On 12/30/2024 at 6:49 PM, PrimalMinister said:

And some of the maths out there is abstract mathematics and not real. Take relativity, spacetime isn't real, its abstract, its just a mathematical tool, its just that it explains the properties of gravity to the best of our knowledge.

Yeah.
We like to call them mathematical models that describe how things behave.
As Swansont pointed out, the 'nature of reality' is a Philosophical question.

On 12/30/2024 at 4:49 PM, PrimalMinister said:

It's not a deeper insight into the nature of reality.

I don't think science has anything to say about "reality", just about what we can observe. Do you have a philosophical way of determining what is "real" or not? I can do a great deal with observations about a specific thing, and I can experiment with it and draw conclusions that I can base predictions on, but I don't have a meaningful way of determining if the thing is "real" or not. It seems real enough, and for my purposes that's all I need. 

I've seen the most outlandish claims when people start talking about "reality". 

Sorry for being away for some time; life got in the way. I will explain the theory briefly; it should be obvious that, simply by its definition, it could be a theory of everything.

With a holographic plate, you have the whole image in every part. I suggest that this is what is happening in our universe. So space is composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime, and you embed all the laws of the universe abstractly into every unit of space and just have them manifest over time. This explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe; they originate in every unit of space and are everywhere because they are in every unit of space.

Time is a cycle where the unit of space creates and destroys a generation of reality. In this theory, reality is everything that occurs in spacetime; reality is virtual and being generated by the underlying spacetime. This explains how the laws of the universe appear to be fixed despite being as dynamic as the things they are supposedly governing; it would also put gravity and atomic behaviour under the same framework.

It also explains itself without requiring anything additional, so it is self-evident. It's also the simplest universe you could possibly have that can support the level of complexity we observe. It would also be the final eternal truth about the universe, as the units of polymorphic spacetime are immortal, which explains how God did it.

OK, so I don't have the math, but this framework already has explanatory power. And you're likely looking at an algorithm that gives rise to the maths we already know.

But this is the kicker: the units of polymorphic spacetime contain all the laws of the universe, which include all the known laws and the unknown laws. The unknown laws of the universe, when discovered, will commoditise space travel, finally allowing us to leave the solar system, and it will also give us cheap, green energy.

So, is this a good start for a theory of everything?

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

With a holographic plate, you have the whole image in every part. I suggest that this is what is happening in our universe. So space is composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime, and you embed all the laws of the universe abstractly into every unit of space and just have them manifest over time. This explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe; they originate in every unit of space and are everywhere because they are in every unit of space.

Rather than use big words perhaps you should consider what they mean.

Presenting stuff like this is likely to get the backs up of pragmatists, which in turn leads to you responding defensively.

The holographic plate image only works down to a certain size of subdivision. If you go smaller it no longer works.

And what do you mean by polymorphic ?

and what do you mean by 'embed the laws abstractly' ?

Having asked that and talking of abstract, you have mentioned abstract in a rather disparaging way before.

On 12/30/2024 at 11:49 PM, PrimalMinister said:

And some of the maths out there is abstract mathematics and not real.

The english language is particularly blessed because it distinguishes between abstract and concrete nouns and allows that either or both can be every bit as real or not as appropriate.

Since you disparage the abstract, conside this

When I go to the supermarket, I carry an abstract map in my head, in order to arrive at my destination.

I don't carry the whole map at all times, I just deploy the appropriate parts as I go along.

Finally you did not respond to my previous comment in this thread

On 12/23/2024 at 10:11 AM, studiot said:

Maybe, but have they got everywhen  ?

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Sorry for being away for some time; life got in the way. I will explain the theory briefly; it should be obvious that, simply by its definition, it could be a theory of everything.

With a holographic plate, you have the whole image in every part. I suggest that this is what is happening in our universe. So space is composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime, and you embed all the laws of the universe abstractly into every unit of space and just have them manifest over time. This explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe; they originate in every unit of space and are everywhere because they are in every unit of space.

Time is a cycle where the unit of space creates and destroys a generation of reality. In this theory, reality is everything that occurs in spacetime; reality is virtual and being generated by the underlying spacetime. This explains how the laws of the universe appear to be fixed despite being as dynamic as the things they are supposedly governing; it would also put gravity and atomic behaviour under the same framework.

It also explains itself without requiring anything additional, so it is self-evident. It's also the simplest universe you could possibly have that can support the level of complexity we observe. It would also be the final eternal truth about the universe, as the units of polymorphic spacetime are immortal, which explains how God did it.

