Understanding the Universe: Exploring Perception and Reality in Science

[Physics-Learner]

you are beating around the bush. time does not make a 4-dimensional spatial object.

if time is a dimensional at all, it certainly is not a spatial one.

you use spatial objects for 1 2 and 3 dimensions. then you come up with time when you can't find a 4th dimension - because there aint one in this universe.

remember that our perception of our universe is based upon our tools. the lack of instantaneous information has much to do with the speed of light, time, and our inability to see the universe in totality.

Newton had equations that predicted gravity very well. but is it matter attracted to matter ? einstein has equations that do well. but is is objects traveling with the least resistance in some time space continuum ? or is it something completely different ? i suspect the latter, but i also suspect that i will die way before we arrive at the correct answer.

 

[Siv]

you have a smiley face, so i assume that you are kidding ?

He might be kidding.
But I wanted to say the same thing, and I am not.

 

[brainstorm]

we may loosely define time as a "dimension", but it is not a spatial dimension. personally, i don't think it is a dimension at all. i do not think that einstein's theory about gravity is correct. as i mentioned, when i said a 4-dimensional object, i said a spatial one. we have length, width and depth. a 4-dimensional object would also have lewipth, which is understood by you and me about as well as the name that i gave it. i don't think we have the foggiest idea of what time is. all we know is that it is something that we experience as a separation of events.

Aren't space/volume and 3-dimensionality two words for the same thing? A plane does not have volume, but area. A line does not have area but length. So would wouldn't you expect 4-dimensionality to have it's own measure of dimensional quantity distinct from length, area, and volume?

well, if there was such a thing in our universe that could have an effect without a cause, we might be able to realize it. every effect so far can be contributed to a cause.

I have tried to get you to think about how this could signal a tautology but you either won't or can't consider that. Some people just can't critically consider the possiblity of tautology. I remember before I read Popper's criticism of Marxian class analysis as tautologous, I was getting used to seeing everything that occurred in the news as the product of class-interest conflict. That's how tautologies work, but you have to be able to reflect on your perceptions as an artifact of cognition to see it.

you tell me. everyone has their own ideas. humans writing books that say they were inspired by god does not necessarily make it so. i could say that this thread was inspired by the easter bunny. would you really believe that ?

Well, you have to analyze what you think God is or could be. Like the easter bunny, no one has ever seen God directly. So however you imagine God being in heaven or wherever he might be, the only worldly experience of him anyone can have is mediated by other things, like burning bushes, voices in your head, the sea parting so you can walk on the bottom, or answers to prayers. If you prayed for divine insight and you got it, you could write it down and call it scripture. Who would anyone be to tell you your writing was not inspired by God and theirs was?

i had enough catholic brainwashing in my life, that took most of my current life to rid myself of. no one knows if god exists. people like to believe they do, because it is like taking a happy pill. heck i hope god exists, and i hope i get to go to a place like heaven. but hoping is not knowing. religion has been the premier way that the wealthy have controlled the commoner. so these books are much more likely to have been inspired by greedy humans, than by god. have you read any of the old testament ? gosh, i consider it to be an embarrassment to the idea of god as a loving father type of being. i have to laugh at the catholic church. (the other christian churches arent much different, but i have a lot of experience with the catholic church). they all want you to think that they are the last word about god. they tell you what to believe, and you then believe it. when asked about why they make changes, they tell you that they have evolved in their thinking. doesn't anyone see the irony in that ? if they really had some direct connection with god, they would have no need to evolve. all these organized religions don't have the slightest clue about god. they just want to herd as many people into their flock as possible. and btw, at the same time, they happen to get donations. the most spiritual thing i have done in my life is escape all that crap, and spend some time thinking for myself.

See, I knew there was some BS behind you talking about wanting to know the mind of God. You are just an anti-theist pushing buttons to try to stir up an opportunity to preach faith-doubt. Don't you realize that everything you typed here could have the same brainwashing effect as the Catholic teachings you have come to eschew and resent?

avoid my contemplations ? i am 55 years old. did you think my opinions simply came by osmosis ? i would liken it to living long enough to know when to beat your head against the wall, and when it might behoove me to stop, because i realize that it is futile (a borgism - LOL). americans, especially, put all this silly emphasis on doing the "impossible". for each person that succeeds, a million fail. but it doesn't stop us from glamorizing it. i have very specific thought processes and very specific reasons for my opinions about my contemplations.

