Fewer people are probably familiar with F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” than they are with the reversed-time novels by Martin Amis, Kurt Vonnegut, or Lewis Carroll. But don’t worry, you will be!
In this case, the protagonist is born as an old man who grows younger with time, eventually dying as a baby. His father, not to mention the hospital staff, are somewhat nonplussed at his birth.
Mr. Button’s eyes followed her pointing finger, and this is what he saw. Wrapped in a voluminous white blanket, and partly crammed into one of the cribs, there sat an old man apparently about seventy years of age. His sparse hair was almost white, and from his chin dripped a long smoke-coloured beard, which waved absurdly back and forth, fanned by the breeze coming in at the window. He looked up at Mr. Button with dim, faded eyes in which lurked a puzzled question.
“Am I mad?” thundered Mr. Button, his terror resolving into rage. “Is this some ghastly hospital joke?”
“It doesn’t seem like a joke to us,” replied the nurse severely. “And I don’t know whether you’re mad or not—but that is most certainly your child.”
The cool perspiration redoubled on Mr. Button’s forehead. He closed his eyes, and then, opening them, looked again. There was no mistake—he was gazing at a man of threescore and ten—a baby of threescore and ten, a baby whose feet hung over the sides of the crib in which it was reposing.
No word of what Mrs. Button had to say about the whole affair.
Fitzgerald’s story takes a different approach to running the arrow of time backwards: Benjamin Button has experiences and memories that are completely conventional (although, for expository purposes, he is born with a full vocabulary), while his physical body ages backward.
The reason why I know everyone will be hearing about the story is that “Benjamin Button” is being made into a feature film, directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en) and starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Major photography has been completed, and it’s currently in post-production, scheduled to be released late in 2008. Major Oscar buzz.
Leaked photos seem to indicate that the film will portray Benjamin as being born baby-sized (albeit old and wrinkly), rather than as a full grown human being. Different actors will be used to portray Button’s reverse aging at different stages of his life, while CGI effects insert Brat Pitt’s face onto each body.
Sam,
You may have addressed my question, but haven’t answered it. Gravity and galactic redshift are not microscopic phenomena. If they are balanced on the cosmic level, that negates the need to postulate an expanding universe because the expansion of space characterized by redshift is balanced by the collapse of space described by gravity.
Nothing personal, but my experience is that the response from those enmeshed in a field is almost robotic if you offer them perspectives which the paradigm doesn’t take into account. Whether it’s pointing out to a religious person that the absolute is basis, not apex, so the spiritual absolute would be the essence out of which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. Or pointing out to a mainstream economist that as a medium of exchange issued and regulated by the government, money is a form of public utility, not private property, etc. The sense is that they step back from the edge and will not even consider looking over it. If it’s not in the equations, it isn’t real. If it’s real, it must be in the equations. Catch 22.
Pingback: Economist » Blog Archive » Comment on Incompatible Arrows, IV: F. Scott Fitzgerald by John…
John said,
“You may have addressed my question, but haven’t answered it. Gravity and galactic redshift are not microscopic phenomena. If they are balanced on the cosmic level, that negates the need to postulate an expanding universe because the expansion of space characterized by redshift is balanced by the collapse of space described by gravity.”
It is really hard to imagine how a GR universe which is eternally everywhere, could be expanding, in a cosmological sense anyway! Again we have this important matter of frame of reference rearing its ugly conceptual head. I assume you are aware that in spite all we know about doppler phenomena, scientists…the alert ones anyway, are continuing to evaluate this matter of the expanding universe, and lately, the accelerating universe. We can observe very old stars in some of the most distant galaxies, and astronomers are looking for answers to this observation- and others. The accelerating universe is best explained by extra large (macroscopic, matching and unseen “over the horizon”) dimensions- the extra 3 space of the Schwarzschild mirror geometry…the “5th” dimension of Kalusa.
We just HAVE to understand that the universe exists cosmologically in one way, and as it is observed in quite another way. Both are important.
John I have no quarrel over that second paragraph. It is easy (and natural) for anyone to assume a certain frame of reference, and then define the whole universe by it! In fact, as you know, that inclination is so human, whether we are scientists, economists or philosophers we have a tendency to assume a frame of reference and claim it as our own. I have just taken quite a bit of time to point out that the universe of SR/GR/QM exists as it is observed.
