Can You Imagine a Universe Without Space and Time?

[Canute]

Well, I tend to take my cues from physicists themseves. Here is Lee Smolin.

"When we imagine we are seeing into an infinite three-dimensional space, we are falling for a fallacy in which we substitute what we actually see for an intellectual construct. This is not only a mystical vision, it is wrong."

Lee Smolin
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000 (64)

Smolin completely misunderstands the mystical view, which is to think we are seeing into an infinite three-dimensional space is irrational, but the idea that spacetime is a conceptual construct he seeems to be ok with.

 

[Tournesol]

Maybe he was just objecting to infinity.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Maybe he was just objecting to infinity.

Yes. It is the idea of infinity that he thinks is just an intellectual construction, that is wrongly identified with perceptual vagueness at very large distances.

 

[Gold Barz]

Did my post get deleted in here? because I swear to god I posted in here

 

[Canute]

Well, perhaps that's what Smolin meant, I'm no physicist, but this is not the impression I get from his words. It seems to me he argues that spacetime is, or may not be, fundamental. Here he is again -

"Time is but a measure of change - it has no other meaning. Neither space nor time has any existence outside the system of evolving relationships that comprise the universe. Physicists refer to this feature of relativity as background independence." (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (24))

Also, if it is only the idea of infinity that Smolin doesn't like then it follows that, for him, spacetime exists but is not infinite. Where is the evidence to justify this view? I haven't seen any, Smolin doesn't give any, and I doubt that he would just adopt an ad hoc hypothesis.

Also, what did Mlodinow mean by this?

" But its strangest aspect is this: in M-theory, space and time, in some fundamental sense, do not exist."

Leonard Mlodinow
‘Euclid’s Window’ (258)

 

[Tournesol]

"Time is but a measure of change - it has no other meaning. Neither space nor time has any existence outside the system of evolving relationships that comprise the universe. Physicists refer to this feature of relativity as background independence." (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (24))

That doesn't mean S&T don't exist at all, it means they don't exist beyond the relationships between material bodies; all that means is they are secondary or epiphenonemal.

" But its strangest aspect is this: in M-theory, space and time, in some fundamental sense, do not exist."

Again, not existing in a fundamental sense is not the same as not existing
simpliciter. And if these results have been arrived at empirically S&T cannot
be "just concepts" -- they must have some real-world content.

 

[Canute]

That doesn't mean S&T don't exist at all, it means they don't exist beyond the relationships between material bodies; all that means is they are secondary or epiphenonemal.

Thank you. That's all I suggested. If you look I did not say that they didn't exist but that they were conceptual constructs. Brian Greene says the same in his book. He writes that physicist sometimes sum up this possibility by saying that spacetime may be an illusion. By 'illusion' is meant non-fundamental. For a metaphor he cites the smell of roses. He speaks of spacetime's impending departure from deep physical law. As far as I can see what I wrote earlier is scientifically uncontentious.

Again, not existing in a fundamental sense is not the same as not existing simpliciter.

Of course.

And if these results have been arrived at empirically S&T cannot be "just concepts" -- they must have some real-world content.

I'm not sure I understand this bit. Naturally space and time have some real world content if you call the world in spacetime the real world. It's tautologically true. But epiphenomena are not real in the same sense as that upon which they are epiphenomenal. Isn't that what we mean when we call something epiphenomenal? It's certainly what's meant by it in philosophy of mind. What is most real must be that to which everything reduces, and may be that to which space and time reduce, if they are not fundamental.

The question was: Can we imagine a world without space and time? Kant and Greene say no and I'd agree. I was merely pointing out that it does not necessarily follow from this that space and time are anything more than concepts and noting that some physicists speculate that this is exactly what they are, and suggest that we may be naive to think otherwise. They may be wrong of course, but it's not an ad hoc hypothesis, an unscientific idea or in any way contrary to the scientific evidence, or any other evidence come to that. I think you might be objecting to something I didn't say.

Canute

 

[Ubern0va]

My personal opinion is that space and time are two inherent characteristics of the Universe and that the Big Bang didn't mark the creation of space and time but perhaps of our own spacetime. Even an empty geometry is a sort of space. I would like to hear other people's insights on this topic.

This has plagued me for a while now. My brain wants to explode at the very thought of this concept. This is similar to a post that I replied to eariler where I stated that such a concept is incomprehensible to the human mind. It's like attempting to describe and define sight to a person who's been blind since birth.

What's bothered me even more is the fact that there is no conceiveable answer for why pure non-existance (of which you speak) transformed into existence as we know it (space, time, nothingness, etc...). Our being on this Earth seems irrational, illogical,and thus impossible.

The only thing that keeps me sane is knowing that it had to occur somehow, otherewise I wouldn't be here to reply to this post. :)

 

[Canute]

Perhaps you're right and there is no conceivable answer, and perhaps this is why mystics insist that it is necessary to transcend the conceptual to know the answer. If you assume that the non-existent became the existent, that Being comes from non-Being as philosophers often put it, then your brain may well explode, for it makes no sense. But it is not actually necessary to make this assumption. In the mystical view what is fundamental exists in a stronger sense, is more real, than our phenomenal universe (even though there is a sense in which it does not exist). A metaphor would be our dreams, for we do not usually scratch our heads over the origins of our dream-worlds, obviously we dream them up. This is directly connected to the non-fundamental nature of space and time, for if they are not fundamental then something else is, and by definition it must be capable of existing in the absence of temporality or spatial extension. Perhaps the fifth dimension proposed by Theodor Kaluza is something like what this is, from a scientific perspective.

