Existence Without Time: Immaterial Universe & Time

[Rader]

Nice exchanging ideas with you again Radar..

Les, pleased to do the same. It has always amazed me why, it is so hard to get across ideas and really understand, others views. I really do make the effort when I think its worth the time. Its important to understand others, to understand ourselves further. We are forced to use current knowledge to further a better understanding of the way the world is. I always wright what I mean, its just that because I can only be in my head, everyone else has to figure out what I meant.

I am not sure if you wrote what you mean. It sounds backward. Isn't it that observed physical phenomena have given birth to metaphysical ideas, such as physicalism?

I think, I understand why you interpreted it this way. In that case mind would be all that there is. I have fought with this thought for much time now.

I agree the physical world is about relationships, but might you agree that we don't know if we see all the things involved in that relationship?

Yes I do agree. If you would compare what we know, to what there is, we do not know much. If you compare though, when we did not know much to what we know now, we know quite a bit and knowledge grows in quantum leaps.

With physicalism, for example, the assumption is that if the senses don't detect it, then it doesn't exist. So there actually is an a priori assumption there, even if it is, as you say, due to the [experience of] physical phenomena.

I am not sure exactly what you assume here, so I will give you my ideas. To know substance you must sense it, physically. The question is, what does the sensing? The substance; that does not correlate with subjunctive experience. So that leaves us with consciouness, does consciousness do the sensing? That leaves the door open to explaining why, you think who you are and I think who I am. Heller Keller thought whos she was. For that matter anything else might know what it is. That could be why when all the senses are stripped away there is still something left. So this is why I said, metaphysical ideas give birth to physical phenomena, that is the way we assume the world is at the present. Physics has no physical ideas priori to physcial phenomena. The physcial world is born of relationships not bricks.
The relationship Essence has with the physical world, is what anything could experience. Thats the best I can do I hope you understand my view.

Hmmmmm, I don't think you are quite right there. What about radiation, nuclear decay, the prediction of the proton's eventual decay, the observed loss of energy in EM oscillation as the universe expands?

What is the problem here, that your referring to, the difficulty in explaining assumed physical locality? If any of these have a usefullness inside of our current or future theories, and they should, we will have someday explanations for them.

I probably agree with more than I disagree (I think ). Lately I've been trying to stay away from assigning any non-physical metaphysical significance to what has already been taken possession of by science thinkers.

You do not have to, Bohr did that years ago but again that depends how you intrerperete things, others would be of there own opionion.

I am not saying that the change relationship described by "time" is all there is to existence. I am simply letting time stand for the rate of entropic change of physical stuff.

Thats fine but its not that simple, it is my opinion that time and space are eternal and present science demands and confirms it by current theory.

Regarding my inner experience, I do not think it is something physical I am experiencing.

I never said or thought it was, although I came to that understanding in a totally different way.

And while time might be a physical concept because we can see physical processes acting in time, spatial characteristics cannot yet be fully claimed by physics.

No, time and space must be eternal, this is the main reason for posting to you here. What reason or evidence can you put in favor of this. The fact that you experience something, sometime, somewhere without senses, is a reason for you believing this, not me. My reason is from what we know of science today. Time and space are inseperable, in GR or QM, so I have no reason to suspect otherwise before the BB.

There are physical aspects we can observe, but how do we know what is present in "space" that we can't see?

Well we can weight the universe and we have done that and we can not see or account for all its weight.

In fact, those who've become accomplished at the inner experience have many times claimed there is an illumination there, undetected by the senses or mechanical machinery. So I don't see why an uncreated, forever existing Essence can't have spatial characteristics, and can at the same time be timeless. I simply see the shapes that Essence takes as temporary, not the Essence itself.

I agree with you but you must understand that timelessness is still TIME, you can not rip it away from space even if space has no dimension.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is the problem here, that your referring to, the difficulty in explaining assumed physical locality? If any of these have a usefullness inside of our current or future theories, and they should, we will have someday explanations for them.

I should have limited my comment to your last sentence in the paragraph where I quoted you saying "At the micro world level, there is no entropy, time appears to be at standstill." I was giving you examples of entropy at the "micro world level" (radiation, nuclear decay, the prediction of the proton's eventual decay, the observed loss of energy in EM oscillation as the universe expands . . .)

My reason is from what we know of science today. Time and space are inseperable, in GR or QM, so I have no reason to suspect otherwise before the BB. . . . I agree with you but you must understand that timelessness is still TIME, you can not rip it away from space even if space has no dimension.

I am looking at it primarily from the science point of view as well when I say it seems contradictory to say time and space are eternal.

I hope somebody solid in physics reads this and tells me if I am wrong, but I think the only reason time and space are treated as inseparable in physics is because of where and with what change takes place. In physics, the only change anyone is concerned with is physical, and physicalness requires space in which to both exist and to change. Also, all time and space attributes are assigned to what was created by the Big Bang; time and space, like us, are within that creation. Space has expanded with time, so there is that relationship too, and if we trace space back to the instant of the big bang, it seems there was no space and there was no time (at least at that point of where the BB was about to occur). So as far as we know, the time and space we find here did not exist before the BB.

I agree with you that intuitively it is difficult to image "nothing" was prior to the BB, or that "nothing" will be around after the universe completely disintegrates. But you are insisting we keep the definition of time/space within the principles of physics, and so it seems to me you cannot then also say time and space are unending when the only indications we have is that since they had a beginning, they will have an end.

See, I am simply distinguishing between the physical-scientific meaning of time and space, from say a spiritual meaning where we might surmise the universe has happened within some infinite and eternal expanse of existential stuff. I think when you say time, you really mean there is something which does not disintegratively age behind that which is disintegratively aging. But time is the term we apply to that which is disintegratively aging. That in fact is exactly the meaning of it, so it is a contradiction to say time is timeless! Same with space. In the physical-scientific meaning, space is considered in relation to that which is disintegratively aging (matter), so if all matter one day fully disintegrates, then there will be nothing to be in relation to and so the concept of space becomes meaningless.

 

[Rader]

I am looking at it primarily from the science point of view as well when I say it seems contradictory to say time and space are eternal. I hope somebody solid in physics reads this and tells me if I am wrong, but I think the only reason time and space are treated as inseparable in physics is because of where and with what change takes place. In physics, the only change anyone is concerned with is physical, and physicalness requires space in which to both exist and to change. Also, all time and space attributes are assigned to what was created by the Big Bang; time and space, like us, are within that creation. Space has expanded with time, so there is that relationship too, and if we trace space back to the instant of the big bang, it seems there was no space and there was no time (at least at that point of where the BB was about to occur). So as far as we know, the time and space we find here did not exist before the BB.

