Can You Imagine a Universe Without Space and Time?

[Doctordick]

This is a bit of a clash of paradigms I think. Doctordick and I seem to be in agreement, but I can see that this view appears paradoxical in important ways. It is a complete denial of naive realism.

I think I agree with both of you on most everything of importance. What neither of you seem to see is that I am not asking for any agreement. What I am asking for is a little attention to a subtle issue not considered serious by anyone save myself. Please look at my response to Tournesol on the thread "The Past IS Real".

But the scientific notion of the non-fundamentality of spacetime is poorly thought through in my opinion. If spacetime is not fundamantal then what is fundamental has no spatial or temporal extension.

Think about the issue a bit. Space-time is a coordinate system. You should keep in mind that Einstein's theory is a "Theory" and not a fact. According to the precepts of Einstein, all the entities which exist in that space-time are nothing more than deviations of its metric from a "Flat" space (essentially the old Euclidian metric). Without any information as to where and how big those deviations are, the concept certainly lacks something. It seems to me that the information referred to is thus much more fundamental than is "spacetime" itself. Clearly spatial and temporal extension are not fundamental aspects of information. They only arise when one attempts a graphical representation of information. Einstein's perspective is very limited in that it presumes there is no other rational representation of that information. I further question the conclusion that, if it isn't represented via "space-time" it isn't physics. That seems to me to be far to constraining to be held as a basic boundary of physics.

If something is beyond spacetime then it is beyond physics. In this case the view that spacetime is not fundamental is transcendentalism, not just a slight adjustment to our current theories of physics, and paradigmatic metaphysical issues are raised, such as Doctordick's point about the 'now'.

You sound like you might be interested in what I have discovered; but, meanwhile, it seems to me that deciding Einstein's "space-time" is essential to physics is in the same bag with believing Aristotle's crystalline spheres are essential to physics (the basis of all those epicycles prior to Newton). Newton asked, "What if nothing is holding up the heavenly bodies and the moon is just falling?" At the time they thought he was nuts; it was clear to the scientific community that if nothing held it up, the whole thing would just fall to the ground. Forty years ago, I asked, What if there are no rules and anything can happen? I have received exactly the same response: you're nuts, if anything can happen, all of science will come tumbling down. That's wrong guys and I can show it!

One such issue is the 'realness' of the everyday phenomenal universe experienced by human beings. If this universe is epiphenomenal then there is a reductionist sense in which it is not real, or at least not as real as what is fundamental.

Not if the information referred to above is what is actually real.

The question is, does this mean that the spacetime-dependent universe and the phenomena it contains are made out of what is fundamental, (which on our assumption here exists 'outside' spacetime), and is thus ontologically grounded, epihenomenal but nevertheless still real, still substantial, like a piano or kitchen table seems to be, or does it mean that only what is fundamental is really real, and all the rest are the conceptual creations of what is fundamental, aka 'mere appearances'.

Here I think you need to be very careful as to exactly what you mean by real. For example, when a doctor finds a collection of symptoms in a patient common to a particular well known disease where the cause of the disease is not yet known, would you say that the disease is not real but only exists as a conceptual creation?

Clearly we are trying to figure out a world that is very strange, and certainly nothing like how it appears to our physical senses.

I find that very analogous to the statement that, "if the moon is falling, it will hit the earth!" Until you examine the consequences of figuring out that world, you can't say anything about how it appears to our physical senses. I personally define "an object" to be a collection of information who's internal relationships may be considered as independent of the rest of the universe for the period of time of interest. If the information is "real" then so is the "object" (at least so long as the rest of the universe can be ignored).

But all appearances are interpretations, theory-laden mental constructs and thus, in principle at least, may all be misinterpretations.

Yes, and inconsistent interpretations are much more apt to be misinterpretations than internally consistent interpretations. What happens when one constrains those interpretations to only internally consistent interpretations but otherwise unlimited? Can you answer that question? Why is no one interested in thinking about that question? I can answer it, and that is exactly what I have been trying to get across.