 

[Tournesol]

Thank you. That's all I suggested. If you look I did not say that they didn't exist but that they were conceptual constructs.

Meanign what ? That they were literally created by us ? Or meaning that
we cannot recognise them without first having the construct ? Or that
they are "just concepts" in the sense that unicorns are ?

Brian Greene says the same in his book. He writes that physicist sometimes sum up this possibility by saying that spacetime may be an illusion. By 'illusion' is meant non-fundamental.

Well, those two words just aren't equivalent. Epiphenomenal means
non-fundamental. Waves are an epiphenomenon of water, but they
are not illusions. Mirages are illusions, but they are not epiphenomena.

For a metaphor he cites the smell of roses.

What's illusory about that ?

I'm not sure I understand this bit. Naturally space and time have some real world content if you call the world in spacetime the real world. It's tautologically true. But epiphenomena are not real in the same sense as that upon which they are epiphenomenal.

Nor are they imaginary or illusory.

The question was: Can we imagine a world without space and time? Kant and Greene say no and I'd agree. I was merely pointing out that it does not necessarily follow from this that space and time are anything more than concepts

But if something is "just a concept" in the way unicorns are, it can very readily be imagined away.

and noting that some physicists speculate that this is exactly what they are,

The level of exactitude is just the problem. "illusion" , "epiphenomenon" ,
"intellectual construct" all mean different things.

 

[Canute]

Meanign what ? That they were literally created by us ? Or meaning that
we cannot recognise them without first having the construct ? Or that
they are "just concepts" in the sense that unicorns are ?

This seems a matter of interpretation and of ones particular view of the universe. In some views spacetime are 'illusions' in all these senses (E.g. Spencer Brown and Eddington), Probably the meaning needs to be clarified when it is used to separate out these meanings. Einstein wrote "The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before it can find them in things." I imagine he meant that the construct comes before the object. (I'm not making the argument here that he's right, by the way, but he might be).

On the specific issue of time, by implication space and time, Greene quotes a conversation with AE.

"Einstein said that the problem of the now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter for painful but inevitable resignation.

This resignation leaves open a pivotal question: Is science unable to grasp a fundamental quality of time that the human mind embraces as readily as the lungs take in air, or does the human mind impose on time a quality of its own making, one that is artificial and that hence does not show up in the laws of physics?"

... Past, present and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."

Brian Greene
The Fabric of the Cosmos
Penguin, 2003 (132/139)

The last para. gives precisely the mystical view, a view with which Einstein had some sympathy.

Well, those two words just aren't equivalent. Epiphenomenal means
non-fundamental. Waves are an epiphenomenon of water, but they
are not illusions. Mirages are illusions, but they are not epiphenomena.

I'd say illusions are by definition epiphenomena but maybe that's splitting hairs. Greene makes clear his use of the term 'illusion' above. When the term is used by Buddhists to refer to spacetime the same misunderstandings arise. They mean what Greene means. I think I generally agree with you that it is misleading to call spacetime an illusion, but 'epiphenomenon' is a recent term not available to earlier writers. 'Mere appearances' is another option.

One mystic puts it like this.

"Time and Space, according to the metaphysician, have only a conceptual and not a real existence; but since all things and not these only are forms assumed by Conscious-Being in its own consciousness, the distinction is of no great importance. Time and Space are that one Conscious-Being viewing itself in extension, subjectively as Time, objectively as Space."

Sri Aurobindo
The Life Divine (1939)

In other words, space and time do exist as appearances, just as our everyday experiences tell us, but only as appearances. Lee Smolin puts it as:

"Neither space nor time has any existence outside the system of evolving relationships that comprise the universe."

The level of exactitude is just the problem. "illusion" , "epiphenomenon" ,
"intellectual construct" all mean different things.

Yes, I agree. Words can be very imprecise. 'Illusion' is often used to mean 'epiphenomenal', as the Einstein quotes show, and while an epiphenomenon is, scientifically speaking, not necessarily a conceptual construct, a conceptual construct is necessarily an illusion, in ontological terms. Perhaps one could refer to Neo's fictional Matrix-world, in which spacetime is an illusion, an epiphenomenon and a conceptual construct all at the same, er, time. (It's interesting to wonder what physicists in that world make of their universe. They'd have to have some weird theories).

Does that clear up our differences?

Canute

 

[Tournesol]

This seems a matter of interpretation and of ones particular view of the universe. In some views spacetime are 'illusions' in all these senses (E.g. Spencer Brown and Eddington), Probably the meaning needs to be clarified when it is used to separate out these meanings. Einstein wrote "The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before it can find them in things." I imagine he meant that the construct comes before the object. (I'm not making the argument here that he's right, by the way, but he might be).

Even if it is the case that we need a concept of something before recognising it (a position sometimes called Neo-Kantianism), there is still a difference
between concepts which are just concepts, and concepts which latch onto
observable reality.

On the specific issue of time, by implication space and time, Greene quotes a conversation with AE.

This resignation leaves open a pivotal question: Is science unable to grasp a fundamental quality of time that the human mind embraces as readily as the lungs take in air, or does the human mind impose on time a quality of its own making, one that is artificial and that hence does not show up in the laws of physics?"

If humans are embedded in the physical universe, how can they come
up with physically unaccountable ideas and feelings ?

... Past, present and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."

But illusions require a mechanism, some kind of smoke and mirrors to
supprt them. Does the mechanism, the human mind, stand outside the physcial universe. If so physics is not complete. But if it is not complete,
then there is no reason to suppose passing-time is an illusion ITFP.

