Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Science of Morality, Anyone?

By Aether Wave Theory (AWT) observable reality appears like being formed by density fluctuations (gradients) of hypothetical inhomogeneous infinitely dense environment, so called the Aether. We can compare these fluctuations to spongy density fluctuations, which appears inside of every dense gas of supercritical fluid. We cannot see the gas - we can see only density fluctuations in it. That's all about AWT assumptions - the rest are deductions and extrapolations.



In this environment every information spreads along surfaces of foam in dispersive way like so called light. When we place a light source inside of bucket, which is placed into foam, we can observe, the light will penetrate whole volume, so that the inner surface of bucket will remain illuminated by the same way, like this outer one - the light spreading will become omnipresent here:



It means - depending on proximity of the observed object - we can see every piece of reality from two sides: both from outside, but from inside perspective too, just in much weaker and dispersed way. From large distance both perspectives will converge into single one. This model appears pretty fantastic, but it has it's own testable predictions. For example cosmic microwave background radiation corresponds Hawking radiation of tiny black hole, whose lifespan correspond the age of observable Universe. It means, our Universe appears like being formed by interior of tiny dense star, which we are living in and which is sitting inside of another Universe, and so on. The most distant quasars are forming an outer surface of this star and Aether is forming material of this star. The foam forming vacuum is visible in two ways too: both like quantum foam forming vacuum at Planck scale, both like streaks of so called dark matter at cosmic scale.



This is a way, by which we can visualize whole model of observable reality easily. In addition, we can use a low energy scale analogies, because every condensate inside of Universe behaves in analogous, just in less pronounced way. For example human society can be modeled like dense random system, through which information spreads along surfaces of ideas or theories, which are behaving like foamy density fluctuations here. Random opinion of individuals spreads here in subtle dispersive way too, by the same way like energy spreading in foam.

This is a way, by which we can visualize whole model of observable reality easily. In addition, we can use a low energy scale analogies, because every condensate inside of Universe behaves in analogous, just in less pronounced way. For example human society can be modeled like dense random system, through which information spreads along surfaces of ideas or theories, which are behaving like foamy density fluctuations here. Random opinion of individuals spreads here in subtle dispersive way too, by the same way like energy spreading in foam.

Thank you for this explanation Zephir. I think that this is a very interesting and original suggestion, and very sympathetic to my idea regarding the random nature of human behaviour and experience. Are the words 'random' and 'system' compatible?

By AWT randomness and order are always connected. Even the simplest system, like particle gas exhibits a random fluctuations of density. There fluctuations can be seen as a random violations of randomness and with increasing of gas density they get more and more complex gradually. We are discussion this model right here...

What follows from this model, for example? Well, the people can behave like pretty smart fluctuations of reality. But as a whole, the behavior of human society corresponds the chaotic particle gas. (Nearly) all intelligent motivations of individuals will compensate mutually at distance and only fundamental laws of randomness remains. For example the tendency of individuals to follow mass/energy density gradients via diffusion like free particles of gas.

This is somewhat warning insight for all social engineers, who are believing, the civilization can protect yourself from global conflicts and/or social catastrophes. It cannot, whenever their reasons become global as well.

As another point for science of ethics and moral behavior can serve the concept of AWT perspectives. For AWT the absolute truth doesn't exist, it exists only less or more global perspective of this truth. But because we are formed by infinitely nested levels of density fluctuations, even the most global perspective can be divided into insintric and exsintric perspective.

We can explain the meaning of perspectives easily by example of gravitational lensing interpretations. By so called relativists, the gravitational lensing is typical general relativity phenomena, because it "illustrates clearly", space-time is curved near gravitating body, whereas the speed of light spreading remains constant and its path is straight.



Whereas everybody can see, the exactly the opposite is true at the case of gravitational lensing: space-time is apparently flat, but the light spread along curved path, so that refraction and lensing phenomena occurs here. This renders gravitational lensing as a basically quantum mechanics phenomena - relativists and quantum theorists only didn't realize it.

The relativists are saying, space-time is curved near gravitating object, but they never measure this curvature at distance. It would require to put a remote clock in it and to measure the time dilatation to be right. But such experiment was never done. On the other hand, quantum theorists can see, how the object of remote object remains fragmented into many parts, so that gravitational lensing can serve as an illustration of quantum uncertainty.



Who is true here, after than? By AWT both sides are true, but their observation perspectives are mutually inconsistent and singular from strictly causal perspective of formal math, which leads into landscape of infinitelly many solutions of every formal theory, which attempts for reconcilation of relativity and quantum mechanics. Because no pinpoint observer can observe certain phenomena or another object both from inside, both from outside at the same moment (fortunatelly we aren't pinpoint objects).

So every local observer from inside of gravitational lens will be deformed by gravity field by the same way, like path of light, so he would see the light straight, but space-time deformed and he will be able to verify such stance by his clock. On the other hand, every observer from outside would see the same phenomena like apparent refraction, because he isn't affected by gravitational field, which has caused the space-time deform. So he can become proponent of Lorentz invariance violation and variable speed of light theories.

This way of thinking is extremely trivial, but till now nobody attempted for it. But as we can see, it bring us always at least two views of reality, each of them remains perfectly logical and substantiated - but these two views can never be reconciled in logical way. They're remain separated by event horizon and singular mutually.

So if two people are saying, they've their truth, they can be both right, despite we are tend to consider the outer, i.e. exsintric perspective a slightly more general and as such more relevant one. But under more thorough investigation we would see, it's just another illusion - we are just observing the same things from both sides, as explained in previous post.

The memo is, our Universe is full of "truths" and we can describe them by infinitely many theories, which are mutually divergent/singular - despite of they're describe the very same thing at the first sight. Such deeper insight brings a need of tolerance and plurality into human thinking and mutual discussion.

"Ethics classes have been compulsory in Berlin schools since 2006. But in most of the rest of Germany pupils have a choice between religion and ethics...The ethics classes were intended to instil a sense of shared secular values in children, whatever their personal religious beliefs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8016990.stm

Here in Australia some states have introduced ethics, philosophy and/or comparative religion into the curriculum, but the act providing compulsory education for every child states that in govt. schools education has to be secular, and some states have decided it's all too difficult, though personally I do not see why ethics has to be taught as part of a religious course.

And of course FF--- how on earth does anyone decide what is basic morality?