What Laws Explain the Infinitude of the Universe?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can something I have sensed not be real?

It must be real, but it is not always apparent what its true nature is, i.e. it may be an illusion.

How do I distinguish between reality and illusion?

Depends on the nature of the illusion.

Do real things have properties? If so, how do I know what they are?

Yes. They are causal, i.e. they consist of matter in motion. NOTE: This is based in Sorce Theory in which EVERYTHING is made of matter in motion. In the Standard Model they could be made of energy (whateverthatmeans) or they could even be vacuum fluctuations, i.e. virtual particles, etc. [made of mathematics not causality]

 

[Hurkyl]

Depends on the nature of the illusion.

That was quite informative. Examples would be nice. A general approach would be better.

Yes. They are causal, i.e. they consist of matter in motion.

An awfully strange definition of "casual"; how does it relate to cause and effect?

What is matter? What is motion? How do I identify what matter is? How do I identify matter is moving? How would one go about distinguishing between matter in motion and an illusion? What about matter not in motion?

Is your meaning of "casual" limited only to being a set of moving matter?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That was quite informative. Examples would be nice. A general approach would be better.

In the case of a dream, for instance, there is a different quality about it. In mine things never maintain a consistent identity and thus they keep changing into other things when I am not looking.

In the matrix there are glitches, etc.

An awfully strange definition of "casual"; how does it relate to cause and effect?

It is quite complex. A disequilibrium of matter tends to equalize at a constant speed c per unit density. Causality is based in the constant attempt of matter to equalize its density disturbances and it is in fluid motion.

Cause and effect are the twin halves on an imaginary time-line of this tendency for equilibrium.

What is matter?

As distinguishable from atomic matter, it is a continuous compressible fluid-dynamic substance.

What is motion?

A change of place from any "here" to any "there". Both matter and pressure can move.

How do I identify what matter is?

You don't need to. Everything is made out of matter.

How do I identify matter is moving?

Various ways all of which involve sensation of a motion relative to something else.

How would one go about distinguishing between matter in motion and an illusion?

An illusion is made out of matter in motion.

What about matter not in motion?

There is no such thing. Only patterns of matter in motion can remain relatively stationary at specific scales. At deeper scales it is found that matter is in motion with equilibrating wave systems moving at c.

Is your meaning of "casual" limited only to being a set of moving matter?

causality is a continuum of matter in motion, yes. This matter in motion consists of both fluid motion and the motion of pressure systems (waves).

 

[Hurkyl]

Some more interesting examples of distinguishing illusions would be nice. What about optical "illusions" and magic tricks of various sorts? What about the "illusion" of stillness?

(I put "illusion" in quotes because it's unclear that the way I am using illusion coincides with your meaning of the term)


On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?

It is quite complex. A disequilibrium of matter tends to equalize at a constant speed c per unit density. Causality is based in the constant attempt of matter to equalize its density disturbances and it is in fluid motion.

Cause and effect are the twin halves on an imaginary time-line of this tendency for equilibrium.

Woah, slow down! Going from touchy-feely sensation to this is an awfully big leap! We certainly have not progressed far enough in this semi-rigorous treatment of your beliefs to try and digest a statement like this. (Besides, another round of me telling you that this is syntactically gibberish and you telling me I'm in a mental box would be fruitless)

In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?

As distinguishable from atomic matter, it is a continuous compressible fluid-dynamic substance.

Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...? Is it time to try to explain what you mean by these phrase? I think we should still stick to fully fleshing out the basics of knowledge according to you at this point.

A change of place from any "here" to any "there". Both matter and pressure can move.

So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?

Is pressure matter?

You don't need to. Everything is made out of matter.

So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ahem** Isn't there supposed to be a distinguishment between the waking mind and the sleeping mind, in there observation of reality, respecting illusion, and Non illusion of/in nature.

The idea that there is 'no boundary' in perception crossed, therein, is kinda silly.

