Nonphysical Universe? Exploring Wavefunctions & Uncertainty

[WhoWee]

Time is our measurement of change. Both time and change are products of energy. So, if we can define energy as "non-physical" that may suffice.

However, energy is described by Einstein as equaling mc2 (mass at the speed of light/squared) and as far as I know mass is a physical state. So, when the "ultimate" motivator, energy, is agreed upon to be physical, what is there left to designate as being "non-physical" since, figuratively speaking, energy is the common denominator for the entire universe during all its stages.

Let me ask the question a different way...if time is a physical thing as you suggest, what are the physical properties of time?

Can you provide a link for this?

 

[baywax]

Let me ask the question a different way...if time is a physical thing as you suggest, what are the physical properties of time?

Can you provide a link for this?

I have never suggested time is a physical thing (other than the fact that it is an electromagnetic activity of the brain that produces the concept of time).

edit) What I am suggesting is that time is used to measure the physical properties of energy.

If you have a moment perhaps you could search for a link to someone who actually does think of time as a physical property.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not trying to be difficult...I don't think you're wrong. This might help...I just found this link...

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/aristov_relative/aristov_relative.htm

but it doesn't fully define time as being a physical thing...it refers to time as "physical time".

 

[WaveJumper]

Can anything in the universe be described as nonphysical?

Yes. A number of physicists believe information is the fundamental nature of reality. Among them, the most prominent is John Wheeler(it from bit), Anton Zeilinger, Amit Goswami and others.

 

[baywax]

I'm not trying to be difficult...I don't think you're wrong. This might help...I just found this link...

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/aristov_relative/aristov_relative.htm

but it doesn't fully define time as being a physical thing...it refers to time as "physical time".

There are a few definitions of time.

In the Theory of Relativity time is an imaginary quantity that can not be observed; it is a multiplication of a number that indicates duration of material change and number i that is an imaginary number. I on the square is -1. Time t * i is a mathematical time that describes the speed and the duration of material change.

Change does not "happen" in physical time -- change itself is physical time. This is a different and more correct perspective than the conventional view in physics, in which space-time is the theater or "stage" on which physical change happens. The terms "physical time" and " material change" describe the same phenomenon (1).

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sorli.htm

I maintain that time is the concept by which humans measure change. Of course, it works the other way around and change can be used to measure time... however, we know which came first and that change was taking place long before we applied it to our concept of "time".

 

[Dave2007]

Yes. A number of physicists believe information is the fundamental nature of reality. Among them, the most prominent is John Wheeler(it from bit), Anton Zeilinger, Amit Goswami and others.

The idea that information is out there waiting to be discovered sounds like the information equivalent of mathematical Platonism. I have a problem accepting information/mathematics as real rather than abstractions that exists only in the "mind". Perhaps you can briefly tell us why you find Wheeler persuasive.

Not that it is definitive, Wheeler's ideas are outside the mainstream of physics. However, I must admit his "It from Bit" speculations came to mind early in this discussion. I dismissed the concept after reflecting on what Hendrik said. He cautioned us against taking our descriptions of physics as physics. I take this to mean our conceptual frameworks help us understand the real world but we should not mistake them for it. IMHO, this seems to be what Wheeler, et al are doing.

 

[Anticitizen]

Yes. A number of physicists believe information is the fundamental nature of reality. Among them, the most prominent is John Wheeler(it from bit), Anton Zeilinger, Amit Goswami and others.

Ah, this is the most interesting post in the thread so far. It may in some respects be a semantics game, but it may be more practical to look at the foundations of existence and what is real by asking 'can information can be conveyed?' than asking 'does it have to be conventional matter/energy to be real?' I'm more comfortable to address 'the real' as 'that which conveys information' over classifications of its subsets. Of course, it'll never replace a fundamental particle in anyone's cosmic recipe book, but that line of thinking might help us along with some of the shakier facets of our knowledge, such as the nature of empty space.

 

[Dmitry67]

Sorry for repeating it many times, but this is a really good reading.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646v2
The Mathematical Universe
Authors: Max Tegmark

For me it was like an enlightment.
I aswers all the questions like 'what istime? what is space? is something real? etc'

 

[WaveJumper]

Sorry for repeating it many times, but this is a really good reading.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646v2
The Mathematical Universe
Authors: Max Tegmark

For me it was like an enlightment.
I aswers all the questions like 'what istime? what is space? is something real? etc'

It is consistent with non-locality, the double slit and quantum chromodynamics but it's inconsistent with my 5 senses. I wonder if we are the imagination of ourselves.

