Mordred

A little scattered, but one or two good questions in this. Don't think of one creating the other. In expansion the fields can affect volume change. You don't create space, as space has no substance that needs creating. By this referring to universe from nothing models describing the quantum process in the expansion of our universe from BB. Other than the caveat above (I never liked the term "space created" too misleading) for the reasons above. Ok this is s very important question. In physics a dimension is an independant value. By this I mean this variable etc can change without changing any other values. This is also called a "degree of freedom" Now in mathematical treatments it is preferable to reduce a system to the minimal number of degrees of freedom as possible. An example is "Hilbert space" which reduces the degrees of freedom to 2 dimensions. It does so in essence by charge vectors and symmetry groups. So for string theory ext the higher dimensions correspond to effective independant degrees of freedom a system has. Here is a classic example. A robot arm that only move up and down has 1 degree of freedom. It cannot move up without affecting the distance from the bottom. Now if that arm can move up/down and left/right. We have an additional degree of freedom. Now we can also spin that arm without affecting the other ranges of motion. So now spin is a degree of freedom that requires 2 dimensions to mathematically define. (angular momentum)

Whenever I sit down to write any article including the two in my signature I end up learning 😁. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry The top article is my first attempt at writing site articles. Took me 6 months to finally complete. The second one went smoother only 2 and I find its better written. The trick is removing ambiguous sentences etc. Its amazing how simple it is to miss imply. (last one has a page two link at bottom of page) Edit: Lol though there was a huge debate on the Cosmological redshift and gravitational redshift on the viability of being treated one and the same. Listening to numerous Ph.D's arguing the pros cons was definetely a learning experience. Took P. Allen and I some effort to reword the article to allow the possibility of both. P.Allen and I took on sections of the first paper then blended in the two different writing styles. I learned a lot since writing the first so have been considering rewriting the first article.

That would be a useful project for me to help others. I may just do that

terms like empty or nothing doesn't really exist in physics. You have a volume, you can assign coordinates or events with a value even if the value is zero. So now it has a field within that volume. A common term used being vacuum. Which quite frankly is falling out of favor to the term "potential " Vacuum causes to much misunderstandings.

Thanks glad to help. The reason I can do that is that I spent years understanding field treatments. Prior to attempting to simplify it for others. For example I am still trying to improve my understanding of this 1 article after 5 years reading it over and over again and of course applying the mathematics "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9912205

I knew you did but the opportunity to define local and global fields was presented. So I took advantage of it for other readers.

I have a personal definition of reality. Some may not agree with it but it works for me. Real can be defined as any measurable quantity or object that all observers can agree on. Invariant quantities. Variant quantities being examples of observer effects due to location etc. That is about as far as I ever go to define reality. I leave the more abstract arguments to others 😎

I misapplied that last statement you must have volume or area to have a geometry descibed as a field. Thanks for the catch Didn't realize I mistyped that last sentence. Bells locality to nonlocality is certainly defined under fields however. In order to understand those two terms you have to examine how local is defined as a field. (local) is always a boundary confined field. Local fields can be embedded onto our arbitrary global fields.

excellent

Simply put you cannot have a field if you have no volume. Or technically volume or area for 2d fields

Yes expansion is governed by fields. a field can be described as a distribution of any arbitrary values. So one cannot state volume causes fields. The volume simply defines the volume of whatever values the field is describing.

Yes but a further caveat fields can be smaller system states. ie the region of measurable influence. So the strong force from a single particle does not extend to infinity as per electromagnetic or gravity. In this sense we can confine the strong force from each particle by measurable "action" which under QFT is your operators describing system state wavefunctions under field treatments. This is where the distictions "local and global becomes defined

Understood on the cross post. Glad to help. (I did add an edit on above on x post)

Anytime you are able to assign more than one geometric location. (object, event, coordinate) You can treat any set of values to the coordinates under a field treatment. That is really the only requirenent to have a field. A field is any collection of values described via coordinate/geometry. Glad you enjoyed this thread by the way. Space is just volume, fields are not required to have space. However once you have volume you can describe that volume as a field. A field is an abstract device that abstract device allows us to "map" variations. The term spacetime is a field treatment. Its one describing changes with our 3d volume by adding time as a vector to track different rates of information exchange between coordinates or events.

