[austintorn@aol.com]

On To the Real TOE

Spacetime as an Emergent Phenomenon

Not so many scientists are naive realists any more, for the “elementary” particles are thought to emerge from the quantum realm and are therefore not straight forward physical realities, although they lead to stars, atoms, molecules, cells, and our own glorious complexity; however, we are after the TOE itself.

The geometry of space is not fixed, and spacetime is certainly dynamical and contingent—Einstein’s great discovery that space evolves in time; therefore, we need a TOE about what makes up space, not what happens in space, such as strings wriggling.

A theory of what moves in space would be background-dependent, as in string theory that chooses an appropriate fixed background to obtains the results it wants. These kinds of theories have a “truth” that derives from their choice of background, but, the background is not really fixed at all—it's dynamic.

A theory of what makes space would be a background-independent theory. A purely quantum mechanical theory is needed that shows how space emerges from a deeper level of reality in which space does not even exist—surely the ultimate of background-independence.

Many quantum gravity scientists think that space emerges as an approximation of something discrete, the apparently smooth continuum of space being an illusion, like a movie or the smoothness of water, and that causality is fundamental, especially below the level of space’s emergence.

The keys are emergence of space from the quantum world, and discreteness and fundamental causality within the quantum world.

One approach is non commutative geometry (AB is not equal to BA), since you can’t measure a particle’s position and momentum at once.

The casual dynamical triangulations model uses simple building blocks, each of which represents a simple causal process. The quantum spacetime is then a sequence of possible spaces that succeed one another in some kind of “time.”

Whatever the case or approach, it seems almost out of reach, but it must be there that the ultimate TOE resides.

The ultimate simplicity is probably not astonishing; nor is it the time or place to introduce some infinite complexity of an alien or Creator type being, for that just starts the descent to simplicity all over again.

The ultimate simplicity could be eternal with no beginning—it’s possible—but that leaves the mystery of how come it was the right stuff, not to mention how it could have always been there.

“Nothing”, without any potential whatsoever, seems to be an impossible state to maintain, since there is something.

Now, why would the quantum world be where the buck stops. Perhaps it generates substance through possibility and probability, ending the regress of smaller substance causing larger substance, because, well, we have to throw out the rule book of physical laws of form and time. What could the formless-timeless do? Anything and everything, I suppose.

Now, what?

[N0B0DY]

"The geometry of space is not fixed, and spacetime is certainly dynamical and contingent—Einstein’s great discovery that space evolves in time; therefore, we need a TOE about what makes up space, not what happens in space, such as strings wriggling."

"'Nothing', without any potential whatsoever, seems to be an impossible state to maintain, since there is something."

I think figuring out what that something is will render the TOE in its sought-after totality, and it seems as though from your first statement above that you've figured it out already. Mind you, if you put "space evolves in time" together with "what makes up space" we would have the simple, ockham's-razored TOE based on space itself created by time - instead of time being the result of bodies in motion through space, motion of space - simply motion (time) is space.

[mkirkpatrick]

Great thread Austin,I see the answer to the TOE lying squarely within us,in effect we are the embodiment of the TOE,and see (space) as no more than a mental concept,(much like
a dream).



regards michael.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Fundamental Possibility may exists, and if so,
is the ultimate basis of reality,
and has always existed,
since nothing can come of nothing.
It is fundamentally every possibility at once in superposition.

Possibility projects our local reality—space—
the penultimate reality—via electrons, quarks, and such, and/or strings, a hologram, consciousness, or whatever.

All is as it is in our local reality because it works.

— Beyond Local Reality —

Time, space, stuff, change, and form were real-ized from
The Fundamental Possibility,
Becoming our penultimate reality—
One possible from all probabilities.


— Quantum-like Superposition is Real —

Our reality came not from nothing,
But existed always as possibility,
One that amounts to something workable,
Among all in superposition.


— The First Impossibility —

No form of our penultimate realness
Could have existed alone before
Everything was quantum-known-all-at-once,
For what could have made the choice among many?


