I like the way this question is posed: if a ToN can challenge God, instead of a ToE.

No, it's not, and the fact that you can only think of it in terms of an object, thing or substance is the problem in a nutshell — Wayfarer

I might think about it as an object but don't feel it like an object. It's that what's inside the object, like a pain in my toe.

NOT STUFF — Wayfarer

All right then: the non materialistic kind of stuff residing inside matter. Can't that be stuff? To be known only from the inside? And thus not knowable from the outside by examining just the matter aspect?

Reality itself has a fundamentally subjective aspect, which is intrinsic, but is never knowable by objective means — Wayfarer

You mean stuff that resides inside matter? So that we indeed are what we eat?

It's likely that there's no non physical realm that can have any effect on the physical realm simply because it's not able to perform physically; so, I suggest that all that goes on is purely physical. — PoeticUniverse

Maybe by means of hidden variables gods can communicate, though I prefer to be left alone!

Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there. :smile: — Gnomon

I agree 100%! String theory even invented a string landscape with 10exp500 possible universes to be chosen from at random, which one day just must give rise to our universe. It (ST) merely places it's ignorance in a virtually infinite domain. Which only goes to show how infinitely stupid the theory is. Even if..., then from where that landscape made its entrance? In a sense that model looks like a model of God. On closer look... no! There must Indeed something out there. And the universe is proof.

The next quotations are indirect, by medium T.Clark, from Collingswood.

There is an objective reality independent of human thought. — T Clark

True. But different human thoughts can refer to different objective realities, a concept that's hard to grasp for western thought somehow.

Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction. — T Clark

Obviously.

Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere. — T Clark

Not true. General relativity didn't apply in Newton's time, and doesn't apply everywhere nowadays. Likewise for Newtonian mechanics. Statistical thermodynamics only applies in a specific range of experiments, same for the classical approach. Sometimes they overlap. Old-fashion hadron physics doesn't involve quarks. These were constructed within the quark model (you might say that they were always there, but that's in retrospect only). Etcetera.

There is no absolute point of view or scale. — T Clark

There is. Dependent on which theory one prefers.

The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark

That's highly questionable and not really a metaphysical rule, except that it talks about stuff beyond the physical stuff. But there is no talk about that stuff. No metareligious chat. Metaphysics talks about physical stuff.

I'm not sure if you think this yourself, but you like the book it's written in. It looks as if you stated the stuff above yourself, but I'm aware you didn't.

So here's the first question. Is this a fair game? Can you prove it? Can you work out the minimal probability that you'll win? — InPitzotl

The game is not fair in that the chance on winning and losing is the same, if played fair. Well, they differ a bit as there are relative very few more different cards combinations. So the chance of getting two the same is slightly less. If 75 percent of the time one looses, then the play ain't fair, although you can always say that it's a coincidence. Paying 2$ and 1$ ain't fair, as the chances are the almost the same.

If what you mean is that for a given investment of effort, Newtonian methods will more often than not yield better results than Relativistic methods, then we're saying the same thing in different ways — onomatomanic

That's what I mean indeed. Sometimes the universe is classical absolute Newtonian, in other situations it's classical relativistic Einsteinian.

Newton's model is lower-precision than Einstein's, but also lower-effort. Pick whichever fits a given situation, and don't worry about that elusive concept called "truth". — onomatomanic

I don't think so. In calculating complicated three or four body problems in classical mechanics a huge effort can be invested. GR is not even able to approach this problem. There is more precision in the Newtonian approach than in the GR approach.

In string theory, the idea is some dimensions are curled up and therefore "tiny". — Benkei

The only curling up that is done in string theory is mathematical. Like in Kaluza Klein theory a 4th dimension was introduced for the EM interaction.

A 5d metric (one for time) was introduced of which extra 8 components, 4 independent ones, on top of the 6 in the 4d metric (ignoring diagonal components).
These are supposed to induce a metric on a small curled up circle, present at every point in spacetime, perpendicular to it as it were. The form is a circle as this corresponds to U(1) symmetry (used in locally gauging the charged field, from which the EM arises when demanding that the Lagrangian of the charged Dirac field is invariant under this locally gauging; which was still unknown when Kaluza and Klein made their contribution, but the U(1), circle group, symmetry was already known in classical theory on EM, so; their whole framework is purely classical, but an analogue of it was used in string theory, the circle replaced by Calabi-Yau manifolds, to account for the symmetries of other interactions, and point particles replaced by strings) from which the field arises.

It was thought that particles, on top of their motion through large 3d space move on this these small circles too, to account for EM. I can't see though how a motion on these small circles results in a motion in 3d though. The EM force induces motion in 3d, and this isn't what is happening in the theory.