I'd say illusions are by definition epiphenomena but maybe that's splitting hairs.

I would say they are by defintion not. When you see a wave, what you are seeig is not illusory.

In other words, space and time do exist as appearances, just as our everyday experiences tell us, but only as appearances.

IOW everything is mere appearance...compared to a higher reality.
But you need to establish the existence of the Higher Reality in order
to draw the conclusion of appearance. On their own terms, space and tiem are real.

Illusion' is often used to mean 'epiphenomenal', as the Einstein quotes show, and while an epiphenomenon is, scientifically speaking, not necessarily a conceptual construct, a conceptual construct is necessarily an illusion, in ontological terms.

I don't think that follows at all.

 

[Doctordick]

There are none so blind as those who will not see!

...Greene quotes a conversation with AE.

"Einstein said that the problem of the now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter for painful but inevitable resignation.

It isn't that science cannot grasp the issue but rather that, due to Newton's mechanistic picture of the universe (which is almost universally accepted), they do not see the necessity of the "now".

What they fail to comprehend is that their mental image of the universe (by the way, "the universe" means "everything") is not based on what the universe is but is based, instead, on what they know of the universe. Since what they know is not fixed, they need a way of expressing a change in what they know and the human mind has created the concept "now". Newton's mechanistic picture make the underlying assumption that the future is a direct consequence of the past and there is no boundary of significance between the two and that picture is simply wrong!

... Is science unable to grasp a fundamental quality of time that the human mind embraces as readily as the lungs take in air, or does the human mind impose on time a quality of its own making, one that is artificial and that hence does not show up in the laws of physics?"

But it does show up in physics; in the form of the "collapse of the wave function". The issue is not that it does not show up but rather that the scientists don't comprehend "why" the difference is necessary; why the boundary must exist.

... Past, present and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."

Well, I would certainly agree with him there and I would furthermore suggest that it is time that physicists took the trouble to consider the consequences that flaw in their perspective.

Perhaps one could refer to Neo's fictional Matrix-world, in which spacetime is an illusion, an epiphenomenon and a conceptual construct all at the same, er, time. (It's interesting to wonder what physicists in that world make of their universe. They'd have to have some weird theories).

Why does it have to be mystical? Can't one simply look at the possibilities rationally?

If one concludes that their world view is a consequence of two important kinds of information, the intuitive kind we believe to be true without support (what I have called "squirrel thought" and what mathematicians set forth in their logic as "axioms") and what can be deduced from those beliefs (the logical kind we can prove must follow from the axioms and consistency), then there is only one other factor which can possibly bear on the validity of that world view. And that is the connection between the expectations flowing from that world view (the future) and the actual results (the past). This is the importance of "now".

Any attempt to make "now" an insignificant aspect of physics simply destroys the ability of physics to portray reality.

If humans are embedded in the physical universe, how can they come up with physically unaccountable ideas and feelings?

Don't you have the question a little bit backwards? Shouldn't the question instead be, "how in the world can they account for the ideas and feelings which arise from being embedded in the physical universe?"

But illusions require a mechanism, some kind of smoke and mirrors to supprt them. Does the mechanism, the human mind, stand outside the physcial universe. If so physics is not complete. But if it is not complete, then there is no reason to suppose passing-time is an illusion ITFP.

Illusions require nothing but thought itself together with a lack of definitive information. What kind of smoke and mirrors support the illusion that the Earth is flat?

I would say they are by defintion not. When you see a wave, what you are seeig is not illusory.

Everything you "see" is an illusion. There is a big difference between what is actually out there and what you "see". You are using the vagueness of the English language to smear these very different issues into the appearance of being one issue.

IOW everything is mere appearance...compared to a higher reality.
But you need to establish the existence of the Higher Reality in order
to draw the conclusion of appearance.

Again, I am of the opinion that you the issues backwards here. It is the issue of the nature of "the Higher Reality" which is to be established from the "appearances" which are available to us. We have utterly nothing to go on except the universe, as it appears to us.

Illusion' is often used to mean 'epiphenomenal', as the Einstein quotes show, and while an epiphenomenon is, scientifically speaking, not necessarily a conceptual construct, a conceptual construct is necessarily an illusion, in ontological terms.

I am afraid that here I have to agree with Canute.

On their own terms, space and tiem are real.

What you are really saying is that the terms are labels for aspects of reality (the universe) which you feel are necessary to any explanation of the universe. I would agree that so long as you are not "all knowing" you are absolutely correct; however, I think your perspective on the issue is erroneous.

Have fun – Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity.

 

[Tournesol]

Illusions require nothing but thought itself together with a lack of definitive information. What kind of smoke and mirrors support the illusion that the Earth is flat?

Illusions (unlike concpetual errors) require perceptual content. In the
case of the world, the issue is that you can only see a small part of the service.

Everything you "see" is an illusion.

Nope. An illusion is not a mere appearance, it is a misinterpreted appearance.

There is a big difference between what is actually out there and what you "see".

Yes, but that does not mean I misinterpret all my qualia.

You are using the vagueness of the English language to smear these very different issues into the appearance of being one issue.

Completley back-to-front. I am drawing distinction others are ignoring.

Again, I am of the opinion that you the issues backwards here. It is the issue of the nature of "the Higher Reality" which is to be established from the "appearances" which are available to us.

I am talking about the Higher Reality claimed by mystics like Aurobindo,
which supposedly beyond both (ordinary) appearances, and the 'ordinary' reality
behind appearances, which is accepted by everybody except solipsists.
The mystics' claim is that ordinary reality is itself mere appearance relative to Higer Reality.

