Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[David Nyman]

On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb  wrote:

>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.  One
> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny even
> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
>

But surely that denial is precisely the point of the "philosopher's
nothing"?  I'm not sure why you would say that pointing to a "negative
potential" for anything to exist is incoherent (illogical,
inconsistent, or whatever).  Of course it's a dead-end, explanatorily
useless, a mystery if you will.  Given that there is something, some
aspect of that something will always have to be accepted as given.
That's the nature of explanation; the philosopher's nothing is what
you get if you push explanation past its breaking point.

David

> On 1/25/2012 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>   I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble
>>> over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide
>>> into sophistry that has happened in physics.
>>
>>
>> I think I agree. I comment Craig below.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

 On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:

> It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called
> "A Universe From
> Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by
> calculations of the total
> energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe have
> been developed by
> Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course the
> other view is that
> there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
> "The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
> nothing, and for nothing."
>          --- Quentin Smith

 I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
 theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
 possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
 'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
 definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
 dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
 mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
 'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
 existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.
>
>
>
> That's the philsopher's idea of 'nothing', but it's not clear that it's even
> coherent.  Our concepts of 'nothing' obviously arise from the idea of
> eliminating 'something' until no 'something' remains.  It is hardly fair to
> criticize physicists for using a physical, operational concept of nothing.
>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.  One
> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny even
> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
>
> Brent
>
>
> --
> 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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[meekerdb]

On 1/25/2012 11:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi John,

On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote:


Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> Wrote:

>  A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of
his life". The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such
scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more
"something from nothing" nonsense.



Yes, it amounted to a repulsive effect that came from space itself, and
you can set that constant to anything and mathematically the field
equations of General Relativity would still work. Originally  Einstein
saw no physical reason for that additional complication so he set it to
zero. But then he noticed that if it was zero the universe could not be
stable, it must be expanding or contracting; at the time everybody
including Einstein thought the universe was stable so he set it to a non
zero value and the cosmological constant was born. However just a few
years later Hubble found that the universe was expanding, so Einstein
thought the cosmological constant no longer had a purpose and said that
changing it from zero was the greatest mistake of his life.


Interesting. That is not quite the the story that I recall from Abraham Pais' 
biography of Einstein, but I might be misremembering.


You probably remember correctly.  Einstein originally set the CC non-zero in order that 
the universe could be in static equilibrium because that was the empirical conclusion at 
the time.  Shortly after he published, De Sitter pointed out that the universe would be in 
unstable equilibrium.  It is true that the discovery of the Hubble expansion caused the CC 
to be otiose.  Einstein then called it his greatest blunder because if he had realized he 
couldn't use it to make a static universe he might have predicted the Hubble expansion.


Brent

--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Jan 2012, at 00:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:



This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting
from
1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0,


So we get 0 after all.


Sure. Although 0 might be not be a number so much as neutralizing or
clearing of the enumerating motive.


Not sure that zero has such a power.







but from 0, no
logical concept of 1 need follow.


No logical concept, you are right (although this is not so easy to
proof). But you have the *arithmetical* (yes, *not* logical), notion
of a number's successor, noted s(x). We assume that all numbers have
successors. And we can even define 0 as the only one which is not a
successor, by assuming Ax(~(0= s(x))) (for all number 0 is different
from the successor of that number).


Yeah, I can't see how 0 could be the successor of any number.



Oh, but it makes sense though. If we were working with the integers,  
then zero becomes a successor, it is the successor of -1, itself  
successor of -2. They are quite genuine little citizens of Integer-Land!
From the point of view of computability they provide just an  
equivalent theory of PA. PA already believes in the integers, in some  
precise sense. We can use the rational numbers, too. But not the real  
numbers, unless you add the trigonometrical functions, or second order  
axioms.
I am not sanguine on the number. My heart pleads for the combinators  
instead, but that would send the layman away.









having the symbol 0, we can actually name all numbers: by 0, s(0),
s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), s(s(s(s(0, s(s(s(s(s(0), ...


0 is just 0. 0 minus 0 is still 0.


Yes. That's correct. And for all numbers x, you have also that x +  
0 =

x. Worst: for all number x,  x*0 = 0.
That 0 is a famous number!


Haha. I have always had sort of a dread about x*0. Sort of a
remorseless destructive power there...


Better to avoid of being multiplied by zero, sure.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Stephen,


On 25 Jan 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote:


Dear Bruno,


I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!


Well, assuming there is no flaws in UDA, and in AUDA (which assumes  
comp, but also the classical theory of knowledge, that is the axioms  
of the modal logic S4 for describing knowledge(*)), then it is in the  
interest of your theory to synchronize with the theory of the  
universal machine by the universal machine.

;)

(*)
Kp -> p  (if I know p, p is true)
Kp -> KKp (if I know p, I know that I know p) ; this one not not  
necessary (and false in the "sensible matter").
K(p->q) -> (Kp->Kq) (If I know that p implies q, and if I know p, then  
I know q).






On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi,

   I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a  
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't  
reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has happened in  
physics.


I think I agree. I comment Craig below.




Onward!

Stephen

On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:

It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book  
called "A Universe From
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by  
calculations of the total
energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe  
have been developed by
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course  
the other view is that

there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
  --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces,  
not to

mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.


I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions  
on the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing  
from physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually  
mathematical, theories of nothingness. It amounts to the fact that  
the quantum vacuum is unstable, or even more simply, a quantum  
universal dovetailer. This assumes de facto a particular case of  
comp, the believes in the existence of at  least one (Turing)  
universal system.
As you might know, choosing this particular one is treachery, in  
the mind body problem, given that if that is the one, it has to be  
explained in term of a special sum on *all* computational histories  
independently of the base (the universal system) chosen at the start.