Therefore this inclination we all have is not unexpected since in a way, ANY frame of reference we assume, even crazy ones, can seem (and in terms of experience- BE- the victims at Auswitz) real. History is replete with examples of folks assuming a frame of reference and then attempting to force everyone else to adopt their point of view. On a sociological level, the solution to the problem is to be well traveled. In science, the solution is to be well studied. In economic thinking, the partial solution at least, is to think globally.
Well, John, I think that if we are not conceptually bridging the gulf between the natural and social siences in this discussion, we sure are making a stab at it!
Sam,
Busy weekend and certainly some of the people involved impress the observation that we all look at situations from different perspectives, even when we inhabit the same general location.
I do realize the fact that reality presents different perspectives and there is no one over all perspective is at the very heart of modern physics. I also have the impression the most fundamental drive of physics, as well as religion and any number of other biological endeavors is to overcome this limitation, whether it’s God or a Grand Unified Field theory and if finding it fails, build a sturdy wall around our little corner. There it is again, that cycle of expansion and consolidation.(of expectations in this case)
That said, there are times when this wave of limitless potential collapses into hard finite fact not because nature hides her secrets in indecipherable complexity, but because she leaves them sitting in the most obvious of places and we only trip over them after looking everywhere else. Of course, even the hardest of facts are only the seeds of further questions.
Most of the people actually. All of the people actually.
John,
Well stated. That’s the interesting thing about the universe.
On the one hand we have this set of universal mathematical and physical constraints which are the same for everyone and everything, everywhere.
On the other hand, the universe is observed slightly, greatly or extremely differently, and in reality it IS slightly, greatly or extremely different from an almost infinite variety of frames. Even in the case of an individual human, our frame of reference (perspective on the universe) changes with every passing day.
What makes the set of universal mathematical and physical constraints important (rather than just being esoteric and extraneous) is 1. They define the existence, nature, properties and behavior of particulate energy densities 2. They define the manifold within which 4D event horizion surfaces are read as information and complexity, remotely, in gravitational time dilation. 3. They permit the existence of an understanding of the universe by at least a part of itself. and 4. They permit an almost unlimited technological advance and potentially an equally unlimited increase in informational complexity in the universe.
All of the above aspects are likewise tied to the very existence of the universe…IE the continued existence of the universe depends on the inter-related (entangled) aspects of both the cosmological facts and the electromagnetic experience of the paradyme.
So, the universe DOES exist as it is observed…really, really…and we CAN build a technology on that we observe, and our relationship with both the feral, inanimate part of the universe and the complex biosphere is very personal in the sense that our continued existence as informational complexity depends on our response to the stimulae we encounter.
Yet, understanding the cosmological aspects of the universe is, in a sense the key to influencing, controlling, correctly understanding- and appreciating this awesome, and most probably eternal experience we call our “lives”.
Sam,
The simple point still exists; Redshift and gravity are cohabitating processes and by viewing them out of sync, cosmology has created a universal creation/destruction narrative that is unnecessary and despite its conceptual complexity, is quite outdated in relation to our increasingly inter-related understanding of reality
Hi John,
I don’t think well informed cosmologists, anyway, conceptualize redshift and gravity out of sync. Think of the gravitational redshift for example…approaching the event horizon of a black hole, light becomes increasingly redshifted. Since distant galaxies are also redshifted, it is easy to see the correspondence between the big bang and what from our frame we observe as a chacteristic of light in the vicinity of the singular realm…distant galaxies’ apparent acceleration outward toward the astronomical antipode can also be interpereted as being a consequence of their observed proximity to the cosmic singularity…in this case the big bang…the Schwarzschild “white hole”. The fact that this whole observational paradyme is foundationally 7D is ridiculously obvious.
Redshift, of course is caused both by relative motion and gravity. Relative motion and gravity are thus obviously related to each other…relates to the principle of the equivalence of gravitational and non-inertial frames, and the fact that objects of very different mass react in much the same way to gravitation. The manifold resulting from all this (free fall) interaction between energy densities, is described by GR. When event horizon surfaces, particulate or otherwise intervene (momentarily or over cosmological time) in energy-density free-fall, accelerations (and corresponding relativistic effects) are produced which (when remotely observed- cross-read) result in this universe of ours.
