Is Our Perception of the Universe Just a Black Box?

[Physics-Learner]

i guess it would depend on your definition of "figuring out already who one is" ?

to what degree does this have anything to do with the topic on hand ?

we are discussing what the universe is. yes, i would like to know what it actually is, instead of what we think it is, based upon our limited perceptions and tools with which to observe the universe.

 

[Boy@n]

My point is, that we don't even know 'who am I', considering that ourselves is the closest think we could know, so, knowing Universe seems like very difficult if not impossible task (for our current ability and capacity of understanding via human brains).

My personal view is that what Universe actually is, is not that important as knowing how it functions and what is its purpose.

Universe is simply a place to be, a place for who we really are, and so 'who am I' is the most important question I'd say, moreover, once we know that knowing Universe might be a piece of cake.

 

[Physics-Learner]

good thoughts - i thought you were just trying to be a smart alec - LOL.

sure, on an everyday aspect, how it functions is more important than what it is.

its purpose ? we don't have any chance of getting beyond our black box universe to get to the super-universe.

"understanding" what it really is "might" help us to better understand how it functions ?

 

[petm1]

Big bang is a view from outside our universe, after all 13.7 billion years ago our visible universe appeared as a singularity relative to our now. If you could step back far enough either in space or time, they behave the same, you could see our visible universe as one time contained within one space but What good would it do you?

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi petm1,

could not tell if your statement was directed at me, or just the thread itself.

but you hinted at 2 separate items.

1) what the super universe is ?

2) what our universe is ?

both are interesting to me. i know i won't get an answer to 1. i doubt if i will get an answer to 2. that doesn't stop my desire to know, though - LOL.

if heaven exists, i think that this understanding will be a source of happiness or contentment for us. it may be what allows us to become completely self aware.

 

[qsa]

hi petm1,

could not tell if your statement was directed at me, or just the thread itself.

but you hinted at 2 separate items.

1) what the super universe is ?

2) what our universe is ?

both are interesting to me. i know i won't get an answer to 1. i doubt if i will geMy theory t an answer to 2. that doesn't stop my desire to know, though - LOL.

if heaven exists, i think that this understanding will be a source of happiness or contentment for us. it may be what allows us to become completely self aware.

What is reality

My theory QSA (quantum statistical automata) explains that. The theory is 100% information theory. Moreover, I derive the theory from the postulate that “Reality is nothing but math”. Well, if it is, then, I should be able to create it myself, and I was able to. To design a dynamic universe there are not too many things you can do really, many other choices either lead to similar results or to unstables structures or not so interesting ones. But the looks of the details all these other choices seem to have unatainable status,i.e. nature does not work that way.

So, I start with a line (an axis) The simplest and probably the only thing you could do is to throw two RANDOM numbers, one denotes position and the other the length of a line not exceeding the original line(the size of my universe). Applying a simple constraint on these random numbers the solution to Schrödinger’s particle in a box appears like magic,i.e. sin^2.

Not to keep you all in suspense before I continue, ENERGY is nothing but the length of this line (actually 1/L), which is nothing but your usual momentum K, although here it appears geometrically. All interactions (forces) arise naturally from simple logical relationships of these lines belonging to different particles. My website has not included many new findings including the famous 1/r law, but can be seen from fig.2. which mimics Hydrogen 1s energy level. In some respect, no energy means no space defined.

This theory goes very well with Smolin’s comment that particles as end of lines should be studied and Joakim’s(google) linking entropy (verlinde’s) to the wavefunction and twister theory with Kerr which considers particles as end of lines.

So, in my theory the universe appears NATURALLY, because numbers and their relationships are the ultimate truths and they are the only things that exist. What else could it be?

check my profile for details

 

[qsa]

The idea has been on the tip of my tongue so to speak for years, but when I finally had the time to think about it more seriously I was able to implement the program in a couple of hours. That is because just like reality itself I had not too many choices.

While this method is unconventional, nowadays physics also points in this direction. So no more there is a need for a meta-metaphysical gymnastics. And no need to panic, reality is logical just like any typical event around us.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1657

Physics from information

Authors: Jae-Weon Lee
(Submitted on 7 Nov 2010)

Abstract: This is an ongoing review on my conjecture that information processing at causal horizons is the key ingredient of all physics.
Assuming that information is fundamental and the information propagates with finite velocity, one can find that main physical laws such as Newton's second law and Einstein equation simply describe the energy-information relation (dE=TdS) for matter or space time crossing a causal horizon with temperature T for observers. Quantum mechanics arises from ignorance of the observers about matter crossing the horizon, which explains why superluminal communication is impossible even with quantum entanglement. This approach also explains the origin of Jacobson's thermodynamic formalism of Einstein gravity and Verlinde's entropic gravity. When applied to a cosmic causal horizon, the conjecture reproduces the observed dark energy and demands the zero cosmological constant.

 

[Maui]

Assuming that information is fundamental and the information propagates with finite velocity, one can...

Assuming that information is fundamental means that reality is mind-dependent. Information is a quantity that belongs to minds only. You will need a completely new kind of physics(mind mechanics) if a TOE is ever to be accomplished.

 

[qsa]

Assuming that information is fundamental means that reality is mind-dependent. Information is a quantity that belongs to minds only. You will need a completely new kind of physics(mind mechanics) if a TOE is ever to be accomplished.

