Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

Not only you are avoiding the question but contradicting yourself in the process.
On one hand you state time is made up, now it’s the case of not being able to explain the fundamental nature of time.
If time is made up then there nothing to explain as time is not fundamental.

But I never said the idea of tense is unreal but that the concept of time as in quantified time is not fundemental due to the nature of what time represents. There are aspects of what we call time that breach the quantified concept of time. For example at the edge of our universe space is expanding faster than the speed of light or even within Inflation theory space expanded faster than the speed of light or physics. So what happened to 'time' then'. How do we explain time in these contexts. What about the idea from QM of worm holes and time travel. What happens to 'time then.

It seems to me that the physics itself predicts time transcending the concepts we have for time as a quantified measure that is set to certain parameters. Even Einsteins theory of special relativity predicts time can slow down and be reversed.

I don’t think you understand what non local means when it involves time, are you aware non locality requires correlation to avoid faster than light communication of information and thus avoid the paradoxes involving causality?
To use a non quantum mechanics example for non locality, if we were both given a shoe box containing either a left shoe or right shoe and then separated by distance then non locality applies.
If either one of us opens the shoebox, we know immediately what is in the other shoebox, this is correlation and does not involve the instantaneous communication (Δt = 0) of the information.

Quantum mechanical entanglement is somewhat more complicated to explain but is also based on the principle of correlation where communicating the spin state of one separated entangled particle to the other is not even possible.
This is the no-communication theorem at work.

As far as I understand experiments have already showed the non local aspect of time where the constraints of time as quantified to certain physical parameters of space are breached by communicating information instantly. For example

Quantum effects enter the macroworld

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1917212116

Light from ancient quasars helps confirm quantum entanglement
Results are among the strongest evidence yet for “spooky action at a distance.”

Light from ancient quasars helps confirm quantum entanglement

In a new study by MIT researchers and others, light from ancient quasars helps confirm quantum entanglement. The results are among strongest evidence yet for what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.”

news.mit.edu

Strange quantum effect observed in unusually large object

Strange quantum effect observed in unusually large object

An object made of hundreds of atoms exhibits a quantum property normally only associated with very small objects

www.newscientist.com

World first quantum entanglement of single molecules

World first quantum entanglement of single molecules

Physicists at Princeton University in the US have linked together individual molecules in quantum mechanical “entangled” states.

cosmosmagazine.com

 

[sjastro]

But I never said the idea of tense is unreal but that the concept of time as in quantified time is not fundemental due to the nature of what time represents. There are aspects of what we call time that breach the quantified concept of time. For example at the edge of our universe space is expanding faster than the speed of light or even within Inflation theory space expanded faster than the speed of light or physics. So what happened to 'time' then'. How do we explain time in these contexts. What about the idea from QM of worm holes and time travel. What happens to 'time then.

It seems to me that the physics itself predicts time transcending the concepts we have for time as a quantified measure that is set to certain parameters. Even Einsteins theory of special relativity predicts time can slow down and be reversed.

None of your examples even remotely portrays the subject of time as a bizarre and strange concept which requires a review.
A galaxy at the end of the universe is travelling at a recession velocity exceeding the speed of light but in its appropriately named rest frame it is stationary.
An atomic clock in this far distant galaxy is keeping the same proper time as the observer’s clock on earth.

The issue you seem to be struggling with is coordinate time which is observer dependent.
Two cars approaching each other at 60 km/hr have an approach velocity of 120 km/hr to an observer on the ground.
If the two cars were traveling at 0.6c where c is the speed of light, the approach velocity is not 1.2c but 0.88c.
This is because one needs to consider coordinate time which depends on the motion of the observer.

Coordinate time in special relativity is easily explained with a thought experiment.

In the spaceship’s frame of reference, the proper time is the time taken for a light beam to bounce between the mirrors in a vertical trajectory.
In observer’s frame of reference on earth since the spacecraft is travelling in a transverse direction, the light beam is no longer vertical, but follows an oblique longer path resulting in a longer coordinate time.
There is nothing mysterious about coordinate time which is easily explained with the use of simple geometry.

As far as I understand experiments have already showed the non local aspect of time where the constraints of time as quantified to certain physical parameters of space are breached by communicating information instantly. For example

Quantum effects enter the macroworld

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1917212116

Light from ancient quasars helps confirm quantum entanglement
Results are among the strongest evidence yet for “spooky action at a distance.”

Light from ancient quasars helps confirm quantum entanglement

In a new study by MIT researchers and others, light from ancient quasars helps confirm quantum entanglement. The results are among strongest evidence yet for what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.”

news.mit.edu

Strange quantum effect observed in unusually large object

Strange quantum effect observed in unusually large object

An object made of hundreds of atoms exhibits a quantum property normally only associated with very small objects

www.newscientist.com

World first quantum entanglement of single molecules

World first quantum entanglement of single molecules

Physicists at Princeton University in the US have linked together individual molecules in quantum mechanical “entangled” states.

cosmosmagazine.com

Did you attempt to read any of your “supporting” links because with the exception of the Newscientist link which I did not access because it wants me to register, none suggest information is communicated instantly.

