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

Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:42:13 -0800 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] 


Chris,

 

    Mostly I agree with everything you said.  Specifically: 

 

By corollary and by symmetry this same optic of doubt can shine upon the notion 
of a real physical entity underlying the stuff we call real. What is real about 
a proton, electron, photon…etc.?

 

Roger: I agree.  Proton, electron, etc. are just names for existent entities 
with certain properties.  Even if these entities are abstract arithmetical 
propositions, the existent entities previously called the "absolute lack of 
all" (me), two of these entities looking at each other would seem as real to 
each other as two "rock-solid" particles.  Reality is relative in this way, I 
think.

 

Chris: With container + perspective…

(if one can explain how nothing at all could ever make the leap to achieving a 
bird’s eye view of everything in that state of pluripotent nothing) it leads to 
self-perspective… of the self, looking at the self.

(which can make another abstract bird’s eye leap to the perspective of the POV 
that looks on at the self-perceiving itself… leading to another and another, 
growing into a combinatorial explosion of perspective and containers of 
perspective – the points of view, e.g. that which holds the perspective.) 

 

 

In regard to the auto-emergence and "that's just the way it is" stuff, I also 
totally agree.  It could be true, but is just not very satisfying to me to say 
"that's just the way it is".  I was trying to do the autoemergent thing by 
saying that even what we previously thought of as the "absolute lack-of-all" is 
an existent entity idea and showing how it could self-replicate to provide an 
expanding space like our universe.   I think one of the issues is in our 
perhaps incorrect distinction between "something" and "nothing", which is what 
I was trying to get at.  

 

Something is just what nothing looks like… when it dances into a computational, 
combinatorial, self-reflecting brilliant explosion of being… into all that is… 
I like how Bruno describes it as a kind of hallucination, but a beautiful one, 
which includes our universe and ourselves in it. It seems logical that 
everything could reduce to being an elaboration of nothing entertaining nothing.

After all, imagine how boring it must be to be nothing at all… when instead, 
viola, by some wonderful emergent hallucination, arising from some infinitely 
recursive f()… like the oft cited Mandelbrot set, into an infinitely layered, 
recursive factorial acceleration.

There are some really good ideas kicking around here… am continuing my readings 
on them as well. And it is good to be up front with one’s assumptions, we all 
have them. 

 

 

This distinction keeps us wondering well why is it all here.  But, I'll keep 
working on it as we all should on our ideas.

    As above, good luck to all of us!  And, listen to The Who!

Yeah the Who still rock (even if some of them pull that trick off from the 
grave)… Keith Moon was a phenomenon, a friggen genius (and a raving lunatic… 
all in one package). 

-Chris

 

    
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

 

 

From: [email protected] <javascript:>  
[mailto:[email protected] <javascript:> ] 

 

Jason et al., 

 

   Overall, I can never disprove that mathematical constructs don't exist 
outside the head somewhere just like I can't prove my view that what we've 
previously considered to be the "absolute lack-of-all" is itself an existent 
entity just because no one can never or directly experiment on either these 
mathematical constructs or the "absolute lack-of-all".  But, what we can do is 
to provide logical evidence for our ideas as we've each been trying to do on 
this list, and to take our ideas and try to build a model of reality out of 
them that can eventually make testable predictions.  This is what many on this 
list are working on, and I applaud them for it even if I don't agree with the 
underlying idea.  Eventually, all of us will need to make some testable 
predictions, which if they get experimental evidence backing them up,will 
convince others to other follow up on our ideas and models.  This is what I 
think many of us are working on either in our spare time or full-time.  Good 
luck to all of us!

 

Nice statement with a good sentiment behind it. This list (and its long rich 
trail of past threads, which contain some real gems) is a lively place to be; 
hard to keep up sometimes. 

I share your view that it cannot be proved (yet at least) that mathematical 
entities – and all other pure abstract system entities (as in say the laws of 
the universe) – have an existence independent from and external to our human 
cultural history. It can be equally hypothesized that our laws of physics, our 
logic, our math are all our models (our historical evolution of thought through 
recorded history)… models that the cultures emergent from our species have 
evolved to explain experienced reality…. We have our current best fit models – 
both in science and in math.

