Philosophy Discussion Forums

I could visualize the box as so it was always there and I could make it make bigger with expansion or smaller as a point. We are outside looking at this point…looking at the box in the dimension of looking unless the outside is also part of the box. If this is true then the box exist regardless of the point inside the box. Where did the point came from? Another dimension? Perhaps physics explain the known box and speculate about the nature of the point or the place we are looking from... and how about the Bib Bang which to me means beginning? The point came into the box with everything we could measure for is actually measuring. Unless the outside is the dimension of looking and so our consciousness is in another dimension.

Obvious Leo wrote:If dimensions are not physical they don't belong in a physical description of the universe. This is why the models of physics make no physical sense even though they make mathematical sense.

I don't see how one can do physics without mathematics or dimensions. And what do you mean by "physical description", if not a mathematical one? Basically, that's all physics is about: we make observations and build mathematical models that make sense of how we interact with what we are observing. If the predictions of the mathematical model work, then fine and we accept the model. If not, we change the mathematical model. And this is true, regardless if one takes an instrumental interpretation or a realist one. And I also don't understand what you mean by "the models of physics make no physical sense".

Bohm2 wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:If dimensions are not physical they don't belong in a physical description of the universe. This is why the models of physics make no physical sense even though they make mathematical sense.

I don't see how one can do physics without mathematics or dimensions. And what do you mean by "physical description", if not a mathematical one? Basically, that's all physics is about: we make observations and build mathematical models that make sense of how we interact with what we are observing. If the predictions of the mathematical model work, then fine and we accept the model. If not, we change the mathematical model. And this is true, regardless if one takes an instrumental interpretation or a realist one. And I also don't understand what you mean by "the models of physics make no physical sense".

All I'm saying is that space is not physical and therefore neither are the 3 dimensions we use to map objects in it. I'm not suggesting that physics can be done any other way with the classical mathematical tools that are used but it means the models are mathematical ones from which physical conclusions are drawn and that many of these conclusions are demonstrably false. They are false because Newton's foundational assumption of the physical space has merely been substituted with a geometric space by the artificial use of constants. Leibniz said from the outset that the physical space was dodgy logic and Einstein confirmed it throughout his life. He took pains to stress that spacetime was a mathematical paradigm and not a model of a physically real world.

"Makes no sense" could keep me writing for days. Space has no physical properties and can therefore do no physical work nor have any physical work performed on it. This is simple high school physics which no physicist will deny. It simply can't physically expand and contract and bend and twist and curve,thus GR is a non-mechanical model and everybody in physics knows it. It is an "as if" model. SR implies reverse causation and leads to all the bizarre stupidities of quantum mechanics, such as cats simultaneously dead and alive and the moon is not there unless somebody is observing it. These are absolutely mandated conclusions from the model which simply cannot be interpreted in any other way. Nobody talks about the grandfather paradox from GR any more either but it simply cannot be made to go away. If you think all these are sensible propositions you'd be wise to keep these opinions to yourself in my local pub, where we define sense rather more pragmatically.

Regards Leo

Obvious Leo wrote:

Atreyu wrote: I don't see why you're bringing up the fact that "dimensions" are a cognitive construct and not "physical".

I'll make it easy for you then. If dimensions are not physical they don't belong in a physical description of the universe. This is why the models of physics make no physical sense even though they make mathematical sense.

Regards Leo

Gravity, light, magnetism and electrical force are all evidence of other dimensions.

Radar wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It seems this question has no solution. Scientists say that since the Big Bang, the universe has been expanding. Okay I can buy that one. But then the question turns on inside of what? Another universe possibly? Or nothingness?

What say you to this?

PhilX

The question presupposes there really is an "out there" out there. I'm not so sure there is. What if every thing, every where, every when and their every possibility coexist as one, unified whole, not as a singularity, but as a state of affairs -- a continuum? Is that any less feasible than multiple universe theories? The difference is that proponents of multiple universe theories do not propose a continuum, but every thing and their every possibility coexisting in time and each in their own place. The former is no more scientifically valid than the latter.

I don't see how the 'multiverse' people ever got off the ground with their theory. It's a quantum blunder. It is also a horrible name since the terminology of multiple universe is conflicted from the start. The amount of material in such a system grows at a rate that cannot be stated. It is a useless theory put there to alleviate other conflicts within the quantum theory. One could almost posit a conspiracy theory in terms of how silly it all is, but then again looking in the mirror it is an animal doing the work. That wee humans can even posit theories on the universe and its beginning is far fetched. I believe it is valid to go there, but the results shouldn't be taken too seriously. The cart is ahead of the horse in that there are numerous problems with current theory. The ape in the mirror is now puzzled by dark matter. We still haven't unified gravity with the other forces. One subtle change in the fundamentals could have large consequences at the top of the pile.

Our curriculum afaik still uses historical starting points such as Euclidean geometry. Everything else is stated in its terms. The real number drives most of physics, and yet physics has outgrown it. Yet it still resides in the basis, and this is a conflict according to big bang theory, where the real number has lost its validity and an upper limit on the continuum of 4.5 billion light years or so is established.

