Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About martillo

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • College Major/Degree
    Electrical Engineer
  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

2471 profile views
  1. Thanks for your suggestion. I'll take a look. You know, I'm interested to know if a Turing machine could surge from an underlying basic "mathematical structure". I was thinking in something like a "fields foam" which could be "continuos" in its nature but this is not essentially necessary and may be graphs or hypergraphs of nodes an edges could be a great one as a source of a Turing machine. A Turing machine has the same computational capability of any computer and so it can run any program a computer does and has the advantage of being a very simple machine. This way, anything from video games to artificial intelligence could run in it and this turn it possible to produce a Universe with intelligent life in it. Its inefficiency of having to run in a much higher speed to achieve the same results is not a problem for me. I can set any unveliebable huge number for its speed as it would be needed. I'm just interested in a possible explanation of the origins of the Universe, not to build a practical one. I think you could feel that this is actually possible like I feel. Thanks a lot.
  2. That way there would be an alternating state of the particles but not all the particles synchronized and as there would be an innumerable quantity of particles in the global Space there would be always at least one particle (actually much more I think) in the "something" state. So there always be something. So there's no nothing, never. Always something.
  3. I couldn't stop thinking about this and I think now that "unstable nothing" is not the same as just "nothing" because it contains something that makes it unstable. Something that could eventually "explode" and turn into a Universe. That counts as something for me, not nothing. This way Parmenides premise remains as true and the derived statement that then "Something always existed" is also true. The question would be what would be that eternal something always existing. The answer for me is that for "Quantum Physics" the always existing something would be a "fields' foam" or "particles foam" as whished. In other theories would be other thing. For instance in the "Simulation" theories it would be an eternal "computing machine". I don't know if only one is true or if they are compatible one being a consequense of the other one. For instance, a "quantum foam" could be "simulated" in a "computing machine" or the inverse, a "computing machine" could surge from a "quantum foam". After any of these a Universe can surge. Whatever would be the case, this way there would be no problems between Philosophy and Physics. Subject solved for me this way. It would be just our instinct that leaves us to think that the Universe must have come from "nothing". Just our instinct has problem to conceive an eternal something ever existing and we must override it...
  4. I was thinking about and seems to me now you could be very right on these two comments. It was my intuition that tends to think something beginning from nothing. As if a first nothing existing before everything and forever is what has sense. But the Parmenides premise of "Nothing can come from nothing" tell us that this is wrong. So something must always have existed and it doesn't need to be so simple like an elementary automata or an unstable point in a "fields foam". This is a turn again on the same error of thinking in something coming from nothing. We can think then in something always existing and with some inherent complexity, complex enough to generate the Universe we are living. So we can well think in some eternal and powerfull enough computing machine executing the curent Laws of Physics over this Universe. Of course I know there are different theories about which Universe is this but this is another story. I think they all could run in that powerful machine. This way I would fall into the "Simulation Theories" as they are being currently called, I know. It's only that with the Parmenides premise they are having more sense to me now except that I don't think precisely in a simulation, I think this Universe and life is for real...
  5. Thanks for the comment. I'll take a look on those methods and theories.
  6. What inspired me to take a look into Perturbation Field Theory is the statement "In the quantum field theory view, actual particles are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying quantum fields." which I have found at wikipedia in the page of virtual particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle). But actually I'm not thinking in virtual particles nor in Quantum Fields but in more classical ones. I'm interested in what could be described by classical fields. I think in things like particles or just variable states of small elements of space that could be described by excitations of underlying classical fields. I'm a newbie in this subject and only know the mathematics on the classical fields like electric, magnetic, gravitational. May be also something about Special Relativity. I just would like to take a look into these subjects for if I could find something I could work on. My mathematical expertisse is limited but I used to be good in the mathematics of classical fields. May be it could be not easy but who knows, may be I could do something in this subject. Something that you or anyone could recommend to me in this case? Any comment, good or bad, is wellcome.
  7. Fractals and multiverses weren't within my still vague ideas but I will google about...
  8. This second model you are considering must have an alternative explanation for the observed redshift in spite of the Doppler effect. Could it be that the physics' parameters like the "constants" in the fields equations like the electric and magnetic ones have changed through time? which are the considerations against this possibility?
  9. Well, in this case, is there something else in the "Perturbation Fields" theories that could match this idea of some ethernal "medium" where Universes could continuosly appear and disappear times to times?
  10. I apologize. I tried to clarify something and only brought confusion. It not be mentioned anymore. I think you didn't understand my point. I think in some "quantum foam" as some always existing kind of "medium" where Universes can continuously appear, grow and disappear again. Couldn't it be thought this way?
  11. It was just to explain why in this thread I'm talking about the "quantum foam" while in the Speculations forum I'm talking about a Universe in a computing machine.
  12. Which uncertainty? I didn't get it. If you think in the question: how the "quantum foam" appears then? The answer would be that the "quantum foam" has no beginning nor an end, it always existed and forever. Universes would just appear and disappear in it. There would be no uncertainty in that. I must mention that actually, in spite of an ethernal "quantum foam" generating continuos Universes, I'm thinking in an ethernal "computing machine" generating discrete Universes the same as the currently being called "simulations". At this time both seems possible to me but I prefer this second possibility at least for now. As I already said I'm currently exploring this possibility and that's why I have opened a thread about it in the Speculations forum.
  13. I can think in Universes continuosly appearing, evolving and finally disappearing times to times. They could be different ones each time, who knows.
  14. When I said "I think you are forgotting the power of rationalism." it was because swansont said "Which means science isn't going to be able to answer the question." in response to me saying "Current Physics' Science has not any empirical data related to times before the Big Bang, how do you suppose I could have it? The only thing we can do is to try to rationalize something about and this is what I have done here." I thought I would be able to demonstrate that "something always existed" whatever that would be but I failed , at least for now, I have to admit. It doesn't mean it is wrong , just that it cannot be proven true, at least for now.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.