Is Our Perception of the Universe Just a Black Box?

[brainstorm]

when i hit the multi-quote button, it turns blue, but it does nothing that i can tell. sometimes i like to respond to various points at separate times, and in separate posts, so that the posts don't become too large back and forth. i don't know how to respond such that they come out like yours do.

If you hit the multi-quote button and make it blue for several posts, then hit the reply button, your reply will include all the quotes you selected by making them blue.

i simply don't know what a 4-dimensional spatial object is, because i am a 3-dimensional object.

What happens in your mind when you read my explanation? Do you understand how time can be a dimension? Do you understand that 3D objects change through time the same way a point changes position through becoming linear and a line changes position by becoming planar or a plane changes position by becoming voluminous? I don't see how to explain this. If you don't understand dimensions as being inter-related, how can you understand the relationship between 3D and 4D? It has to be analogous to the relationship between 1D and 2D or 2D and 3D, right?

i understand that matter, in our universe, can only be transformed. i just don't get what that had to do with my statement that our universe had a beginning.

Because how can the universe have a beginning if at that moment, the contents had to be transformed from something else? Then that something else would be prior to the beginning, correct? And if something is prior to a beginning, then it's not really a true beginning because the thing coming prior to it would be, right?

i did not quite understand your statement about tautologous. i do not think it is possible for us to understand an effect without a cause, because we live in a causal universe. but there are many things that may be impossible for me to conceive, due to the environment in which i am placed. that does not mean said things don't exist.

Tautology means that because you look for something everywhere, you see it everywhere. That is why I asked you if the human mind has the capacity to NOT attribute causation to anything it examines. If not, claiming that the universe is the source of universal causality seems tautologous to me, i.e. you see it everywhere because that is what your mind is trained to see in everything period.

[/quote]if i speak of god, in a literal sense, i do not mean words created by humans. by the definition that we use when we use the term "GOD", we refer to a divine being who created the universe. a being who existed when our universe did not exist. we have no direct connection to god, assuming he exists.[/quote]
I don't know what you call "direct" or not, but if people didn't have any connection with God, what was the source of inspiration for the writers of all the scriptures?

according to physics as we know it today, we can not transcend the speed of light. while of my own personal accord, i can not say for sure that it is impossible, but i suspect that it is not possible, and therefore accept the fact that i won't know what the universe really is. it doesn't keep me from wanting to know, though.

How could anything move faster than light if light in fact has no mass and therefore no resistance to translating energy into motion?

I don't think you really want to know as much as you keep saying. Otherwise, I don't think you would avoid contemplating your own questions as you seem to do. You seem to prefer to state them and then claim to simply be unable to answer them. You don't really struggle with them. Maybe you won't ultimately be able to answer them (conclusively), but you could reason with them critically and submit your thought processes publicly in a forum for feedback.

 

[petm1]

well, you can shoot down my theory by simply giving me one thing in our universe whose effect has no cause

Big bang.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Big bang.

you have a smiley face, so i assume that you are kidding ?

 

[Physics-Learner]

i did not have success yet with the multi-quote, so i will reply to each of your paragraphs with a separate one of my own.

we may loosely define time as a "dimension", but it is not a spatial dimension. personally, i don't think it is a dimension at all. i do not think that einstein's theory about gravity is correct. as i mentioned, when i said a 4-dimensional object, i said a spatial one. we have length, width and depth. a 4-dimensional object would also have lewipth, which is understood by you and me about as well as the name that i gave it. i don't think we have the foggiest idea of what time is. all we know is that it is something that we experience as a separation of events.