The key is, the universe undergoes an everywhere proper time “pulse” 2.8 trillion times per Earth second at (at least) the quark level of the baryonic realm. When this pulse is electromagnetically and remotely cross-read (because of the geometry and topology of the system) in extreme gravitational time dilation, what WE observe as time and space are created…as Einstein liked to quip: “Time is an illusion”. Time is NOT really and illusion. (Time would only be a true illusion in a fully static universe, but a fully static universe grinds to a total halt, it cannot be experienced). The point is, we just don’t view time- or the universe itself an anywhere near the way they- and we- actually exist.
Errata,
Last Paragraph… “really AN illusion”.
“the universe itself IN anywhere near,” etc
Hi John,
Earlier, a gentleman pointed out that from a conceptual point of view at least, the photon (you are interested in light and electromagnetic energy) has a rest mass of 0. I didn’t comment at that time, except to thank him for his excellent summary, but this might be an appropriate time to comment on the photon’s mass or lack of mass.
The photons which do work and run my calculator have relativistic mass by virtue of their motion…inertia with respect to me.
However, the zero rest mass photon, it would seem to me, is more linked conceptually to the static or infinite (not finite) universe paradymes. It is also linked to the verified, matrix photon concept…that all photons are really part of a universe pervading matrix, which is entangled everywhere almost instantaeously. Since I fully aggree with that experiemtally verified idea, I didn’t comment much further.
However, I still don’t think the 0 rest mass photon actually exists except as a theoretical concept, for when a photon is at rest, it ceases to be a photon- as we observe photons anyway. Experiments are continuing in efforts at obtaining a mass value for the photon…I think they are down to 10 to the minus 52nd gram and no dice yet…however logically, the absoute rest mass of any observabe photon in a universe of finite mass must be greater than 0, and would be expected to be many orders of magnitude lighter than 10 to the -52nd gram.
I start to see conceptual red flags when anybody speaks of 0’s and infinities, in this universe anyway. Mathematicians and some astrophysicists have few problems with 0’s and infinities…they work with them all the time, but to assert we live in a finite universe where the photon actually exists with a rest mass of zero, is, to me anyway conceptually interesting, even significant, but potentially misleading.
In the end the whole argument may turn out to be moot anyway. Photons and even atoms in the sub-microscopic are quantum entitites, and quantum stangeness may eventually resolve any issues we might think we have about the nature of the photon.
Sam,
I don’t mean to question the intelligence or integrity of scientists, but rather point out the subconsious biases inherent to the process. Julianne’s recent post, “Influence” provides a clear example of the very organic process at work, where conceptual layers build one atop the previous, so the strength of the foundation matters more then the direction it’s going, until such time as potential instabilities become manifested. With everyone out to prove themselves and get ahead, the inherent social and bureaucratic inertia doesn’t encourage questions about premises, only to further refine the accepted model. As I pointed out, temperature is as logical a parameter of volume space as time is of distance space, so the line between objective and subjective modeling has been long obscured and the effort by everyone to have their say is more likely to create a din of competing voices then clarity.
Given that gravitational effects supposedly project at least as far as light, every point in space is being pulled by gravity from all directions. Do these cancel each other out, or might they create a turbulance that would impede the passage of light? Halton Arp and company have presented a range of quasars and galaxies that appear connected, but have very different redshifts. with these, it is not the source falling into a gravity well that is shifted by its infall, but the light climbing out, so this isn’t an effect of recessional velocity, since the high redshift quasar isn’t actually receding at the rate suggested by the degree of its redshift. So are these distant galaxies actually receding, or could it be an effect on the light? As you point out they do have the signature of old stars, as well as there being galaxy clusters much larger then the time frame allows. yes, there are probably conceptual issues with an infinite universe where redshift curvature creates a horizon line around the visible universe, but the current model has far more problems then established cosmology likes to admit. An optical cause for redshift would provide a much less complex description, without such add ons as Inflation and Dark Energy.
As I keep pointing out, time as a measure of motion, rather than actual narrative dimension, explains this quite nicely. It is neither linear, with present as subjective reference, or simultaneous present, since motion isn’t instantaneous. Time is no more illusionary than temperature, nor does it exist otherwise. A fully static universe would have a temperature of absolute zero.
As for photons, I also agree they exist as a function of force/motion, rather than particle. More of a transmission point between fields, than an object.
So yes, physics breaks down at absolutes and infinities for very logical reasons. One is unmeasurable and the other is immeasurable.
Back to work….