The key term here is information, when a measurement is made on an entangled particle, quantum information is received by the other entangled particle at near instantaneous speeds.
This is the quantum version of the non local correlation shoebox example from my previous post where the quantum information received is random and unpredictable.
It is not real information which occurs when all entangled particles are observed and undergo wavefunction collapse in which case the information is transmitted by conventional means no faster than the speed of light.

 

[Kylie]

That is what a multiverse is, there are many universes with different physical parameters. If Inflation predicts multiverses then there are different universe to our own with different physical constants. They are not just repeats of our own universe.

So if we accept Inflation we have to accept a multiverse and if we accept a multiverse we have to accept that there are other universes with different physical makeups.

I'm asking for the actual science, you are giving me your own opinion.

Your opinion means nothing to me because:

1: You aren't a scientist in a relevant field.
2: Even if you were, you still haven't provided any actual scientific studies on this topic.

Yes not real in the physical sense, according to objective reality. How is that not the case. You can't pick up time and put it in a test tube. But that doesn't mean I said that the idea of there being an experience of what the west calls time such as 'tense' doesn't exist. Its just that not everyone thinks of this as what science calls time as in qunatified time segments.

If you really want to quote me then include all that I said instead of quotng me out of context. I made it clear that I was speaking about physical reality only and not in the overall scheme of what is real or not.

I said several times that time is fluid and that other cultures think of time as being more transcendent. That quantified time or physical time is just a human made concept to help understand tense, past, present and future tense. That other cultures have come up with their own understanding which is more spiritual and beyond the Westernized quantified time which divides time in quantified segments.

So that is not saying time has no realness but only that the realness western science attaches is not real in any physical sense and that 'time' as we understand it may exist in some other form of realness that is more transcendent to the physical.

When I say not physical or quantified I mean like objective reality which will include forces and fields which are not physical but are part of how the physical world works. For example you have particles but they exist within fields and are subject to forces. You can't have particles without fields and forces.

But the non physical or material aspects I am talking about are more spiritual. Natives may view time as a spiritual dimension where time is more fluid and has no physical aspects or quantities such as dividied into segments. But has no restraints, time schedules but rather is dictated by spirituality or some transcendent realm.

Theres no backpeddling as your creating strawmen by attributing things to me I never said. You first need to read what I said and understand it before injecting what you think I said.

Yeah, this is all backpedaling. Nothing that you said back then indicated that this is what you were talking about. So either you were saying that time wasn't real and now that you've been shown that you are wrong, you're struggling to find a way to cover up your folly, or you just couldn't communicate clearly in the first place.

In either case, it seems to be your problem, not mine.

 

[stevevw]

I'm asking for the actual science, you are giving me your own opinion.

Your opinion means nothing to me because:

1: You aren't a scientist in a relevant field.
2: Even if you were, you still haven't provided any actual scientific studies on this topic.

But these are not my opinions. They are the logical follow ons from existing scientific theories. Inflation theory is the accepted scientific theory for how the universe expanded into what we have today. The same theory predicts a multiverse. This is not my personal opinion but that of the scientists who support inflation theory.

If Inflation Is True, Then We Live in a Multiverse
Inflation is an inherently quantum phenomenon. It follows that it cannot end at any point in space at the same time. As a consequence, inflation is eternal; once it begins, there will always be at least one region of exponentially expanding space, from which new Universes similar to ours, or different, will originate.

https://medium.com/amazing-science/if-inflation-is-true-then-we-live-in-a-multiverse-d2555178d062

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?
In order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse. Here’s why physicists overwhelmingly claim that a multiverse must exist.

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

If you want to get the Universe we see, a multiverse comes along for the ride.

www.forbes.com

Yeah, this is all backpedaling. Nothing that you said back then indicated that this is what you were talking about. So either you were saying that time wasn't real and now that you've been shown that you are wrong, you're struggling to find a way to cover up your folly, or you just couldn't communicate clearly in the first place.

In either case, it seems to be your problem, not mine.

Then how do you explain these earlier quotes which support what I meant ie

Post #422
It seems possible that time can mean many things so our understanding of time is just the product of our physical reality but is not the ultimate truth of time in the overall scheme of things when it comes to whats fundemental reality.

Post #426
we can measure time gone by through years which is one way to understand time as far as volume is concerned. But we can also understand time through conscious experience.

Post #431
But thats only a western concept of time and others from different cultures have created their own version of what their experience of moving through the world is which shows the concept of time is subjective. Belief, religion or spirituality and transcedental meditation which may tap into this more fluid notion of time.

Post #450
Science can only make descriptions of time within a limited methodology and scope which is not the be all and end all of how we can know what time represents as fundemental reality.

