| | Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum TheoryPage 2 of 8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) | Languages cant quantify infinites.
A planet has completed 1 orbit.
A planet has completed 0.33333 (forever) of an orbit.
It doesnt work. Language and materialism are an attempt to pixelfy a universe which isnt made out of pixels. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 2:19:31 PM | It is night. It’s always night. A night without stars, without anything - just an infinite emptiness falling away on every side. And so I float, an invisible being in a nonexistent world. How long have I been like this? I don’t know. It feels like years, but that’s just a feeling because there is nothing here by which to mark the time. I try to remember how it was, but my memories are such pale things, and they grow more pale as time drags on. I would pray, but there is nothing to pray to. And so I hope, for hope is all I have: that one day, as inexplicably as I once did, I will begin to dream the world again.
- Thomas D. Davis | |
|
etcyl
| | Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 28 | |
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 5:15:01 PM | drinkthesun -
Thank you for your post! I love this talk. I typically find myself only wanting to discuss these topics with people who are capable of such, particularly people with Ph.D's ;).
That said, Jon is completely correct by noting this is all speculative. That's what I dislike. The God of the Gaps part.
And that's where your quote comes in:
Also, could you, and would you be willing, to give us a fuller richer description of the big bang etc?
What I meant by the Big Bang being fuller and richer is that, I think there is a bigger idea behind it. I think the model of the Big Bang is flawed and does not have the complete picture to the original evolution of the universe. It does not simplify with everything into some Grand Unified Theory. I think it needs more work. In fact, high energy experiments will help us contribute to this picture.
The best description of the Big Bang you can read on Wiki. I suggest that anything further of understanding will come as a result of you doing real physics research. People are currently looking for new mathematical ways to probe deeper into this stopping point. | |
|
etcyl
| | Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 29 | |
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 5:18:57 PM | Hi Jon
Thanks for your reply. It isn't necessarily the case that I am not willing to accept what you have to say at all.
It is necessarily the case that QM theory will rip of my reality! I just don't think I will care much if it does, so, I'm game.
Where does this theory take us next? | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 7:01:35 PM |
Languages cant quantify infinites.
A planet has completed 1 orbit.
A planet has completed 0.33333 (forever) of an orbit.
It doesnt work. Language and materialism are an attempt to pixelfy a universe which isnt made out of pixels.
Lol.
You're over complicating. Try using 1/3. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 7:12:08 PM | Etcyl,
Since you're the cosmology student, I have to ask you... with regards to the expanding universe - is it expanding in the sense that the current contents are becoming farther apart or in the sense that it's amassing more contents? Just curious to get that clarified before I throw in my 2 cents worth. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 9:14:18 PM | Might it be that when and where conditions are right in a given region of space, when it's more truly a vacuum, so lacking of any matter or any kind of energy, forces, or energy transduction of any kind, that matter is allowed to 'fizzle' into existence?
Fizzle into existence?
From nothing?
Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing"—chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Languages cant quantify infinites.
A planet has completed 1 orbit.
A planet has completed 0.33333 (forever) of an orbit.
It doesnt work. Language and materialism are an attempt to pixelfy a universe which isnt made out of pixels.
Funny.
This is an improper use of an infinite mathematical example being used to describe a finite physical certainty.
Funny because it is also another example of a mathematical fact that isn't always applicable in reality.
Something that some devout hard core science fans try to promote too much.
Just because it can be logically calculated does not mean that it exists. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 4:25:55 AM | Lets start again.
What they teach you about science at high school and college is mostly Newtonian Mechanics. Its Newtonian Mechanics that makes people think that we are robots in a material universe where everything is reducable to fundamental building blocks and can be desribed using deterministic mechanics. Its wrong. Its not my opinion that its wrong or me 'speculating' that its wrong, mainstream science says its wrong.
When playing around with beams of light past scientists discovered a problem. Some experiments indicated light was made out of particles but they were contradicted by other experiments indicating it was a wave. Quantum Mechanics resolved it with experiments showing it was both. The light would be a particle if it was being measured (measuring is the act of gaining information) and a wave if it wasnt (the wavefunction). Further experiments showed the same applied to atoms, small objects and of you can cool them down to near absolute zero macroscopic objects too.