By the time you have a 'qualia' most of the interpretative work has been done by normally automatic and normally subconscious processes. All our brains have for raw material are electro-chemical substances and activities, so goodness knows what's actually 'out there'. We have to constuct what's out there by an act of pure imagination.

You are so close to my fundamental starting point that I can not comprehend your lack of interest.

Physics has not yet proved that anything it studies is really there. Indeed, from the unfalsifiability of solipsism we know it is impossible to do this. One has to wonder why.

That is exactly the question I can answer but before one can understand the answer, one must understand how to perform deduction from an undefined basis.

Could I ask exactly how much mathematics you understand?

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Canute]

Clearly spatial and temporal extension are not fundamental aspects of information. They only arise when one attempts a graphical representation of information.

I'd say they arise when one tries to conceptualise reality, not just when graphically representing it, although perhaps the two might be considered the same thing.

I further question the conclusion that, if it isn't represented via "space-time" it isn't physics. That seems to me to be far to constraining to be held as a basic boundary of physics.

Perhaps physics will change, but at the moment the idea that something can exist yet be unextended in space or time (or indeed in any dimension) would be considered metaphysics, not physics.

You sound like you might be interested in what I have discovered; but, meanwhile, it seems to me that deciding Einstein's "space-time" is essential to physics is in the same bag with believing Aristotle's crystalline spheres are essential to physics

I feel this is a fundamental assumption of physics. After all, a phenomonon existing outside of space and time is not third-person observable or measurable. How could one include it within physics?

Here I think you need to be very careful as to exactly what you mean by real. For example, when a doctor finds a collection of symptoms in a patient common to a particular well known disease where the cause of the disease is not yet known, would you say that the disease is not real but only exists as a conceptual creation?

I'd say the doctor, the patient, the disease and the cause of the disease are unreal in the sense I was using the word.

I personally define "an object" to be a collection of information who's internal relationships may be considered as independent of the rest of the universe for the period of time of interest. If the information is "real" then so is the "object" (at least so long as the rest of the universe can be ignored).

I'm not sure if I agree or not with the first sentence. It depends on exactly what you mean. The second I agree with, but it's a big 'if'. I'd say that the information is not real, so neither is the object.

Yes, and inconsistent interpretations are much more apt to be misinterpretations than internally consistent interpretations.

To me that's an oversimplification. What about wave/particles? Or the 'hypothesis of duality' from cosmology?

What happens when one constrains those interpretations to only internally consistent interpretations but otherwise unlimited? Can you answer that question?

Yes. One ends up with undecidable metaphysical questions all over the place and Nature becomes completely incomprehensible.

That is exactly the question I can answer but before one can understand the answer, one must understand how to perform deduction from an undefined basis.

Do you mean like George Spencer Brown's calculus of indications, or Lao-Tsu's undefined Tao? The entire epistemilogical system of the 'mystical religions' is grounded on an undefined axiom, and is structurally isomorphic with Brown's calculus. This is why their doctrine appears so self-contradictory. It's the same situation in quantum theory.

Could I ask exactly how much mathematics you understand?

I'm OK on meta-mathematics but rubbish at actually doing mathematics.

Cheers
Canute

 

[Tournesol]

To me that's an oversimplification. What about wave/particles?

That's not inconsistent.

 

[Canute]

That's true, but only because we decided to call the wave description and the particle description complementary instead of contradictory. I'm suggesting that the principle of complementarity be extended into other domains where contradictions arise. In relation to the topic this would mean that there is a description of reality in which spacetime exists and a description in which it does not exist, and that these two descriptions are complementary, in the sense that neither description is sufficient to explain out observations or allow a complete description to be constructed. This is pretty much what is being suggested by some theorists as a solution to the background dependence issue, if I understand what they're saying correctly. (Which admittedly I may not).

 

[Tournesol]

That's true, but only because we decided to call the wave description and the particle description complementary instead of contradictory.