Post #480
Kylie said
So tell me, why should we not also consider that time (also a dimension in our universe) is also real?
Steve said
I am not saying the experience of time or distance is not real. I am saying the many different ideas by cultures to interpret those experiences are subjective which shows we don't really understand its nature, what time really represents in a universal sense. If anything the many different human made ideas about time tells us its more fluid than any idea that tries to quantify time according to one specific concept.

Post #491
WE also know time acts in non local ways so it cannot be completely quantified with objective reality. Just like QM this points to a more fundemental reality that transcends the objective and logical world.

So as you can see I clearly meant 'time' can be real in other ways besides the western scientific idea of using quantified measures of objective physical reality and I was not saying time is completely unreal. Only unreal in the objective physical sense compared to other ideas that make time more transcedent and fluid.

 

[Kylie]

But these are not my opinions. They are the logical follow ons from existing scientific theories. Inflation theory is the accepted scientific theory for how the universe expanded into what we have today. The same theory predicts a multiverse. This is not my personal opinion but that of the scientists who support inflation theory.

Doesn't matter. You have no testable evidence. Those opinions, without evidence, are meaningless.

If Inflation Is True, Then We Live in a Multiverse
Inflation is an inherently quantum phenomenon. It follows that it cannot end at any point in space at the same time. As a consequence, inflation is eternal; once it begins, there will always be at least one region of exponentially expanding space, from which new Universes similar to ours, or different, will originate.

https://medium.com/amazing-science/if-inflation-is-true-then-we-live-in-a-multiverse-d2555178d062

A region of our universe that we cannot access is different to a completely separate universe. Not the same thing.

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?
In order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse. Here’s why physicists overwhelmingly claim that a multiverse must exist.

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

If you want to get the Universe we see, a multiverse comes along for the ride.

www.forbes.com

Ditto.

Then how do you explain these earlier quotes which support what I meant ie

Post #422
It seems possible that time can mean many things so our understanding of time is just the product of our physical reality but is not the ultimate truth of time in the overall scheme of things when it comes to whats fundemental reality.

Post #426
we can measure time gone by through years which is one way to understand time as far as volume is concerned. But we can also understand time through conscious experience.

Post #431
But thats only a western concept of time and others from different cultures have created their own version of what their experience of moving through the world is which shows the concept of time is subjective. Belief, religion or spirituality and transcedental meditation which may tap into this more fluid notion of time.

Post #450
Science can only make descriptions of time within a limited methodology and scope which is not the be all and end all of how we can know what time represents as fundemental reality.

Post #480
Kylie said
So tell me, why should we not also consider that time (also a dimension in our universe) is also real?
Steve said
I am not saying the experience of time or distance is not real. I am saying the many different ideas by cultures to interpret those experiences are subjective which shows we don't really understand its nature, what time really represents in a universal sense. If anything the many different human made ideas about time tells us its more fluid than any idea that tries to quantify time according to one specific concept.

Post #491
WE also know time acts in non local ways so it cannot be completely quantified with objective reality. Just like QM this points to a more fundemental reality that transcends the objective and logical world.

So as you can see I clearly meant 'time' can be real in other ways besides the western scientific idea of using quantified measures of objective physical reality and I was not saying time is completely unreal. Only unreal in the objective physical sense compared to other ideas that make time more transcedent and fluid.

So what? You claimed that time is not real back in post 400. I said you were wrong and explained why in post 419. Then in post 422 you started with the wishy-washy attempts to explain away what you actually said. "It seems possible..." which is nothing more than your opinion. "We can also understand time through conscious experience..." which is again not only your opinion, but asking us to accept subjective opinions about the passage of time as objective fact. Same thing with your claims that different cultures have different subjective views about what time is.

All this shows is that you started backpedaling as soon as I showed you were wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

But these are not my opinions. They are the logical follow ons from existing scientific theories. Inflation theory is the accepted scientific theory for how the universe expanded into what we have today. The same theory predicts a multiverse. This is not my personal opinion but that of the scientists who support inflation theory.

If Inflation Is True, Then We Live in a Multiverse
Inflation is an inherently quantum phenomenon. It follows that it cannot end at any point in space at the same time. As a consequence, inflation is eternal; once it begins, there will always be at least one region of exponentially expanding space, from which new Universes similar to ours, or different, will originate.

https://medium.com/amazing-science/if-inflation-is-true-then-we-live-in-a-multiverse-d2555178d062

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?
In order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse. Here’s why physicists overwhelmingly claim that a multiverse must exist.

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

If you want to get the Universe we see, a multiverse comes along for the ride.

www.forbes.com

Accepting the logical consequences of the proposed inflation model of the early universe, is optional, as the prediction outcomes are uncertain.

.. So as you can see I clearly meant 'time' can be real in other ways besides the western scientific idea of using quantified measures of objective physical reality and I was not saying time is completely unreal. Only unreal in the objective physical sense compared to other ideas that make time more transcedent of the physical reality. Some sense of time or 'Tense' is real but in a way beyond objective reality.

