5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

How is it ridiculous ?

You last answered one of my queries 19 posts ago, several of them yours, and I have subsequently offered you some advice on scientific terminology.

Further you still haven't answered my question from my first short post on the previous page, despite being reminded of it recently.

Look, I'm not the specialist; you are. You have a responsibility to explain the universe to people like me. But I understand enough to be able to able to ask serious questions and provide a solution to problems unanswered by current theories.

I'm not making out I have all the answers, but you don't either, so we are both ignorant in ways.

The point is, why are we not working together to explain the mystery of the universe?

Why is it a mystery? What's the problem exactly?

This should be taken very seriously because a lot is at stake here; the whole human race depends on you taking it seriously.

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The point is, why are we not working together to explain the mystery of the universe?

Bluntly because only one of us is taking any notice of the other.

for example

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

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

  2 hours 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 24 minutes ago24 min by studiot

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

for example

Sorry, I didn't see this post. Configuration is fine with me.

My questions go unanswered as well.

Look, can we put the forum politics aside and just discuss the nature of spacetime?

What is space in the current theories?

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

My questions go unanswered as well.

But they haven't gone unanswered.

For example

You asked how can space time curve and I told you.

But you have yet to reply.

I find the phrase 'configuration is fine with me' rather slap happy when one considers that science is a precise subject (as far as it can be).

What would you think of a doctor who gave you parabenzedrine instead of paracetamol and casually said well they both begin with para ?

57 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

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?

Ah but it's not up to you to determine what are the "right questions", is it? What you are asking is not physics but metaphysics. It is not the job of physics to answer philosophical questions, though many physicists do in fact also ponder the philosophical implications of their theories in their spare time.

So while you may be frustrated that nobody in physics wants to pick up the baton and ask where the observed order* in nature comes from, perhaps you should instead ask the people who do deal in such issues - the metaphysicians. (Your own attempt at answering this, by the way, gets us nowhere, since if the order in nature is intrinsic to every "polymorphic unit" of spacetime, you can then equally well ask how that came about. In the end one always reaches a limit at which one has to admit "we don't know".

*I prefer the term "observed order" to "laws" for a couple of reasons. First, because it stresses the central role of observation in science. Second, almost all the "laws" are man-made interpretations of what we observe, named after the human beings who first formulated them. They are often approximations or simplifications derived from limiting cases and as such are often not followed exactly in most real situations.

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

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

Moderator Note

Let's stick to attacking ideas, not people.

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Ah but it's not up to you to determine what are the "right questions", is it?

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

Good night all I had enough time wasting.

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

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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.

Not a lot of space at 10^-43 sec after the BB, and who said space was empty?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

and who said space was empty?

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

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, so it's not a full theory, it's rather a framework that needs more work

It’s more like what you discuss at 2AM in a chemically-altered state.

“Not a full theory” is an understatement. It’s the thinnest of veneers, and what is needed is depth. I don’t know what the disconnect is, the requirements of speculations have been explained to you several times and you’re not understanding or just ignoring them. You can go back to your previous threads on this subject and you’ll see them.