Further, in the Sciences it is a volontary agreement to described observance of accepted physical (measurable, hence mathematical in nature, as a 'seconding of opinion') propeties of space in Universality.

So, off you goes...

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Some more interesting examples of distinguishing illusions would be nice. What about optical "illusions" and magic tricks of various sorts? What about the "illusion" of stillness?

Perceptions are specialized and easily tricked.

[quite]On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?

Everything is real. Non-real things do not exist, by definition. Sensation is the root of all mental contact with reality. From there we can build artificial senses (atomic force microscopes etc.) and logic systems to understand aspects of the causality of the system.

In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?

In a sense that is correct, but only in the sense of the difference in the root-level causality and the macro-scale manifestation of causality. When I say "matter in motion" there is a tendency to imagine a kinetic-atomic model of atoms (or objects) bouncing around in a void. This is not what I mean. I am talking about matter as a compressible fluid-dynamic frictionless continuum--in turbulent motion, compressing, rotating etc.

Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...?

Root-level matter is the continuum mentioned above and atomic matter is formed by a circle of cause and effect--venturi-stabilized rotational compression->increasing torque->increasing venturi effect etc. until a pressurized equilibrium is reached in which the structure is an intensely steep density gradient of raw matter-- an atom. There are harmonic wave-equilibration processes which quantize this gradient into a series of shells in the Schrodinger electron density pattern (seen in Bodes Law as well).

So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?

Matter is extended and this extension is real. "places" are real therefore as well.

Is pressure matter?

Yes, in raw matter they are unequilibrated density deviations...either positive or negative (also known as charge).

So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.

Yes. Everything that exists is real.
Of everything that exists, that which looks like something else, is an illusion.

 

[heusdens]

Why there has to be objective reality

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3703"

Which reasons about the question "Why is there something instead of nothing" and which concludes that there must have been something apart, outside and independend of consciousness, that has existed always.

 

[Hurkyl]

Perceptions are specialized and easily tricked.

Recall that I was talking about recognizing illusions; how do we discover if our perceptions have been tricked?

Everything is real.

If A is an illusion that looks like B, it seems clear by your terminology that the illusion of B is real... but is B real?

Is curved space real?

Is there anything that satisfies the proposition "X is not real"?

From there we can build artificial senses (atomic force microscopes etc.) and logic systems to understand aspects of the causality of the system.

So theory and experiment may, indeed, suffice as replacements for direct sensation. Allow me to set this idea on the back burner a bit before we go into depth how this may be done.


But allow me ask one question; if it takes much more than a "yes" or "no" answer, we can defer it until later... is it ever acceptable to trust these artifical senses and logic systems when they contradict our senses?

For example, in the famous optical illusion of circles surrounded by circles, is it acceptable to trust the ruler (and implicitly the theory that rulers are good measuring devices) when it says they are the same size, despite my vision telling me otherwise?

When I say "matter in motion" there is a tendency to imagine a kinetic-atomic model of atoms (or objects) bouncing around in a void. This is not what I mean. I am talking about matter as a compressible fluid-dynamic frictionless continuum--in turbulent motion, compressing, rotating etc.

I'm avoiding ascribing any physical idea to "matter in motion" at this time, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm talking neither about bouncing balls nor flowing fluids; I'm trying to develop an acceptable framework of discovery which we can use to make this discovery. Might "time evolution" be an acceptable synonym for "cause and effect"?

Root-level matter is the continuum mentioned above and atomic matter is formed by ...

To avoid fixing the discussion to anyone theory (and to better follow the flow of the discussion so far as to determining what is an acceptable way to understand the universe), would it suffice it to say that you are using the term "matter" both for "root-level matter" (which is, in some sense, fundamental) and for observable patterns of that root-level matter?

Matter is extended and this extension is real. "places" are real therefore as well.

Is there any way we could deduce this conclusion from observation, or must we accept it as an axiom for this discussion? And would the term "point" be an acceptable synonym for "place", in the sense we can say that the universe is "made" of points, and matter extends through these points? By "made" of points, that just means that all extensions of matter can be described by the points through which it extends.

