PrimalMinister

The super laws I am proposing don't need enforcing, the laws of our universe do, I will explain why. I said earlier that we know the universe evolves according to certain laws, we have got very good at expressing those laws using mathemathics, but we still don't know *why* it accords to those laws. Now you claim asking these questions is philosophy but actually I think I can explain *why* the universe accords to the rules it does, using nothing new, just using existing facts. It is only a concept, a framework, but even with just that you get solutions to quite deep problems with physics that are often considered philosophy. Now as said, we know that the universe evolves according to laws, but we don't know why. The reason we don't know why is because the laws of the universe are quite remarkable. The pheonomena we see, and the laws governing them, are moving around together in apparently empty space. This is baffling, its like magic, but it can't be magic, there has to be some sort of logic behind it. I am suggesting a logic that can explain what appears to be magic. This what appears to be magic can be explained by a set of super laws embedded in every part of space. This is nothing new, its the same idea as a holographic plate or tile based world where you put an image of the whole in every part, just applied to the universe. You suggested that the laws I am laying down somehow need another set of laws to govern them, I just cant conceptualise what those laws might look like and wondered what you thought they looked like.

This is a bit like who created the creator, which is a nonsense question. Lets put it this way, it isn't *an* enforcement in a chain of enforcement, it is *the* enforcment. The more interesting question is how these super laws enforce the rest of the laws. The super laws I am describing don't really need enforcing, the laws of our universe do need enforcing. For example, if the whole universe is composed of just cubes of space, that cant be created or destroyed, that are eternal, immortal, what sort of laws do you need to govern that? Are you saying these cubes of space need laws governing them? How would that work exactly?

Actually, at this stage, that is not important, that is my own personal opinion, you can disregard the idea of purpose for this discussion. The logic behind it all I am trying to put across is that there is essentially a set of super laws, that are everywhere, that govern both the phenomena we see, and the laws that supposedly govern that phenomena. I am going to make a presentation at some point which essentially discusses the whole theory. The whole theory contains two principles, the first principle is the pixel/tile/cell and alone doesn't convey purpose. But when you add the second principle, the first principle is not enough to create a whole universe, but with the second principle, you get purpose. I am not going to discuss the second principle (no, its not God) as its not really important at this stage.

That it is chance is just an opinion. And I can provide a basic logic that requires no designer/creator. I think the universe has a design, a purporse, but no intelligence created it, it wasn't created, it just is. But chance, no, its no accident. Anyway, Einstien said imagination was more important that knowledge. In the Setptember 11th report rebuilding americas defences, the defense of the nation was a failure of imagination. The big crash of 2008 was reported to be a failure of imagination. The reponses I am getting are not very imaginative, you are certainly not using your imagination when it comes to me explaining my idea. If you where using your imagination you would say, well thats one way of enforcing the laws. What makes you think its all just chance, why can the universe not have a design? Maybe that is the insight a theory of everything will provide? For the record, I think religion is nothing more than a cult and that its people are exploited, its verging on being mental illness and is probably as close to being mentally ill you could be without actually being mentally ill. I think the idea of an all powerful God with his heaven/hell creation is absurd and should be banished from our culture, its just the biggest load of nonsense I have ever come across.

Ok, well if it is a question for philosophy, philsophy has an answer. Either the universes laws are imposed by the will of God or magic (which are essentially the same thing) or there must be some sort of logic behind it that we fail to understand. As nobody want to accept its the will of God, including me, that means there must be some logic behind it all which we fail to understand. If there is some logic behind it, it might be something along the lines I am suggesting. Now we turn to science to investigate it further. So science says its philsophy and philosopy says it science.

How else is he enforcing the laws? The only thing appears to be doing this is his will, there is no other explanation in his talk. I am not really asking that, I am asking, how are the laws of the universe enforced? What is the technical explaination? Ok, we can play this game. How are the laws of the universe enforced? Yes, we know that the universe evolves according to laws, but why, if the universe is comprehensible to the human mind and not run on magic, then there must be a logic behind it. And am I not providing a laughable simple solution to the problem, taking it out of philosophy and into science? Here I am saying heres the reason why we have the laws we do, without using God or magic. I have seen it before.