Accepting someone's subjective notions about time is also optional, particularly when no, (or untestable predictions), is the end result.

Also, logical deduction is never used in science to establish if some statement is true or not in any real sense .. it is only ever used to establish if a statement is consistent with the postulates of some other argument.
The way the postulates of some logical theory are established as 'truth-like' in science, is always via testing by observation, not by pure logical deduction. Eg: the conditional phrase: 'If inflation is true ...', is completely meaningless in science ... the only way for science to establish any truth-likeness there, is to produce consistent theoretical test evidence for inflation .. and then take it from there, always knowing (remembering) this evidence would then be the basis for making further predictions, (or further testable models). One outcome of observational testing that could happen as easily as any other, is the revision of the original inflation model.

This is why scientific inferences are always said to be contextual and provisional, whereas logical deduction is never either. If you think logical deduction leads to a true meaning of reality, then you following the path of a truth-seeker .. and not that of a scientist.

 

[stevevw]

Doesn't matter. You have no testable evidence. Those opinions, without evidence, are meaningless.

Once again these are not opinions but based on the science. The science is the evidence. If you want to dismiss the science and evdience that predicts multiverse then you also have to dismiss the current theory of the BB and inflation because its based on the same science.

A region of our universe that we cannot access is different to a completely separate universe. Not the same thing.

Your not understanding the physics, rather quantum physics behind Inflation theory. The region of space they are talking about is the result of QM where quantum fluctuations (which is verified science) predicts that

Ditto.

The second link is more or less the same as the first except it explains in more detail why if Inflation theory is true then so will a multiverse be. INflation works at the quantum level and one result is new hot Big Bangs will be created as space inflates more and more. Those new BB's will give birth to new universes. As the article says a multiverse is an inevitable outcome of the quantum physics which is the most verified theory in science.

We see extraordinary evidence that our hot Big Bang was preceded and set up by a prior phase: cosmic inflation. But in order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse.

Inflation, like all the fields we know of, has to be a quantum field by its very nature. When inflation ends, that field energy gets converted to matter-and-radiation, and something that we know as a hot Big Bang occurs.

That’s what the multiverse is, and why scientists accept its existence as the default position. If the theory of inflation is a good one, and the data says it is, a multiverse is all but inevitable.
Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

So what?

Man I dislike that word. It seems drastic like I don't care what you say. I prefer someone to explain or argue the 'what' rather than just say 'so'. Anyway.

You claimed that time is not real back in post 400. I said you were wrong and explained why in post 419. Then in post 422 you started with the wishy-washy attempts to explain away what you actually said.

Yes and if you look at the context I was saying time is not a 'real' physical thing. I was only speaking about the idea that time is a 'real' physical thing that we can put in a test tube.

Before post 400 we were discussion 'time before time'. You said 'time before time' means time is a real thing. I said "The point was that the idea of time before time itself is questionable. Its a human made concept". So I was disputing the idea of 'time' as science understands in quantified measures being caused by the physical laws was not a real thing in the world but rather a concept of the mind. You even agreed in Post 398 "The idea of minutes and seconds may be invented by Humans, but the concept of time is just as real as the concept of distance is".

So we both agree 'time' is not a real physical thing but a human made concept. My point was that because 'time' is a human made concept there can be more than one understand or measure of what 'time' represents or how time is experienced by humans. That Indigenous and religious people have understood time differently, based on ideas that transced the scientific explanations.

"It seems possible..." which is nothing more than your opinion. "We can also understand time through conscious experience..." which is again not only your opinion, but asking us to accept subjective opinions about the passage of time as objective fact. Same thing with your claims that different cultures have different subjective views about what time is.

I am not asking you to accept these alternative explanations of what we call time but rather to only state that humans, that not all humans agree with the scientific explanation for time. Or they may agree that science can explain time within a certain parameter (the physical woprld) because thats what it was designed for. Other people especially indigenous and spiritual people have a more experiential understanding of time.

I don't think we can dismiss the majority of humans as just opinion or hogwash. We are talking about people who have lived by these experiences of time for 1,000's of years so it seems its been around longer than the western idea of time.

Just because you think experiential understandings of time are too subjective to state as fact according to the science measure doesn't mean there is no validity to these experiences. It just means science cannot measure those experiences as it was not designed to do so it has nothing to say these experiences are real or not because it cannot know.

But we can measure these experiences of time, we see the this transcedental aspect of time being lived out in indigenous and religious people like Monks and wise men who don't conform to our understanding of time and they seem to exist in perfect harmony with nature. Not consumed or stressed by our notions of time.

 

[stevevw]

Accepting the logical consequences of the proposed inflation model of the early universe, is optional, as the prediction outcomes are uncertain.

Not according to this article.
Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

Accepting someone's subjective notions about time is also optional, particularly when no, (or untestable predictions), is the end result.

