Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you understand how I've defined time and space, then potentiality certainly can be the cause since time and space are simply manifestations of it (and relative to it).
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It is all you know. Others might disagree.
You are over-complicating things. I am very aware of this platonic view, but that was not my point. You want to make love mental, I think it is utterly non-mental. One can have mentality about it, but that isn't the love itself. I am talking about the experience of love, not the idea of love, so when I bestow love on my child the love I feel was already there when I began to bestow it.
This is a very simple point. If I eat because I am hungry, which came first, eating or hunger? If I write a great book, which came first, the writing or the potential in me to write? I am simply suggesting that whatever exists in time (i.e., had a beginning and ends) had to have been preceded by the potential to exist. My point is to wonder about the nature of potentiality, especially if all existence might proceed from some singular realm of potentiality.
Why do you have a problem with potentiality being immaterial? If you read my originial post carefully, you will see I suggest that what we refer to as "material" might be the result of concentrating the qualities of potentiality. In other words, if you could get matter to fully de-concentrate, that would be the full potential condition.Originally posted by heusdens
Yes I know, but the only problem I have is that you take "potentiality" as something distinct from material existence, while I argue from the point that potentiality and material existence are one and the same.
I know about inflation theory, as well as zero point speculations; in fact, I partly chose the word "fluctuations" to harmonize with that thinking. But, neither of them are the same concept for reasons I've been trying to get you to see. You want to talk about physical manifestations only, I want to talk about the nature of the potentiality they arise from.Originally posted by heusdens
let me explain more profoundly, the idea you came up with of "fluctuations of potentiality" are already part of an established scientific theory, namely the theory of eternal/open/chaotic inflation. The basic of this is that at first there only exist a scalar field, holding the potential for everything, that fluctuates due to quantum mechanical effects. For me that takes it into the category of material existence, which is existence in space and time, and contains motion and change
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Why do you have a problem with potentiality being immaterial? If you read my originial post carefully, you will see I suggest that what we refer to as "material" might be the result of concentrating the qualities of potentiality. In other words, if you could get matter to fully de-concentrate, that would be the full potential condition.
I know about inflation theory, as well as zero point speculations; in fact, I partly chose the word "fluctuations" to harmonize with that thinking. But, neither of them are the same concept for reasons I've been trying to get you to see. You want to talk about physical manifestations only, I want to talk about the nature of the potentiality they arise from.
Originally posted by heusdens
When you talk about the ability for movement and change of the potentiality, then you need to talk about time and space also.
How can something move or change if there is no time and no space?
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I really like this question because it key to understanding immateriality. But it is extremely difficult to answer because few people agree what time and space are.
In the realm of matter, movement and change are impossible outside of time and space, time particularly. You can only agree that movement and change are time/space limited if you see matter as potenial in "form." Permit me to make an analogy.
Let's say that the only thing that exists is an ocean of water. This ocean was never created, it has always existed, and it goes on in every direction without end. It sloshes about incessantly, with water bunching up here, spreading out there. So it changes and moves all the time, but without the slightest bit of loss.
Occasionally during the sloshing, so much pressure builds up in an area of the ocean, that it causes the area to freeze into a big ball (okay, suspend your physics for the moment). The weight of the frozen ball causes it to break apart into little pieces, and they begin floating apart. They are also melting.
Now, on one of the frozen pieces an iceman evolves, and he takes note of what's going on around him. He builds an ice telescope and see that other ice chunks are floating away from him, and those areas in between the ice chunks he calls "space." He also notices he is melting, and in fact all the ice chunks are melting too. He calculates how my ice crystals are left and creates an equation that expresses the rate of melting relative to the rate of staying frozen. That ratio he calls "time."
From his perspective, all change and movement increase space and decrease ice, so from his view there is no possibility of change and movement outside time and space. However, inside the ocean itself is a little water molecule who has become conscious, and for him, living in that infinite and eternal ocean, there is no "time" or "space." It is all "one." When the ice is all melted, will another ice chunk arise? There is no way to know.