The idea of theories of Nothing is that "Everything is  
indistinguishable from Nothing".


That does not make much sense to me. Words like "everything",  
"nothing", "existence" are theory independent.

"nothing" by itself has no meaning.



This is very different from distinctions between Something and  
Nothing. I cannot emphasize enough how important the role of belief,  
as it Bp&p,


as is Bp. (Bp & p is knowledge, obtained by applying Theaetetus'  
definition (true belief) when "believability" of the ideal rational  
correct machine, is believing in the modus ponens rule and in a  
correct description on its own functioning at the right level (even if  
only serendipitously). This behaves, like Gödel's provability, to the  
logic of self-reference G and G*.



has and how "belief" automatically induces an entity that is capable  
of having the belief.


Beliefs are defined by those entities, which you can see as (relative)  
theorem provers. Let me fix one universal system (like any enough rich  
describing an initial segment of (N,+,*)) then I can effectively  
associate digital entities (machine, pieces of computation, machine's  
discourse) with numbers. Like fixing 0 on a line can help me to relate  
to points through numbers.


So relatively to a universal numbers, some numbers can develop  
beliefs. All sort of beliefs. I limit myself to the study of ideally  
rational machines. The amazing thing is that such machine get  
mystical, and their discourses and silent are interesting.




We simply cannot divorce the action from the actor while we can  
divorce the action from any *particular* actor.


Sure.



Your idea that we have to count *all* computational histories is  
equally important, but note that a choice has to be made. This role,  
in my thinking, is explained in terms of an infinite ensemble of  
entities, each capable of making the choice. If we can cover all of  
their necessary and sufficient propertie

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[ronaldheld]

I have no problem(for now) accepting the Big Bang theory+inflation
paradigm. I admit I do not know what dark matter is or how many
inflaton fields there are. I can accept the cosmological constant as
the source of dark energy. It seems better at this time to have the
two dark quantities than to alter Einsteins's General Relativity.
More observations will be needed.
Ronald

On Jan 25, 7:41 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> >> Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of.  While 'everything' may 
> >> be as
> >> uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me.
>
> >     Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for you, 
> > this difference?
>
> Well, for one, if everything exists I'm around to see somethings.
>
> Brent

-- 
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Hi John,

On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:


Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> 
Wrote:


>  A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of
his life". The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such
scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more
"something from nothing" nonsense.



Yes, it amounted to a repulsive effect that came from space itself, and
you can set that constant to anything and mathematically the field
equations of General Relativity would still work. Originally  Einstein
saw no physical reason for that additional complication so he set it to
zero. But then he noticed that if it was zero the universe could not be
stable, it must be expanding or contracting; at the time everybody
including Einstein thought the universe was stable so he set it to a non
zero value and the cosmological constant was born. However just a few
years later Hubble found that the universe was expanding, so Einstein
thought the cosmological constant no longer had a purpose and said that
changing it from zero was the greatest mistake of his life.


Interesting. That is not quite the the story that I recall from 
Abraham Pais' biography of Einstein, but I might be misremembering.




In act 2 people working with quantum mechanics found that empty space
should indeed have a repulsive effect, but the numbers were huge,
gigantic astronomical, so large that the universe would blow itself
apart in far far less than a billionth of a nanosecond. This was clearly
a nonsensical result but most felt that once a quantum theory of gravity
was discovered a way would be found to cancel this out and the true
value of the cosmological constant would be zero.

In act 3 just a few years ago it was observed that the universe is was
not just expanding but accelerating, so now theoreticians must find a
way to cancel out, not the entire cosmological constant, but the vastly
more difficult task of canceling it all out EXCEPT for one part in
10^120. There are only about 10^90 atoms in the observable universe.

 John K Clark
And it is this amazing pin-point cancellation that is required to 
make the CC idea work that makes it even more suspect, IMHO. Perhaps the 
simple answer is that the mass-energy associated with the vacuum is 
purely off-shell and virtual and does *not* act as a gravitational 
source. Perhaps that 1 in 10^120 is a second or third order effect from 
something else or perhaps there are no primitive scalar fields at all. I 
have looked very hard at this question and so far have not found a 
single observed effect that gives evidence that virtual particles, or 
vacuum fluctuations or whatever one wishes to call them have any mass 
effects. What we do find evidence of is electromagnetic effects, but no 
mass effects.
But this is getting away from the point that I am trying to make, 
finite systems subject to quantum mechanics have finite abilities to 
resolve, transform, receive and transmit information. Does this not have 
an effect on the world that we observe? Could it be that the finiteness 
we observe is merely the result of this constraint and *not* an 
objective 3p aspect of the universe?
If my hunch is true, this idea would go a long way in solving many 
riddles of cosmology. For one thing we would not have to deal with all 
that "what caused the universe to Bang" in the first place. We would get 
the "perfect cosmological principle 
" as a 
guide to proceed: The universe looks about the same to an average 
observer no mater where or when they find themselves. The average 
observer will always find itself in the center of a finite universe that 
has an event horizon in its extremal past.


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 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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Stephen P. King  Wrote:

 >  A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of
> his life". The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such
> scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more
> "something from nothing" nonsense.
>


Yes, it amounted to a repulsive effect that came from space itself, and
you can set that constant to anything and mathematically the field
equations of General Relativity would still work. Originally  Einstein
saw no physical reason for that additional complication so he set it to
zero. But then he noticed that if it was zero the universe could not be
stable, it must be expanding or contracting; at the time everybody
including Einstein thought the universe was stable so he set it to a non
zero value and the cosmological constant was born. However just a few
years later Hubble found that the universe was expanding, so Einstein
thought the cosmological constant no longer had a purpose and said that
changing it from zero was the greatest mistake of his life.

