Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Is the Universe a mathematical construct?

The Kavli Foundation sponsored an interdisciplinary discussion of the origins of math. What are the origins of math?

They had 2 physicists, a neuroscientist, and a cognitive scientist. The 2 physicists seemed to be taking the stance that the universe is a mathematical construct. They think this because of the fact that everything they do involves mathematics, so they assume that the universe is based on mathematics. I'm not sure I understand just what they mean by that.

The others seemed to feel that we have a cognitive inclination to mathematics, if it is just an intuitive understanding of numbers, even if we don't have words for the numbers. Some cultures don't have words for more than a few numbers, but can express larger numbers in other fashions. Read the link, it will tell more about that.

The non-physicists tend to think that the reason that all of physics is expressed in mathematics is because we have developed a large number of way to calculate different things, then thrown away the ones that don't work.

I tend to go along with the non-physicists on this one. We are just lucky that we have been able to develop mathematical structures that match the universe. We didn't find the mathematical structures that control the universe.

I wasn't sure if this was the right place to put this. It could have gone into the physics discussion. If anybody wants to move it that would be all right with me.

Bill Gill

I read the article and associated press when this all first came out and most of us distance ourselves from Max Tegmark's view in science because it is about as unscientific as you get and it ends in an obtuse ending Rev K often ends up in.

What Max Tegmark proposes is a paradox and untestable he asserts that there is only mathematics and everything goes from there.

There is no doubt the universe isomorphic to a subset of mathematics, but does that means it is mathematics. That question is an entirely a different thing and leads to the same paradox and same dead end as Rev K's want for science to study religion.

Paul I suggest you close your eyes and turn away we are about to talk about religion because I need to show a similarity of argument.

Rev K for example wants science to study religion but GOD itself is a paradox and you can easily see that with two typical anecdotes young children often realize and they go like this

1.) If GOD can do anything can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

2.) If GOD knows everything then he knows what I am thinking and what I will do so I have no free will.

Statement 1 clearly shows the logical paradox that is GOD it doesn't get any simpler to see the problem and most children get it. There are usual ways to sidestep the problem by religion and they are well documented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Unfortunately you can only sidestep the issue by making GOD outside the rules of science so there goes any idea of studying it using science (Sorry Rev K that's the problem).


Statement 2 is a variation because now we have human free will in the mix and you can only resolve the problem and give us free will by limiting GOD's omnipotence or by making GOD decide to be selectively blind to our behavior. Making GOD decide to be selectively blind has some nasty drawbacks again this is well documented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will


Ok so what has all this to do with Max Tegmark's discussion with mathematics ... well simple you just made mathematics GOD.


The same GOD arguments can be rewritten with mathematics thus

1.) If mathematics can do anything in the universe can mathematics make a rock so heavy it can't lift it. The standard irresistible force paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

2.) If mathematics runs the universe then it knows everything and so I as a human have no free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will


Bad nonsense science argument even from a scientist with nice letters after his name is still a bad nonsense science argument.

I am glad you put this in NQS Bill because that is where that garbage belongs.

The whole idea that the universe is somehow run and controlled by mathematics is a religion not a science because it is built on exactly the same paradox as having a GOD all these idiots really did was changed the name.

I don't know that I would have said it the way you did, but I think that you are right. As I sort of said in my first post on this subject, we are lucky that we can use math to describe the way the universe works, but that doesn't mean it is the math that makes the universe work.

Now I am about to invoke a lot of joy in Paul's heart. It is possible to show obviously wrong things with accurate math. But that math has to be based on some inaccurate assumptions. One likely case that comes to mind is string theory. String theory seems to be getting more and more unlikely, but it has some wonderful math backing it up. In the long run I think that string theory is going to fade away, no matter how good the math is.

At the same time the math developed for string theory is proving to be wonderful when it is applied to other areas of physics, so all that string theory research hasn't been a complete loss.

Bill Gill

I would put it like that and as bluntly as that .. I considered making a paper called "Max is right mathematics controls the world and the mathematics is created by GOD" to see if Max got the issue

As I have explained the science world is a lot different place post 2008 and some of our own scientists have to be bought kicking and screaming to understanding of what science can now rule in and out.