For some reason instead of posting what I had written, it posted my last post, maybe a bug in the software. But its all based on simple things arranged in a complex manner. Physics is basically about how things move about, maths is basically about describing the relationships between things, hence physics is about describing the relationships between things moving about, it can get complicated, but in itself its quite simple. What is the correct story then? I am not sure what this is supposed to mean? I was asking about the mystery of the universe. Would you agree that while knowing the universe evolves according to laws, that we have mathematical models for, we are not sure why they accord to the laws? Is that a mystery?

Ok, well at its simplist it is a cube, a volume of space, maybe at the planck scale. I propose they cannot be created or destroyed, they are eternal, immortal and that the universe, which is infinite in space and time, is composed entirely of them, there is no such thing as empty space. I know this disagrees with an expanding universe but I don't believe in the big bang, an eternal universe does't have the messy bit of what came before it, the big bang does. So we have defined space, now we define time. Time would be a general movement from the exterior of the cube to the center, this movement would create a moment in reality. This is followed by a movement from the center to the exterior where the moment of reality created in the first movement is destroyed in the second. When the movement reaches the exterior of the cube it is exchanges information about its state to the surrounding cells for information about the state of them. Hence, as reality pops into and out of existence it moves about, very slightly with each new generation as the process of creation then destruction then creation then destruction ad infinitum. From here I don't have do to much, I only have have to account for this slight movement then I have a theory of everything. Space and time seem very concrete to us but when you try thinking about them they become quite abstract. What is spacetime in relativity? What is spacetime in quantum mechanics? How many different ways are there to concieve of spacetime? Einstien said imagination is more important than knowledge, seeing how many ways to concieve of space time via use of the imagination to iterate through possibilities is something I was hoping to inspire. This is very early stage, just an idea really, but with just a simple framework you have a solution to some perplexing problems with physics/the universe. And its innovative thinking, at the moment the only theories that explain how the laws of the universe are enforced are Gods will and magic, neither which are good answers. I have watched a presentation by Laurance Krauss about 'a universe from nothing' but his theory has this God entity in it, the creator of the theory, Laurance Krauss! He is basically playing God by adding quautum mechanics to nothing by his will alone, then the universe evolves according to these laws with no explaination of how these laws are enforced, the only thing enforcing the laws in his theory is again his will. He is an intelligent man and I dont want to mock him, but he said we dont need philsophy any more and I disagree. What is spacetime in GR exactly? From what I can understand its a mathmatical abstraction rather than something physical. No, but it does provide an explaination for other things current science says nothing about, including GR which says nothing on how the laws of the universe are enforced. I think this is the first theory to do that, to think about the universe on that level. To me now, after so long it seems clear that there is a set of super laws that govern the rest of the laws *and* the phenomena they supposedly govern, and that these set of super laws constitute a theory of everything. I could be wrong, I accept that, but its innovative thinking and every fibre of my being is saying study it further. Scientists I listen to say there is a 'mystery' to the universe. Why is there a mystery? It seems to me we have pretty much worked it all out, yes there are gaps in our knowledge, but the story of the universe is relativity complete. The universe came into being with the big bang, it will eventually spread out and everything will die and remain dead forever, and life evolved in the middle of that, futurists and transhumanists speculate on the future of life. What is the mystery exactly? Stephen Hawking said with a theory of everything we will be able to read the mind of God. So what are we missing exactly? I think generally a theory of everything or grand unified theory is basically going to be a single theory that encompasses GR and quantum mechanics. But this is not important, one can imagine equations doing that quite easily, what is important is the insight the equations provide, now that is a complete mystery and I think that is the mystery they are talking about. We don't have it all worked, yet we kind of do. So the mystery is small, but there. So what do you think the mystery is? What insight about the universe will a theory of everything give us? What is it exactly we are looking for?