The quote below is from someone who understands this better than we do, earlier in the thread. Its pretty clear to me what it means. What is not clear is what was before the BB, nobody can give you an answer. My argument is if time and space are necessary extrinsic qualities of substance why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence?

What SR does entail is that time and space do not exist independently of each other, not that they don't have meaning independently of each other. And what GR further entails is that time and space do not exist independently of matter and energy.

Is this what you are not sure of?

I agree with you that intuitively it is difficult to image "nothing" was prior to the BB, or that "nothing" will be around after the universe completely disintegrates. But you are insisting we keep the definition of time/space within the principles of physics, and so it seems to me you cannot then also say time and space are unending when the only indications we have is that since they had a beginning, they will have an end.

There is no way to know if there was a beginning or if there will be a end, except if you are talking only about physical states and were are not even sure if this is just a cylic process. What had a beginning was substance and to have that, it is necessary time and space. What is not known and that is the debate, can time and space exist before substance. Can there be existence without time? That is not possible and has been more than once said, time and space are inseperable for a physical existence.

See, I am simply distinguishing between the physical-scientific meaning of time and space, from say a spiritual meaning where we might surmise the universe has happened within some infinite and eternal expanse of existential stuff. I think when you say time, you really mean there is something which does not disintegratively age behind that which is disintegratively aging

.

Correct

But time is the term we apply to that which is disintegratively aging.

Only when it pertains to the physcial world.

That in fact is exactly the meaning of it, so it is a contradiction to say time is timeless! Same with space.

Why? You know the latest studies on this matter, plank length keeps coming up in the formulas. Plank length to my knowledge is not an infinite point that bends to infinity. To give you a example of its size, it is as the distance from end of the universe to the center of the earth, the center of the Earth to the center of an atom and then the center of an atom to plank lenght.
No time is timeless, no entropy is timeless, no movement is timeless. I thought you might be able to comprehend what I am saying, you said you had a notion of this state. You also said that this state seemed to exist.

In the physical-scientific meaning, space is considered in relation to that which is disintegratively aging (matter), so if all matter one day fully disintegrates, then there will be nothing to be in relation to and so the concept of space becomes meaningless.

Or maybe it just returns to timeslessness and spacelessness from whence it came. I have read many of the books on this and there is a variety of opinions. Its quite interesting to contemplate the fate of the universe.

 

[balkan]

It is meaningless to discuss time without spatial dimensions. They are covariant. Neither concept is meaningful without the other. Multiplication by zero can yield any result desired.

no... it is meaningless to discuss with Iacchus32... i think he might be putting us on...

 

[Les Sleeth]

The quote below is from someone who understands this better than we do, earlier in the thread. Its pretty clear to me what it means. What is not clear is what was before the BB, nobody can give you an answer. . . . . Is this what you are not sure of?

It seems like we never quite understand each other the first time around. I think if I spoke Spanish we’d need to exchange a lot fewer posts! I’ve haven’t disputed the current link between time, space, energy and matter, as Tom’s post states. I am not unsure about that even if I don’t understand all the known facets of the relationship.

My argument is if time and space are necessary extrinsic qualities of substance why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence?

I cannot see how your logic about extrinsic and intrinsic follows. For example, if physicalness is a manifestation of some deeper, more basic conditions and/or substance, then while physicalness is dependent on the deeper thing, the deeper thing would not be dependent on physical manifestations.

Can there be existence without time? That is not possible and has been more than once said, time and space are inseperable for a physical existence.

Time space, energy and matter are necessary for physical existence, but is physical existence all there is? Carbon and oxygen are necessary for the existence of carbonated water, but are they necessary to existence of sun spots or quarks or aluminum foil? In other words, we can’t assume that all levels of existence must have the same traits found in physicalness.

Remember, I have ONLY been relying on the physical interpretations of time and space, but it seems you to want to take those terms and apply them outside the context of physics. My experience here at PF has often been that that causes confusion, as well as disagreements where there need be none. If, for instance, we first create distinct categories for our notions of existence, and we start with physical existence, then we would say that time, space and energy are terms that apply to conditions within the universe. Time helps describe the way physical conditions change in our universe, while energy is what drives change.

And space? It is not simply emptiness where matter isn’t, space is quite physical. Consider what astronomer Donald Goldsmith says about space in his book, The Runaway Universe, where the universe “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy. This energy, concealed from any direct detection by its complete transparency, permeates seemingly empty space . . . amazingly, every cubic centimeter of the new space that ongoing cosmic expansion creates likewise teems with this invisible energy, the existence of which endows each volume of space with a tendency to expand.” German physicist Henning Genz writes in his book Nothingness, “To list some the terms that contribute to the energy of the vacuum we have, for starters, that of the Higgs field . . . there is the zero-point electromagnetic radiation of photons . . . vacuum fluctuations into electron-positron pairs and other particle-antiparticle pairs, which we know to be responsible for the experimentally observable effects of vacuum polarization.”

Or maybe it just returns to timeslessness and spacelessness from whence it came. I have read many of the books on this and there is a variety of opinions. Its quite interesting to contemplate the fate of the universe.

This gets us back to the idea of freely interchanging physcial terms with other states of existence. Continuing with time and space as examples, if time describes the rate of physical change toward entropy, but if outside our universe there is some condition/state where there is no entropic change, then how can we apply the word “time” to that situation? If space is the finite distance between matter-forms that has grown/expanded since the Big Bang and is a meaningful participant in the universe’s physics, but if outside our universe there’s an infinite expanse of some eternal existential stuff which is not involved in any sort of physical situation, then how can we equate the universe’s space with that infinite expanse of existence?

My point is that to avoid confusion, we should try to set up philosophical discussions better by making iron-clad distinctions between terms we use to describe physicalness and those possibilities we wish to ponder which are not essentially physical (like, say, consciousness which some propose is somehow entwined with physicalness).

 

[Prometheus]

Consider what astronomer Donald Goldsmith says about space in his book, The Runaway Universe, where the universe “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy. This energy, concealed from any direct detection by its complete transparency, permeates seemingly empty space . . . amazingly, every cubic centimeter of the new space that ongoing cosmic expansion creates likewise teems with this invisible energy, the existence of which endows each volume of space with a tendency to expand.”

