Can the Universe Truly Be Nonphysical?

[WhoWee]

Since Dark Energy and Matter are still under investigation with no conclusive understanding of the phenomena, we can't really say if they're non-physical or physical. So, they remain "non-evidence" of "non-physicalness".



WhoWee Energy is measured by the concept of time. The people doing the measuring are using energy from the same source you get yours.

Again, please provide a link.

 

[Evo]

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/parkinsons_disease/detail_parkinsons_disease.htm

I don't know how many of these people are going to be motivated enough to have holes drilled in their skulls, risking infection, to stop what they probably see as simply the aging process. Many individuals would probably forego this operation thinking it was a government ploy to wiretap their brains, or because it really is a major operation.

The above link has a lot of information on this neurological condition.

I don't think you meant to post this here.

 

[baywax]

I don't think you meant to post this here.

Thanks Evo... the omnipresent!

I've erased that.

 

[baywax]

Again, please provide a link.

I'm not sure what you want linked... but here's an old example
of using time to measure energy...

http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/p99/PAPERS/WEA144.PDF

Its often called Time Resolved Measurement of Energy.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3X-4RDB8YM-D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e06e4cbccd63fbab43bfafd1300ad1e

and the term appears here as well,

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999040413

Its the same thing when you use a ruler to measure a distance. That distance you're measuring is PURE ENERGY. The ruler is a conceptualization of increments of space that we use to make sense of our environment.

So, when you measure the same distance with Time ... as in ... how long it takes to get from here to there... you are using a mental construct (we call "time") to break the distance into seconds, nano-seconds etc...

Edit: Early on the source of time measurement was based on the rotation of the earth.

The atomic clocks measure time by tracking the magnetic spinning of cesium atoms. These atoms spin 9,192,631,770 times per second rather than once a minute for the fastest hand on most mechanical clocks. The cesium clocks are prized for their incredible precision – they are accurate to about a second in a million years! Atomic time is even more accurate than the rotation of the earth, or classical astronomical time. This means that every so often, scientists add "leap seconds" to atomic time to compensate for the Earth's slowing rotation.

That is to say... the benchmark for all other changes (of position etc..) is the rate of spin on the cesium atoms.

If you'd like to learn more about how time is established here's a good link.

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/innovations/discoveries/clock.html

 

[Dave2007]

JoeDawg, Good discussion while it lasted. Sorry you chose to leave as you did.~Dave

 

[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.