again, when i use the term universe, i speak in the common terms of the world that we live in. this is a causal universe. it had a beginning, based upon how time (whatever it is) reveals itself to us. it has nothing to do with matter. the rules that you quote about transformation of matter only apply to our universe. no rules necessarily apply to the singularity at the time of the big bang. in fact, if i recall from most of my reading in the past, the big bang is the creation of the universe. and in so doing, created space, time, and matter. there is nothing in our universe that is necessarily true in the super-universe. if one assumes that our universe had no beginning, then one arrives at an incorrect conclusion, thereby realizing logically that it must have had a beginning, since its inhabitants have limited lives. if our universe had no beginning, then there would be an infinite amount of time that had elapsed at any given point in time. which means that we could never have been born, since an infinite amount of time would have to elapse before we could be born.

well, if there was such a thing in our universe that could have an effect without a cause, we might be able to realize it. every effect so far can be contributed to a cause.

you tell me. everyone has their own ideas. humans writing books that say they were inspired by god does not necessarily make it so. i could say that this thread was inspired by the easter bunny. would you really believe that ? i had enough catholic brainwashing in my life, that took most of my current life to rid myself of. no one knows if god exists. people like to believe they do, because it is like taking a happy pill. heck i hope god exists, and i hope i get to go to a place like heaven. but hoping is not knowing. religion has been the premier way that the wealthy have controlled the commoner. so these books are much more likely to have been inspired by greedy humans, than by god. have you read any of the old testament ? gosh, i consider it to be an embarrassment to the idea of god as a loving father type of being. i have to laugh at the catholic church. (the other christian churches arent much different, but i have a lot of experience with the catholic church). they all want you to think that they are the last word about god. they tell you what to believe, and you then believe it. when asked about why they make changes, they tell you that they have evolved in their thinking. doesn't anyone see the irony in that ? if they really had some direct connection with god, they would have no need to evolve. all these organized religions don't have the slightest clue about god. they just want to herd as many people into their flock as possible. and btw, at the same time, they happen to get donations. the most spiritual thing i have done in my life is escape all that crap, and spend some time thinking for myself.

i don't know. but that logic has been used a million times in the past, and has been wrong a million times in the past. how could we possibly go to that twinkle in the sky ? then when our knowledge reaches a certain point, we can explain how we can get to that twinkle in the sky.

avoid my contemplations ? i am 55 years old. did you think my opinions simply came by osmosis ? i would liken it to living long enough to know when to beat your head against the wall, and when it might behoove me to stop, because i realize that it is futile (a borgism - LOL). americans, especially, put all this silly emphasis on doing the "impossible". for each person that succeeds, a million fail. but it doesn't stop us from glamorizing it. i have very specific thought processes and very specific reasons for my opinions about my contemplations.

 

[Max™]

In order to register change in a point, you need a line.

In order to register change in a line, one needs a plane.

In order to register change in a plane, you require a volume.

In order to register change in a volume, you need another dimension, time works.

 

[Physics-Learner]

you are beating around the bush. time does not make a 4-dimensional spatial object.

if time is a dimensional at all, it certainly is not a spatial one.

you use spatial objects for 1 2 and 3 dimensions. then you come up with time when you can't find a 4th dimension - because there aint one in this universe.

remember that our perception of our universe is based upon our tools. the lack of instantaneous information has much to do with the speed of light, time, and our inability to see the universe in totality.

Newton had equations that predicted gravity very well. but is it matter attracted to matter ? einstein has equations that do well. but is is objects traveling with the least resistance in some time space continuum ? or is it something completely different ? i suspect the latter, but i also suspect that i will die way before we arrive at the correct answer.

 

[Siv]

you have a smiley face, so i assume that you are kidding ?

He might be kidding.
But I wanted to say the same thing, and I am not.

 

[brainstorm]

we may loosely define time as a "dimension", but it is not a spatial dimension. personally, i don't think it is a dimension at all. i do not think that einstein's theory about gravity is correct. as i mentioned, when i said a 4-dimensional object, i said a spatial one. we have length, width and depth. a 4-dimensional object would also have lewipth, which is understood by you and me about as well as the name that i gave it. i don't think we have the foggiest idea of what time is. all we know is that it is something that we experience as a separation of events.