The act of measuring, or if you wish to call it the act of gaining information, brings into existance particles while destroying the waves that they were. The wavefunction is just a probability equation containing all possible outcomes. When its destroyed one of the outcomes in it becomes real which then is your particle. The scientists have plenty of experiments showing only the wavefunction is real. I gave you one the box experiment. Because the wavefunction is just a probability equation it has no mass. By reverting the atom to a wavefunction and then back to an atom you can circumvent the speed of light. Again all this is not me speculating its present day physics.
If we created a magic room which prevents all information transfer between the outside and inside we could sit you in it. When the door is shut the outside universe ceases to exist for you. There are no particles out there just a very complicated wavefunction describing all possibilities. When you open the door to leave you'd then bring into being one of the possibilities out of the wavefunction. You would bring into being particles.
The philosophical implications of the wavefunction are hotly debated. Does it mean parallel universes? extra dimensions? De Brogile waves? Solipsism? A matrix like reality? Prime substance? It doesnt matter what you personally believe the wavefunction is because each explanation amounts to the same thing.
Schrodingers Cat experiments are fascinating and I advise having a read. It means everthing is tailored to the individual through the information they gain. From your perspective the particles which exist do so because you're gaining information on them.
One of the problems people have trouble letting go off is their tradional ideas of cause and effect. In QM it was proved a long time ago that effects can come before causes or at the same time. Retrocausality is shown in the dual-slit experiment and others. In essense the information you gain right now not only brings into existance particles but determines the past for them too.
All histories exist in the wavefunction (as do all futures). Measurment brings into being the particle universe and the history needed to support it. Again the big bang didnt create you, you created it. If it helps to visualise it imagine everything is a vast dual-slit experiment and you are the measuring device. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 5:45:53 AM | | Ok I love science and NON fiction. I love reading Jared Diamond. But I am no way qualified to discuss anything in this thread. I just want to agree with the OP about the lady who got insulted. This is not to add to her discomfort or attack her. But the OP made it clear in his opening statement that if you were going to bring religion or some variation of religion into this discussion, be prepared to defend it. Disagreeing with you is not insulting. Demanding that you bring a little more to the table then the statements you brought and could not reasonably defend is not insulting. The problem with believing in God is it is completely based on faith. Which has zero science involved. And finally if there was a creator, science would not be one of his needs. As it was said science is man made. It is what we do to prove via facts what really is or maybe what was very probable. The theories of God and the facts of science do not mix. And as OP states communication about anything religious or halfway scientific needs to be improved, but is unlikely. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 6:07:39 AM | I disagree with that it should be - The problem with the Christain God is its completely based on faith.
Buddhism is different as it isnt a religion its a non-duality philosophy. It isnt at odds with science it says exactly the same things as Quantum Mechanics. Here an interesting video for you -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjd26JSaq64 | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 7:54:13 AM | The whole problem with the Schrodingers Cat experiments.... is that .... it is a myth.
It is NOT an experiment, it is a "philosophical" idea.
To state that there are other states of existence, other than the one that we observe.... makes as much sense as believing in GOD.
Why?
Because these alleged "other states of existence" have never been observed.
There is no factual evidence.
We humans just use our imagination to guess what may exist.
GOD.
Parallel universes.
Extra dimensions.
Warp drive spaceships.
Zeus.
Seems that atheist are just opposed the possibility of a GOD ... but are open to other beliefs based on imagination. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 8:53:24 AM | You arent qualified to talk about QM.
The EPR Paradox is where the Cat thought experiment comes from. The EPR Paradox was tested with the Bells Inequality experiment. The results were conclusive as they managed to violate locality.
The wavefunction is not an idea its a mathmatical formula. The formula contains all states of existance which are possible outcomes in an experiment. If you find out about the dual-slit experiment you will discover an interference pattern reveals the existance of a wavefunction. A single stripe one outcome. There is no debate over this you are completely wrong and dont have a clue what you're talking about.
God for Buddhists is not the idea of God you have. God is quite simply the original wavefunction containing all possible states of existance. You can call it a multiverse if you wish. They call it Prime substance. God for Buddhists is proven as the wavefunction exists. Buddhism is quantum mechanics (although its more advanced).
Quantum Mechanics is not speculation, it has been experimentally proved and its the reason why mobile phones, mircrowave ovens, radar, nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations, dvds, lasers, microchips and 100's of others work. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 12:36:51 PM | *trust me u qualified to talk about QM if u on the web --doesn't mean u right.
