RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:29:53 -0800 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 8:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

 

Chris,

Hey Roger ~ sorry for the belatedness of my reply

Roger: No problem.  I know there were a lot of other passionate discussions 
going on here lately!

-------------

 

I really like your idea of imagining your mind growing to infinite size, but I 
agree it sounds pretty hard.  I'm going to give it a try.  Your head doesn't 
blow up, does it? :-) As you said, maybe people visualizing the infinitely 
small and infinitely big will eventually meet.  

 Yes, in the sense of our universe being the perspective, of being, from inside 
a black hole. The universe shares some compelling properties with black holes; 
both are defined by their event horizons and both have histories bounded by 
moments of origin.

Roger: Agreed.  In a way, if the initial existent entity that made the universe 
is the one previously called the "absolute lack-of-all", it's kind of like a 
black hole, or singularity. 

 

A quantum universe from nothing hypothesis I think is interesting focuses on 
how quantum vacuum fluctuation and Heisenberg uncertainty principal could have 
randomly bootstrapped everything. It is interesting but it however relies on 
the laws of the universe being in place. 

I am not convinced that the hypothetical underlying metaverse -- that Plenitude 
of mathematical objects, as Tegmark phrased it – always just existed… in its 
timeless fashion. 

Time could be considered as an emergent phenomena; speaking of before and 
after, only makes sense from the POV of a temporally bound entity. But this 
does not therefore become an ironclad argument for the existence of some  
eternal static outside of time reality. I find the answer 2+2=4 always existed, 
end of story (and answers of this nature), to be something of an abdication of 
dedication to peel away the very last peel of an onion that becomes no longer 
there.

In other words searching for a means by which everything came to be, is time 
invariant. Time does not matter for this discussion. What interests me is 
finding the way leading to discovering the history of timeless origin.

Up front granted…. our 3-D experience of a first person experienced, sequenced 
projection of observer frames, addressable in  4-D  space, is a poor platform 
from which to comprehend a higher dimensional point of view. The human mind I 
feel has an abstraction limit that varies from person to person of course… this 
kind of discussion helps get me there. It is a meta-space I rather much enjoy 
being in.



Actually, thinking about it, I see problems with an infinitely fine 
zero-dimensional entity, as well, even as a pure abstraction, when taken to an 
infinite degree of fineness of scale of its address in space-time. In a 
physical sense, as a smallest address of space time, how small can small be? 
And as a point of origin our laws of physics break down at some scale… how 
point-like was the Big Bang – at a scale of less than 10^(-35), do we really 
know?

Even as a pure mathematical entity – with no corresponding point particle 
entity -- one can make an argument against an infinitely small point, existing 
even in a purely mathematical abstract realm, by noting that there exists a 
reverse symmetrical property between the scale of the points grain size (e.g. 
radius for example) and the information required to address it. The smaller the 
addressed scale becomes, the bigger the information set that is required in 
order to hold its address also becomes. If the rate at which the required 
address size increases, matches the rate at which increasingly fine scaled 
points can be defined then an infinitely small point would require an 
infinitely large address space in order to be defined. On the other hand, if 
the rate of growth in address space is less than the rate of increasingly fine 
grained scale point definition then perhaps it doesn’t matter.

Roger: It seems to me, too, that there are problems with zero dimensions, or 
point particles.  I've never understood why physicists don't question the idea 
of a zero-dimensional point particle.  Oh well.

They are convenient abstractions in geometry and math, so maybe force of habit. 
Quite a few physicists seem troubled by all those infinities and singularities 
at the extreme scales of conditions in the beginning of our universe. A number 
of theories explicitly do away with the point – String Theory (with its Planck 
scale vibrating strings). 

Even as a pure abstract entity a zero-dimensional point has a definition 
problem -- e.g. the finer the point; the longer the definition needs to be.

-Chris

----------------------

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to