Jump to content
andsm

Deriving Spacetime in Four-Dimensional Euclidean Space Without Time and Dynamics

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, joigus said:

If you're so sure about it, why don't you send it to a peer-reviewed journal?

Why you think so? I did it. Several times journals send it to peer  review, always rejected.

Reason of rejections always were very generic without any specific,  so I  not know reasons.

My guess is: it is because my model imply idealism instead of realism. It is hard to consider for reviewiers and editors, easier to reject based on philosophical beliefs instead of trying to follow scietific principle and try to do professional review. 

In  one case review results were send to me,  it  was  quite funny to read. Reviewer found one real error in formulations (quite minor, I fixed it later). After that he looks as started to read without thinking. In one place, I had equation L=0. He wrote "lagrangian is zero so ...". In entire article, lagrangian was not mentioned, L mean completely different. The review had several such cases. Its about quality of reviews.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

It is completely on-topic, as we're talking about symmetries and conservation laws in dynamics, which is relevant here.

Ok. How  it is relevant here? I derived GR with all its equations. Do you see any error in how I derived it? No, I not see any objections on the part. Except "objection" about how action shoukld look. I already answered about it, and I  proposed to you  to read textbooks, because, obviously, you need to to improve your knowledge in the part.

Next you wrote about energy conservation. Well, it  is possible to talk about energy conservation in GR. All that you wrote about symmetries applies to current theories, I not added any new symmetries. Same problem with energy conservation in GR, dervied in scope of my  theory, as in standard GR.

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Seems very clearly numbered 1 through 7 to me.

Really. I looked in article instead of my post.

On 7/29/2020 at 12:00 AM, studiot said:

remise 2 simply proposes the existence of a fundamental Euclidian space.

Yes

On 7/29/2020 at 12:00 AM, studiot said:

Premises 1,3 and 4 are redundant since they are already implied by premise 2.

No.

#1 not follow from #2. Otherwise, Newtonian mechanic with Euclidean space would  also lead to same result. And, as we know, it not leads to absense  of  time and dynamic. In Newtonian mechanic, time is fundamental phenomenon.

Formulation of #3 is a bit unclear. It is better to formulate it after #5, because it is about absense of prefereed direction for equation of fundamantal field.

#4 is simple repear of #1, so that it would  be harder to miss it for readers.

About #5 I already wrote that, for purpose of the article, I not need to know exact equation of field, it is enough to know  some  of its properties. It is possible to derive spacetime, SR and GR just with knowledge of some properties of the field.

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Both 6 and 7 have mixed unsupported statements with premises.

Premise 6, for instance introduces an 'observer'. Any statements of the properties of this observer must fllow by rational deduction from 6 plus the previous 5 premises alone. No other material is allowable.

In the post the parts only mentioned, not explained. Explanation is in the article.

Are any problems with explanation of them in the article?

Share this post


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

Ok. How  it is relevant here? I derived GR with all its equations. Do you see any error in how I derived it? No, I not see any objections on the part. Except "objection" about how action shoukld look. I already answered about it, and I  proposed to you  to read textbooks, because, obviously, you need to to improve your knowledge in the part.

OK. Give me a list of books, papers, and authors I'd better read to meet your standards. I really would like to improve my knowledge in the part.

1 hour ago, andsm said:

Why you think so? I did it. Several times journals send it to peer  review, always rejected.

Reason of rejections always were very generic without any specific,  so I  not know reasons.

Another victim of the peer-review system! No specifics? The referees didn't get past the generalities!

May I ask what generalities were those that the experts found so unpalatable? Or is this not relevant to the present discussion, like talking about energy and Noether's theorem? 

Share this post


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

Really. I looked in article instead of my post.

Yes

No.

#1 not follow from #2. Otherwise, Newtonian mechanic with Euclidean space would  also lead to same result. And, as we know, it not leads to absense  of  time and dynamic. In Newtonian mechanic, time is fundamental phenomenon.

Formulation of #3 is a bit unclear. It is better to formulate it after #5, because it is about absense of prefereed direction for equation of fundamantal field.

#4 is simple repear of #1, so that it would  be harder to miss it for readers.

About #5 I already wrote that, for purpose of the article, I not need to know exact equation of field, it is enough to know  some  of its properties. It is possible to derive spacetime, SR and GR just with knowledge of some properties of the field.