For example we can now with certainty rule out that the universe we live in is a simulation .. why because of EPR experiments which show local realism is incompatible with the observations.

In your simple laymans terms if EPR is dead and I can't specify the position and velocity of a sub-atomic particle then I can't mathematically predict the exact events at the sub-atomic level except by using a quantum computer which is actually bigger than the quantum simulation and at that point the simulation becomes indistinguishable from reality!

So the very fact we can show EPR is dead and buried means we can't possibly live in a simulation and you therefore must have free will.

If you look at the simulated reality argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

=>A decisive refutation of any claim that our reality is computer-simulated would be the discovery of some uncomputable physics, because if reality is doing something that no computer can do, it cannot be a computer simulation.

Science considers we reached that point with the proof that EPR was invalid and hence only a quantum computer bigger than the universe could run such a simulation.

So for people giving up the "solid structured classic universe" may be initially troubling there is a lot more comfort and certainty about what the universe must look like in the scientific answer.

I never even considered that the universe as a simulation was anything more than science fiction. It is so implausible that I didn't even worry about it. The first thing that crossed my mind was something on the order of "If the universe is a simulation, then what is the simulation running on?" A computer that could simulate just the Solar System would be unimaginably huge. To simulate the whole universe would require something that would pretty much fill the universe, and probably a lot more. And then there is the next question; Where did that computer come from?

I read a lot of science fiction and in terms of the stories I read I accept a lot of things that I know are totally implausible. But when somebody starts trying to push them as real science I just can't accept them.

Bill Gill

For a scientist that is the most repellent thing you can do reject something because you don't like it (we call that a prior) or you think it is implausible.

Quantum tunneling is implausible BUT it happens.

We don't allow that approach to any suggestion to do so is extremely dangerous.





That was the initial reaction science had but that was not a view shared by computer programmers and they successively pushed the idea and boundary and games like Eve and minecraft pushed the boundaries where they created virtually infinite worlds.

The trick to infinite universe is that you don't have infinite players so you only have to provide detailed micro data in the immediate vicinity of the player (observer) the rest of the universe can tick along in a crass mathematical sense. Thus so long as you have finite players you can have an infinite world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Online


As humans we have detailed data on exactly one small patch of the universe.

The unsettling part for science was this was somewhat along the lines QM was describing so the question at a science level was open unless you are rejecting it because you have prior and don't like the answer.


Move forward to 2008 and science can falsify the idea because science can show you can't simulate the universe because QM is now placed as a property of the universe and only a QM computer could fully simulate a QM universe and you can't restrict it to the observer patch mode ... if you want to test yourself why can't you use observer patches on a QM universe?

I will give you a hint ... the act of observing is one directional it creates your reality and in a QM world there is something important about the waveform that is the act of observation.

It was actually attempted to do this in QM, to create what we call a "windowing function" for the observer to a deeper mathematical QM world, but it fails for the answer to the poser above.

If you can't work it out I will give you a bigger hint as the original question was posed in 2000 is Schrödinger's cat now fat?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406025a0.html




That is really not a valid question Bill even to someone who believes in GOD one could pose the question "Does GOD have a GOD?", how would they answer it?

It is an ontological argument and you just made a variation of the theme.




My complaint to that approach is you are rejecting things based on your like or dislike (priors) rather than any subjective argument and it is inherently dangerous for a scientist to do that.

There are inherently many things in science which seem almost implausible but are real and happen ... I could name hundreds.

One of the most important for the universe is the triple-alpha process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process


To do science properly you really have to leave your emotional bags at the door.

And there is the idea of keeping an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Quantum tunneling is implausible, but it also happens to fall out of QM, just the way so many other things you talk about do. The universe as a simulation doesn't fall out of any theory, it falls out of science fiction.


I see no problem with a computer simulation of QM. Remember that when you are writing a simulation program you can write anything into it that you want to. That includes things that are impossible in reality. If you are writing a simulation of a scientific process then you want to write it so that the output matches reality. But if you are writing a fantasy game you can make anything happen that you want to, including things that are impossible in reality. Remember in a simulation it doesn't have to really happen, it just has to look like it does.



I don't know why it isn't a good question. Are you now arguing that there is a god and he created the computer that we are being simulated on?

