Hawking: "Creator" is redundant. Universe can create itself from nothing.

[tschai]

I thought Barbour's analogy is close to what the C's said about time being selective as in slides on a projector. Given that our 3D minds are limited in conceptualizing time, Barbour's theory seems like a good effort. Ouspenski's model was also interesting imo.

Indeed, and sometimes I get confused about this, but I'm currently thinking that the C's description is about what our minds are abstracting from our percepts to create our various views of time. In the projector analogy, motion is simply transferred to the motor that runs the show, so the existence of an underlying dynamic flux of a quantum reality remains uncompromised!

I believe our minds do take 'snapshots' of reality and place them on a 'line' 'projected' out into a 'space', but that doesn't necessarily require reality to conform to us, OSIT.

still learning. :)

It is my thought that what the C's are trying to say-is that we can only "see" the "slide"-or page of the book as it were-we currently inhabit or our "now"- due to our linear perception of "time"- to my limited understanding is that there are many "nows" all co-existent-each one self contained-that is if you could step from your current "now" into another "slide" on the carrousel-THAT would become your "now"as a self contained, complete reality unto itself and if we had the proper perception we would "see" all of the "nows" arranged in a circular pattern, cycling infinitely. I am not sure how that relates to transference of motion to the motor?I do not understand-nor the dynamic flux of quantum reality...I am totally lost.

I guess the individual "nows" could possibly be attached together either bound as in a book or on a slide carrousel...why they would need to be ripped from the book to illustrate the concept is not immediately clear-perhaps to indicate their separate from each other identity-they are separate-but co-exist-so perhaps they should remain "bound" again, lost.
Maybe I am missing the boat here...

 

[Palinurus]

Reading these latest posts in this topic, I was reminded of the novel Rayuela (Hopscotch) by Argentine writer Julio Cortázar.

Written in an episodic, snapshot manner, the novel has 155 chapters, the last 99 being designated as "expendable." Some of these "expendable" chapters fill in gaps that occur in the main storyline, while others add information about the characters or record the aesthetic or literary speculations of a writer named Morelli who makes a brief appearance in the narrative. Some of the 'expendable chapters' at first glance seem like random musings, but upon closer inspection solve questions that arise during the reading of the first two parts of the book.

An author's note suggests that the book would best be read in one of two possible ways, either progressively from chapters 1 to 56 or by "hopscotching" through the entire set of 155 chapters according to a "Table of Instructions" designated by the author. Cortazar also leaves the reader the option of choosing his/her own unique path through the narrative.

Several narrative techniques are employed throughout the book, and frequently overlap, including first person, third person, and a kind of stream-of-consciousness. Traditional spelling and grammatical rules are often bent and sometimes broken outright. A few chapters purport to be written by other authors, and there is even a whole section taken almost verbatim from another novel that may or may not exist in actuality.

See:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopscotch_(Julio_Cortázar_novel)
_http://www.amazon.com/Hopscotch-Julio-Cortazar/dp/B0007DF3KM/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1338922597&sr=1-1

_http://www.amazon.com/Rayuela-Cortazar/dp/8437604575

 

[Buddy]

It is my thought that what the C's are trying to say-is that we can only "see" the "slide"-or page of the book as it were-we currently inhabit or our "now"- due to our linear perception of "time"-

My understanding from the texts, inferences, intuitions and readings of Quantum Science (which includes Quantum Biology) is that we 'see' through a 'slit' that is bounded and defined by our sensory band. The relative dimensions of this slit equate to a sensory 'bandwidth'. One characteristic of this slit is a 'center frequency' or 'overall' frequency that tends to 'anchor' it on a scale yet this center frequency or 'anchor' potentially can be moved on the scale so that the slit reveals a new, or different range of bands of awareness, so to speak.

to my limited understanding is that there are many "nows" all co-existent-

Yep.

each one self contained-that is if you could step from your current "now" into another "slide" on the carrousel-THAT would become your "now"as a self contained, complete reality unto itself

Currently, to quantumists, all "nows" can be viewed as separate contexts and contextings, realities and whatever you wish to call them because we are referring to existence as 'quantum multi-versal'. Create and occupy as many 'universes' as you wish and as you do so, know that each is simply part of a larger whole--an island, so to speak-- and, therefore, cannot define the whole nor contain the whole.

and if we had the proper perception we would "see" all of the "nows" arranged in a circular pattern, cycling infinitely. I am not sure how that relates to transference of motion to the motor?I do not understand

I'm not sure either, but the motor (as representative of dynamic quantum flux) is present in the same context or structure as the lamp, which is also source of the projected light, so the most important idea is that there is no separation of contexts between the 'parts' of the slide projector in this analogy. That's why I can like it!