 

[Canute]

This is a bit of a clash of paradigms I think. Doctordick and I seem to be in agreement, but I can see that this view appears paradoxical in important ways. It is a complete denial of naive realism.

However, according to physicists it is possible, on the evidence, that spacetime is not fundamental, so let's assume for the moment that it is not. In this case there is something (although it cannot be a 'thing' in any ordinary sense) that can exist in the complete absence of spacetime, and is thus able to give rise to spacetime. This is not particularly scientifically contentious so far.

But the scientific notion of the non-fundamentality of spacetime is poorly thought through in my opinion. If spacetime is not fundamantal then what is fundamental has no spatial or temporal extension. It is no good calling it a field of gravity or somesuch, for according to physics, as far as I can tell, the action of gravity requires that space and time exists. We must bite the bullet I feel. If something is beyond spacetime then it is beyond physics. In this case the view that spacetime is not fundamental is transcendentalism, not just a slight adjustment to our current theories of physics, and paradigmatic metaphysical issues are raised, such as Doctordick's point about the 'now'.

One such issue is the 'realness' of the everyday phenomenal universe experienced by human beings. If this universe is epiphenomenal then there is a reductionist sense in which it is not real, or at least not as real as what is fundamental. The question is, does this mean that the spacetime-dependent universe and the phenomena it contains are made out of what is fundamental, (which on our assumption here exists 'outside' spacetime), and is thus ontologically grounded, epihenomenal but nevertheless still real, still substantial, like a piano or kitchen table seems to be, or does it mean that only what is fundamental is really real, and all the rest are the conceptual creations of what is fundamental, aka 'mere appearances'.

We can't answer this question scientifically yet, but both views have a large number of supporters. However there are some logical issues that can be explored. If some substance beyond space and time is what everything is made out of, then by reduction everything that is made out of it is beyond space and time. This seems to me logically incoherent. The other option, that space and time and all that exists within them are mere appearances seems less problematic. It is a wildly counterintuitive idea to many people, but then so are many of the theories of modern physics. Clearly we are trying to figure out a world that is very strange, and certainly nothing like how it appears to our physical senses.

Illusions (unlike concpetual errors) require perceptual content. In the case of the world, the issue is that you can only see a small part of the service.

Do dreams require perceptual content? Is a person born with no physical senses necessarily unable to conceive of anything? I feel all that is required for an illusion is the ability to conceptualise.

Nope. An illusion is not a mere appearance, it is a misinterpreted appearance.

I see what you mean. But all appearances are interpretations, theory-laden mental constructs and thus, in principle at least, may all be misinterpretations. The suggestion here is that it is not necessary for an appearance to have physical substance, not that appearances have no cause but rather that all appearances and all 'appearancees' have only a relative existence, and reduce to what is absolute.

Yes, but that does not mean I misinterpret all my qualia.

By the time you have a 'qualia' most of the interpretative work has been done by normally automatic and normally subconscious processes. All our brains have for raw material are electro-chemical substances and activities, so goodness knows what's actually 'out there'. We have to constuct what's out there by an act of pure imagination.

I am talking about the Higher Reality claimed by mystics like Aurobindo,
which supposedly beyond both (ordinary) appearances, and the 'ordinary' reality behind appearances, which is accepted by everybody except solipsists.
The mystics' claim is that ordinary reality is itself mere appearance relative to Higer Reality.

That seems a fair summary. But I'm not sure all physicists would agree with you that there is an 'ordinary' reality midway between appearances and 'higher reality', except in our minds, which themselves may by just part of this intermediate 'ordinary reality'.

I mentioned Schrodinger and Eddington earlier, and they at least would not agree. Eddington in particular is clear on this. In his view 'ordinary reality' is an illusion of the human mind. I say this just to confirm that this view is not contrary to the scientific evidence. Physics has not yet proved that anything it studies is really there. Indeed, from the unfalsifiability of solipsism we know it is impossible to do this. One has to wonder why.

Damn, written too much again. Sorry. It's an interesting discussion. I'm trying to address your objections properly, but it's difficult to do without drifting into areas that would get the thread shut down.

Cheers
canute

 

[Doctordick]

This is a bit of a clash of paradigms I think. Doctordick and I seem to be in agreement, but I can see that this view appears paradoxical in important ways. It is a complete denial of naive realism.

I think I agree with both of you on most everything of importance. What neither of you seem to see is that I am not asking for any agreement. What I am asking for is a little attention to a subtle issue not considered serious by anyone save myself. Please look at my response to Tournesol on the thread "The Past IS Real".

But the scientific notion of the non-fundamentality of spacetime is poorly thought through in my opinion. If spacetime is not fundamantal then what is fundamental has no spatial or temporal extension.

Think about the issue a bit. Space-time is a coordinate system. You should keep in mind that Einstein's theory is a "Theory" and not a fact. According to the precepts of Einstein, all the entities which exist in that space-time are nothing more than deviations of its metric from a "Flat" space (essentially the old Euclidian metric). Without any information as to where and how big those deviations are, the concept certainly lacks something. It seems to me that the information referred to is thus much more fundamental than is "spacetime" itself. Clearly spatial and temporal extension are not fundamental aspects of information. They only arise when one attempts a graphical representation of information. Einstein's perspective is very limited in that it presumes there is no other rational representation of that information. I further question the conclusion that, if it isn't represented via "space-time" it isn't physics. That seems to me to be far to constraining to be held as a basic boundary of physics.