And then of course if we are being simulated on a computer then we are back to the subject of my original post. A computer simulation is basically a mathematical construct. People who build flight simulators have a lot of high level programmers working to generate the mathematical calculations required to create realistic views in the display. And since you don't believe the universe is a mathematical construct you can't believe that the universe is a simulation.

I realize that you don't believe that the universe is a simulation. But you are making arguments against my statements that agree with you, based on your interpretation of how I reached them. Basically I looked at the idea of the universe being a simulation and realized that the likelihood of its being real was so remote that I could ignore it. Now if somebody could actually come up with something that showed it was possible then I would reconsider the matter. For now the sheer improbability of it is enough to keep me from believing it.

Bill Gill

That is correct I agree with your answer but not your method you got there because you basis is priors that you prefer and I am simply saying be careful doing that.

I understand your argument that follows that you consider it remote and unlikely but again that appears to be a very subjective analysis rather than anything concrete scientifically.

To me you are still asking a rather silly question if we were a simulation



No Bill I am telling you it is a silly question because it is ontological and can never be answered nor can any version of how the universe comes into being.

The start of the universe is a paradox to which there is no answer and never will be not in religion, not in science and not by any discipline .... it's simply a stupid question.

To create a start point for the universe immediately creates the paradox that there must therefore be something before the start point.

So religion for example says GOD created the universe but then it leaves open the problem if GOD existed before that universe then how did GOD come into being and did another GOD create GOD or are there other GODS?

You simply changed the question and if you lived in a computer simulation asking who created it is as stupid as asking does GOD have a GOD ... there is no way to answer that objectively because we have no data, no evidence and nothing to base and answer on.


Now lets really challenge you see if I can get you to work out possible ways to resolve the start of the universe paradox and I will probably need to give you some help so here is your first hint

Hint 1.) What causes the start of universe paradox?

Hmmmm I was thinking maybe I should have thrown big bang in as well as the current theory from science.

So we have 3 proposed starts to the universe

a) GOD created it
b) Bing bang created it
c) We are a computer simulation

The paradox is they are actually not starts because we have problems which we can list as such

a) Where did GOD come from?
b) What came before the big bang?
c) Who wrote the simulation?

There is only one way to resolve the paradox and it's the only choice really because the paradox is born from this thing and it is that thing I am trying to get you to identify.

Hint 2.) Ask a scientist what came before the big bang.

Bonus hint) Ask Rev K or any religious person what came before GOD.


I should point out I have no intention of solving the start of the universe or offering a view on it ... I just want you to see it stripped down to it's bare bones because it is interesting

What beginning of the universe paradox? The beginning of the universe isn't paradoxical, it just isn't understood. That is a totally different thing.

Bill Gill

Wouldn't you necessarily need to define what the Universe is before assuming origin? Has science come to a static conclusion and a position that what they know will not evolve or expand at this point?
I thought it was cute that you intimate the God scenario as an option for science when you made the statement WE have three options.
But seriously. Really? This is where science stands on the universe? Are you sure you are just coming from your own thoughts and beliefs? Do you take the position that you speak for the scientific human collective? You are the authority?

Oh good, the question was rhetorical.
At this point since God and the universe as a definition is not final, we're really looking at the way man looks at things from any belief system. This is more a question of psychic politics.

Obviously that would be what still exists, unless we suppose the current universe or what is perceived as the current universe has replaced something.

That's not really a hint. It only covers the perspective of something man has defined, or assumed exists without definition. If you assume science has separated the inquiry of origin into spiritual terms as non-scientific, and include your previous claims
Then this statement is clearly suspect to scientific definition

Any perspective linked to human awareness, inside or outside of beliefs or historic perceptions that assume man can or can't see, feel or know something, limits science.



So its not a question per se, and there is no point or paradox. This is instead a philosophical discussion about science and religion as a human foundation in thought that may either enhance or limit perceptibility.

In relationship to perceptibility and mathematical constructs.
What percentage is assumed as far as theoretical success and or absolute success of human perceptibility in defining the universe, (as in stating what it is) based on where you look in time? Or outside of time for that matter, and from where you are looking?



an argument that produces or results in inconsistency.
Hmmm. Could it be that some things or some ideas, cannot be narrowed or shrunk to fit into a container that is too small?