I see that. But you don't seem to have enough objective distance from your own perspective to see that it is oriented toward limiting because you experience limiting as rational. Look at the phrases you use like "beating your head against a wall . . . when it behooves you to stop . . . because you realize it's futile." Those are the words of someone who sees pursuit of knowledge not only as a waste of energy but as having potentially painful and damaging results. If I wanted to handicap a person against pursuing/exploring knowledge, I would indoctrinate them into exactly such an ideology. Personally, I don't care if you think like this but I find it strange and somewhat hypocritical that you talk about "wanting to know the mind of God," and having all these unanswered questions when you clearly eschew the pursuit of such knowledge on some level.

 

[Physics-Learner]

He might be kidding.
But I wanted to say the same thing, and I am not.

our laws of physics do not apply to the big bang.

 

[Upisoft]

our laws of physics do not apply to the big bang.

As some people love to say, you were not there, so you have no way to know...

 

[Physics-Learner]

As some people love to say, you were not there, so you have no way to know...

physicists will tell you that. our laws of physics and the universe do not apply to the big bang.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi brainstorm,

yes, very much so. that is why i kiddingly gave it a name. a 4th spatial dimension is something that none of us can imagine, any more than the flatlander could imagine volume.

i understood what you were talking about. you said that if we arent able to recognize effect with no cause, we will never see it.

anyone can claim to have something inspired by god. if someone could really prove it, most people on the planet would be believers. of course, we would no longer need to be believers (acceptance of truth without fact), because proof is about having facts. i have heard enough claims to last me a dozen lifetimes.

it is funny. most scientific people accuse me of being theistic. you are concluding that i have anti-theistic motives because i don't like organized religions ? you got to be kidding me.

lack of pursuit of knowledge ? knowledge about what ? the existence of god ? that is not attainable. i have chosen to accept that, instead of beating my head against the wall. or instead of believing or not believing. but contrary to your thoughts about me, it did not stop my spiritual growth. i look upon it as the first step towards a real spiritual type of growth - one that first started with being willing to be honest with myself, and separate what i know from what i have been taught.

 

[brainstorm]

physicists will tell you that. our laws of physics and the universe do not apply to the big bang.

If you can't hypothesize the big bang, what purpose is there in talking about it? You seem to just be seeking out limits for things.

 

[Physics-Learner]

If you can't hypothesize the big bang, what purpose is there in talking about it? You seem to just be seeking out limits for things.

i did not say that one could not hypothesize about the big bang.

but don't state it like fact.

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

the rules of physics do not apply to the big bang.

 

[brainstorm]

i did not say that one could not hypothesize about the big bang.

but don't state it like fact.

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

the rules of physics do not apply to the big bang.

How could I come up with such an example if causality was a tautology of the human mind?

 

[petm1]

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

Consciousness.

 

[Physics-Learner]

How could I come up with such an example if causality was a tautology of the human mind?

one can say that anything is tautologous, if one wants to ignore the facts. the fact is that everything that we know is causal.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Consciousness.

any ideas that we have require brain activity. there are causes for every effect that our brain produces. this is not an example of effect without cause.

 

[Max™]

As some people love to say, you were not there, so you have no way to know...

I'm pretty sure I was there, at least the energy which later condensed into the matter which eventually wound up assuming the arrangement I identify as myself was there.


Why do dimensions have to be spatial, PL?

Can you define a spatial dimension to me without involving a description of dimensions?

Does my chair possesses dimensions? Is chairness a dimension, in a different sense than say... left or up? The chair to my left is different from the window to my left, and both are different from the table to my right.

A table in the same position my chair is in would not be a chair, so that attribute is a way in which to measure or arrange information.

If I placed a table there, it could not occupy the same position in both space and time, so in order to have degrees of freedom to rearrange objects within a particular space, I need another degree of freedom, don't I?

 

[Physics-Learner]

all your tables and chairs take up volume. a 3-dimensional spatial object only requires that it fills volume. it does not matter what sort of shape it forms.

the word "dimension" is a somewhat general term. that is why i refer to it as spatial dimensions. that is why i referred to the 4-dimensional object as having 4 spatial dimensions - something that we can't understand.

all matter in this universe takes up 3 spatial dimensions. i suspect that the super-universe has more than 3 spatial dimensions. what else it might have - i don't know that i have any suspicions.

we have 3 basics - space, time, and matter. for me, space is the most basic, but also the simplest to think about. matter is stuff, and seems simple enough, until it is known that matter and energy are the same thing. time is the most elusive. i don't think we have a very good idea at all about it, yet.

