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

[Kylie]

Are you really wanting the paper on Inflation theory when its a mainstream accepted theory based on the paper. If its accepted theory then its backed by the science within peer reviwed papers. Are you saying Inflation theory is not backed by peer review.

So I should not have to show you papers on Inflation theory and only show you the relevent parts like how inflation theory predicts Multiverses which I have already done. The article which mentions why scientists say a multiverse in inevitable if inflation theory is correct.

The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life - PMC

Recent developments in cosmology radically change the conception of the universe as well as the very notions of "probable" and "possible". The model of eternal inflation implies that all macroscopic histories permitted by laws of physics are ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You are moving the goalposts so far that they aren't just out of the sports field, they aren't even in the same state anymore.

I am not debating inflation theory.

I am asking for the scientific evidence that shows that there is a universe that exists separately to our one, and that this separate universe has a dimension we would perceive as time.

Show me the scientific paper that says that. Show me the scientific paper that explains how we can determine the laws of nature and the way dimensions are arranged in a universe that is completely independent of our own.

Your attempts to muddy the waters are not going to work.

 

[stevevw]

You are moving the goalposts so far that they aren't just out of the sports field, they aren't even in the same state anymore.

I am not debating inflation theory.

I am asking for the scientific evidence that shows that there is a universe that exists separately to our one, and that this separate universe has a dimension we would perceive as time.
Show me the scientific paper that says that. Show me the scientific paper that explains how we can determine the laws of nature and the way dimensions are arranged in a universe that is completely independent of our own.

Your attempts to muddy the waters are not going to work.

Ok do you mean direct evidence, like if we went to the other dimension and observed it directly. If that is the case then you can forget about a fair number of scientific ideas that we have never seen direct evidence for.

Those theories we do have some indirect evidence for were predicted by the math, the equations and were well supported even before any indirect evidence was found.

Thats the same maths and equations that predict inflation, multiverses, string theory, time travel, worm holes and dark matter and energy.

I mean I guess I could go and find Guths original paper or other papers with the equations included. But I would doubt you could fully understand them anyway as I have seen some and they are way over my head. But the point is the maths predicts this and has done for other accepted theories including some we have no direct evidence for.

I means Einsteins theory was accepted and it was a blackboard equation before relativity including the idea that clocks can run at different times due to gravity fields was observed and confirmed. If the math is good enough to stand up on its own for these mainstream theories before they were confirmed why not for these counter intuitive ideas predicted.

If we can never confirm some of these ideas directly should we throw them out if the same math predicts them as being real possibilities. Theorectical physics has not had a problem in throwing out ideas that have not been confirmed based on the integrity of the math so why start throwing out ideas that don't fit the current thinking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok do you mean direct evidence, like if we went to the other dimension and observed it directly. If that is the case then you can forget about a fair number of scientific ideas that we have never seen direct evidence for.

Before this goes to far, could you please stop calling other spacetimes or universes "other dimension(s)". It's a bad sci-fi trope. A dimension is a coordinate in a space:

Dimension - Wikipedia

Space - Wikipedia

The thing you seem to be talking about is a different spacetime or universe. It is fine to consider such things and that's what a lot of the things you are invoking (multiverses, etc.) are. Those other spacetimes may or may not be 4-dimensional like ours. (I don't know how non 4-D spacetimes work and I don't really care.)

 

[sjastro]

Today I got an award for 15 years as a member of Physics Forums so in honor of the occasion I'm going to do something which I almost never do on PF, I'm going to ask a question.

The fine-tuning argument assumes that if the fundamental constants undergirding our reality were even slightly different, then life as we know it couldn't exist.

My question is, do we know enough about why those fundamental constants are the way they are, to be able to confidently say that they could've been different? Hypothetically we can imagine any physical parameters that we want to, but are those alternative physical parameters actually possible?

Scientists have entertained the idea fundamental constants may have been different in universe’s past.
Once such constant is the fine structure constant α = 1/137 which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force.
Astronomers using spectra of distant quasars have found α to not only vary in time but also in direction where the quasar is located.
The change however is extremely small and may not be real but an experimental error.

What we do know is changing the value of fundamental constants such as G and α would result in a very different universe.
Using α as an example if the value was slightly decreased, atoms would be readily ionized, fusion of heavier nuclei in stars easier due to the smaller Coulombic barrier altering stellar evolution, and heavier elements would have longer half-lives as Coulombic repulsion is reduced to name a few.