Common sense: That sounds like something that is and if its self a paradox.

Rubbish there is a paradox and it's blatantly obvious.

INFINITE TIME IS THE PARADOX.

For something to have a start time can not be infinite OR IT IS BY DEFINITION A PARADOX and you can't talk around it or do psychological mumbo jumbo like TT wants it becomes a paradox.

Perhaps show me the start point of an infinitely long line if it isn't a paradox I mean we can define a line much better and more solidly than time.

Religion does the obvious answer it truncates time, ask Rev K and he will answer there is no time before GOD.

As I said strip the problem down to its bare bones

If time is infinite and exists now and always did you have a straight and unresolvable paradox look at your wiki definition again ..... and I say again you want a start point time has to be finite and truncatable (able to be cut).

All 3 proposed solutions truncate time ... you have to there is no other option to have a start point and that was what I was trying to get you to realize.

WHY?

Well there are some interesting developments being worked on time because the above problem.

sneak peak and heads up spoiler
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/14711...rses-in-the-lab
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-space-quantum-satellite.html
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...ime-guest-post/

I'm still of the notion the universe never had a 'start'. Maybe what we know as the universe had a start, but not the whole thing (everything). Our ignorance knows no bounds. A current understanding, does not mean an overall understanding.

To my drug addled mind, big bang is just as credible as giant space ghosts creating it on a whim. Scientists and Creationists aren't so different when it comes to the creation of what we call our universe.

It always has been, it always will be, whatever 'it' is. I'm sure the earth is a universe for something like an ant, but just because that is their current understanding, does not make it truth, no matter how loud the ant screams it at the sky.

Just opinion. Like most everybody else, I've only been here a few decades, and like everyone else, I'm ignorant to the truth because I am mortal.

Everything undefined, unknown or not completely agreed upon is a paradox? Sheesh!

What you can or can't do with something that is not defined doesn't sound very scientific. Doesn't that pretty much close doors to points of view based on human prejudice and belief?
Oh right.. the scientific tenets!

Not sure about the Rev. Pretty sure I haven't seen any statements by him that there was a time of no time and any point in time for the emergence of God. I'd say you're making a sweeping statement towards religion and narrowing all spiritual understandings of religions into the box you define.
What I experience of religion is that God whether defined or not, never had a beginning, and time was a creation or construct created by God. Basically religion might assume all manifestations, or physical properties emerge from something greater than time, as human perceptions narrow the infinite into finite human qualities that are pasted upon the known reality of our universe as we experience it.
Maybe a paradox is not a problem, but rather an unknown. Isn't an unknown no longer a paradox when it becomes a known and confusion is rectified? Are scientific principals really based on what's not possible rather than what is or might be possible?
Sheesh. Wonder what the suicide rate is amongst scientists or the life expectancy of a scientist.
Unresolvable ? Really? The end, no longer worth exploring or looking into because there is nothing to explore, define or imagine?
I'd say, contemplating the word unresolvable as defined by you, assumes a paradox.

Hmm I don't see either proposal as you originally stated as finite solutions but rather stepping stones to further understanding

God needs to be defined. So far by definition God is a paradox. (if we are taking the scientific approach) But then God is not an option if as you say Science doesn't work outside of the scientific box. Basically you (according to your past insinuations) are really throwing the God factor out as a religious contrivance outside of scientific principles and rules.
Ok this might be something that does truncate time. The Bing Bang.. similar to Badda Bing I assume. This is a scientific construct and theory. I'd have to agree here that science has painted itself into a corner? Gosh I dunno, maybe.
You have to... there is no other option..
Is it me or is this kinda presumptuous. Really? We know this computer exists? Does the computer generate freedom of will, or is human stupidity a program?

Why not? Sorry, the computer made me say that.

Should be interesting what the computer makes man/science dance to this time.. pun intended

Hey!!! taking drugs may not be such a bad thing.
Concepts in experience and determination may have beginnings and endings, yes.
We seem stuck on time with birth and death, beginnings and endings. Sort of an assumed property of life as we paste it upon the relative realities we design.

my 1000th post, and I have nothing to say...