If something is beyond spacetime then it is beyond physics. In this case the view that spacetime is not fundamental is transcendentalism, not just a slight adjustment to our current theories of physics, and paradigmatic metaphysical issues are raised, such as Doctordick's point about the 'now'.

You sound like you might be interested in what I have discovered; but, meanwhile, it seems to me that deciding Einstein's "space-time" is essential to physics is in the same bag with believing Aristotle's crystalline spheres are essential to physics (the basis of all those epicycles prior to Newton). Newton asked, "What if nothing is holding up the heavenly bodies and the moon is just falling?" At the time they thought he was nuts; it was clear to the scientific community that if nothing held it up, the whole thing would just fall to the ground. Forty years ago, I asked, What if there are no rules and anything can happen? I have received exactly the same response: you're nuts, if anything can happen, all of science will come tumbling down. That's wrong guys and I can show it!

One such issue is the 'realness' of the everyday phenomenal universe experienced by human beings. If this universe is epiphenomenal then there is a reductionist sense in which it is not real, or at least not as real as what is fundamental.

Not if the information referred to above is what is actually real.

The question is, does this mean that the spacetime-dependent universe and the phenomena it contains are made out of what is fundamental, (which on our assumption here exists 'outside' spacetime), and is thus ontologically grounded, epihenomenal but nevertheless still real, still substantial, like a piano or kitchen table seems to be, or does it mean that only what is fundamental is really real, and all the rest are the conceptual creations of what is fundamental, aka 'mere appearances'.

Here I think you need to be very careful as to exactly what you mean by real. For example, when a doctor finds a collection of symptoms in a patient common to a particular well known disease where the cause of the disease is not yet known, would you say that the disease is not real but only exists as a conceptual creation?

Clearly we are trying to figure out a world that is very strange, and certainly nothing like how it appears to our physical senses.

I find that very analogous to the statement that, "if the moon is falling, it will hit the earth!" Until you examine the consequences of figuring out that world, you can't say anything about how it appears to our physical senses. I personally define "an object" to be a collection of information who's internal relationships may be considered as independent of the rest of the universe for the period of time of interest. If the information is "real" then so is the "object" (at least so long as the rest of the universe can be ignored).

But all appearances are interpretations, theory-laden mental constructs and thus, in principle at least, may all be misinterpretations.

Yes, and inconsistent interpretations are much more apt to be misinterpretations than internally consistent interpretations. What happens when one constrains those interpretations to only internally consistent interpretations but otherwise unlimited? Can you answer that question? Why is no one interested in thinking about that question? I can answer it, and that is exactly what I have been trying to get across.

By the time you have a 'qualia' most of the interpretative work has been done by normally automatic and normally subconscious processes. All our brains have for raw material are electro-chemical substances and activities, so goodness knows what's actually 'out there'. We have to constuct what's out there by an act of pure imagination.

You are so close to my fundamental starting point that I can not comprehend your lack of interest.

Physics has not yet proved that anything it studies is really there. Indeed, from the unfalsifiability of solipsism we know it is impossible to do this. One has to wonder why.

That is exactly the question I can answer but before one can understand the answer, one must understand how to perform deduction from an undefined basis.

Could I ask exactly how much mathematics you understand?

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Canute]

Clearly spatial and temporal extension are not fundamental aspects of information. They only arise when one attempts a graphical representation of information.

I'd say they arise when one tries to conceptualise reality, not just when graphically representing it, although perhaps the two might be considered the same thing.

I further question the conclusion that, if it isn't represented via "space-time" it isn't physics. That seems to me to be far to constraining to be held as a basic boundary of physics.

Perhaps physics will change, but at the moment the idea that something can exist yet be unextended in space or time (or indeed in any dimension) would be considered metaphysics, not physics.

You sound like you might be interested in what I have discovered; but, meanwhile, it seems to me that deciding Einstein's "space-time" is essential to physics is in the same bag with believing Aristotle's crystalline spheres are essential to physics

I feel this is a fundamental assumption of physics. After all, a phenomonon existing outside of space and time is not third-person observable or measurable. How could one include it within physics?

Here I think you need to be very careful as to exactly what you mean by real. For example, when a doctor finds a collection of symptoms in a patient common to a particular well known disease where the cause of the disease is not yet known, would you say that the disease is not real but only exists as a conceptual creation?

I'd say the doctor, the patient, the disease and the cause of the disease are unreal in the sense I was using the word.

I personally define "an object" to be a collection of information who's internal relationships may be considered as independent of the rest of the universe for the period of time of interest. If the information is "real" then so is the "object" (at least so long as the rest of the universe can be ignored).

I'm not sure if I agree or not with the first sentence. It depends on exactly what you mean. The second I agree with, but it's a big 'if'. I'd say that the information is not real, so neither is the object.

Yes, and inconsistent interpretations are much more apt to be misinterpretations than internally consistent interpretations.

To me that's an oversimplification. What about wave/particles? Or the 'hypothesis of duality' from cosmology?

What happens when one constrains those interpretations to only internally consistent interpretations but otherwise unlimited? Can you answer that question?

Yes. One ends up with undecidable metaphysical questions all over the place and Nature becomes completely incomprehensible.

That is exactly the question I can answer but before one can understand the answer, one must understand how to perform deduction from an undefined basis.

Do you mean like George Spencer Brown's calculus of indications, or Lao-Tsu's undefined Tao? The entire epistemilogical system of the 'mystical religions' is grounded on an undefined axiom, and is structurally isomorphic with Brown's calculus. This is why their doctrine appears so self-contradictory. It's the same situation in quantum theory.