-nor the dynamic flux of quantum reality...I am totally lost.

At the risk of over-simplifying and mistakenly misrepresenting general quantumist views, by 'dynamic flux' I mean to primarily imply two things: that there is no "stillness" any 'where' in a quantum reality and that classicists can only provide shaky, flaky, relative examples of "zero point" reference frames (while assuming 'absolute')--for motion, momentum or any other measurement.

I guess the individual "nows" could possibly be attached together either bound as in a book or on a slide carrousel...why they would need to be ripped from the book to illustrate the concept is not immediately clear-perhaps to indicate their separate from each other identity-they are separate-but co-exist-so perhaps they should remain "bound" again, lost.

I'm foggy on the book example also.

Maybe I am missing the boat here...

Maybe I am too. Fortunantly I like to swim!

Here, from _http://motionmountain.net/, are some of our current foundations:

On Planck's natural units - 1: the foundations of physics

...all observables are based on Planck's natural units.

Planck discovered in 1899 that all results of measurements - all units, all numbers, all quantities - can be constructed from the invariants c, G and hbar.

All standards of measurement and all results of measurements are constructed from the invariants c, G and hbar. "Changing" the value of one of these quantities, has NO effect on our description of nature, because it also changes the measurement standards. There is no way to detect variations in G, hbar or c - neither variations over time nor dependencies on location - because these changes would be compensated by the changes of the relevant measurement units and standards.

No single experiment yields local energy speeds larger than c, action values smaller than hbar, or forces larger than c^4/G; the same is valid for other combinations of them. This is the most hidden aspect of 20th century physics. For example, particles cannot have energies larger than the Planck energy. If you falsely believe that c, G, hbar or their combinations can be exceeded, explore the issue and convince yourself - especially if you give lectures.

...the Planck constant h, the Boltzmann constant k, and the gravitational constant G are - like the speed of light c - observer invariant.

...there is a maximum force c^4/4G and a maximum power c^5/4G in nature. Students need to learn this.
First of all, students need to know what a force is; this issue is treated above. The maximum values are only realized with help of horizons. In simple words, horizons appear when mass is compressed to its Schwarzschild radius. Observing or realizing higher force or power values would imply reaching beyond a horizon. These maximum values, discovered independently by various people over the years, provide a test of logical reasoning for every physicist.

Some people do not believe in such a maximum value, but fail or even refuse to present a way to exceed it. They exchanged reality for a dream world. Another class of people claim to have found a way to produce or measure a force value larger than c^4/4G without creating a horizon. Just check. They either overlooked a horizon or they do not reach the maximum value. For example, some people claim to be able to exceed the force limit c^4/4G with the help of boosts; well, in relativity, no boost can increase a force value to more than the force value seen by a co-moving observer. Just check any book on special relativity.

Another example are people who think that forces simply add up. Well, this is true, as long a space is flat. But the systems producing a force curve space with their mass or energy. If you try to add up the force from so many systems as to exceed the force limit, you will see that the producing systems disappear into a black hole, or behind some other horizon. Test it by yourself. In summary, if you falsely believe that maximum force and power do not exist, explore the issue and convince yourself - especially if you give lectures.

In classical views of reality, 'state' as classically used is just a 'box'. In quantum science there is only the idea or concept of special event. Quantum science shows us that the granularity of a special event is h-bar/2 or Planck's constant divided by 4*pi. In quantum science, evidence does not exist that shows that countless and ubiquitous special events are synchronized. Most of our views of 'time', then, are an illusion provided by the h-bar granularity of infinite, ubiquitous quantum reality emerge-change-loops occurring asynchronously. Also, any admixture of multi-versal special events creates an illusion of a reality continuum — a delusion within the boundaries of the box.