 

[Dmitry67]

And I would say, it is so shocking and weird, but at the same time so elegant, so it MUST be true.

 

[WaveJumper]

And I would say, it is so shocking and weird, but at the same time so elegant, so it MUST be true.

It's also consistent with the "space" a photon travels from its frame of reference in SR. It's not elegant until i could lift the veil and see through on the other side and meet the unknown :).

 

[Dmitry67]

Well, Max Tegmark did not write the exact equations of TOE.
He claims that:
1. Physics=Mathematics, so there are no specific 'physical' axioms
2. TOE equations do not require any additional words to describe them. Like, 'F stands for Force, m for mass'. You must be able to derive what we see only by the analysis of these equations. No additional hints (even about the number of dimensions) are requred.
3. Any consistent math. system defines a Universe, so 'our' equations are only special because a life becomes possible in such world.

 

[WaveJumper]

Well, Max Tegmark did not write the exact equations of TOE.
He claims that:
1. Physics=Mathematics, so there are no specific 'physical' axioms
2. TOE equations do not require any additional words to describe them. Like, 'F stands for Force, m for mass'. You must be able to derive what we see only by the analysis of these equations. No additional hints (even about the number of dimensions) are requred.
3. Any consistent math. system defines a Universe, so 'our' equations are only special because a life becomes possible in such world.

So if the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis of Max Tegmark is true, would you have the courage and desire to "lift the veil"(if that were possible) and face the possibility that the mathematical universe could be a Matrix-style simulation run on someone's computer(as has been suggested in the paper)? I think i would.

 

[Dmitry67]

He answers that question on page 18

 

[Anticitizen]

My programmer friend once suggested that if reality is a computer simulation, then we should be able to find exploits. I thought that was interesting.

 

[Lacy33]

OH BOY!~ Sometimes it's the question...

 

[baywax]

It would be tempting to say that extinct species are nonphysical... however, everyday we breath, eat and drink their remains. We also think about them, and thinking is a purely physical process. As is conscious-awareness.

Some people have suggested that conscious-awareness is an emergent property of the big bang and that the big bang is rooted in "nothing". Where do they get their data? Conscious-awareness is a result of the on-going development of matter. No one know's for sure what caused the big bang or if it happened at all. I think we can say, with all certainty, we are all here now. And that's about it.

 

[Dmitry67]

thinking is a purely physical process. As is conscious-awareness.

I think the opposite, I believe that the "hard problem of consciousness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

does exist.

 

[baywax]

I think the opposite, I believe that the "hard problem of consciousness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

does exist.

One can make up names for the same processing function but the resource and the function remain the same.

"Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"

Define: "rich" "inner" life.

"How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"

Perhaps they have a brain or larger ganglia.

"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"

Its a survival trait of the organism of choice.

"Why do qualia exist?"

This is a function of distinction between stimuli... and a survival trait.

"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"

Define "subjective"... or let me do it for you... personal dialog... hormones.

"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

Who says we're not? Have you seen the news lately?Evolution gives rise to complex and more complex systems in organisms. The goal post gets further and further away from the original goal of survival. Evolutionary refinement adds branches and more branches to the function of an organ until... at some point they become redundant and actually render the species unable to survive. This appears to be the course for humanity. As we get further and further away from basic survival, our brains turn more and more into themselves for answers. And since we know nothing more than a few rocks... we are being left holding nothing but a bunch of "qualia" which do not provide nourishment except to feed the illusion that we are the dominant species etc...

 

[WaveJumper]

Sorry guys but i'll nail the last nail in the coffin of realism. Quantum chromodynamics tell us that matter gets its mass/energy content from the future(via virtual particles).



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html


It appears Einstein was right - reality is an illusion.

 

[baywax]

Sorry guys but i'll nail the last nail in the coffin of realism. Quantum chromodynamics tell us that matter gets its mass/energy content from the future(via virtual particles).



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html


It appears Einstein was right - reality is an illusion.

This model will change, again, next week.

 

[WaveJumper]

This model will change, again, next week.

As far as i am aware, it has been known for more than 30 years now. Someone better versed in QCD may set a better timeline for sure.

 

[baywax]

As far as i am aware, it has been known for more than 30 years now. Someone better versed in QCD may set a better timeline for sure.

My operative word here is "model".

"Virtual" is my next best choice.

Does this "model" make pain go away?

Does it make it ok to invade 3rd world countries and kill 100s of women and children?

No, this "model" doesn't have any bearing on what humans collectively experience, using
their complex neurology. We still have to respect each person's perspective like it was our own.