Aren't space/volume and 3-dimensionality two words for the same thing? A plane does not have volume, but area. A line does not have area but length. So would wouldn't you expect 4-dimensionality to have it's own measure of dimensional quantity distinct from length, area, and volume?

well, if there was such a thing in our universe that could have an effect without a cause, we might be able to realize it. every effect so far can be contributed to a cause.

I have tried to get you to think about how this could signal a tautology but you either won't or can't consider that. Some people just can't critically consider the possiblity of tautology. I remember before I read Popper's criticism of Marxian class analysis as tautologous, I was getting used to seeing everything that occurred in the news as the product of class-interest conflict. That's how tautologies work, but you have to be able to reflect on your perceptions as an artifact of cognition to see it.

you tell me. everyone has their own ideas. humans writing books that say they were inspired by god does not necessarily make it so. i could say that this thread was inspired by the easter bunny. would you really believe that ?

Well, you have to analyze what you think God is or could be. Like the easter bunny, no one has ever seen God directly. So however you imagine God being in heaven or wherever he might be, the only worldly experience of him anyone can have is mediated by other things, like burning bushes, voices in your head, the sea parting so you can walk on the bottom, or answers to prayers. If you prayed for divine insight and you got it, you could write it down and call it scripture. Who would anyone be to tell you your writing was not inspired by God and theirs was?

i had enough catholic brainwashing in my life, that took most of my current life to rid myself of. no one knows if god exists. people like to believe they do, because it is like taking a happy pill. heck i hope god exists, and i hope i get to go to a place like heaven. but hoping is not knowing. religion has been the premier way that the wealthy have controlled the commoner. so these books are much more likely to have been inspired by greedy humans, than by god. have you read any of the old testament ? gosh, i consider it to be an embarrassment to the idea of god as a loving father type of being. i have to laugh at the catholic church. (the other christian churches arent much different, but i have a lot of experience with the catholic church). they all want you to think that they are the last word about god. they tell you what to believe, and you then believe it. when asked about why they make changes, they tell you that they have evolved in their thinking. doesn't anyone see the irony in that ? if they really had some direct connection with god, they would have no need to evolve. all these organized religions don't have the slightest clue about god. they just want to herd as many people into their flock as possible. and btw, at the same time, they happen to get donations. the most spiritual thing i have done in my life is escape all that crap, and spend some time thinking for myself.

See, I knew there was some BS behind you talking about wanting to know the mind of God. You are just an anti-theist pushing buttons to try to stir up an opportunity to preach faith-doubt. Don't you realize that everything you typed here could have the same brainwashing effect as the Catholic teachings you have come to eschew and resent?

avoid my contemplations ? i am 55 years old. did you think my opinions simply came by osmosis ? i would liken it to living long enough to know when to beat your head against the wall, and when it might behoove me to stop, because i realize that it is futile (a borgism - LOL). americans, especially, put all this silly emphasis on doing the "impossible". for each person that succeeds, a million fail. but it doesn't stop us from glamorizing it. i have very specific thought processes and very specific reasons for my opinions about my contemplations.

I see that. But you don't seem to have enough objective distance from your own perspective to see that it is oriented toward limiting because you experience limiting as rational. Look at the phrases you use like "beating your head against a wall . . . when it behooves you to stop . . . because you realize it's futile." Those are the words of someone who sees pursuit of knowledge not only as a waste of energy but as having potentially painful and damaging results. If I wanted to handicap a person against pursuing/exploring knowledge, I would indoctrinate them into exactly such an ideology. Personally, I don't care if you think like this but I find it strange and somewhat hypocritical that you talk about "wanting to know the mind of God," and having all these unanswered questions when you clearly eschew the pursuit of such knowledge on some level.

 

[Physics-Learner]

He might be kidding.
But I wanted to say the same thing, and I am not.

our laws of physics do not apply to the big bang.