In act 2 people working with quantum mechanics found that empty space
should indeed have a repulsive effect, but the numbers were huge,
gigantic astronomical, so large that the universe would blow itself
apart in far far less than a billionth of a nanosecond. This was clearly
a nonsensical result but most felt that once a quantum theory of gravity
was discovered a way would be found to cancel this out and the true
value of the cosmological constant would be zero.

In act 3 just a few years ago it was observed that the universe is was
not just expanding but accelerating, so now theoreticians must find a
way to cancel out, not the entire cosmological constant, but the vastly
more difficult task of canceling it all out EXCEPT for one part in
10^120. There are only about 10^90 atoms in the observable universe.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/25/2012 7:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of.  While 
'everything' may be as uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty 
distinct to me.


Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for 
you, this difference?


Well, for one, if everything exists I'm around to see somethings.

Brent
--
And it it is not you? Does it not exist? Interesting role that you 
have cast yourself into!


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 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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[meekerdb]

On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of.  While 'everything' may be as 
uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me.


Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for you, this 
difference?


Well, for one, if everything exists I'm around to see somethings.

Brent

--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Brent,

On 1/25/2012 4:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/25/2012 11:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Bruno,


I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!


On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi,

   I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a 
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't 
reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.


I think I agree. I comment Craig below.




Onward!

Stephen

On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:

It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book 
called "A Universe From
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by 
calculations of the total
energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe 
have been developed by
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course 
the other view is that

there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
  --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.


I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions 
on the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing 
from physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually 
mathematical, theories of nothingness. It amounts to the fact that 
the quantum vacuum is unstable, or even more simply, a quantum 
universal dovetailer. This assumes de facto a particular case of 
comp, the believes in the existence of at  least one (Turing) 
universal system.
As you might know, choosing this particular one is treachery, in the 
mind body problem, given that if that is the one, it has to be 
explained in term of a special sum on *all* computational histories 
independently of the base (the universal system) chosen at the start.


The idea of theories of Nothing is that "Everything is 
indistinguishable from Nothing". 


Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of.  While 'everything' 
may be as uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me.


Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for 
you, this difference?





This is very different from distinctions between Something and 
Nothing. I cannot emphasize enough how important the role of belief, 
as it Bp&p, has and how "belief" automatically induces an entity that 
is capable of having the belief. 


"Induces?"  Are you saying the concept of belief is efficacious in 
creating a believer?


I am considering Bp&p. My point is that a entity has Bp&p, it is 
not a free-floater.


  In Bruno's idea, what he denotes by B is provability, a concept that 
is implicit in the axioms and rules of inference.


Sure.

Onward!

Stephen



Brent

We simply cannot divorce the action from the actor while we can 
divorce the action from any *particular* actor. Your idea that we 
have to count *all* computational histories is equally important, but 
note that a choice has to be made. This role, in my thinking, is 
explained in terms of an infinite ensemble of entities, each capable 
of making the choice. If we can cover all of their necessary and 
sufficient properties by considering them as *Löb*ian, good, but I 
think that we need a tiny bit more structure to involve bisimulations 
between multiple and separate *Löb*ian entities so that we can 
extract local notions of time and space.


Any formalism describing the quantum vaccuum assumes much more that 
the Robinson tiny arithmetical theory for the ontology needed in 
comp. Nothing physical does not mean nothing conceptual. You have 
still too assume the numbers, at the least. So it assumes more and 
it copies nature (you can't, with comp, or you lost the big half of 
everything).


I would like you to consider that the uniqueness of standard 
models of arithmetic, such as that defined in the Tennenbaum theorem, 
as a relative notion. Each and every *Löb*ian entity will always 
consider themselves as recursive and countable and thus the 
"standard" of uniqueness. This refelcts the idea that each of us as 
observers finds ourselves in the center of "the" universe.






My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but 
rather

Everything.


I think there coexist, and are explanativaely dual of each others. 
In both case you need the assumptions needed to

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[meekerdb]

On 1/25/2012 3:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

x. Worst: for all number x,  x*0 = 0.
>  That 0 is a famous number!


x*0=1 for x=/=0

Brent

--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 25, 1:10 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on
> the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from
> physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually mathematical,
> theories of nothingness. It amounts to the fact that the quantum
> vacuum is unstable, or even more simply, a quantum universal
> dovetailer. This assumes de facto a particular case of comp, the
> believes in the existence of at  least one (Turing) universal system.
> As you might know, choosing this particular one is treachery, in the
> mind body problem, given that if that is the one, it has to be
> explained in term of a special sum on *all* computational histories
> independently of the base (the universal system) chosen at the start.
> Any formalism describing the quantum vaccuum assumes much more that
> the Robinson tiny arithmetical theory for the ontology needed in comp.
> Nothing physical does not mean nothing conceptual. You have still too
> assume the numbers, at the least. So it assumes more and it copies
> nature (you can't, with comp, or you lost the big half of everything).
>
>
>
> >> My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but
> >> rather
> >> Everything.
>
> I think there coexist, and are explanativaely dual of each others. In
> both case you need the assumptions needed to make precise what can
> exist and what cannot exist.

Yes, they coexist or coexplain. The word nothing has to discriminate
from some other possibility, which would always be some thing, and
once there is a thing, then that thing is automatically every thing as
well, hah. These contingencies are all part of a something though. If
we look to a nothingness beyond the word though, a true existential
vacuum, then that is all it is and all it can be.