Hi John,
I always admire extreme skepticism in scientists for the reasons you mentioned. The recent post on Dark Matter is excellent, for we are immediately informed that this scientist is not quick to jump to conclusions…rather, he gives detailed reasons why he refuses to jump to conclusions.
There is a big difference between some graduate student (or heaven forbid, even a senior member of the scientific community) trying to make a name for him-herself and the true scientist…up to date on the history of science and developments in the field, knowledgeable of the math, geometry topology and extent of experimental veracity applicable to existing models, extremely curious about what is really going on in the universe (no holds barred) and most of all, determined to find out the truth about reality.
You find people of this latter type on this blog…in fact blogging is a great way to share ideas and perspective on important issues in science.
Sam,
It still seems to me that particle physics is overly fixated on particles. What if it is the particles that are the illusion and they are simply transfer points between field and it’s all about the network, not the nodes? Just being philosophical and that just isn’t metric enough….
What is Dark Matter? It is an effect which causes the outer perimeter of galaxies to spin as fast as the inner parts, without centrifugal force flinging them off. Specifically it’s an effect of attraction, not necessarily a consequence of mass, but it is assumed gravity is a consequence of mass, so there must be some hidden dark matter. What if matter is a consequence of gravity and mass is simply the areas where the fields intersect, creating nodes in the network?
Plasma cosmology has some interesting thoughts as well;
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
“A world renowned electrical engineer, Dr Anthony C. Perratt — a graduate student of Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven — has worked on plasma simulations for many years. See the links page for further details of this leading light in Plasma Physics.
He has utilized super-computing capabilities to apply the Maxwell-Lorentz equations (the basic laws governing the forces and interactions of electric and magnetic fields) to huge ensembles of charged particles. He calls this PIC – Particle In Cell simulation. The results are almost indistinguishable from images of actual galaxies.”
“The trouble is, early in the twentieth century, the astronomical community decided that gravity rules the heavens, and having settled on this secure and mathematically elegant vision of the cosmos, they are reluctant to entertain ideas about more exotic forces playing any significant role.
Most of these objects are many light years in length, and display the classic signatures of Plasma/EM behaviour — ‘beading’, spiralling, and ‘kink’ or ‘sawtooth’ instabilities.
As Alfvén pointed out, time after time, the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today “are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not ‘understand’ how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.” “
Sam,
Think of a tree or a lightning bolt as a transfer of energy from the field of the atmosphere to the field of the ground. If you reductionistically measured only the plane at which these two fields meet, those phenomena would only appear as spots on the plane.
I like it John, keep it up. I much rather an explanation incorporating the incorporeal network as opposed to the deterministic nodes. I feel that our models include only the nodes and though we’ve come so far in our interpretations of the cosmos in this realm, and these interpretations have been accurate and effective to a point, though it will never be complete until we consider this other side, the network as you said. Perhaps the unparticle, stuff in between, the ‘ .’
Might not be contributing a whole lot recently, but I am reading. Well discussed you guys, I’m pleased you’re still deep in thought. Almost got this whole 7D projection down Sam, I’ve still an enlightenment or two before I muster some clear imagery of the geometry, but it’s close.
Wayne
Wayne,
Thanks.
Some time ago I had a discussion with Jason as to what dimensions really are. My argument was that they are model, not basis of reality and as such, they are simply projections, lines, if you will. So three dimensions are actually the coordinate system of the center point, thus a subjective and reductionistic map of space, rather than the actual territory of space itself. Since there are any number of reference points in space, there are any number of coordinate systems to describe them. Such as each of us on the surface of this planet comprise a coordinate system that don’t all use the same surface plane. My point being that space is infinitely dimensional in the first place.
As I remember, Jason’s counterargument was that space is three dimensional because three dimensions are the least number required to define it and it didn’t matter how they where oriented.
To put it in philosophical terms, you might say the Arabs and the Israelis use different coordinate systems to define the same space.
One of the ideas which inspired this insight was reading of crystals that were described as five dimensional because their magnetic orientation had shifted as they were forming.
#66 John…
I completely agree. The model is first and foremost…descriptive of the unverse. The fact that SR/GR/QM and the Schwarzschild geometry mathematically describe the manifold and energy density relationships is what makes them useful. However there is something beyond a simple description of the universe….well, a LOT beyond a simple description.