It depends how you test it. Perhaps under the scientific measure it won't pass the test. But then Methological Naturalism is a limited measure in the overall scheme of what can be regarded as real or not fundementally.

I would not underestimate the power of conscious experience and the resulting beliefs about whats real. There are many stories about our experiences that reveal deep insight about the world and beyond. We know conscious experience is real so perhaps our experience is a better measure of whats really going on than a limited quantified measure of the world.

Also, logical deduction is never used in science to establish if some statement is true or not in any real sense .. it is only ever used to establish if a statement is consistent with the postulates of some other argument.
The way the postulates of some logical theory are established as 'truth-like' in science, is always via testing by observation, not by pure logical deduction. Eg: the conditional phrase: 'If inflation is true ...', is completely meaningless in science ... the only way for science to establish any truth-likeness there, is to produce consistent theoretical test evidence for inflation .. and then take it from there, always knowing (remembering) this evidence would then be the basis for making further predictions, (or further testable models). One outcome of observational testing that could happen as easily as any other, is the revision of the original inflation model.
This is why scientific inferences are always said to be contextual and provisional, whereas logical deduction is never either. If you think logical deduction leads to a true meaning of reality, then you following the path of a truth-seeker .. and not that of a scientist.

Yes thats a possibility to revise inflation. In fact it has already been revised from its original theory from inflation to eternal inflation. Inflation theory was born out of trying to account for the many anomelies with the BB theory. As you said a good theory not only can find solutions to an existing theory but go on to make independent predictions. As the article I linked mentions one of those predictions is Bubble universes within a Multiverse.

I agree the ideas are only tentative so long as they uphold the current data and predictions are confirmed. But that is one of the problems which I agree with theories today about the Cosmos, they seem to bring up new problems just as much as confirm predictions. There always seems to be this gap that cannot be overcome.

But regardless of what idea is going to be postulated to explain the data it seems whether its a Multiverse, String Theory, or some other idea its going to be counter intuitive and introduce strange dimensions and behaviours that move beyond the cause and effect as we understand it now. In other words its going to take a paradigm shift to explain things.

 

[sjastro]

@stevevw

For someone who used the argument the BB was questionable because of the galaxy formation problem, isn’t somewhat contradictory in your posts with @Kylie and @SelfSim to adopt the mainstream position of the conventional BB at cosmological time t=0 or the hot BB at t = 10⁻³⁰ s, to make a point?

The contradictions do not end there, you mentioned quantum fluctuations which is an ironclad example of time being a real parameter.
In QM the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for position x and momentum p both real parameters, is Δx.Δp ≥ h/4π but can be rewritten as the energy-time relationship ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π which applies to quantum fluctuations.
Since ΔE is real as is h/4π being constants then Δt ≥ h/(4π.ΔE) is definitely real.

The analogy for time not being real because you can’t fit time into a test tube is a poor one.
Velocity is a real parameter but it doesn’t make any sense to claim you can fit velocity into a test tube.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes and if you look at the context I was saying time is not a 'real' physical thing. I was only speaking about the idea that time is a 'real' physical thing that we can put in a test tube.

Who cares about test tubes? I don't know any scientists that even *have* a test tube. Test tubes (or fitting in a test tube) is not the kind of thing that puts the boundary on what is science or physical.

 

[SelfSim]

Not according to this article.
Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

I see nothing in that article other than well reasoned support for why an inflationary/multiverse is the preferred option ... (but its still an option).

It depends how you test it. Perhaps under the scientific measure it won't pass the test. But then Methological Naturalism is a limited measure in the overall scheme of what can be regarded as real or not fundementally.

I couldn't care less about your 'Methodological Naturalism'. That's just a whole bunch of beliefs rolled up to make it look important. It isn't and it won't stop the process of investigating for the purpose of establishing usefulness.

I would not underestimate the power of conscious experience and the resulting beliefs about whats real. There are many stories about our experiences that reveal deep insight about the world and beyond. We know conscious experience is real so perhaps our experience is a better measure of whats really going on than a limited quantified measure of the world.

(Sounds like what a bunch of deluded priests used to try and bash into me when I was a naive kid ...)

I agree the ideas are only tentative so long as they uphold the current data and predictions are confirmed. But that is one of the problems which I agree with theories today about the Cosmos, they seem to bring up new problems just as much as confirm predictions. There always seems to be this gap that cannot be overcome.

Yes .. its wonderful isn't it?
That's the nature of a mystery.

But regardless of what idea is going to be postulated to explain the data it seems whether its a Multiverse, String Theory, or some other idea its going to be counter intuitive and introduce strange dimensions and behaviours that move beyond the cause and effect as we understand it now. In other words its going to take a paradigm shift to explain things.

Observational paradigms shift as well as theoretical ones too y'know(?)
The important thing is to keep trying.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw

For someone who used the argument the BB was questionable because of the galaxy formation problem, isn’t somewhat contradictory in your posts with @Kylie and @SelfSim to adopt the mainstream position of the conventional BB at cosmological time t=0 or the hot BB at t = 10⁻³⁰ s, to make a point?