There is merely an extra dimension introduced to put information of the EM field on, and is not a real tiny spatial dimension. Of course you can say that when a particle moves through the bulk it moves in the small one too, and the 5d metric indeed gave rise to the Maxwell equations, but the motion in the curled up 5th dimension (,4th spatial), but the extra metric, being the components of the metric of the curled up circle stays just a mathematical one, containing the information of the field, by which the particle moves through the 3d bulk.

Likewise, the curled up dimensions of string theory are mathematical structures, like a Calabi-Yau manifold, which seemed to fit the bill to incorporate the U(1)×SU(2)×U(3) symmetries of the two other forces, of which the weak force (claimed to emerge from the breaking of the SU(1)×SU(2) symmetry by the Higgs field) might not be fundamental though.

All this extra stuff, together with strings and their vibrations, corresponding to charges, corresponds to a mathematical extension of space. Be it 6 or 26 dimension-like. The string offers a nice way out from that nasty concept of point particles.

More likely it seems that particles are curled up 3d structures, tiny Planckian spheres, obtained from curling three dimension of a 6d space up in a 7d space, like a circle on a cilinder. The can all be on top of each other without infinities occurring. The concept of a black hole singularity would disappear and only be approximate. An infinite self energy of charged particles would not have to be renirmalized, as it's not infinite.

What's the MAYA? Your name has a connection... Should I read all comments?

That's why I don't believe in BB and "infinitely dense mass" because it doesn't make sense to me. — SpaceDweller

The concept of the infinite dense is problematic indeed. A classical view on spacetime with point particles in it is bound to get into trouble, be it in a black hole, be it in a big bang model. Empty space is not empty though, and particles not pointlike (like in string theory, which gives trouble and is just math, so another picture of a non-pointlike particle is needed, where all particles are able to sit on top of each other, like circles on a cilinder.

This can save the BB, in combination with virtual quantum fields, everywhere and always present. Why you don't like it?

You're saying matter and energy come to be out of virtual particles and their tensions? — SpaceDweller

The virtual particle fields (only two, basically, but that's not so important now), concentrated not in a point but on a small Planck-sized spatial structure, are the cause of negative curvature, and this negative curvature pushes the particles into a real state, a bit like Hawing radiates from the event horizon of a black hole.

Look at the singularity as imposed on the negatively curved part of the structure in this video (ignore the positively curved part(:



Imagine the sizes Planckian.

If you know how it works, you will discover that the 5, 7, or even 26 extra dimensions in string theory are purely mathematical, unlike the 4d spacetime of general relativity. For explaining dark energy an extra dimension is welcome.

Therefore no lack of first cause or mention of that.
First cause in BB is unknown because of "infinitely dense mass" as an explanation before plank epoch. — SpaceDweller

At the singularity there was no mass yet. Only an extreme high spatial tension on the fluctuating field (which means, the virtual particle fields). The extreme high negative curvature (DE!) pushed that virtual stuff into real stuff, and fluctuating time got its entropy-based, irreversible direction. There was no infinitely dense mass as an explanation before the Planck epoch. There was only a Planck-sized fluctuation which took of inflationary when fluctuating time fluctuated above a threshold (and below).

lol me neither, string theory and multiverse is a good story for kids before sleep. — SpaceDweller

:lol:

Indeed. And also for me...

And "flat earth" isn't conspiracy either except it's labeled as such, obviously it's clear the earth is not flat plate, but in old times no one was aware that the earth is round and that it's not the center of universe, not even the church. — SpaceDweller

Well... If I look around me the world is neither flat nor global. The same can be said about cosmologists, being mostly flat spacers.

The thing with Flat-Earthers is that they see the imprinting, imposing, of the globe on the people as a conspiracy.

What do you mean by this? how can there be BB if the universe never stops expanding? — SpaceDweller

There is a model, the pyrotechnic universe, in which our universe is a 3d brane in a 4d space, and there is another such 3d brane floating near. If the galaxies have accelerated away from each other, to infinity, the two virtual empty 3d spaces approach each other, which results in a new big bang. The two move away again and inflation is stopped, after the same happens again (expansion of stars and accelerating away after).

See here: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pyrotechnic-Universe-Kallosh-Kofman/48c65d9dfd514d6fc92d9e52da8d28b913f4c49c

I'm not in love with this model, based on string theory, in which I don't believe, but have a somewhat similar view. The two universes have to approach each other everywhere to an incredibly high precision. I like the negative tension part though and the embedding in a higher dimension. Could explain dark energy.

PU has truly a Natural gift! He senses the universe better than most cosmologists or high-energy particle physicists!