time and the speed of light possesses mighty clues about our universe, though, imo.

if my recall is correct, according to sr, if one is traveling at the speed of light, one measures no distance traveled and no time spent, in the direction of travel, no matter the destination.

when i ponder this, the dimensions of distance and time seem to disappear altogether. if we could somehow transcend the speed of light, and actually see the entire universe in totality at a given moment - what now is a huge mystery would become child's play - for we would actually see and understand exactly what the universe really is.

i can't say that it is impossible, but i have very little hope that we actually can surpass the speed of light.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i do agree that in our universe, the motion of matter/volume through space requires what we refer to as time. but is time something of itself ? i don't know.

motion or velocity is defined as distance/time. would we have the dimension of time if matter had no motion ?

when i refer to "knowing the mind of god", i would like to ask god 2 questions : 1) how does the universe really work, and 2) what was your purpose for creating it.

this of course assumes that god exists, in the way that we define god - as the creator of the universe.

btw, when i talk about any topic, such as matter, space, time, causality, light, etc - it is always about this universe.

a common argument about who created god, or how does god exist without a beginning, etc. - all assume that the super universe follows the exact same laws as our universe.

when in fact, we don't know anything at all about the super universe. space, matter, and time (as we know it), may not exist at all, or be very different.

that is why i refer to the flatlander analogy. the flatlander simply has no ability to understand volume, and no ability to really understand how things actually are.

if there is higher dimensions, we volume-landers would be just as clueless of these higher dimensions.

i have enjoyed the communication back and forth with all of you.

 

[brainstorm]

one can say that anything is tautologous, if one wants to ignore the facts. the fact is that everything that we know is causal.

Do you even understand the word, "tautology?" That "everything we know is causal" is not a fact but an observation. If you had rose-colored glasses on, everything you looked would be pink. Would that make it a fact that "everything we know is pink?" That is how tautologies work.

 

[Physics-Learner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology

# Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity.
# Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid

i am simply going with your logic. i can claim the same thing about any mystery. you can always make the claim that it may be possible that the human mind can't conceive of the mystery, so it is tautologous, just like you are doing with causality.

i simply see you reverting to this sort of logic so that it does not penetrate your belief system. religious people do this all the time. "but god can do anything if he wants" allows them the out that no matter what they want to think, there is a possibility that it is true.

i counter with "yea, god can do anything. did you ever give it consideration that god chose not to do it ?".

 

[brainstorm]

i simply see you reverting to this sort of logic so that it does not penetrate your belief system. religious people do this all the time. "but god can do anything if he wants" allows them the out that no matter what they want to think, there is a possibility that it is true.

i counter with "yea, god can do anything. did you ever give it consideration that god chose not to do it ?".

This really has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. Personally, I have no problem with analyzing causality in various ways. You said, however, that causality was universally present, which signals tautology. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I discovered tautology from Karl Popper's paper on falsificationism in which he compares Einstein's theories that provided falsifiable tests with Marxian class theory that attributes all social conflicts to class interests. Popper said that using Marx's lens, it became possible to discover class-conflict in every news item. In other words, class-conflict is not a falsifiable theory because it shows up everywhere you look for it when you know how to look. That is tautology. If causality shows up everywhere you look for it, there's a good chance it is just a way of looking - i.e. not something inherent in the nature of the universe - just as class-conflict is not inherent in human nature.

What causes certain stars to appear as a constellation and others not? What causes one cloud to look like an airplane and another like an umbrella? Of course both patterns are recognized because of cognition, and of course complex patterns of forces and energy result in the physical configuration of the stars and the clouds, but the ability to seek and attribute causation to anything and everything seems to be rooted in cognition and not per se' in the nature of certain physical phenomena because all interactions can be analyzed in terms of causality.

Can you think of any possible test that would falsify causality? I don't think it can be because it's not a theory. It's an analytical tool.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i understand what you are saying. but that logic certainly has its flaws. every single time i kick a ball, it goes somewhere. does that mean that it is a tautology, because we always see the ball go somewhere, and never see it not do so ? that is not a great example, but i think you get my point.

you take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, we can only see causality.

i take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, it is because causality actually is everywhere.

so far, all our laws of physics are causal.

i just think you are walking on a mighty thin tightrope.

 

[Physics-Learner]

if this is a causal universe, i don't think there would be a test that could demonstrate the falsity of causality.

would you not have to show that something was not causal ?

i think the two of us have hit a fork in the road, and can go no further on this subject - LOL.it simply boils down to this - we see causality everywhere. either that is because we can not see non-causality, or because non-causality does not exist.

