Its a book, not me.

[GodofReason]

Hey, All.

My handle, GodofReason, is a book I wrote not a religious statement or a sign of my monumental arrogance (in reality, my arrogance is merely immense). With respect to this forum my perspective is Bayesian. That is, I look at the spectrum of a topic, whether temporal like history, or structural like the hierarchy of the universe, and make my determinations based on the most probable prospect resulting from a Bayesian analysis of the spectrum.

Basically, I'm a "what goes around comes around" type of thinker. I think the Big Bang is ultimately a local phenomenon in an ongoing hierarchical universe rather than a complete and sufficient description of the universe. I base this perspective on the fact that across 40 orders of magnitude, the universe is hierarchical will little pieces coming together to form bigger pieces and those bigger pieces coming together to form even bigger pieces, etc etc. From quarks to galaxy clusters this is unambiguously the case, and the expanding profile of the Big Bang will prove to be no exception. It will be found to be finite in extent and on of many big bangs just like every material phenomenon ever observed and every cosmology ever devised.

More specifically to the topic of this forum, I think that there can be no "Theory of Everything." From a Bayesian Perspective, all theories ever devised inevitably pose as many questions as they answer. We already had a theory of everything 300 years ago when Newton devised the most comprehensive, accurate and precise theory of the workings of the universe ever devised. Yet it was succeeded by relativity. We may discover a consolidating theory, but none that will answer more questions than it poses.

But then again, the certainty of the nature of our uncertainty (ie that we will never have a TOE, but will always have a TOEWCTO (theory of everything we can think of)) is itself a TOE! Think about it. The Bayesian presumption that we cannot completely define the characteristics of an ongoing, infinite hierarchical universe gives us a great deal of insight on both the general structure of the universe beyond the Big Bang, and the future course of events of our ongoing investigation of the same. As such, a Bayesian philosophy is the inconclusive equivalent of a Theory of Everything.

Here's a Bayesian Big Bang video with your truly at the wheel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILvjLMoyRm0

That's my schtick.

-Mike Harmon

[Profpat]

Hi Mike;

I viewed your video, and while interesting, I fail to see how you can use Bayes' Theorem to prove the universe infinite. At best given perfect information Bayes' Theorem could only give you a probability that the universe is infinite. Always less than 100% certainty.

Also using your logic on the hierarcal structure of the universe. I guess our universe would just be a little particle of a bigger universe, which itself being just a little particle to an even bigger universe etc. Like so many Russian stacking dolls. This I personally doubt.

Finally, I believe Man will eventually comprehend all there is in the cosmos. I have faith in our ability.

Best,

Pat

[GodofReason]

Hi Mike;

I viewed your video, and while interesting, I fail to see how you can use Bayes' Theorem to prove the universe infinite. At best given perfect information Bayes' Theorem could only give you a probability that the universe is infinite. Always less than 100% certainty.

Hey, ProfPat.

It is, of course, impossible prove the universe is infinite. How can you prove something never ends? In fact you can't even put a probability on it, not on infinity itself. A broad scale examination of Bayes theorem applied to the material universe indicates that all our semantic notions of space time, distance and direction etc etc etc are subject to expiration of scale. I strongly suspect that the universe is so diverse that we are not neurologically sufficient to even begin to comprehend anything about it beyond say another 40 orders of magnitude past what we see of it in now. (but I digress)

I establish a confidence that the universe is virtually infinite for human purposes. I think my exact words are that we should view it as "trillions of times lager than the part of it we can see," and "we should view it as virtually infinite". What I promote more heavily is the near-term Bayesian confidence (99% probability, see ref. below) that the Big Bang will turn out be both finite in extent and multiply manifest at the next greater hierarchical scale. For a slightly outdated numerical assessment see:

http://www.thegodofreason.com/rules-of-discovery.pdf

Also using your logic on the hierarcal structure of the universe. I guess our universe would just be a little particle of a bigger universe, which itself being just a little particle to an even bigger universe etc. Like so many Russian stacking dolls. This I personally doubt.

