Do you think there is a difference between the two?

I'm thinking about it a little bit, and it's a real tough question.

6/14/2006 7:04:49 PM

i wouldn't really worry about it

aha

6/14/2006 7:13:35 PM

not really worry about

it's just, crazy and fundamental

what types of things go in which catagory and are the two seperate at all?

like logic, that feels like an existence thing

but it seems to innately involves causality

causality seems to involve time, which really is a physical universe sort of thing, at least how fast it flows

i can sort of go with the idea that the direction of time (forward)is an existence thing, which allows for the preservation of causality

but there are other things too, i just wonder what other people think about this

6/14/2006 7:18:23 PM

i have also smoked weed

6/14/2006 8:46:43 PM

^ HAHA

6/14/2006 10:16:32 PM

when the mod of the section meant to discuss things like this laughs at a comment like that

we're all in trouble

6/14/2006 10:50:40 PM

could you elaborate on the question?

6/14/2006 10:56:57 PM

i'd discuss it, by my mirror keeps blocking my every move

or copying it

which i see as him mocking me

6/14/2006 10:58:37 PM

^^

take physics for instance

we now live by the standard model, which has 19 adjustable parameters

you can make the argument that those are chosen for this universe, they are "special" to our universe (who knows if this all holds water in the future, hopefully physics will become more self consistent) that would be an example of a property of the physical universe

now take counting... i would make the argument that in all things, counting will not change

it is above our universe

what i want to know is, is there an existence outside of the physical universe or ANY physical universe, that is, is there a superset above our universe

is it possible that the rules of existence contrive in such a way to create universes? or is the universe self contained, that is, is IT existence

[Edited on June 14, 2006 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2006 11:42:30 PM

Hey, sorry everybody including the mod of this section is shitting on your thread.

I'll bite.

If you think about it, logic, for example, is a property of our physical universe but indirectly. It's the same with all of our ideas -- they're formed of atoms, which make up the patterns in our brain. However, the interpretation is what gives our thoughts the inability to "collide" with our physical surroundings. You've never seen "2" bump into anything. You can't pick up modus ponens, etc. It's also the reason why your knowledge of your own internal state is infallible. You ARE your internal state. Everything else you perceive, however, is merely a representation of your experiences.

Therefore, you almost have a segregated world, that is, everything you experience in the exact moment you experience it in. The only reason why this entire illusion is spun so convincingly is because you have the curious ability to ponder your own existence. This is the singular trait which has brought mankind to his current understanding of the sciences, philosophy, and in some sense, many religions.

Quote :

"you can make the argument that those are chosen for this universe, they are "special" to our universe (who knows if this all holds water in the future, hopefully physics will become more self consistent) that would be an example of a property of the physical universe"

If you haven't already read Hawking's baby universe theory you'd probably like it. The idea (sorry if I get this wrong, physics nerds) is that when our Universe was born (from an expanding bubble in spacetime that got "pinched off"), the starting conditions of it (including many constants) were determined randomly (ala quantum mechanics). Not too sure though. It's been a while since I looked at it, but what you said reminded me of it.

Quote :

"what i want to know is, is there an existence outside of the physical universe or ANY physical universe, that is, is there a superset above our universe"

Hard to say. I'd describe the "next level" of our universe the rulesets that physics indirectly creates (logic is a prime example). The rules that determine our thought aren't necessarily physics, they're derived from them. Our thoughts spring from them. It's why our thoughts collide with each other, but not with actual atoms. They're "above" atoms in the sense that they're a concept derived from them.

Either way I'd say an existence? How do you define that? If it's outside of our physical universe, we cannot perceive it. Therefore, it doesn't exist to us. The concept of it existing, in fact, makes little sense since we can never experience it ourselves in any conceivable fashion. Our reality is it. Our current mind-state is who we are. The funny part is, though we seemingly are rooted in atoms and their interactions, we can never truly perceive them infallibly.

6/15/2006 12:01:14 AM

Quote :

"we now live by the standard model, which has 19 adjustable parameters"

I suppose some folks do, presonally I think it's just a model. The true nature of nature probably cannot be encapsulated my mathematics comprehendable to man, but that's just my guess. I mean, I would hesitate to base my notion of "existence" on what is current physics, or even future physics for that matter. I don't think existence should depend on the current science knowledge of humankind, it seems like "existence" ought to be a property independent of that. Otherwise we are godlike in some sense.