These 2 theories if merged together may form a new more plausible theory that could explain infinite amount of BB that follow the same cause and shouldn't break the laws of physics (except "infinitely dense mass")
Unfortunately shrinking universe is not observed and dark matter (which is responsible for expansion) is unknown. — SpaceDweller

A shrinking universe is no necessary condition for a new big bang to occur. Big bangs can follow each other up even if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity.

Just to be precise: dark matter is normal matter that can't be seen, like all kinds of non-observed hypothetical particles, or better, primordial black holes:

https://www.livescience.com/dark-matter-made-of-black-holes.html

Dark matter keeps galaxies together and dark energy pushes them apart at an ever increasing rate.

Verdi,
Veni, vidi, velcro: I came, I saw, I stuck around. — PoeticUniverse

:lol:

If it doesn't count then truth might as well not count because opinions can and will change and usually do so in favor of whoever is in charge. — MAYAEL

Truth does count for those holding the opinion. Their opinion might be wrong in the opinion of others, of course. I'm not saying opinions are just opinions, and that there is some reality to be confronted which can affirm or deny the opinion. The opinion is the reality.

And I did not make the claim that everybody tells the truth so can you please elaborate on why you're saying "but but but momma said" and sticking your tongue out at my comment so to speak ? — MAYAEL

:lol:

Got your message! Nonono, I didn't stick my tongue out to you to tell you that mummy said that you think everybody tells the truth. I stack it out to inform you that that's the way people look at my own vision on reality. Mummy told me that every reality should get the same, just as all mummy's children and all other children should get the same. Usually, this approach to reality is countered by: "But if everybody, or every culture, have their own truth, how can we even speak of the truth?" Well, we can't. At least, not if we think about reality, or the truth, as applicable to all. Well, we can, but only as seen from the reality of those you ask. Call it relativism. I see a world of interacting particles, someone else sees a bunch of perception bundles, a third person sees a static piece of block universe, another one sees a magic world in which gods and ghosts are present, and yet another sees an interconnected non-separable whole. Or maybe even something weirder, like people being vessels in service of selfish genes and memes whose only desire is to be passed on into new vessels. For all of them, there is idiosyncratic rational proof, and the other realities may seem unsubstantiated, unreal, subjective, or irrational. Get my tongue?

Or else, who cares, since we can't get blamed for not knowing how all became. I'd really rather just make art compositions, write books, and have romance. — PoeticUniverse

That's the best attitude indeed! :smile: F them gods...

I'm convinced this is what happens. But there might exist views, realities, ways of looking, even opinions, which see all the causal happenings you (as I!) have in mind, are just illusionary qualities, like time can be illusionary. You might have the feeling that all this change and xausal, and timelike behavior we see around us is really out there (like I do!), but you can just as well ignore all that and claim that it's all a persistent and stubborn illusion, and that it's you who is having the illusion (though I'm not sure if you would have any reason to notify you then, because also that would be an illusion).

With even one instance of independent causality, it cannot be the case that causality is merely in the mind. — Philosophim

What then do you see as one instance of independent causality, which is only an illusion on your part, as reality doesn't contain causation, as it's merely imparted on it by us, to make our way through space and time. Very usefull features, them cause and effect, but merely Illusions. As seen by the person you address. Is his view not corresponding to reality, because he made use of cause and effect himself?

That sounds more like error than conspiracy. There are conventions and orthodoxies in all human institutions, including scientific academia. Calling it conspiracy is an unnecessary dilution of the term. — DingoJones

It is the way the reality operates. What is a conspiracy today can be reality tomorrow.

This is not a possibility, backed by the fact that you posted an argument on an online forum. Barring the fact that you were the cause of writing that argument, the internet and the computer you use could not work if cause was simply a concept of the mind, and not an independent reality. — Philosophim

Now you impose your idea of causation into someone's mind. If the person addressed doesn't agree, your reality is wrong, and your idea of causality is just an idea then. Even if computers and the internet seem to conform to your idea. There can even be physics done without the use of time, without cause and effect, seeing the whole of existence as one instant happening, unstructured by cause and effect.

Damned! I listened to that one this afternoon! But in the Wall video where they sit together in the studio. "Mother do you think they drop the bomb?"

Metaphysics, in Collingwood's sense, is very important to me. It is central to my understanding of the nature of reality and our relationship — T Clark

The nature of reality? You mean Collingwood,'s view of it, and his relation to it.

After reading some of your comments here and elsewhere, I think Salmon's metaphysics about causal forks and statistical causation is perfectly fit for you. I had to read that brown book obligatory, but it's so far removed from actuality. Luckily, I only remember it's brown, soft shiny cover, and it resides as a mistakenly imposed memory in my brain. It's simply too much!

I only now see that you replied. You can notify someone by selecting what you wanna quote (which you did by putting arrows around it, like for my quote in the past comment) and then click or tap on the black quote button.

