Jump to content
PrimalMinister

Theory of everything of final theory

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This unit, the prime unit, is a unit of space, a three dimensional pixel/cell/tile and the universe is composed entirely of them.

I have seen this in other threads, can you please specify what a pixel/cell/tile is? What properties does a pixel have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

This unit, the prime unit, is a unit of space, a three dimensional pixel/cell/tile and the universe is composed entirely of them.

That sounds similar to a few other ideas, such as Causal Dynamical Triangulation:

"Near the Planck scale, the structure of spacetime itself is supposed to be constantly changing due to quantum fluctuations and topological fluctuations. CDT theory uses a triangulation process which varies dynamically and follows deterministic rules, to map out how this can evolve into dimensional spaces similar to that of our universe.

The results of researchers suggest that this is a good way to model the early universe[citation needed], and describe its evolution. Using a structure called a simplex, it divides spacetime into tiny triangular sections. A simplex is the multidimensional analogue of a triangle; a 3-simplex is usually called a tetrahedron, while the 4-simplex, which is the basic building block in this theory, is also known as the pentachoron."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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?

What do you mean by "implementation of spacetime"?

Do you mean attempts to explain spacetime at a "lower" level, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quantum_gravity or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Theories_of_gravitation ?

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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?

You need to determine what predictions your model makes that are different from other theories, and then find a test or observation that will match one or other of the predictions. (This is why you need a mathematical model.) I suspect that, at the moment, your idea is too vague to be testable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

You can't make up a fundamental unit and talk about it in mainstream science sections. This is clearly speculation, so I've moved it there.

Please clarify what you mean by the terms you've made up, since they only make sense to you at this point. Since you've chosen NOT to use mainstream science's explanations and terminology, it's incumbent on you to make sure everyone involved is on the same page wrt the scientific principles you're using. Please provide evidence that supports your insights, and respond to requests for clarity. 

 
2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

The shame is not in failure, it's in spending years working on misunderstood problems using misconceptions and inaccurate information. THAT is why you get pushback from scientists when you don't show enough rigor in your methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

My first comment is that while in many cases it is good and beneficial to have a strong and positive ego, one must ask why the hell did you not post this originally in speculations and not have the need of a mod to move it? 

Quote

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.

Scientists/cosmologists far more qualified then you or I have been working on this for many years. It's called a QGT...Quantum Gravity Theory.

 

Quote

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.

GR tells us that gravity is simply geometry, the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass, and as distinct from flat spacetime.

Quote

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.

While as yet we do not know why warped/curved/twisted spacetime should exhibit the phenomena we call gravity, it is admirably illustrated in the equations of GR.

Quote

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.

Of course! Does your hypothetical make a prediction not explained by GR? Can your hypothetical adequately explain it.

And from what little knowledge that I do have, I am only aware of one spacetime, as predicted by GR, and configured in many ways in the presence of mass/energy, also adequately explained by GR. eg: gravitational lensing, Frame Dragging, Gravitational waves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 28/12/2018 at 12:44 PM, Ghideon said:

I have seen this in other threads, can you please specify what a pixel/cell/tile is? What properties does a pixel have?

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.

On 28/12/2018 at 12:56 PM, Strange said:

What do you mean by "implementation of spacetime"?

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.

On 28/12/2018 at 2:25 PM, Phi for All said:

The shame is not in failure, it's in spending years working on misunderstood problems using misconceptions and inaccurate information. THAT is why you get pushback from scientists when you don't show enough rigor in your methodology.

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.

On 28/12/2018 at 7:45 PM, beecee said:

GR tells us that gravity is simply geometry, the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass, and as distinct from flat spacetime.

What is spacetime in GR exactly? From what I can understand its a mathmatical abstraction rather than something physical.

On 28/12/2018 at 7:45 PM, beecee said:

Of course! Does your hypothetical make a prediction not explained by GR? Can your hypothetical adequately explain it.

And from what little knowledge that I do have, I am only aware of one spacetime, as predicted by GR, and configured in many ways in the presence of mass/energy, also adequately explained by GR. eg: gravitational lensing, Frame Dragging, Gravitational waves.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Space and time seem very concrete to us but when you try thinking about them they become quite abstract.

I don't think of them as being very concrete. Nor very abstract. We can take a ruler and measure 1 metre. We can use a clock to measure 5 minutes. That is about all you need to know.

44 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What is spacetime in relativity?

A set of four independent measurements.