As for the idea of quantum reality's meme of "zero stillness" vis-à-vis classical's assumption of "zero motion reference frame", the illusion of 'state' is what we so easily fall into. Aristotle's exemplar is probably the apple tree story:

"apple on tree" is "state 1"
"Event 1" is "apple falling to ground" (functionally just another bounded 'state')
"apple on ground" is "state 2"

As one can see, classical reality is little more than "states" sandwiching "events" (which are mostly ignored). There are few descriptions or acknowledgements of the only game that's actually going on: process, transition, motion, ongoing successions of contexts which involve the apple seed beginning its emergence from its parent apple, through its continuous growing and changing to maturity on a stem, becoming denser and heavier until separation from the tree and continuing motions and changes until contacted by ground or some other force and toward immersion into "that from which it came" (assuming it is left undisturbed); what we call "rotting" and the rotting process' ultimate conclusion.

That's just an awkward sounding description to me, but maybe this juxtaposition of my version of the "classical" and "quantum" perspectives will help explain what I mean and maybe it will invite corrections where needed.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Although many theories are interesting and containgreat material, I think that the most fundamental flaw is that they often (mainstream science mostly) always take it for granted that counsciousness is only a by-product of matter and that it dosen't need to be integrated into their reasoning. Max Planck called those "purely materialistic" theories about consciousness "superstitions".

I would rather think that counsciousness, thoughts and gravity are the fundamental aspects that give rise to matter that is, in my opinion, of electromagnetic nature (holographic universe, basic quantum being photon, light). So in other words, I think that gravity is the key to UFT but that in order to integrate it fully, we will have to consider it as being more that it appears (extended concept as brought by the C's).

Hope it maks sense. I'm clearly not a physicist. :P

Peace.

 

[Buddy]

Although many theories are interesting and containgreat material, I think that the most fundamental flaw is that they often (mainstream science mostly) always take it for granted that counsciousness is only a by-product of matter and that it dosen't need to be integrated into their reasoning. Max Planck called those "purely materialistic" theories about consciousness "superstitions".

Indeed, and it makes some mainstreamers soooo mad they could sputter and spit nails!

I would rather think that counsciousness, thoughts and gravity are the fundamental aspects that give rise to matter

Then, of what does 'counsciousness, thoughts and gravity' consist in order to be known and distinguished and who is doing this distinguishing and with what and from what?

...that is, in my opinion, of electromagnetic nature (holographic universe, basic quantum being photon, light). So in other words, I think that gravity is the key to UFT but that in order to integrate it fully, we will have to consider it as being more that it appears (extended concept as brought by the C's).

Consider this:

A: We are timeless, so therefore, timely as well!! Gravity is the foundation of all material existence. Therefore, gravity waves are of instantaneous imprint, as they rule all time in extant by nature.

Over and over the C's tell us that gravity binds everything. It is the foundational force of all forces. It is the media of communication.

In my earlier example description, from our 3D point of view, quantum reality would naturally be the foundation or base of all things, since we're speaking of a realm of pure undifferentiated (All) potentia. At this level--at Planck measurements and below--'yardsticks' no longer exist. There is no "measurable" up, down, back, forth, big, small, in, out, etc., etc. There are no "rulers" period below Planck units. So, considering that we currently say that any given "point" in our reality contains enough energy density to explode or unravel a new universe, I'd say that's pretty heavy! And from that foundation...all that can be emerges.

Also, I am unaware of any quantumists who posit that 'the basic quantum' is a photon, though from the point of view of our sensory apparatus, we might productively call all incoming sensory data something like photonic 'scintillation' in order to show that translations into various forms of nervous system impulses are results of a photon constant passing on its encoded information content.

Hope it maks sense.