Rather than the balloon model we could go straight back to pure mathematics to find a model in those Euclidean terms, but one which closes those infinite lines. It happens to be a unified approach, or at least a unifying one. The shell (balloon) in 3D space allows 2D of freedom, so clearly the one which portrays reality will be at least 4D to achieve 3D of freedom on its surface. By simply constraining the distance of the objects to a unity distance we have a simple system. We as elements of this system have no access to the origin. But how do we go about divorcing ourselves from the Euclidean form? What we regard as distance can be treated as rotation in this scheme, but still so long as we have a representation in our minds of black matter on a white space then this geometry is still suffering the Euclidean paradigm. Its very construction which uses the terminology '4D' is common language, but we are essentially calling this language flawed, as in we need a divorce from it, so we are caught here within a language.

Riemann considers "multiply extended manifoldness" in http://www.emis.de/classics/Riemann/WKCGeom.pdf and makes use of the term 'magnitude' heavily, which I can appreciate. But he's still caught in the Euclidean black and white I think. For physics our math needs more. Anyway, any theory that brings correspondence can be treated as a step. Even a misstep can lead to a new step. Isn't physics actually fumbling along? Cold physics is awesome stuff, but as far as theory goes we seem to be tripping.

Obvious Leo wrote:All I'm saying is that space is not physical and therefore neither are the 3 dimensions we use to map objects in it.

Correct. Space is not physical and therefore neither are the 3 dimensions we use to map objects ("physical") in it. But we couldn't perceive or cognize objects in the first place without space. Without space, everything would be one, all together in the same place. There would be no "here and there", everything would be "here". Everything. And so nothing (objects) could be separated from anything else. Without a cognition of "space" there could be no cognition of "matter", "distance", "objects", or "physical".

Obvious Leo wrote: I'm not suggesting that physics can be done any other way with the classical mathematical tools that are used but it means the models are mathematical ones from which physical conclusions are drawn and that many of these conclusions are demonstrably false. They are false because Newton's foundational assumption of the physical space has merely been substituted with a geometric space by the artificial use of constants. Leibniz said from the outset that the physical space was dodgy logic and Einstein confirmed it throughout his life. He took pains to stress that spacetime was a mathematical paradigm and not a model of a physically real world.

Mathematical paradigms, as Bohm pointed out, are in fact models of an alleged "real" world. And since we don't possess objective consciousness that is all we can have, as Kant pointed out long ago. The fact that we cannot know it, i.e. perceive or "see" it, does not prevent us from being able to try to reason it out, and the cognition of "matter", "space", "energy", "time", etc is simply how we do it.

Obvious Leo wrote: "Makes no sense" could keep me writing for days. Space has no physical properties and can therefore do no physical work nor have any physical work performed on it. This is simple high school physics which no physicist will deny. It simply can't physically expand and contract and bend and twist and curve,thus GR is a non-mechanical model and everybody in physics knows it.

It's precisely because space is a cognitive construct that it can APPEAR to bend, twist, and curve. And in this case, as you correctly pointed out, that's all we have. All we have is appearances, as all we have is subjective awareness. Remember, you cannot cognize "matter" or "objects" without a cognition of space. If you say something, anything, exists, you have to both imagine and perceive it as existing in space. So saying space cannot bend, twist, and curve implies that matter also cannot bend, twist, or curve. You fail to see that our cognition of "matter" is just as subjective as our cognition of "space" (or "time", or "energy", or "force", etc). But the cognition of "matter" and "space" cannot be separated ("matter/space"), just as the cognition of "matter" and "energy" cannot be separated ("matter/energy").

Obvious Leo wrote: It is an "as if" model.

They all are. So is yours. This should be obvious. To say a model simply "is" is to suggest that it is beyond question, to refute the principles of Kant.

Obvious Leo wrote: SR implies reverse causation and leads to all the bizarre stupidities of quantum mechanics, such as cats simultaneously dead and alive and the moon is not there unless somebody is observing it. These are absolutely mandated conclusions from the model which simply cannot be interpreted in any other way. Nobody talks about the grandfather paradox from GR any more either but it simply cannot be made to go away. If you think all these are sensible propositions you'd be wise to keep these opinions to yourself in my local pub, where we define sense rather more pragmatically.

I do agree with you that we should not throw away our "common sense" in assessing any theories. But as I pointed out in an earlier thread, our view of chronological time defies our common sense. It's nonsensical to think that only the "present" can exist but not the "past" or "future" because they are a continuum and the division between them is subjective and arbitrary. I showed this when I gave you the timeline example. Your "past" is someone else's "present" or someone else's "future". And just a moment before it was YOUR "present" and YOUR "future". You cannot pin down the exact time that the present (reality, existence) ends and the past (non-reality, non-existence) begins. They are a continuum and you cannot subjectively divide them into three (past, present, and future) and then say that only one of the three "really" exists. One of the three only seems to "really" exist because only one of the three (the present) is available for our immediate awareness, and in fact is defined by such awareness. If the "you" that was one second ago does not exist, and the "you" that will be one second from now does not exist, it is absurd to think that the "you" in the present does exist, precisely because all three of those three categories of "you" are defined and cognized by your subjective awareness in the first place.