What does this tell us about dark energy? The only thing that it really tells us is that he, and scientists in general, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What does this tell us about dark energy? The only thing that it really tells us is that he, and scientists in general, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Well, he/they might not yet know what is going on, but I don't see anything he says as over-speculative. He is saying something is causing the expansion of the universe, as well as the increase in the rate of expansion, but so far whatever it is that is causing that can't be observed (it's "dark"). To me that is the opening thoughts about a mysterious situation. I'd also say he is being generally conservative since all other situations involving movement are known to require energy (i.e., it is logical for him to assume that some sort of energy is involved in expansion whether he can observe it or not).

Would you suggest stiffling theorists?

 

[RingoKid]

consciousness is a dimension that we as entitites tap into.

We project consciousness onto a screen of energy

the screen is in 3d and only lasts as long as the batteries in each projector.

If there were no more projectors would the screen still exist ?

would the observed be observable if there were no one to observe it ?

 

[Rader]

It seems like we never quite understand each other the first time around. I think if I spoke Spanish we’d need to exchange a lot fewer posts! I’ve haven’t disputed the current link between time, space, energy and matter, as Tom’s post states. I am not unsure about that even if I don’t understand all the known facets of the relationship.

No one ever understands anyone the first time around and sometimes never. Take a look at a good thread in QM by Vanesch and Nighlight, you will see what I mean.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=342267#post342267
English is my first language although it makes no difference if we communicate in Spanish. Its not a problem of language its a problem of conceptual understanding. I would like to try and understand your reasoning but it must have to be based on known knowledge. Do we then agree that time and space, are essential for physical existence? This is fundamental, time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world.

I cannot see how your logic about extrinsic and intrinsic follows. For example, if physical ness is a manifestation of some deeper, more basic conditions and/or substance, then while physical ness is dependent on the deeper thing, the deeper thing would not be dependent on physical manifestations.

Matter is a manifestation of time and space, within this parameter conscious physical beings exist, all are naturally bound together and a physical existence is its result. What I question is, why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence? I will explain below.

Time space, energy and matter are necessary for physical existence, but is physical existence all there is?

No, we know space is not empty as once thought, there is evidence and we both agree on that. You can measure the universes weight but you can not account for all of it in physical matter, we agree also on that. No again as there is much evidence that consciousness does not need matter to exist, there is evidence and we have both have given our reasons on a number of threads.

Carbon and oxygen are necessary for the existence of carbonated water, but are they necessary to existence of sun spots or quarks or aluminum foil? In other words, we can’t assume that all levels of existence must have the same traits found in physical ness.

Time and space could harbor an existence that is not physical. I assume we both make that assumption also.

Remember, I have ONLY been relying on the physical interpretations of time and space, but it seems you to want to take those terms and apply them outside the context of physics. My experience here at PF has often been that that causes confusion, as well as disagreements where there need be none. If, for instance, we first create distinct categories for our notions of existence, and we start with physical existence, then we would say that time, space and energy are terms that apply to conditions within the universe. Time helps describe the way physical conditions change in our universe, while energy is what drives change.

I am not trying to go outside the context of physics. The physical world that physics studies is born of metaphysical concepts.

And space? It is not simply emptiness where matter isn’t, space is quite physical. Consider what astronomer Donald Goldsmith says about space in his book, The Runaway Universe, where the universe “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy. This energy, concealed from any direct detection by its complete transparency, permeates seemingly empty space . . . amazingly, every cubic centimeter of the new space that ongoing cosmic expansion creates likewise teems with this invisible energy, the existence of which endows each volume of space with a tendency to expand.” German physicist Henning Genz writes in his book Nothingness, “To list some the terms that contribute to the energy of the vacuum we have, for starters, that of the Higgs field . . . there is the zero-point electromagnetic radiation of photons . . . vacuum fluctuations into electron-positron pairs and other particle-antiparticle pairs, which we know to be responsible for the experimentally observable effects of vacuum polarization.”

So space should not be called a vacuum anymore or the word vacuum be reworded in the dictionary.

This gets us back to the idea of freely interchanging physical terms with other states of existence. Continuing with time and space as examples, if time describes the rate of physical change toward entropy, but if outside our universe there is some condition/state where there is no entropic change, then how can we apply the word “time” to that situation?
If space is the finite distance between matter-forms that has grown/expanded since the Big Bang and is a meaningful participant in the universe’s physics, but if outside our universe there’s an infinite expanse of some eternal existential stuff which is not involved in any sort of physical situation, then how can we equate the universe’s space with that infinite expanse of existence?

This is my reasoning on existence with no time and no space. At sub light speeds matter is unfolded by and in time and space, the universe is in expansion and entropy increases. We measure time on clocks, that are relative to the observer due to matter affected by gravitation. All points have time frames and space frames to locate matter within the universe. Conscious humans experience all this in physical and measurable way. I experience and know that I exist. When I look to the edge of the universe I see time and space as it was billions of years ago. If I look at closer distances, time and space is relative to distance and has a distinct visual look to it. The physical world seems to be perceivable due to its slow cosmological expansion. We interpret the beginning of this expansion to be in a very small unit of space and time to be non-existent. The measuring stick we use to interpret all this is in a local time frame. Now what if we take a look from the outside in, instead of the inside out. A view of non-local measurements. At light speed, time and space are in all places at once. The yardstick shrinks to 0 and the measuring stick does so also. So far away and close-up have no meaning. Timelessness and spacelessness is all of time and all of space. What occurred in the beginning is the same as the distant future. If we look forward in the past, at light speed, deep in space we see the present in the future and we see time and space nowhere. Time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence.

My point is that to avoid confusion, we should try to set up philosophical discussions better by making iron-clad distinctions between terms we use to describe physical ness and those possibilities we wish to ponder which are not essentially physical (like, say, consciousness which some propose is somehow entwined with physical ness).

Agreed.

 

[Prometheus]

Would you suggest stiffling theorists?

Of course not. But I would recommend recognizing what is going on. Dark matter is not understood. That is why they call it dark. Something is happening, and scientists do not know what. They give it a name, and describe its attributes. However, we should recognize that their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong, which is why they don't understand it. We should not pretend that they are "probably" pretty close to being right.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Of course not. But I would recommend recognizing what is going on. Dark matter is not understood. That is why they call it dark. Something is happening, and scientists do not know what. They give it a name, and describe its attributes.