Hi, I have not been on the forum for a while but I am back after some thought and writing a fresh post. Some of it is science, some of it is about the attitudes to science, especially on this forum. I have a number of questions I will ask as I go through, I will summarise them at the end. I am an amatuer phycist but I plan to go to university in the years ahead to work on this further. In my twenties, I am now 42, I had what I believed to be a profound insight about the universe. This insight matured over the years and I am convinced I have a framework for a theory of everything or final theory. It’s not strictly a theory of everything as it doesn’t explain everything, yet, but it would be a final theory because it is essentially drilling down to the very base and defining the foundation of the universe. When you get down to this level things can no longer be broken down into smaller pieces, you get to the smallest and most fundamental unit in the universe. This unit, the prime unit, is a unit of space, a three dimensional pixel/cell/tile and the universe is composed entirely of them. Each pixel/cell/tile, and all pixels/cells/tiles go through a cycle of constructing the universe then deconstructing the universe, over and over again. Reality as we know it is constantly flicking in and out of being, the same process just repeating itself ad infinitum. This is one set of laws, enforced everywhere. These laws enforce both the phenomena we see and the laws that govern the phenomena. For example, the planet and the gravity keeping us on the ground should be viewed as a single phenomena managed together by another set of laws, laws that are embedded everywhere. This implementation of spacetime is a fresh view, current science says nothing on how the laws of the universe are enforced, I think this is the first idea that says this is how the laws of the universe are enforced. Some people will say I need more than that, and that is true, but it seems to me that it is best to stick with this as no one else is doing it. Also, the are limited implementations of spacetime, there are not endless ways to configure spacetime, we should study all of them because it has to be one of them if the universe is a logical place and can be understood by the human brain. And this leads to my first question, how many implementations of spacetime are there, is it a small number? Large number? If it is a larger number can they be grouped into a smaller number of categories? So I have chosen a spacetime implementation to study, which I have outlined above. This implementation of spacetime can produce endless universes depending on the configuration of the pixel/cell/tile. I would like to search through these potential universes looking for one that looks like our own. I would like to automate the search but that steps into artificial intelligence and a level of creativity in artificial intelligence I don’t think we have achieved yet. I am choosing this as no one else is, that makes this innovative even if it fails or does not align with current theories. There seems to be this attitude that somehow there is shame in failure, the modern world does not share this view. Anyhow, this comes to my second question, if reality is popping in and out of existence as expressed, what sort of experiment could I do as part of reality to prove such a thing?

I don't know really, would have to look at the source code. Scientists use computer models to simulate the universe. The universe has rules and it follows them quite precisely. The rules are enforced, if nothing was enforced we wouldn't have physics and so on, everything would just be arbitary. I don't think they are being enforced by a whom, I think they are enforced by a physical process, which endlessly repeats itself. I have answered them, I only really came here to find out the status of answers to certain questions because they change over time and depending on who you speak to. I don't think anything can break the laws as such, they are fixed. I said in my first post that I don't think people have really thought about this problem much, I know if you are doing a Phd it is likely to be on something else. But if you do ever ponder how the universe is actually enforcing all the rules we have mathematical models for, starting with empty space, there are not very many options (if we say God or magic is not an option). Einstein said 'Imagination is more important that knowledge'. The 'Rebuilding Americas Defences' report in too 9/11 said it was 'a failure of imagination'. In a presentation to the Queen of the UK about the economic crisis it was reported to be a 'failure of imagination'. The universe is evolving, adapting, but we only see a bit of it, when you see the whole of it, it is already at its maximum level of evolution, its never been less evolved, its only us that is less evolved. You have to imagine the whole universe moving as one, with all the different things going on simultaneously, and look at what is common to everything. Then you get a picture of what underlies it all. The laws of nature, of the universe, are enforced and that must be based on something, something physical.

Continuing on from universes from nothing. When Laurance Kluass talks about his theory he plays a God type role introducing and enforcing quantum mechanics with his will alone. But I don't believe in God, I think there must be a scientific explanation. So what happens when we put our model in a computer to test? If you look at the source code of the simulation you will see there is more than quantum mechanics, this extra stuff explains how we enforce quantum mechanics in the virtual world. This extra stuff may actually shine some light on how the universe is doing it for real.

I have studied scientists and have listened to people like lawrence krauss and there is something missing. lawrence krauss says all you need is quantum mechanics to create a universe of nothing. First, he doesnt say where quantum mechanics comes from. Second, he doesn't explain how the rules of quantum mechanics is enforced, as far as I can tell the only thing enforcing the rules is his will (making him a God like charecter in his theory). I have searched long and hard for information on this. My basic question is, is it true that despite all our mathematical modelling (which we have got very very good at) we still don't know how the universe is actually enforcing all the rules we model?

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical.