So, I am suggesting that the universe is preceded by a potentiality that matter arises from and is now returning to. While in form, we call this potenial "material" and when not in form, we call it immaterial. The changes in the material realm do take place in time and space, but in the immaterial realm the terms are meaningless.
Originally posted by heusdens
But I do reject to call the "water ocean" in your anology as "immaterial" although you may be right that time would be a less meaningfull concept there.
Yet there is movement, so there is matter and time and space.
It is in an unusual form, it does not have the shape and form as ordinary atoms, or gravitation field, or energy, but that does not make it "immaterial" in my point of view. Real time and real space do exist in such a state of matter, since there is change and movement.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Of course you can call it matter, but then it seems to me that matter loses all defintion. As I predicted, it is very difficult to make points about the sorts of change I've imagined in raw potentiality because we can't agree what time is. There is a real difference between change/movement that is entropic, which is the only way matter can change, and change/movement that is not entropic. I say without entropy, there is no time.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
There is a real difference between change/movement that is entropic, which is the only way matter can change, and change/movement that is not entropic. I say without entropy, there is no time.
Originally posted by heusdens
Can you elaborate some on this entropy issue. I have seen lengthy discussions about that topic, which were rather inconvincingly for me.
Do you advocate a point of view in which the universe is running out of entropy and will be lost in a heat death or some?
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
As the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is a term used to describe the extent energy is available for conversion to work. The first law says energy is conserved in a closed system, but the second law recognizes that the distribution of energy changes doing work in an irreversible manner, and that change is toward disorder.
With the popularization of science, entropy has been generalized to describe the entire universe, and has arisen in debates between, for example, creationists and evolutionary biologists. The creationists like to say the extensive organization found in life breaks the rule of entropy, while evolutionists point out that entropy is increased overall in life, and so the rule is not broken.
Just from a common sense point of view, entropy means that the universe is using up its stores of energy. All energy is stored in some system/organized form, and so when the energy of a system/form is used, it is gone (it exists, but it's no longer available for work) and it leaves the universe a little less organized. Eventually, if things keep going the way they are going, all the energy bound up in matter will have dissapated, and the universe will be gone.
There are those here who disagree with me about what time is. Mentat thinks time is a "dimension." Others seem to think time is not related to our universe or matter, but somehow goes on whether there is a universe or not.
I've argued that those views contradict our everyday experience of time. We always use it in relation to entropy, even if we don't realize it. Someone will say time passes, for example, which is like saying the sun rises even though it doesn't really. It isn't "time" that passes, but the endurance of "things" which diminishes. Each moment so much energy in the universe is no longer availble for work. Each moment, so much of our bodies have lost order. We and the universe are passing, not time.
So it is my view that the rate of entropy is "time." That is related to our discussion because we were talking about change/movement, and I pointed out that change/movement in the physical world is not possible without increasing entropy. But in concept of potentiality as I've modeled it, change/movement will occur not only without an overall increase in disorder, but in the case of the birth of our universe, can happen with an increase in order (even if only temporarily).
Originally posted by heusdens
Well an issue here is of course what time is. If you define time as the rate of change or dropping of the entropy level, then you have a problem. Because how do you measure the rate of change if it is equal to time. We can measure the rate of change with time, because time is different and independend from change.
Why is this here ?Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Recently there has been a lot of talk at PF about nothing, what it means, and if something can come from nothing. I want to take a shot at it by claiming there is no such beast as “nothing” and no need to worry about infinite regress if we understand the richness of potentiality.
I think Heusden, Mentat and others have been right to point out that some arguments go on because we’ve not clearly defined “nothing.” When I’ve responded I have assumed it meant that the universe came into existence from a total void; that in one instant there was a void, and then the next was the big bang. I did not assume “nothing” meant there was no cause of the universe, as some said, because I don’t think it is possible for something that has a beginning not to have a cause. Also, looking at the universe it all does appear to operate by way of cause and effect, so it seems logical to assume that such a nature reflects what it is born of (i.e., it is the offspring of cause and effect, or at least a cause). Why is it so difficult to imagine a cause-less effect? Because it defies logic, and logic is based on the relationships between cause and effect.