Enough people way way clever follow path's that are proven to be wrong ---but until that day they would defend to the death that they are right. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 2:19:40 PM | 28:
I don't have a phd. I'd think a couple of you guys have more technical or current knowledge than I do. Not gonna give us a deeper description of big bang stuff? Well how bout this - have we made any progress concerning which model to use for the atom...it's electrons - cloud, shell, orbits, etc?
32:
No, I wasn't talking about from nothing. I was wanting to speculate about the realm that is currently thought of as nothing. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 2:38:51 PM | 33:
So as living experiencing beings, on a larger holistic scale, we are measuring machines, taking energy in order to measure and perceive...and the particle could be a metaphor for which concrete reality we cause to come into being. hhmm. I wonder what this would mean in the face of objective versus subjective reality...what makes many people have the same reality, notwithstanding the fact that the subjective-reality-subscribers can be shown to be a little "off" for other and definate reasons? I feel an instinct that says that we're pushing our interpretation of what we think this all means so far, and need to figure out a few more things...before concluding for sure that this supports a duality or non-duality view.
35:
Isn't devout buddism really about that core belief that life is nothing but suffering and the only way to alleviate the problem is to rid onself of all desire? An idea which I detest, by the way. And, shouldn't we be careful when we think that things in science and a religious document, (or quasi religion) are very similar? I've seen in other threads those crazy claims that genesis of bible is talking about terraforming, the big bang, evolution...etc. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/9/2012 4:18:11 PM | Drink you no a door's been opened and we can theorise/speculate all we want there is no right or wrong answer,o yeah we got enough people who can go into real anal detail on a dating site about how we got to the door,but no1 can tell us whats behind this door.
anyways i speculate that 1 day i will be able to have a t-rex in a can(bit like cuppa-soup) but u get a 8ton angry lizard who got a penance for churche's on a sunday to,Atest the faith of the believer's,Bfill a preset eat 50 believer's any faith,on a sunday,set by me made out of the material's found by other's and machine's that do this sort of stuff.Thing's like can we smash quarks to see if there's smaller thing's i expect will play a major part in the quest for a T-rexatron,ima sure massive research into anti-matter,and like-it-matter's will also play a part,as will the new element's on the table of element's never no might get a 137AW element,but like the other stuff i guess they all gonan play a part in it.
either way Faith V Knowing will be tested and i feel over time Knowing win's. | |
|
| |
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/10/2012 9:46:17 AM | Hi drink
Paradoxes with how probabilties work exist not only in QM but in the world around you too. They mean that reality is subjective not objective. I'll give you an example -
Mountain rescue gets a call from a hotel about a hiker who hasnt returned. They know which mountain he went up but thats all. You get your map out off the area, you get your statistics out for previous rescues and then you assign a probability of finding him to each map sqaure. The statistics are accurate as they are based on 50 previous rescues.
You go off and find him, you add this rescue to the statistics and over many more rescues your find the probability map is correct. No problem right?
So what happens if he gets a mobile phone message out telling the emergency services he's trapped on a cliff ledge? The probability map changes. There are now map squares in which its extremely unlikely that he will be found. For the purposes of this example we'll call it zero chance. We need a new probability map with statistics on cliff rescues. Again when we find him we find he fits into the cliff rescue statistics.
This is a paradox. The hiker behaves one way unless we gain information causing him to behave in another. Surely the guy should behave the same regardless of if we have information or not? Yet in the orignal probability map we can find him in places which he cant exist in on the second probability map. Think about it very carefully.
Reality is tailored to the individual depending on what information they gain. Its subjective not objective. Your reality appears consistant from your perspective. It is 'coherant' to use the correct phrase. You are at the centre of your reality. The problem of several people all being at the centre of reality from their perspective is exactly what Schrodingers Cat is all about.
Its exactly what the film the Matrix is all about too. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/10/2012 10:30:26 AM |
You arent qualified to talk about QM.
Well... you may be qualified but...
I am right and you are wrong.
Your reasons ...
Quantum Mechanics is not speculation, it has been experimentally proved and its the reason why mobile phones, mircrowave ovens, radar, nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations, dvds, lasers, microchips and 100's of others work.