Yes, in raw matter they are unequilibrated density deviations...either positive or negative (also known as charge).

This is in accordance with my previous comment on the term "matter" correct; pressure is not fundamental matter, but an observable pattern in root-level matter. Allow us to hold off on more precise meanings of pressure.

 

[heusdens]

If 'X' were defined as a consciouss actor outside of space time and matter, I would say then that 'X is not real'.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by heusdens
If 'X' were defined as a consciouss actor outside of space time and matter, I would say then that 'X is not real'.

Excellent definition. "Outside of space time and matter" could be simplified to "outside causality", however.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Recall that I was talking about recognizing illusions; how do we discover if our perceptions have been tricked?

hmmm... let me take a crack at it.

you have to develop tricks of your own to trick the tricks!

If A is an illusion that looks like B, it seems clear by your terminology that the illusion of B is real... but is B real?

everything is real

Is curved space real?

Yes "curved space" is a real map of a real field whose essense is really unknown by modern physics.

Is there anything that satisfies the proposition "X is not real"?

It depends on your definition of "real". The definitions of these terms are not very well specified so we unconsciously blurr the distinctions.

So theory and experiment may, indeed, suffice as replacements for direct sensation. Allow me to set this idea on the back burner a bit before we go into depth how this may be done.

Yes, but mathematics is not a substitute for causality.

But allow me ask one question; if it takes much more than a "yes" or "no" answer, we can defer it until later... is it ever acceptable to trust these artifical senses and logic systems when they contradict our senses?

Artificial senses ARE senses. If the senses contradict each other then one must understand the nature of this contradiction before one can trust the senses.

Logic is beyond sensation. It is an artificial, symbolic causality. If it contradicts our experiential understanding of causality, then that is another story and the answer is emphatically "NO". If we abandon causality then there is no way to maintain contact with reality. Our constructions will wander off into a fantasy land with no restrictions as to a deeper physical order.

For example, in the famous optical illusion of circles surrounded by circles, is it acceptable to trust the ruler (and implicitly the theory that rulers are good measuring devices) when it says they are the same size, despite my vision telling me otherwise?

Of course. The real relations are simply mis-interpreted by the specialized mechanisms of the brain.

I'm avoiding ascribing any physical idea to "matter in motion" at this time, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm talking neither about bouncing balls nor flowing fluids; I'm trying to develop an acceptable framework of discovery which we can use to make this discovery. Might "time evolution" be an acceptable synonym for "cause and effect"?

A more abstract one so it must be used with caution and always kept in check with the deeper level.

To avoid fixing the discussion to anyone theory (and to better follow the flow of the discussion so far as to determining what is an acceptable way to understand the universe), would it suffice it to say that you are using the term "matter" both for "root-level matter" (which is, in some sense, fundamental) and for observable patterns of that root-level matter?

Everything is made out of the same matter. It is important to make a distinction here however. Spinoza uses the terms "Substance" and "modes". Substance is the root level continuous stuff and modes are the finite patterns made out of that substance. These terms will suffice for this discussion.

Is there any way we could deduce this conclusion from observation, or must we accept it as an axiom for this discussion?

I feel it is not only quite readily apparent, but it is absloutely logically necessary. Can you imagine any metaphysics without including extension?!

And would the term "point" be an acceptable synonym for "place", in the sense we can say that the universe is "made" of points, and matter extends through these points? By "made" of points, that just means that all extensions of matter can be described by the points through which it extends.

I would say that it is confusing to say that the universe is made of points because points are mental mathematical extensionless place-holders for places and the Universe clearly is not made out of extensionless place-holders.

This is in accordance with my previous comment on the term "matter" correct; pressure is not fundamental matter, but an observable pattern in root-level matter. Allow us to hold off on more precise meanings of pressure.

Yes pressure and charge are modes not substances, of which there can be only one.

 

[Eh]

Why the name change, subtillioN?