|
|
|
|
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 2:42:54 AM | I was poking around a different thread and saw someone post this first half of the quote, which I found interesting and responded to.
I sincerely hope that we are not the highest form of intelligence in the Multiverse. (I use the term "multiverse", since I find the term Universe to be a vast oversimplification of the space/time continuum, and doesn't allow room for a multi-faceted viewpoint.) I realize it's horrendously off topic for me to bring this up, but isn't the space-time continuum traditionally restricted to 4 dimensions? 3D "space" and "time"... Assuming there are other dimensions, wouldn't it be better to simply say that the term "universe" has too restrictive a connotation to fully describe or highlight these alternate situations?
Also, wouldn't it technically only be a multifaceted viewpoint from our viewpoint? If something existed in not only our dimensions, but some of their own, that subject of discussion would have a more holistic and unified view that would we, yes?
Anyone care to waste some time with me, discussing that which we cannot see?
I'll thank you in advance for keeping things civil, please. I don't want anyone calling anyone else dumb or ignorant unless they are really asking for it. Honest, open minded inquiry should be appreciated. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 5:44:19 AM | It isn't clear what "existing" in other spatial dimensions would be. In my mind, whatever the number of spatial dimensions are, we would exist in them, but like comic book characters, we could never perceive "above" (or below) the "page" of our perception. So if there are say, 20 spatial dimensions, we exist in them now, but can only perceive 3.
The concept of the multiverse is interesting, The thought of many other universes each with laws that may be similar or quite different than our own is intriging. It certainly seems logical to think that our universe (the Big Bang) is simply the "other side" of a black hole. Leastways, it would nicely explain an infinitely dense singularity of spacetime and why it "exploded" (a time reversal of the implosion?).
Yes it's certainly fun to speculate, but we'll need a means of testing the hypothesis if anything is ever to come of it; otherwise it's just a lot of speculative "hot air." | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 2:39:39 PM | Bits and pieces of an interesting article I read a few years ago:
On large scales, universes obey the laws of classical physics, and so each behaves as though the others were not there. But on microscopic scales, quantum mechanics becomes dominant and the universes are far from independent. Universes that are very alike are close together in the multiverse and affect each other strongly, though only in subtle, indirect ways — a phenomenon known as quantum interference.
...
Although we cannot see the parts of this structure that are outside our universe, we can infer their presence from the results of experiments. Perhaps the most striking involve quantum computers — devices that collaborate with nearby universes to perform useful computations.
How do they do that?
...
Thus quantum computers provide irresistible evidence that the multiverse is real. One especially convincing argument is provided by quantum algorithms — even more powerful than Grover’s — which calculate more intermediate results in the course of a single computation than there are atoms in the visible universe. Full article here.
http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/Frontiers.html | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 4:14:15 PM | M-brane theory is a very loose interpretation of quantum mechanics.
So far the current model is based on demonstrable observation. There are four spatial dimensions: length, breadth, height and sitting there to begin with (time).
Without all four of these dimensions no object can exist. There is nothing which concertedly suggests any other spatial dimensions, and not enough is known about quantum entanglement to speculate.
The answer may not lay in further development of quantum physics per se, because there remains unanswered questions about classical physics which relate directly to energy distribution. The field equations are not yet complete.
The answer does lay in math, rather than imaginative visualisation however, a point forgotten when considering hypotheses in layman's terms. Theoretical physics is about demonstrable math. Imaginative visualisation is used to describe or even inspire this, but results are in the math.
So far M-brane theory, string theory and even quantum physics are dead ends for cosmology. Otherwise what we would have is a unified field theory using one or more of these options. Many hope for one, few believe in it. The answer will probably come in the field equations (variant c. is inferred by JPL observations and is currently being explored over the last two years). | |
|
| |
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 6:43:06 PM | I realize it's horrendously off topic for me to bring this up, but isn't the space-time continuum traditionally restricted to 4 dimensions?
It has been debated that there are five. Within those five, a multitude can occur. Tesseract.
3D "space" and "time"... Assuming there are other dimensions, wouldn't it be better to simply say that the term "universe" has too restrictive a connotation to fully describe or highlight these alternate situations?
