I don't know what could be more enjoyable than exploring an ensemble
theory or aggregate model of the Universe. I just want to point out that
it may not be necessary to consider all conceivable mathematical or
physical systems.
Chris Maloney wrote:
<<< The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,
not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but
simply because the structures that do obey physical laws are more
numerous than those that do not, and hence we are likely to find
ourselves in those.
GSLevy wrote:
<< We can find ourselves ONLY in those structures that obey physical
laws because these are the ONLY structures that can support us as
rational beings (SAS). The assumption that worlds with (rational)
physical laws are more more numerous than those without is therefore
unwarranted. In fact I would believe in the opposite. That the worlds
without rational physical laws, (if these could be called worlds at
all), are more numerous than those with rational physical laws.
I just would add that there may not be more than one set of rational
physical laws which apply everywhere. I would not expect multiple
mathematical systems distinct or separate from a single aggregate
mathematical system of nature. Existence I expect has a math itself and
any system, mathematical, physical, or temporal, is sub-content of that
one system or nature.
We might consider the possibility that an extension of mathematical
logic and a sort of extended reality emerges inside unique temporal
frameworks, creating reason or consistency, subject to how each temporal
framework is configured. Still, all such worlds share a common
foundation by existing.
Someone mentioned Descartes, I think therefore I am. Within many ways we
can interpret the phrase, such as the meaning of 'I think' or 'I am', is
the simple recognition that 'something exists'. Any mathematical system,
any set of physical laws, is subject to whatever natural laws govern
basic existence, i.e. the nature of the Universe of universes.
Ultimately I believe the solution is to recognize that what is possible
defines what is actual, or even, what is possible 'is' what is actual. I
would expect those involved in this group to be thinking along those
lines already. So my question is, can there be subsystems where what is
real or where physical laws break the laws of another system? If the
most basic construction or foundational elements of the system are
changed, (i.e. mass, density, number of spatial dimensions in our
system) then systems would only relate in what is common to both. Laws
would change accordingly, as each exists in one ultimate system.
Dr. Russell Standish wrote:
One of the biggest problems is that in Relativity, there is no well
defined concept of "now" - the locus of contemporary events depends on
one's frame of reference.
You've probably seen where Tegmark maps spatial and temporal dimensions
to consider which are possible real systems. Fascinating objective, to
recognize how space-time relates to the set of all possible worlds.
Perhaps, as we remove ourselves from our position in time, working
toward a God's eye view, we need to suspend thinking of time as an
elementary dimension. Said another way, see the universe as if there is
one common moment of now for everyone and everything.
So I personally prefer to abandon time and use mass or density as a
dimension. Please let me know, anyone, a good reason not to consider an
ensemble theory, a description of all possible states or worlds, first,
without time as a dimension.
Anyone can imagine the first three dimensions of space without time.
Consider a model of possible states by adding density into each
dimension. Along a plane, or in ONE dimension, the range of value for
density is from zero to infinite (the values of an ordinary mathematical
plane).
Notice two extreme states, infinite density and zero density. There
should be no objection to zero density if you suspend time.
In TWO dimensions we have to keep in mind we are modeling all that is
possible of density and space. Adding a second dimension of space
creates a 2D spectrum of patterns. The diagram below will help:
http://www.everythingforever.com/F-TIME.GIF
At either ends of the spectrum there remains isolated extremes, singular
possible states of infinite and zero density, but at every other measure
of density there is more than one possible pattern or configuration. The
number of states actually diverges away from infinite density, gets fat,
and then it converges toward zero, the two singular patterns.
It might help to imagine a flat network of lights. There are
configurations of 'all on', 'all off', and an infinite number of
variations if the individual lights are variable in intensity. So the
set of all possible 2D patterns is infinite yet bordered by extremes.
Adding a third dimension only expands the measure of unique possible
patterns. The model is still given shape by two extremes, zero and
infinite.
Now consider such spaces as if they actually exist as static timeless
worlds. Within this set exists all the patterns from which any possible
time world would necessarily be created or built. Any space-time world
would be secondary to this non-temporal set of worlds.
I myself believe time is actually space, a series of space worlds, 4D
space, and quantum mechanics is the side effect of our passing through
static spaces. Feynman described time as a direction in space. I
describe time as a direction through spaces.
http://www.everythingforever.com/4Dspace.jpg
The fourth spatial dimension travels through many 3D worlds and creates
'space'-time. As I understand this aggregate set of spaces, each space
is defined (finite), yet the set is not otherwise divided apart. So
there exists a fourth dimension of directions, within each space,
directions that pass through the aggregate set creating time as we know
it.
I propose a few other theories also, all interconnected, such as a
mathematical system where positive and negative values combine rather
than cancel, and a theory that there isn't simply order and disorder
along an axis, but rather two kinds of order in nature, and I show that
the order of one is the disorder of the other.
Devin Harris
http://www.everythingforever.com/
Received on Sun Jun 06 1999 - 22:53:16 PDT
