Simple common sense

[THoR]

The TOE is obviously a quest for the answer to two enigmatic questions: How was the universe created and when did it begin?

Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into existence by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition.

But consider this: Only things that exist can act or be acted upon - change or be changed.

On the surface, this simple assertion seems to be an unnecessary iteration of basic common sense, but in fact, it challenges a primary doctrine of contemporary scientific and theological wisdom. It implies that change (aka cause and effect) is derived from the phenomenon of existence. No phenomenon can be derived from its own subordinate derivative, so the reverse cannot be true. It means the Universe was not "created" and it never had a "beginning" - not with Genesis and not with a Big Bang. Unless the assertion is wrong, the only logical conclusion is that the existence of the cosmos isn't temporal in nature.

(Authors Note: If you didn't just experience an Epiphany, then your Epiphone is out of order and you should immediately call for repair.)

The premise of creation resolves into an endless redundancy:

The process of change involves two basic elements: a cause and an effect. You can't have one without the other, so if the cosmos was created, it must have been caused by something. But the inference of any progenitor violates the initial contention that nothing pre-existed the process of creation. And even if you ignore this glaring discrepancy, if everything that exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been the product of some predecessor, which, in turn, must have been predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

Suspending the laws of nature is contrary to logic:

There are, of course, those who would suggest that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a timeless, featureless primal void because the existence of 'nothing' would ostensibly require no justification. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the Earth in an act of divine inspiration. Contemporary cosmologists tout the progressive red-shift of light from distant galaxies as proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the canons of physics as we know them today.

You may freely choose to repeal the laws of nature in favor of whatever belief system you might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to profess that your argument is rational. Once logic and reason are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one exemption can be conceded, why shouldn't everything in the cosmos be allowed the same concession?

So how do you explain the physical presence of the cosmos?

Cause and effect (change) is a process. Processes are governed by fundamental laws of nature called principles. If existence engenders cause and effect, then it logically follows that the architecture of existence must be based upon a principle instead of a process.

And such a principle does; indeed, exist. It is the prevailing dynamic that governs the domain of cause and effect. It is found at the heart and soul of every equation. It is a familiar axiom, universally known and accepted. Its influence is ubiquitous, yet since the advent of scientific inquiry, its real significance has been overlooked and undiscovered.

Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lies hidden in plain sight.

(Sorry - too long to post): http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/existence.htm

[labelwench]

An interesting thread start, THoR.

Just wanted to let you know that I had no luck with the link, in the event that you may decide to investigate and repost same.

Regards,

LW

[THoR]

An interesting thread start, THoR.

Just wanted to let you know that I had no luck with the link, in the event that you may decide to investigate and repost same.

Regards,

LW

Tks for the hedzup. It was the last backslash that caused the problem. Corrected.
THoR

[SteveA]

Here are a few thoughts that you might find related:

1) We can't logically create something from nothing, hence it appears we must logically begin with something (whether or not that was the case).
2) As a potential source of this, there could exist an inherent creativity, source of information, or preexisting structure.
3) Logically a thing remains a thing and does not become something else (a logical version of change would appear to already require the potential for such a change be present, hence the object in its various forms, along with a deterministic manner of change would be needed to define what that specific object is, and so it never would have truly changed in that sense).
4) It would appear possible that something illogical and not with a specific form in any sense could cause or be the source of logic and form as nothing would appear to specifically deny this (it would be a paradox to try to confine something without a specific form to only be of a specific form).
5) An unpredicted change has an inherent component that can't be compared with anything else. It's unique.
6) All unique things can be compared as being non-identical, different or unequal (if two things were truly identical, they would already be the same thing, so it's a given that simply being able to witness more than a single thing indicates that there are differences and it's actually redundant for me to say "unique thing")
7) All those differences or inequalities can be (ironically) considered identical or indistinguishable. (for example, the fact that there is a difference between an apple and an orange can be equally said to be true of the fact that a tree is not the same as daytime - from dissimilarity or inequality we have equalities and identities)
Those differences arise from comparisons. Which comparisons are selected is subjectively determined.
9) Making comparisons between things does not fundamentally change what they are, hence there can exist a common "objective" space that does not change.
10) Memory (or space) allows those differences to be counted (they are already quantized into units).
11) Detecting differences is the fundamental manner in which time is experienced.