In the post the parts only mentioned, not explained. Explanation is in the article.

Are any problems with explanation of them in the article?

Quote

Posting Rule 7, from the Rules you agreed to when you signed up for this site.

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no)

 

No I have not read the article you advertised.

Are you now telling me that it is different from your opening post  ?

Share this post


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

OK. Give me a list of books, papers, and authors I'd better read to meet your standards. I really would like to improve my knowledge in the part.

Quick search in Internet gave me following paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.09236.pdf

In the paper, authors propose new alternative theory of gravity. The part is not relevant to your question. But the article contains good introduction part, first 4 pages, which describes why there is problem with zero value of mentioned earlier variation of action Smg.

Other references:

Einstein, A. and Grossmann, M. Outline of a generalized theory of relativity and of a theory of gravitation. Zeit. Math. Phys. 1913, 62, 225-261.

Jaramillo, J. L. and Gourgoulhon, E. Mass and angular momentum in general relativity. in Mass and Motion in General Relativity 2011, (Springer, Netherlands).

Misner, C. W., Thorn, K. S. and Wheeler, J. A. Gravitation. 1970, (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York).

Einstein, A. Note on E. Schrodinger’s Paper: The Energy Components of the Gravitational Field. Phys. Z. 1918, 19, 115-116.

Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity. 1922, (Princeton University Press).

Vishwakarma, R. G. On the relativistic formulation of matter. Astrophys. Space Sci. 2012, 340, 373–379.

 

22 hours ago, joigus said:

May I ask what generalities were those that the experts found so unpalatable? Or is this not relevant to the present discussion, like talking about energy and Noether's theorem? 

It is related. Reason, as I see it - because I try to build theory without fundamental time and dynamic.

Looks as it nearby impossible to imagine Universe fundamental time and dynamic, it too contradicts to philosophical beliefs about realism. One of consequences of the idea - realism is wrong, Nature expained by subjective idealism.

The idea, about absense of fundamental time and dynamic leads to superdeterminism.

The idea, about absense of fundamental time and dynamic allows to easily derive quantum mechnics (it is not covered in the article). Superdeterminism allows to build quantum physics without violating Bell's inequalities. In Wiki, if look at superdeterminism, there is mentioning what hypothetical class of superdeterministic theories  can have hidden variables and not violate Bell's inequalities. And I have such 'hypothetical' theory. All local symmeties if Standard model can be easily derived from just idea about absense of fundamental time and dynamic. It is possible to answer to many  other questions. However, so far I was unable even  to publish paper where I describe how to build spacetime without fundamental time and dynamic.  It looks as idea is too unusual to understad it.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

 

No I have not read the article you advertised.

Are you now telling me that it is different from your opening post  ?

Where I  wrote it, may you  point to the part? 

I  have seen  on many forums quite similar behavior. If peoples have nothing to say, they ask to provide data on forum. I post parts of article on forum. And they have nothing to say. Simply ask to ask something? It would  be good  if I am wrong for the case.

Part of article below.

Quote

Abstract

The hypothesis, allowing deriving a space-time with a Minkowski space metrics on Euclidean space with no time and dynamics is suggested. This is a fundamental novelty, to the best of the author’s knowledge, such an opportunity has never been considered before.  This hypothesis also allows deriving the curved space-time with a metrics of the general theory of relativity. It was demonstrated that the principle of causality and the anthropic principle arise from the hypothesis. It was demonstrated that the strong principle of equivalence of gravitation and acceleration arises from the hypothesis. All principles and postulates, on which special and general theories of relativity are based are being derived, Lorentz transformations and the general theory of relativity equations were derived. It has been demonstrated that the principle of locality arises in such a hypothesis.

Introduction

There are two principal models of the nature at current time. The first model tries to use aether, the second model is based on physical vacuum and relativity. Aether theories have many problems, which seem unresolvable. This means that, in fact, there is only one main opportunity for derivation of theories. Is it possible to derive an entirely new model of the nature, different from the first two? Hypothesis with such model is offered in this article.

Is it possible to derive a hypersurface with a Lorentz space metrics in Euclidean space? As S.Hawking, J. Ellis [1, p 55] show, in Euclidean space, it is impossible to derive the enclosed hypersurface with both a Minkowski space-time metrics and in metrics of a general theory of relativity.