Could I ask exactly how much mathematics you understand?

I'm OK on meta-mathematics but rubbish at actually doing mathematics.

Cheers
Canute

 

[Tournesol]

To me that's an oversimplification. What about wave/particles?

That's not inconsistent.

 

[Canute]

That's true, but only because we decided to call the wave description and the particle description complementary instead of contradictory. I'm suggesting that the principle of complementarity be extended into other domains where contradictions arise. In relation to the topic this would mean that there is a description of reality in which spacetime exists and a description in which it does not exist, and that these two descriptions are complementary, in the sense that neither description is sufficient to explain out observations or allow a complete description to be constructed. This is pretty much what is being suggested by some theorists as a solution to the background dependence issue, if I understand what they're saying correctly. (Which admittedly I may not).

 

[Tournesol]

That's true, but only because we decided to call the wave description and the particle description complementary instead of contradictory.

Nope. There is nothing that could be called a contradiciton in the
formalism. The only contradiction is with peoples folk-physics.

I'm suggesting that the principle of complementarity

There's no need for a "principle of complementarity. Wave-particle duality is
just grey compromise. Nothing has a 100% well defined position or a 100% well-defined momentum.

 

[Canute]

Hmm. I can only say that your view seems unique. I always go along with physicists on these issues, and they seem to find a principle of complementarity essential. How do you resolve the wave-particle duality without the principle of complementarity?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nope. There is nothing that could be called a contradiciton in the
formalism. The only contradiction is with peoples folk-physics.



There's no need for a "principle of complementarity. Wave-particle duality is
just grey compromise. Nothing has a 100% well defined position or a 100% well-defined momentum.

This is not quite right. What QM says is that nothing has BOTH a 100% well defined position AND a 100% well defined momentum IN THE SAME OBSERVATION. You can get as accurate as you like with either, as long as you're willing to let the other one go. It makes a difference when you try to draw conclusions.

 

[Canute]

Thanks. I'm not sure I like being accused of folk-physics, even as a non-physicist.

 

[Symbreak]

We can imagine a Universe of space and time as long as there is no matter!
Try to imagine a distance d without any reference points, like particles or suns, and that distance cannot be measured. It cannot really exist. Einstein and Eddington said much the same thing: it is matter and energy that essentially 'create' spacetime, while spacetime shapes the movements of matter. There is also the idea that a geometry is defined by the relationships between its objects (Kleinian Geometry), so that the characteristics of a geometry come from the objects transformations. In turn, the objects themselves have similiarities (congruence properties) determined by the geometry.

A similar idea comes with Mach's principle - where the inertial properties of matter are not determined by some abstract geometry, but by the rest of the matter in the Universe.

So a Universe of space and time can only exist with matter. Without it, the intervals of spacetime would dissapear, and the Universe would be a sort of point.

 

[Doctordick]

I'd say they arise when one tries to conceptualise reality, not just when graphically representing it, although perhaps the two might be considered the same thing.

I believe your position is based on the ease with which human beings are able to visualize things. Now it is just an opinion but it seems to me that the highest density of information with which we must deal arises from our sense of sight and thus it has become the seat of our most competent ability to organize information. I have read many articles concerning the ease with which we can comprehend correlations in information when that information is presented in a visual or graphic form.

It is quite clear that the same information presented in a numeric form becomes almost impossible to comprehend. Just for the fun of it, consider a television broadcast presented to you as a book full of numerically defined functions (a numerical table for each function) representing the light intensity at each pixel as a function of time plus one function which would be the air compression (the sound). How long do you think it would take you to comprehend that presentation sufficiently well to expect a particular time bite of the collection? Now compare that with the number of events in the visual presentation which are readily predictable the first time you watch it.

Most people to whom I present such an idea consider such a presentation to be so bad as to be functionally worthless. But, if you stop and think of the communication between the retina and the brain (the retina being made of cells reacting to light intensity at their location, it seems clear that the fundamental nature of the input information is exactly equivalent to the circumstance I describe above. The optic nerve and the visual cortex manages to transform that information into a form quite easy for the brain to handle. Thus one could conclude that the representation is not functionally worthless at all. In fact, there exists a simple electromechanical device which has no problem transforming such a presentation into a visual display on a real time basis (it's called a TV set).

Now think about that for a moment. Are you going to seriously propose that a mechanical device can perform a correlation transformation that the human brain cannot? It seems to me that it is the "visual" display itself which lends itself to be easily understood. Now, from that perspective, the conclusion that the original (fundamental) source of information which we are trying to understand (the universe) is organized in such a manner is a leap of faith not an objectively defendable fact and physics, if it is to be objective science, should not make such an assumption. I think one does a disservice to physics (or at least to exact science) to avoid this issue via a derisive use of the term metaphysics.

After all, a phenomonon existing outside of space and time is not third-person observable or measurable. How could one include it within physics?

Essentially all you are saying here is that you cannot conceive of the universe being anything except a visually organized construct. That cannot be taken as evidence of its truth.

I'd say the doctor, the patient, the disease and the cause of the disease are unreal in the sense I was using the word.

Well, I can see your saying the disease might be unreal (whereas I would call it an "unknown" disease) but I know a number of doctors and patients who would be upset being added to the list of "unreal" things.

I'm not sure if I agree or not with the first sentence.

You disagree with the fact that I define an object in that way? How did you become knowledgeable of how I do things or what goes on in my head?

It depends on exactly what you mean.