I agree. It is why I use the term Multiverse.
Also, wouldn't it technically only be a multifaceted viewpoint from our viewpoint?
Yes. Do you strive for a multifaceted viewpoint? I do...sometimes I am even able to achieve it.
If something existed in not only our dimensions, but some of their own, that subject of discussion would have a more holistic and unified view that would we, yes?
Not necessarily. Or maybe most likely. I can't decide. I vacillate between the two.
Let me know when you come up with the ANSWER.
It will solve my dilemma of indecisiveness.
My other half is all over string theory. He is pretty amazing. My own beliefs about the Multiverse come from the Vedas. Everything exists within its own time, space, length and breadth of existence. It is not an avocation for compartmentalization. Rather an acknowledgment of individualization, while honoring the term "holonomic".
I'll thank you in advance for keeping things civil, please. I don't want anyone calling anyone else dumb or ignorant unless they are really asking for it. Honest, open minded inquiry should be appreciated.
Thank you. Civility is a requirement for organic conversations...thank you for invoking this. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 7:20:29 PM | I should add that wherever a theorised dimension is being used to describe an unknown factor, such as the quantum field the correct terminology would be singularity. This is the problem with multiverse, which attempts to deal with anomalous math by simply inventing new dimensions (nearly as bad as the science media popularity of declaring wormholes and paradoxes).
That and the fact it fails to provide any unified field theory between the quantum world and classical physics, so is not a working theory but more like a work in progress.
Oh look, an invariant c. Must be another dimension. Oops, nothing beyond Strong Force bonds, must be a new dimension. Dang that quantum entanglement can't be explained, must be a new dimension.
Or...the math is wrong, an observation has been overlooked or undiscovered, etc. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 7:31:46 PM | The concept of a ‘multiverse’ is a difficult one with deep philosophical implications. It involves a very technical approach to metaphysics, such as that suggested by Henri Bergson: metaphysics as that branch of philosophy which most properly applies to physics.
The crux of the discussion, in my understanding of such an approach to metaphysics, can be found in message 4 on this thread:
So far the current model is based on demonstrable observation. There are four spatial dimensions: length, breadth, height and sitting there to begin with (time).
The point of departure which I would pick for moving from conceptualizing a ‘universe’ to thinking in terms of a ‘multiverse’ would be precisely the concept of a ‘time-space continuum’.
First, I would hold the argument (along the lines of Bergson) that time is not a dimension of space; because what we call dimensional space has the characteristic of varying by degrees of difference (so that, if you divide up a length, and breadth, or a width the difference you get is a degree of what you started with in that measure is always a more or a less of something). Time, by contast, has the distinct characteristic of varying by kind: the distinctions we make between ‘kinds of things’ are experientially based on their perceivable and historic occurrence, and this is a distinction which is very different than that of measurable degree.
Of course, one can ‘measure’ time and determine longer and shorter intervals; but this approach is often referred to in philosophy as “spatializing time”: attributing the characteristics of space to temporality.
If time is thus distinct from space, one might expect to find that temporality has a dimensionality which is distinct unto itself; and that the characteristic of ‘multiplicity’ which is expressed through the concept of ‘multiverse’ is in fact essentially temporal in nature: a distinction in kind, not in degree. Thus the nature of a ‘multiverse’ would, in temporal terms, be one of different ‘kinds of universes,’ not one of ‘more dimensions of space.’
In other words, we would not be dealing with a ‘time-space continuum’, but rather with a situation which would be characterized by ‘discontinua.’
Do we have any evidence that this might have observable aspects in our own experience? Well, I always start by reminding myself that our experience of space is based upon our observation of discontinuous objects: that the objects we find as spatially extended are discrete, with distinct edges and physical limits.
Our concept of the ‘universality’ of physical laws really comes from the concept of universality itself - one of the metaphysical underpinnings of physics. Immanuel Kant did a fairly rigorous job of examining where such a concept of universality arises; and when one looks at the empirical positions which his work was written in part as a response to, one finds an extreme scepticism which delights in suggesting that we have no certain grounds on which to establish such a ’universality’ which physical laws assume as a given.