That is true... but . . . I don't see the Schrodingers' Cat experiment listed.
And that is because there is no experiment that could prove this theory of multi-states of existence other than what is observed. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/10/2012 2:54:33 PM | 43:
I think I'm seeing a deception here. A trick of logic. Else I'm not getting what you're saying. If nothing else, it doesn't seem like we're employing the terms subjective and objective reality properly, and making a leap. You need to give another example, and flesh it out better. There are places where you do a little skipping and just tell us to think about it or you make a stand alone unbacked statement. Give me something else to work with. I've studied randomness, probability, chaos, and some of this other stuff, but it's been a minute since I could enjoy grasping it. I want to know if I can get this, or if I can tell you that you're missing something ;\ | |
|
Bezoa
| | Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 46 | |
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/14/2012 1:59:56 AM | I watched this show on netflix, and the guy said that in only a few years, there would be computers strong enough to replicate life as we see it.
What if we are only pixels? Seems like atoms and all that could be simple parts of an image. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/14/2012 4:58:22 AM | Hi people if I seem to not be replying its because POF have limited me to 5 forum comments a day!
For those that dont know, science hasnt investigated the human mind because it can only measure the objective not the subjective. As a result scientists do not understand how the human mind works and the idea its like a computer program is a complete myth. How can someone claim the mind is a computer program when science doesnt know how it works?
Its an assumption based on negative perceptions about what a human being is. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/24/2012 1:58:26 AM | So anyway, to refresh (re-read my OP?):
I'm wondering if the physics of the big bang are really describing something that still happens all of the time, in regions where conditions are right. In the more absolute "vacuum" areas of space, there's still a kind of chaotic quantum "foam" of potentiality or viruality, from which particles seem to pop into and out of existence...from our perspective. Could it happen that when conditions are condusive matter boils up into quarks, which eventually become subatomic particles, which eventually become hydrogen gas, which then can become stars, which then of course forge other elements via their nuclear fusion? And so also is this where black holes are putting things, being dropped into this soup "underneath" everything spread all over space? (And so then would the physics of a big crunch actually be about black holes, something that likewise takes place all of the time?) And would speculation on this of course include talking about the acceleration of the expansion, and dark energy? Or even also dark matter?
I'm wondering about the nature of this realm, which at this time is sometimes called "nothing"... | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/28/2012 3:43:49 AM | The thread looks interesting, so I'd like to throw my two cents into the mix. I haven't read many posts (don't have the time), so What I'll say may have already been mentioned in one form or another. If so I apologize in advance for the redundancy. I just want to add a point to ponder.
I have many more opinions on the nature of the universe, but for now I'll confine myself to the implications of quantum mechanics, specifically, quantum uncertainty. As a sort of preamble, I'd like to make the observation that since the time of Newton, the general intellectual view was that the universe was mathematically "perfect". This gave rise to the generally accepted argument I'd call "Newtonian determinism", i.e. that if all particle momenta & positions could be known for any point in time, the entire history & future could theoretically be mapped mathematically. Needless to say, this has rather severe implications regarding the concept of free will.
Enter the uncertainty principle. Now i can't say that Penrose is right regarding QM being the source of consciousness (indeed, I believe him to be wrong in that regard), but what I can say is that the randomness of QM, as manifested by the uncertainty principle makes Newtonian determinism impossible and therefore makes a good( I would say irrefutable) argument for the existence of free will.
If we wanna put this into theistic terms (for the theists in the crowd), I suppose we could say that if God wanted to create a universe, He wouldn't have wanted to make one as dull and boring as a static painting. He would probably have wanted a random mobile "desk toy" that could entertain Him for hours on end. So this saves the theists the problem of arguing why God is omniscient and gave us free will (a contradiction). We can still allow him his Omniscience. All we have to do is give Him the credit of not using it because it would "spoil" His intent of allowing free will. | |
|
| Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/28/2012 1:54:12 PM | I find the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle throws a monkey wrench into the concept that nothing comes from nothing. If a system can never has zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, then almost anything is possible. Nothing is unstable and it's not really nothing, because even the empty space weighs something.
What I am finding mentally stimulating is the spectral evidence of simple amino acids contained in cosmic gases. This simplifies the question of how DNA developed. While certainly not explaining it specifically, it's the beginning of a journey. | |
|
Home
login 
