hole, the great annihalitor of love and hate, can pass, or a thermonuclear disaster befall on it.

The love and hate at fundamental level will all be annihilated in the end, and only vague remembrances will linger into oblivion. And then, bang, a new catharsis. Love and hate reappear in those rare, most turmoilical and vibratical happenings.

What's the job? Looking after white men as they get older, of course. — Banno

You fear she won't take care of you?

Just don't take Banno too seriously, and neither me, for that matter. We all have a free and determined will. Hannah wanted other people to take hers into consideration too. Sovereignty caring for Sovereignty but at the same time needing each other to be Sovereign. Sovereignty can't live without others to be independent of.

Heidegger writes to Hannah (a burning love affair):

"Everything should be simple and clear and pure between us. Only then will we be worthy of having been allowed to meet. You are my pupil and I your teacher, but that is only the occasion for what has happened to us."

Teacher and pupil. Master and servant. Free will gone. How could he join a party condemning jews, while Hannah was jewish? And he was married! His Zeit and Dasein in the world seem pretty banal to me. The banality of evil.

Why is this? If A=B, and A precipitates C, then should B not precipitate C? — god must be atheist

No, it shouldn't. If I (A) precipitate you, and I am reborn (B) in a next universe then C is in the middle.

Are not the EM fields generated by electric charges? I don't think the non-local character of these charges gives an explanation. The charges themselves are the mystery.

Is this as close to pornography as physics gets? :gasp: — jgill

You should have visited the last year college at university here... :mask:

Indeed. How else can it be? We are what we eat.

I agree, there's a case to be made for conflating consciousness and self-consciousness. My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex? — Pantagruel

You mean consciousness and self consciousness or classical and quantum mechanics?

I'll just provide a final comment on your theory about knowledge and then leave you alone. Pragmatic epistemology is an unsupported, far-fetched theory of knowledge. As far as I can tell, "pragmatic epistemology" is just another name for your attempts to use the so-called "scientific method" to explain knowledge, with no scientific basis. This is not science, it's pseudo-science.

Now what if I could describe a case where measurements are taken by objects that are not man-made? — Real Gone Cat

Then, according to the standard interpretation of QM, there still would be a superposition of macro states, before a conscious observer looks to it. There is no escape...

Incoming message:
"The father of modern-day bouldering is kindly requested to go hang on one arm on a branch of the closest tree in the neighborhood."

Mr. Gill! 84 and these thoughts? Shame on you! :grin:

Tegmark litterally says that there exist collections of particles and surroundings that are identical. A twin that cts, thinks, and feels like you or me. So the other me is typing this words too, at the same you. But two copies can't be identical.

What then is the point?

Do you think there has only ever been one singularity in existence and if so, what's at the center of every super-massive black hole? — universeness

The center of a BH is no singularity as the one at the center of the 4d torus. In a bh all matter is compressed to a planck volume. With point particles a true singularity would have formed. I don't think particles are point-like though. But neither strings. You can think of them like Planck-sized circles on a long closed cilinder. But the circles replaced by small 3d torus shapes, a 6d space of which 3 dimensions are curled up into circles, ie, an S1xS1xS1 torus. Like this they fit around the Planck-sized mouth of the open 4d torus. They are tied to a closed 3d space, a sphere, that is wrapped around the 4d mouth like a 1d closed line, a circle, is wrapped around the mouth of a 2d torus.

You got something different out of the video than I did. — T Clark

There is only one speed of light. In the vacuum. The smaller speed comes in handy in using glass fibres, but the concept of speed of light in glass is weird.

If so do you mean closed in the form of your 4D torus and if so, what shape would that cause in our 3D universe? — universeness

Yes, two closed 3d universes moving on the 4d torus. The outside of the torus is open though and extends to infinity. Two 4d spaces connected by a 4d wormhole, the singularity, fountain of life.