What is "going on" isn't all that difficult to grasp, I realize dark energy (not, BTW, dark matter) isn't understood. What did I say that made you think I don't see that? Your point seems non sequitur, at least in the context of my original comment to Radar. I was trying to make a case for limiting the definition of the term "space" to a physical definition. I sited Goldsmith simply to point to the fact that "space" is actively participating in the physics of the universe. In that context, it doesn't matter whether we understand what exactly is causing the rate of increase in expansion, or if we use the term "dark energy" for what's causing it for now until it is better understood.

However, we should recognize that their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong, which is why they don't understand it. We should not pretend that they are "probably" pretty close to being right.

How can you know "their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" if nobody understands dark energy? It might be their ideas are almost definitely extremely correct too! And who is "pretending" those scientists are close to being right? Certainly you aren't referring to me. I quoted them for the reason I stated above. Now, after more than one offence, I suggest you read up on what a strawman argument is.

But since you've brought up the issue of credibility of my quotes, show me how the quotes I provided aren't 100% correct. Goldsmith might be being a bit creative in his description, but there is no doubt that "new space [is undergoing] cosmic expansion" is there? And are you going to dispute Genz's list of attributes of space ". . . the Higgs field . . . there is the zero-point electromagnetic radiation of photons . . . vacuum fluctuations into electron-positron pairs and other particle-antiparticle pairs . . ."? What is in question there?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Its not a problem of language its a problem of conceptual understanding. I would like to try and understand your reasoning but it must have to be based on known knowledge. Do we then agree that time and space, are essential for physical existence? This is fundamental, time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world.

Yes, we totally agree that "time and space, are essential for physical existence." Also we agree that "time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world," except I'd say the relationship is much stronger than "co-exist."

Matter is a manifestation of time and space, within this parameter conscious physical beings exist, all are naturally bound together and a physical existence is its result. What I question is, why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence? I will explain below.

Before your explanation I will just quickly inject a couple of thoughts.

You haven't defined what you mean by existence, but the way you are using it I am sensing you mean something like "absolute existence," and not for something temporary/relative to exist. Matter needs time and space, but is there something more basic which requires neither? However, this "something more basic" would have to have the potential to manifest as time and space.

From that idea then we can say that logically speaking, it isn't necessary that time and space be intrinsic qualities of absolute (i.e., most basic) existence. They might be, for example, traits brought about by certain conditions unique to our universe.

Time and space could harbor an existence that is not physical. I assume we both make that assumption also.

Yes.

This is my reasoning on existence with no time and no space. At sub light speeds matter is unfolded by and in time and space, the universe is in expansion and entropy increases. We measure time on clocks, that are relative to the observer due to matter affected by gravitation. All points have time frames and space frames to locate matter within the universe. Conscious humans experience all this in physical and measurable way. I experience and know that I exist. When I look to the edge of the universe I see time and space as it was billions of years ago. If I look at closer distances, time and space is relative to distance and has a distinct visual look to it. The physical world seems to be perceivable due to its slow cosmological expansion. We interpret the beginning of this expansion to be in a very small unit of space and time to be non-existent. The measuring stick we use to interpret all this is in a local time frame. Now what if we take a look from the outside in, instead of the inside out. A view of non-local measurements. At light speed, time and space are in all places at once. The yardstick shrinks to 0 and the measuring stick does so also.

I'm with you so far.

So far away and close-up have no meaning.

Whoa, pull the emergency brake! Have no meaning where? In an area defined by physical processes, far away and close up do have meaning. True it is relative meaning because we need circumstances to compare other circumstances to (e.g, "far away" from what, or "close up" to what?). If you said they have no meaning to the existence of the absolute, then I could agree.

Timelessness and spacelessness is all of time and all of space. What occurred in the beginning is the same as the distant future. If we look forward in the past, at light speed, deep in space we see the present in the future and we see time and space nowhere. Time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence.

It isn't easy to understand that paragraph. I've read it over and over trying to see what you mean (is it missing commas? I can't figure out where to pause like, for instance, when you say "if we look forward in the past" or "we see the present in the future"). And it seems contradictory to say we "we see time and space nowhere," and then to say "time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence." Although I am not sure I understand what you mean,I am quite certain you are trying to make logical point.

My interpretation would be that it seems you are trying to say that the true reality is eternal and infinite, and that time and space in our universe are local, relative manifestations of that. I think Wuli might say there couldn't be temporalness and finiteness without a timeless and infinite constrast. Also, I don't know if you meant to say "what occurred in the beginning." In timelessness, there is no beginning (or end), there is just existence. In time however, beginning is part of the definition, as is end.

You said you agreed that we should make ironclad distinctions between physical terms and deeper issues we want to discuss. But it seems to me you are doing just the opposite by insisting time and space be applied to absolute existence. Time in our universe is the rate of entropic change of physical stuff, and space is the areas between mass concentrations where physical processes can take place and which actively participates in physicalness. Space in our universe is finite, and physicalness is subject to time. These are just ordinary physical concepts to help explain the workings of the universe.


If you are trying to say there is some dimension or state of existence that lasts forever, and that is the true meaning of "time"; and that same dimension or state of existence is also an infinite expanse where things can manifest, and that is true meaning of space . . . then I see what you mean. I just think that is a different discussion than what time and space are in our universe.

 

[Prometheus]

How can you know "their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" if nobody understands dark energy? It might be their ideas are almost definitely extremely correct too!

You seem upset. I did not challenge you. I made a recommendation based on my opinion of your post.

Your citation says “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy". What does this say? Nothing except “undergoes a continuous acceleration". The rest is meaningless.

Sure, his idea might be 100% correct, as any wild guess might be. I doubt that you think so. I never suggested that you do. You need not get defensive, as though I were challenging you. I am only giving my opinion of current ideas of dark energy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sure, his idea might be 100% correct, as any wild guess might be. I doubt that you think so. I never suggested that you do. . . . I am only giving my opinion of current ideas of dark energy.

What wild guess are you talking about? I honestly cannot see the reason behind your statement because I can't see how anything I quoted is particularly speculative. Can you point to something you think is a "wild guess"? Goldsmith doesn't claim to understand what is causing the expansion and increase in the rate of expansion. In fact, his statement expresses surprise at the mystery. That he used the term "dark energy" to describe the cause is completely within the boundaries of the use of the word energy, and what he is using it to describe has been observed about universal expansion. So where's the wild guess?

