On 2/1/2012 8:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/1/2012 12:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:47 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/31/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Regarding the "philosopher's nothing":
This present moment exists, and it has no cause since our
universe is a four dimensional structure (time is a subjective
phenomenon). This timeless existence of this moment
establishes that "nothingness" cannot exist. In short: It is
an impossible state. The question then becomes: "Why should
this present moment exist, and what else might also exist?" So
far, the answer suggested by our latest discoveries and
reasoning suggests: a lot.
Jason
Or to paraphrase Quine: What is there? Everything. So what isn't
there? Nothing.
Brent
I don't quite agree with that paraphrasing. My point was that there
is no such thing as a philosopher's nothing, not that everything
exists. Such a leap would require the additional assumption that
"Nothingness" is only thing that does not exist. All I said was
that "nothingness" is an impossible state. This is the conclusion
of accepting a four-dimensional/atemporal existence, as suggested by
relativity.
Jason
Hi Jason and Brent,
I hope that you both realize that the "four dimensional
structure" does not take QM into account as SR assumes that
observables all commute and there is no Plank's constant. Why this is
not more widely understood is mysterious to me! It is as if a simple
error keeps being repeated over and over and no one has the temerity
to point it out and offer a correction. Maybe people want the idea to
be true so they ignore the inconvenient facts.
Onward!
Stephen
I'm not sure what your point is. QFT is done the "four dimensional
structure". Or are you complaining that we haven't considered the
yet-to-be-discovered quantum theory of gravity/spacetime?
Brent
--
Hi Brent,
Take a look at exactly what is going on in QFT. Yes, a *flat*
Minkowskian 3,1 space-time is used for the base space of the
fiber-bundle structure that is used in the QFT calculations, but this is
a small hypervolume. The QFT_does not work_ when it is extended to large
areas or situations where curvature is involved. So my charge remains.
There is no consistent reason to presume that 'our universe is a
4-dimensional structure' given that our best theories contradict such a
possibility. My point is that we should not be assuming ideas as facts
that have are contradicted by our best theories. We simply do not known
at this time.
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