So does the singularity still exist as the nexus between your two universes? — universeness

Yes. Behind us, in the fourth spatial dimension. Imagine the 2d case of the torus (the outside is not closed though). From the small mouth, two 1d circles (two universes) can spring into being. They contain all matter and the circles get larger when diverting from the center away. Space seems to appear in both of them. Expansion. At the same time, the both influence the curvature around the mouth. When they have accelerated into infinity, a new bang can inflate two new universes into being (two circles). The center of a torus has negative curvature (repulsive gravity).

Yes, say two halves on the sphere of the balloon. I think that they live parallel, separate, simultaneous lives makes both non-identical. How can a parallel copy of you and me be the same as us?

Are you referring to the singularity here? — universeness

I assume the singularity to be the Planck-sized mouth on the 4d torus on which two 3d universe inflate from Planck diameter into 10exp11 times the size of the observed universe (about 90 billion ly).

Dark energy, the negative curvature of space, can be caused by the virtual particles in QFT. Real particles yield positive curvature.

But why would two identical parts, remain identical over time. Why would every event in each remain identical? Under which scientific imperative? — universeness

Well, if two halves on a 2d sphere contain particles that have identical relative positions and velocities , then they will develop identically. From the circle where they meet the two halves will diverge until both halves will be different.

Well, in fact there could be two identical parts in the universe. Imagine the space that banged into existence. It had a diameter already of 10exp11 times the diameter of the observable universe. If this universe comprised two identical halves then the centers of these halves are surely still the same, so J realize now, thanks to pfirefry (nice name, but WTF does it mean?). I almost started a chapter to attack Tegmark, but I have to find new ways now. Maybe entanglement, which is non-local, will do. But copies on both sides of the 4D mouth I have in mind (I'm
a bigmouth!) will always stay the same, even if made of antimatter.

Dark energy has no related particle. It must be a particle that can curve space negatively. Virtual particles can have negative energy or mass, so.

The first circle is the boundary of your heart.
— pfirefry

I digress but, this should be a line in a song :lol: — universeness

:grin:

The bloody bull at the center
Hit by my poisoned arrow

It just expands because new space appears for it to expand into. New bubbles of space are forming in the dough, while no new dough is being created. We don't know where the space is coming from, but we know that it just appears and it causes the expansion of dough. It's not important where the space is coming from for the purpose of the OP. — pfirefry

That's the problem with dark energy. It generates new space, apparently. How can that be? Dark energy doesn't have a related particle. The inflaton? Maybe. What if our (finite) universe is a 3D structure immersed in a 4D structure. Say all matter is confined to this 3D structure. And that the vacuum energy (closed propagators in Feynman diagrams) give this 4D substrate space negative curvature (repulsive gravity). Then the particles in the (two) universes will accelerate away from each other. I imagine the hole of a torus. There is negative curvature there. On the Planck-sized mouth of a 4D torus two 3D universes might be ejected, two big bangs, like two 1D circles can be ejected from the mouth of a 2d torus. If the torus is open on the outside, the circles (universes) can accelerate to infinity and a new bang can start at the mouth.

I don't understand your last comment.

Suppose we look at a galaxy near the edge. Far away in spacetime. My copy does the same. The galaxies are different because of interaction with stuff outside the two volumes. But if I see a different galaxy than you, we are not the same anymore.

If you start with two identical regions in infinite space, same particle configuration in phasespace, then... indeed there could be two or more copies of you and me if the diverging surroundings find themselves at distances greater than the time it takes light to travel from there to you and me typing. If not, I could look through my 80 meter telescope and see a different thing, far away.

Enter entanglement...

What if the magma lies too deep?

But you can see the one living near the edge.

But that's exactly my point. How can they be identical?


Imagine a spot near the edge of each bubble. The same spot in both (as you assumed both identical). From these identical spots you can look to the space outside the volumes. You will see different things, as the outsides diverge. Then how can the insides be identical?

98
↪Wayfarer

Ah, Schrödinger. I've often wondered how the cat feels about all this. — Real Gone Cat

Dead or alive...