Nope. There is nothing that could be called a contradiciton in the
formalism. The only contradiction is with peoples folk-physics.

I'm suggesting that the principle of complementarity

There's no need for a "principle of complementarity. Wave-particle duality is
just grey compromise. Nothing has a 100% well defined position or a 100% well-defined momentum.

 

[Canute]

Hmm. I can only say that your view seems unique. I always go along with physicists on these issues, and they seem to find a principle of complementarity essential. How do you resolve the wave-particle duality without the principle of complementarity?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nope. There is nothing that could be called a contradiciton in the
formalism. The only contradiction is with peoples folk-physics.



There's no need for a "principle of complementarity. Wave-particle duality is
just grey compromise. Nothing has a 100% well defined position or a 100% well-defined momentum.

This is not quite right. What QM says is that nothing has BOTH a 100% well defined position AND a 100% well defined momentum IN THE SAME OBSERVATION. You can get as accurate as you like with either, as long as you're willing to let the other one go. It makes a difference when you try to draw conclusions.

 

[Canute]

Thanks. I'm not sure I like being accused of folk-physics, even as a non-physicist.

 

[Symbreak]

We can imagine a Universe of space and time as long as there is no matter!
Try to imagine a distance d without any reference points, like particles or suns, and that distance cannot be measured. It cannot really exist. Einstein and Eddington said much the same thing: it is matter and energy that essentially 'create' spacetime, while spacetime shapes the movements of matter. There is also the idea that a geometry is defined by the relationships between its objects (Kleinian Geometry), so that the characteristics of a geometry come from the objects transformations. In turn, the objects themselves have similiarities (congruence properties) determined by the geometry.

A similar idea comes with Mach's principle - where the inertial properties of matter are not determined by some abstract geometry, but by the rest of the matter in the Universe.

So a Universe of space and time can only exist with matter. Without it, the intervals of spacetime would dissapear, and the Universe would be a sort of point.

 

[Doctordick]

I'd say they arise when one tries to conceptualise reality, not just when graphically representing it, although perhaps the two might be considered the same thing.

I believe your position is based on the ease with which human beings are able to visualize things. Now it is just an opinion but it seems to me that the highest density of information with which we must deal arises from our sense of sight and thus it has become the seat of our most competent ability to organize information. I have read many articles concerning the ease with which we can comprehend correlations in information when that information is presented in a visual or graphic form.

It is quite clear that the same information presented in a numeric form becomes almost impossible to comprehend. Just for the fun of it, consider a television broadcast presented to you as a book full of numerically defined functions (a numerical table for each function) representing the light intensity at each pixel as a function of time plus one function which would be the air compression (the sound). How long do you think it would take you to comprehend that presentation sufficiently well to expect a particular time bite of the collection? Now compare that with the number of events in the visual presentation which are readily predictable the first time you watch it.

Most people to whom I present such an idea consider such a presentation to be so bad as to be functionally worthless. But, if you stop and think of the communication between the retina and the brain (the retina being made of cells reacting to light intensity at their location, it seems clear that the fundamental nature of the input information is exactly equivalent to the circumstance I describe above. The optic nerve and the visual cortex manages to transform that information into a form quite easy for the brain to handle. Thus one could conclude that the representation is not functionally worthless at all. In fact, there exists a simple electromechanical device which has no problem transforming such a presentation into a visual display on a real time basis (it's called a TV set).

Now think about that for a moment. Are you going to seriously propose that a mechanical device can perform a correlation transformation that the human brain cannot? It seems to me that it is the "visual" display itself which lends itself to be easily understood. Now, from that perspective, the conclusion that the original (fundamental) source of information which we are trying to understand (the universe) is organized in such a manner is a leap of faith not an objectively defendable fact and physics, if it is to be objective science, should not make such an assumption. I think one does a disservice to physics (or at least to exact science) to avoid this issue via a derisive use of the term metaphysics.