This Russian doll scenario is almost inevitable (it's already true from quarks to galaxy clusters) with the caveat I state above that there is an inevitable expiration of human concepts as we delve farther and farther afield. Just like expanding space/time is strange at large scales and quantum uncertainties (position/speed) are strange at small scales this strangeness factor, when projected with Bayes Theorem in both "directions", is likely to continue to the point that we have no current terminology sufficient to the description of the nature of reality at extremely distant scales. At a certain point the notion of hierarchy itself may be insufficient to the context that prevails.

Finally, I believe Man will eventually comprehend all there is in the cosmos. I have faith in our ability.

Most people agree with you. But I must insist that the contemporary belief that we can somehow comprehend the complete cosmos is belied by history. Each of our cosmologies failed precisely where they tried to terminate the hierarchy by presuming to be a complete and sufficient description, each of which turned out to be in fact only another Russian doll in the material hierarchy; the earth one of many planets; the sun one of many stars; the galaxy one of many galaxies; the Big Bang...? (not to mention the smaller stuff that conformed precisely to the hierarchy down to quarks during this same time period).

Currently we terminate the hierarchy by jumping from the data at hand to infinity in either direction of scale with data-starved theories that serve to explain everything based only on what we can see. Such theoretical leaps are currently embodied in inflation theory and the cosmological principle both of which try to bridge the data at hand to the infinitesimal and to the infinite, respectively, without being able to characterize the vast bulk of the spans they leap.

I'll post my updated article on the above scenario to the articles section.

-Mike Harmon

[Profpat]

Hi Mike;

I at first thought your educated opinions were dogma from you.

I think I heard if the universe is 100% flat then that would be pretty good evidence that it is infinite, however if there is the slightest curvature than that would be pretty good evidence that it is finite.

For what we have I think mankind will solve, if not all, than many of the mysteries of the universe. We are incredible clever little beasties. What with the laser, walking on the moon, genetic engineering, computers, symbionic transplants, cloning, satelites, etc, I sometimes think we are too clever.

Nature appears to have limits Mike. Dinosaurs could only get so large, and no larger. To get larger you needed to go into the sea. Mountains can only get so high before they fall in on themselves. While I have hundreds of trillions of cells and bacteria on and in me there is a limit. Even stars have a limit to there size before they become black holes.

I would like you to view my theory,An Idea, if you have time. It's located at :http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...2803-idea.html ) You'll have to access it through a PDF file or just go to post #40 on that thread. You can leave any questions or comments there.

Well once again welcome aboard.

Best,

Pat

[mkirkpatrick]

Hello Mike,and welcome to the forum,I will check out your link and report back,all the best for now.



warm regards michael.

[GodofReason]

Hi Mike;

I at first thought your educated opinions were dogma from you.

I get that a lot.

I think I heard if the universe is 100% flat then that would be pretty good evidence that it is infinite, however if there is the slightest curvature than that would be pretty good evidence that it is finite.

The universal curvature of space is based on relativity being complete and sufficient and to a lesser extent the cosmological principle. I contend that the evidence is more compatible with the probability that relativity is a special case descriptor under an immense background variable that is so locally consistent that it is inadvertently considered a constant (not necessarily the cosmological constant, but maybe it, yeah). So many presumptions are made and confirmed under the cosmological principle, that collectively they have begun to be used as mutual proof.

I sometimes think we are too clever.

I hear you.

Nature appears to have limits Mike. Dinosaurs could only get so large, and no larger. To get larger you needed to go into the sea. Mountains can only get so high before they fall in on themselves. While I have hundreds of trillions of cells and bacteria on and in me there is a limit. Even stars have a limit to there size before they become black holes.

Those are all material phenomena and one of my theses is that all material phenomena are indeed inherently limited in extent specifically, but in other ways as well (ie max velocity, min temp, etc). But I contend the context in which all material phenomena reside is not limited. Indeed I presume that the context of the universe is unbounded and as structurally diverse across it's indeterminate range as the region of it we can see is.

I would like you to view my theory,An Idea, if you have time. It's located at :http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...2803-idea.html ) You'll have to access it through a PDF file or just go to post #40 on that thread. You can leave any questions or comments there.

Will do.

All the best -Mike

[Profpat]

Hi Mike;

Since this is an introduction thread, you might want to post your beginning and video, under the Your Toe Theory threads where my An Idea is located at. There is more traffic there and you'll probably get more responses.

Best,

Pat