This is another case in which I like to refer to Feynman's explanation of why light always takes the shortest path from the source to the observer. Sure we can imagine light taking another path, but it's never going to happen, simply due to the nature of light. Is the same type of thing true with the fundamental constants, in that if we knew why they are the way they are, we'd realize that they couldn't possibly be different, and the fine-tuning problem would vanish without any need to invoke a multiverse.

In Feynman’s path integral formulation like Fermat’s principle, light takes the least time which is not necessarily the shortest path when it travels through different mediums.
The connection between the two is detailed in this post.

We can understand why light, subatomic particles and even macro sized objects take the Feynman paths based on the mathematics of the principle of least time and action but the story is very different for fundamental constants.
To my knowledge the only fundamental constant that can be derived from theory is the speed of light based on Maxwell’s equations, the other constants which impact on fine tuning are empirically determined.
Since we don’t have a theory why these constants have the values they do we need to rely on sneaky methods such as invoking the anthropic principle where if the constants were different we wouldn’t exist to measure them, or the existence of a multiverse.

 

[sjastro]

I'm sensing a theme...

We really need to work on that time machine...

I see your patience had run out.

Nearly everything is a repeat in a thread of repeats. Sigh.

In the context of the multiverse we must live in a universe where repetition is a physical law.

 

[sjastro]

Where you have responded to any of my “Refer to previous posts in this thread” the subject is closed as the answers have already been given.

It has tyo be I think because once we get to the point of what was before our universe, or how it was birthed it posits something before our universe. It didn't just happen out of thin air or the void as the void needed something to create it. So the most logical solution was to propose our universe as the result of QM.

I mean what else can it be. What other explanations could they posit.

To answer this question QM is useless, the relevant science is QFT (Quantum Field Theory) which originated by unifying special relativity with QM.
In QFT there is no such thing as empty space-time or a vacuum in the classical sense.
A brief explanation of a vacuum being a quantum field in the lowest energy state is given in this post.

There are different types of vacuums such as the electromagnetic vacuum associated with QED ( Quantum Electrodynamics) and the QCD vacuum (Quantum Chromodynamics).
These are true vacuums where the energy expectation or average value is generally zero but varies according to quantum fluctuations.
There are also false vacuums such as the Higgs vacuum where the energy expectation value is non-zero.

The mechanism for inflation is based on a hypothetical field known as the inflaton field (not inflation field).
Like the Higgs field the inflaton field can exist as a false vacuum but is metastable and can release energy to become a true vacuum and drive inflation in the process.
A more detailed explanation and how a hot BB is created is described in this post.

Hence the argument of a universe being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in a classical sense is wrong.
This also addresses another error you made in thinking time and space are different for different universes as the multiverse originates in the same fabric of space-time.

Ok l;et me put it another way. Do you think its theorectically possible according to Qunatum theory.

Sending real information instantaneously is theoretically impossible since QFT is the unification of QM and special relativity.
Special relativity imposes the limit nothing can exceed the speed of light.

That in itself is a fallacy, that you judge a book by its cover. I have mainly been interested in the science itself, how the math can map so well onto reality, how science itself has pointed to Mind and consciousness being fundemental and a solution to the many problems faced by material science.

There are many many scientists and philosophers out there posing the same questions who have nothing to do with God or theism. In fact they have been my go to sources like with Wheeler, Wigner, Nagal, Penrose, Chalmers and Stapp. All questioning the ability of physicalism in explaining consciousness and the ability of scientific materiam to explain fundemental reality.

I have learnt there is no sense in proposing a God of the gaps or trying to prove God. I am more interested in looking at whether generally that the evdience points to something beyond our current understanding. This itself is a battle as its almost as though its the materialist who have the religious dogma of protecting the status quo than religious people.

To do that you have to take the steps through science first to get to the beyond part, to see if science itself is suggesting that. This is what I am mostly interested in. This will not prove God, nothing can prove God to a materialist so going down that path is a useless endeavour.

With all due respect it is very difficult for you to put up a convincing argument when the thread title is “Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see” and the footnote in your posts “Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator.”
To top it off you have used creationist misinformation that the BB is based on creation ex nihilo.

Your go to sources contains an impressive list but are you aware they are not telling the same story?
Roger Penrose has his own QM interpretation based on an objective collapse theory which has nothing to do with consciousness.
I have noticed this tactic in the past of individuals promoting their pet theories by listing every man and his dog who has an anti-mainstream theory despite contradicting their own but is based on the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

 

[Bradskii]

Scientists have entertained the idea fundamental constants may have been different in universe’s past.
Once such constant is the fine structure constant α = 1/137 which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force.