After all, a phenomonon existing outside of space and time is not third-person observable or measurable. How could one include it within physics?

Essentially all you are saying here is that you cannot conceive of the universe being anything except a visually organized construct. That cannot be taken as evidence of its truth.

I'd say the doctor, the patient, the disease and the cause of the disease are unreal in the sense I was using the word.

Well, I can see your saying the disease might be unreal (whereas I would call it an "unknown" disease) but I know a number of doctors and patients who would be upset being added to the list of "unreal" things.

I'm not sure if I agree or not with the first sentence.

You disagree with the fact that I define an object in that way? How did you become knowledgeable of how I do things or what goes on in my head?

It depends on exactly what you mean.

The definition tells you what I mean! Any time the information commonly used to describe something is sufficiently stable in time that it may be conceptually considered independent of the rest of the universe, I call the thing being described "an object". That thing can be a car, a building, a person or a stock portfolio. I can then study how that "object" is influenced by aspect of the rest of the universe and come up with rules of behavior.

I'd say that the information is not real

Then you would regard the description of neurons and their activity in your visual cortex as "unreal"?

To me that's an oversimplification. What about wave/particles? Or the 'hypothesis of duality' from cosmology?

If you are going to hold that the concept of wave/particle duality is inconsistent, I think you will have some major arguments on your hands. I agree with both Tournesol and SelfAdjoint; I don't think you have a good understanding of the concepts.

Yes. One ends up with undecidable metaphysical questions all over the place and Nature becomes completely incomprehensible.

A very popular opinion but not fact at all. I am sorry you do not understand mathematics. Feynman once defined mathematics as "the distilled essence of logic", and I think a lot of professional mathematicians would agree with that. I suspect that what you are lacking is the facility to think in the symbolic abstract.

Do you mean like George Spencer Brown's calculus of indications, or Lao-Tsu's undefined Tao? The entire epistemilogical system of the 'mystical religions' is grounded on an undefined axiom, and is structurally isomorphic with Brown's calculus. This is why their doctrine appears so self-contradictory. It's the same situation in quantum theory.

I have not read the works you quote and am not referring to them. I am referring to my own work. My work begins with the definition of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm and you need to understand my definition in order to follow my deductions. The last time we discussed it the issues appeared to be too abstract for you to understand. If you want to try again, I am willing to talk.

I'm OK on meta-mathematics but rubbish at actually doing mathematics.

I have no idea of what you mean by "meta-mathematics" other than the fact that you seem to believe "meta" means in-exact and/or logically sloppy. I would define "meta-mathematics" as the study of poorly understood aspects of mathematics. I personally define mathematics as the design and study of internally self consistent systems. That would define any "successful" outcomes of "meta-mathematics" to be "mathematics". Furthermore, the study of "meta-mathematics" is certainly bounded by logic which is usually taught as a branch of mathematics.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Chronos]

Hi Dr. Dick! You are always a breath of fresh air. You have ideas and passion behind them - but so do your critics. They have flaws in their arguments, but are yours beyond reproach? Seriously, you talk down to everyone who dares comment. Permit me to criticize your approach. You are a true genius, and I mean that. Few people gather what you say, and you say it well, my friend. But you do not advertise well. You never say a nice word about the people who 'get it' and make meaningful comments. To you, my friend, I say get some humility.

You will gather more allies when you speak softly and draw in an audience. We have talked before, and I agree you are brilliant, but, you antagonize your opponents... why? There is no need to do that, and that is why you fail to attract supporters.

 

[Canute]

DoctorDick

Please take note of Chronos's post. You really must make the effort to understand what other people are saying before being so ludicrously patronising. Hell, you disagree with me even when I agree with you. My suspicion is that you assume the whole world is against you. It may not be true, not yet anyway.

I believe your position is based on the ease with which human beings are able to visualize things. Etc... for 3 paragraphs

My position is based on the facts. Space and time are, as far as we know, conceptual constructs. If the existence of information requires that it is extended in space and time it follows that information may be a conceptual construct. It's no good just saying "Clearly spatial and temporal extension are not fundamental aspects of information." If they are not then information can exist unextended in space and time. Does this idea not seem a little incoherent to you?