We only say the past does not "really" exist anymore simply because our awareness has "past it by". And we say that the future doesn't "really" exist yet simply because our awareness hasn't "gotten there yet". Either ALL of time (past AND present AND future) "really" exists (there are higher dimensions of space) or else NONE of time (past AND present AND future) "really" exists (there are only three dimensions of space).... but I'll let the reader decide which of these two cognitive constructs he prefers.

It is true that paradigms are accepted by vote. Past Galileo was an outcast present Galileo is a visionary ahead of his time. So the question remains: Is the acorn the Oak? One new field of endeavors is optogenetics. It measures MEG signals in humans of which two are described as being thalamic and interneuron. The signals had measurements between 0.1 Hz and 700 Hz. The deepest the source the faintest the signal. Cortex signals appear to be the strongest and our primal brain has the weakest signals. There is communication between past and present and there is a commonality of energy. Travel in Time to the timeless energy soup before there was any cooling or Time Travel. We are able now to discover new particles due to the high energies of the supercollider. So if past and present coexist the same will be for the future. We are the soup. We are living in the soup as it cools off are we are in the expansion flux created by the highly more energetic particles at the boundaries of the Universe. Matter Antimatter. Are we residing in the soup anymore? Why not get with the Times and live in the antimatter flux at the boundaries of the Universe?. So much negativity! And how about the abundance of thalamic signals?

A lot of the interpretational problems in physics have to do with the fact that any mathematical model/formalism is subject to multiple interpretations. So, it is always possible to find alternative interpretations of a successful formalism and argue for alternative stories about the domain in question. And I'm not talking only about QM. Even in relativity the debate on substantivalist versus relationalist Approaches to Spacetime continues:

Substantivalist and Relationalist Approaches to Spacetime
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9055/1/srapproaches.pdf

More properly, the universe is expanding the "bubble" of space that defines our universe. Since all world-lines in the universe are confined within it (at least at present), there is no way to gain knowledge of anything "outside" of it. One could say, "there is no outside," until this one bumps into another.

Is the universe comprised only of void and plenum or does something surround them? I don't understand the nature of the universe enough to say and am currently hoping the answer could be ascertained from quantum physics someday.

Reactor wrote:More properly, the universe is expanding the "bubble" of space that defines our universe. Since all world-lines in the universe are confined within it (at least at present), there is no way to gain knowledge of anything "outside" of it. One could say, "there is no outside," until this one bumps into another.

I agree with your reasoning, but one can also say "there is no outside" by definition. Since the Universe is everything that exists there can be nothing outside of it. Anything found to be "outside" of it would merely be an improper way of elucidating the fact that we have become aware of more of the Universe, i.e. that we have now realized that the Universe is much bigger than we previously could have imagined.

If I posit that a box and all of its contents are the Universe (i.e.everything that exists), and then I find that in fact there is a lot of stuff actually outside of that box, that the box is really not "Everything" but in fact is really but a small part of a much bigger "All", it would be poor reasoning to say that "Everything (the box) exists inside of something else". No, we have merely discovered that in reality the box in which we ascribed "Everything" is really not "Everything", but in fact is only a very small part of the totality of that which exists.

Atreyu wrote:
I agree with your reasoning, but one can also say "there is no outside" by definition.

Agreed, but man's present definitions only last until the next enlightenment.

Reactor wrote:Agreed, but man's present definitions only last until the next enlightenment.

Indeed. But actually, they usually don't last even that long, and in ordinary conversation we often find that we begin with as many as there are participants in the conversation!

Which is why I'm such a stickler for definitions.....

The observer is the one variable in which opinion flows. Irrational is the capacity of an observer to create an alternate theory based on an inexistent process; many like to call this capacity absurd. Absurd is the inability to change or consider one’s TOM to complement the accepted abstract. Change comes slowly so it seems that for some Time runs faster. It is so that the QM background wave could be called Aion. Is Aion changing as we change? Perhaps we have found a new definition of free will. Free will is the capacity to be as we move in Time.

I am not sure the universe is expanding at all. If the universe is expanding where is it expanding from? We on earth measure the expansion from our planet. Does the expansion start from our point in space or some other? If the expansion is measured from our planet the question comes up, does the expansion radiate out from us in all directions? Perhaps the expansion starts at star x. If the expansion starts at a certain point as this then how do we inteprete the expansion from out point in space If the expansion is analogous to a balloon being expanded by air, at least it has a starting point. The balloon being expanding up by air at its hole No starting point no expansion. Just an illusion for if the expansion is observed from different places in the universe How do we account for the expansion being at the same speed where ever the expansion is measured from? It may be imploding as you suggest. Perhaps another theory might be that it does expand and then implode which might be giving the measurements some meaning. If this is so then it does not expand into nothing but the expansion stays within the universe. Admiral usher