>
> >> If you have an eternal everything then the universe of
> >> somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by there being
> >> temporary bundling of everything into isolated wholes, collections of
> >> wholes, collections of collections, etc, each with their own share of
> >> small share of eternity.
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> >> This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting
> >> from
> >> 1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0,
>
> So we get 0 after all.

Sure. Although 0 might be not be a number so much as neutralizing or
clearing of the enumerating motive.

>
> >> but from 0, no
> >> logical concept of 1 need follow.
>
> No logical concept, you are right (although this is not so easy to
> proof). But you have the *arithmetical* (yes, *not* logical), notion
> of a number's successor, noted s(x). We assume that all numbers have
> successors. And we can even define 0 as the only one which is not a
> successor, by assuming Ax(~(0= s(x))) (for all number 0 is different
> from the successor of that number).

Yeah, I can't see how 0 could be the successor of any number.

>
> having the symbol 0, we can actually name all numbers: by 0, s(0),
> s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), s(s(s(s(0, s(s(s(s(s(0), ...
>
> >> 0 is just 0. 0 minus 0 is still 0.
>
> Yes. That's correct. And for all numbers x, you have also that x + 0 =
> x. Worst: for all number x,  x*0 = 0.
> That 0 is a famous number!

Haha. I have always had sort of a dread about x*0. Sort of a
remorseless destructive power there...

Craig

-- 
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[meekerdb]

On 1/25/2012 11:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Dear Bruno,


I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!


On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi,

   I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the 
math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide into sophistry that 
has happened in physics.


I think I agree. I comment Craig below.




Onward!

Stephen

On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:


It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A 
Universe From
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations of the 
total

energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe have been 
developed by
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course the other view 
is that
there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
  --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.


I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on the table. 
Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from physical nothingness, makes 
sense only in, usually mathematical, theories of nothingness. It amounts to the fact 
that the quantum vacuum is unstable, or even more simply, a quantum universal 
dovetailer. This assumes de facto a particular case of comp, the believes in the 
existence of at  least one (Turing) universal system.
As you might know, choosing this particular one is treachery, in the mind body problem, 
given that if that is the one, it has to be explained in term of a special sum on *all* 
computational histories independently of the base (the universal system) chosen at the 
start.


The idea of theories of Nothing is that "Everything is indistinguishable from Nothing". 


Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of.  While 'everything' may be as 
uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me.



This is very different from distinctions between Something and Nothing. I cannot 
emphasize enough how important the role of belief, as it Bp&p, has and how "belief" 
automatically induces an entity that is capable of having the belief. 


"Induces?"  Are you saying the concept of belief is efficacious in creating a believer?  
In Bruno's idea, what he denotes by B is provability, a concept that is implicit in the 
axioms and rules of inference.


Brent

We simply cannot divorce the action from the actor while we can divorce the action from 
any *particular* actor. Your idea that we have to count *all* computational histories is 
equally important, but note that a choice has to be made. This role, in my thinking, is 
explained in terms of an infinite ensemble of entities, each capable of making the 
choice. If we can cover all of their necessary and sufficient properties by considering 
them as *Löb*ian, good, but I think that we need a tiny bit more structure to involve 
bisimulations between multiple and separate *Löb*ian entities so that we can extract 
local notions of time and space.


Any formalism describing the quantum vaccuum assumes much more that the Robinson tiny 
arithmetical theory for the ontology needed in comp. Nothing physical does not mean 
nothing conceptual. You have still too assume the numbers, at the least. So it assumes 
more and it copies nature (you can't, with comp, or you lost the big half of everything).


I would like you to consider that the uniqueness of standard models of arithmetic, 
such as that defined in the Tennenbaum theorem, as a relative notion. Each and every 
*Löb*ian entity will always consider themselves as recursive and countable and thus the 
"standard" of uniqueness. This refelcts the idea that each of us as observers finds 
ourselves in the center of "the" universe.






My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but rather
Everything.


I think there coexist, and are explanativaely dual of each others. In both case you 
need the assumptions needed to make precise what can exist and what cannot exist.


This is a mistake because it tacitly assumes that a finite theory can exactly model 
the totality of existence.





If you have an eternal everything then the universe of
somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by 

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[meekerdb]

On 1/25/2012 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi,

   I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the math. 
We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has 
happened in physics.


I think I agree. I comment Craig below.




Onward!

Stephen

On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:


It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A 
Universe From
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations of 
the total
energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe have been 
developed by
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course the other view 
is that
there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
  --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.



That's the philsopher's idea of 'nothing', but it's not clear that it's even coherent.  
Our concepts of 'nothing' obviously arise from the idea of eliminating 'something' until 
no 'something' remains.  It is hardly fair to criticize physicists for using a physical, 
operational concept of nothing.  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a 
spacetime vacuum.  One may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to 
deny even potential would be to deny that anything can exist.


Brent

--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Dear Bruno,


I still think that we can synchronize our ideas!


On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi,

   I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a 
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce 
the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.


I think I agree. I comment Craig below.




Onward!

Stephen

On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:

It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book 
called "A Universe From
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by 
calculations of the total
energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe 
have been developed by
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course 
the other view is that

there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
  --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.


I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on 
the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from 
physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually mathematical, 
theories of nothingness. It amounts to the fact that the quantum 
vacuum is unstable, or even more simply, a quantum universal 
dovetailer. This assumes de facto a particular case of comp, the 
believes in the existence of at  least one (Turing) universal system.
As you might know, choosing this particular one is treachery, in the 
mind body problem, given that if that is the one, it has to be 
explained in term of a special sum on *all* computational histories 
independently of the base (the universal system) chosen at the start.