In practical terms, for the demands of scientific method, it might not make much sense to do otherwise but to assume such universality; but in philosophic terms, there is always a question as to how far we can actually extend out ability to perceive (observe) into the realm of the real while retaining an ability to conceptualize what we might find.
For instance, suppose that something is implied by quantum mechanics which seems incomprehensible: are we encountering a defect in the theory itself, or in our abilities as biological organisms to grasp what the nature of reality might be? Such are the properly metaphysical questions which attend to any theory in physics.
Or, as some would contend, such is the nature of 'speculative hot air' - which is one reason why the term 'metaphysics' has such a bad reputation in the realms of physics. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 7:42:07 PM | | I wish i could speak math but I dont. I can visualize though.I think by a visualization Im having that all of space is entangled so that no portion can do anything without effecting every other portion. All of space has to be moving (warping) , or it must all be perfectly still, pre universe as we know it. Is steady state theory completely extinguished? | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 8:04:31 PM | Ah but TaiChiJohn whilst I respect the thought you've put into this highly, it is obviously based in a traditional Euclidean perspective.
General Relativity clearly displays time as a spatial dimension with math, supported by physical observation.
Your reasoning, whilst exceptional is philosophical in nature. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 8:08:16 PM |
I wish i could speak math but I dont. I can visualize though.I think by a visualization Im having that all of space is entangled so that no portion can do anything without effecting every other portion. All of space has to be moving (warping) , or it must all be perfectly still, pre universe as we know it. Is steady state theory completely extinguished?
No. The current model is actually far and away more logical and simple than it sounds. The real issue has been trying to figure out a way of describing it...
 | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 8:14:55 PM | Yes, that's all very nice, Branes and braneworlds and bulks, gauge bosons, duality in string theory or superstring theory, a D-Brane and P-Brane all one and the same because two spatial dimensions enclose rolled up on a small circle like a string, the charges that carry itself along the wire, perturbation theory and its small little soft quantity data, it's tissue, ooof. Oh here comes that 11 dimensional supergravity and those Do-Branes.
Bergson would make himself dizzy with Merleau-Ponty, Shame on Deleuze for championing Bergson, shame on Merleau-Ponty for not meeting the dead end nihilism of De Saussure.
This is all ravage for the dogs, we are linguistics incarnate, our numbers are linguistic systems, this Rousseau social hegelian contract to the death, this Marx without Ranciere, the french leftist ooh la la, and American tweed, have killed Lacan, that fanciful imbecile, while Slavoj Zizek runs around like a fat phallic maddona posing as an intellectual when he was born to be a dictator.
Philosophy still will not answer Feminism, Kristeva, Irigaray, Cioux, De Beauvoir, but language against more language, ha, and Nietzsche is the fool because he said it first and then ate his own tail.
But let us remember Socrates when he said " The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories, they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. You give your desciples not truth but only the semblance of truth, they will be heroes of many things, and will have learned nothing. They will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing. " From Phaedrus.
And then our beloved sage throws out this one, " this one thing I know, and that is that I know nothing at all ".
Sounds an awful lot like Joseph Jacotot, the Panecastic universal teacher when he tell his college students, " the first thing I have to teach you is that I have nothing to teach you. "
Isin't Foucoult, the Last House on the Left, in that Wes Craven sense, that everything inside is a trap, and none shall make it out alive. Freud's unknowable Navel of the dream or Kant's Noumena, it lies beyond words, numbers, dimensions, and especially physics.
But then again what do I know. I've just lied to you by typing with words. No, lied isint the word. Word isint even the word. That's Stan Rice boys. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 8:25:46 PM | | we must be in a multiverse because I cant even imagine the complexity of most of it. I guess I dont speak math or english. Im hoping that visualization of complex thaughts will become the norm so they can reach a wider audience. I will agree that the true knowledge of the universe is the experience or it. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 8:29:54 PM | That was seriously the most thoroughly entertaining piece of WTF I've ever read, beautifully worded, well done necro.
You truly live up to the name, another choice piece of expression.