Now think about that for a moment. Are you going to seriously propose that a mechanical device can perform a correlation transformation that the human brain cannot?

I have no idea either way. According to science the human brain is a machine so in this view of course a machine can do what any human brain does. However this is not my view. But it seems pointless to argue about this issue. I never even mentioned it and don't know why you bring it up.

It seems to me that it is the "visual" display itself which lends itself to be easily understood. Now, from that perspective, the conclusion that the original (fundamental) source of information which we are trying to understand (the universe) is organized in such a manner is a leap of faith not an objectively defendable fact and physics, if it is to be objective science, should not make such an assumption. I think one does a disservice to physics (or at least to exact science) to avoid this issue via a derisive use of the term metaphysics.

What? Of course it is a leap of faith to conclude the universe is as we visualise it. How could one possibly think otherwise?

Essentially all you are saying here is that you cannot conceive of the universe being anything except a visually organized construct. That cannot be taken as evidence of its truth.

Well, that's a clumsy way of putting it, but something like that. I was agreeing with Kant. Can you conceive of the universe non-visually?

Well, I can see your saying the disease might be unreal (whereas I would call it an "unknown" disease) but I know a number of doctors and patients who would be upset being added to the list of "unreal" things.

No doubt. But so what?

You disagree with the fact that I define an object in that way? How did you become knowledgeable of how I do things or what goes on in my head? The definition tells you what I mean!

I felt your definition was ambiguous so I neither agreed nor disagreed with it. This is why I said that I was not sure whether I agreed or disagreed with it. What I meant by this was that I wasn't sure whether I agreed or disagreed with it. How you conclude that I disagreed with it is not clear to me.

Any time the information commonly used to describe something is sufficiently stable in time that it may be conceptually considered independent of the rest of the universe...

So time is fundamental to information representing objects. What sort of information is time not fundamental to?

Then you would regard the description of neurons and their activity in your visual cortex as "unreal"?

Yes, in the final analysis. Not just the description, but the neurons and their activity. It's a common view, sometimes known in western philosophy as relative phenomenalism.

If you are going to hold that the concept of wave/particle duality is inconsistent, I think you will have some major arguments on your hands. I agree with both Tournesol and SelfAdjoint; I don't think you have a good understanding of the concepts.

As Tournesol and SelfAdjoint disagreed on this I can't imagine what you mean here. Did you misunderstand their posts? What does the term 'duality' mean. Why do you use this term? You use it because particles are not normally the same thing as waves. Why did it take such a long time for us to accept that the wave and particle descriptions theories of light were not mutually exclusive? Because on the surface it is a self-contradiction. Even now it is a contradiction, but we have learned that contradictions can be resolved by the principle of complementarity. I know this is is a slight extension of the principle, but it hardly seems contentious to suggests that waves and particles are complementary properties of 'wavicles', just as are position and momentum.

A very popular opinion but not fact at all. I am sorry you do not understand mathematics.

If it was a popular opinion I wouldn't get into so many arguments here.

Feynman once defined mathematics as "the distilled essence of logic", and I think a lot of professional mathematicians would agree with that. I suspect that what you are lacking is the facility to think in the symbolic abstract.

Doh. That must be it. Or perhaps you just lack the facility to give thinking time to anybody else's arguments, finding it quicker and easier to dimiss them as idiots.

I have not read the works you quote and am not referring to them. I am referring to my own work.

Perhaps you ought to consider reading more widely.

I have no idea of what you mean by "meta-mathematics" other than the fact that you seem to believe "meta" means in-exact and/or logically sloppy.

This is an ignorant remark. If you don't know what meta-mathematics is look it up. It does not mean inexact or logically-sloppy. It may sometimes mean meta-logical, but I don't imagine you'll know what that means either.

