Mordred

It is quite possible both in philosophy and science to have endless and yet equally sound debates. Keep in mind I stated a good philosopher ie one that knows which arguments are equally sound and valid until tested. I also did not state there is no room for philosophy both philosophy and science has their roles.

Well then you agree there is a methodology to test a simulation vs reality. One based on logical science not philosophy. After all philosophy rarely "tests". That alone places science a step above philosophy in determining reality. The testing requirement. Also in order to test how well a model understands or describes reality will depend on the ability to make predictions. (making predictions of course being the mathematics). Which also implies a greater level of understanding of the dynamic than a philosophical debate. The testing aspect will often favor one model over another. This can sometimes end a philisophical debate. A philosophical debate based strictly on philosophy without applying science would never end. Two good philosophers can always find counter arguments to any argument presented. "The tests of what we understand of reality is the strongest form of argument" The tests will tend to favor a particular model or philosophical debate. Without tests the arguments can be endless.

Think about that automated car. Every single time that car encounters identical conditions. It will follow its programming and arrive at the same decision. A self aware human won't always arrive at the same decisions regardless of identical stimuli. If your looking at to test if something is a simulated program. Look for consistent repeatability. A simulation must always follow its programming.

Wouldn't a programmed simulation not follow identical responses to repeated identical stimuli? I would think that could be one test.

lol let me fix that done lol

All forms of energy or fields attribute to curvature. Mass being resistance to inertia change. Any binding force or other field interactions induce delays in signals or information exchange between particles. Higgs field interacts with only certain particles. w+, w-, z boson. Through their mediation quarks gain a mass term. Even if you isolate every field and still look individually at each fields interactions you will always have a energy/momentum stress tensor influence upon spacetime curvature. It does not matter what field you use. Each field has an effective equation of state that gives us a potential energy to kinetic energy relation. [latex]w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/latex] pressure is also a term in the stress tensor. (force per unit volume). I always found the expression " spacetime curvature is the sum of delays due to interparticle interactions" a handy way to make sense of time dilation itself as well as the curvature term. A handy method to make sense of that expression is under action. In this post for example I show the relations between e=mc^2 etc to force and action. The principle of least action also defines your null and spatial freefall geodesics for your curvature term. Apply the above for the standard model of particles including the Higgs field under action via [latex] \stackrel{Action}{\overbrace{\mathcal{L}}} \sim \stackrel{relativity}{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}}}- \stackrel{Maxwell}{\overbrace{1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}}+\stackrel{Dirac}{\overbrace{i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi}}+\stackrel{Higgs}{\overbrace{\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid}} +\stackrel{Yukawa-coupling}{\overbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}} [/latex] and voila you just incorporated every SM field into your spacetime curvature using action. Every field contributes in some fashion.

The reason I used space as opposed to spacetime is that the most common misconception is trying to apply some substance like property to volume. The typical question is "what is space or spacetime made of and how does it curve?. They do that to try to understand what curves, which is reflected in your time coordinate under 4d. Obviously there is no curvature under 3d Galilean. So I figured it was better to stress the 3d Galilean relativity first, then add the time component. After all the only change is the addition of the time coordinate. So if you define a 3d Space as volume filled with SM particles. Why would adding a time coordinate change what space is comprised of ? Obviously it doesn't Spacetime by definition is "any metric system describing space/volume with the addition of the time coordinate as a vector". Though at some point I will be rewriting the first post to include several of the suggestions on this thread.

I should note Lawrence Krauss is not the only Universe from nothing model developer. He certainly popularized the theory but the Universe from nothing idea has been around prior to Krauss. I recall reading older variations.

Gompothere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomphothere surprise surprise a 4 tusked elephant like mammal did exist 😀

What is absolute truth, ignoring evidence at one scale ? That's not truth, nor is it a path to what you call absolute truth, whatever that may mean. How we describe reality relies upon the evidence we gather at every size scale. Not just the macro or quantum but both. What we describe as truth or reality is an interpretation to the best of our understanding nothing more. Further research may lead to an entirely new interpretation. Absolute truth would require omniscience (all knowing) can we possibly claim such knowledge ? or ever be able to do so? I think not. Nor is it reasonable to ever claim such knowledge. Any claims of absolute truth in itself is a lie...

look closer at the quantum level the moon may no longer be round. Don't let the limits of human senses fool you. What we percieve as reality is based upon our interpretation of signals. So how can we know for sure our senses is telling us the truth? We don't For example what we percieve as solid or matter isn't what the research and science shows. The individual particles (fermions) that make up matter has no corpuscular make up. Literally being described as a field excitation with no solidity structure. Example the electron has no internal structure.