I would like to add one thought. In an absolute sense, we, as conscious observers look in only two directions in the universe…macroscopically and microscopically…outward and inward, everywhere at 360 degrees.
Our observation of particulate reality and the passage of time results in the 4D manifold with which we are so familiar.
#65 Wayne…
The nice thing about 7D is that it is actually so simple. When you look at your desk, you are looking at an eternal fixture of the universe. In the Planck Realm, within your desk, every quark experiences a coordinated polarity reversal from material to anti-material 2.8 trillion cycles per second. That is happening everywhere in the universe too, and everything else, like your desk stays in exactly the same place (invariant frames) forever.
From our frame, in which we electromagnetically and remotely cross read this rapid pulse in extreme gravitational time dilation, the rapid proper time pulse becomes vast 3D space plus greatly slowed, single direction and process time…4D…a single 4D “hemispheric” cross-section of the universe. Motion and change we observe is a magnified reflection of what is actually a rapid sub-microscopic proper time pulse of the universe.
So far as we are concerned, what is actually happening 2.8 trillion times per Earth second is observe to occur once every perhaps 100 billion years…starts with a big bang and leads to a fresh cosmic singularity. Since that is the way we observe relativisitic effects in our universe, that is the reality we exist in- and live by. We can and do build technology on the way we observe and measure our relativistic universe…the universe which seems so “normal” to us.
When we look heaven-ward at the CBR, we observe a “power spectum” in the tiny variations of the 2.7 degree K temperature of space, the remains of the “ancient” big bang, which is really 1/2 of a single proper time pulse of the universe, which occurs 2.8 trillion times per Earth second in the sub-microscopic. In fact, if you view the posted Fermi projection of the proper time occillation pulse, you will be interested to note that even though it is not as refined and amplified as the astronomical power spectum, there is a striking resemblence…no coincidence, of course!
In the sky of the other particulate superposed 4D anti-hemisphere, we would observe the lower half of the same proper time occillation pulse we observe from our present frame of reference.
Since there is but one continuous single process time dimension which links both 4D particulate “hemispheres”, observed reality…the manifold within within which observed relativisitic effects, resulting from particulate energy density related accellerations occur, consists of two three spaces linked by a common single process time dimension…3+3+1=7D. The cosmological structure is foundationally 7D, even though we can only observe one 4D cross-section at a time…the other half is “over the horizon” and the two halves cannot be observed simultaneously- except in the extreme sub-microscopic. From our macroscopic frame, the existence of the unseen “hemisphere” CAN be inferred by careful measurement of macroscopic universe.
We ourselves stay in the same place…at the same set of coordinates forever, however, because of the mathematical irrationality of the system and the fact that a general proper time pulse, however tiny and rapid, actually occurs, at our location in scale, we observe motion and change (time) to occur…and 3D space to exist…
Some interesting animation…
Shows what happens to an unattended frame home over a period of 500 years, or what (we know) happens to a human in 70…how well I know! My desk, and me for that matter, are eternally in perfect condition at certain coordinates, and eternally at or near the point of “getting or being re-cycled” at others.
Our existence starts as potential (in my case, real genetic material continuously existent for a large fraction of the existence of the universe) and continues to our decomposition, which of course (in my case) includes continuing links into the future via progeny. I am entangled, also permanently, in different states of awareness with actually the entire universe, not just what we refer to as the “organic” portion, since the existence of my life depends on important inorganic conditions and physical constraints.
Scientists speak of the “momentum” of General Relativity. This momentum periodically brings the embedded infomation which is “me” to my coordinates in spacetime, whereupon, I exist- at my “place”. My desk, same. A tree, same. A star, same. All embedded information and complexity…same, and brother is this deterministic!…just as the current models we use to describe reality are at their conceptual hearts, deterministic. The word interdependence comes to mind.
On the surface of the Earth, a good projective analogy of the momentum of General Relativity is the oceanic tides gradually exposing a sandbar to the atmosphere, and then submerging same periodically- where it contines to exist as embedded information, but is not “observed”. Just as the sandbar appears initially as almost a point, grows and changes shape, reaches a maximum size and then diminishes and disappears, so do we. The existence of a sandbar as a sandbar, at least depends on this periodic exposure of energy densities along an interface and on surfaces, just as my world and I exist on particulate 4D event horizon surfaces.