Couldn't it be the case that the constants are constant just in the way that 2 + 2 is always going to be 4? Which would then make suppositions such as 'If some constants were even slightly different...' as nonsensical as suggesting 'If 2 + 2 was actually 3.9...'

In other words, once a process starts (which is the mystery) then everything that follows is deterministic. Just like an alegbraic progression.

 

[SelfSim]

Couldn't it be the case that the constants are constant just in the way that 2 + 2 is always going to be 4? Which would then make suppositions such as 'If some constants were even slightly different...' as nonsensical as suggesting 'If 2 + 2 was actually 3.9...'

In other words, once a process starts (which is the mystery) then everything that follows is deterministic. Just like an alegbraic progression.

A fundamental physical constant can't be explained by any theory. Its different from a mathematical constant.
Its value can only be determined by physical measurement.

Presumably, any process which starts, is already deterministic .. by definition(?)

 

[sjastro]

Couldn't it be the case that the constants are constant just in the way that 2 + 2 is always going to be 4? Which would then make suppositions such as 'If some constants were even slightly different...' as nonsensical as suggesting 'If 2 + 2 was actually 3.9...'

In other words, once a process starts (which is the mystery) then everything that follows is deterministic. Just like an alegbraic progression.

Four is a mathematical constant whereas G and α are examples of physical constants which can change.
In my previous post to @stevevw the mechanism of inflation was explained as a transition from a false to true vacuum.

The Higgs field in our universe is believed to be in a false vacuum with a non zero energy expectation value.
The Higgs field gives mass to most particles but if the energy expectation value changes so does the amount of mass particles receive from the field.
In the worse case scenario in an alternate universe the Higgs field can undergo vacuum decay to a true vacuum resulting in a universe filled with massless particles where G and α are essentially zero.

Vacuum decay forms an end of our universe scenario.

 

[Bradskii]

Four is a mathematical constant whereas G and α are examples of physical constants which can change.

My knowledge of this is extremely limited. But...two of something is a physical constant. It doesn't matter where or when you have one thing plus another, you will always have two things.

If you start with some initial condition (one thing) and the condition changes so that you have another, then you have two. You cannot change that. It's fixed by the process. So if you have any particle then it will have to have certain characteristics. Two hydrogen plus one oxygen equals water. There is no other option.

I don't understand how the universe could be different. It appears that it has to be as it is. There are no other options. To say otherwise appears to me to be as nonsensical as saying 'If 2+2 didn't equal 4...'

 

[stevevw]

Before this goes to far, could you please stop calling other spacetimes or universes "other dimension(s)". It's a bad sci-fi trope. A dimension is a coordinate in a space:

Dimension - Wikipedia

Space - Wikipedia

I thought that depends on what space your measuring. If you read further on your Wiki link you will find it refers to other space dimensions.

10 dimensions are used to describe superstring theory (6D hyperspace + 4D), 11 dimensions can describe supergravity and M-theory (7D hyperspace + 4D), and the state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space.

The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces frequently occur in mathematics and the sciences. They may be Euclidean spaces or more general parameter spaces or configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space.

Dimension - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

String theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while in superstring theory it is 10-dimensional, and in M-theory it is 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments.[21]

String theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The thing you seem to be talking about is a different spacetime or universe. It is fine to consider such things and that's what a lot of the things you are invoking (multiverses, etc.) are. Those other spacetimes may or may not be 4-dimensional like ours. (I don't know how non 4-D spacetimes work and I don't really care.)

The point is does the theorectical physics say they are possible.

 

[stevevw]

Where you have responded to any of my “Refer to previous posts in this thread” the subject is closed as the answers have already been given.

To answer this question QM is useless, the relevant science is QFT (Quantum Field Theory) which originated by unifying special relativity with QM.
In QFT there is no such thing as empty space-time or a vacuum in the classical sense.
A brief explanation of a vacuum being a quantum field in the lowest energy state is given in this post.

There are different types of vacuums such as the electromagnetic vacuum associated with QED ( Quantum Electrodynamics) and the QCD vacuum (Quantum Chromodynamics).
These are true vacuums where the energy expectation or average value is generally zero but varies according to quantum fluctuations.
There are also false vacuums such as the Higgs vacuum where the energy expectation value is non-zero.