The idea of theories of Nothing is that "Everything is 
indistinguishable from Nothing". This is very different from 
distinctions between Something and Nothing. I cannot emphasize enough 
how important the role of belief, as it Bp&p, has and how "belief" 
automatically induces an entity that is capable of having the belief. We 
simply cannot divorce the action from the actor while we can divorce the 
action from any *particular* actor. Your idea that we have to count 
*all* computational histories is equally important, but note that a 
choice has to be made. This role, in my thinking, is explained in terms 
of an infinite ensemble of entities, each capable of making the choice. 
If we can cover all of their necessary and sufficient properties by 
considering them as *Löb*ian, good, but I think that we need a tiny bit 
more structure to involve bisimulations between multiple and separate 
*Löb*ian entities so that we can extract local notions of time and space.


Any formalism describing the quantum vaccuum assumes much more that 
the Robinson tiny arithmetical theory for the ontology needed in comp. 
Nothing physical does not mean nothing conceptual. You have still too 
assume the numbers, at the least. So it assumes more and it copies 
nature (you can't, with comp, or you lost the big half of everything).


I would like you to consider that the uniqueness of standard models 
of arithmetic, such as that defined in the Tennenbaum theorem, as a 
relative notion. Each and every *Löb*ian entity will always consider 
themselves as recursive and countable and thus the "standard" of 
uniqueness. This refelcts the idea that each of us as observers finds 
ourselves in the center of "the" universe.






My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but rather
Everything.


I think there coexist, and are explanativaely dual of each others. In 
both case you need the assumptions needed to make precise what can 
exist and what cannot exist.


This is a mistake because it tacitly assumes that a finite theory 
can exactly model the totality of existence.





If you have an eternal everything then the universe of
somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by there being
temporary bundling of everything into isolated wholes, collections of
wholes, collections of collections, etc, each with their own share of
small share of eternity.


OK.


Indeed!






This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting from
1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0,


So we get 0 after all.


Right, but we recover 0 *after* the first act of dist

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[John Clark]

 John Mikes wrote:


> > 1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang,
>

Well, we have excellent empirical evidence that the observable universe is
expanding, and a straightforward extrapolation into the past indicates that
13.75 billion years ago everything we can see was concentrated at just one
point. So it's clear that something unusual happened 13.75 billion years
ago, if not the Big Bang what? And if not the Big Bang what caused the 2.7
degree microwave background radiation that is coming in from every point in
the sky? And was it just coincidence that long ago the theory predicted
that radiation would change in intensity very very slightly from one point
to another, a prediction that was triumphantly confirmed in just the last
couple of years?


> > Dark energy (etc.) are postulates
>

No, "Dark Energy" is just a label for something we are nearly certain
exists but can't explain. There is  superb evidence that the phenomena
given the name "Dark Energy" exists, but nobody even pretends to understand
it. Dark Energy is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, if you
want scientific immortality alongside Newton and Einstein explain just 2%
of the puzzle.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Brent,

On 1/25/2012 2:05 AM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/24/2012 8:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Brent,

On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi John,

1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model 
that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational 
facts together into a scheme that is both predictive and 
explanatory. It has built into it certain ontological and 
epistemological premises that I have some doubts about.


Such as?


Let us start with the heavily camouflaged idea that we can get 
something, a universe!, out of Nothing.


It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called 
"A Universe From Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is 
suggested by calculations of the total energy of the universe.  
Theories of the origin of the universe have been developed by 
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course the 
other view is that there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the 
default.


But note that this calculation, which flows inevitably from our 
knowledge of conservation laws, is done ex post facto, after the fact. 
We are here, experiencing a universe, and noticing that it is finite 
both in the spatial and temporal sense. Is this not what we should 
expect an entity that has a finite limit on its ability to observe? We 
seem to easily forget or ignore the full implication of finiteness! B/c 
of the way that time and spatial aspects cannot be taken as separate, 
the total universe could very well be infinite but we would never 
observe that totality if only because of the finite limits on resolution 
of our senses, no matter how extended they might be with technology.
I am making a big deal of this as it is the reason why I have been 
arguing strongly against naive realism while warning against equally 
fallacious alternatives. The philosophical problems that we have been 
discussing in this List are very tough but I believe that we have a 
combined brain trust very capable of figuring this stuff out. :-)








2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity 
until we have a better explanation for the effects that it was 
conjectured to explain. We have never actually detected it. What we 
have detected is that certain super-novae seem to have light that 
appears to indicate that the super-novae are accelerating away from 
us. This was an unexpected observation that was not predicted by 
the Big Bang theory so the BBT was amended to include a new entity. 
So be it. But my line of questions is: At what point are we going 
to keep adding entities to BBT before we start wondering if there 
is something fundamentally wrong with it?


I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the 
concordance theory in the literature.  It includes the hot Big Bang, 
inflation, and vacuum energy.  The reason Dark Energy (so called in 
parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is that it was 
already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological 
constant.  It didn't have to be amended; just accept that a 
parameter wasn't exactly zero.


A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake 
of his life". 


Only because it caused him to miss predicting the expansion of the 
universe - or maybe you don't believe the universe is expanding.


Not so. The augmented field equations are unstable and strongly 
dependent on the precise choice of the Cauchy hypersurface input. The 
cosmological constant is a two-edged sword because it can give a 
universe that almost instantly collapses or explodes. You would do well 
to read up more on it.




The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such scalar 
field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more 
"something from nothing" nonsense.


But you can't add any others that are simpler than the curvature 
terms, which are second order, except the constant CC term.


OK, I will bow to your knowledge of the math on this point.