Yes, that's the common complaint heard. That like that everybody tells the truth and as such it doesn't make sense. But that's not how it is.

The fact you can reference crazy ones like flat earth or lizard people which are clearly untrue — DingoJones

If I look around me, neither flat Earth, nor global Earth theories are true. They are both conspiracy theories, as far as I'm concerned. The flat-space theory in cosmology is a conspiracy theory all the same, like the standard model in physics, where all sounds that appear to be questioning the fundamentality of the basic ingredients are slammed down by trying to keep them out from forums ("low quality", or "sub-standard quality", very appropriate in the context of the standard model), from publications (the peer review considered it nonsense), popular press (scientific journalists fearing for their jobs), and academic life (because of the same fear).

In what way? — DingoJones

I the way that what you perceive as reality and rational evidence for it today, might be as unreal and flavored with irrational evidence in the reality of tomorrow. I tried to explain this wrt to the standard model in elementary particle physics. The very thought that quarks and leptons are composite is by most physicists regarded as irrational or it's at least ignored. All evidence is interpreted in the standard way. While the composite model has clear advantages and explaining power.

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

The masters? The destroyers. But they don't realize, as Oppenheimer did, after he created his deadly toy. I think they won't easily come out of their gold-plated towers of ivory, but instead make these higher and higher, ever further away from the world they have their roots in, and with which they make sporadic contact to assure their base stays firm and solid. The towers grow higher and higher to the point they collapse unders their own gravity and make a destructive impact on the world below them. Probably they will have left their towers shortly before, to establish themselves in lonely heavenly domains in space, trying to live a life of computer created virtual worlds in which new towers can be built to reach infinity of the material world, not caring a moment for the misery they created down there. In that realization of their psychotic, megalomaniac, almost psychopathic ideas, they will linger in a false security awaiting the unevitable moment they fall out of the sky like burning angels of destruction, into a world already fallen prey to the same kind of psychosis that eventually led to global destruction and global doom.

The question of conspiracy theories isnt about the conclusions, its about how they got there. Like all inquiry we should follow evidence and rationality. — DingoJones

Yes, of course. Problem is, your rationality and evidence might be part of a conspiracy also.

Wow! I wished our leaders had that vision. If one needs leaders at all! There seems to be no feeling for the wonders of nature to be left these days. Great poem! I even tried to read it aloud. It flows nicely, like life itself should.

Living can finally be rewarding in these modern times in places where it isn't still barbaric or greatly stressing, so all I can come up with is that experiencing life happily is close to being the only benefit to come out of the whole meaningless shebang. — PoeticUniverse

Yeah, we must make the meaning ourselves. There is no meaning inherent to the universe. And how many suffering already has been done in the name of meaning... "It means shebang!" "Nono, it means kadoink!"... "What you mean, you/^%$%^! ?", and a fight to death follows. I'm not looking for a universal meaning, but somehow, without a god(s), being intelligent beings, I can't imagine how come the universe is there. With all beautiful stuff in it. The intricacies of quantum fields, spacetime, life, etc. As the Poetic Universe you know what I mean! I don't look for meaning in god(s), I don't even care about them, or take them as pillar for my life. But somehow there must be a pillar of the universe. In any case, not the traditional one and only God. They exist, but I leave them alone, and they leave me alone. So why should I talk about them altogether? Indeed, why? We can better care about the creation itself. And enjoy and wonder about it.

you quoted the part of me where I quoted what you said that's not what I said that's what you had said hence the arrows pointing to it. I never denied us making contact with reality I'm saying that I cannot convey reality to you and you cannot convey it to me is all you can do is give me a sliver and an opinion on a specific portion of reality but that in no way is a proper representation of reality — MAYAEL

Haha! I quoted myself! No wonder I agreed.

I don't think a proper representation of reality is what counts. It's the opinion that counts, as that is all we can cling to. Of course opinions change if reality forces us.

They likely see the universe and its complexity to be too astounding to just be so from the lesser, and so they must question it, 'answering' it with something all the more astounding, but don't question that since they've granted immunity to its prosecution by merely just declaring it to be supernatural and hyperphysical, and, to protect it even more add infinite scope to its Mind such that it couldn't even be any more astonishing and then readily accept that in place of the now infinitesimal scope of the universe in comparison that they wouldn't accept in the first place. — PoeticUniverse

You said it all in just one sentence! A prosaic, almost poetical TOE. Still... I thought so too. Somehow, this robs the universe of meaning, whatever that means, and however full of meaning it is!

Great comment! And very understandable (I was actually Googling the words you explained later, didn't see it...) Inflation is regarded non-scientific in that it can't be. falsified. This doesn't mean it didn't happen. It even happens nowadays!