AgnosticWeb.com - Or the \"Knot of Truths?\"

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:52:13 +0000

Holy f*in crap George... - That paper just blew my world. I'm going to have to read "Comprehensible Universe" next, out of pure principle... - I never thought that those theorems would be so comprehensible... - And from a few bits of linear algebra he goes on to derive... well, quite a bit of our laws. - It's so satisfactorily nullifying to most of my previous ignorance on the subject. - I frankly never thought that physics at that level would be so comprehensible...

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:55:36 +0000

My reference to dark energy in my account of Stenger's ideas may have misled you. I don't think it is an essential part of his scheme. The only actual book I've read of his is "God the Failed Hypothesis", though I've also read several articles online. I'd like to read "The Comprehensible Cosmos" some time. > > I don't think the use of complex numbers in quantum theory is an essential part of it. It just happened to be available to formulate the equations in a simple manner. There is a readable account in Atkins' book on chemistry. > > Edit: On this page there is a PDF just below "Where do the laws of physics come from" that explains a great deal very succinctly. > > http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html - Thanks, - I apologize for my absence the past few days, my laptop had to be serviced and I don't like accessing internet portals on public networks. (I'm a bit of a security nut.) - Version 1 of my "chance" primer should be done before the end of July. My goal is to have it done by the 23. (The 22nd is when I take my GRE.)

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:53:02 +0000

Here's a question though, there's a debate going on about whether or not dark energy/matter isn't simply the accretion of errors resulting from cosmological computations. If that's the case, then Stenger's idea is tossed out isn't it? > > > Alan Guth made the same comment about the universe being something from nothing, in his book, The Inflationary Universe, 1997, before dark matter and further increasing expansion rate were a big issue (as based on supernova analysis and the guessing about dark energy); his first chapter is "The Ultimate Free Lunch". - < - I still find it downright ludicrous though for anyone to really try and explain something like "what happened before the big bang" because in what I've read to date... there is no answer whatsoever.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:39:47 +0000

You need to read Victor J. Stenger! He argues that the total ampunt of energy in the universe is zero, being made up of the positive energy tied up in mass (mainly) and the negative energy tied up in gravitational potential (and dark energy) responsible for the expansion. > > > > Edit: So in a sense everything IS nothing! > > Wrote the author down. I've heard his result (That the sum total of all energies is 0) > > Here's a question though, there's a debate going on about whether or not dark energy/matter isn't simply the accretion of errors resulting from cosmological computations. If that's the case, then Stenger's idea is tossed out isn't it? - Alan Guth made the same comment about the universe being something from nothing, in his book, The Inflationary Universe, 1997, before dark matter and further increasing expansion rate were a big issue (as based on supernova analysis and the guessing about dark energy); his first chapter is "The Ultimate Free Lunch".

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

George Jelliss — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:06:48 +0000

My reference to dark energy in my account of Stenger's ideas may have misled you. I don't think it is an essential part of his scheme. The only actual book I've read of his is "God the Failed Hypothesis", though I've also read several articles online. I'd like to read "The Comprehensible Cosmos" some time. - I don't think the use of complex numbers in quantum theory is an essential part of it. It just happened to be available to formulate the equations in a simple manner. There is a readable account in Atkins' book on chemistry. - Edit: On this page there is a PDF just below "Where do the laws of physics come from" that explains a great deal very succinctly. - http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:50:34 +0000

Mr. Jeliss, - I also forgot to address your math point. - The context of the discussion was in dealing with physical models, in which time is typically treated as an exponent. Then you have a system that simply becomes infinitely small as you move the dial into the negative numbers. (Oversimplification, but the algebraic property is right.) - More intriguing to me is the use of complex numbers in quantum physics... that's an entire black box to me right now. Much math to study... too little time.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:42:24 +0000

