Do you understand the connection between the S-matrix, bootstraps, Regge trajectories, the strong force, and strings,?

Not going to. Fare thee well. — Jackson

It's a nice video.

Universe without a beginning means a universe with infinite past events, which means there is no space for new event to add up to infinite number of events. — SpaceDweller

But what about a universe with a beginning and no end?

infinity indeed does not exist - it's unreal, and so is the idea of infinite universe. — SpaceDweller

That's the question. A 5D quantum vacuum can be thermodynamical timeless and infinite in extent.

Yes, indeed, but this would imply that universe has a beginning but no end, which is logically possible — SpaceDweller

Why is that logically impossible?

Time does not predicate existence — Jackson

Meaning?



Infinite time and space can have a beginning on one side.

You who suggest heaven exists and is full of gods of extinct animals, who must vastly outnumber your humanoid gods around the ratio of 1 humgod to 99 ani/dinogods. :rofl: A Trex god who is entertained by human activities on this single tiny wee planet Earth. :rofl: — universeness

I have to admit, you are the first on Earth getting the picture! :lol:

Not sure if the Trex god gets off by watching us though...

I am not personally a strong advocate of 'bootstrap philosophy' as it is described above — universeness

Ah! I thought you had joined the mystics! Thank god!

All subatomic events! — universeness

Which are?

Well , you the polytheist, calls it woo woo! :rofl: — universeness

Brother Uni! We're over that now. We talk science now. Don't you call leaving out the particles woowoo? And even worse, point particles, though maybe in this context it's precisely this stupid assumption which makes it possible. One point more or less... That's the problem in QFT: point particles! The continuum cant be broken up in points.

I know that video! Great one! Hilbert hotel. Wanna have a topfloor room!

Ghazali forgets that time can have infinite beginnings. So each universe has a beginning. Every beginning can emerge on a thermodynamically timeless state, like the quantum vacuum.

Why not?

No beginning, no origin. — Jackson

Why does that imply no creation? Creation isn't necessarily an act in spacetime. Even an eternal universe is created.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. — T Clark

Just one foolish, Christian, opinion, defending his opinion from another foolish opinion. No more, no less. Times haven't changed since.

Sounds reasonable. Basically not very different from my eternal intelligences in an eternal heaven, creating an eternally repeating temporary version of themselves. These eternal gods have no reason and your eternal intelligence of what I call creation has no reason, in your view. Agreement in differences!

Like I said, I don't agree. — Jackson

Why you don't agree? I haven't seen a rational argument? Just curious. Because the universe has some intrinsic intelligence? Which doesn't need gods?

If the universe was not caused then it is not self--caused — Jackson

It's caused not by itself but it has a reason for existence.

Have consistently denied your characterization — Jackson

You think elementary particles are intelligent, not? Well, dunno. I don't go that far. And they certainly not could be the reason for their own existence.

Why? — Jackson

Because a dumb material can't exist because of no reason. Eternal intelligence is the reason.

Sorry to be a nitpicker, but this is not the reason light slows down in different media. — T Clark

Sorry to nitpick again, but it could be seen that way. Photons get delayed by turning real, virtual, real, virtual, etc. But there are more explanations, even in the classical domain. Varying permitivities and permeabilities and all that.

Furthermore light can not create anything — SpaceDweller

Light couples to the virtual electron field ,(vacuum bubbles). If the photon has enough energy it can turn a virtual electron bubble into a real electron and positron. There is nothing created or annihilated, or absorbed or emitted. The real photon goes virtual, the virtual electron goes real.

Einstein predicted that two highly energetic photons colliding and losing energy rapidly should produce some matter (an electron) — Benj96

This is not how it actually works in quantum field theory. And it was not Einstein who predicted it. He didn't know about anti particles.

And saying the universe is a consequence only displaces the same question--Why is there God. — Jackson

That's often heard but eternal intelligence doesn't need explanation. Eternal stupidity does.

Naturalism implies the world is not an intended consequence, so there's no reason for it. — Relativist

The view of the TD timeless 5D quantum substrate vacuum is mine and offers a natural underground to let two 4D mirror universe emerge, inflate, into real existence. The statement that "it just exists" robs existence of intrinsic, objective meaning or reason. Being a rationalist, I can't live with such emptiness. It takes all kinds! :smile:

Thus, the bootstrap philosophy represents the culmination of a view of nature that arose in quantum theory with the realization of an essential and universal interrelationship, acquired its dynamic content in relativity theory, and was formulated in terms of reaction probabilities in S-matrix theory. At the same time, this view of nature came ever closer to the Eastern worldview and is now in harmony with Eastern thought, both in its general philosophy and in its specific picture of matter." — universeness

Let's analyze.

"a view of nature that arose in quantum theory with the realization of an essential and universal interrelationship "

Which view? Which universal and universal relationship? It's about the whole of interactions between all particles, like there is already an infinity of couplings (if we consider particles as points) involved in two particle interaction (there is a theorem in quantum field theory that allows the decoupling of the Hilbert spaces in the direct product space of the whole if they are far away from each other). The leaving out of the point particles is an artificial procedure, and it originates in treating particles as point-like. In other words. Woowoo.

We go on.

" and is now in harmony with Eastern thought, both in its general philosophy and in its specific picture of matter."