We can be sure that the information paradox does not exist. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that all embedded and stored information in the low entropy regions of the universe near the singular realm is conserved. This lends further credence, beyond the conceptual nature of the SR/GR/QM models themselves, to the notion that the universe is indeed deterministic.
Sam,
I think that to the extent we see in a direction, it’s into the past, since everything we perceive is past by the time we see it. Because of that, we see macroscopically as a function of the microscopic, yet can only contextualize the micro in terms of the macro, so these two are inseparable in any meaningful way. (Expansion/contraction as synonymous, not sequential)
I still think the singularity is ultimately unnecessary to explain the process, that the microscopic is stable at the macroscopic level. I can understand how easy it is to include a bottleneck process to the entire universe, but the universe isn’t an organism, it’s the ecosystem and even if one part of it did collapse and expand, it would only be in the context of an even larger process keeping this action in a larger equilibrium. We do see this collapse/expansion process on the galactic and even galaxy cluster level, but on the largest level, space does seem to be flat, not curved and it’s the curvature that causes this cycle.
John,
I think your first paragraph in #69 is really an interesting perspective on single-direction time process, as we observe it from our coordinates in the manifold.
The reason why I would be inclined to stick with singularity, is that singularity is a natural consequence of the descriptive models presently in use. Microscopic singularity is a result of the interaction of increasingly tiny energy densities with the constaints of extremely small scale…IE the universe is defined as, and must be singular (IE non-particulate) below a certain level of scale. Of course we can measure the effects of large, massive singular objects, which (also because of their character) must be entangled with the Planck Realm everywhere.
Again, there is this matter of frame of reference…at a certain frame the whole universe would be observed to be a single low entropy object…while the universe we observe is by definition not singular at all…that cosmological aspect of the universes structure is not obvious in our every day lives…on our “stage”.
I like the sandbar example. That helped a good deal. I suppose the only remaining quib I have concerns the eternal nature of the coordinates. I understand this and am comfortable in understanding, however I feel that in the course of the unfolding entangled states through the ‘re-cycling’ of the universe, as certain observables rise and diminish, this appears to leave no room for a (however subtle) modification to these coordinates for the next cycle. Leading to novelty as opposed to repetition.
It is our nature to believe we change the environment we are immersed in (free will), and our environment in turn changes us or influences our change (determinism). This doesn’t seem consistent with the idea that the coordinates of our 7D projection remain constant, eternally. I would imagine that every moment we sit and think about a future potential, and every moment we seek to collapse all possible potentials by actively participating in the manifestation of that potential into reality (or past circumstance as John puts it), this in some way affects the coordinates of the next cycle (ie. we aren’t a static CD on repeat, we are parts of a living CD that at all moments is helping create itself within constraints that arise from the state of ‘everything else’ at any given moment).
In other words, we, together with our environment, actively ‘create’ our coordinates, or ‘choose’ our coordinates, every moment through the dynamic to and fro of determinism (the action of everything else ‘pushing in’ on us) versus (what could lovingly be called) optimism (the active ‘pushing back’ on the [almost] infinite from the singular). That indeed the appearance of a fixed coordinate system is the ‘method’ in which our actions are remembered by the cosmos, but not the territory of the actions themselves. For instance, our actions are not predetermined, but determined as they happen and not a moment before. Once they happen, they hurtle into past circumstance, and are immediately ‘saved’ by entanglement forever, to be influential (indeed crucial) in the unfolding of the remainder of the present cycle and onwards into the next cycle, and the next…
Wasn’t sure if this has been said or implied, or if I haven’t explained myself thoroughly enough, or if I am simply spinning a new web to catch the same flies, but I will clarify myself another way if necessary. We’ve definitely discussed this before, I suppose it came up again because I didn’t get an answer I could grasp.
Wayne
Sam,
There is a very big difference between one and oneness, unit and unitary. A unitary state is effectively neutral, ie. zero. While a unit is a set, ie. one. It’s essentially the same logical flaw at the heart of monotheism. The absolute is basis, as in the universal state, not apex, as in the ideal, point of focus, singularity, etc. As I pointed out, geometry never really incorporated zero as anything other than the starting point. Zero isn’t the dimensionless point, it is the lack of any such definition. The featureless void. Non-being, not virtual being. As absolute zero, it isn’t the starting point of motion, but the complete absence of it. Yes, it is the starting point of motion, but not any specific motion. Structure doesn’t all start at one specific incident but bubbles up out of the field in any number of ways and they interact. That’s why laws are deterministic but reality is not, as there is no way to limit or regulate the input.