I would define "meta-mathematics" as the study of poorly understood aspects of mathematics.

In that case you'll have defined it incorrectly.

I personally define mathematics as the design and study of internally self consistent systems. That would define any "successful" outcomes of "meta-mathematics" to be "mathematics". Furthermore, the study of "meta-mathematics" is certainly bounded by logic which is usually taught as a branch of mathematics.

I think you ought to read up on these issues. I think also that I shan't respond to your posts in future. The discussion inevitably descends into complete silliness.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Dr. Dick! You are always a breath of fresh air. You have ideas and passion behind them - but so do your critics. They have flaws in their arguments, but are yours beyond reproach? Seriously, you talk down to everyone who dares comment.

The only thing I complain about is their utter refusal to examine my deductions. To date, saviormachine is the only person to show any interest at all it what I have to say. (That is, outside of Paul Martin who holds that my mathematics are over his head). Everyone else is putting up arguments as to the ridiculousness of even considering what I bring up; certainly not giving any consideration to my work. I personally don't feel it should be necessary to defend the idea of looking at things from an alternate perspective. No one has even begun to discuss even the first step of my arguments.

Permit me to criticize your approach.

Criticism is always welcome but serves little purpose if it opens no leads to rational dialog.

You are a true genius, and I mean that.

I am no genius at all; in fact, I would say I am mentally rather slow and ponderous. The only claim I put forth is that I have looked where everyone else refuses to look. And all I get are reasons why no one should look there.

Few people gather what you say, and you say it well, my friend. But you do not advertise well.

Advertise it well? I have no interest in publicizing[/color] what I have discovered, all I would like to do is talk to someone about my reasoning and my deductions. My main problem is that no one will even consider working with the definitions I propose.

You never say a nice word about the people who 'get it' and make meaningful comments.

Who are these people you say "get it" and have made "meaningful comments". I apologize if I have misunderstood them as I most certainly must have as I am not aware of anyone other than Paul Martin and Saviormachine who have even shown an interest in the issues I am attempting to bring up. The rest are more concerned with trying to convince me that it is ridiculous to even think about these things.

You will gather more allies when you speak softly and draw in an audience. We have talked before, and I agree you are brilliant, but, you antagonize your opponents... why? There is no need to do that, and that is why you fail to attract supporters.

I have no interest in obtaining supporters. Either my work is correct or I have made errors; the work itself stands on its own. What I would like to find is someone with enough logical ability to work with my definitions and discuss the validity of my deductions from those definitions. As far as I am concerned, it is entirely possible I have made some stupid errors. I hate the idea that I may have done exactly that and will die not knowing.

You say, "we have talked" but, in actual fact, I wouldn't refer to any of our exchanges as "talking". Unless I have forgotten something you have said, all I have received from you are criticisms of my presentation, no criticisms at all of any of my work. In fact, as far as I know, I don't even have any indications you have even looked the logic of those presentations.

I really have very little interest in the common opinion of the validity of my definitions as the only real defense of any set of definitions consists of the relationships required by those definitions. Those relationships arise from deductions which can be constructed from those definitions. The common emotional attitude that my definitions are not correct carries no weight at all and, until someone rational enough to see that makes his presence known, all I am doing is keeping the issue open in the hopes that someone competent will decide to consider what I am saying.

Sorry if that seems abrupt and antagonistic to my "opponents" but, to date, I have discovered no opponents. All I have discovered are people who refuse to discuss the issues. Actually, I have no desire to antagonize anyone; I just get frustrated by their utter refusal to look.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[genep]

Can You Imagine a Universe Without Space and Time.

Yes, I live in a universe without space and time every day when I dream that I wake up in the morning.
And even in my sleep-dreams, when I think I am awake, this universe has no space and time.

 

[Tournesol]

Space and time are, as far as we know, conceptual constructs.

We don't have any reason to believe that. To be precise, we don't have any reason to suppose that s&t are any more conceptual constructs than anything else.