Complete woowoo.

the universe is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the properties of any part of this web is fundamental; they all follow from the properties of the other parts — universeness

Which events?

The properties of any part follow from the properties of the other parts. This is the core of the bootstrap. Now while it's true that there is a mereology to be found in nature, if you read what is stated you will see the circularity and impossibility to draw reality out of the swamp by it's own hair. But by leaving out the particles this can magically be done. Which we call: WOOWOO!

Reality didn't come into existence. — Relativist

That's exactly the question. If material reality, thermodynamic time with a 3D space, inflates into existence automatically and periodically on a TD timeless 5D quantum vacuum spacetime structure with the right shape and virtual particles, then the question is, why does this timeless structure exist in the first place? What's the reason? Why it exists? Where did it come from, assuming it to be the only structure?

That's maybe how ethics look like after taking anesthetics! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

:lol:

A nice mix!

but looks like I'm not getting out of the mess I'm in anytime soon. I hope, I :grin: and bear it! — Agent Smith

It'll cum yoway, brother Agent! I know. I've been there too. It comes naturally. To some soon to others sooner...And when it has arrived, you will play your way through life like the people gods once did in the eternal heavens. You will give them a remarkable performance, like you you are already doing here! In the memorable words of T Clark: keep on banging wisely. :joke:

Alcohol and drugs
Death
Enlightenment

The first two are easy. — T Clark

The first two are the most difficult. To be enlightened takes a while, but if you have endured the hardships of sister morphine (or her tougher brother, alcohol) enlightenment comes easy.

Avoiding attachment without trying not to try to avoid it is the hardest part. Please don't imagine I know how to do it. — T Clark

Why doubly negating? "Without trying not to try to avoid". Which means "trying to avoid". So you wrote:

"Avoiding attachment while trying to avoid it is the hardest part"

Not sure I understand. Avoiding while trying to avoid? Avoiding while trying to avoid avoiding? Seems being filled with desire. An admirable attitude! :smile:

You are using "hallucination" in a non-standard way. Cannot discuss the issue if you are making up definitions. — Jackson

The point is, I don't make up definitions. The making up of the standard definition of a perception is part of the hallucination. Perceptions don't exist. In other words, they are a hallucination.

How convenient! I wrote, perceptions are no isolated entities. The are embedded in a larger brain structure. Naked perception does not exist. Perceptions are a theoretical false construction, a fallacy, if you like. They are a hallucination themselves.

Hallucinations are distortions of sense perception. That is not what I was talking about. — Jackson

Sense perceptions are no isolated well-defined objects that have a standard form. Your definition of distortion might be my sign of normal.

In short: Yes, I'm wiser! :starstruck:

No, that is not what "hallucination" means. — Jackson

You see continuity where there is none. I.e., you think what you see is true. But it isn't. Seems damned much like hallucinating. Likewise, we hallucinate the Earth rotating. But this could be a hallucination. The universe can be said to rotate around the Earth as well. According to general relativity, all motion is relative, even rotation (I know Wikipedia tells you differently, but if you think deeper, this is the case).

just imagine it — Jackson

Like I said, a hallucination.

No worries T Clark! I have no desire to. Please continue this most interesting thread in all seriousness! I seriously keep my mouth shut. Wouldn't dare to open it again. Tao Lao Zao said some nice things about the quantum vacuum, interconnectedness of the whole and it's relation to it's parts, way ahead of his time, but I have absolutely no desire to follow his wisdom. Trying to avoid desire while not trying not to be attached to no desiring of it's negation is simply too much for me, as a desiring being. I have thrown all my craving and desiring for matarial wealth in the garbage recently. That suffices for me. Goodday and enjoy! :kiss:

"Taoism? Never heard of it! What are you on about?"

"Then you're a taoist, you knucklehead!" — Agent Smith

:lol:

You're right, I do take this thread seriously. Please stop harassing it. — T Clark

Just expressing my thoughts about it. We are free to criticize, n'est pas? I think it's a bunch of $##%^$.

:snicker: I don't get it but since you're so smart, I know it's funny! :grin: — Agent Smith

:joke: :snicker: :love: :starstruck: :kiss:

...

The idea of conformal bootstrapping is simple. In the S-matrix all particle scattering probabilities are encoded as matrix elements (initial and final states). On every scale the same fields procedure is present. Where does this leave the particle? The problem arises when modeling the particle as a point. The most silly concept ever invented in physics.

I imagine a few people here have experienced something quite extraordinary in life that made the whole world around them look/feel somehow ‘different’ and ‘more new — I like sushi

I'm one of them! During a an almost psychotic manic high I experienced the most wondrous epiphany in my life. It was like the universe revealed itself and the gods laughed at me. Something I only fantasized happening actually happened! And I still haven't woken up.

Can there be a proof of gods? It depends, of course, what conts as proof. They can't litterally show up or control our life. If they showed up in the flesh, it would go against the laws of nature they created themselves. But we can look at more subtle means for interactions, compatible with the laws of nature. Think about quantum mechanics. From which astral projections, mental phenomena, or even physical phenomena could follow. And how many physical phenomena aren't observed!?

I have very little interest in mysticism! — universeness

I can't help you with that problem, brother Uni! I'll pray forya!