On one hand you are saying we know, on the other you are saying we don't know. Which one is it?

I know you consider me a crackpot or whatever, that is fine. I am not arrogant enough to think you are crackpots, I just think you are normal people. No, I think its wacky the universe comes out of nothing. There is no explaination for how or why the big bang happened, we just have to accept that it did (sciences God did it) because that is what the evidence says, there is no foundation, everything is just magically happening in apparently empty space according to maths with no explaination as to why? Why have we got these sets of laws and not others, there must be a reason for it, a logic behind. I am trying to explain the logic behind it because it is profound and sublime, but its also quite abstract and deep. What does it say then?

I will probably leave it here for the moment, I know you have already considered me a crackpot or what ever but I am ok with that, if I am honest I think people who believe (because you have to believe) in the big bang are pretty wacky. If you want to solve the theory of everything all our knowledge is very good, but you have to look at what we don't know, those are the questions that need answers. Thats why you are a bit preachy, you are so convinced the big bang happened you are not willing to look at another perspective. All I am trying to do is put forward a straight forward, objective spacetime theory, but you cant even agree with me on the basic facts because you are so opinionated. So I will leave you for now so you can to get back to other posts, its only the same few people answering the threads. What I don't understand is (I do understand this) is that you have absolutly nothing to lose from listening to me, to entertain what I am saying. The big bang is going nowhere, it will still be the same tomorrow and the day after, a week, a month from now. So in the mean time why not look at things from a fresh perspective? What have you got to gain from insisting to me that the universe was created in a big bang?

Ok, so the universe comes out of nothing and laws of the universe come out of nothing? There has to be some sort of foundation upon which everything is based, it can't just arbitarily exist, there has to be a logic behind it all. Saying we dont know something basically means we don't have all the facts, if we don't have all the facts, its opinion. I want to share my theory but you can't seem to agree with me on some of the basics because you are so highly opinionated. You seem to want to push me to accept the big bang/heat death by preaching the gospel of the expanding universe at me, I have read it, I know what it says. It says we don't know.

Yes, this is what I have sensed through our conversations, I think you want me to accept that, and that is the key, you want me to believe, that we don't know answers when I do. I think my time on here for the minute is coming to a close, but I want to leave you with this. The consequence of my theory is that the universe is eternal, spatially infinte, immortal, this is the paradigm shift. It is going to have a profound effect on the world because this theory is going to unite people around the world in joy at the simple beauty of the truth of science. And to celebrate this unity I am going to suggest the introduction of a new global calender. This calender will have new names for the days of the week and the months of the year and everyone, regardless of what language they speak will use the same words for the days and months, so in a very small way we are all speaking the same language. And the year, that will go back to year one and instead of saying its 2018 years since the birth of Christ we will say it is 1 year since the dawn of eternity. I have thought about this alot, the world is going to become a profoundly different place, religion I am afraid doesn't have much of a place. Can you imagine that (remembeing that imagination is more important that knowledge), no more Mondays because Monday is now called something else?

Well why are you here on my threads? I can't tell if you are being sincere or have come to the conclusion I am a crackpot and are having a bit of fun, I kinda suspect the latter but it could be a mix of both. I want to know how the universe came out of nothing, I want to know how the universe came to compressed into a point, what was constraining the universe prior to the big bang, why did it stop constraining the universe suddenly and let it start evolving. Wheres the reasons, wheres the logic? Look, say I release my theory in a month, do you want to talk about it in the mean time, or shall I just stay off the forums until I release it?

Yes, that is right, and there are 64 tiles. Therefore you put all the possible 26 combinations in one tile, and just repeat it.

Look, I am aware of current science, but its story is basically big bang/heat death, and that its, its pretty final. Do you have anything more to say on the matter?

Please explain more thanks.

CAn you tell me a bit about it please?

A hologram works by having the whole image embedded in every part. In games programming there is a similar idea called 'tile based worlds'. For example, to create a chess board you create a single tile with all possible combinations then just repeat it 64 times. Is it worthy idea, an innovation, in applying these principles to the physics of the universe, or has someone already done this? Just for example, saying the universe is composed of mini-universes that just go through a big bang/heat death cycle billions of times a second, creating not the whole universe but just a small part.

So the big bounce was an opinion?