It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute 
sense, for who is the ultimate arbiter of that question? 


There is no ultimate arbiter.  What is thought to exist is model 
dependent and it changes as theories change to explain new data.


WOW! We been informed that we can now make things pop in and out 
of existence merely by shifting our belief systems. Who might have 
imagined such a wondrous possibility! Umm, NO. Existence is not 
subject to our perceptions, theories of whatever.


Read more carefully.  I wrote "What is *thought* to exist..."; which 
is obviously true. We thought atoms existed long before they could be 
imaged.  We think quarks exist based on a theory that says they can't 
be observed.


OK, but you get my point I hope. What I am trying to drive home is 
that we must be very careful with our use of the word "exist". There is 
a point where in our dri

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote:


Hi,

   I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a  
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce  
the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.


I think I agree. I comment Craig below.




Onward!

Stephen

On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:

It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book  
called "A Universe From
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by  
calculations of the total
energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe  
have been developed by
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course  
the other view is that

there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
  --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.


I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on  
the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from  
physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually mathematical,  
theories of nothingness. It amounts to the fact that the quantum  
vacuum is unstable, or even more simply, a quantum universal  
dovetailer. This assumes de facto a particular case of comp, the  
believes in the existence of at  least one (Turing) universal system.
As you might know, choosing this particular one is treachery, in the  
mind body problem, given that if that is the one, it has to be  
explained in term of a special sum on *all* computational histories  
independently of the base (the universal system) chosen at the start.
Any formalism describing the quantum vaccuum assumes much more that  
the Robinson tiny arithmetical theory for the ontology needed in comp.  
Nothing physical does not mean nothing conceptual. You have still too  
assume the numbers, at the least. So it assumes more and it copies  
nature (you can't, with comp, or you lost the big half of everything).






My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but  
rather

Everything.


I think there coexist, and are explanativaely dual of each others. In  
both case you need the assumptions needed to make precise what can  
exist and what cannot exist.






If you have an eternal everything then the universe of
somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by there being
temporary bundling of everything into isolated wholes, collections of
wholes, collections of collections, etc, each with their own share of
small share of eternity.


OK.




This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting  
from

1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0,


So we get 0 after all.



but from 0, no
logical concept of 1 need follow.


No logical concept, you are right (although this is not so easy to  
proof). But you have the *arithmetical* (yes, *not* logical), notion  
of a number's successor, noted s(x). We assume that all numbers have  
successors. And we can even define 0 as the only one which is not a  
successor, by assuming Ax(~(0= s(x))) (for all number 0 is different  
from the successor of that number).


having the symbol 0, we can actually name all numbers: by 0, s(0),  
s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), s(s(s(s(0, s(s(s(s(s(0), ...




0 is just 0. 0 minus 0 is still 0.


Yes. That's correct. And for all numbers x, you have also that x + 0 =  
x. Worst: for all number x,  x*0 = 0.

That 0 is a famous number!

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Hi,

I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a 
quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the 
same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.


Onward!

Stephen

On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:


It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A 
Universe From
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations of 
the total
energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe have been 
developed by
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course the other view 
is that
there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
   --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.

My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but rather
Everything. If you have an eternal everything then the universe of
somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by there being
temporary bundling of everything into isolated wholes, collections of
wholes, collections of collections, etc, each with their own share of
small share of eternity.

This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting from
1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0, but from 0, no
logical concept of 1 need follow. 0 is just 0. 0 minus 0 is still 0.

Craig



--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb  wrote:

> It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A 
> Universe From
> Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations 
> of the total
> energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe have been 
> developed by
> Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course the other 
> view is that
> there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.

> "The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
> nothing, and for nothing."
>           --- Quentin Smith

I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.

My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but rather
Everything. If you have an eternal everything then the universe of
somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by there being
temporary bundling of everything into isolated wholes, collections of
wholes, collections of collections, etc, each with their own share of
small share of eternity.

This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting from
1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0, but from 0, no
logical concept of 1 need follow. 0 is just 0. 0 minus 0 is still 0.

Craig

-- 
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[meekerdb]

On 1/24/2012 8:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Brent,

On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi John,

1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to 
weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is 
both predictive and explanatory. It has built into it certain ontological and 
epistemological premises that I have some doubts about.


Such as?


Let us start with the heavily camouflaged idea that we can get something, a 
universe!, out of Nothing.


It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A Universe From 
Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations of the total 
energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe have been developed by 
Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle.  Of course the other view is that 
there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.






2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until we have a 
better explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to explain. We have never 
actually detected it. What we have detected is that certain super-novae seem to have 
light that appears to indicate that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. 
This was an unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so 
the BBT was amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of questions is: At 
what point are we going to keep adding entities to BBT before we start wondering if 
there is something fundamentally wrong with it?


I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the concordance theory in 
the literature.  It includes the hot Big Bang, inflation, and vacuum energy.  The 
reason Dark Energy (so called in parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is 
that it was already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological constant.  It 
didn't have to be amended; just accept that a parameter wasn't exactly zero.


A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of his life". 


Only because it caused him to miss predicting the expansion of the universe - or maybe you 
don't believe the universe is expanding.


The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such scalar field terms to one's 
field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more "something from nothing" nonsense.


But you can't add any others that are simpler than the curvature terms, which are second 
order, except the constant CC term.








It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense, for who is the 
ultimate arbiter of that question? 


There is no ultimate arbiter.  What is thought to exist is model dependent and it 
changes as theories change to explain new data.


WOW! We been informed that we can now make things pop in and out of existence merely 
by shifting our belief systems. Who might have imagined such a wondrous possibility! 
Umm, NO. Existence is not subject to our perceptions, theories of whatever.