xeno6696 wrote: "You're confusing the mathematical concepts of 0 and the empty set. "0" is not "nothing." Mathematically, the only concept that means "nothing" is the empty set." > > This depends how you define the terms. Some axiomatisations of set theory, and cardinal number theory, define 0 as the empty set {}. The number 1 could then the set containing the empty set {{}} and so on! > > xeno6696:"Going to 0 bits doesn't mean "no bits." The expansion they're talking about is an infinite exponential progression where all mass was contained in an infinitely small point." > > You are talking there in terms of classical continuum mechanics. Nowadays you have to take account of quantum mechanics. > > xeno6696: "All matter and energy were there... so instead of saying "no bits" they say "singularity." This distinguishes it from the concept of "nothing" and I doubt you'd hear too many physicists agree that the singularity qualified as "nothing." The singularity contained *everything,* and therefore cannot by definition be "nothing."" > > You need to read Victor J. Stenger! He argues that the total ampunt of energy in the universe is zero, being made up of the positive energy tied up in mass (mainly) and the negative energy tied up in gravitational potential (and dark energy) responsible for the expansion. > > Edit: So in a sense everything IS nothing! - Wrote the author down. I've heard his result (That the sum total of all energies is 0) - Here's a question though, there's a debate going on about whether or not dark energy/matter isn't simply the accretion of errors resulting from cosmological computations. If that's the case, then Stenger's idea is tossed out isn't it? - Another (elegant) solution is to abandon the cosmological principle altogether, thus suggesting that our location in the universe is actually NOT normal for the entire universe. - The idea is that the distribution of matter throughout the universe is not uniform, and that we live in an area of low density in terms of matter, a 'void' in comparison to other parts of the universe. This elegant explanation explains the cosmic model in a way that we need not invoke dark matter or energy at all. (Last month's Scientific American.) - Aside from that quarrel, we also have no verification that Dark energy or matter actually exist. So in that view, I can't accept Stenger's view out of hand. - Which book is it, by the way? The library shows a laundry list.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

George Jelliss — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:19:41 +0000

xeno6696 wrote: "You're confusing the mathematical concepts of 0 and the empty set. "0" is not "nothing." Mathematically, the only concept that means "nothing" is the empty set." - This depends how you define the terms. Some axiomatisations of set theory, and cardinal number theory, define 0 as the empty set {}. The number 1 could then the set containing the empty set {{}} and so on! - xeno6696:"Going to 0 bits doesn't mean "no bits." The expansion they're talking about is an infinite exponential progression where all mass was contained in an infinitely small point." - You are talking there in terms of classical continuum mechanics. Nowadays you have to take account of quantum mechanics. - xeno6696: "All matter and energy were there... so instead of saying "no bits" they say "singularity." This distinguishes it from the concept of "nothing" and I doubt you'd hear too many physicists agree that the singularity qualified as "nothing." The singularity contained *everything,* and therefore cannot by definition be "nothing."" - You need to read Victor J. Stenger! He argues that the total ampunt of energy in the universe is zero, being made up of the positive energy tied up in mass (mainly) and the negative energy tied up in gravitational potential (and dark energy) responsible for the expansion. - Edit: So in a sense everything IS nothing!

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:52:09 +0000

Thanks for that link to Paul Davies interview. I found it most interesting. > What I'm inclined to dispute is the supposed "biofriendliness" of the universe. Perhaps it is just a matter of the universe being able to support increasing complexity because of its increased computing power, and life is just incidental to that wider process. - Remember that Davies has expressed an extreme interest in the Origin and Meaning of Life: - http://www.amazon.com/FIFTH-MIRACLE-Search-Origin-Meaning/dp/068486309X

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:47:06 +0000

I don't understand how this relates to me. > Well you talked about the (NIST? NSF?) poll that found 7% of physical science scientists were theist? > I just find that hard to swallow, because at my own (State) university, I seem to see more people who study physics that take the stance of a creator. Maybe that changes as time goes on and they become more entrenched in their field. - I was giving figures from a Sci. Am. article Sept. 1999, "Scientists and Religion in America", an historical review, with the latest figures from the NAS survey.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:37:55 +0000

ps...I meant to mention one of my favorite eastern philosophers quote: > > A dog is not reckoned good because he barks well, and a man is not reckoned wise because he speaks skillfully. > > Chuang Tzu - Sounds like he had listened to Cicero...