So basically, we can find in this most all fundamental properties necessary for a quantized and subjective space time, witnessing a static universe of physical laws arising from distinct units that are unique, yet subjectively united (as determined by attention) into the common property of differences or inequalities that are the fundamental units of time.

For example, if we say that A != B and B != C and A != C, well we can also declare that these comparisons are subjective and measured at a common observation point in which the detection of a difference was made and hence all these inequalities are shared at a common point and can be treated identically (except in the order in which they were perceived, which is basically the same as saying when they were observed to have transitioned in time or where they lie in a space of motion). The space is discrete and uniform and we can say that (A != B) = (B != C) = (A != C) and see these as three binary contrasts. It aligns well with your ideas of fundamental symmetry with properties arising from complimentary contrasts and with Lloyds triadic logic and it ties in with my discrete thread in time ideas. Also, every coherent form of change in time appears to possess both components that are repeatative to describe specific forms, as well as components that are unique in order to describe change and this can arise from these pairs of inequalities as well where new elements can be added over time, but only in terms of contrasts or differences with prior components.

The smallest unit of space or time is a detectable difference or change between two objects or states. From there, these quantities would likely be subjectively accumulated into various properties on macroscales.

Such a model would place space and time as subjective, yet the fundamental properties of what changes within space and time as objective (though some attachments to these would still appear to be necessary).

No, none of my comments or suggestions here provide a clear view of why the specifics at any time though they could give some insights as to how properties of continuity over time can appear (which is really the most important component anyway - it's not where you've come from, but where you're going that matters).

As a sidenote, the differences between things appear related to the manner in which perceptions operate. Memory and intelligence could be considered associated with the construction of that space of equality of differences. (Memory and space would operate the same in being the framework in which these inequalities are contained and intelligence, in terms of recognizing patterns and repetitions would then be closely related to the measurements of these equalities and operate upon quantities of these in various forms (potentially determined by which common components are being used to measure an inequality - for example, A != B and A != C implies a structure of 3 vertexes connected by two line segments).

This also gives 2 properties of these relationships to look at though with a complimentary view (giving us 3 dimensions?). We have the initial quantity of inequalities (similar to time), as well as possible common components within a comparison (such as the common As in the above inequalities) and then additionally the view of this space in complimentary terms as the form of unequal comparisons (basically we have an implicit A=A, but we also have the complimentary version of this in that A is specifically not B nor C, nor D etc. This gives a reciprocal perspective with complimentary features that could tie in well with some theories of reciprocal space and time views).

Notice also that "spacetime" is actually 3 dimensional and not 4 dimensional. There are 2-D surfaces of interaction that, over time, extend into a 3rd dimension. The 4d version of spacetime in many physical theories has an extra dimension that's unnecessary to describe "first person" observations.

[labelwench]

Thank you, Thor. I was too busy earlier to toy with the link and experiment with it's attributes. I am enjoying the reading and found the following to be well stated, IMO, and so have pulled it out to post here. For myself, I take it on the evidence of my senses, that 'I', 'Others', and my immediate surrounds 'exist'.

'Infinity' is one of those concepts that I accept as having no 'edges', and therefore beyond my ability to define or comprehend beyond the reasoning that all 'just is'. We can study the details, yet the overview is impossible to attain, IMO.

There's a facet of reality which doesn't lend itself to rational analysis - it's called 'infinity'.

Infinity is an attribute of nature which absolutely defies logical interpretation. It's not exempt from the laws of nature and it's not contrary to reason, but it lies beyond the domain of logic because it's not defined - and logic requires definition.


There is a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, but there is no point - however distant - where the Universe ends. Some mistakenly believe that if there is a finite distance between every pair of points then the farthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no 'farthest' and there is no 'all' - and the fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept.

[austintorn@aol.com]

That's the TOE, Thor.