44 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What is spacetime in quantum mechanics?

The same as in special relativity.

45 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

From what I can understand its a mathmatical abstraction rather than something physical.

It is a mathematical abstraction that describes the physical world around us. Like all of physics.

46 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Scientists I listen to say there is a 'mystery' to the universe. Why is there a mystery?

There are lots of "mysteries" in the sense of things we don't understand. Why? Because the universe is complicated.

47 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The universe came into being with the big bang

There is no evidence for that.

47 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What is it exactly we are looking for?

You seem to be looking for something that science cannot provide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason instead of posting what I had written, it posted my last post, maybe a bug in the software.

57 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are lots of "mysteries" in the sense of things we don't understand. Why? Because the universe is complicated.

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.

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no evidence for that.

What is the correct story then?

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

You seem to be looking for something that science cannot provide.

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?

Edited by PrimalMinister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

But its all based on simple things arranged in a complex manner.

Is it?

It appears to be based on complex entities that interact in complex ways.

21 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What is the correct story then?

The universe is expanding. From that we can tell that it was once much hotter and denser. We have theories that can explain what it was like back to some early time. But before that, we have no idea. 

22 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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?

It is not a mystery that science can answer. 

Questions like "why does the universe exist" or "why does it have these laws" are philosophy/religion, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

What is spacetime in GR exactly? From what I can understand its a mathmatical abstraction rather than something physical.

And yet this same spacetime can be warped, curved, twisted in the presence of mass and as dictated by the equations of GR. I find that a good reason to accept that spacetime is real, at least just as real as a magnetic field is.

Quote

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.

Nonsense. Lawrence Krauss is simply logically hypothesising, based on current knowledge, coupled with some reasonably guesses. He avoids the myth, brainwashing and unsupported actions of any deity of any kind. I'm at a total loss how you can see it any other way.

His views on philosophy have in my opinion some grounding in fact, although no one including him, deny that philosophy, the scientific method, underpin and act as foundations to practical science.

Quote

 

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? 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?

 

That's just the way the cookie crumbles. You want to know why. Let me invite you to watch a short 7.5 minute video explaining why your why question is questionable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

 

Or as the member in front of me just said......

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Questions like "why does the universe exist" or "why does it have these laws" are philosophy/religion, not science.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Nonsense. Lawrence Krauss is simply logically hypothesising, based on current knowledge, coupled with some reasonably guesses. He avoids the myth, brainwashing and unsupported actions of any deity of any kind

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.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Questions like "why does the universe exist" or "why does it have these laws" are philosophy/religion, not science

I am not really asking that, I am asking, how are the laws of the universe enforced? What is the technical explaination?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

It is not a mystery that science can answer. 

Questions like "why does the universe exist" or "why does it have these laws" are philosophy/religion, not science.

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.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Let me invite you to watch a short 7.5 minute video explaining why your why question is questionable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

I have seen it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am not really asking that, I am asking, how are the laws of the universe enforced? What is the technical explaination?

Enforced? Don’t anthropomorphize nature. It hates that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

He is enforcing nothing and you failed to comprehend that he is/was speculating. Even so, what laws of physics that do exist, are simply properties of our universe.

Quote

I am not really asking that, I am asking, how are the laws of the universe enforced? What is the technical explaination

Now you are being obtuse. Again as you have been informed,  that is a philosophical/religious question, not a scientific one. 

Quote

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.

Watch the video I linked to previously.I

Quote

have seen it before.

And yet you still insist on asking questions that science is unable to answer and are simply philosophical and religious in nature. My advice, watch the video again.

Why the world/universe is the way it is, is a philosophical and/or religious question....nothing more, nothing less. 

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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?

No one is playing any games, more to the point, is the fact that you are unable to comprehend why your question is perhaps unanswerable, not only by science, but also philosophically. The laws that we are familiar with, are simply man made structures that describe what we observe, and make successful predictions time and time again. eg: Newton's law of gravity dictates that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down to Earth: we are pretty certain of that.

On the other hand if  you referring to the Universal constants, things like the speed of light in a vacuum, at "c" or the gravitational constant, or the fine structure constant, then these  are just part and parcel of the nature of the universe/spacetime at the most basic fundamental level. They are what they are, although finely tuned to the extent that any variation in them would see a vastly different universe to the one we currently inhabit, possibly making it totally unfit for life as we know it and as such you would not be here to ask such questions.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

No philosophy has no answer either. The obvious answer/facts you ignore is the one I gave in that  the laws that we are familiar with, are simply man made structures that describe what we observe, and make successful predictions time and time again. eg: Newton's law of gravity dictates that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down to Earth: we are pretty certain of that.