 

[Dmitry67]

Dont ask me - ask Wikipedia :) I did not publish that.
I don't know how to tell p-zombie from a normal human
The only thing I am sure is that I DO HAVE QUALIA.

I have an interesting theory regarding:

Who says we're not? Have you seen the news lately?

I believe that there are in fact P-zombies among us: People in MCS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimally_conscious_state

When you shake them, ask questions, they can reply. Their brain still posesses all these high-level functions. However, when they are left alone, they are just laying in bed.

Why? Because their soul had already left because when their brain was deprived from oxygen for too long the link between their soul and brain had been already broken (because in normal surcumstances nobody survives in such conditions).

So brain is still functioning, but as there is no qualia/soul, they don't WANT to do anything. They can answer questions, do something when they are asked to. Exactly like our computers.

 

[WaveJumper]

My operative word here is "model".

"Virtual" is my next best choice.

Does this "model" make pain go away?

Does it make it ok to invade 3rd world countries and kill 100s of women and children?

No, this "model" doesn't have any bearing on what humans collectively experience, using
their complex neurology. We still have to respect each person's perspective like it was our own.

Sure, the world is as real as those 5 senses tell us and we should treat it as such with all of its bells and whistles. For those who are more curious, we agree to call it our subjective experience in a lowered voice.

 

[baywax]

Dont ask me - ask Wikipedia :) I did not publish that.
I don't know how to tell p-zombie from a normal human
The only thing I am sure is that I DO HAVE QUALIA.

I have an interesting theory regarding:



I believe that there are in fact P-zombies among us: People in MCS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimally_conscious_state

When you shake them, ask questions, they can reply. Their brain still posesses all these high-level functions. However, when they are left alone, they are just laying in bed.

Why? Because their soul had already left because when their brain was deprived from oxygen for too long the link between their soul and brain had been already broken (because in normal surcumstances nobody survives in such conditions).

So brain is still functioning, but as there is no qualia/soul, they don't WANT to do anything. They can answer questions, do something when they are asked to. Exactly like our computers.

Define "soul" please.

 

[baywax]

Sure, the world is as real as those 5 senses tell us and we should treat it as such with all of its bells and whistles. For those who are more curious, we agree to call it our subjective experience in a lowered voice.

Ah, subjectivity.

Where does objectivity begin and subjectivity end when you define subjectivity as being the function of the neurons?

Every observation, every virtual model, everything anyone does is dependent on and governed by how their neurons function. By this definition, objectivity can't exist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ah, subjectivity.

Where does objectivity begin and subjectivity end when you define subjectivity as being the function of the neurons?

Every observation, every virtual model, everything anyone does is dependent on and governed by how their neurons function. By this definition, objectivity can't exist.

subjectivity is where you guess at things you don't (or can't) know, given the evidence of what you do (objectively) know.

That is, your subjective opinions are where you fill in the blanks where objective answers aren't available.

If you want to look at it in terms of neurons, I assume there's a difference between neurons fired for imagination/creativity vs. neurons fired for memory/observation.

That being said, we do have plenty of difficulty, on a day-to-day basis, accurately interpreting our objective observations (but interpretation is related to imagination/creativity).

 

[baywax]

subjectivity is where you guess at things you don't (or can't) know, given the evidence of what you do (objectively) know.

That is, your subjective opinions are where you fill in the blanks where objective answers aren't available.

If you want to look at it in terms of neurons, I assume there's a difference between neurons fired for imagination/creativity vs. neurons fired for memory/observation.

That being said, we do have plenty of difficulty, on a day-to-day basis, accurately interpreting our objective observations (but interpretation is related to imagination/creativity).

Thanks Pythagorean,

I did however see this included in the Oxford definition of "subjectivity"

• dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

But I think, traditionally, what you say is the correct meaning. Subjective as in gathering information from one's self rather that from the rest of the environment.

I think objectivity is obtained when an experience is a shared experience, independent of any communication between the subjects. When it's revealed later that the two experiences are actually the same phenomenon being observed independently, this gives evidence that objectivity is alive and well. There are countless incidents every day where this is proven.

There's a case for a purely subjective existence. And there's a case for a purely objective one. Some how I think there's a medium ground. Metaphorically :uhh: if it takes so many atoms to make a table "real"... its the same for number of observers to verify the tableness.

 

[WaveJumper]

He answers that question on page 18

I forgot that the Mathematical Universe that Max Tegmark speaks of, is fairly consistent with the Holographic Universe predicted by all 5 versions of String Theory.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4a.html

"This is a hint that perhaps spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges in the theory at large distance scales or weak coupling. This is an idea with enormous philosophical implications."