You seem upset. I did not challenge you. I made a recommendation based on my opinion of your post. . . . You need not get defensive, as though I were challenging you.

I wasn't upset so much as showing you my attitude toward someone who I believe is acting opinionated. The problem I have with that is first, the opinionated rely too much on their own views without giving open consideration to others' views; second, often they don't bother to defend their statements; and third, they like to go about taking pot shots at those who are willing to explain themselves. Having an opinion is one thing, being opinionated is something different.

Your original statement was "we should recognize that their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong." How would you know that? And why say "extremely wrong"? To me that indicates you know what you are talking about. Yet if you are so expert that you can judge that, then why don't you explain so the rest of us can understand what you see that we don't? Before that you said my view of time was simplistic, and that maybe I needed to study modern physics. Did you bother to explain yourself, or where you saw the flaw in my model? I offered to defend my model if you provided the critique, but you declined. It's easy to float around forums saying "simplistic" or "wrong" or "meaningless." It is a lot more difficult to then make your case.

Something that goes on around here all the time is people pretending to know/understand more than they really do. They try to act wise or expert instead of being willing to openly learn and share ideas. I hope you aren't going to be one of them.

 

[Prometheus]

What wild guess are you talking about?

The observation is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The wild guess is that there is some force, which makes up the greatest percentage of the universe, which we do not understand at all and so call "dark", that is mysteriously (in his words) causing the phenomenon.

Yet if you are so expert that you can judge that, then why don't you explain so the rest of us can understand what you see that we don't?

This is not a forum for that. Here, some people talk about ideas that they cannot prove, and others giving their own pet ideas or dogmatically defend mainstream arguments that they did not develop and/or do not understand well. You told me your idea. You certainly have the right to the idea. I do not agree with it. Can I prove that you are wrong? Of course not. You want my idea. Why? Will you like it? I am sure not. Can you prove that it is wrong? I think not. Others might jump in and give a superficial gloss of how it is not mainstream, as though that means everything to them. So, what is your point Les?

However, since you asked, I will give you somewhat of an outline of my thinking:

The speed of light is constant in space-time. The rate of motion through space and time is symmetrical. Therefore, as an object increases in its rate of motion through space, it decreases in its rate of motion through time, and vice versa. The Big Bang caused a binding of space and time, to form space-time. Space and time became bound AFTER the Big Bang, not during it. Our part of the universe is far out in space from the location of the Big Bang, and this great distance in space caused time to begin relatively recently in this part of the universe, some 15 billion years ago. Since the time that time began here, all of space is bound up with time, and all of time is bound up with space. There is only space-time. As space-time ages, motion through space decreasses and motion through time increases. The speed of light therefore changes over time. At the very edge of the univese, where motion through space is greater than here and time is therefore less than here, the speed of light is greater. Since motion through space is greater than here, we believe that some force is responsble for this, and that expansion is accelerating. I believe that this is incorrect. It is not that expansion is accelerating, but that deceleration has yet to reach the very edge of the univserse, where the Big Bang is still occurring, as time has yet to begin there. This theory, which I expect will not be welcomed here by you or anyone else, not only explains dark energy, the seeming accelerating expansion of the universe, but also dark matter. In other words, I believe that this can explain why we can only "see" some 4% of the universe that we believe exists. Given the missing mass that this theory makes "visible", it is clear, in my mind, that the universe is cyclic, and that the current cycle that did not begin with the Big Bang but well before it will go through a Big Crunch before the end of the cycle.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is not a forum for that. Here, some people talk about ideas that they cannot prove, and others giving their own pet ideas or dogmatically defend mainstream arguments that they did not develop and/or do not understand well. You told me your idea. You certainly have the right to the idea. I do not agree with it. Can I prove that you are wrong? Of course not. You want my idea. Why? Will you like it? I am sure not. Can you prove that it is wrong? I think not. Others might jump in and give a superficial gloss of how it is not mainstream, as though that means everything to them. So, what is your point Les?

My point is that you don't use terms like "simplistic" or say someone's "ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" unless you are ready to explain why/how. That is mere potshot taking, and not in the spirit of an intelligent exchange of ideas. If you aren't going to explain the faults you see in a proposition, then why not just leave graffiti around town instead of dropping into discussions with nothing constructive/instructive to contribute?

It is not that expansion is accelerating, but that deceleration has yet to reach the very edge of the univserse, where the Big Bang is still occurring, as time has yet to begin there. This theory, which I expect will not be welcomed here by you or anyone else, not only explains dark energy, the seeming accelerating expansion of the universe, but also dark matter. In other words, I believe that this can explain why we can only "see" some 4% of the universe that we believe exists. Given the missing mass that this theory makes "visible", it is clear, in my mind, that the universe is cyclic, and that the current cycle that did not begin with the Big Bang but well before it will go through a Big Crunch before the end of the cycle.

I am not prepared to challenge your theory, but there is one question I have. Do you have observational evidence to support your theory? If not, I would suspect you are proposing it to support your a priori belief in the Big Crunch. Most of the cosmologists I've read, Goldsmith included, were not at all comfortable with the notion of an ever-expanding universe, so it's not like they were dying to find an excuse to resurrect the cosmological constant! They simply have no better explanation for what's been observed.

 

[Prometheus]

My point is that you don't use terms like "simplistic" or say someone's "ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" unless you are ready to explain why/how. That is mere potshot taking, and not in the spirit of an intelligent exchange of ideas. If you aren't going to explain the faults you see in a proposition, then why not just leave graffiti around town instead of dropping into discussions with nothing constructive/instructive to contribute?

OK.

I am not prepared to challenge your theory, but there is one question I have. Do you have observational evidence to support your theory?

Dark matter and dark energy are 2 forms of evidence that are observed yet not explained adequately without a theory such as this. There is also a large amount of evidence in other fields than cosmology that led me to this conclusion.

If not, I would suspect you are proposing it to support your a priori belief in the Big Crunch.

Not true. It was evidence that led me to consider that the universe must be cyclic, and not the other way around.

Most of the cosmologists I've read, Goldsmith included, were not at all comfortable with the notion of an ever-expanding universe, so it's not like they were dying to find an excuse to resurrect the cosmological constant! They simply have no better explanation for what's been observed.