OK, so I don't have the math, but this framework already has explanatory power. And you're likely looking at an algorithm that gives rise to the maths we already know.

But this is the kicker: the units of polymorphic spacetime contain all the laws of the universe, which include all the known laws and the unknown laws. The unknown laws of the universe, when discovered, will commoditise space travel, finally allowing us to leave the solar system, and it will also give us cheap, green energy.

So, is this a good start for a theory of everything?

For this to be a scientific theory, you would need to be able to describe exactly what a "unit of polymorphic spacetime" is and how one could, at least in theory, test for its existence. In other words you should be able to say what observable consequences there should be from their existence. Can you do either of those things?

P.S. and when I say "you" I mean actually you, not some AI chatbot, just in case you were contemplating the use of one.😉

Edited August 27Aug 27 by exchemist

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

So, is this a good start for a theory of everything?

It’s…not good.

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

With a holographic plate, you have the whole image in every part. I suggest that this is what is happening in our universe. So space is composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime, and you embed all the laws of the universe abstractly into every unit of space and just have them manifest over time.

What are the laws made of, and what is space made of that you can embed the laws in them?

Do you actually understand how a hologram works?

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

This explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe; they originate in every unit of space and are everywhere because they are in every unit of space.

Time is a cycle where the unit of space creates and destroys a generation of reality.

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

In this theory, reality is everything that occurs in spacetime; reality is virtual and being generated by the underlying spacetime. This explains how the laws of the universe appear to be fixed despite being as dynamic as the things they are supposedly governing; it would also put gravity and atomic behaviour under the same framework.

So spacetime is a substance? What’s it made of?

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

It also explains itself without requiring anything additional, so it is self-evident. It's also the simplest universe you could possibly have that can support the level of complexity we observe. It would also be the final eternal truth about the universe, as the units of polymorphic spacetime are immortal, which explains how God did it.

OK, so I don't have the math, but this framework already has explanatory power. And you're likely looking at an algorithm that gives rise to the maths we already know.

What can it predict? How can it be tested?

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

And what do you mean by polymorphic ?

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.

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

and what do you mean by 'embed the laws abstractly' ?

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.

20 minutes ago, exchemist said:

For this to be a scientific theory, you would need to be able to describe exactly what a "unit of polymorphic spacetime" is and how one could, at least in theory, test for its existence. In other words you should be able to say what observable consequences there should be from their existence. Can you do either of those things?

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.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do you actually understand how a hologram works?

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.

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

So spacetime is a substance? What’s it made of?

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.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

What can it predict? How can it be tested?

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.

6 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

[snip]

What you mean is it would not be science, then. Period. If you can't show, or least suggest, what observable effects should be associated with your theory, you aren't doing science. You have been told this before. Using buzzwords like "paradigm shift" doesn't absolve you of the need to link your hypothesis to observation. That's a fundamental part of science.

("Framework" likewise is a buzzword, one that is now fast becoming a cliché as it is particularly favoured by AI, that does not get round this requirement either.)

Edited August 27Aug 27 by exchemist

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Using buzzwords like "paradigm shift" doesn't absolve you of the need to link your hypothesis to observation. That's a fundamental part of science.

If I am right, and I believe I am, it would be a paradigm shift and its self evident it would be.

11 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What you mean is it would not be science,

It is science, it's taking scientific principles and applying them to the universe as a whole in a novel and original way.

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

Not if your idea has no observable consequences it isn't.

If you can't address this requirement of science, I suspect your idea will be binned pretty rapidly.

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Not if your idea has no observable consequences it isn't.

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?

Edited August 27Aug 27 by PrimalMinister

Just now, PrimalMinister said:

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?

On cosmology? I think chiefly the issues of dark matter and dark energy. Both of these are placeholder labels for observed phenomena, crying out for explanations that physics is currently unable to provide.

Regarding the laws of physics and the big bang, my understanding is that if one extrapolates back far enough one reaches a regime in which these laws either don't apply or become meaningless.

I agree with you that it is just an assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout space and history, but there seem to be no compelling reasons to believe otherwise. Our model of cosmology fits with observations, using that assumption so, that being so, Ockham's Razor is invoked. However one of the models for dark matter (MOND) suggests maybe the laws of physics may not be quite as we assume, at large enough scales etc. So it would be unfair to say nobody in physics is prepared to think outside the box on the question.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

On cosmology? I think chiefly the issues of dark matter and dark energy. Both of these are placeholder labels for observed phenomena, crying out for explanations that physics is currently unable to provide.