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:58:35 +0000

bbella, > > > > You need to spend some time investigating eastern philosophy, they have much more to say about the nature of 'nothing.' > > > > I have spent time investigating eastern philosphies; Taoism, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, etc. The nothing they speak of is something (which then is nothing) as well as nonaction, etc, but just because any man (religion or science) expounds on the many aspects of nothing as if it is something dosent make it any more real (something). > > > I do find it interesting you seem to state science studies "nothing?" > > Ok, I apologize for that too general of a statement...we all have benefited from science and I am thankful for that and wish for them to continue their pursuit of understanding of WHAT IS. > > > > Mathematically speaking though, you do get to 0 bits. > > Yes, mathmatically speaking my bank account can get to 0 too....but just because we've created a word for nothing does not make it something. - You're confusing the mathematical concepts of 0 and the empty set. "0" is not "nothing." Mathematically, the only concept that means "nothing" is the empty set. - Going to 0 bits doesn't mean "no bits." The expansion they're talking about is an infinite exponential progression where all mass was contained in an infinitely small point. All matter and energy were there... so instead of saying "no bits" they say "singularity." This distinguishes it from the concept of "nothing" and I doubt you'd hear too many physicists agree that the singularity qualified as "nothing." The singularity contained *everything,* and therefore cannot by definition be "nothing."

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

BBella — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:49:24 +0000

ps...I meant to mention one of my favorite eastern philosophers quote: - A dog is not reckoned good because he barks well, and a man is not reckoned wise because he speaks skillfully. - Chuang Tzu

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

BBella — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:43:46 +0000

bbella, > > You need to spend some time investigating eastern philosophy, they have much more to say about the nature of 'nothing.' > - I have spent time investigating eastern philosphies; Taoism, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, etc. The nothing they speak of is something (which then is nothing) as well as nonaction, etc, but just because any man (religion or science) expounds on the many aspects of nothing as if it is something dosent make it any more real (something). - > I do find it interesting you seem to state science studies "nothing?" - Ok, I apologize for that too general of a statement...we all have benefited from science and I am thankful for that and wish for them to continue their pursuit of understanding of WHAT IS. > > Mathematically speaking though, you do get to 0 bits. - Yes, mathmatically speaking my bank account can get to 0 too....but just because we've created a word for nothing does not make it something.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:34:54 +0000

Those numbers transcend humanity, meaning the truth of their existence is independent of human thought. Strangely, contrary to what Dr. Turell states, I've seen this argument used by several physics guys to base their hunch that there is a creator to the universe. > > I don't understand how this relates to me. - Well you talked about the (NIST? NSF?) poll that found 7% of physical science scientists were theist? - I just find that hard to swallow, because at my own (State) university, I seem to see more people who study physics that take the stance of a creator. Maybe that changes as time goes on and they become more entrenched in their field.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

xeno6696 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:06:17 +0000

Thanks for that link to Paul Davies interview. I found it most interesting. Particularly this bit: > > > > "We can work out the information-processing capacity of the universe. It's finite ... and it comes out with a very big number, about 10^122 /// the significant thing is that in the past, the number was much smaller. When you go back to the time when the structure of the universe was being laid down ... the time of inflation, 10^-34 seconds, the bits that the universe would have contained was only about 10^20. So if we restrict our description of the laws of physics to have that accuracy ... one part in 10^20 ... then that starts to become significant." > > >> Presumably when you go back to time zero there were absolutely zero bits! > > I found this part interesting as well. I appreciate Davies ability to answer these questions in layman terms so that even I could understand much of what he was saying. He said a whole lot in a small space. > > To my way of thinking, I do not see that if you go back in time you come to zero bits. You might come to just one bit...but not zero. And within that one bit is all that's needed for what we now have. The whole idea of 'zero' is believed and pursued religiously and is possibly just another myth, just as the word "beginning" is. Of course we created these ideas of nothing/zero/beginnings in our own minds in the first place and science carries this torch ideal of nothing religiously. What proof is there of zero or a beginning? Both are another word for nothing and no proof has ever been made of nothing (but it's a great idea for spending lots of money and keeping lots of scientist eating). Nothing is the holy grail of science. There never was nothing and there never will be. The idea's of past and future are right up there with zero and beginnings, yet much of science is based on the pursuit of knowing more about all of these ideas of nothing. > > Of course I could be entirely wrong, I'm the first to say I could be. Nothing (zero, beginning, past, future) may be just as real as something. As long as man thinks it's real, it's real..until he can prove it's not, it is. - bbella, - You need to spend some time investigating eastern philosophy, they have much more to say about the nature of 'nothing.' - I do find it interesting you seem to state science studies "nothing?" - Mathematically speaking though, you do get to 0 bits.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