Not at all. I am simply using mainstreams own logic against them to show when it comes down to it even mainstream science acknowledges there can be even classical physical parameters different to our own or other dimensions not yet incorporated to explain what we find.

So any idea about reality being some fixed quantified measure is unjustified. We simply don't know what time and space represent in the greater scheme of things. Heck we don't even know what gravity really is.

The contradictions do not end there, you mentioned quantum fluctuations which is an ironclad example of time being a real parameter.
In QM the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for position x and momentum p both real parameters, is Δx.Δp ≥ h/4π but can be rewritten as the energy-time relationship ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π which applies to quantum fluctuations.
Since ΔE is real as is h/4π being constants then Δt ≥ h/(4π.ΔE) is definitely real.

I was referring to inflation where information travelled faster than the speed of light. What happened to time then.

The analogy for time not being real because you can’t fit time into a test tube is a poor one.
Velocity is a real parameter but it doesn’t make any sense to claim you can fit velocity into a test tube.

You missed the point. The test tude analogy was about the differences between quantified measures that are within the science method or methological naturalism, naturalism being the determination as opposed to supernaturalism. So verosity, volume, time, DNA, particles, fields and forces all fall within that physical and natural paradigm. But they are limited to knowing the world and reality to qantities and not the inner reality of experience of time.

We know that the world is not just experienced as quantities but through experiences, knowing what its like to experience the world, colours, volumes, objects ect. So it is with what we call 'time. We can experience tense, past tense, future tense as a conscious experience taking us beyond the quantified rationality of time which may give us additional knowledge about what western science calls 'time'.

The experience of our bodies moving through space and time can also be a more spiritual or supernatural experience that tells us something different about time as we know it. This has been practiced for 1,000s of years, I cannot see how you cannot know this is a real experience of many people in the world and its not all supersticion, delusion or make believe but real lived experiences.

 

[stevevw]

I see nothing in that article other than well reasoned support for why an inflationary/multiverse is the preferred option ... (but its still an option).

Its not really whether Inflation and the Multiverse theory are correct. It more the basic idea that no matter what the option will be its going to or I should say it has to appeal to something like the Multiverse. The Multiverse is not the only strange prediction from the data. Ideas like worm holes, Black holes, the Hologram principle, Simulation theory, the Math Universe, the Mental universe, Information and consciousness as fundemental including Panphysism and its many versions, the list goes on.

It seems whatever the answer its going to be counter intuitive. As Chalmers said whichever interpretation you take with QM is going to be strange and go beyond the current paradigm of science.

I couldn't care less about your 'Methodological Naturalism'. That's just a whole bunch of beliefs rolled up to make it look important. It isn't and it won't stop the process of investigating for the purpose of establishing usefulness.

I think the point was epistemically there is more than opne way to know reality and the science method doesn't tell us everything there is to know. So claiming that the science method os revealing what really is is unjustified. It just tells us how the world behaves in quantified terms but not the nature of what its describing.

(Sounds like what a bunch of deluded priests used to try and bash into me when I was a naive kid ...)

I don't think its fair to judge all spiritual and transcedent experiences based on your personal negative experiences. I guess your an atheist or perhaps agnostic. I would assume when you say deluded priests you believe that only what you can see or hold is real. Any talk of spirituality and transcedence is delusion. Or am I jumping the gun here and stereotyping.

Yes .. its wonderful isn't it?
That's the nature of a mystery.

I read or heard cannot remember but a couple of scientists were talking about how its been a long time since any great new discovery that would warrant a paradigm shift has happened and that the longer the time the greater the chance of it happening sooner rather than later.

They mentioned that too much effort has gone into trying to prop up the current theories to the point where they are far more complicated and the fundemental anomelies have become greater. That good theories don't become more complicated but are simple and can explain much.

Observational paradigms shift as well as theoretical ones too y'know(?)
The important thing is to keep trying.

I think its about 'how you kjeep trying' and not just keep trying to hit your head against the same brick wall. Any great discovery comes from outside the box, a complete turnaround in thinking. So perhaps some are trying to hard to look in the wrong direction, or assumption.

 

[stevevw]

Who cares about test tubes? I don't know any scientists that even *have* a test tube. Test tubes (or fitting in a test tube) is not the kind of thing that puts the boundary on what is science or physical.

Yeah perhaps it was a bit simplistic. But as I mentioned in another post the analogy was meant to be about how the science method or methodological naturalism seems a better description as it is about the natural behaviours as opposed to supernatural ones. So that includes stuff you can't test in a test tube like fields, verosity and forces.

But the point was its a quantified measure ofr something natural and physical or the laws of physics as opposed to the supernatural or behaviour beyond what would be predicted by cause and effect in space and time as measured by empricle science..