After his death, however, it was shown that local realism, as he described it in his famous EPR paper, is not compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics, or with physical experiments, as demonstrated by the famous Alain Aspect and Anton Zellinger experiments. — Wayfarer

Non-local hidden variables are not ruled out though. This view doesn't need a conscious observer for collapse. The collapse is an objective collapse.
Still, the whole scientific picture (an objective reality) is a subjective story.

After measurement, the spin state will be definitely up or down, and not in superposition. — Andrew M

Yes, but it not stays in that state, and two states are necessary for quantum computing. There was a computing done in which about 70 (I don't remember the exact number) qubits were involved, facilitating 2exp70 possibilities in parallel.

I'm assuming that both the volumes and their observable surroundings are identical — pfirefry

But how can there be two different volumes then? With two copies of you?

But only one is right. Photon absorption and re-emission.

But consider now two volumes incredibly far apart. No information could have traveled between them. Assume the volumes have identical configurations of particles. Now imagine yourself not far from the border. What do you see? You should see different things from both. The surroundings of both are different. But if you see different things on the outside from the inside, then both volumes can't be identical, as you assumed.

I'm referring to the different states that a single qubit can be in. Every point on the surface of the Bloch sphere (where the sphere represents a qubit) is a potential (pure) state. — Andrew M

There are infinite superpositions of spin up and spin down, for one electron. After a measurement the state tends to evolve to a state with both up and down equally present. There are only 2 states involved in the computing. There potentially infinite states, that's true, but you make it sound if this infinity is part of the computing power.

Say you have a conceptual model of a site that uses different concepts as mine, but insofar pragmatics is concerned there is no difference. Your model is as accurate as mine. Does the pragmatic value equalize them?

I was talking about Newton's laws of motion and special relativity. I should have been clearer. — T Clark

Also these are mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't think that two different conceptual models of the same phenomena would be mutually excluding, e.g. Newton's laws of motion are consistent with relativity at velocities less than about 0.7c. Above that velocity, relativity is a more accurate model. — T Clark

General relativity and Newtonian gravity are conceptually different. General relativity doesn't consider gravity a force and space and time are relative. The numerical predictions are the same but the concepts are mutually exclusive. Likewise for statistical and classical thermodynamics (even phlogiston in certain areas).

Money once was the substitute for goods and services in barter practice. Instead of giving you a chicken in exchange for 10 dozen of eggs (you could have kept the chicken to wait for the eggs, though when eggs are needed urgently that might take too long). I give you a warranted piece of metal. This evolved into modern-day money, which probably is turned into 1's and 0's completely in the future, economy and gold backing up it's value.

The capitalist aim is to accumulate as much as possible of the stuff. Which introduces the strange situation that some have billions of coins and others just enough to get a piece of chicken for it.

When there was no money yet you actually had to deliver good or service, and this aspect has disappeared. You deliver a good or service and get money for it. Goods and services offered are owned by people or groups of people. They offer money to you and other people if you produce goods for them or offer services in their name. They ask people to pay for the goods you produce for them and the services you offer in their name. You can produce goods and offer services yourself and get money for it which you can use to swap for goods produced or services offered by others. So there is an indirect swap. I swap my chicken for a tenner and swap the tenner for ten dozen of eggs. Money is the intermediary. You don't have to take your chicken everywhere but take the money instead. You have to swap it for money first though. Instead of looking for eggs with your chicken in a basket, you sell your your chicken to whom wants a chicken and then go look for eggs. The egg seller then looks around for the pig she desires. Money stands for all goods and services and as such makes life easy. "I take them eggs! Here's a tenner. I have chickens only. But with this tenner you can get what you want!"

Then money transforms. It stands for all one desires. A closet full, a safe at the bank, and nowadays zeroes and ones at the bank. We want money. We produce goods and offer services to get it. The employers own the production lines, the employees keep production running. Money becomes an icon, an emblem, a symbol for goods to own and services to get.

Sovereignty: Supreme power or authority

Dominion, supremacy, authority, tyranny, power, hegemony, domination...

Do I need to write more? Hannah Arendt was wrong. Only if a man is sovereign, he can be free. Only then can he send constraining forces home.