Today I learned 3 and 5 year olds have far too much energy. If I could harness it in a humane fashion I would solve the energy crisis. Especially when you add sugar to the equations

Well as this is in philosophy how about complexity of choice? Though mathematically this can also be broken down to degrees of freedom. ( Boolean logic per example,) not all forms of complexity is physics based. Though mathematics is universal lol. Choices and decision making is added complexity without being based on the amount of mass nor energy (mass being part of your degrees of freedom) energy the ability to perform any degree of freedom. Energy is a given requirement. So mass /energy cannot define complexity these are just factors. Same on degrees of freedom, other factors include chemical reaction, (energy is usually replaced with temperature on global average), Mathematically its feasible to reduce chemical reactions to degrees of freedom but I'm no chemist. For choices ie decisions it also can be reduced to degrees of freedom. ie Yes no being two degrees. The other consideration is degrees of freedom doesn't describe structure. Matter tends to be more orderly than a gas. etc. Complexity covers a wide range of factors we can mathematically reduce and describe it though. The degrees of freedom covering a large portion. Recall the above on mathematics modelling complexity. Here is a 865 page article covering just this "Dynamics of complex systems" https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fernandonogueiracosta.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/yaneer-bar-yam-dynamics-of-complex-systems.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjKh6zsv_PTAhUOS2MKHdvUAikQFggxMAQ&usg=AFQjCNG1tdJqxohINLSqEoM88orAfOJt8A&sig2=08TMx3bZ9J1Q07GNT-ZgoA

Or due to being in a more orderly arrangement the crystalized structure can be shown as less complex

The above is described under Bose-Einsten, Fermi-Dirac statistics. There is considerable details chapter 3 and 4 here http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdfParticle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Lets replace complexity with entropy shall we this is in essence what your describing above. Though I will now show that greater complexity arises with lower concentrations of mass/energy. Rather than the opposite that you posted. The second law as you mentioned previous states entropy never decreases, lets assume this is true So lets start with the Big Bang at [latex]10^{43}[/latex] seconds. This is as far back as our understanding reaches, we do not know the origin of energy etc previous to this point. As I'm showing a cosmology example we need a comoving volume (expanding) the entropy in a comoving volume is given by the equation [latex]S=\frac{\rho+p}{T}R^3[/latex] [latex]\rho[/latex] is the energy density, p is the pressure, T the temperature, R the radius. now at this time all particles are in thermal equilibrium, they become indistinguishable with one another, at high enough density they all look and behave like photons. The photon has spin of one which has 2 degrees of freedom. (degree of freedom corresponds to their interactions) loosely put. As the universe expands we get the other particles dropping out of thermal equilibrium. photon= 2 degrees of freedom, w boson=4, z boson= 2, gluons= 16, Higgs =4, For the leptons. electron=4, electron neutrino=2, muon =4,muon neutrino=2,tau=4, Each quark has 12. degrees of freedom. so greater complexity of our system arises as our universe expands, more particles drop out of thermodynamic equilibrium and our system gains a greater number of degrees of freedom ( added complexity).

Judging from the feedback I think this would be a good thread to pin.

You can also apply the field aspects to how Relativity works including 1) time dilation 2) length contraction. 3) redshift/blueshift and their frequency relations. This is one of the reasons why I'm glad Carroll mentions mass from the standpoint of how it works with vibrations. The video will be extremely handy to explain these advanced concepts and others to numerous threads currently ongoing. With literally no background knowledge required by the viewer. I am considering pinning this thread for a time so our regular members can readily go. "here watch this video " However I'd like to see what the OP thinks of it.

Good lecture, definitely handy to keep a link to. I particularly liked how he broke down the descriptive of fields with local neighbor potential. +1 this video covers a lot of the related replies I have been trying to teach here. I wish it was available when I first started studying physics. It took me years to put the pieces together to understand what he described in the first 50 minutes. Some additional information to digest. the portion of every particle field communicates mentioned in the video is forms of constructive/destructive interactions. The constructive interferences can give rise to new particles when the two waves combine to a quanta of energy in confinement. The portion on the above interactions accurately describe spacetime. That being the sum of all field values at a given coordinate. As every particle has a corresponding field, whose interactions can generate additional vibrations both constructive and destructive. To model all the dynamics at each point you use embedded geometries such as Hilbert space etc. The embedded geometries are your overlapping vibrations. String theory is also a collection of embedded geometries. Notice Sean Carroll's reference to string vibrations. In particular his correlation to mass.