I understand what you're saying. At this level language can become problematic and I try to be careful. From a linguistic perspective, as soon as we posit "gravity" as the foundation of reality as we know it even though gravity is understood to mean a realm of pure, denser-than-dense-like potentia, then we automatically posit a duality at least. "Gravity" is a bounded-by-definition concept as we currently conceive it, and implies a distinction from that which is 'not gravity', but if gravity is all there really is, how can the statement even be made? Sometimes, language can be used to point to a gap. Then, in order to confirm our thinking, we may need to simply "jump in" and get wet. :D

One possibly neat thing about a quantum realm of pure, undifferentiated potentia as 'base' or foundation, may be that we can call "first source" whatever we want as long as we are willing to live 'in concert' with whatever universe arises as a result of its quantum-level connections and affectings interrelationships in a sort of mutual cooperation scenario--with us. Consciousness works even better here--at least as good as gravity, OSIT. After all, thus far, what have we been able to point to in order to prove "no awareness" exists somewhere?

I'm clearly not a physicist. :P

Me either. I'm just incredibly interested, and sometimes as foggy as London. :)

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Although many theories are interesting and containgreat material, I think that the most fundamental flaw is that they often (mainstream science mostly) always take it for granted that counsciousness is only a by-product of matter and that it dosen't need to be integrated into their reasoning. Max Planck called those "purely materialistic" theories about consciousness "superstitions".

Indeed, and it makes some mainstreamers soooo mad they could sputter and spit nails!

I would rather think that counsciousness, thoughts and gravity are the fundamental aspects that give rise to matter

Then, of what does 'counsciousness, thoughts and gravity' consist in order to be known and distinguished and who is doing this distinguishing and with what and from what?

...that is, in my opinion, of electromagnetic nature (holographic universe, basic quantum being photon, light). So in other words, I think that gravity is the key to UFT but that in order to integrate it fully, we will have to consider it as being more that it appears (extended concept as brought by the C's).

Consider this:

A: We are timeless, so therefore, timely as well!! Gravity is the foundation of all material existence. Therefore, gravity waves are of instantaneous imprint, as they rule all time in extant by nature.

Over and over the C's tell us that gravity binds everything. It is the foundational force of all forces. It is the media of communication.

In my earlier example description, from our 3D point of view, quantum reality would naturally be the foundation or base of all things, since we're speaking of a realm of pure undifferentiated (All) potentia. At this level--at Planck measurements and below--'yardsticks' no longer exist. There is no "measurable" up, down, back, forth, big, small, in, out, etc., etc. There are no "rulers" period below Planck units. So, considering that we currently say that any given "point" in our reality contains enough energy density to explode or unravel a new universe, I'd say that's pretty heavy! And from that foundation...all that can be emerges.

Also, I am unaware of any quantumists who posit that 'the basic quantum' is a photon, though from the point of view of our sensory apparatus, we might productively call all incoming sensory data something like photonic 'scintillation' in order to show that translations into various forms of nervous system impulses are results of a photon constant passing on its encoded information content.

Hope it maks sense.

I understand what you're saying. At this level language can become problematic and I try to be careful. From a linguistic perspective, as soon as we posit "gravity" as the foundation of reality as we know it even though gravity is understood to mean a realm of pure, denser-than-dense-like potentia, then we automatically posit a duality at least. "Gravity" is a bounded-by-definition concept as we currently conceive it, and implies a distinction from that which is 'not gravity', but if gravity is all there really is, how can the statement even be made? Sometimes, language can be used to point to a gap. Then, in order to confirm our thinking, we may need to simply "jump in" and get wet. :D

One possibly neat thing about a quantum realm of pure, undifferentiated potentia as 'base' or foundation, may be that we can call "first source" whatever we want as long as we are willing to live 'in concert' with whatever universe arises as a result of its quantum-level connections and affectings interrelationships in a sort of mutual cooperation scenario--with us. Consciousness works even better here--at least as good as gravity, OSIT. After all, thus far, what have we been able to point to in order to prove "no awareness" exists somewhere?

I'm clearly not a physicist. :P

Me either. I'm just incredibly interested, and sometimes as foggy as London. :)

Very well put! I am on to something in regards to this now. Your post have opened up more doors for me. I'll get back and post my thoughts about it soon enough buddy!

Peace.