Read more carefully.  I wrote "What is *thought* to exist..."; which is obviously true. We 
thought atoms existed long before they could be imaged.  We think quarks exist based on a 
theory that says they can't be observed.


Brent
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
 --- Quentin Smith

--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Brent,

On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi John,

1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model 
that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational 
facts together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. 
It has built into it certain ontological and epistemological premises 
that I have some doubts about.


Such as?


Let us start with the heavily camouflaged idea that we can get 
something, a universe!, out of Nothing.




2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity 
until we have a better explanation for the effects that it was 
conjectured to explain. We have never actually detected it. What we 
have detected is that certain super-novae seem to have light that 
appears to indicate that the super-novae are accelerating away from 
us. This was an unexpected observation that was not predicted by the 
Big Bang theory so the BBT was amended to include a new entity. So be 
it. But my line of questions is: At what point are we going to keep 
adding entities to BBT before we start wondering if there is 
something fundamentally wrong with it?


I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the 
concordance theory in the literature.  It includes the hot Big Bang, 
inflation, and vacuum energy.  The reason Dark Energy (so called in 
parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is that it was 
already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological 
constant.  It didn't have to be amended; just accept that a parameter 
wasn't exactly zero.


A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of 
his life". The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such 
scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more 
"something from nothing" nonsense.






It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute 
sense, for who is the ultimate arbiter of that question? 


There is no ultimate arbiter.  What is thought to exist is model 
dependent and it changes as theories change to explain new data.


WOW! We been informed that we can now make things pop in and out of 
existence merely by shifting our belief systems. Who might have imagined 
such a wondrous possibility! Umm, NO. Existence is not subject to our 
perceptions, theories of whatever.


Onward!

Stephen



Brent



--
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[meekerdb]

On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi John,

1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to 
weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is 
both predictive and explanatory. It has built into it certain ontological and 
epistemological premises that I have some doubts about.


Such as?

2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until we have a better 
explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to explain. We have never actually 
detected it. What we have detected is that certain super-novae seem to have light that 
appears to indicate that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. This was an 
unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so the BBT was 
amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of questions is: At what point 
are we going to keep adding entities to BBT before we start wondering if there is 
something fundamentally wrong with it?


I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the concordance theory in the 
literature.  It includes the hot Big Bang, inflation, and vacuum energy.  The reason Dark 
Energy (so called in parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is that it was 
already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological constant.  It didn't have to 
be amended; just accept that a parameter wasn't exactly zero.





It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense, for who is the 
ultimate arbiter of that question? 


There is no ultimate arbiter.  What is thought to exist is model dependent and it changes 
as theories change to explain new data.


Brent


So, I can present you with a box that I claim contains a coin weighing so many grams and 
blah blah, but you have to observe it to know for yourself and you might just happen to 
be under the influence of some psychoactive substance that prevents you from seeing 
clearly... Or worse case scenario, you might be a victim of a brain-in-a-vat 
situation... We have to go through our epistemology and ontology theories to be sure 
that they are at least consistent.


Onward!

Stephen


On 1/24/2012 3:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors as concerning 
past lit already worked it out. My main objection is *_not_* the linearity in going 
back to zero in an expansion that is non-linear and *_not_* the phantasm in 
'originating' a world upon partial input (as a total one at the end), it is the 
underlying physical thought of explaining (mostly mathematically) a totality of which 
we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?) plays into the changes. We learn new details 
continually and forge them into the obsolescence to make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our image does not fit. 
It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most of which is still hidden - o r 
nonexistent at all. We live in a model of our present model-base and consider it ALL. 
We learn new aspects (mostly: make them up for explanation) and fit them into our 
conventional sciences. These, however, started way before "The Big Bear" and still 
include origins of the ancient obsolescence galore. Math is a good soother. If in 
trouble, a constant can make wonders - and we can explain its meaning ("it must be"). 
Or a new chapter in our calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers etc.)

Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")
Agnostically yours
John Mikes


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote:


Hi John,

What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity that 
is part
of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from supernovae 
appeared
to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating away from us Do 
we give
such "entities" the status of existing on so frail a foundation? The same 
critisism
applies to scalar fields and dark matter. Until we actually find them
experimentally, then it is helpful to keep them firmly in the "conjectured 
but not
proven to exist category". :-)
My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are backed up by
empirical evidence before we declare them justified. This is not an easy 
task as
many entities, such as numbers, are forever beyond the realm of experience 
but we
can still reason consistently about them...

Onward!

Stephen

Onward!

Stephen



On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012  Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

" How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a strong
"believer" in the Big Bang?"


If somebody developed a new theory that ex

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Hi John,

1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that 
attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts 
together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. It has 
built into it certain ontological and epistemological premises that I 
have some doubts about.
2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until 
we have a better explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to 
explain. We have never actually detected it. What we have detected is 
that certain super-novae seem to have light that appears to indicate 
that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. This was an 
unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so 
the BBT was amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of 
questions is: At what point are we going to keep adding entities to BBT 
before we start wondering if there is something fundamentally wrong with it?


It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense, 
for who is the ultimate arbiter of that question? So, I can present you 
with a box that I claim contains a coin weighing so many grams and blah 
blah, but you have to observe it to know for yourself and you might just 
happen to be under the influence of some psychoactive substance that 
prevents you from seeing clearly... Or worse case scenario, you might be 
a victim of a brain-in-a-vat situation... We have to go through our 
epistemology and ontology theories to be sure that they are at least 
consistent.


Onward!

