On a Mission

[Stella]

Hi all,

I'm an American currently on assignment overseas in the Middle East. So that would explain the time zone of my posts being different from the country listed

My mathematics knowledge is minimal compared to most of you in all probability, a good thing for me as I look forward to benefiting from opinions of those with higher mathematic ability. My interest is mainly conceptual, so I venture into the mathematical world only to come away with a greater conceptual understanding. Come on, admit it, you do too.

I've come here to expand my concepts of the TOE. What are the possibilities? My ultimate mission is childishly simple: I'd like to know what the universe really looks like. I'd like to be able to mentally journey to the reaches beyond our little rock, but it won't be satisfying or realistic until I can assure myself that these are not mere flights of the imagination. Not that the same is not still more important than knowledge. It must be, because that is our only vehicle that can make this journey. What a gift.

[SteveA]

Welcome to the site, Stella.

It appears that a lot of the discussions have headed in a metaphysical direction. "Everything" appears to include a bit more than just what can be seen and touched and there are many ways in which the manner in which one observes things can influence what is observed as well and there's not an easy way to detach things in that respect.

I enjoy trying to work with ideas that simply regard information, perception and learning - how is it that things are known to exist and what natural properties arise from the manners in which the properties of things are understood and interacted with? It's amazing to see how much can be derived from just some simple assumptions regarding how motions within a closed system can automatically imply fluidic properties and observations of resonance and periodic wavelengths and some simulations of these ideas have generated some quite interesting images that even resemble 3-D oceanscapes and/or landscapes as well, though in many ways those simply reflect some natural properties that arise from making observations from a stationary position and there seems to be no precise logical/mathematical description of how time and change can exist - it just appears to be a given, but where does it arise from and where is it going and what forms of blinders exist for the mind, and conscious perceptions.

Anyway, it's definitely a large picture, or alternately it may be simple but I'd have to say that personally it's been a lot of twists and turns over the years and doesn't resemble much of any of the preconceptions I began with

Have fun on the site, Stella.
Steve

[Stella]

Hi Steve,

Wow! The things you mentioned coincide with my first post about observing patterns of motion, rather than entropy and probability, in quantum mechanics. I sure hope you will reply, even if earnestly you are only amused by the crazy leap I made there. However, as you recall, even Einstein thought that the now-accepted theory by Max Born was a crazy leap. And the refutation of God playing dice goes ever on. Cheers

[SteveA]

I'm glad you enjoyed the post. I got a ways through posting a reply and accidently lost it ... too bad. I've got to get to sleep soon, but yes, I've been taking a similar approach of trying to just look at the manners in which we interprete motions in space and the properties that we assume space to possess and by adding some additional logical restrictions that would appear to apply as well, it seems quite a bit can be derived from that alone.

It would be great if there was a way to show that potentially someone sitting on a rock thousands of years ago just thinking about how it could all fit together might have been able to derive it without needing much more in the way of empirical evidence than just a common sense understanding of physical laws we can observe easily in terms of a first person perspective.

In many ways, I think we create our view of things "outward" from information over time and how we perceive things to be related and act relative to those beliefs, so in many ways a real "proof" is something that people have to construct or understand for themself - there's no way to show someone else what their own beliefs are and in that sense, it's definitely good that you've got interests you're pursuing because there's really nothing that can replace that.

Again, welcome and enjoy the site

(P.S. I think some form of real dice (not simulated random dice) could be required for time and change to exist, but on the other hand, the influence of those could potentially be made vanishingly small ... time is definitely a subject that appears precise logic can't quite get a handle on and some form of (impossible) 'loose end' seems to be involved. To me, it's seemed like something that even goes beyond magic in any conventional sense as most any funky storyline could potentially have some equivalent form of "physical laws" that could allow such to exist, but how anything can change is something that seems a purely creative and formless energy that can't be described as a deterministic/logical computation, but there are ways that macroscopically a statistical/random influence could be reduced).

[austintorn@aol.com]

I'd like to know what the universe really looks like.

At large, from 'on high', fitting everything into one image, the universe looks like it has lost all of its variability—a sort of strings but uniform kind of foam.

As for coming back to ground to see its details, I once took a road trip through the universe:

TO THE END(S) OF THE UNIVERSE

I took a road trip
Through the universe recently,
Smoking some pot
And playing the radio loud.

Holy-moly, there’s nothing holy out there.
In fact, it’s a very uncongenial place for life.
I’d much rather be in Australia

96% of it was useless
Dark energy and dark matter.
The rest was mostly rocks gases and dust.
Dangerous radiation zapped all over the place.
And it was fricken freezing!

Oh, what I would have given to be in Canada.