— The Second Impossibility —

Nor came it from an absolute nothing,
Since there can be no such “thing” at all,
So, since either way is impossible,
Fundamental Possibility is.


(A Discussion)

“I’ve been thinking about Fundamental Possibility—it solves a lot of problems!” he exclaimed.”
“Like what?” she inquired.
“Like how the penultimate reality, the fundamental substance(s), could still have existed forever, or at least in its potential form, and how its particular form was specifically one that worked instead of one that didn’t.”
“It existed forever because time was born with it, from possibility, the both of them always there as some kind of potential.” she replied.
“Yes, there was what just what is, rather than what was not—for a nothingness could never be, for there is surely something here.”
“The fundamental substances were the most probable of all possibilities,” she surmised.
“Yes, and perhaps it was the only possibility that would work.”
“Or the others fizzled and failed by going nowhere, sort of a survival of the fittest of all the scenarios of consequences of what could serve as space and reality.”
“And Fundamental Possibility had to exist, rather than not, for that’s all there could be. Yet, I’m trying to adjust to this new way of thinking.”
“True,” fundamental Possibility is a bit like your mind sifting through eventualities of possible actions, only Possibility forms substances. It may even be forming some now, here and there, but on a lesser basis than when the universe expanded, for then all was wide open. Of course, this Possibility must remain simple in a way, that being the price of being Fundamental, but, you, a 13 billion-year complex composite, are much more advanced, and that is where real meaningful life occurs. If Fundamental Possibility could talk, which it can’t, for it is not a system, it might say something much the same as you would now in your quest for the theory of everything:

I’ll follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends
Until cornered where the truth is hiding.

And now you’ve arrived in that dark corner and so you can live life better by knowing who you are:

Some simple substance(s) gave rise to everything,
Chosen as probable above the rest—
Knowing at once that it would function well—
The most promising—the possible ones.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY "The geometry of space is not fixed, and spacetime is certainly dynamical and contingent—Einstein’s great discovery that space evolves in time; therefore, we need a TOE about what makes up space, not what happens in space, such as strings wriggling." "'Nothing', without any potential whatsoever, seems to be an impossible state to maintain, since there is something." I think figuring out what that something is will render the TOE in its sought-after totality, and it seems as though from your first statement above that you've figured it out already. Mind you, if you put "space evolves in time" together with "what makes up space" we would have the simple, ockham's-razored TOE based on space itself created by time - instead of time being the result of bodies in motion through space, motion of space - simply motion (time) is space.

Correction; fundamental matter motion is space... The fundamental matter/FS is, or must be, by the conservation of decay mechanics, the photon, and must be made of a fundamental state of hydrogen, H^3, H^4, H^5, or whatever pre-plasma state of... It all burns and fuses, and hydrogen is first, so what else...? It's the only fundamental substance, infinitesimal enough, to fit the theoretical physics...

Regards,
Lloyd

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

I could agree with that, Lloyd, but I think it depends on the context. If for a particular elemental system, setting the fundamental parameters is a necessity for that system to exist or function as observed, then I would agree; but if posited as an irreducible system or factor of a system, I disagree with all scalar limits other than absolute zero.