Choice mate, choice. (that's New Zealander for really f'kin good) | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 8:57:58 PM | Re: message 10, by Vanaheim:
General Relativity clearly displays time as a spatial dimension with math, supported by physical observation.
Yes but, General Relativity asserts a 'zero point' in making the speed of light a constant; and in doing so, it expresses itself as a 'gauge theory' which necessarily falls within the spatial conception of space as 'difference in degree'.
In effect, this structurally prevents temporality from occurring, within relativity, as anything other than a dimensionality of space - this spatializes time.
I am not saying that the speed of light isn't a constant; I am saying that the structural nature of relativity, as the kind of theory which it is, necessarily presents time as a spatial dimension.
I am not saying that the theory of relativity is wrong; I am agreeing that it presents time as a spatial dimension.
I am not saying that time cannot be presented as a spatial dimension; I am not saying that time should not be presented as a spatial dimension: I am saying that presenting temporality as essentially different than spatial dimensionality leads to 'an entirely different way of thinking.'
That does not contradict or refute relativity: it just gives us a different way of thinking about what ‘the universe’ might be, as “other” than we have been thinking. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 9:58:57 PM | Re: message 12, by Necro Vine;
Hi, Necro Vine; fancy meeting you here.
Well, what could those people who are so intent upon penetrating the Branes they postulate enclose our reality be thinking? Are they going to send across their little quantum of data, only to decide the next morning that they wish they could take it back? Will they deny whatever results, or will they embrace the outcome? The expectation is electrifying!
Were Bergson to make himself dizzy with Merleau-Ponty, would he fall left or right? And which would matter more - our perception of that, or his? Which would people remember?
Why would people forget? Having not read that which isn’t written, will they read something else instead? What can they think of that unwritten text, having read an account in the hand of another? And were it simply said instead, would the sense of it dissipate with the last breath of the utterance? Were it written, would yet another sense supersede it in the reading?
How Egyptian of Socrates, to offer this poison to memory which presents itself as a cure for forgetfulness. How Greek of Socrates, to have us remember him by drinking it himself.
Writing, this drug which cures or kills, depending upon the dosage: either way it is a difference; and with it that which is, comes to be altered. It’s a roll of the dice, a chance mix of influences inside the crucible of the concept, and one can never say what the result will in the end connect itself with.
One can only say that the outcome will be different that it would otherwise have been, without knowing who will make that difference their own. And there the thread ends, deep inside the labyrinth, where the only outcome is alterity itself and nothing but the other will ever be found: there is always an exit and it could be found; but someone is writing in an entirely different way and knitting a sweater made for the headless, who envision an ending entirely different than that which awaits, hoisted high in the air where they expect to see their god ever smiling in affirmation.
Whatever happened to alterity, anyway? | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/18/2009 11:45:52 PM | The original definition of "universe" means "the complete system of all things which exist." So if anything is in existence it is in the universe.
The idea of universes or muliverses if they existed in any way would be just part of the universe.
Seeing the invisable. Three dimintional space is only seen by the things we see in it. Space is invisable. Time is precieved by the things in space that move in some way such as vibrations. Our preception of space is a matter of place and time.
Space time is invisable. Only the things in space time can be seen or measured. Space time is measured by the things in space time.
Now existence which all things are in. Is also invisable, but unlike space-time is not limited by time or place and cannot be measured by the things in it. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 12:40:22 AM | Yes but, General Relativity asserts a 'zero point' in making the speed of light a constant; and in doing so, it expresses itself as a 'gauge theory' which necessarily falls within the spatial conception of space as 'difference in degree'.
In effect, this structurally prevents temporality from occurring, within relativity, as anything other than a dimensionality of space - this spatializes time.
I am not saying that the speed of light isn't a constant; I am saying that the structural nature of relativity, as the kind of theory which it is, necessarily presents time as a spatial dimension.
I am not saying that the theory of relativity is wrong; I am agreeing that it presents time as a spatial dimension.
I am not saying that time cannot be presented as a spatial dimension; I am not saying that time should not be presented as a spatial dimension: I am saying that presenting temporality as essentially different than spatial dimensionality leads to 'an entirely different way of thinking.'