 

[brainstorm]

i understand what you are saying. but that logic certainly has its flaws. every single time i kick a ball, it goes somewhere. does that mean that it is a tautology, because we always see the ball go somewhere, and never see it not do so ? that is not a great example, but i think you get my point.

you take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, we can only see causality.

i take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, it is because causality actually is everywhere.

so far, all our laws of physics are causal.

i just think you are walking on a mighty thin tightrope.

if this is a causal universe, i don't think there would be a test that could demonstrate the falsity of causality.

would you not have to show that something was not causal ?

i think the two of us have hit a fork in the road, and can go no further on this subject - LOL.


it simply boils down to this - we see causality everywhere. either that is because we can not see non-causality, or because non-causality does not exist.

Well, at least you get the possibility of not seeing non-causality and the possibility that we are not capable of seeing it.

The big issue here is when you go from applying causal-analysis to a specific situation to generalizing about causality as a (physical) quality of the universe as a whole. When you do that, you're implying a theory about the universality of causation, which further implies that causality should be testable so that the theory can be falsifiable.

Imo, this is just an instance of confounding subjective with objective, which seems to be quite common among physicists, imo, so you're not alone. Things like causality, dimensionality, temporality, etc. are not so much features of the universe as they are analytical-tools we humans use to observe and make sense of observations. Causality, space, and time are universally present and at the same time not falsifiable because they are analytical tools. We use them cognitively to define things relative to each other.

 

[petm1]

any ideas that we have require brain activity. there are causes for every effect that our brain produces. this is not an example of effect without cause.

What is the cause of consciousness? I can tell you lots of causes for unconsciousness, but for the effect of awareness to person, place, and time it takes more than a brain. An idea is not consciousness even though you need consciousness to pass the idea on to other conscious people. Please enlighten me on the cause of consciousness.

 

[Physics-Learner]

you are asking about why our brains can think about something specific (in this case our own awareness). you could ask why our brains think about any number of specific topics.

i guess they evolved that way. but anything we think about is done with our brain, which is a causal thing.

asking how we evolved to be self aware is a totally different topic. and i am sure an interesting one, in which i don't think i would have anything to say.

let me know if you find out - LOL.

 

[petm1]

you are asking about why our brains can think about something specific (in this case our own awareness). you could ask why our brains think about any number of specific topics.

i guess they evolved that way. but anything we think about is done with our brain, which is a causal thing.

asking how we evolved to be self aware is a totally different topic. and i am sure an interesting one, in which i don't think i would have anything to say.

let me know if you find out - LOL.

So you can not tell me a cause for consciousness, other than it happens within a brain. Consciousness is responsible for all kinds of effects but what causes it?

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

Big bang is the picture we in-vision of our universe while looking backwards through time, using Einstein's equations, from our "now" until we no longer see any relative space. What was the cause of our visible universe? unknown. What is the cause of us even thinking about it? Unknown

you are asking about why our brains can think about something specific (in this case our own awareness)

No, I am asking you what causes us to think in the first place. You asked for causes and there are a lot of things that we don't know what the cause was or whether there even is one. Consciousness, big bang, energy, matter, mass and time are some of the things that may fail causality.

 

[Physics-Learner]

the big bang is not part of our universe, it created it. neither causality, energy, matter, space nor time apply to the big bang.

as far as what causes us to think is just evolutionary.

life started out because of dna.

as it evolved, organisms would keep things that were beneficial to it. or maybe put another way, lifeforms who evolved with things that were beneficial to it, ended up surviving in greater numbers, and passed those instructions along to the next generation.

much of the genetic changes is thought to occur due to radiation, and other cosmic phenomena. generally, such mutations are less helpful, and die off. but once in awhile, we get one that helps us, in some way.

and an organism simply evolves.

so perhaps why we evolved to be able to think - we can thank the various cosmic waves, radiation, alpha particles, and what have you that caused beneficial lifeform changes.

in other words, we now think, because of the happen chance of various universe phenomena.

heck, and i thought it was because i went to elementary school and was taught - LOL.

