On 2/1/2012 8:34 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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 <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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.
That's going to come as a shock to Robert Wald, author of "Quantum Field Theory in Curved
Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics"
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Spacetime-Thermodynamics-Chicago-Lectures/dp/0226870278/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1328160695&sr=8-5
wherein he derives Hawking radiation due to spacetime curvature and Unruh radiation from
the existence of a horizon.
Brent
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2109/4779 - Release Date: 02/01/12
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