And of course the constants are what they are, simply by chance. No logic at all involved, just chance. To claim there is any logic behind it, is to claim intelligence and some magical deity, despite your denial of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, beecee said:

And of course the constants are what they are, simply by chance. No logic at all involved, just chance. To claim there is any logic behind it, is to claim intelligence and some magical deity, despite your denial of that.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I think the universe has a design, a purporse,

Setting aside the creation question consider this one.

You have introduced the term "purpose".

Is this synonymous with your earlier use of the phrase "logic behind it".

My point is that either way; logic , design or purpose, this begs the questions?

Is that purpose external to the universe?

(How) Can the universe contain its own purpose (if it has one) ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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. 

False dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Setting aside the creation question consider this one.

You have introduced the term "purpose".

Is this synonymous with your earlier use of the phrase "logic behind it".

My point is that either way; logic , design or purpose, this begs the questions?

Is that purpose external to the universe?

(How) Can the universe contain its own purpose (if it has one) ?

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

How are the laws of the universe enforced?

Why do you think they need to be "enforced"?

Our "laws" are just mathematical descriptions of the way the universe works. They are all approximations with limits to their applicability. It may be remarkable that the universe can be described in such a way. And many people have suggested reasons; but these are all philosophical or religious arguments, not scientific.

15 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

And am I not providing a laughable simple solution to the problem, taking it out of philosophy and into science?

I can't see why. You have some vague idea (possibly similar to some scientific theories). But even if you (or the people doing actual science with similar ideas) were correct, all that does is push the question back. What enforces the laws of the system you describe?

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

And how are these super-laws enforced? 

See the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

And how are these super-laws enforced? 

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is a bit like who created the creator, which is a nonsense question.

Not at all. After all, I think we are all agreed that a creator would be metaphysics and nothing to do with science.

You are claiming that these super-laws are science / physics. Therefore if the laws of current physics need to be enforced then so do the laws of your new physics.

Otherwise we can just say that the existing laws are *the* enforcement and don't need anything to enforce them.

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The super laws I am describing don't really need enforcing, the laws of our universe do need enforcing.

Again, why do you think that? It seems like a ludicrous idea. If you are basing a scientific idea on this, then you need to provide either a theoretical reason or some evidence that they need to be enforced.

Otherwise we just have "I think the laws need to be enforced" versus "I don't think the laws have to be enforced". How do we decide between those, scientifically? We need evidence.

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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?

You are the one claiming that laws need to be enforced, so don't try and push the burden of proof on to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

pixel/tile/cell

I object to the use of the word pixel as this has a very specific meaning that implies a substrate amongst other difficulties.

tile implies 2 dimensions unless you are into some very fancy mathematics.

That leaves us with the general purpose cell which has done thinking humanity for centuries or longer and would, I sugges, admirably satisfy your needs without the connotation that come with the other words.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

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.

Thank you for your reply.

But that didn't answer my questions.

Perhaps I didn't make it plain enough.

Do you or do you not require a container, other than the universe itself to hold whatever purpose you describe?

And no you cannot in any reasonable discussion tell me not to talk about purpose then use it yourself in the very next line.

 

46 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

cubes of space, that cant be created or destroyed, that are eternal, immortal,

 

You are here facing the same problem that philosophers, throughout the history of human thought, have faced when failing to use a proper heirarchy of definitions.

You are introducing undefined terms to expand your thesis, where therefore becomes meaningless.

Exactly in the manner you have accused religous thinking to operate.

In my opinion, this is the most difficult trap of all to avoid.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Otherwise we just have "I think the laws need to be enforced" versus "I don't think the laws have to be enforced". How do we decide between those, scientifically? We need evidence.

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.

 

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are the one claiming that laws need to be enforced, so don't try and push the burden of proof on to others.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The super laws I am proposing don't need enforcing, the laws of our universe do, I will explain why.

You have completely failed to explain why.

You have said that the reason your super laws don't need to be enforced is because they are super laws that don't need to be enforced. This is bad, even as philosophy. It is an example of the fallacy of begging the question.

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

I am simply applying your own "logic": if the currently known laws need to be "enforced" then why shouldn't your new laws also need to be enforced?

Your only answer seems to be: "because they don't".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.