The problem with projecting the universe as a cosmic particle is that it must be a virgin birth, so to speak. It cannot exist in a larger context. Consider Inflation and what would happen if it were to encounter the debris of other universes and dimensions. Given the forces involved with this rate of expansion, it wouldn’t take much of a pin to put a very big hole in that balloon. So in what appears to be flat and infinite space, with constantly evolving structure and energy, we have managed to theorize process as an object. From self centered, to group centered, to theocentric to earth centered to heliocentric to galaxy centered, now to universal singularity centered, we are constantly trying to find some point of reference by which to define everything else, but it just doesn’t work that way because to define is to limit and limits only define your understanding of reality, not reality itself. The map and model isn’t all the territory.
Wayne,
The future meanders, as it is as often a reaction to the present, as a continuation of it.
Hi Wayne,
You have a good understanding of the concept. Here is another projective analogy…an old 33rpm record.
Because of the tiny, everywhere, universal proper-time pulse and the fact that the relationships within the system are mathematically described using pi…and spherical geomerty, not only is “time” brought into existence, along with space, but the system is not static but quasi-static…there is motion and change- the contribution of informational compexity like ourselves is not illusory.
Rather what happens in our lives i(the collective “consciousness”) is in total over the universe as a whole the actual reason for the continuing existence over erernity of a universe of finite mass! Each cycle the thermal entropy of the universe increases slightly, but this thermal entropy is conserved- and preserved as a slight decrease in overall informational entropy…the universe slowly is becoming more complex.
We are the very reason why it is possible for the universe to continue to exist as an observed entity!…a key part of the structure of the universe, which insures stability. Life can become or be unstable. Only 1% of the species of living organisms which have existed in the past, actually exist today, but overall life avances, ultimately by encouraging the development of high levels of conscious complexity.
You spoke of “free will”. It does exist in this kind of universe, in fact and in a sense, the universe actually “wills” itself into continuing and more conscious existence (awareness of itself) by encouraging increasing informational complexity.
The 33rpm record’s motion is periodic, but as the turn-table rotates each time, the needle returns to a slightly different location…there is a gradual shift in coordinates…making room for additional stored information on the record and greatly increasing its information-storing capacity.
Obviously, the universe is neither a sandbar nor a record, but the geometry of the universe- and our technology- is replete with 1, 2, 3 and 4D projections of existence in a 7D cosmic structure.
Awesome, that’s exactly what I wanted to hear, and indeed exactly what I thought you were going to say.
I feel a little sad looking in on physicists nowadays. Scientists have looked at religion for the past couple hundred years and thought, they’re missing some bigger picture. Religion lacks explanation of the observable processes in the cosmos that can be deterministically described. Now one must look at the results of modern scientists and think yet again, they’re missing something. This time they lack an explanation for the observable processes in the cosmos that are not able to be deterministically described.
There arises some future where it is not religion in the sense that we know modern religion, nor science in the sense that we know modern science, that we find ourselves believing. We find that only with the wisdom of both can we truly understand the cosmos. We begin to think and understand in a way that is something else entirely, something novel.
It is interesting that man has embraced religious belief for so many millennia before the realization of the deterministic, and science only a handful of centuries before the rediscovery of religion. It seems the spiral is tightening, that our understanding is arriving faster than it ever has.
Whether or not this is to be our redemption remains to be seen. It is not redeeming if only a few understand this. I feel, however, that regardless of what is to come, catastrophic or otherwise, that the presence of those who do understand shall persist in their contribution, as complexity is valued and desirable indeed. More will see in time. As it has always been. As it will be.
Wayne
Wayne said,
“There arises some future where it is not religion in the sense that we know modern religion, nor science in the sense that we know modern science, that we find ourselves believing. We find that only with the wisdom of both can we truly understand the cosmos. We begin to think and understand in a way that is something else entirely, something novel.”
This process of synthesis you describe is very important in Math, chemistry, logic, in many other fields and of course cosmology, where we combine local Euclidean Special Relativity, Global, curved General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Schwarzschild geometry.
