Forum Sections > Spiritual > Techno spritual
|Man as soon as people start chatting on about the "big bang" and the birth of the universe I start to lose all interest in hearing anything else they have to say.
They said here about maybe we can figure out how the laws of physics were set / tuned at the start of the universe... arghhhh.... presumptions piled on ideas built on hypothesies. I know I can't prove my point of view but I can say I believe with a probably unfoundedly deep depth of certainty that the concept of physical laws being "tuned" at the "start" is utter and complete garbage memetics created and compounded by ignorance and the lasting vestiges of superstitions still present in the minds of our scientific thinkers.
Saying such invites the question, well then how did the laws of physics get to be how they are? And once again the only answer I can give is ;
I can't even begin to use these clumsy representations of verbal communication to explain the subtle sublimity of the timeless eternity I perceive. I can only hint at it, give clues and share facts in the hope that someone who really wants a copy of the meme I have is capable of building it in their own mind for themselves. It's probably a futile persuit, since even if someone has it, they can't prove it by speaking it for the same reasons I can't explain it verbally in the first place.
Eye to eye
The Eternity Encapsulated
Face to face
You have only to look in the mirror
What you see, is only a reflection of what you can see
The perfect mirror sees absolutely nothing,
In absolute darkness it reflects everything.
|Webmaster of AhoyNoob||Apr 6 2012 at 07:18:49 GMT|
|The hills quietly echo the sound of the moonlit towers bell.
Garbage in -> Garbage out.
Big bang? Yet another, if somewhat more refined, creation myth. Imho.
It's not that I can't tolerate other view points or ideas or anything, it's just that having been through the experiences and formation of ideas and world views that I have, when I hear people talking about concepts which belong in what I call the classical linear time model of physics/reality it feels like listening to a science show written for an audience of children.
Imagine watching a science show from the 18th century, where the voice over is loudly and proudly suggesting that eventually we might be able to the bottom of the mystery of phlogiston, and we will be able to determine how much it weighs, and who knows what we can do with it, perhaps we can harness it to power rocket ships to take us to the stars, or maybe knowledge of the fundamental particles of phlogiston will cure all diseases of the body etc. It's non-sense because the base concept itself is non-sense, and therefore any speculation on the subject is non-sense.
Have a look at this;
As far as I can tell Dr Barbour is on the right track, but even he fails to reach the ultimate conclusion of the line of thinking he is following and falls back to talking about the big bang. Perhaps he did it to try and regain some of the mainstream credibility he lost by straying too far from the kosher realm of theoretical physics or perhaps he has other reasons. I really don't know but I believe a future scientist will not only follow on from his work and prove it's core tenets, but will also in so doing disprove the big bang and with it _all_ creationist myths.
To put it poetically, the acorn, the mighty oak and the withered burnt out stump all exist simultaneously in the universal super-position, they are one and the same, and only a linear processing experiential being like a human sees them as different and distinguished from each other.
A while back I made some youtube videos on my old channel where I suggested starting a religion called Radical Anti Creationism, it was a tongue in cheek suggestion however there was as serious point behind it.
|Webmaster of AhoyNoob||Apr 6 2012 at 11:46:36 GMT|
|Ok, I'm going to try and address each point based on what I understand of this model. Incidentally I arrived at my own view prior to hearing of Dr Barbour, and was quite relieved to hear that someone so learned (and well respected by quite a few), has arrived at something very similar.
For the purposes of the response I'm going to phrase things in absolute terms, just for simplicity and clarity rather than trying to convey "superior knowledge" TM.
I think he meant exactly what he said, at each tick of a wall clock, every particle within the body has changed position and energy level millions of times, and if you zoom in close and took two snapshots at a one second interval, you would not consider them to be snapshots of the same thing unless you could see the whole picture and how the differences blur out into a recognisable similarity.
As for a plank length of time, how would we define this?
Perhaps it should be considered as the length of time it takes a photon travelling at C, to traverse a single plank length?
A quick google search reveals that that is actually the correct definition :
I'm sure Dr Barbour is fully aware of this measurement unit, don't forget he is a recognised and respected PHD holding theoretical physicist who is not afraid to step away from the mainstream to preserve his reputation. I admire his integrity and I find it unlikely he would not know about units of plank time. Remember also that the video was made for the pulp audience and has consequently been dumbed down a lot.
Indeed, your always looking at an object as it was in the past when the photons left it's surface to travel to your eyes.
That's a good start. Now factor into your understanding that in terms of mainstream quantum mechanics, Netwonian style time is assumed, but not accounted for.
I believe he is correct in that assertion. He's talking about a "now" as being an infinitely thin slice of time, a frozen universe, but he's not suggesting that the universe is made of such things, rather he's using it as a convenient tool to aid understanding a greater picture. I'm struggling to find a suitable analogy as I'm only just capable of grasping that larger picture to start with. Perhaps we could talk about the ocean being made up of an infinite number of infinitely small droplets of water, but in reality it is continuous (but not linear).