The demonstration of impossibility to derive the enclosed hypersurface with a special theory of relativity metrics in Euclidean space appears convincing, seems like it cannot be disproved. Any demonstration is based on some provisions, which are considered as true. If there is any possibility to call into question any of these provisions, then all conclusions, dependent on such provision, also become doubtful. The provision questioned in this article is realism.

Time participates both in a Minkowski space-time metrics and in metrics of a general theory of relativity.  Therefore, before considering the offered hypothesis, let’s consider what the time is.

Time is the phenomenon the effects of which we constantly observe. The physics still does not know the nature of time, the existing description of time and its properties is phenomenological. Special and general theories of relativity have established dependence between time, space and gravitation. It shows that time is not the independent phenomenon, and has the connection with space and matter causing gravitation. The physics has established the properties of time. However, there is no knowledge why there is time, why time is unidirectional, whether there are time quanta, why time has one dimension and whether it is possible to travel to the past. 

Whether the space, time, matter and fields exist independently or are the manifestation of something more fundamental?

Let's assume that at the fundamental level time does not exist at all. Let's consider the arising consequences of this assumption

If at the fundamental level time does not exist, then there has to be no dynamics. Options when there is dynamics at the fundamental level, and time is emergent at the macro-level, are difficult to call model with no time. More likely, such models can be called models with a numerous of times at the micro-level.

With absence of time and dynamics at the fundamental level, the question now arises of how to coordinate it with dynamics and time observed in the nature.

Model of Hypothesis

Let us assume that there is a four-dimensional Euclidean space with some fields, defined on this space at each point. There is no time or dynamics. Thereby, the fields also have no dynamics. It also means full determinism. I will call these fields fundamental ones. I suppose that the fundamental fields are smooth and are described by certain partial differential equations. Each of the fundamental fields is independent of other fundamental fields. This means that there are no other fields in the equations describing any fundamental field. I think that fundamental fields the values belong to the set of real numbers at each point.

Let us assume that in this space, we can build a series of non-crossing hypersurfaces, on which fundamental fields have some values at each point, and some additional conditions are satisfied. Namely, let us assume that the projections of fundamental fields can be divided into several components. Each of these components is an effective field in this series of hypersurfaces. Also, let us assume there is a continuous transformation of the effective fields  state on one hypersurface of  series to the effective fields state on another hypersurface   of the same series.

Each point on one hypersurface is mapped to some point on other hypersurface. As the transformation is continuous, there is a curve consisting of mapping points on intermediate hypersurfaces, connecting a point on an  hypersurface to a point on an  hypersurface. Let’s  call this curve the line of evolution.

It is possible to say that fields on hypersurfaces evolve along this line.

Further, I will use the word field mainly as a designation of an effective field. Where the type of the field will be ambiguously understood from the context, there will be a more complete designation.

In the presence of the mapping of fields states on one hypersurface to the fields states on another hypersurface along the line of evolution, the distance on this line serves as the time in the equations. In this case, we can talk about the time vector, and this vector is tangent to the line of evolution.

I believe that at the level of fundamental four-dimensional space, the preferred direction is absent; all directions are equal.

The question now arises of where time vector is directed.

In fundamental space, there is no preferred direction. Thereby, this vector has to be directed in the most symmetric way concerning a hypersurface. For the case of hyperplane, the greatest symmetry achieved, if time vector at each point of hyperplane is directed perpendicular to the hyperplane. For the hypersurface, the greatest symmetry achieved if the time vector is directed perpendicular to the tangent hyperplane. The time vector has a direction. I will return below to the question of finding its direction.

In such model of the hypothesis, the question arises as to what the consciousness is.

Consciousness

Within the suggested model, I am postulating that the consciousness is an epiphenomenon caused by the change of physical fields on hypersurfaces. Change occurs not in time, but in fundamental space, which differs from the observed space. The observed space corresponds to the space of hypersurfaces. It is necessary for the observed three-dimensional space that hypersurfaces also were three-dimensional.

The space, time and matter observed by us are the product of consciousness. Without observer, they are mathematical abstraction. Thereby, according to this hypothesis, they do not exist objectively, they exist subjectively.

I will call the observed space-time as the generated or emergent space-time.

`

Anthropic Principle

From the model of theory follows that the observer is necessary for existence of the Universe Thereby, the anthropic principle follows from the theory.