The mechanism for inflation is based on a hypothetical field known as the inflaton field (not inflation field).
Like the Higgs field the inflaton field can exist as a false vacuum but is metastable and can release energy to become a true vacuum and drive inflation in the process.
A more detailed explanation and how a hot BB is created is described in this post.

Hence the argument of a universe being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in a classical sense is wrong.
This also addresses another error you made in thinking time and space are different for different universes as the multiverse originates in the same fabric of space-time.

So are you saying if there was a multiverse all other universe will end up with the same space and time as our own.

Sending real information instantaneously is theoretically impossible since QFT is the unification of QM and special relativity.
Special relativity imposes the limit nothing can exceed the speed of light.

With all due respect it is very difficult for you to put up a convincing argument when the thread title is “Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see” and the footnote in your posts “Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator.”
To top it off you have used creationist misinformation that the BB is based on creation ex nihilo.

Thats silly considering I am speaking about a universe billions of years old with discoveries of gallaxies that may even predate the age of our universe and Creationist believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Once again you don't judge a book by its cover or a person by a title or a quote as to what their views are. Look at my content just as we have been discussing now about dimensions I am speaking about theorectical physics and not God dimensions.

Your go to sources contains an impressive list but are you aware they are not telling the same story?
Roger Penrose has his own QM interpretation based on an objective collapse theory which has nothing to do with consciousness.
I have noticed this tactic in the past of individuals promoting their pet theories by listing every man and his dog who has an anti-mainstream theory despite contradicting their own but is based on the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

I don't support or promote any specific theory as I don't know. But rather its the fact that these 'every man and their dog' ideas all seem to appeal to something beyond the known physics. Even Penrose suggests that when it comes to consciousness its beyond nueuroscience.

These are all counter intuitive ideas that require a complete paradigm change in thinking from current materialist ways of thinking.

 

[stevevw]

So what about this idea that if there was a multiverse then as opposed to our fine tuned universe for conscious life other universes may have slightly different physical parameters which caused universes to not form heavey elements or stars and collapsed in on themselves or expanded rapidly apart.

Was that just luck or is our universe just one of many with varying parameters and not so special. It just seems beyond chance that the precise conditions had to be present in the BB itself for what we have today. What they call the Goldilocks universe.

The level to which the expansion rate and the overall energy density must balance is insanely precise; a tiny change back then would have led to a Universe vastly different than the one we presently observe. And yet, this finely-tuned situation very much describes the Universe we have, which didn’t collapse immediately and which didn’t expand too rapidly to form complex structures. Instead, it gave rise to all the wondrous diversity of nuclear, atomic, molecular, cellular, geologic, planetary, stellar, galactic and clustering phenomena we have today.

This Is Why Our Universe Didn't Collapse Into A Black Hole

If everything was hot, dense, and super close-together at the Big Bang, what kept us from collapsing into a singularity?

www.forbes.com

 

[stevevw]

Couldn't it be the case that the constants are constant just in the way that 2 + 2 is always going to be 4? Which would then make suppositions such as 'If some constants were even slightly different...' as nonsensical as suggesting 'If 2 + 2 was actually 3.9...'

In other words, once a process starts (which is the mystery) then everything that follows is deterministic. Just like an alegbraic progression.

Yes but wouldn't that require that the equations like 2+2=4 were set in the intial BB. In other words it had to be a finely tuned BB from the start otherwise any slight variation would come out even bigger once the universe began to unfold otherwise its trajectory was going to end up producing the wrong conditions for our particular universe.

Thats why I think some propose the Multiverse as it allows for many wrong equations and at least one is going to get it right among an infinite number of chances..

 

[Hans Blaster]

The point is does the theorectical physics say they are possible.

Did you pay attention to what *I* wrote. Let me try again: Stop calling other spacetimes/universes "other dimensions".

A different universe is not "a dimension"
A space time is not "a dimension".
We do not live in "this dimension".

Spacetimes and universes ***HAVE*** dimensions, they ARE NOT DIMENSIONS.

 

[partinobodycular]

The Higgs field in our universe is believed to be in a false vacuum with a non zero energy expectation value.
The Higgs field gives mass to most particles but if the energy expectation value changes so does the amount of mass particles receive from the field.