 

[Hans Blaster]

You missed the point. The test tude analogy was about the differences between quantified measures that are within the science method or methological naturalism, naturalism being the determination as opposed to supernaturalism.

The big difference is that the natural has evidence, the supernatural does not.

So verosity, volume, time, DNA, particles, fields and forces all fall within that physical and natural paradigm.

Yes, that's why time is a physical measure.

But they are limited to knowing the world and reality to qantities and not the inner reality of experience of time.

Your 'inner reality' is not reality for anyone else. Time is still time.

We know that the world is not just experienced as quantities but through experiences, knowing what its like to experience the world, colours, volumes, objects ect. So it is with what we call 'time.

Your 'inner reality' is not reality for anyone else. Time is still time.

We can experience tense, past tense, future tense as a conscious experience taking us beyond the quantified rationality of time which may give us additional knowledge about what western science calls 'time'.

Your 'inner reality' is not reality for anyone else. Time is still time.

The experience of our bodies moving through space and time can also be a more spiritual or supernatural experience that tells us something different about time as we know it.

Your 'inner reality' is not reality for anyone else. Time is still time.

This has been practiced for 1,000s of years, I cannot see how you cannot know this is a real experience of many people in the world and its not all supersticion, delusion or make believe but real lived experiences.

People really live superstitions and delusions, but that doesn't make them reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yeah perhaps it was a bit simplistic. But as I mentioned in another post the analogy was meant to be about how the science method or methodological naturalism seems a better description as it is about the natural behaviours as opposed to supernatural ones.

It's not that it is simplistic, it is that you discard the testing of things because they don't seem to be physical, observable objects. To wit:

So that includes stuff you can't test in a test tube like fields, verosity and forces.

Fields and forces absolutely can be tested and have been so many times. Try an intro physics class for HS. You'll test both.

(As for verosity, at first I thought this was a typo [velosity], but at this point I begin to wonder if you think it is a thing.)

But the point was its a quantified measure ofr something natural and physical or the laws of physics as opposed to the supernatural or behaviour beyond what would be predicted by cause and effect in space and time as measured by empricle science..

There is not point in trying to talk about the "supernatural" without evidence for it.

 

[sjastro]

Not at all. I am simply using mainstreams own logic against them to show when it comes down to it even mainstream science acknowledges there can be even classical physical parameters different to our own or other dimensions not yet incorporated to explain what we find.

So any idea about reality being some fixed quantified measure is unjustified. We simply don't know what time and space represent in the greater scheme of things. Heck we don't even know what gravity really is.

You are in no position of assessing mainstream’s “own logic” when it is obvious you do not comprehend the science and are using the argument of personal incredulity fallacy where your lack of understanding doesn’t translate to scientists not understanding either.

I was referring to inflation where information travelled faster than the speed of light. What happened to time then.

This demonstrates my point of your lack of comprehension.
Throughout the history of the universe information has never travelled faster than the speed of light.
A major objective of inflation along with explaining why the universe is flat and magnetic monopoles are undetectable, was to address the horizon problem originating in the early universe where the speed of information could never exceed the speed of light.

From a post of mine in another thread.

“If the velocity of expansion was always equal to the speed of light, this leads to another problem known as the horizon problem.
In the very early and small universe two diametrically opposite points are causally disconnected from each other as information can only travel at the speed of light and there would not have been enough time for information to travel between these points such as temperature.

The Hubble sphere which is expanding at the speed of light contains all points which are causally connected.
The observable universe needs to be larger than the Hubble sphere for it to be causally connected everywhere.
This is accomplished by a very brief period of exponential expansion many magnitudes greater than the speed of light in the very early universe known as inflation.
The evidence for the universe being causally connected everywhere is the temperature of the CMB which is 2.7⁰ K in all directions from the observer.”

Information can only travel as fast as the Hubble sphere, if the sphere kept pace with the expansion of the universe there would be no need for inflation!

You missed the point. The test tude analogy was about the differences between quantified measures that are within the science method or methological naturalism, naturalism being the determination as opposed to supernaturalism. So verosity, volume, time, DNA, particles, fields and forces all fall within that physical and natural paradigm. But they are limited to knowing the world and reality to qantities and not the inner reality of experience of time.

We know that the world is not just experienced as quantities but through experiences, knowing what its like to experience the world, colours, volumes, objects ect. So it is with what we call 'time. We can experience tense, past tense, future tense as a conscious experience taking us beyond the quantified rationality of time which may give us additional knowledge about what western science calls 'time'.

The experience of our bodies moving through space and time can also be a more spiritual or supernatural experience that tells us something different about time as we know it. This has been practiced for 1,000s of years, I cannot see how you cannot know this is a real experience of many people in the world and its not all supersticion, delusion or make believe but real lived experiences.

You are the one missing the point by trying to conflate science with metaphysics.
Time is a physical parameter in science whether you like it or not and to argue otherwise is metaphysics which is not science.