The definition tells you what I mean! Any time the information commonly used to describe something is sufficiently stable in time that it may be conceptually considered independent of the rest of the universe, I call the thing being described "an object". That thing can be a car, a building, a person or a stock portfolio. I can then study how that "object" is influenced by aspect of the rest of the universe and come up with rules of behavior.

I'd say that the information is not real

Then you would regard the description of neurons and their activity in your visual cortex as "unreal"?

To me that's an oversimplification. What about wave/particles? Or the 'hypothesis of duality' from cosmology?

If you are going to hold that the concept of wave/particle duality is inconsistent, I think you will have some major arguments on your hands. I agree with both Tournesol and SelfAdjoint; I don't think you have a good understanding of the concepts.

Yes. One ends up with undecidable metaphysical questions all over the place and Nature becomes completely incomprehensible.

A very popular opinion but not fact at all. I am sorry you do not understand mathematics. Feynman once defined mathematics as "the distilled essence of logic", and I think a lot of professional mathematicians would agree with that. I suspect that what you are lacking is the facility to think in the symbolic abstract.

Do you mean like George Spencer Brown's calculus of indications, or Lao-Tsu's undefined Tao? The entire epistemilogical system of the 'mystical religions' is grounded on an undefined axiom, and is structurally isomorphic with Brown's calculus. This is why their doctrine appears so self-contradictory. It's the same situation in quantum theory.

I have not read the works you quote and am not referring to them. I am referring to my own work. My work begins with the definition of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm and you need to understand my definition in order to follow my deductions. The last time we discussed it the issues appeared to be too abstract for you to understand. If you want to try again, I am willing to talk.

I'm OK on meta-mathematics but rubbish at actually doing mathematics.

I have no idea of what you mean by "meta-mathematics" other than the fact that you seem to believe "meta" means in-exact and/or logically sloppy. I would define "meta-mathematics" as the study of poorly understood aspects of mathematics. I personally define mathematics as the design and study of internally self consistent systems. That would define any "successful" outcomes of "meta-mathematics" to be "mathematics". Furthermore, the study of "meta-mathematics" is certainly bounded by logic which is usually taught as a branch of mathematics.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Chronos]

Hi Dr. Dick! You are always a breath of fresh air. You have ideas and passion behind them - but so do your critics. They have flaws in their arguments, but are yours beyond reproach? Seriously, you talk down to everyone who dares comment. Permit me to criticize your approach. You are a true genius, and I mean that. Few people gather what you say, and you say it well, my friend. But you do not advertise well. You never say a nice word about the people who 'get it' and make meaningful comments. To you, my friend, I say get some humility.

You will gather more allies when you speak softly and draw in an audience. We have talked before, and I agree you are brilliant, but, you antagonize your opponents... why? There is no need to do that, and that is why you fail to attract supporters.

 

[Canute]

DoctorDick

Please take note of Chronos's post. You really must make the effort to understand what other people are saying before being so ludicrously patronising. Hell, you disagree with me even when I agree with you. My suspicion is that you assume the whole world is against you. It may not be true, not yet anyway.

I believe your position is based on the ease with which human beings are able to visualize things. Etc... for 3 paragraphs

My position is based on the facts. Space and time are, as far as we know, conceptual constructs. If the existence of information requires that it is extended in space and time it follows that information may be a conceptual construct. It's no good just saying "Clearly spatial and temporal extension are not fundamental aspects of information." If they are not then information can exist unextended in space and time. Does this idea not seem a little incoherent to you?

Now think about that for a moment. Are you going to seriously propose that a mechanical device can perform a correlation transformation that the human brain cannot?

I have no idea either way. According to science the human brain is a machine so in this view of course a machine can do what any human brain does. However this is not my view. But it seems pointless to argue about this issue. I never even mentioned it and don't know why you bring it up.

It seems to me that it is the "visual" display itself which lends itself to be easily understood. Now, from that perspective, the conclusion that the original (fundamental) source of information which we are trying to understand (the universe) is organized in such a manner is a leap of faith not an objectively defendable fact and physics, if it is to be objective science, should not make such an assumption. I think one does a disservice to physics (or at least to exact science) to avoid this issue via a derisive use of the term metaphysics.

What? Of course it is a leap of faith to conclude the universe is as we visualise it. How could one possibly think otherwise?

Essentially all you are saying here is that you cannot conceive of the universe being anything except a visually organized construct. That cannot be taken as evidence of its truth.

Well, that's a clumsy way of putting it, but something like that. I was agreeing with Kant. Can you conceive of the universe non-visually?

Well, I can see your saying the disease might be unreal (whereas I would call it an "unknown" disease) but I know a number of doctors and patients who would be upset being added to the list of "unreal" things.

No doubt. But so what?

You disagree with the fact that I define an object in that way? How did you become knowledgeable of how I do things or what goes on in my head? The definition tells you what I mean!

I felt your definition was ambiguous so I neither agreed nor disagreed with it. This is why I said that I was not sure whether I agreed or disagreed with it. What I meant by this was that I wasn't sure whether I agreed or disagreed with it. How you conclude that I disagreed with it is not clear to me.

Any time the information commonly used to describe something is sufficiently stable in time that it may be conceptually considered independent of the rest of the universe...

So time is fundamental to information representing objects. What sort of information is time not fundamental to?

Then you would regard the description of neurons and their activity in your visual cortex as "unreal"?

Yes, in the final analysis. Not just the description, but the neurons and their activity. It's a common view, sometimes known in western philosophy as relative phenomenalism.