Not yet. It would be nice to be able to hold a discussion with some of them. Oh, well.

 

[Rader]

Yes, we totally agree that "time and space, are essential for physical existence." Also we agree that "time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world," except I'd say the relationship is much stronger than "co-exist."

OK then, within the physical world we have two hard problems to resolve. Both can be examined through the eyes of philosophy and physics.

Where does subjunctive experience come from, if it is not the result of brain parts?
How does relationships and concepts form our physical world?
These two questions might have a common answer, if there is no answer found in physics, with a physical explanation, then there is something that exists outside of the physical world.

You haven't defined what you mean by existence, but the way you are using it I am sensing you mean something like "absolute existence," and not for something temporary/relative to exist. Matter needs time and space, but is there something more basic which requires neither? However, this "something more basic" would have to have the potential to manifest as time and space.

Existence is consciousness. I am conscious and I assume the way the physical world acts, it is also conscious. We assume by deduction through studies in physics and astronomy, that the physical world came into existence, so I have no reason not to assume that whatever the physical world came from or out of, there also was a existence and consciousness. The evidence I would use to backup my reasoning is the most peculiar way the physical world goes about its business of knowing just what to do next.
So then it appears that something, that seems to be around sometimes, only temporarily, might have been around eternally.

From that idea then we can say that logically speaking, it isn't necessary that time and space be intrinsic qualities of absolute (i.e., most basic) existence. They might be, for example, traits brought about by certain conditions unique to our universe.

I can not get passed this point that you keep bringing up. You seem to want to hold on to it. Why do you want to eliminate time and space before physical matter came into existence? I can not conceive of time and space not being intrinsic properties of existence. I can conceive of the extrinsic properties of time and space, in our physical world, as we experience them everyday.

Whoa, pull the emergency brake! Have no meaning where? In an area defined by physical processes, far away and close up do have meaning. True it is relative meaning because we need circumstances to compare other circumstances to (e.g, "far away" from what, or "close up" to what?). If you said they have no meaning to the existence of the absolute, then I could agree.

No meaning in a non-local time frame at light speed. Yes you could call light speed the existence of the absolute. Absolute oneness, timeless and space ness. Take a look at this link and you might understand where my reasoning comes from.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/cship.html

It isn't easy to understand that paragraph. I've read it over and over trying to see what you mean (is it missing commas? I can't figure out where to pause like, for instance, when you say "if we look forward in the past" or "we see the present in the future"). And it seems contradictory to say we "we see time and space nowhere," and then to say "time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence." Although I am not sure I understand what you mean, I am quite certain you are trying to make logical point.

Sorry I know what I mean and thought you would, my mistake for not being a little more clear. Look through a telescope to the farthest quasar. Light is coming to your eyes from the distant past, many billions of years ago. That light is from the past, look forward in the past. If we could instantaneously go to where the light was when it left before it got here billion of years later, what would you find. You would find the present in the future. That quasar would be in the same time frame as Earth. Time is relative to the observer in a physical existence but not at light speed. Do you think that if you were on a photon C-ship, there would be no time and space experienced?

My interpretation would be that it seems you are trying to say that the true reality is eternal and infinite, and that time and space in our universe are local, relative manifestations of that. I think Wuli might say there couldn't be temporal ness and finiteness without a timeless and infinite contrast. Also, I don't know if you meant to say "what occurred in the beginning." In timelessness, there is no beginning (or end), there is just existence. In time however, beginning is part of the definition, as is end.

You understand me correctly, except for one point. You use the word time as if it was really a clock, as if it was a physical clock. Time is a concept in the physical world, that is essential for matters existence, it only seems logical that this same concept would be essential for existence, where matter does not exist.

You said you agreed that we should make ironclad distinctions between physical terms and deeper issues we want to discuss. But it seems to me you are doing just the opposite by insisting time and space be applied to absolute existence. Time in our universe is the rate of entropic change of physical stuff, and space is the areas between mass concentrations where physical processes can take place and which actively participates in physical ness. Space in our universe is finite, and physical ness is subject to time. These are just ordinary physical concepts to help explain the workings of the universe.

I am trying to equate time in a non entropic state where space and time are one.

If you are trying to say there is some dimension or state of existence that lasts forever, and that is the true meaning of "time"; and that same dimension or state of existence is also an infinite expanse where things can manifest, and that is true meaning of space . . . then I see what you mean. I just think that is a different discussion than what time and space are in our universe.

You understand what I am trying to get across then. I am trying to use analytical reasoning of what is known to know what is not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You understand what I am trying to get across then. I am trying to use analytical reasoning of what is known to know what is not.

Okay then, I think I get you. As I suspected, I believe we agree in spirit but disagree about certain communication issues.

This is just my humble opinion, but I believe those of us who think there is "something more" besides physicalness will do better talking to those who don't if we stop using terms and concepts which have precise definitions in physics. If we try to squeeze the idea of "something more" into physics, we are trying to fit into an area of knowledge which produces, and demands, very concrete results. If there is "something more," it will never meet that standard even if it is something we can feel with the deepest, most sensitive part of our being and produces an inner satisfaction like no other.

Take, for example, your comment, "You use the word time as if it was really a clock, as if it was a physical clock. Time is a concept in the physical world, that is essential for matters existence, it only seems logical that this same concept would be essential for existence, where matter does not exist." In the physcial world as we know it, there is no time that doesn't involve aging (i.e., discounting exotic time manipulation theories). We can slow or speed up the rate of time relative to another frame of reference, but there is not one single example showing that time can be other than entropic.

Now, you are talking about applying the concept of the aging-type of time to an area we are supposing is ageless. How can that be? To someone solidly schooled in physics, they must see our view as confused or even nonsense. In fact, if you review some of the most heated debates in the philosophy area, very often it has been philosopher types challenged by conservative science types for being sloppy about how they use physical concepts. This is what you seem to do here: "I am trying to equate time in a non entropic state where space and time are one."

Not only do I think leaving established physical concepts alone would allow us to communicate better with those who don't think there is "something more," I also think it helps a thinker understand things more clearly. I know it has really helped me to conceptually separate physical concepts from my inner experience. I've become convinced that although the physical and non-physical might share something most basic, at the level of physical existence here where we now live, the principles which govern each are too different to join. Maybe in the future . . .

 

[Rader]

Okay then, I think I get you. As I suspected, I believe we agree in spirit but disagree about certain communication issues.