The anthropic principle was offered [2][3] for an explanation scientifically, why, in the observed Universe, there is a number of nontrivial relations between fundamental physical parameters, necessary for existence of intelligent life, takes place. There are various formulations; usually, the weak and strong anthropic principles are marked out. 

The variant of the strong anthropic principle is the anthropic principle of participation stated by John Wheeler [4]:

 Observers are necessary   to bring the Universe into being.

In the suggested hypothesis, the anthropic principle of participation is a direct consequence of subjective existence of the observed space-time.

Principle of Causality

All models of intelligent life known to me require the principle of causality. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being. Only the rational being can be the observer. It means that intelligent life is necessary to bring the Universe into being. Based on this, hypersurfaces with the physical fields changing on them need to be built so that the principle of causality was achieved. Thereby, the principle of causality is a consequence of the anthropic principle of participation.

 

Edited by andsm

Share this post


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

The variant of the strong anthropic principle is the anthropic principle of participation stated by John Wheeler [4]:

 Observers are necessary   to bring the Universe into being.

John Wheeler was a great physicist, but not many people hold this view today. You should distinguish philosophical musings of physicists from robust physical principles. If you can't, I can't help you. Are you sure Wheeler said that? Let's see...

Here's the quote, on page 28, not 27:

https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kF1INlvLSlkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&ots=UjrGJqkzFz&sig=B4jeCsHB510EWT5axFKitak_4S0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote

"If the situation poses a challenge and a question, is not the central role of the observer in quantum mechanics the most important clue we have to answering that question? Except it be that observership brings the universe into being what other way is there to understand that clue?"

That sounds to me more like a rhetorical question than the statement of a principle. And have you based your whole theory on a rhetorical question from John Wheeler? Rhetorical questions tend to be the weakest points in any argument. Anyway, my answer to that rhetorical question, and the answer from most scientists today is "no". There are other ways.

So the quote is not "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being". (with capitals in "Universe"). The quote "as is" seems to come from Barrow&Tipler:

http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/anth/anth.htm

Who apparently took a rhetorical question from Wheeler, made it into a "physical principle" and a few people out there went nuts with it. No serious science is made from this stuff.

In any case, none of this has to do with the fact that you just copied and pasted standard equations from physics books to make your "paper" look like a genuine idea, as I pointed out. Neither Lorentz transformations, nor the geodesic equation, nor Einstein's equations derive from your idea. You just say the do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, andsm said:

Quick search in Internet gave me following paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.09236.pdf

I have to say this is one of the worst papers on GR I have ever seen; it is just full of errors and basic misconceptions from beginning to end. Only goes to show that what is on arXiv is to be taken with a grain of salt - it’s a pre-print server after all.

Share this post


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

I have to say this is one of the worst papers on GR I have ever seen; it is just full of errors and basic misconceptions from beginning to end. Only goes to show that what is on arXiv is to be taken with a grain of salt - it’s a pre-print server after all.

The paper is #1 in google search result for search phrase "einstein marble and cheap wood"

I searched the phrase, because it is phrase how Einstein seen GR: "a mansion with a wing made out of marble and a wing made out of cheap wood". And the phrase directly related to discussed before value of variation of Smg

I not read part of the paper, related to theory they propose. However, I see in introduction part they at least discuss problems of GR with absense of gravity in tensor of mass-energy.

I would prefer to give link to some textbook, but I not know any textbook where the problem was discussed. For example, in Landau-Liftshiz 'Field theory' the problem is well masked and not mentioned at all.

 

20 hours ago, joigus said:

That sounds to me more like a rhetorical question than the statement of a principle. And have you based your whole theory on a rhetorical question from John Wheeler? Rhetorical questions tend to be the weakest points in any argument. Anyway, my answer to that rhetorical question, and the answer from most scientists today is "no". There are other ways.

The theory was written even before I read the statement. Actually, I saw that one of consequences of my theory is strong anthropic principle. I opened Wiki, and found such citation. The citation looks right in line with result of my theory. So I added reference to the citation without check of source. I know, it is bad practice, and it is well known that Wiki is unreliable source. I will check the reference, and if it is as you wrote, I would remove all references to the work of J, Wheeler, I would simply write that strong anthropic principle is result of my theory. Nothing in the theory or in result of the theory  may be affected by the change.

Thanks for noticing it, it will make the article  better.