 

[Upisoft]

our laws of physics do not apply to the big bang.

As some people love to say, you were not there, so you have no way to know...

 

[Physics-Learner]

As some people love to say, you were not there, so you have no way to know...

physicists will tell you that. our laws of physics and the universe do not apply to the big bang.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi brainstorm,

yes, very much so. that is why i kiddingly gave it a name. a 4th spatial dimension is something that none of us can imagine, any more than the flatlander could imagine volume.

i understood what you were talking about. you said that if we arent able to recognize effect with no cause, we will never see it.

anyone can claim to have something inspired by god. if someone could really prove it, most people on the planet would be believers. of course, we would no longer need to be believers (acceptance of truth without fact), because proof is about having facts. i have heard enough claims to last me a dozen lifetimes.

it is funny. most scientific people accuse me of being theistic. you are concluding that i have anti-theistic motives because i don't like organized religions ? you got to be kidding me.

lack of pursuit of knowledge ? knowledge about what ? the existence of god ? that is not attainable. i have chosen to accept that, instead of beating my head against the wall. or instead of believing or not believing. but contrary to your thoughts about me, it did not stop my spiritual growth. i look upon it as the first step towards a real spiritual type of growth - one that first started with being willing to be honest with myself, and separate what i know from what i have been taught.

 

[brainstorm]

physicists will tell you that. our laws of physics and the universe do not apply to the big bang.

If you can't hypothesize the big bang, what purpose is there in talking about it? You seem to just be seeking out limits for things.

 

[Physics-Learner]

If you can't hypothesize the big bang, what purpose is there in talking about it? You seem to just be seeking out limits for things.

i did not say that one could not hypothesize about the big bang.

but don't state it like fact.

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

the rules of physics do not apply to the big bang.

 

[brainstorm]

i did not say that one could not hypothesize about the big bang.

but don't state it like fact.

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

the rules of physics do not apply to the big bang.

How could I come up with such an example if causality was a tautology of the human mind?

 

[petm1]

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

Consciousness.

 

[Physics-Learner]

How could I come up with such an example if causality was a tautology of the human mind?

one can say that anything is tautologous, if one wants to ignore the facts. the fact is that everything that we know is causal.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Consciousness.

any ideas that we have require brain activity. there are causes for every effect that our brain produces. this is not an example of effect without cause.

 

[Max™]

As some people love to say, you were not there, so you have no way to know...

I'm pretty sure I was there, at least the energy which later condensed into the matter which eventually wound up assuming the arrangement I identify as myself was there.


Why do dimensions have to be spatial, PL?

Can you define a spatial dimension to me without involving a description of dimensions?

Does my chair possesses dimensions? Is chairness a dimension, in a different sense than say... left or up? The chair to my left is different from the window to my left, and both are different from the table to my right.

A table in the same position my chair is in would not be a chair, so that attribute is a way in which to measure or arrange information.

If I placed a table there, it could not occupy the same position in both space and time, so in order to have degrees of freedom to rearrange objects within a particular space, I need another degree of freedom, don't I?

 

[Physics-Learner]

all your tables and chairs take up volume. a 3-dimensional spatial object only requires that it fills volume. it does not matter what sort of shape it forms.

the word "dimension" is a somewhat general term. that is why i refer to it as spatial dimensions. that is why i referred to the 4-dimensional object as having 4 spatial dimensions - something that we can't understand.

all matter in this universe takes up 3 spatial dimensions. i suspect that the super-universe has more than 3 spatial dimensions. what else it might have - i don't know that i have any suspicions.

we have 3 basics - space, time, and matter. for me, space is the most basic, but also the simplest to think about. matter is stuff, and seems simple enough, until it is known that matter and energy are the same thing. time is the most elusive. i don't think we have a very good idea at all about it, yet.

time and the speed of light possesses mighty clues about our universe, though, imo.