This is just my humble opinion, but I believe those of us who think there is "something more" besides physical ness will do better talking to those who don't if we stop using terms and concepts which have precise definitions in physics. If we try to squeeze the idea of "something more" into physics, we are trying to fit into an area of knowledge which produces, and demands, very concrete results. If there is "something more," it will never meet that standard even if it is something we can feel with the deepest, most sensitive part of our being and produces an inner satisfaction like no other.

I have to disagree with you on several points. First we have to define "something more". This term can mean many things. In physics, in its most basic form something more is QM. The results are verifiable and there is most certainly something more than the physical. Now we then have to divide the physical into two parts. Either the "something more" really produces physical objects from that which is not, or the physical world is a Matrix, and invention of mind in which case that "something more" is also responsible.
Second, it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that "something more" is. Thirdly, within the scope of physics the search for that "something more" has evolved and will continue to evolve, physics is not a waste of time on a dead end street, we humans have been around for a few seconds in eternity, we have a long way to go. Now for those who can accept the world for the way we assume it exists, that "something more" can be researched deeper.

Take, for example, your comment, "You use the word time as if it was really a clock, as if it was a physical clock. Time is a concept in the physical world, that is essential for matters existence, it only seems logical that this same concept would be essential for existence, where matter does not exist." In the physical world as we know it, there is no time that doesn't involve aging (i.e., discounting exotic time manipulation theories). We can slow or speed up the rate of time relative to another frame of reference, but there is not one single example showing that time can be other than entropic.

I disagree, consider the following. The physical macro world is within time and space and entropy does increase. The micro world is also within time and space and does not show entropy. In both states time and space would seem to be necessary for existence. So the question here is, does the micro world exist? If it does, then time and space are essential for existence. Time and space in the micro and macro world would then have a totally different concept, in another state of being.

Now, you are talking about applying the concept of the aging-type of time to an area we are supposing is ageless. How can that be? To someone solidly schooled in physics, they must see our view as confused or even nonsense. In fact, if you review some of the most heated debates in the philosophy area, very often it has been philosopher types challenged by conservative science types for being sloppy about how they use physical concepts. This is what you seem to do here: "I am trying to equate time in a non entropic state where space and time are one."

Ok I am will to listen if there is anyone out there to correct me. What your saying then is that the micro world does not exist because it has no entropy and therefore no time or space either. What I am saying is the macro world does appear to age and the micro does not appear to age and time and space are necessary for both. I seems the problem here is applying a concept in two different states of being.

Not only do I think leaving established physical concepts alone would allow us to communicate better with those who don't think there is "something more," I also think it helps a thinker understand things more clearly. I know it has really helped me to conceptually separate physical concepts from my inner experience. I've become convinced that although the physical and non-physical might share something most basic, at the level of physical existence here where we now live, the principles which govern each are too different to join. Maybe in the future . . .

I can understand what your saying but I do not have that tool. We seem to have the same agenda with a totally different approach to meet its requirements. Also, I think that not to far in the future, physics will provide the leading edge along with other multidisciplinary tools, to find that something more. Weinberg once said, something to this effect. I think it is incomprehensible that we will ever find the answer to the last why and maybe even more incomprehensible to that we will not try.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have to disagree with you on several points. First we have to define "something more". This term can mean many things. In physics, in its most basic form something more is QM. The results are verifiable and there is most certainly something more than the physical. Now we then have to divide the physical into two parts. . . . We seem to have the same agenda with a totally different approach to meet its requirements. Also, I think that not to far in the future, physics will provide the leading edge along with other multidisciplinary tools, to find that something more. Weinberg once said, something to this effect. I think it is incomprehensible that we will ever find the answer to the last why and maybe even more incomprehensible to that we will not try.

I don't think we are going to agree because it seems you want to start with physical principles and go from there, but I want to start from the non-physical.

Either the "something more" really produces physical objects from that which is not, or the physical world is a Matrix, and invention of mind in which case that "something more" is also responsible.

Those are not the only choices, as I argued in my panpsychism thread. I'm not sure if you read my substance monism contemplation.

Second, it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that "something more" is. Thirdly, within the scope of physics the search for that "something more" has evolved and will continue to evolve, physics is not a waste of time on a dead end street, we humans have been around for a few seconds in eternity, we have a long way to go. Now for those who can accept the world for the way we assume it exists, that "something more" can be researched deeper.

I don't don't think physics is a waste of time at all. But I do think it is a dead end if we are looking for the origin/basis of existence and consciousness. You say, "it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that 'something more' is" . . . but what if "something more" can only be felt, and never grasped with the intellect? In fact, those I've cited in other threads who are famous for their descriptions of something more have clearly stated that it was through the deepest, most inward part of their feeling nature that they became aware of "something more." Of course, people will continue to search for it intellectually and/or scientifically. I just don't believe "something more" makes itself available to that sort of search. But good luck trying!

What your saying then is that the micro world does not exist because it has no entropy and therefore no time or space either.

? I never said that. I think the microworld of physics DOES exist, but as processes, activities and forms of something far more basic. In other words, I don't think the microworld inside physics appears the same as it does outside physics. You seem to think the microworld of physics is the most basic condition of existence, just like most physicalists believe. Whereas I believe even the microworld of physics is a highly structured form of something that pre-exists its entrance into physics.

I disagree, consider the following. The physical macro world is within time and space and entropy does increase. The micro world is also within time and space and does not show entropy. In both states time and space would seem to be necessary for existence. So the question here is, does the micro world exist? If it does, then time and space are essential for existence. Time and space in the micro and macro world would then have a totally different concept, in another state of being. . . . What I am saying is the macro world does appear to age and the micro does not appear to age and time and space are necessary for both. I seems the problem here is applying a concept in two different states of being.

I don't understand why you believe the microworld doesn't show entropy. Earlier I cited the examples of nuclear decay, radiation, the prediction of proton decay (true, it's not been observed yet), and the fact that the oscillation rate of the universe's background radiation slows down as the universe expands. What's that if not entropy? If you are referring to how an atom appears to expend no energy while it oscillates, for example, that is not the only kind of entropy.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Existence without time cannot be imagined by the human brain which is rooted in an ambient universe possessing the persistent illusion called time.

 

[Rader]

I don't think we are going to agree because it seems you want to start with physical principles and go from there, but I want to start from the non-physical..