Your comment here implies your lack of comprehension, that's OK, this concept is incredibly hard to grasp, but once you do you can see a universe that is trillions orders of magnitude greater than the narrow limited linear time-scape of classical thinking. Infact once you do get it, you will be able to see how the good Dr can see it too, but is struggling immensely to explain it in a way that is accessible. You have to look through what is being said to the truth behind it.
No, that is not what he is saying. He's not claiming time can be divided up, he's claiming time to be an illusion created by the sensory perceptions of humanity. When you can grasp that distinction you will see how his claim is far from nonsense, even if it appears to be so through when inspected through the lens of classical thought.
What we call reality is electrical impulses in our brain. As far as I know all quantum interactions are considered time reverse-able, and in Dr Barbours model, all "nows" (once again a now being only a hypothetical tool to explain with), exist simultaneously in the superposition. It's a function of our own physical make up as a linear experiential biological organism that makes us believe in the arrow of time, and an order to events along a single line with a beginning and an end.
Again, your referring to your perception of reality as if it is reality, and yet in other conversations you've indicated that you are aware that there is something greater than that. Dr B is working on the physics of that greater reality. Your right though, inside your linear experience track the arrow of time implies the rules of thermodynamics. It's like humans have tunnel vision, and it's difficult for us to see beyond our blinkers.
Exactly, you just said it yourself, as an observer of the universe, INSIDE the universe, INSIDE your perceptions, you see a linear narrative with a strong distinct arrow of time. No one in their right mind would ever suggest that that perception is faulty, but it takes brilliant minds like Dr B to dig at the physics underneath that and make what he sees there accessible to others.
Perception of time, is the 4th dimension of space, your own brain and mind are fundamentally part of the fabric of reality. Space has the ability to curve into the state of conciousness.
Your running up against two barriers;
1) the immense difficulty in conveying this understanding
2) your own lack of understanding of the concept
When you get it, as I'm sure you will if you think hard about it, you will see how much the Dr is struggling to grasp and explain it himself, and how his analogies are falling short of the sort of clarity you will be able to explain to yourself inside your own mind, but will struggle just as much to explain to others.
|Webmaster of AhoyNoob||Apr 6 2012 at 19:54:53 GMT|
I really don't like his triangle thing and I believe he's going down the wrong track with that analogy and confusing himself and others through it. My concept is more, hrm, 'crystalline'. Like a diamond of nows each different yet similar, the more different the further apart they are in the crystalline matrix.
Again, I find his analogy faulty, the result of the difficulty of even grasping let alone conveying the concept.
The clothes line analogy is a commonly used analogy when discussing the nature of time, at least I've heard the same thing from other sources. The line represents a linear track, one end of it is the big bang, the other end is the end of time, lets say the big crunch or heat death. The clothes represent events which happen in a linear sequence along the length of the line.
Your confusion is entirely understandable, the analogies are weak and tbh I feel they miss represent the idea. Don't forget Dr B is quite old now, I believe it's going to take a younger mind to bring this model into the sharp focus needed for the explanation to be readily accessible. I believe that when such an explanation in words does come along, it will be readily apparent why the very concept of a big bang is utter non-sense, and eventually it will take it's place with other ridiculed ideas like the flat earth and phlogiston.
I'm not sure if he has added the concept of big bang in to try and make it more open to people who still believe in that concept or whether he has just narrowly missed the ultimate conclusion his work leads to.
Do you know any Java?
An Eternal Public Static Void Main which implements a hyper-dimensional lattice / crystalline framework of objects, some of which have an abstract tangential existence known as "being alive" and experiencing a linear arrow narrative called "time".
I'm not sure I understand this question properly. As massive as the model is, it would still not be infinite because there would only be a finite number of possible combinations of position, velocity and energy level of the non-infinite set of particles the universe contains.
I believe that is an artefact of how he is struggling to comprehend and explain the concept.
Again, your taking a fuzzy explanation of a crystal clear concept and naturally misinterpreting it by examining it through a lens of previously understood models.
The sort of super-position and entanglement which is scientifically induced is hard to accomplish using technological means, however nature itself has no problem at all doing it all the time everywhere, if it could not do that then the universe could not work. He is referring to the universal wave function, which was introduced by Hugh Everett in his Everett Interpretation of Q.M, which is the basis of Dr B's work and is now widely accepted as the most probably correct interpretation currently known.
Not at all... it's far from simple! I suggest based on what you've said here so far that you dig into the work of Everett and understand that before trying to tackle Dr B's work.
You said it yourself right there *if* you want to show them in chronological order. But whose chronology are we talking about? You know from relativity that the chronological order of events can be different for different observers depending on their relative positions and velocities.
No, the past and the future are equally part of the crystalline structure, but not just the past and future of your own linear tunnel... we are talking about every possible past and every possible future. In this system the moment of NOW your experiencing this moment, has many histories which lead up to it, and many futures that come from it.