BBella — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:34:13 +0000

Thanks for that link to Paul Davies interview. I found it most interesting. Particularly this bit: > > "We can work out the information-processing capacity of the universe. It's finite ... and it comes out with a very big number, about 10^122 /// the significant thing is that in the past, the number was much smaller. When you go back to the time when the structure of the universe was being laid down ... the time of inflation, 10^-34 seconds, the bits that the universe would have contained was only about 10^20. So if we restrict our description of the laws of physics to have that accuracy ... one part in 10^20 ... then that starts to become significant." - >> Presumably when you go back to time zero there were absolutely zero bits! - I found this part interesting as well. I appreciate Davies ability to answer these questions in layman terms so that even I could understand much of what he was saying. He said a whole lot in a small space. - To my way of thinking, I do not see that if you go back in time you come to zero bits. You might come to just one bit...but not zero. And within that one bit is all that's needed for what we now have. The whole idea of 'zero' is believed and pursued religiously and is possibly just another myth, just as the word "beginning" is. Of course we created these ideas of nothing/zero/beginnings in our own minds in the first place and science carries this torch ideal of nothing religiously. What proof is there of zero or a beginning? Both are another word for nothing and no proof has ever been made of nothing (but it's a great idea for spending lots of money and keeping lots of scientist eating). Nothing is the holy grail of science. There never was nothing and there never will be. The idea's of past and future are right up there with zero and beginnings, yet much of science is based on the pursuit of knowing more about all of these ideas of nothing. - Of course I could be entirely wrong, I'm the first to say I could be. Nothing (zero, beginning, past, future) may be just as real as something. As long as man thinks it's real, it's real..until he can prove it's not, it is.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

George Jelliss — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:55:05 +0000

Thanks for that link to Paul Davies interview. I found it most interesting. Particularly this bit: - "We can work out the information-processing capacity of the universe. It's finite ... and it comes out with a very big number, about 10^122 /// the significant thing is that in the past, the number was much smaller. When you go back to the time when the structure of the universe was being laid down ... the time of inflation, 10^-34 seconds, the bits that the universe would have contained was only about 10^20. So if we restrict our description of the laws of physics to have that accuracy ... one part in 10^20 ... then that starts to become significant." - Presumably when you go back to time zero there were absolutely zero bits! - What I'm inclined to dispute is the supposed "biofriendliness" of the universe. Perhaps it is just a matter of the universe being able to support increasing complexity because of its increased computing power, and life is just incidental to that wider process.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:08:48 +0000

xeno6696: "As for transcendental functions being "in the mind of the mathematician" only, I used to think that too except you can observe PI, e, and the golden ratio in nature." > > No you can't. Only approximations to them. And probably only to a few decimal places. 3.14159, 2.71828, 1.61803 are probably more than sufficent for most purposes. - George is correct if you follow the discussion with Paul Davies here: - http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/19/160480.aspx - Davies insights into our 'biofriendly' universe have great import for this website.

Or the \"Knot of Truths?\" (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:12:04 +0000

Those numbers transcend humanity, meaning the truth of their existence is independent of human thought. Strangely, contrary to what Dr. Turell states, I've seen this argument used by several physics guys to base their hunch that there is a creator to the universe. > > I don't understand how this relates to me. - Still don't have my answer. Please.