Quote :

"you can make the argument that those are chosen for this universe, they are "special" to our universe (who knows if this all holds water in the future, hopefully physics will become more self consistent) that would be an example of a property of the physical universe"

We'll believing strings or whatever will be self consistent more than the current model is somewhat wishful thinking in view of the current theoretical progress. Even the MSSM (the most likely soon-coming influence of strings ) has what like over 100 adjustable parameters, hardly a reduction. I think its good to seek a minimal set of assumptions, but in the end somewhere you need intial conditions. Otherwise the solution is not unique, it's just math. Now, granted I'm imparting antiquated math to math yet to be discovered by strings, but what else can I do till strings proposes a self-consistent model. I think what Brian Greene said about it being more like QFT is probably apt. He said it may be that it gives us a theory of theories, there are many QFTs likewise there will be many string models. Something beyond physical principles will be needed to pick the model that describes our universe. That's my guess anyway.

Quote :

"now take counting... i would make the argument that in all things, counting will not change it is above our universe"

It's hard to imagine a world w/o counting. Then again, maybe the problem is that our limited brains are doing the imagining. I suspect your right though.

Quote :

"what i want to know is, is there an existence outside of the physical universe or ANY physical universe, that is, is there a superset above our universe"

I believe so, mathematics if nothing else shows there are many ways familar objects can be embedded in more exotic ones, more abstract ones. Now while I don't think mathematical models capture the totality of existence, I do think they point toward possiblities.

Quote :

"is it possible that the rules of existence contrive in such a way to create universes? or is the universe self contained, that is, is IT existence"

I'd rather believe in God than the universe, so I don't know how interested you'll be in my take on these questions. For me existence and logic and so on... ultimately is endowed to us and the universe from God. Did he create other universes where there is no such thing as counting, perhaps, I don't know. What I do know is the universe we live in makes sense to me if I understand it as coming from God.

Certainly you are not alone in asking if the universe is it's own existence. I think that is the driving motivation behind steady-state models. You can't ask where the universe came from, the question is nonsense, instead the universe just is. I suppose current cosmological observations shot that down, at least in the interpretation of conventional big bang theory. But, now it seems more folks are trying to cling to the ideology again with this cylical big bang-big crunch - big bang - big crunch - ... well you know.

sorry if I didn't answer your question, suppose I'd rather talk about physics than existence.

6/15/2006 12:26:20 AM

argh...

- no ones "shitting" on my thread that I can see, somebody made a stoner remark and there was a laugh, marko's just loony

and, i don't know, hmm...

anyone else?

...

basically, i would like to know what is absolute

logic (read math) seems like it, maybe entropy, the direction of temporal flow (also with logic)...

maybe some physical rulesets, like the definition of Work, or momentum transfer, or energy conservation (although all of these seem to necesitate spatial components)

i also wonder if the quantum nature is a product of existence or of our universe, i don't think that's known at all.

this is very hard

[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 12:48 AM. Reason : .]

6/15/2006 12:40:42 AM

Quote :

"is that when our Universe was born (from an expanding bubble in spacetime that got "pinched off") ..."

ah yes, the cosmological sphincter.

6/15/2006 1:41:14 AM

i think you could differentiate between the two, and I wouldn't put logic with existence

it might've already been said, but I'm not gonna read all of that

[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 1:45 AM. Reason : lkd;jal;fj]

6/15/2006 1:44:46 AM

i'd like to think on this more before i hazard a reply to it. interesting question, though.

6/15/2006 2:36:06 AM

ahahhahaha

honestly, i think I really only put this on here to get your opinion

6/15/2006 8:59:20 AM

Quote :

"I mean, I would hesitate to base my notion of "existence" on what is current physics, or even future physics for that matter. I don't think existence should depend on the current science knowledge of humankind, it seems like "existence" ought to be a property independent of that."

I'm kinda with you so far, but let me adjust what you're saying a little bit. Physics, while touted as the study of what really is, is really the study of what we perceive to be. Due to the fact that we can all perceive the results we agree that it has something to do with reality. This is labeled "objective" though it's probably more subjective than we think. However, physics describes things which have perceivable consequences. Regardless of how "accurate" (does this even make sense in our discussion? how do we measure how accurate our perceptions are when that's exactly what frames our reality?) our perceptions are, we perceive the effects of what's going on. It's a handy way to describe the world we live in, though we encapsulate it in our experience.

Quote :

"Otherwise we are godlike in some sense."

Of course we are, where do you think we got the idea of gods from in the first place?

Quote :

"Something beyond physical principles will be needed to pick the model that describes our universe."

Such as what? Just because science cannot explain it yet doesn't mean you should "take a wild guess". What else is there than the physical? What other bodies of science corroborate such an idea?

Quote :

"It's hard to imagine a world w/o counting. Then again, maybe the problem is that our limited brains are doing the imagining. I suspect your right though."

We count because it's a helpful adaptation with which to communicate and survive. Counting is a brain function, not a property of the Universe.

Quote :

"Now while I don't think mathematical models capture the totality of existence, I do think they point toward possiblities. "

Agreed 100%. Math cannot describe everything that goes on around us, and even if it could, we'd have no way of truly knowing.