You do yourself dis-service with these comments.
|Webmaster of AhoyNoob||Apr 6 2012 at 20:20:37 GMT|
Understanding the fundamental structure of reality is going to open up incredible ways of using that information, I expect the understandings started by Everett and continued by Dr B, to be the foundational cornerstones of universe wide transportation and possibly an equivalent of time travel, without any chance of a grandfather type paradox occurring.
You just lol'ed at and dismissed what might be some of the most important insights in theoretical physics ever to have been expressed.... repeat after me...
|Webmaster of AhoyNoob||Apr 6 2012 at 20:23:37 GMT|
No your not, an idiot would have no chance at all at grasping such a subtle concept!
Sorry if it came across like that, but I did say at the start;
For the purposes of the response I'm going to phrase things in absolute terms, just for simplicity and clarity rather than trying to convey "superior knowledge" TM.
I learnt a while back when dicussing these things that if you phrase things in absolute terms it's a lot clearer and quicker to explain and to understand, rather than saying things like "in this framework, if the framework is right then", etc etc.
No need to apologise, this is AhoyNoob the comedy rebellion arena; comic rudeness, frivolity and trollish behaviour are all actually encouraged here for the lulz :)
I see, and of course the coin could be absolutely flat (true 2D), and it would still work.
No that's a misunderstanding, the concept actually has nothing to do with slicing space-time, Dr B is simply trying to use that abstract analogy to dig at explaining the actual underlying model. If anything what you saw there was a very crude and slapdash oil painting with a 10meter wide brush, trying to paint a picture of a something so sharp it would make a laser scapel look dull.
The model doesn't call for inifinites unless we assume there are an infinite number of particles in the universe in which case there would be an infinite number of infinities of possible positions those particles would occupy in the static-super-positional matrix.
Don't worry I really don't think there is any chance of Maximus appearing over this :P
Q might stop by though if he feels like there is a comic angle he can exploit!
You are far from dumb!! If I thought you were dumb I wouldn't of even bothered trying to help you construct the corresponding model meme!
No, that's just how human beings apply the scientific method within their perceptual linear narrative framework of understanding. Time is a human abstraction, the plodding monotonous sequence of one event occurring after another is a function of how the human brain works by necessity. Science is on the verge of exploring and exploiting understandings which far surpass that quasi-newtonian point of view. How cool would it be for instance if we could build a computer which exploits quantum mechanics to do it's computing in the past so that it already has the answer to any calculation you require, the very instant you require it? Such a computer would have 13.7 Billion years to think about it's next chess move, whilst you have to do your thinking in linear classical mode.
We all have our moments of
I agree with the notion of Plank Time as being the smallest possible measurement of the phonemena we refer to as time, in the same way that the Plank Length is the smallest possible measurement of the phonemena we call distance, however as a subscriber to the views posited by Everett and Dr B, I hold also that time and distance are illusions.
Within that framework I think it would be possible maybe to give someone in London some sort of appropriate quantum "pill" or something such, which would instantly re-organise their quantum state so they vanish in London and re-appear in Syndey, Austrialia instantaneously without having travelled between those points and without having violated the light-speed barrier.
With appropriate refinement the same technique could just as easily cause them to reappear on Mars in the 15th Century... or in the Andromeda galaxy the day after tomorrow. If you can understand how that could happen in a virtual reality, then you can understand that once we have pinned down the absolute framework/operating system of the machine which renders the universe we can do almost anything with it.
|Webmaster of AhoyNoob||Apr 7 2012 at 11:47:30 GMT|
|Thy little centuries go by so quickly...|
|O.M.E... (omnipotent mischievous entity)||Apr 7 2012 at 11:48:10 GMT|
|time is irrelevant, it is a label mankind created and only exists inside our puny little minds as a means to explain the eternal moment which the majority of humans cannot understand,
just live your life in the now, this one moment of eternal bliss, we could and do spend years teorising over things and we totally miss the beauty of the moment, imo
|Apr 7 2012 at 12:20:22 GMT|
Now ain't that a truth?
|Miserable old f*cker (MOF)||Apr 7 2012 at 15:24:28 GMT|
|Yup, but ironically I both couldn't agree more and couldn't disagree more...
For most people yes, absolutely just enjoy the now it's all there ever was or will be, you own it, it's yours and it can never be taken from you.
For the scientists and engineers of the world, hurry up and figure it out already, we have children starving out there that need us to get our act together as a universe and quit being such a fractured head-case! Forget the warp drives, ships in space is a dumb idea... we need Quantum leap accelerators!!
|Webmaster of AhoyNoob||Apr 7 2012 at 22:32:49 GMT|
|The resources available in the immense expanse of unexplored quantum space of the earth will make what humanity has available to it right now look like a single grain of sand in a desert a trillion trillion trillion times larger than Jupiter.|
|Apr 7 2012 at 22:36:27 GMT|
Go To Top
Please login to add reply