By corollary and by symmetry this same optic of doubt can shine upon the notion 
of a real physical entity underlying the stuff we call real. What is real about 
a proton, electron, photon…etc.? Other than their properties and their current 
state. There is an undeniable (I take that back, you will always find somebody, 
somewhere, who will disagree)… a mostly undeniable realness to the macro 
experience of being in reality. It is a realness that has repeating patterns in 
it (wave interaction for example) that we have noticed as a species and ridden 
like clues to the pretty good models we now have. Personally prefer to be 
neither Aristotelian; nor however a Platonic idealist.

 

But not a TOE, yet!

And certainly not one with an auto-emergent story… yet. A TOE, with an 
auto-emergent origin story for me is the holy grail.

When I say origin story it should not be confused with having the one way 
vector of time perspective that gives us the illusion of past, present, and 
future states. I find it quite possible that time itself is emergent; that our 
experience of time is merely some particular stack ordering of observer moments 
in 4-D spacetime. This idea also naturally extends (and lends) itself to a MWI 
hyper-stack of other universes, in the tree of all quantum outcomes.

I find any TOE that side steps the question of emergence, by just saying that’s 
how it always was to be unsatisfying. For example the cyclic universe 
hypothesis, certainly an elegant idea that attempts to tie it all up, but for 
me fails by hitting that “well it just always was” wall.

This “it just always was” position, is a major assumption, that cannot be 
answered by trying to frame the asking of the question as being driven by 
having the perspective of being immersed within a temporal point of view. This 
is a deeper question that is orthogonal to and can’t be answered by assertions 
or attributions of it being immersed in the temporal POV. It is another and 
profoundly separate question.

Even a purely abstract system – especially if it is posited to have and be 
imbued with external fundamental existence (existence that even underlies and 
underpins an illusory emergent physical existence)… even a pure abstract system 
such as this should be able to explain its own emergence. If it has no 
auto-emergent explanation then it is incomplete – IMO.

Incomplete, may be the best we will ever be able to achieve, we may discover 
that at some level it is impossible for us to transcend our POV to mentally 
adopt an encompassing abstract POV.

There is no theory – and even more so TOE -- that does not rest on assumptions. 
Unstated assumptions, remain assumptions, including the assumption in an 
Aristotelean realness to fundamental particles (we can measure, and through our 
models predict, but we can never see). 

 

A lot of really good ideas being shared and argued about too. And for the most 
part people are trying to be very clear about their assumptions. On a kind of 
meta level I think there can be said to exist a quality of excellence for 
auto-emergent TOE requiring fewer fundamental assumptions. The limit of 
assumptions could potentially be zero, but perhaps must be greater than zero 
(for some intrinsic reason).

 

                                       Roger 

 

P.S. One thing that I know exists is that I have to go to work tomorrow (had 
today off), and I don't like it!  :-)

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 5:48:27 PM UTC-5, Roger wrote:

 

Roger:  Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal 
point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of calculating its 
10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that if you do the process 
that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside the mind/head.  My view 
is that whenever we talk about something existing, we have to specify where and 
when it exists, that is, in what context or domain it exists.  A thing can 
exist in one place and not another.  A ball can exist outside the head, and a 
mental construct labeled "the concept of a ball" can exist inside the head.  

 

If a ball can exist outside the mind/head, why can't the 10^(10^(10^100))th 
decimal point of pi exist outside the mind/head? What property must a thing 
have to have an independent existence outside of any mind? (according to your 
theory?)

Jason

 

So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to 
figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for that 
number (which would be 0-9) would exist inside the mind/head but not outside 
the mind/head.  So, the mind is able to reify things (like the 
10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi) so that they exist but so that they 
only exist inside the mind/head and not outside the mind/head.

 

 

Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean that a 
specific thing does occur outside the mind/head.  If the  pi proposition and 
the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown outside the mind/head 
or any experimental evidence for the existence of the pi proposition or the 
10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be 
happy to accept it.  I can see that a circle can exist outside the head, but I 
don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, the proposition that if you divide 
the circle's circumference by its diameter you get pi.  

-- 
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] <javascript:> .
To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <javascript:> .
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.

-- 
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