HUP is the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. In the virtual argument its categorized as complementary uncertainty in this arxiv. There is a chart on how different measurements, physical laws have been in essence worded to support the VR reality hypothesis. One primary distinction surprise surprise is our universe arises from nothing according to this paper. Also a multiverse must exist for VR to be possible https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337&ved=0ahUKEwj50bycvfzUAhXo44MKHUzSBrw4ChAWCCswAg&usg=AFQjCNGChmNY9GJ5GU0fshkAL-6NuE4BsQ As this is philosophy I am positive there is counter arguments to the arguments used in the paper

Good answer there is a counter argument here that applies in your last paragraph but let me dig that up after work.

Good to see someone hit the mark. The HUP is one of the arguments between objective vs virtual reality. Though Its been some time since I last read how the argument went. So I will have to check how they used the HUP in their arguments after work. From memory it was a supportive argument for objective reality but will have to check if a good counter argument is involved since I last looked at this. You might want to actually read the paper on this. It is the main proposed test for virtual reality. I will dig up the paper for everyone after work. As far as I understand it is the only test I have seen proposed to test between the two

Recall my post about significant difference between a program that follows instructions to the letter. Without deviations ? I can quarantee I don't lol. In all seriousness though the amount of data to simulate a universe is one of the open questions. This question led to a particular property of QCD called lattice spacing. Which is rather tricky to describe. (Rather complex mathematics) but certain aspects of this lattice spacing is one of the key searches to Test if we are a simulation. (Uh oh back to that whole testing argument I proposed earlier). If anyone is interested I can probably dig up the details. Science does look at every possibility. Even ones that seem absurd. However physics is placing constraints on this possibility. Based on guage theories of particle physics. Trust me on this one. Do not trust any pop media coverage on this theory. They all get it wrong. Under philosophical arguments the two main categories is objective reality vs virtual reality. I'm not much on philosophy as I favor the hard science. I pointed these out as the arguments under philosophy and model under physics do exist. (so it might be a good idea to research the arguments and model) with regards to the debate going on in this thread. Yeah I'm positive my mother agrees

What do you mean "used to" lol j/k cool vid. I have to agree some are nuts in that vid

Well I for one know I have made so many mistakes in life that the programmer who wrote the algorithm for me must be an idiot lol

Sounds like a good topic for a seperate thread. How would one test if something is real or a simulation ? If our universe was a simulation that would be our reality. So if our universe is a simulation. How could we possibly test gor it? The only answer I can come up with would be based on our understandings of how programs work. Hence the repeatability test. Its the only possible method I can come up with.

Easily done. However it does demonstrate a key difference between philosophy and scientific methodology. When you apply a mathematical model. Ypu specify the conditions that model is valid for. So its more difficult to get "caught up into...". Where a verbal debate is far easier to get sidetracked.

I saw that, here is the thing. The OP Isn't asking us to define reality. His OP specifies what is the better methodology to define reality. Science or philosophy.

In a sense being a programmer as one of my many talents I have an excellent handle on how computers and automated equipment works. This includes highly advanced robotic systems. I even studied animatronics for a while. There is a huge difference between how chemical vs electronic signals. However that aside the human mind has capabilities we have never been able to even simulate. Intuition being one exanple as well as true emotion. Yes we can simulate emotion but were a long ways away from true emotion Guessing what we might one day be capable or what our AI may or may not be capable of in the future is guesswork plain and simple. Even then one just has to identify the differences between real and simulation then develop a test. There will always be some differences. With todays understanding repeatability is a valid test. Will we get greater mistakes simply because the machine has AI. Seems counter productive to program greater errors due to tiredness and emotion.

Isn't this talk about AI computer simulation etc off topic for the OP of this thread? Isn't this thread not suppose to be about philosophy vs science? Secondly everyone should keep personal slurs to themselves. As we have no AI computer, we really do not know how consistent its responses would be. Ie when its tired or emotional. In humans the last two induces a greater chance of making mistakes. However as that is off topic. I will not continue to discuss the simulation aspects on this thread.