Is it so important that we agree? I would be satisfied to learn something, that maybe I had not thought about yet. It is of my nature to think as I do, proceed if you like; just how do you expect to start at the opposite end first?

Those are not the only choices, as I argued in my panpsychism thread. I'm not sure if you read my substance monism contemplation.

You seem to identify that "something more" maybe closer to what it really is but it permeates everything all the way to where I am most interested in discussing it. You only have to hold a dying person in your arms and watch the life leave it body.

I don't don't think physics is a waste of time at all. But I do think it is a dead end if we are looking for the origin/basis of existence and consciousness.

Well, that would not be so, if and when consciousness is recognized as a fundamental property of existence and not a byproduct of physical processes.
How else can we determine this if not through physics?

You say, "it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that 'something more' is" . . . but what if "something more" can only be felt, and never grasped with the intellect?

I believe that "something more" will someday be one with human intellect. Can you really separate the feel of any subjunctive experience you have, from your intellect?

In fact, those I've cited in other threads who are famous for their descriptions of something more have clearly stated that it was through the deepest, most inward part of their feeling nature that they became aware of "something more." Of course, people will continue to search for it intellectually and/or scientifically. I just don't believe "something more" makes itself available to that sort of search. But good luck trying!

I am and enjoy the study very much. "Something more" is not understood by everyone as you might understand it. I started to define it from the physical end, so now you can have a stab at it from your view.

? I never said that. I think the micro world of physics DOES exist, but as processes, activities and forms of something far more basic. In other words, I don't think the micro world inside physics appears the same as it does outside physics. You seem to think the micro world of physics is the most basic condition of existence, just like most physicalists believe. Whereas I believe even the micro world of physics is a highly structured form of something that pre-exists its entrance into physics.

Ok, so that was the way I interpreted it, now I understand you but do not misinterpret me either. What I think is the micro world is a maize of relationships that hold the secrets of how "something more" links itself to the macro world.

I don't understand why you believe the micro world doesn't show entropy. Earlier I cited the examples of nuclear decay, radiation, the prediction of proton decay (true, it's not been observed yet), and the fact that the oscillation rate of the universe's background radiation slows down as the universe expands. What's that if not entropy? If you are referring to how an atom appears to expend no energy while it oscillates, for example, that is not the only kind of entropy.

Heat could be treated as a loss of information, information is physical, temperature connects information and erasing one bit of information dissipates energy as heat. The micro world is not in a collapsed engine state like the physical world, therefore information is in a free state, no heat loss. The conditions you are describing are macro states not micro states, the universe as a whole does show entropy, radiation is entropy of a macro state.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The micro world is not in a collapsed engine state like the physical world, therefore information is in a free state, no heat loss. The conditions you are describing are macro states not micro states, the universe as a whole does show entropy, radiation is entropy of a macro state.

You lost me. Is the microworld something you are hypothesizing, but not yet observed? I thought you were talking about mainstream quantum principles.

 

[Mk]

Existence without time cannot be imagined by the human brain which is rooted in an ambient universe possessing the persistent illusion called time.

According to we guys up the page, in the physics sections there is no time without existence and no existence without time, they are dependent on each other. Though also, phoenixthoth is right, there is know way to imagine it.

 

[Iacchus32]

According to we guys up the page, in the physics sections there is no time without existence and no existence without time, they are dependent on each other. Though also, phoenixthoth is right, there is know way to imagine it.

Does the sun cast a shadow? Or, does the rock which stands between you and the sun cast a shadow? Why couldn't time have always been, except without a means by which to measure it? ... the physical Universe in other words.

 

[Rader]

Existence without time cannot be imagined by the human brain which is rooted in an ambient universe possessing the persistent illusion called time.

Yes and since you are here and have your watch handy you have come back to PF. Have you been time travelling?

 

[Rader]

You lost me. Is the microworld something you are hypothesizing, but not yet observed? I thought you were talking about mainstream quantum principles.

QM is not a hypothesis it is a working theory. Although there is much hypothesis, on its unknown variables. The Copenhagen Interpretation, as my view, needs a projection up to conscious observation, all information is probabilities until that occurs. Somewhere along the chain, you need to postulate "an observation", so what does the observing? Is consciousness the projection of the wavefunction.? Is that mainstream,? depends who your talking to.

The mircroworld is not observable except through maybe a electron microscope. Although a photon could interact with a individual atom and reach the retina, causing information exchange, it is beyond the capacity of human awareness, to know and interpret the information, in a coherent way.

If a consciousness observes a device that measures, it decides if or if not in what state it is. Decoherence theory then simply states that all possible measurements you can do give exactly the same results. So then is it the consciousness who decides? Some interprete it this way.

 

[Les Sleeth]

QM is not a hypothesis it is a working theory. Although there is much hypothesis, on its unknown variables. The Copenhagen Interpretation, as my view, needs a projection up to conscious observation, all information is probabilities until that occurs. Somewhere along the chain, you need to postulate "an observation", so what does the observing? Is consciousness the projection of the wavefunction.? Is that mainstream,? depends who your talking to.

The mircroworld is not observable except through maybe a electron microscope. Although a photon could interact with a individual atom and reach the retina, causing information exchange, it is beyond the capacity of human awareness, to know and interpret the information, in a coherent way.

If a consciousness observes a device that measures, it decides if or if not in what state it is. Decoherence theory then simply states that all possible measurements you can do give exactly the same results. So then is it the consciousness who decides? Some interprete it this way.

Interesting, but I am not sure why you gave that answer. I was trying to find out why you don't think nuclear decay or background radiation's diminishing oscillation rate aren't the microworld (since I listed them as examples of entropic behavior in the microworld). What have we observed that is more micro than what goes on in the particle realm?

 

[Rader]

Interesting, but I am not sure why you gave that answer. I was trying to find out why you don't think nuclear decay or background radiation's diminishing oscillation rate aren't the micro world (since I listed them as examples of entropic behavior in the micro world). What have we observed that is more micro than what goes on in the particle realm?

How many atoms do you have to bunch together to simulate a entropic state?
In the micro world, nuclear transitions are just jumps from one quantum state to another, just like atomic transitions, I think not entropy.

I gave that answer to try and demonstrate, that there is a quite big difference between micro and macro and something shakes hands in the middle.

Why is it, you insist that micro states might have entropy? Is it that you can then justify some sort of an argument? What’s your reason that they might or could have? I am interested in what you might think. Does it have something to do with your theory?