20 hours ago, joigus said:

In any case, none of this has to do with the fact that you just copied and pasted standard equations from physics books to make your "paper" look like a genuine idea, as I pointed out. Neither Lorentz transformations, nor the geodesic equation, nor Einstein's equations derive from your idea. You just say the do. 

It looks like you have some misconception of the work. Probably  you expected some new equations from the theory?

I not tried to derive some new equations in the article, and I not had such goal for the article. My goal was to derive well-known equation of SR and GR, compatible with idea of absense of time and dynamic at fundamental level. And, as it looks,  it was achieved - SR and GR was derived, on Euclideam space without time and dynamic. 

You said the equations were not derived. But, so far you not shown any logical errors in the article. Even if I simply copy pasted equation from textbooks (and it is not so), if as result I was able to get  logically consistent theory, it  also would be big achievement. 

It is easy  to check is it was simply copy-paste, on example of SR. SR is simpler than GR, so it is easier to discuss.

Quote from article:

Quote

To derive Lorentz transformations, one shall need:

1.       Space and time homogeneity

2.       Space isotropy

3.       Presence of the maximum interactions velocity

Is anything from the 3 points was not derived, prior to its usage?  SR follow directly from the points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, andsm said:

However, I see in introduction part they at least discuss problems of GR with absense of gravity in tensor of mass-energy. I would prefer to give link to some textbook, but I not know any textbook where the problem was discussed.

That’s because there isn’t any such ‘problem’. How could there be? The energy-momentum tensor is a local quantity, whereas the self-interaction of the gravitational field is non-local, so of course it doesn’t form part of aforementioned tensor. It can never be a tensorial quantity, because all tensors are local, and any concept of ‘gravitational energy’ is necessarily non-local and observer-dependent. You can, however, define such a quantity as a pseudo-tensor (such as the Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor, or the Einstein pseudo-tensor); this allows you to write down a combined conservation law. 
The self-interaction of the field is instead encoded in the structure of the field equations themselves; that is why they are non-linear. This is perfectly well understood, both physically and mathematically, so there is no ‘problem’ here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe of interest:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/26/how-the-anthropic-principle-became-the-most-abused-idea-in-science/#efcb4a57d690

The anthropic principle is tautological. Tautologies are not necessarily bad in physics. They can never be false. What could be more robust than that?

But when you depart from a tautology, you need at least a second assumption that gets you out of the circle.

Example: Newton's second law rests on a tautology. Mass and force are introduced at the same time, so you have no way to define mass but as based on force. And force cannot be defined without invoking mass. Were it not for the fact that people* related force to position through the concept of potential energy, and additional assumptions on its parametrics, nobody would have been able to get out of the loop.

*Starting with Newton himself.

Edited by joigus
Added footnote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

That’s because there isn’t any such ‘problem’. How could there be? The energy-momentum tensor is a local quantity, whereas the self-interaction of the gravitational field is non-local, so of course it doesn’t form part of aforementioned tensor. It can never be a tensorial quantity, because all tensors are local, and any concept of ‘gravitational energy’ is necessarily non-local and observer-dependent. You can, however, define such a quantity as a pseudo-tensor (such as the Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor, or the Einstein pseudo-tensor); this allows you to write down a combined conservation law. 
The self-interaction of the field is instead encoded in the structure of the field equations themselves; that is why they are non-linear. This is perfectly well understood, both physically and mathematically, so there is no ‘problem’ here.

It is necessary to split question in two parts. 

1. Are any problems with current understanding of GR?

2. Are any problems with derivation of GR?

For first part, obviously, all is perfect, if not talk about problem with unification of GR amd QM. And all that you wrote relates to the part, about current understanding and interpretations of GR.

For second  part, there is problem. It comes from fact, that action in GR have to be postulated, not derived, and it have described results with tensor. There is no way no derive it (in my theory I did it, however). Einstein admitted there is problem with it. Many others scientists think so. 

I have seen several attempts to build alternative theories of gravity with non-zero value of gravity in tensor of mass-energy. I not see any of  them as more or less successful, many problems. But main problem for such theories - GR fully satisfy to all observations. However, peoples trying to do something in the direction, because they see both problem and opportunity.

 

7 hours ago, joigus said:

The anthropic principle is tautological. Tautologies are not necessarily bad in physics. They can never be false. What could be more robust than that?