Whatever designed the universe
Certainly didn’t have life in mind.
It even took evolution billions of years
To fine-tune us to the earth.

Then we nearly got wiped out
By huge disasters right and left,
Even once shrinking back down
To a population of around 2000.

I saw the graveyards of stars
And some stellar nurseries, too.
All kinds of energy swirled about—
When it wasn’t exploding and wreaking havoc.

I stopped to eat at the restaurant
At the end of the universe,
On a moon,
But it had no atmosphere,
Plus all the food had been microwaved,
By the CMBR.

What a wasteland
Of a wilderness of wilds
Of a whole bunch of crap
That nearly goes on forever
In every direction.

This was as much of a place
Unsuited for life that there ever could be.

I’m back, thank my lucky stars,
Noting that, 14 billion years
After the initial chaos, here we are,
Having beaten the odds.

Well, someone had to!
We won the universal lottery jackpot.

Oh cripes,
Here comes a humongous asteroid!
Darn, all that luck for nothing.
Double ‘00’ has come up.

It was only a matter of time.

[SteveA]

That's a great example of how observational biases can be seen to be rather selective.

What does a universe look like that's uninhabitable or unsupportive of any form of observation? Are there objects that exist as interacting via the same EM forces we "happen" to use as well in such a universe?

It would appear to require pure faith to believe that.

Of all the 'luck' that Earth just happens to be a place supportive of abilities to observe it ... what are the odds of that?!

[austintorn@aol.com]

Eternity sports great odds.

[Graybeard]

That's a great example of how observational biases can be seen to be rather selective.

What does a universe look like that's uninhabitable or unsupportive of any form of observation? Are there objects that exist as interacting via the same EM forces we "happen" to use as well in such a universe?

It would appear to require pure faith to believe that.

Of all the 'luck' that Earth just happens to be a place supportive of abilities to observe it ... what are the odds of that?!

It doesn't matter whatsoever that the odds are almost impossible. 'Almost Impossible' is the subjective view that distorts the objective. As long as the odds are possible, and not impossible, then given the amount of runs (time) required ... they MUST come up.

They arise thru circumstance, and not thru some plan or mission ...... they are just a combination of chance and necessity ??

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

It doesn't matter whatsoever that the odds are almost impossible. 'Almost Impossible' is the subjective view that distorts the objective. As long as the odds are possible, and not impossible, then given the amount of runs (time) required ... they MUST come up.

Yes, the only things that would be truly impossible are things that never happen. Something that's possible, as you say, MUST happen.

They arise thru circumstance, and not thru some plan or mission ...... they are just a combination of chance and necessity ??

cool bananas ... greg

One way of looking at it might be that the universe, as something that can be experienced and comprehended by oneself is only random to the extent that it exists with such forms.

In that case the question of randomness would move toward the question of to what extent ones form of comprehension and observation are random ... I assume that's something that only oneself would have much of a hope of answering. (Though I can imagine other manners of perceiving things, there are some aspects of thought or comprehension that would appear impossible to avoid being influencial, unless something could be simply known and never learned - learning itself appears to impose specific restrictions and properties regarding the forms of systems that can be learned, though something like innate knowledge or intuition could provide aspects that are outside things that are of a learned form).

That's an interesting mix that possibly describes a lot - an energy as the selection of a possibility from within the set of all possibilities compatible with an observer.

[Stella]

I like what you've said...about beliefs it is true that perception and behavior is relative to them...and there is plentiful evidence of inability for different minds to come to an agreement on these points. Challenge of beliefs is a good thing, for the whole purpose of having a belief is to have something to challenge either for confirmation or denial. The loss of a belief and gain of truth is a fortunate exchange. They are a critical starting point and unlimited potential can be tapped based on the willingness to have them challenged. Traveling as I have I've noticed more and more that culture places great and often unfair demands on a person's belief system. Sort of depriving one of a tabula rasa in which to start from, and instead placing before them a tapestry of givens that must be painstakingly unwoven.

But if it could be shown that someone living at any point in time could start with a tabula rasa and discern truth based on appearances, I would be dubious of that as well. The fact is that we are all traveling at light speed, but our physical travel is mitigated by our ride through time. Not exactly intuitive. The most interesting of all the dichotomies is that of the willingness with which we embrace Einstein and relativity but recoil at the prefaces of quantum mechanics. Even Einstein recoiled. Why do we cling to the belief that particles should have predetermined behavior but not mind having our perceptions of time and space completely unraveled? Is there some instinctive violation happening here, or have we simply failed to challenge our belief systems properly about the magical way that entropy works to achieve certain ends? It could be that too much predetermination would cause many wonderful events to be impossible.