The point referred to is that a point in time is synonymous to a point in space, and any extension of time equals an extension of space. When we can discern through recent research the necessary correlation between how depth- or dimensional-perception is consciously observed and the time factor involved, we can realize what space consists of.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com On To the Real TOE Spacetime as an Emergent Phenomenon Not so many scientists are naive realists any more, for the “elementary” particles are thought to emerge from the quantum realm and are therefore not straight forward physical realities, although they lead to stars, atoms, molecules, cells, and our own glorious complexity; however, we are after the TOE itself. The geometry of space is not fixed, and spacetime is certainly dynamical and contingent—Einstein’s great discovery that space evolves in time; therefore, we need a TOE about what makes up space, not what happens in space, such as strings wriggling. A theory of what moves in space would be background-dependent, as in string theory that chooses an appropriate fixed background to obtains the results it wants. These kinds of theories have a “truth” that derives from their choice of background, but, the background is not really fixed at all—it's dynamic. A theory of what makes space would be a background-independent theory. A purely quantum mechanical theory is needed that shows how space emerges from a deeper level of reality in which space does not even exist—surely the ultimate of background-independence. Many quantum gravity scientists think that space emerges as an approximation of something discrete, the apparently smooth continuum of space being an illusion, like a movie or the smoothness of water, and that causality is fundamental, especially below the level of space’s emergence. The keys are emergence of space from the quantum world, and discreteness and fundamental causality within the quantum world. One approach is non commutative geometry (AB is not equal to BA), since you can’t measure a particle’s position and momentum at once. The casual dynamical triangulations model uses simple building blocks, each of which represents a simple causal process. The quantum spacetime is then a sequence of possible spaces that succeed one another in some kind of “time.” Whatever the case or approach, it seems almost out of reach, but it must be there that the ultimate TOE resides. The ultimate simplicity is probably not astonishing; nor is it the time or place to introduce some infinite complexity of an alien or Creator type being, for that just starts the descent to simplicity all over again. The ultimate simplicity could be eternal with no beginning—it’s possible—but that leaves the mystery of how come it was the right stuff, not to mention how it could have always been there. “Nothing”, without any potential whatsoever, seems to be an impossible state to maintain, since there is something. Now, why would the quantum world be where the buck stops. Perhaps it generates substance through possibility and probability, ending the regress of smaller substance causing larger substance, because, well, we have to throw out the rule book of physical laws of form and time. What could the formless-timeless do? Anything and everything, I suppose. Now, what?

Nothing is latent potential. like static electricity, when a polarity is created, something happens out of nothing.

[Drifter]

If fall there is is nothing, even the concepts of pitch black and void, as soon as any thing appears, there is the instantaneous veracity/certitude of a background, speculation.

mathematically we would be going from none to two, counting the non as an a apriori first.

i.e. We already have 9 mo.s of a priori existence[reality] before we 'come into existence'. So we have an essential nature and a personal nature. Essential nature is what we are and personal nature is as we appear as.

This is best seen as the I-persective and the it-persective.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, when you force the limits of knowledge to "No Description Possible", there's no description possible. So, in order to have any form of perception and intelligence, we use what is describable, and when talking about science, it must be at the least, describable by some sort of a-priori or posteriori logic and or math. So, exit the meta-descriptions of nonsense and non-existence, and enter the real a-priori world...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I could agree with that, Lloyd, but I think it depends on the context.[A-priori systems have no context, allowed..] If for a particular elemental system, setting the fundamental parameters is a necessity for that system to exist or function as observed, then I would agree; but if posited as an irreducible system or factor of a system, I disagree with all scalar limits other than absolute zero.[A-priori logically non-existent, does not exist... Get real, use real math and concepts...] The point referred to is that a point in time is synonymous to a point in space, and any extension of time equals an extension of space.[Distance is distance] When we can discern through recent research the necessary correlation between how depth- or dimensional-perception is consciously observed and the time factor involved, we can realize what space consists of.

There are no necessary correlations, necessary for ordinary peoples' minds to function a-priori logically correctly___They just do...

[N0B0DY]

Of course we base our understanding on the empirical and theoretical, Lloyd, but only the mind can traverse into the hidden realms that you are invoking with the proposition of the infinite and infinitesimal - neither observable, but nevertheless deducible - which is similar to extending such positions to the absolute level.

As said in other threads, the inverse laws can be extended infinitely without ever "becoming" zero. Yet, if always remains perfectly symmetrical at net absolute zero, then any and all oppositional quanta and qualia are simultaneously absolute. When both the x-y axes merge, and the highest and lowest, and longest and shortest, are indistinguishable, then we have the absolute state of the universe as the basis for all relative phenomena rendered by theoretical and empirical science.