Regarding the laws of physics and the big bang, my understanding is that if one extrapolates back far enough one reaches a regime in which these laws either don't apply or become meaningless.

I agree with you that it is just an assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout space and history, but there seem to be no compelling reasons to believe otherwise. Our model of cosmology fits with observations, using that assumption so, that being so, Ockham's Razor is invoked. However one of the models for dark matter (MOND) suggests maybe the laws of physics may not be quite as we assume, at large enough scales etc. So it would be unfair to say nobody in physics is prepared to think outside the box on the question.

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. What progress is being made on this?

Edited August 27Aug 27 by PrimalMinister

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well, we have matter and the four fundamental forces, which conform to certain rules, the laws of the universe.

Do you know what these rules are ?

If so, how do you know that your unspecified 'which' conform ?

9 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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. What progress is being made on this?

Nope that is not a question being widely asked in physics, so far as I am aware. By the way, deploying the buzzword "paradigm" doesn't alter that.

As I told you 3 years ago, it is always possible to dream up metaphysical questions that science can't answer. That's because science has boundaries to its field of enquiry, set, as I've explained to you before, by the need to tie theory to what can be observed in nature. So if no "progress" is being made on the metaphysical question you raise, it is for the simple reason no one, so far as I know, is trying.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

So if no "progress" is being made on the metaphysical question you raise, it is for the simple reason no one, so far as I know, is trying.

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?

14 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

the biggest question is how the universe imbues reality with laws, i.e. where do the laws of the universe come from.

This has already been answered by several members, myself included; pity you don't read, or understand, replies.

At an early time ( before inflation ) the whole universe was in causal contact, which means information could be exchanged by all parts to establish isotropy and homogeneity throughout the universe.
Symmetry breaks ( which would also lead to inflation as drops from false zero-point energy ) that resulted in Grand Unified Force breaking up into the current interactions, also established current global and gauge symmetries responsible for the laws we observe.

This is current theory.
Granted it doesn't explain the absence of magnetic monopoles at the 'edges' of symmetry break domains, nor does it point to insights about dark matter/dark energy, but it explain a lot of observations and makes quite a few valid predictions, so none of us are ready to discard current theory because you don't understand it and think it doesn't provide any 'answers'.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

And what do you mean by polymorphic ?

It could have been "metamorphic" or "hypermorphic", and nobody would have been any the wiser.

10 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I mean, in relativity, spacetime curves, how exactly, if space is just empty?

Do you understand non riemannian geometry ?

You have quoted 'the rules' and I agree in this case the 'how' is because the observed (I know you don't like that word) phenomena (transformations) are Lorenzian not Riemannian.

If you want MigL 's symmetries they SO (1,3) not SO (4)

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

It could have been "metamorphic" or "hypermorphic", and nobody would have been any the wiser.

That's the trouble with pure philosophers. They are lost to the real world of everybody else.

Actually the OP has scored a near miss with is definition.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Polymorphic means to pass through many states,

Not quite.

It means that that it may exist in more than one configuration.

Configuration is a better word in this case than state.

For example diamond and graphite are polymorphic forms of carbon that can exist in the same state (solid) but have different crystal structures (configuration)

Edited August 27Aug 27 by studiot

14 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

How do you know space-time curves ???

The model we have, GR, implies that curved space-time geometry ( a mathematical construct ) acts exactly the same as Gravity.
If I have a map made of flexible material, and I pull up the area where a mountain is shown, it 'acts' the same as the real mountain.
But the real mountain is not made of flexible material, nor is it 2dimensional, nor can you hold it in your hand, nor ...

21 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I think physics suffers from a lack of philosophy, as it's simply not asking the right questions.

I think physics has enough philosophy to go by. Neopositivism, operationalism, rationalism, inductivism, and so many other "isms"...

But any philosophical approach needs more concrete assumptions and mathematical statements in order to permeate physics --as pointed out by most members.

It's not that your ideas cannot be true. It's rather that nobody would know how to turn them into laboratory propositions.

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

so none of us are ready to discard current theory because you don't understand it and think it doesn't provide any 'answers'.

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?

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I'm asking you to think about the facts.

I have offered you solid facts.

You seem so afraid of considering them that you don't bother to answer my comments.

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Why is saying that spacetime is generating matter, an original idea, so ridiculous?

Anyone can come up with WAGs.
Provide a mechanism consistent with observational evidence; then we can talk.

Edited August 27Aug 27 by MigL

1 minute ago, studiot said:

You seem so afraid of considering them that you don't bother to answer my comments.

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.