Stephen


On 1/24/2012 3:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors 
as concerning past lit already worked it out. My main objection is 
*_not_* the linearity in going back to zero in an expansion that is 
non-linear and *_not_* the phantasm in 'originating' a world upon 
partial input (as a total one at the end), it is the underlying 
physical thought of explaining (mostly mathematically) a totality of 
which we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?) plays into the changes. We 
learn new details continually and forge them into the obsolescence to 
make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our 
image does not fit. It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most 
of which is still hidden - o r nonexistent at all. We live in a model 
of our present model-base and consider it ALL. We learn new aspects 
(mostly: make them up for explanation) and fit them into our 
conventional sciences. These, however, started way before "The Big 
Bear" and still include origins of the ancient obsolescence galore. 
Math is a good soother. If in trouble, a constant can make wonders - 
and we can explain its meaning ("it must be"). Or a new chapter in our 
calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers etc.)

Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")
Agnostically yours
John Mikes


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:


Hi John,

What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture
entity that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of
how light from supernovae appeared to be streached as if the
supernovae are accelerating away from us Do we give such
"entities" the status of existing on so frail a foundation? The
same critisism applies to scalar fields and dark matter. Until we
actually find them experimentally, then it is helpful to keep them
firmly in the "conjectured but not proven to exist category". :-)
My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are
backed up by empirical evidence before we declare them justified.
This is not an easy task as many entities, such as numbers, are
forever beyond the realm of experience but we can still reason
consistently about them...

Onward!

Stephen

Onward!

Stephen



On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012  Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

" How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a
strong "believer" in the Big Bang?"


If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the
Big Bang did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop
the Big Bang like a hot potato and embrace that new theory with
every fiber of my being, until the instant a even better theory
came along. I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.

 John K Clark




--
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 
ht

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[John Mikes]

Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors as
concerning past lit already worked it out. My main objection is *not* the
linearity in going back to zero in an expansion that is non-linear and
*not*the phantasm in 'originating' a world upon partial input (as a
total one at
the end), it is the underlying physical thought of explaining (mostly
mathematically) a totality of which we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?)
plays into the changes. We learn new details continually and forge them
into the obsolescence to make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our image
does not fit. It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most of which is
still hidden - o r nonexistent at all. We live in a model of our present
model-base and consider it ALL. We learn new aspects (mostly: make them up
for explanation) and fit them into our conventional sciences. These,
however, started way before "The Big Bear" and still include origins of the
ancient obsolescence galore. Math is a good soother. If in trouble, a
constant can make wonders - and we can explain its meaning ("it must be").
Or a new chapter in our calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers
etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")

Agnostically yours

John Mikes



On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity
> that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from
> supernovae appeared to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating
> away from us Do we give such "entities" the status of existing on so
> frail a foundation? The same critisism applies to scalar fields and dark
> matter. Until we actually find them experimentally, then it is helpful to
> keep them firmly in the "conjectured but not proven to exist category". :-)
> My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are backed up
> by empirical evidence before we declare them justified. This is not an easy
> task as many entities, such as numbers, are forever beyond the realm of
> experience but we can still reason consistently about them...
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012  Stephen P. King  wrote:
>
> " How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a strong
>> "believer" in the Big Bang?"
>
>
> If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the Big Bang
> did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop the Big Bang like a
> hot potato and embrace that new theory with every fiber of my being, until
> the instant a even better theory came along. I have absolutely no loyalty
> toward theories.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>>
>
> --
> 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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012  Stephen P. King  wrote:

 " What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity that
> is part of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from
> supernovae appeared to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating
> away from us
>

Dark Energy is not a explanation, "Dark Energy" is just a label for a
astonishing phenomena that was discovered experimentally and that nobody
even claims to understand. We have to call it something and we could have
called it "unknown energy" or "X" or "?" but for one reason or another the
moniker chosen was "Dark Energy". The "Dark" in the term does not mean
black but rather invisible or mysterious or hard to find, but who cares
what you call it, a explanation for it is needed  and we don't have one.
Unlike religion when scientists don't understand something they admit it.


"The same critisism applies to scalar fields and dark matter. Until we
> actually find them experimentally [...]"
>

I don't know what on Earth you're talking about, telescopes are every bit
as legitimate scientific instruments as particle accelerators!  Both Dark
Matter and Dark Energy HAVE been discovered experimentally, the problem is
that neither has been discovered theoretically, the most recent attempt to
do so for Dark Energy produced a figure that was off by a factor of 10^120,
that's a one followed by 120 zeros; it's been called the greatest
discrepancy between theory and observation in the entire history of science
and I certainly can't think of a larger one.

As for Dark Matter, it's the third greatest mystery in Physics, beaten only
by Dark Energy and why there is something rather than nothing.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[Stephen P. King]

Hi John,

What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity 
that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of how light 
from supernovae appeared to be streached as if the supernovae are 
accelerating away from us Do we give such "entities" the status of 
existing on so frail a foundation? The same critisism applies to scalar 
fields and dark matter. Until we actually find them experimentally, then 
it is helpful to keep them firmly in the "conjectured but not proven to 
exist category". :-)
My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are backed 
up by empirical evidence before we declare them justified. This is not 
an easy task as many entities, such as numbers, are forever beyond the 
realm of experience but we can still reason consistently about them...


Onward!

Stephen

Onward!

Stephen



On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012  Stephen P. King > wrote:


" How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a
strong "believer" in the Big Bang?"


If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the Big 
Bang did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop the Big 
Bang like a hot potato and embrace that new theory with every fiber of 
my being, until the instant a even better theory came along. I have 
absolutely no loyalty toward theories.


 John K Clark




--
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.