if my recall is correct, according to sr, if one is traveling at the speed of light, one measures no distance traveled and no time spent, in the direction of travel, no matter the destination.

when i ponder this, the dimensions of distance and time seem to disappear altogether. if we could somehow transcend the speed of light, and actually see the entire universe in totality at a given moment - what now is a huge mystery would become child's play - for we would actually see and understand exactly what the universe really is.

i can't say that it is impossible, but i have very little hope that we actually can surpass the speed of light.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i do agree that in our universe, the motion of matter/volume through space requires what we refer to as time. but is time something of itself ? i don't know.

motion or velocity is defined as distance/time. would we have the dimension of time if matter had no motion ?

when i refer to "knowing the mind of god", i would like to ask god 2 questions : 1) how does the universe really work, and 2) what was your purpose for creating it.

this of course assumes that god exists, in the way that we define god - as the creator of the universe.

btw, when i talk about any topic, such as matter, space, time, causality, light, etc - it is always about this universe.

a common argument about who created god, or how does god exist without a beginning, etc. - all assume that the super universe follows the exact same laws as our universe.

when in fact, we don't know anything at all about the super universe. space, matter, and time (as we know it), may not exist at all, or be very different.

that is why i refer to the flatlander analogy. the flatlander simply has no ability to understand volume, and no ability to really understand how things actually are.

if there is higher dimensions, we volume-landers would be just as clueless of these higher dimensions.

i have enjoyed the communication back and forth with all of you.

 

[brainstorm]

one can say that anything is tautologous, if one wants to ignore the facts. the fact is that everything that we know is causal.

Do you even understand the word, "tautology?" That "everything we know is causal" is not a fact but an observation. If you had rose-colored glasses on, everything you looked would be pink. Would that make it a fact that "everything we know is pink?" That is how tautologies work.

 

[Physics-Learner]

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

# Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity.
# Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid

i am simply going with your logic. i can claim the same thing about any mystery. you can always make the claim that it may be possible that the human mind can't conceive of the mystery, so it is tautologous, just like you are doing with causality.

i simply see you reverting to this sort of logic so that it does not penetrate your belief system. religious people do this all the time. "but god can do anything if he wants" allows them the out that no matter what they want to think, there is a possibility that it is true.

i counter with "yea, god can do anything. did you ever give it consideration that god chose not to do it ?".

 

[brainstorm]

i simply see you reverting to this sort of logic so that it does not penetrate your belief system. religious people do this all the time. "but god can do anything if he wants" allows them the out that no matter what they want to think, there is a possibility that it is true.

i counter with "yea, god can do anything. did you ever give it consideration that god chose not to do it ?".

This really has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. Personally, I have no problem with analyzing causality in various ways. You said, however, that causality was universally present, which signals tautology. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I discovered tautology from Karl Popper's paper on falsificationism in which he compares Einstein's theories that provided falsifiable tests with Marxian class theory that attributes all social conflicts to class interests. Popper said that using Marx's lens, it became possible to discover class-conflict in every news item. In other words, class-conflict is not a falsifiable theory because it shows up everywhere you look for it when you know how to look. That is tautology. If causality shows up everywhere you look for it, there's a good chance it is just a way of looking - i.e. not something inherent in the nature of the universe - just as class-conflict is not inherent in human nature.

What causes certain stars to appear as a constellation and others not? What causes one cloud to look like an airplane and another like an umbrella? Of course both patterns are recognized because of cognition, and of course complex patterns of forces and energy result in the physical configuration of the stars and the clouds, but the ability to seek and attribute causation to anything and everything seems to be rooted in cognition and not per se' in the nature of certain physical phenomena because all interactions can be analyzed in terms of causality.