 

[petm1]

the big bang is not part of our universe, it created it. neither causality, energy, matter, space nor time apply to the big bang.

as far as what causes us to think is just evolutionary.

life started out because of dna.

as it evolved, organisms would keep things that were beneficial to it. or maybe put another way, lifeforms who evolved with things that were beneficial to it, ended up surviving in greater numbers, and passed those instructions along to the next generation.

much of the genetic changes is thought to occur due to radiation, and other cosmic phenomena. generally, such mutations are less helpful, and die off. but once in awhile, we get one that helps us, in some way.

and an organism simply evolves.

so perhaps why we evolved to be able to think - we can thank the various cosmic waves, radiation, alpha particles, and what have you that caused beneficial lifeform changes.

in other words, we now think, because of the happen chance of various universe phenomena.

heck, and i thought it was because i went to elementary school and was taught - LOL.

Life does not need consciousness. DNA may be the blueprint for life but if you can not use big bang as the cause of our universe then how can you use DNA as the cause of life? The big bang has everything to do with our visible universe just think of it as the blueprint for everything that came after, without BB where would we be? It is the relative singularly that the Big Bang dilated from that makes the theory breaks down in space, in time that same singularly could have existed for who knows how long.

 

[Physics-Learner]

well life is just one big chain of biology. i did not mean to imply that dna was the cause of life, since it is one link, albeit an important one, of a large chain.

various molecules began to form, and over the eons, more complicated chemical structures formed.

assuming the big bang happened, it is by definition the cause of our universe, since it created it. but we know nothing of the singularity. we don't know if it has causality or not.

according to the bbt, space, time, and matter were all part of the creation.

a previous poster replied that the big bang had no causality, but was part of our universe. and i am saying that the singularity was not a part of our universe.

and whatever caused the big bang to happen, if there was a cause, is not part of our universe. we can't make any conclusions about the super-universe. causality, time, space, matter, may or may not exist outside our universe. our universe is all we can know about.

as of yet, we know nothing in this universe that is not causal. i think this is because there is nothing in this universe that is not causal. brainstorm at least holds out for the possibility, if not probability, that we simply can not see non-causality.

 

[Max™]

it simply boils down to this - we see causality everywhere. either that is because we can not see non-causality, or because non-causality does not exist.

Or because we order information in a causal manner, as evolution did not see fit to provide us with the sort of information gathering/processing capabilities which would allow otherwise.

Due to the general behavior of matter, entropy, and such, any chemical reaction complex enough to be called a life form would probably need to shift a bit of entropy around, causing a reduction in one area, to produce usable work/effort/energy/information.

It does no good to observe events in a non-causal manner if your biology depends on causal ordering at the most fundamental levels.

It IS good to be able to consider non-causal outcomes, as it allows one to hypothesize, recall, and all those other wonderful parts of intelligence we take for granted.

 

[petm1]

I'm pretty sure I was there, at least the energy which later condensed into the matter which eventually wound up assuming the arrangement I identify as myself was there.

I agree with this except for the part about energy condensed into matter, would it not have expanded into matter? When I think of matter "now" I think of it as condensed relative to myself, but when it was formed just after BB it was expanding into its present form.

 

[Boy@n]

Universe is like a sandbox for 'consciousness'.

 

[Physics-Learner]

it still seems to me that using the logic of brainstorm, we can nullify anything we want.

for example, perhaps we can only "see" light traveling at c. therefore we could never measure anything else.

perhaps, we can only measure things up to the speed of light. therefore we could never measure anything faster.

etc. etc. they would all be used as tautologies.

look at all we have discovered, so far. it is all causal.

there is a lot to substantiate causality. and a lot to negate should we assume non-causality.

 

[brainstorm]

etc. etc. they would all be used as tautologies.

look at all we have discovered, so far. it is all causal.

there is a lot to substantiate causality. and a lot to negate should we assume non-causality.

Don't be so hasty to lump everything together and assume that what's true must be false because of tautology. The point isn't whether causality is false, it's whether it is an artifact of the universe or of human analysis of physicalities. Causality is like dimensionality. It helps us make sense of observations but it may be just a way of making sense and not something inherent in the physicalities observed. What kind of question would it be to ask what a non-causal universe would be like? That's like asking why existence is a feature of the universe. Of course everything in the universe exists; but there's nothing else to contrast it with.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i am not assuming that what's true must be false because of tautology. your logic is saying that what's true COULD BE false because of tautology.

we simply don't know what we don't know. we can't observe what is not observable.

so any topic you want to bring up, i can use your basic logic that you have presented, to cast doubt.

if this universe is not causal, we sure have an awful lot of physics that seems to do a pretty good job of defining a causal universe. and not one iota to suggest non-causality.

 

[Max™]

Last I checked, the Bell inequalities could still be satisfied by a local/non-causal effect, instead of the more commonly described non-local/causal version of QM.