Very quietly scientists are saying less and less about the notion that Quantum Mechanics might not be compatable with relativity, for all these concepts, and the geometry too are very predictive and conceptually deterministic. Few cosmological concepts share GR’s ability to predict the limits of its own predictive capacity!…about 33 places. Quantum Mechanics blends in with SR/GR in the exreme submicroscopic beautifully. It is interesting that as observed quantum stangeness diminishes with increasing scale, we find ourselves in a determinsitic GR manifold!
What makes all this so powerful is its experimental veracity..we are not just “shooting off our mouths” when we discuss this.
Religion is many things. It combines elements of ancient intuition, cultural ritual and has an inderent anthopological aspect which makes it a uniquely human institution. I don’t want you to miss what I semantically am referring to when I use the word “Anthropological” , a word which has a very academic “ring” to it. When I say “Anthopological”, I am referring to “Baboon Troop Psycho-Sexual Dynamics”…that rather nasty element of animal behavior which we often associate with politics. Logic and scientific skepticism are not usually associated with religion. Rather logic in theology is usually heavily biased and based on an attempt to justify faith in certain tenets.
For these reasons, while I have studied Anthropology and am very interested in the intuitive aspect of religion, and philosophy for that matter, I think it is better to look to the natural sciences, with their extreme sketicism, and demand for experimental verification as we attempt to sketch out a potentially viable outline of a fundamental, consistent and essentially truthful religious concept.
This is my opinion of course, but as you know, I believe what we know with some certainty about the universe points to the very real possibility of eternal life. What we know also indicates that life is particulate, not ghost-like, but that all information and complexity in the universe is entangled in the sub-microscopic , and that there may well be a servo-mechanism process in the universe which we see as serendipity…factors other than chance appearing and operating in our lives… as the result of the electomagnetic “collective consciousness” of all informational complexity.
Just as we have a very personal relationship with the inorganic universe…we must live and work within its constraints or perish, we also have a potentially very personal relationship with the sum of all the conscious complexity in the universe.
I believe that one of the great mistakes of religion has been to conceptually combine the engineering envelope constaints and parameters of the inorganic universe with the influence of the “collective consciousness”…for they are two different entities.
The cosmic inorganic constaints and physical parameters operate completely and forcefully according to random chance. These are not any kind of a god at all…like Mount Everest, they are just “there”. It is this aspect of life in the universe which frightened early man out of his wits and gave rise to the idea of a vindictive diety of some kind.
The quantum entangled collective consciousness, connected to all embedded particulate biological complexity, exists together struggles and has struggled to cope with the 2nd law within the cosmic mathematical parameters and physical constriants since eternity began…forever. This aspect of existence is likewise very personal…IE we have a very personal relationship with same and it can be a huge factor “other than chance” both in influencing our lives and controlling the future phylogenic development of the universe.
We see life as developing from a “stew” of organic chamicals in the early seas of the Earth, and from our 4D frame of reference, we are absolutely correct.
Cosmologically, we and everyrthing in the universe developed in quite another way. I started “here” at the “beginning” of eternity and you started “there” at the beginning of eternity. We each have personally developed from the inorganic universe until we became organic molecules and then the person we are.
Gradually our lives have emerged from the womb and lengthened…NOT over cosmological time, but phylogenically over eternity itself. There may have been a time when I was still-born. Later, I died of Pneumonia as a 6 year old child. An eternity later, I was killed by a passing car in my teens. Still later over eternity, I died in a corporate plane crash. Today, I manage MS and Prostate cancer.
My life is lengthening (probably rapidly initially and then more slowly). My developing consciousness is itself a measurement of eternity, untold numbers of universal pulses in the sub-microscopic…each one experienced by me- and you as space and time taking 100 billion years to elapse.
We wonder why innocent children die, and the universe seems hard to understrand, but an eternity from now, that child may not die at this stage in their existence at all. What we observe in our world seems incomprehensible some times, yet in this 7D cosmic scenario, what we are observing is only a cross section of an eternal phylogenic process…neither the universe, nor us is ever “finished”. Who knows? An eternity from now, the United States may join the League of Nations and give financial aid to Europe after World War I…and Adolph Hitler will live out his life as an unknown paper hanger!
Think of 2.8 trillion proper time pulses of the universe each Earth second in the sub-microscopic and then imagine each of these pulses being electomagnetically and consciously experienced in extreme gravitational time dilation as taking 100 billion years. When you do you will begin to get some idea of what eternity really is, what we are and mean to the universe and what existence in the universe really means (and should mean) to us.