Can you think of any possible test that would falsify causality? I don't think it can be because it's not a theory. It's an analytical tool.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i understand what you are saying. but that logic certainly has its flaws. every single time i kick a ball, it goes somewhere. does that mean that it is a tautology, because we always see the ball go somewhere, and never see it not do so ? that is not a great example, but i think you get my point.

you take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, we can only see causality.

i take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, it is because causality actually is everywhere.

so far, all our laws of physics are causal.

i just think you are walking on a mighty thin tightrope.

 

[Physics-Learner]

if this is a causal universe, i don't think there would be a test that could demonstrate the falsity of causality.

would you not have to show that something was not causal ?

i think the two of us have hit a fork in the road, and can go no further on this subject - LOL.it simply boils down to this - we see causality everywhere. either that is because we can not see non-causality, or because non-causality does not exist.

 

[brainstorm]

i understand what you are saying. but that logic certainly has its flaws. every single time i kick a ball, it goes somewhere. does that mean that it is a tautology, because we always see the ball go somewhere, and never see it not do so ? that is not a great example, but i think you get my point.

you take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, we can only see causality.

i take on the argument that because we see causality everywhere, it is because causality actually is everywhere.

so far, all our laws of physics are causal.

i just think you are walking on a mighty thin tightrope.

if this is a causal universe, i don't think there would be a test that could demonstrate the falsity of causality.

would you not have to show that something was not causal ?

i think the two of us have hit a fork in the road, and can go no further on this subject - LOL.


it simply boils down to this - we see causality everywhere. either that is because we can not see non-causality, or because non-causality does not exist.

Well, at least you get the possibility of not seeing non-causality and the possibility that we are not capable of seeing it.

The big issue here is when you go from applying causal-analysis to a specific situation to generalizing about causality as a (physical) quality of the universe as a whole. When you do that, you're implying a theory about the universality of causation, which further implies that causality should be testable so that the theory can be falsifiable.

Imo, this is just an instance of confounding subjective with objective, which seems to be quite common among physicists, imo, so you're not alone. Things like causality, dimensionality, temporality, etc. are not so much features of the universe as they are analytical-tools we humans use to observe and make sense of observations. Causality, space, and time are universally present and at the same time not falsifiable because they are analytical tools. We use them cognitively to define things relative to each other.

 

[petm1]

any ideas that we have require brain activity. there are causes for every effect that our brain produces. this is not an example of effect without cause.

What is the cause of consciousness? I can tell you lots of causes for unconsciousness, but for the effect of awareness to person, place, and time it takes more than a brain. An idea is not consciousness even though you need consciousness to pass the idea on to other conscious people. Please enlighten me on the cause of consciousness.

 

[Physics-Learner]

you are asking about why our brains can think about something specific (in this case our own awareness). you could ask why our brains think about any number of specific topics.

i guess they evolved that way. but anything we think about is done with our brain, which is a causal thing.

asking how we evolved to be self aware is a totally different topic. and i am sure an interesting one, in which i don't think i would have anything to say.

let me know if you find out - LOL.

 

[petm1]

you are asking about why our brains can think about something specific (in this case our own awareness). you could ask why our brains think about any number of specific topics.

i guess they evolved that way. but anything we think about is done with our brain, which is a causal thing.

asking how we evolved to be self aware is a totally different topic. and i am sure an interesting one, in which i don't think i would have anything to say.

let me know if you find out - LOL.

So you can not tell me a cause for consciousness, other than it happens within a brain. Consciousness is responsible for all kinds of effects but what causes it?

i asked for an example within our universe that fails causality.

Big bang is the picture we in-vision of our universe while looking backwards through time, using Einstein's equations, from our "now" until we no longer see any relative space. What was the cause of our visible universe? unknown. What is the cause of us even thinking about it? Unknown

you are asking about why our brains can think about something specific (in this case our own awareness)

No, I am asking you what causes us to think in the first place. You asked for causes and there are a lot of things that we don't know what the cause was or whether there even is one. Consciousness, big bang, energy, matter, mass and time are some of the things that may fail causality.