All is a Balance of Nothing, a net zero, for Nothing is the only candidate for the prime mover, as it was always there, is now, and ever will be.

It is so unstable that it ever jiggles and fluctuates opposite particle pairs into being everywhere all the time, for a flat out total absolute state (a lack of anything) cannot be; in fact, it would take a God to contain it and keep it from doing anything.

There's no way that any kind of stuff could be have been just sitting around already made without ever having been made, and, secondly, we'd then have to ask what determined its precise amount, etc.


There can be only two states of matter: regular and antimatter, due to the balance.

Only two stable particles can form: electron(negative), proton(positive), due to the balance. The non-particle of the photon is neutral since it contains both positive and negative (since it exists outside of time, it cannot have a charge, perhaps, for it was time symmetry that Noether used to prove conservation of energy).

The plus/minus polarity of the time/energy dimension (time is a difference dimension—the difference of space, not a summative one) nullifies the summative dimension of 3-D disance. Result:zero.

[Meem]

I can't admit to reading a whole lot of this. But the idea of everything having an opposite, like particle x and x-, and infering something about matter and anitmatter not being true opposites because if they came in contact, they would just cancel each other out as in poof, suddenly nothing ... I know a it's a run on thought ... while makin claim to such pairs/sets existing ... begs a question ... to me. Why is there imbalance, and why is anything here if these true pairs are seeking each other out ... to balance? I mean, that is what true sets/pairs should do? I'll have to read more later. I'm sleepy.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Perhaps most of the opposite particle pairs (matter-antimatter) emitted by the vacuum-quantum-foam-fluctuation-zero-point-energy do go "poof", canceling, but the few [one in a zilion] that don't go "poof" endure by some further interactions and thus amount to our universe and perhaps to some large antimatter areas somewhere, too.

[THoR]

Here are a few thoughts that you might find related:

1) We can't logically create something from nothing, hence it appears we must logically begin with something (whether or not that was the case).

Seems you entirely missed the point. Existence is not a function of cause and effect (creation), indeed, cause and effect is a function of existence.
Why would you presume exisence is 'created'? Reciprocity theory shows the phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process.

[SteveA]

Seems you entirely missed the point. Existence is not a function of cause and effect (creation), indeed, cause and effect is a function of existence. Reciprocity theory shows the phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process.

[/quote]

I thought my comments were rather consistent. Notice that you can't prove this. It must be assumed to be true. You can't apply logic to something that does not (yet) exist.

My comment was made with this in mind and that's why I stated in paranthesis "whether or not that was the case".

It seems to make perfect sense that we must preassume the existence of something with specific properties before we can apply any logic to its evolution.

How do you logically create something from nothing? I don't see how it's possible.

Weren't we talking about the same thing? Maybe you missed my point?

Here was your previous quote:

Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into existence by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition.

But consider this: Only things that exist can act or be acted upon - change or be changed.

Why would you presume exisence is 'created'?

I didn't. You assumed I assumed this. I said:

1) We can't logically create something from nothing, hence it appears we must logically begin with something (whether or not that was the case).

It doesn't matter what really happened. There are no witnesses. Anything we attempt to discuss based upon logic must have some foundation to work with, hence we must create such logic, whether or not such a creation was part of the universe.

I also tend to agree that things have likely "been around" (and that's why it surprised me that you misunderstood my first comment as I hadn't intended it to be taken in that fashion), but we should be honest as well and similarly the universe is not necessarily everything that exists and it's possible that the universe was created by something else as well (I do believe there's an infinite processes involved, and it could be that the specific properties of this beyond our ability to observe or put into a precise finite logical description). Also, a comment Austin made before stuck with me - something uncause could potentially create cause or similarly that something illogical is potentially capable of constructing something logical. Information obviously exists, though logic doesn't work with anything more than it's given. Similarly, "randomness" (as much as I dislike the word ) appears capable of doing or creating something non-random, because we can't specifically constrain randomness to being of a specific form or only capable of generating things that have no logical structure.

So, yes, there's room for either possibility but I agree that for a ToE we have to begin with something and not nothing, otherwise there's nothing to work with.