That does not contradict or refute relativity: it just gives us a different way of thinking about what ‘the universe’ might be, as “other” than we have been thinking.
Agreed and again I appreciate the well conceived perspective.
However might it be prudent to fully explore contemporary avenues before we start tossing it to the meat grinder?
I did mention a variant c. inferred by JPL observations. By inferred I mean there is no other explanation, the observations are irrefutable, consistent and reproducible and this matter deals directly with singularities produced by Lorentz and others.
In effect the zero point is gone...if this all works out in the math. That's apparently going to take some time, it's a new field of gravitational energy distribution.
One way of putting it could be to *very* loosely say I think we found the graviton and the Higgs boson in one hit. It was in the incomplete math that formed singularities.
I'm speaking way, way, way out of my depth however. Just speculating excitedly, but I've a good instinct for these things, previously tested. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 1:26:39 AM | Well; in relation to your comment on Euclidean geometry, I think I see your perspective with reference to my comment on the apparent discontinuity of the objects noted within space; a comment extended by a_theist in his post.
With reference to your post, the definition of gravitational energy distribution would certainly firmly establish an independent variable that very well might contribute to our understanding of the dimensionality of space.
With regard to both of these points, I would further specify that we are, as biological entities upon this specific planetary body, very much part of a very specific energy gradient within which very narrow parameters determine our life processes; so our experience of temporality is quite determinate in its nature and extent.
Further, in that all of our collective experience (inclusive of all direct observation) has occurred within a very narrow sphere of influence relative to the gravity field of just one stellar body (and I am taking an extreme sceptics point-of-view here), we can't really determine if or then how our positional location as observers within this 'universe' might influence what we can or cannot observe, or even how said positionality might influence such observational processes as we can construct.
In short: it is one thing to definitionally state that 'the universe contains everything'; and quite another to imagine that we even can know what might be constituted by "everything." If there are temporal spatialites that are inaccessible to us, does it even make sense to say that we share a universe with them? Or would it be more reflective to say, there must be a multiverse, because we can determine that a transversality would be required before we could gain any kind of determinate access to such temporal and spatial alterities?
Again, I’m just speculating in metaphysics here; I’m not trying to disagree with what we know of our physical universe: so in other words, I’m just wondering, what would be the right questions be for science to ask in order to find out more about our ‘universe’... and in reference to this thread, I was just suggesting the kinds of questions that I think might tend to suggest an answer of "multiverse." | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 1:58:13 AM | Oh, man. This thread gives me the warm nerd-fuzzies all over.  I'm like a kid in a candy store with all these intriguing posts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ...if there are say, 20 spatial dimensions, we exist in them now, but can only perceive 3. "
Could you use that to explain the phenomenon of quantum tunneling? If the electron's jump was really instantaneous, the electron would have exhibited a continuous existence in time and space. The discontinuity would only be in our perception of its position in 3-space. We (think we) know that C is the speed limit, but to suggest instantaneous mass transfer (infinite velocity (don't forget electrons have mass, btw)) is scientific heresy, in a sense. Is this evidence of an electron being able to remove itself from the dimension known as time and show up in a different spatial point? Try using these real world examples to figure things out. It's not entirely dragon chasing to discuss these things then :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It has been debated that there are five. Within those five, a multitude can occur. Tesseract."
I've never thought of it quite like that, to be honest. To describe the "super-universal tesseract containing distinct universes", I imagine it something as a set of infinitely numerous but discrete and infinite cubes (3-spaces) floating around a central point to make a hypercube (parallel "universes") being smeared along an axis (time). Sound about accurate?
"Do you strive for a multifaceted viewpoint? I do...sometimes I am even able to achieve it."
Interestingly enough, I strive for the monofacial viewpoint that would supersede and encompass the viewpoint of anyone that restricted their view to only what they observe directly. Thusly, I was able to describe the tesseract. I liken it to God's ultimate viewpoint, in a sense. It's obviously speculation on my part though.
"Not necessarily. Or maybe most likely. I can't decide. I vacillate between the two.
Let me know when you come up with the ANSWER."
