Is Our Perception of the Universe Just a Black Box?

[petm1]

hi petm1,


1) what the super universe is ?

2) what our universe is ?

1. If you are talking about a "super universe" that you would see as if standing out side looking in? That is the view I have while conscious, the same view that let's me interact with matter and keeps my present moving along with everyone else, I think of it as my one second frame.

2. In my mind it is still one dilating area.

 

[qsa]

It's not that you want to explain consciousness and physics both as external objects. It's that you want to identify the fundamental cognitive-experiential basis that causes humans to perceive and interpret all physical observations according to certain essential logics that make them seem comparable. With the Bohr model, it is easy to see that there might be some consciousness-based reason that makes celestial motion appear comparable to that of atomic particles. Ideally, the physical models we have of these scales of micro- and macro- level phenomena are accurate independently of our cognitive ability to model them, but you have to consider that they may not be, too, no?

It is the mathematics of both system, since both have velocities and forces acting. And at best they describe very crude approximation for the electrons behavior through the Kepler laws, nothing like the 12 digit accuracy of the QED.Of course bohr himself won the argument with Einstein about that nothing is strange with QM. As for the accuracy we have experiments and the mathematics of the system has to be consistent. I think the issue is more like David Bohem's book

wholeness+and+the+implicate+order google and read last chapter.

He makes a heroic argument for consciousness and matter. But for these days of quantum gravity it is just an interesting read nothing more. Many attempts to link consciousness and QM have basically come to nothing much, even Gambini's free will stunt.

 

[Physics-Learner]

1. If you are talking about a "super universe" that you would see as if standing out side looking in? That is the view I have while conscious, the same view that let's me interact with matter and keeps my present moving along with everyone else, I think of it as my one second frame.

2. In my mind it is still one dilating area.

yes, that is what i am talking about as well.

if we could be on the outside, looking in - determining exactly what it is.

 

[Maui]

The information we are talking about is in the sense of "Information as data communication "
as in statistical physics

Quantum theory doesn't claim what is fundamental. 'Data communication' is a meaningless term in the abscence conscious minds. When you say that information/data communication is fundamental, you are actually saying that mind is fundamental as they are tied in a bundle(one cannot exist without the other).

We are modelling how nature works and why. We use the same techniques to study how the mind functions.TOE is the problem of unifying gravity with other forces, nobody (even the crackpotiest of them all) has suggested that mind enters into the equation. However, you could use some philosophical underpinning to motivate an idea leading to a solution. Maybe you have your own idea of what the definition TOE should be, and trying to solve all of physics and consciousness in one swoop, I wouldn't know were to start.

Crackpotish or not, all you are suggesting by "information is fundamental" is that mind enters into the equation. You just need to take some more time to think about the fundaments of your theory.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i like the sphere example, because i think it may be very telling of our own situation.

the flatlanders on a surface area at any radius see no boundaries. they are expanding from a singularity, but that singularity is not part of their universe. it is at the center of the sphere, a dimension beyond their knowledge.

likewise, i suspect that we volume landers are part of a super universe with a 4th spatial dimension. whether there are more than 4, i have no thoughts.

i don't see time as that sort of dimension. time is just as necessary for a flatlander to move in his world, as it is a volume lander to move in our world. it is still an unknown to me, but i do not think it is the 4th dimension that einstein thinks of it as.

and as i have previously stated, if information was instantaneous, i think our ideas about time would change drastically.

time and motion are tied together in some way, but it may be beyond our ability to understand it at its most basic level.

 

[brainstorm]

i don't see time as that sort of dimension. time is just as necessary for a flatlander to move in his world, as it is a volume lander to move in our world. it is still an unknown to me, but i do not think it is the 4th dimension that einstein thinks of it as.

Imo, too many people confuse dimensionality with with the physical realities it is used to frame and measure. Dimensions themselves can be applied in different ways with differing results, as the relativity of spacetime curvature theory demonstrates. Just because a certain set of dimensions seem to have a good "fit" with what they are used to measure doesn't mean that they exist "out there" as part of the physicalities.

time and motion are tied together in some way, but it may be beyond our ability to understand it at its most basic level.

Imo, motion is the product of energy (kinetic). Time is a dimension insofar as it is used to compare different instances of motion. A clock is any moving system with regular-defined intervals that can be compared with other instances of of motion. You are right that simultaneity is central to the idea of time (i.e. synchronized clocks) and this is where I believe Einstein starts in his writing on time before getting into the de-synchronization that occurs due to speed and gravity. Sorry, I should be able to cite the text b/c it's online but I can't remember the title now.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi brainstorm,

did not want you to think i was ignoring you. just simply had nothing to comment on, or add to, to your last post.

 

[Chronos]

Information transfer requires energy, hence, is not exempt from the 'c' rule.