Lol I liked that one too

Fair enough, lets play toy model. Lets assume a condition with no Heisenburg uncertainty principle. No field excitations/particles. (lets be 100% clear on below I am not trying to describe how a Universe is created or a Universe from Nothing model) so don't even go there I am strictly describing known physics in a heuristic manner. (specifically space-time under GR) The only thing left is strictly volume. In GR this volume which is assigned coordinates as the volume is 3 dimensional that volume requires 3 coordinates. x,y and z. We can include time as the fourth coordinate t. this is literally Space-time. Space being the three spatial coordinates with time as the fourth coordinate. As we have nothing to interact with the effective energy of this Space-time is literally zero. Now lets include some basic physics definitions. Energy: The ability to perform work. Mass: Resistance to inertia change potential energy: the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position relative to others, stresses within itself, electric charge, and other factors. Field: An abstract device to describe any collection of objects/coordinates/events. So using the definition of a field I can describe the space-time coordinates as a field. However as I have no interactions involved the field energy is precisely zero. There is literally no stress tensor as coordinates are not moving without an interaction. All I have defined thus far is the metric tensor [latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex]. Now as I have no stress tensor, nor any anistropy ( differences in potential energy) Our Space-time is Euclidean (flat) there is no curvature in distribution. [latex]\eta_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] Now if I add a single particle the particle doesn't interact with coordinates. Coordinates are strictly an abstract construct. So our potential energy still remains zero. Analogy Time: lets use an everyday example. The electromagnetic field. Lets take your Voltmeter and in a vacuum move the + and - prongs onto two points of a bare wire ( assume the wire is a perfect conductor). You will measure zero volts. GR is no different if you have no potential difference {resistance} you have no voltage. A magnet itself however is a charged field. It has an inherent difference between the south and North pole. Think of Space-time itself with no interactions as an Uncharged field. There is no potential difference in any coordinate as we have no particles as of yet. Once I add two or more particles this is where things get interesting. Now I have interactions, I can now assign those coordinates to each particle and call these individual events. As we have interactions between two or more objects I now have potential energy. My space-time field is now charged. However the charge is strictly the interactions between the particles not the geometry itself. In GR however we can assign each particle as an event and assign those event coordinates to the particles. Now the above electromagnetic field is described by the Maxwell equations. Those Maxwell equations also can be described as as tensor (electromagnetic stress tensor) The stress tensor for GR is the exact same principle. In both cases the stress tensor is describing your kinematic vectors. ie flux. curl,div etc. They are identical in principle the only difference lies in the particular differences between gravity and the electromagnetic field ie Gravity only attracts while the electromagnetic field can attract and repel. In essence you stress tensor is a means to organize your different momentum vectors. We can equally assign different coordinates to different points in your electro-magnetic field however that doesn't mean those coordinates gain a medium quality. The electromagnetic field itself not its coordinate field is what exhibit the medium qualities. So Spacetime curvature under GR is the collection of vector relations where we set the geometry as the free-fall motion. A geodesic is describing a free fall motion at every coordinate with the use of vectors via the stress tensor between two points. This is what space-time curvature (under GR) is describing a collection of vectors at each coordinate. In accordance to the Principle of least action (kinematic motion under free fall). This is also why we use inertial frames in SR (key word inertial) Now a medium induces further delays in the kinematic motion of two particles. So if space-time was a medium we would have further delays. It would be the same as placing additional resistance to the electromagnetic example above. Recall the word Impedance in your electromagnetic theory. Mass is a form of impedance it is impedance to kinematic motion. impedance=resistance. Now using the electromagnetic field once again. You may recall that two circuits with two electromagnetic fields can induce impedance upon each other (propogation delay) we can describe these delays via coordinate time if we assign coordinates to each point of each field. See where I am going with in time dilation ? If every particle is a field excitation then time dilation itself is by analogy a form of propagation delay. Just as it is in the electromagnetic field theory. (keep in mind the above is a simpification) A heuristic rudimentary means to understand space-time under familiar terms. I won't try to show that gravity is not a force under GR using kinematic action as I know your not ready for that level of mathematical detail. However it does include everything I described above in particular the principle of least action under space-time curvature

Pretty good your getting the picture now congrats I know how troublesome thats been for you +1

Of course, spacetime is incorperated in very deifinition of a particle itself when you get into the QFT treatment of a particle. You literally cannot describe a particles wavefunction without spacetime

lol very true

Sure you can use those terms. The majority of the textbooks though on GR and Cosmology will use the term fluid to denote the perfect fluid equations. A full study will reveal that that the majority of your advanced equations have a thermodynamic basis. Mike those terms are used once you have a stress tensor. Space by itself with all excitations/particles removed is just your metric tensor. Your geometry . The metric tensor being [latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] in the above conditions there is no active stress tensor [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=0 [/latex] In your other thread you wanted to apply an ether or medium to space itself which is false as that is just your geometry. You have no medium like properties unless you have other fields other than just geometry. This is an incredibly important distinction. ie there is no Div,Grad or Curl if the stress tensor is zero. The key distinction is that space all by itself isn't a medium,fluid or ether. It is just the geometry. Once you add other fields such as force fields/particles you now have a stress tensor involved and can have medium like characteristics.