I have a theoretical perspective on the first cause dilemma that, for me and for now at least, satisfies logic. To begin with I look at cause and effect as neutrally as possible and call it movement (one could also call it change, which is movement too, but I have reason for calling it movement). Without movement there is no cause and effect. If we imagine the big bang as movement (which it clearly was), we might ask what preceded it. What was the status quo then? Is it possible there was no movement (or change)? Was it still, and then movement began for no reason? There seems no way to say that something didn’t change/move that then brought about the big bang. In words, prior to our universe’s existence, something was there either moving or capable of moving.
Thus we come to the concept of potentiality, which is not nothing. Stated as a principle we might say it as follows: All that exists in time must be preceded by the potential for it to exist. Our universe apparently did have beginning, and therefore we can wonder about the potential it sprang from. Since the nature of our universe is movement, for example, we might assume that part of the nature of this potentiality is dynamic, that it fluctuates in some manner, which can lead to events like a big bang.
I’ve tried to imagine what such a fluctuation might be like, if there are any clues in our universe which might guide one. Something I’ve noticed about reality is that besides movement are three other universally present traits: light (EM of course), vibration, and concentration. Everything which can be shown to exist, without exception, possesses these qualities. All matter is atoms, and atom types are determined by how much energy is concentrated in them. When energy escapes its bond to matter it does so as light (photons) whose character is also influenced by energy concentration. And of course, both atoms and EM relentlessly vibrate.
Now, might this give us clues about the nature of the potentiality creation emerged from? Could that potentiality, for instance, be some sort of fluctuating luminescent vibrancy? Might one sort of fluctuation that happens be a sudden, intense concentration and release?
Now, let’s say that is exactly what the big bang was, and what the universe is doing now is returning to pure potentiality. Does that solve the something from nothing problem? Not yet, because our logic wants to know the “cause” of that potentiality. To me, I think this is where one has to accept the possibility that this potentiality has always existed; it was never created, it will never be destroyed; it had no beginning and it has no end. It just is. It exists and cannot not exist. It is, in fact, existence itself.
I don’t think the concept of an uncaused potentiality, whose fluctuations “causes,” answers all questions -- obviously it isn’t scientific since one can’t test the hypothesis. But if true nonetheless, it would be why there cannot be nothing.
Originally posted by drag
Why is this here ?
It belongs in the Theo. Physics or Theory Dev.
forums. This is an attempt to think of a physical
theory, of which a poor amateur like me can
not be a judge. It is NOT, however, a philosophical
theory with philosophical implications of any sort.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I checked out the site you suggested but I couldn't see how any of those rationalistic considerations apply to what we are discussing.
But I did not define time as the rate of change exactly (by the way, an increase in entropy is an increase in disorder). What is said is that in our universe, all change and movement is accompanied by an increase in entropy; that is a fact I believe no physicist would dispute. So I am not saying time is the rate of change, but rather, the rate at which the universe is losing its order.
Just think about what we know (or at least strongly suspect). We strongly suspect the universe began with the big bang. That event, as far as we know, gave us whatever order there is in the universe, and made all the energy available for work possible. Since then, it has been downhill order-wise.
We can see the moment we believe created order, and that the trend now is disorder. That initial order, along with the balance that developed between it and entropy, has allowed us to exist. If energy could not escape matter, then there would be no energy available to fuel evolution and life.
But the thing is, at some point (again, if things keep going the way they are) there will be no universe, and no "us." In time, when things still existed, there was not a single thing which wasn't getting older; that is, there wasn't a single thing which was not undergoing entropy. But with no things present, what is getting older? Nothing! So how does one measure time?
So I say that time is merely our way of recording the relentless march of creation toward disorder. Because to move or change physically one must use energy, time has been recognized as an integral element of physical measurement. But again, once all matter and energy have gone their way, there will be nothing left to measure unless, that is, a new universe bangs itself into existence once again (as you've indicated you think happens).
Nope, this - "...that "potential" must precede allOriginally posted by LW Sleeth
If you notice, I start out with a philosophical point, that "potential" must precede all events in time. But rather than make the argument one of simply rationalizing, I attempted to support this point of philosophy with a bit of inferential reasoning.