Weak anthropic principle is tautological, I agree. But in my theory there is no weak anthropic principle.

Result (and not postulate) of my theory is strong anthropic principle. Actually, anthropic principle in my theory is even stronger than strong anthropic principle, because in my theory observers bring Universe into Being, Universe cannot exists without intelligent observers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, andsm said:

Universe cannot exists without intelligent observers

Universe did a pretty nifty job of looking as if it had existed long before any intelligent observers were around. That's all I can say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, joigus said:

Universe did a pretty nifty job of looking as if it had existed long before any intelligent observers were around. That's all I can say.

These is your philosophical beleif. You believe in realism, and believe that Universe exists independent of observers.

If my theory correct, we live in Universe based on subjective idealism, and realism is wrong. My theory even can be, in principle, tested for predictions. The article describe only part of theory, so the possibility may be not seen from the article. So, question of that is true, realism or idealism, can be verified. 

Note - the subjective idealism can be directly derived from my theory. So, while you express your beliefs,  the question can be considered based on scientific method.

Edited by andsm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andsm said:

These is your philosophical beleif. You believe in realism, and believe that Universe exists independent of observers.

If my theory wrong, we live in Universe based on subjective idealism, and realism is wrong. My theory even can be, in principle, tested for predictions. So, question of that is true, realism or idealism, can be verified. 

Note - the subjective idealism can be directly derived from my theory. So, while you express your beliefs,  the question can be considered based on scientific method.

You believe too much with too little evidence. AAMOF, you believe I believe something. Not only that; you go on to assert it, as if you were privy to my mental states. You couldn't be farther from knowing how I form my opinions. Which goes to prove that you give too much value to your beliefs.

I don't to mine. Neither I do to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joigus said:

You believe too much with too little evidence. AAMOF, you believe I believe something. Not only that; you go on to assert it, as if you were privy to my mental states. You couldn't be farther from knowing how I form my opinions. Which goes to prove that you give too much value to your beliefs.

I may not know your beliefs, but I can see that you wrote. And you wrote that Unverse existed long before observers. And here you expressed your beliefs. Such vision, that Universe exists independent of observers, have name realism. It is not scientifically proved, so it is not knowledge, it is belief. If you disagree that realism is belief, I would be interested to know when realsim was proved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andsm said:

I may not know your beliefs, but I can see that you wrote. And you wrote that Unverse existed long before observers. And here you expressed your beliefs. Such vision, that Universe exists independent of observers, have name realism. It is not scientifically proved, so it is not knowledge, it is belief. If you disagree that realism is belief, I would be interested to know when realsim was proved.

That's not what I said.

Here's what I said:

46 minutes ago, joigus said:

Universe did a pretty nifty job of looking as if it had existed long before any intelligent observers were around.

Can you read it now? Take some time. Read it twice, three times, if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's not what I said.

Here's what I said:

Can you read it now? Take some time. Read it twice, three times, if necessary.

Really, misread it, sorry. So you not expressed your belief here, not towards realism or towards idealism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andsm said:

Really, misread it, sorry. So you not expressed your belief here, not towards realism or towards idealism.

OK. Not that it's interesting to anybody, but I was raised in a Catholic country, and had to do away with a lot of cultural/religious/mythical/ceremonial baggage. I tend to mistrust my own opinions very often; let alone other's. I did that at a very high price. The brain can be a crook. It likes to show to you pleasing landscapes. It likes to prove you right. It also tends to have you accept propositions just because they will make you fit in socially, or stand out. I don't trust the brain's inertial forces.

I suppose I'm just a runaway from belief towards degrees of certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, andsm said:

Really, misread it, sorry. So you not expressed your belief here, not towards realism or towards idealism.

That was very honest. +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I checked references in article. Removed reference to Wheeler, because that formulation come from Copenhagen interpretation. So, instead of anthropic principle of participation I would simply state that strong anthropic principle is one of results of my theory. Article of Vixra was not yet updated, I will update it somewhere later, after more changes.

So far, I have theory and there is no any known errors in the theory. Small mistake (incorrect reference) was found by joigus, thanks to him. I looking for criticism of the theory, but so far no success. May be the theory is too complex? Looking on it, and math of the theory looks really simple. The article was written to show part of bigger theory, which is really complex, and it was written to be both as simple as possible and to have scientific accuracy.

Edited by andsm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In 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.