If someone had the ability to observe more dimensions than could we, it would certainly be more privy to the knowledge of the true nature of the "multiverse" than we are with our restricted viewpoint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh look, an invariant c. Must be another dimension. Oops, nothing beyond Strong Force bonds, must be a new dimension. Dang that quantum entanglement can't be explained, must be a new dimension.
Or...the math is wrong, an observation has been overlooked or undiscovered, etc."
Looks like we'll have to figure those answers out one thing at a time, eh? It's not problematic to assume the possibility of more dimensions, it just makes things more complex in the long run because now you have to try and account for that possibility whenever something can't be explained by previous arguments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wish i could speak math but I dont. I can visualize though."
How did you like my description of the tesseract a few paragraphs ago? Did I paint any pictures for you? :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But let us remember Socrates when he said 'The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories, they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. You give your desciples not truth but only the semblance of truth, they will be heroes of many things, and will have learned nothing. They will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing.' From Phaedrus."
How evocative! May I suggest a solution to this issue of forgetting though? What if one were able to successfully separate that which is learned and that which is used to describe? One can describe language with language, so it's not impossible to have learned a language and become able to describe what is learned, using that tool. If one could silence the jabber in their minds, wouldn't they be able to learn truthfully and result in being able to describe it accurately?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The original definition of 'universe' means "the complete system of all things which exist." So if anything is in existence it is in the universe."
Okay, so if one says that something "exists outside of the/our universe", we would have to assume that they are referring to something outside of our perceived universe, yes? It seems to be a disservice to anyone trying to discuss such things by making assumptions that we're all talking about the same meanings of words. Talk about overstating the obvious though... It's a shame people don't often practice what they know to be true, in this respect. It's simply too easy to forget.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep 'em coming guys. This is awesome stuff! | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 3:05:09 AM | Btw, I have a favorite webcomic that has a fairly related front page at the moment. Well, not really related, I guess, but I'd bet this is a crowd that would rather enjoy this one.
http://dresdencodak.com/2009/07/12/fabulous-prizes/ | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 1:05:53 PM |
I've never thought of it quite like that, to be honest. To describe the "super-universal tesseract containing distinct universes", I imagine it something as a set of infinitely numerous but discrete and infinite cubes (3-spaces) floating around a central point to make a hypercube (parallel "universes") being smeared along an axis (time). Sound about accurate?
Very.
"I wish i could speak math but I dont. I can visualize though."
I wish I could too. Both of my children are math geniuses while I am a math moron. I am going to have to take to my bed for a week just to ponder and wrap my mind around TheCoffeeSan, Vanaheim, and TaiChijohn's postings. They are quite brilliant.
"But let us remember Socrates when he said 'The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories, they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. You give your desciples not truth but only the semblance of truth, they will be heroes of many things, and will have learned nothing. They will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing.' From Phaedrus."
I do so love Phaedrus.
How evocative! May I suggest a solution to this issue of forgetting though? What if one were able to successfully separate that which is learned and that which is used to describe? One can describe language with language, so it's not impossible to have learned a language and become able to describe what is learned, using that tool. If one could silence the jabber in their minds, wouldn't they be able to learn truthfully and result in being able to describe it accurately?
I would like to add to this.
There is a school of thought around embodied knowledge. If we fully embraced and embodied the concepts around quantum physics and mechanics, what would our relationship look like with the world around us? Does intelligence/knowledge have an impact on behavior/morality? If so, how does that take shape? (I apologize, I tend to go off on tangents.) | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 1:42:27 PM |
First, I would hold the argument (along the lines of Bergson) that time is not a dimension of space; because what we call dimensional space has the characteristic of varying by degrees of difference (so that, if you divide up a length, and breadth, or a width the difference you get is a degree of what you started with in that measure is always a more or a less of something). Time, by contast, has the distinct characteristic of varying by kind: the distinctions we make between ‘kinds of things’ are experientially based on their perceivable and historic occurrence, and this is a distinction which is very different than that of measurable degree.