Originally posted by heusdens
I doubt the fact that the universe is loosing it's order. I think the opposite can be proven to be true also. Furthermore note that there are two kind of orders: symmetry order and grouping order.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, we won't find common ground for discussion if you want to go against what is proven to be true. It doesn't matter what kind of order you are talking about, it is all diminishing as we speak. Even you make effort to create order, you will cause disorder (by eating, expending resources, etc.) creating your order. No matter how much you order, you always create more disorder overall. This is exactly why you and I are going to die.
Originally posted by drag
Nope, this - "...that "potential" must precede all
events in time..." is a "physical theory" point.
Philosophicly the Universe is paradoxical/absurd/lacking
provable absolute reason - which ever you prefer, so
there's no "absolute reason" which supports your claim.
(Just like in my case with the PoE, as you helped me see.)
Thay might be true - we have no idea.Originally posted by heusdens
You have not fully understood what I tried to say. The increase in disorder or increase of entropy may be a local phenomena only, where "local" must be seen as within the space-time bubble we are in since the big bang. It needn't be the case as an overal property of the universe, and for reasons I explained, can't be the case.
Originally posted by drag
Thay might be true - we have no idea.
But, I must disagree over the symmetry
part in OUR part of the Universe - symmetry
has clearly decreased since the BB.
Originally posted by heusdens
You have not fully understood what I tried to say. The increase in disorder or increase of entropy may be a local phenomena only, where "local" must be seen as within the space-time bubble we are in since the big bang. It needn't be the case as an overal property of the universe, and for reasons I explained, can't be the case.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
We know of nothing beyond what's issued from the big bang. That is the universe as far as we know.
But if you are saying by "local" that entropy is only the rule in our solar system or galaxy, then how do you explain the trillions of stars in distant galaxies all burning and the overall expansion of the universe? In fact, looking heavenly just about all one sees is entropy.
Originally posted by drag
Greetings heusdens !
I was reffering to modern mathematical insights
about the Universe like Chaos which appear
to show symmetry "breaking" in the Universe.
Also, physics currently theorizes that at least the
3 out of 4 basic forces were actualy one and the same
before the Universe "cooled down" below certain
tempratures - this is also an exampleof symmetry "breaking".
Originally posted by heusdens
Local was meant as at least as big as the observable universe. But the nuclear fusion processes in stars and the expanding universe to me don't mean the universe is running down on entropy.
. . . what has the breaking of symmetry, and splitting apart of individual forces to do with entropy?
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Part of the problem here is I don't think you have a good understanding of entropy. Just think of it as increasing disorder. Nuclear fusion, for instance, may create helium but it is at the expense of the order of even more hydrogen atoms. The breaking of symmetry is an obvious decline of order.
If you would like read a user-friendly explanation try P.W. Atkins The 2nd Law - Energy, Chaos, and Form. You can get used at Amazon pretty cheap.
Originally posted by heusdens
How do you want to measure the amount of order/disorder (entropy) in the early universe? Before there was any ordinary matter (during inflation)? At what rate is it running down now?
Originally posted by Fliption
Others,
I have read a lot about the idea of time being the result of entropy. Even though Relativity doesn't say one way or the other which direction time should run, it always seems to run in only one direction. Much like the order of the universe.
I remember someone on PF2 posting a link to a very interesting site that was arguing that entropy is not the movement of order to disorder. The author was arguing that entropy was movement from Group Order to Symmetric order. The author was arguing that what scientists are now calling disorder is really just another form of order. Entropy is just the movement from one form of order to another. He claimed this and then went on to show how useful this new understanding is in explaining the nature of the universe. Whether this is accurate or not remains to be seen.
But regardless of what we call the end result of entropy, it doesn't effect the idea that entropy may result in time and that this form of change would not exists in LW's preceding period of potentiality. Maybe this could be a topic for another thread?
Originally posted by Lifegazer
If the views of other people are the bricks which formulate your own views, then you haven't helped yourself in the slightest.
Originally posted by Fliption
Also, what would you say is the nature of this immaterial potential? Does this question even make sense to ask?