But how can we establish that the 'energy expectation value' can change? I mean wouldn't we need at least one of two things in order to make this claim, either an understanding of what causes the 'energy expectation value' to be what it is, or a sample set of more than one? I presume that we have neither of those two things, so while we can hypothesize about different values, how can we be certain that it's actually possible?

 

[SelfSim]

If you start with some initial condition (one thing) and the condition changes so that you have another, then you have two. You cannot change that. It's fixed by the process. So if you have any particle then it will have to have certain characteristics. Two hydrogen plus one oxygen equals water. There is no other option.

Do we completely know the initial conditions of this universe?

I don't understand how the universe could be different. It appears that it has to be as it is. There are no other options. To say otherwise appears to me to be as nonsensical as saying 'If 2+2 didn't equal 4...'

I think we can know that some other universe's physical constants could be different in the absence of complete knowledge of the initial conditions of this one(?)

 

[partinobodycular]

I think we can know that some other universe's physical constants could be different in the absence of complete knowledge of the initial conditions of this one(?)

I do believe that you misspoke there.

What you meant to say was likely more along the lines of:

"I think we can hypothesize that some other universe's physical constants could be different in the absence of complete knowledge of the initial conditions of this one(?)"

This second version contains a reasonable conclusion, but without evidence to support it, your original version has no merit. In the absence of knowledge concerning the cause, you can't possibly conclude that the effect could be different.

 

[sjastro]

My knowledge of this is extremely limited. But...two of something is a physical constant. It doesn't matter where or when you have one thing plus another, you will always have two things.

If you start with some initial condition (one thing) and the condition changes so that you have another, then you have two. You cannot change that. It's fixed by the process. So if you have any particle then it will have to have certain characteristics. Two hydrogen plus one oxygen equals water. There is no other option.

I don't understand how the universe could be different. It appears that it has to be as it is. There are no other options. To say otherwise appears to me to be as nonsensical as saying 'If 2+2 didn't equal 4...'

The problem with your post is there is no distinction between mathematical and physical constants.
Instead of looking at addition consider division where we can use π which is the circumference divided by diameter.

Since our universe is an example of a mathematical manifold, it is locally flat hence the value of π should be the same locally anywhere in our universe.
A physical constant based on a ratio, the charge to mass ratio of an electron is 1.76 × 10¹¹ C/kg.
Note that π is dimensionless but the charge to mass ratio of an electron is not and has a mass dimension in the denominator.

In our neck of the woods the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the Higgs field which is the energy expectation value of the Higgs vacuum is 246 GeV.
We have no reason as to why this value should be 246 GeV but if not the mass of the electron would change as would the charge to mass ratio; in fact the entire model of particle physics would go down the drain.
It is for this reason if alternate universes do exist the physics along with the fundamental constants can be very different from our own.
Furthermore, if the Higgs false vacuum is metastable and undergoes vacuum decay then parts of our universe may be very different as well.

 

[sjastro]

So are you saying if there was a multiverse all other universe will end up with the same space and time as our own.

Yes the fabric of space-time must be the same and shares the same property, the inflaton field is in a false vacuum and undergoes vacuum decay which allows the formation of bubble universes throughout space-time.

Thats silly considering I am speaking about a universe billions of years old with discoveries of gallaxies that may even predate the age of our universe and Creationist believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Old age creationists use the same ex-nihilo argument.

Old earth creationists usually agree with the mainstream scientific estimates of the age of the universe, humanity, and Earth itself while at the same time rejecting the claims of modern evolutionary theorists with respect to biological evolution. Old earth creationists and their young earth creationist brothers hold several important points in common, including:

The literal creation of the universe out of nothing a finite time ago (creation ex nihilo).

Once again you don't judge a book by its cover or a person by a title or a quote as to what their views are. Look at my content just as we have been discussing now about dimensions I am speaking about theorectical physics and not God dimensions.

Sure and the thread title and footnote are unfortunate coincidences.
Let's nip this in the bud do you believe in ID?

I don't support or promote any specific theory as I don't know. But rather its the fact that these 'every man and their dog' ideas all seem to appeal to something beyond the known physics. Even Penrose suggests that when it comes to consciousness its beyond nueuroscience.

These are all counter intuitive ideas that require a complete paradigm change in thinking from current materialist ways of thinking.

So why were you promoting Flemming's ideas which were shown to be crackpot but continued to defend him?
What is obvious in this thread is how you selectively found links such as Flemming to support your confirmation bias.
The confirmation bias leads to the same conclusion..........