Quote :

"For me existence and logic and so on... ultimately is endowed to us and the universe from God."

If this were so, why does a description of God defy any of these things he endowed to us? Why do logical arguments always result in the destruction of religious frameworks?

Quote :

"Did he create other universes where there is no such thing as counting, perhaps, I don't know. What I do know is the universe we live in makes sense to me if I understand it as coming from God. "

You need to remember that many of the ideas we have don't have much relevance to "actuality" as you're trying to describe it. Many of the things we mistake as being part of the Universe around us (counting, numbers, etc) are brain functions, described in arrangements of atoms, yet destined never to collide due to the nature of interpretation. The "non-physical" nature of ideas is an illusion.

Quote :

"You can't ask where the universe came from, the question is nonsense, instead the universe just is."

This is true. The need for "causality" is also a brain function. A good one, too. When we hear a growl coming from the bushes, it's a good idea to try to associate a cause with that noise. It helps us survive.

Humans have always tried to describe their surroundings in terms of themselves, because their perceptions of their surroundings ARE themselves. Just because we are full of beginnings and ends (waking up, falling asleep -- being born, dying) doesn't mean the Universe needs a beginning or an end.



On to nastoute --

Quote :

"basically, i would like to know what is absolute"

Your knowledge of your own mental state. That's the only thing that is absolute to your existence. Nothing else.

Quote :

"this is very hard"

YES IT IS

Actually, I think if you're looking for a set of physical properties common to everything ever in any Universe, that concept might not even make sense.

6/15/2006 11:53:45 AM

Quote :

"I'm kinda with you so far, but let me adjust what you're saying a little bit. Physics, while touted as the study of what really is, is really the study of what we perceive to be. Due to the fact that we can all perceive the results we agree that it has something to do with reality. This is labeled "objective" though it's probably more subjective than we think. However, physics describes things which have perceivable consequences. Regardless of how "accurate" (does this even make sense in our discussion? how do we measure how accurate our perceptions are when that's exactly what frames our reality?) our perceptions are, we perceive the effects of what's going on. It's a handy way to describe the world we live in, though we encapsulate it in our experience."

I think there is more to reality than our experience. The independent discovery of common physics points towards that fact. Think about it, if it is just our experience that creates what physics is then why do seperate cultures discover the the same data. It seems there really must be an objective reality, even if we do not have a perfect description of it. Current physics is just our most accurate picture. I don't think for a minute that failure to capture something in the rubric of physics suggests it does not exist. I digress.

Quote :

"Of course we are, where do you think we got the idea of gods from in the first place?"

Well, God of course. You might recall we talked to him in the beginning and ever since then the idea has been passed down from generation to generation. Granted the true story has been distorted in various cultures and times.

Quote :

"Such as what? Just because science cannot explain it yet doesn't mean you should "take a wild guess"."

But science takes wild guesses all the time. The general equations of physics suggest certain dynamics, but before you can say where something is going you need to say where it has been. We have to guess those intial conditions and hope that we can get the model to match the data. For example, people have been guessing at the mass of the Higgs particle for some time. They still haven't found it though. Those adjustable parameters that [user] Nastoute [/user] mentioned amount to guesses. Physics does not say why they should take the values that they do, except from the principle of consistency. All physical theories have adjustable parameters, these are not given by the physical theory itself, they are guessed and then checked by experiment. We try to keep the guessing to a minimum but some number of "fudge factors" are necessary to science.

Quote :

" What else is there than the physical? What other bodies of science corroborate such an idea?"

God, prehaps angels, the soul, logic, math,... probably if the physical passed away all of these would still exist. Of course if you limit your idea of "existence" to those things that are verified by science then there will only "exist" physical things. I think this is a bad defintion though, as I've argued in my last post the things that exist are determined by our current physical knowledge. So in about 1970 quarks started existing, but not before Murray Gell Mann. I don't think thats what most people mean when they say something "exists".

Quote :

"We count because it's a helpful adaptation with which to communicate and survive. Counting is a brain function, not a property of the Universe."

But the brain is part of the universe.

Quote :

"If this were so, why does a description of God defy any of these things he endowed to us? Why do logical arguments always result in the destruction of religious frameworks?"

Because God is bigger than your silly logic. Logical arguments do not always destruct religious frameworks... good grief. My religious "framework" does not forbid logic, rather it encourages it, but from a different starting point than you take. God first, not man first.

Quote :

"You need to remember that many of the ideas we have don't have much relevance to "actuality" as you're trying to describe it. Many of the things we mistake as being part of the Universe around us (counting, numbers, etc) are brain functions, described in arrangements of atoms, yet destined never to collide due to the nature of interpretation. The "non-physical" nature of ideas is an illusion."

again, if they are in our brain doesn't that make them part of the universe?

