PrimalMinister

What is space exactly, according to the current theories?

We don't have to discuss my theory; we can just discuss the origin of the laws. If you actually think about it, they must originate in space; that's the only possible location they could be. Where else are they going to originate? I honestly just think you are toying with me for fun while I am here for a serious, important conversation.

Look, I've come here for a serious conversation. I believe I can further our knowledge of the universe. But you have to actually exercise your brilliant intelligence. If we are to keep it simple and just think about the origin of the laws of the universe, it would be obvious to you that they must originate in spacetime; that's the only possible location they could be.

Something is going on with space; empty space won't have any laws.

Look, lets keep it simple and talk about the origin of the order. Ive said the order originates in spacetime, what is so wrong about this? They have to originate somewhere, where are the possible locations?

Of course it is. I believe physics can explain the origin of the order, so it's not metaphysics.

Sorry, I didn't see this post. Configuration is fine with me. My questions go unanswered as well. Look, can we put the forum politics aside and just discuss the nature of spacetime? What is space in the current theories?

Look, I'm not the specialist; you are. You have a responsibility to explain the universe to people like me. But I understand enough to be able to able to ask serious questions and provide a solution to problems unanswered by current theories. I'm not making out I have all the answers, but you don't either, so we are both ignorant in ways. The point is, why are we not working together to explain the mystery of the universe? Why is it a mystery? What's the problem exactly? This should be taken very seriously because a lot is at stake here; the whole human race depends on you taking it seriously.

That's ridiculous. I'm sorry I haven't answered your comments; I am trying to address all of them. This is not meant to be a me vs. you debate; it's meant to be debating the mystery to see if we can make headway, which is what is most important. Physicists shouldn't look down at people; they have a responsibility to explain the mystery, not mock people for questioning their theories.

I'm not asking you to discard the current theory, I'm asking you to think about the facts. I don't care about what we do know; I care about what we don't know. You quoting current knowledge is hubris; I want you to put your brilliant minds into action to explain what we don't know. Help me understand why my origin explanation is stupid and wrong. Why is saying that spacetime is generating matter, an original idea, so ridiculous?

I think physics suffers from a lack of philosophy, as it's simply not asking the right questions. If we don't know something, it's a mystery; we have to penetrate that mystery. I mean, in relativity, spacetime curves, how exactly, if space is just empty? Something is going on with spacetime; space isn't just a void. So I have explained the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe, and I am only an algorithm short of it being a full theory. What's wrong with my explanation of the origin? Can you think of a better one?

This is normal science in the current paradigm; the biggest question is how the universe imbues reality with laws, i.e. where do the laws of the universe come from.

its a starting point, there is no point trying to point out its not complete when I said its not complete. I want this to be a discussion about the state of physics. The big bang rests on an assumption that might not be true, that the laws of the universe just magically kick in and persist in apparently empty space. What are physicists trying to work out exactly? Or is Sabine Hossenfelder right and they are lost in math?

If I am right, and I believe I am, it would be a paradigm shift and its self evident it would be. It is science, it's taking scientific principles and applying them to the universe as a whole in a novel and original way.

Polymorphic means to pass through many states, and that is what these units of polymorphic spacetime do; at any given point in time, they could be representing the centre of a star or the middle of empty space and everything in between. Well, we have matter and the four fundamental forces, which conform to certain rules, the laws of the universe. It's like a holographic plate; you have the whole universe in every unit, which means the laws of the universe emerge out of spacetime, and they are contained in every unit of spacetime as rules that give rise to what we already know. This wouldn't be normal science; it would be a paradigm shift. Ok, so it's not a full theory, it's rather a framework that needs more work, but I want to know if it's a good starting point. If I had the algorithm, it would be a full theory; it shouldn't be too hard to work out if someone has good problem-solving skills. It doesn't have to be a holograph; you could say a tile-based world from game programming. Take a chess board, you create one tile that can be black or white, or black with a white king, white with a black king and so on, then just repeat the tile 64 times for the board and have it manifest the state according to the rules of the game. So this is what I am saying is going on with space: that space is divided into units that can be anything from matter to empty space; they are polymorphic. These units change their state over time according to the rules of the algorithm. I would say that these units of spacetime are machines, so the universe is a machine made of machines. The macro is like the micro. It's only a framework at present, and it needs more work. But I already have all this stuff just from its definition, stuff that remains unexplained, it's very economical like that.