The information we are talking about is in the sense of "Information as data communication "
as in statistical physics. We are modelling how nature works and why. We use the same techniques to study how the mind functions.TOE is the problem of unifying gravity with other forces, nobody (even the crackpotiest of them all) has suggested that mind enters into the equation. However, you could use some philosophical underpinning to motivate an idea leading to a solution. Maybe you have your own idea of what the definition TOE should be, and trying to solve all of physics and consciousness in one swoop, I wouldn't know were to start.

 

[brainstorm]

trying to solve all of physics and consciousness in one swoop, I wouldn't know were to start.

It's not that you want to explain consciousness and physics both as external objects. It's that you want to identify the fundamental cognitive-experiential basis that causes humans to perceive and interpret all physical observations according to certain essential logics that make them seem comparable. With the Bohr model, it is easy to see that there might be some consciousness-based reason that makes celestial motion appear comparable to that of atomic particles. Ideally, the physical models we have of these scales of micro- and macro- level phenomena are accurate independently of our cognitive ability to model them, but you have to consider that they may not be, too, no?

 

[petm1]

hi petm1,


1) what the super universe is ?

2) what our universe is ?

1. If you are talking about a "super universe" that you would see as if standing out side looking in? That is the view I have while conscious, the same view that let's me interact with matter and keeps my present moving along with everyone else, I think of it as my one second frame.

2. In my mind it is still one dilating area.

 

[qsa]

It's not that you want to explain consciousness and physics both as external objects. It's that you want to identify the fundamental cognitive-experiential basis that causes humans to perceive and interpret all physical observations according to certain essential logics that make them seem comparable. With the Bohr model, it is easy to see that there might be some consciousness-based reason that makes celestial motion appear comparable to that of atomic particles. Ideally, the physical models we have of these scales of micro- and macro- level phenomena are accurate independently of our cognitive ability to model them, but you have to consider that they may not be, too, no?

It is the mathematics of both system, since both have velocities and forces acting. And at best they describe very crude approximation for the electrons behavior through the Kepler laws, nothing like the 12 digit accuracy of the QED.Of course bohr himself won the argument with Einstein about that nothing is strange with QM. As for the accuracy we have experiments and the mathematics of the system has to be consistent. I think the issue is more like David Bohem's book

wholeness+and+the+implicate+order google and read last chapter.

He makes a heroic argument for consciousness and matter. But for these days of quantum gravity it is just an interesting read nothing more. Many attempts to link consciousness and QM have basically come to nothing much, even Gambini's free will stunt.

 

[Physics-Learner]

1. If you are talking about a "super universe" that you would see as if standing out side looking in? That is the view I have while conscious, the same view that let's me interact with matter and keeps my present moving along with everyone else, I think of it as my one second frame.

2. In my mind it is still one dilating area.

yes, that is what i am talking about as well.

if we could be on the outside, looking in - determining exactly what it is.

 

[Maui]

The information we are talking about is in the sense of "Information as data communication "
as in statistical physics

Quantum theory doesn't claim what is fundamental. 'Data communication' is a meaningless term in the abscence conscious minds. When you say that information/data communication is fundamental, you are actually saying that mind is fundamental as they are tied in a bundle(one cannot exist without the other).

We are modelling how nature works and why. We use the same techniques to study how the mind functions.TOE is the problem of unifying gravity with other forces, nobody (even the crackpotiest of them all) has suggested that mind enters into the equation. However, you could use some philosophical underpinning to motivate an idea leading to a solution. Maybe you have your own idea of what the definition TOE should be, and trying to solve all of physics and consciousness in one swoop, I wouldn't know were to start.

Crackpotish or not, all you are suggesting by "information is fundamental" is that mind enters into the equation. You just need to take some more time to think about the fundaments of your theory.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i like the sphere example, because i think it may be very telling of our own situation.

the flatlanders on a surface area at any radius see no boundaries. they are expanding from a singularity, but that singularity is not part of their universe. it is at the center of the sphere, a dimension beyond their knowledge.

likewise, i suspect that we volume landers are part of a super universe with a 4th spatial dimension. whether there are more than 4, i have no thoughts.

i don't see time as that sort of dimension. time is just as necessary for a flatlander to move in his world, as it is a volume lander to move in our world. it is still an unknown to me, but i do not think it is the 4th dimension that einstein thinks of it as.

and as i have previously stated, if information was instantaneous, i think our ideas about time would change drastically.

time and motion are tied together in some way, but it may be beyond our ability to understand it at its most basic level.

 

[brainstorm]

i don't see time as that sort of dimension. time is just as necessary for a flatlander to move in his world, as it is a volume lander to move in our world. it is still an unknown to me, but i do not think it is the 4th dimension that einstein thinks of it as.

Imo, too many people confuse dimensionality with with the physical realities it is used to frame and measure. Dimensions themselves can be applied in different ways with differing results, as the relativity of spacetime curvature theory demonstrates. Just because a certain set of dimensions seem to have a good "fit" with what they are used to measure doesn't mean that they exist "out there" as part of the physicalities.

time and motion are tied together in some way, but it may be beyond our ability to understand it at its most basic level.

Imo, motion is the product of energy (kinetic). Time is a dimension insofar as it is used to compare different instances of motion. A clock is any moving system with regular-defined intervals that can be compared with other instances of of motion. You are right that simultaneity is central to the idea of time (i.e. synchronized clocks) and this is where I believe Einstein starts in his writing on time before getting into the de-synchronization that occurs due to speed and gravity. Sorry, I should be able to cite the text b/c it's online but I can't remember the title now.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi brainstorm,

did not want you to think i was ignoring you. just simply had nothing to comment on, or add to, to your last post.

 

[Chronos]

Information transfer requires energy, hence, is not exempt from the 'c' rule.