Quote :

"This is true. The need for "causality" is also a brain function. A good one, too. When we hear a growl coming from the bushes, it's a good idea to try to associate a cause with that noise. It helps us survive. Humans have always tried to describe their surroundings in terms of themselves, because their perceptions of their surroundings ARE themselves. Just because we are full of beginnings and ends (waking up, falling asleep -- being born, dying) doesn't mean the Universe needs a beginning or an end. "

I don't see all of logic as being causal. There are plenty of if and only if statements. If a=b then which comes first? They just are. That puzzled me in some physic courses, I'd see an equation and wonder which side determined the other. Physically there might be cause and effect, but the math is silent on this point usually. Presenting logical ideas in the flow of time is necessary for us, we cannot understand the totality of a complex theorem all at once, however the theorem doesn't really need time I think, it just is. Anyway, it would seem that the universe had a beginning on the basis of science at the present time, so you should go with that view to be consistent.

6/15/2006 5:07:54 PM

Describe a color which you haven't seen. Try to think of a sound that you haven't heard.

These things are impossible. Attempting to fathom a universe with completely different laws than what we currently institute is also impossible. That doesn't mean such a universe hasn't, doesn't or won't ever exist, but we cannot understand it with our current knowledge.

I posted this in the other thread, but it applies.


Parallel Universes is a theory. I'm pretty sure it's hard to prove or disprove.

There is another theory of an oscillating universe. Big Bang, then a few billion years later a Big Crunch. Cycle repeats, but physical laws could be different. Again, hard to prove or disprove.

Another theory is that the universe is contained within an electron of another universe. Each electron in that universe has it's own universe. Each electron in "our" universe also has a universe within it. The process continues indefinitely in both directions. Again, no way of knowing.

[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 5:47 PM. Reason : a]

6/15/2006 5:37:53 PM

Here's my favorite universe theory. This is an alternative to the big bang theory.

If you look at our reasoning for the big bang, it's all due to what we observe right now -- we see a whole lot of matter stretching away from itself to the edge of what we can see. "What we can see" actually does have a boundary -- we can only see spacetime events that we are in the right place to see, based on how long ago the event happened and how far away we are, and the speed of light. For instance, right now I know that the sun was burning eight minutes ago, because the sun is eight light-minutes away and I saw that light just now. Just a refresher..

So, we know from the doppler effect that distant matter is moving away from us, and is in fact accelerating away, and so it looks like all that matter came from one tiny spot. And I agree up to this point. But there is nothing to indicate that we know about all the matter in the universe. In fact, the speed of light itself suggests that we do not -- it is the boundary on what we can know about.

Therefore I suggest that:
a) the speed of light is not an upper limit on the velocity of matter, that's only how it looks from our relatively stationary perspective,
b) we have no knowledge of objects moving away from us faster than the speed of light, and we have less and less knowledge of objects moving away from us close to the speed of light,
c) although the matter we know about probably did come from a small spot, that spot may have been just a little scoop of a much larger volume, all of which is expanding and the rest of which is now moving away from us faster than light and therefore is invisible, and
d) the volume may have been as big or bigger than our known universe, perhaps even infinitely large, which lends credibility to the idea that the universe has always existed and never "began."

I think someone important came up with this at some point. I was told it sounds like Hawking.

[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2006 5:48:12 PM

6/15/2006 5:52:31 PM

duke has been doing some interesting research on the brane dimension

6/15/2006 6:10:59 PM

Quote :

"Another theory is that the universe is contained within an electron of another universe. Each electron in that universe has it's own universe. Each electron in "our" universe also has a universe within it. The process continues indefinitely in both directions. Again, no way of knowing."

I think this is the start of a Simpsons episode, must be true.

Quote :

"b) we have no knowledge of objects moving away from us faster than the speed of light, and we have less and less knowledge of objects moving away from us close to the speed of light,"

But, if by "objects" you mean things even remotely similar to those we describe with current physics then those objects moving faster than the speed of light is for all intents and purposes crazy. Such object are called Tachyons and only in Star Trek are they desirable and useful. But, hey maybe you are suggesting a whole new theory of physics where such things make sense. More power to you, just realize this is a fanstastically difficult idea to parse together with what we already know.

6/15/2006 7:05:09 PM

Quote :

"Another theory is that the universe is contained within an electron of another universe. Each electron in that universe has it's own universe. Each electron in "our" universe also has a universe within it. The process continues indefinitely in both directions. Again, no way of knowing"

I had this idea as a child. Carl Sagan mentioned it in Cosmos. It's just a theory. I know friends who've had similar thoughts about the topic.

6/15/2006 7:09:40 PM