I’m a bit slow and a master at bad math; so I may not be putting it right but, it is bad math to use degrees when using geometry. You need to put it in terms of radiance to keep (sin theta) and (arc-length theta) copasetic; which is copasetic with time the arc-second. I don’t think (sin theta/theta) will equal 1 if you try using a 360 degree coordinate system.
I may need to dig up the proof or maybe someone who knows trig can clear this up. I do think it is wrong to use degrees, you just wont get the right answer. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 4:15:07 PM | Re; message 24 by theta42
Oh - 'degree' as in "greater or lesser, in measure" not 'degrees' as in a specific unit of measure (temperature or angle).
I'm just now reading an article on the phenomenology of sight: the author makes a case that the visual space we actually use is non-Euclidean, and he uses the example of the corners in a large room: when we look at them, to be honest, some of the right angles do appear to be greater than 90 degrees. We know this is not so; but our visual space is in fact curved (he states) although we have adapted to dealing with a locally Euclidean world.
I am not familiar with any measurement system that uses radiance to measure temperature; so although there are models which might substitute hue, saturation, and intensity for more arbitrary color models, I am pretty sure we are still looking at color temperature on the Kelvin scale to define the emission spectra which produce the wavelengths we perceive as color.
So, degrees of rotation and degrees of temperature are not interchangeable (unless some odd quantum equation has established a link); and I don’t think that arc seconds are going to get us any closer to time than the face of an old analogue clock.
Re: message 22 by apainlessend;
I didn't read where anyone referred to it as spacial though....
Dimensions have types, it doesn't make them any less definable as so...
But you are correct, it can be represented mathmatically but riddle me this..
If at that constant speed of light, our frame of reference is changed thus we in fact, "Take our time with us." the there are still measurements being taken, we've merely stepped outside the viewers frame of reference.
But those same atomic measurements apply to us....those seconds...those minutes..
A second will be a second from my frame of reference....
Same as the person viewing me....hence the effect of time dilation...
Which is something tangible...so can we not really consider that time is intangible? That it is an illusion?
Well, I certainly wasn't making the point that time is illusory - far from it. The point I was making is that time considerations distinguish between KINDS of things, not the degree of measurement which defines a thing's extension.
So to use your example; consider: you are moving at the speed of light and making observations, as you suggest. At the very least, there is going to be a very pronounced Doppler shift in the wavelengths of light reaching you; so, it is apparent that things are not going to look as they had relative to your radial velocity. Definitely, you will have something to observe (although I've always wondered: wouldn't the existence of background radiation make space appear opaque at light speed? Or at least, somewhat solid?) . Will you see some things differently? Presumably; my point of argument would be that even within that kind of example, time as 'difference in kind' would be apparent (a distinction introduced by Riemann before being developed by Bergson).
But 'difference in kind' isn't only between different kinds of things: the 'before' and 'after' which define "an event" are temporal distinctions in kind, also.
So - after you step out of your lightspeed state, you will definitely notice the true nature of time as difference-in-kind; because it will be a different world you return to, and not because it has gotten taller, or shorter, or deeper, or longer... | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 6:09:07 PM | I love this thread.
I have to re read some posts. English is not my first language.
This link, may be of interest for many of you.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
It is well made and it does try to, how can I say, unite the infinitaly big with the infinitaly small. (It is interesting to see the evolution of the great theories, throughout time. )
My research, a hobby really, took be to the world of fractals.
I know a little bit about this. I just love the art part.
I have an artistic side and in my paintings, without knowing it, I was sort of painting in the fractal way.
Very abstract art with taking a little part of the original picture and doing similar parterns and so on and so on. Of course I was not accurate but this is how I painted.
You also find fractals, not pure ones, in nature.
I am trying to make a link with the notion of the infinitaly small to the infinitaly big. I think like some of the people I have read that somehow there is a connection that we cannot grasp to link the two extremes. Anyway... fascinating to me.
Like I say, I have to re-read some posts and structure my ideas.
Here is the visual side of the famous Mandelbrot set done in animation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBwuYuOOs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esingleminds%2Eca%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D93%26t%3D1018&feature=player_embedded
Hope the link works...
I could be completely off but I just have this little itch that I cannot scratch taking me in that direction...
 | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