Introducing metaphysics or intelligent design which is the point you are ultimately trying to make fails because it is unfalsifiable in science.
The whole point of the philosophy of naturalism from which science originates was the recognition the supernatural cannot explain the world around us.
Your posts in this thread demonstrate this for all the huffing and puffing that science is incomplete without introducing the supernatural, you cannot provide one single example where science would benefit such as resolving the galaxy formation problem.

 

[SelfSim]

I think the point was epistemically there is more than opne way to know reality and the science method doesn't tell us everything there is to know. So claiming that the science method os revealing what really is is unjustified. It just tells us how the world behaves in quantified terms but not the nature of what its describing.

Science usually appeals to rational thinkers because of its consistency.
It raises more questions, which appeals to intellectual honesty.

I don't think its fair to judge all spiritual and transcedent experiences based on your personal negative experiences. I guess your an atheist or perhaps agnostic. I would assume when you say deluded priests you believe that only what you can see or hold is real. Any talk of spirituality and transcedence is delusion. Or am I jumping the gun here and stereotyping.

I reject the notion of 'just believing'. I strive to 'find out' instead.

I was once told by a priest that the movie 'The Lord of The Rings', was a euphemism for original sin.
He was promptly booted from our house.

I read or heard cannot remember but a couple of scientists were talking about how its been a long time since any great new discovery that would warrant a paradigm shift has happened and that the longer the time the greater the chance of it happening sooner rather than later.

I don't think paradigm shifts can be predicted.
There are many self-professed 'geniuses' who think themselves to be paradigm shifters though.

They mentioned that too much effort has gone into trying to prop up the current theories to the point where they are far more complicated and the fundemental anomelies have become greater. That good theories don't become more complicated but are simple and can explain much.

Hmm .. the common language interpretation of Occam's Razor there, (which appeals to the rather lazy desire for simplicity).
However a more useful interpretation is: the theory which leads to a better understanding, is usually preferred over the alternatives.
The complexity of it however, is just something to be dealt with.

I think its about 'how you kjeep trying' and not just keep trying to hit your head against the same brick wall. Any great discovery comes from outside the box, a complete turnaround in thinking. So perhaps some are trying to hard to look in the wrong direction, or assumption.

The pain of 'hitting one's head against the same brick wall' there, is what brings on insights which then lead onto paradigm shifts.

 

[Kylie]

Once again these are not opinions but based on the science. The science is the evidence. If you want to dismiss the science and evdience that predicts multiverse then you also have to dismiss the current theory of the BB and inflation because its based on the same science.

Then provide the actual science.

So far all you have done is make claims.

Provide the actual scientific research papers which show that time exists outside our universe.

 

[stevevw]

The big difference is that the natural has evidence, the supernatural does not.

The naturalistic behaviour only has evdience of a certain sort within the causual closure of the physical. But we all know that reality is also made up of stuff that cannot be measured by physical causes of naturalism. Therefore sure science shows the evdience at a certain aspect or level of reality, the quantified reality but not the qualitative aspect of reality which is just as real if not more real, more fundementally real.

Therefore science (methodological naturalism) is not revealing what is (ontologically) but how we should know reality (epistemically). So it cannot make any ontological claims except those within a narrow windown metaphysically. The rest is beyond science. We know it is real because we experience it everyday.

So we have to measure this a different way though in some if not m,any cases the evdience is alrteady there but its assumed to be naturalistic when we don't really know what the fundemental nature of what we are observing represents.

Yes, that's why time is a physical measure.

Yes and its good at measuring quantitative stuff. But thats just one aspect or dimension if you like to reality and may just be a surface reflection of reality that measures the physical interface of a deeper non physical reality. Fort example physical stuff only makes up 5% of the universe. We cannot see and understand what the other 95% represents.

Your 'inner reality' is not reality for anyone else. Time is still time.

I disagree, we have seen common spiritual awareness and experiences that move beyond the individual, quite power in fact. Even though we cannot know others experience we know they have experiences like ourselves and we can connect through this such as together enjoying the experience of say a sunset or a starrt night out in the desert in awe and speechless each knowing they experienced something beyond the physical world they inhabited.

These are powerful experiences throughout history and often the basis and motivation for great discoveries and insights into the human condition and nature something we have known for millenia.

Actually that repeating a stock standard answer for human exprtession of conscious experience as something real is a good representation of how skeptics and materialist see consciousness and spirituality. They relegate the majority of the world to being deluded and only a special elite group have true knowledge. I don't think this helps in dismissing this aspect of being human. Its a real part of us.

People really live superstitions and delusions, but that doesn't make them reality.

But it also doesn't mean human experiences are all superstition and delusions. We know this is the case because we live by experience everyday and in fact its the only aspect we know is real and our experiences cannot just all be cast out because they don't conform to some concept of how we should know reality through naturalism. Otherwise we are literally rejecting our own mind, agency, consciousness and sense or reality.