If you are going to hold that the concept of wave/particle duality is inconsistent, I think you will have some major arguments on your hands. I agree with both Tournesol and SelfAdjoint; I don't think you have a good understanding of the concepts.

As Tournesol and SelfAdjoint disagreed on this I can't imagine what you mean here. Did you misunderstand their posts? What does the term 'duality' mean. Why do you use this term? You use it because particles are not normally the same thing as waves. Why did it take such a long time for us to accept that the wave and particle descriptions theories of light were not mutually exclusive? Because on the surface it is a self-contradiction. Even now it is a contradiction, but we have learned that contradictions can be resolved by the principle of complementarity. I know this is is a slight extension of the principle, but it hardly seems contentious to suggests that waves and particles are complementary properties of 'wavicles', just as are position and momentum.

A very popular opinion but not fact at all. I am sorry you do not understand mathematics.

If it was a popular opinion I wouldn't get into so many arguments here.

Feynman once defined mathematics as "the distilled essence of logic", and I think a lot of professional mathematicians would agree with that. I suspect that what you are lacking is the facility to think in the symbolic abstract.

Doh. That must be it. Or perhaps you just lack the facility to give thinking time to anybody else's arguments, finding it quicker and easier to dimiss them as idiots.

I have not read the works you quote and am not referring to them. I am referring to my own work.

Perhaps you ought to consider reading more widely.

I have no idea of what you mean by "meta-mathematics" other than the fact that you seem to believe "meta" means in-exact and/or logically sloppy.

This is an ignorant remark. If you don't know what meta-mathematics is look it up. It does not mean inexact or logically-sloppy. It may sometimes mean meta-logical, but I don't imagine you'll know what that means either.

I would define "meta-mathematics" as the study of poorly understood aspects of mathematics.

In that case you'll have defined it incorrectly.

I personally define mathematics as the design and study of internally self consistent systems. That would define any "successful" outcomes of "meta-mathematics" to be "mathematics". Furthermore, the study of "meta-mathematics" is certainly bounded by logic which is usually taught as a branch of mathematics.

I think you ought to read up on these issues. I think also that I shan't respond to your posts in future. The discussion inevitably descends into complete silliness.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Dr. Dick! You are always a breath of fresh air. You have ideas and passion behind them - but so do your critics. They have flaws in their arguments, but are yours beyond reproach? Seriously, you talk down to everyone who dares comment.

The only thing I complain about is their utter refusal to examine my deductions. To date, saviormachine is the only person to show any interest at all it what I have to say. (That is, outside of Paul Martin who holds that my mathematics are over his head). Everyone else is putting up arguments as to the ridiculousness of even considering what I bring up; certainly not giving any consideration to my work. I personally don't feel it should be necessary to defend the idea of looking at things from an alternate perspective. No one has even begun to discuss even the first step of my arguments.

Permit me to criticize your approach.

Criticism is always welcome but serves little purpose if it opens no leads to rational dialog.

You are a true genius, and I mean that.

I am no genius at all; in fact, I would say I am mentally rather slow and ponderous. The only claim I put forth is that I have looked where everyone else refuses to look. And all I get are reasons why no one should look there.

Few people gather what you say, and you say it well, my friend. But you do not advertise well.

Advertise it well? I have no interest in publicizing what I have discovered, all I would like to do is talk to someone about my reasoning and my deductions. My main problem is that no one will even consider working with the definitions I propose.

You never say a nice word about the people who 'get it' and make meaningful comments.

Who are these people you say "get it" and have made "meaningful comments". I apologize if I have misunderstood them as I most certainly must have as I am not aware of anyone other than Paul Martin and Saviormachine who have even shown an interest in the issues I am attempting to bring up. The rest are more concerned with trying to convince me that it is ridiculous to even think about these things.

You will gather more allies when you speak softly and draw in an audience. We have talked before, and I agree you are brilliant, but, you antagonize your opponents... why? There is no need to do that, and that is why you fail to attract supporters.

I have no interest in obtaining supporters. Either my work is correct or I have made errors; the work itself stands on its own. What I would like to find is someone with enough logical ability to work with my definitions and discuss the validity of my deductions from those definitions. As far as I am concerned, it is entirely possible I have made some stupid errors. I hate the idea that I may have done exactly that and will die not knowing.

You say, "we have talked" but, in actual fact, I wouldn't refer to any of our exchanges as "talking". Unless I have forgotten something you have said, all I have received from you are criticisms of my presentation, no criticisms at all of any of my work. In fact, as far as I know, I don't even have any indications you have even looked the logic of those presentations.

I really have very little interest in the common opinion of the validity of my definitions as the only real defense of any set of definitions consists of the relationships required by those definitions. Those relationships arise from deductions which can be constructed from those definitions. The common emotional attitude that my definitions are not correct carries no weight at all and, until someone rational enough to see that makes his presence known, all I am doing is keeping the issue open in the hopes that someone competent will decide to consider what I am saying.

Sorry if that seems abrupt and antagonistic to my "opponents" but, to date, I have discovered no opponents. All I have discovered are people who refuse to discuss the issues. Actually, I have no desire to antagonize anyone; I just get frustrated by their utter refusal to look.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[genep]

Can You Imagine a Universe Without Space and Time.

Yes, I live in a universe without space and time every day when I dream that I wake up in the morning.
And even in my sleep-dreams, when I think I am awake, this universe has no space and time.

 

[Tournesol]

Space and time are, as far as we know, conceptual constructs.

We don't have any reason to believe that. To be precise, we don't have any reason to suppose that s&t are any more conceptual constructs than anything else.