You are trying to dodge the bullet Neo the same as religion does by trying to fob off this universe and send the problem back in time ... but that back in time still has a start.

The answer is I don't care how far you send the problem back "START" has a meaning and it's measurement is time (t=0).

So you have not avoided anything you just tried to change what universe means and hide because it's all to hard and you want to plead we don't understand.

SORRY I CALL CRAP ON THAT ... YOU ARE TRYING TO PLAY WORD GAMES TO AVOID THINKING.

Time decides what is before and what is after, literally it builds chronology so if you want the start of time that is mathematically t=0 on everything there ever was that is by definition "the start"

Noone says you have to know where or how that start is as I said I can't answer that but what is important point and that is time can not be immortal ... it is important you realize that.

Look carefully at a recent science experiment and think .. specifically about how one would test these lab created multiverses and if time starts

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/14711...rses-in-the-lab

That's because you won't take a solid position on anything except to say everyone has the right to there own subjective view .... a position in science we couldn't give a rats about.

Science is about taking a subjective position and testing it to see if it is right. The person with the best subjective position on the universe that can't be falsified wins ... you by definition to science are a loser .... just kidding

Time only matters to the mortal. And accepting no beginning and no end, does not stop the thinking. As I said, we're basing our notions on what we know, or have discovered. I'm implying there is much more to discover, and there is possibility of infinitely more to discover.

Futurama has a good episode called "The late Phillip J. Fry" which tackles a cyclical universe theory. It's just another way of looking at things, but it does not shut down thought.

I accept you crapping on my opinion, but it does not make you any more 'right' than I am. It's just a way to spur conversation, and perhaps growth.

All it took was some people asking if the earth was really flat...

There was no start, it just always was, in one form or another. To me this is more palatable than magical explosions and imaginary friends with erector sets. They say the 'edge' of the universe, but there (in my mind) has to be something beyond every edge.

Isn't the fact that I give everyone freedom to experience something the way they want, a solid position?

Right. Churches and Government think the same way.

Who says the age of miracles is passed.

I have not read this thread (it's a time thing) so this may be inappropriate.

I think it all comes down to what we mean by a mathematical construct.

If we mean that the Universe was designed on mathematical formulae, it is hard to see how that differs from religion (God bless it)

If we mean that mathematics is the best language we have found to describe our observations of the Universe, perhaps that makes good sense.

How is infinite time, or for that matter non-infinite time, a paradox? Time either is or isn't infinite. If it is infinite then it just means that there is no "start" to the universe. Within that time the universe AS WE KNOW IT would have had a start at the big bang, and will "end" when it fades out into entropy, assuming that we aren't living in a "big bounce" universe. But infinite time doesn't produce incompatible results. I have no idea whether time is infinite or not. Either way we don't understand just where the universe as we know it came from. There are some ideas, but none of them have been experimentally tested/verified. We're pretty sure there was a big bang, but we don't know if there was anything before that. Maybe before the big bang there was an infinitely long period of nothingness, just empty space. Looking into the future right now it appears that the universe will keep expanding essentially forever. But there isn't any paradox to that.

For an infinity with a start point, try the infinity of positive integers. They start with zero and go to infinity.

Bill Gill

Does this mean you subscribe to the view that infinity is just a big number?

Is there no distinction between "infinite" and "unbounded"?

Looks like I came back at just the right time!

That's an interesting concept, Bill.

I shall have to give the idea of infinite nothingness some more thought before commenting, but, surely, if the period before the BB was infinite, everything that could happen would have already happened, an infinite number of times, before the BB. These things would, of necessity, have included the BB; so there is a paradox.

No paradox. A big bang could have happened an infinite number of times before the one with which we are familiar. And after entropy washes our Big Bang out into the "nothingness" of the infinity of time again it can happen again and again. The in between times could just be filled with the quantum foam.

Notice that I am not saying that this does happen. I am saying that there is no particular paradox involved. It is just a fact that we don't understand the Big Bang and how the universe came about and/or where the it came from.

Bill Gill

But not a paradox if Brane theory (for example) happens to be correct.

Edit: Just saw your post (above), Bill G. Yes, that seems to be consistent with both L. Krauss' explanation of a universe from 'nothing' and with current observations re expansion of space.

Possibly this is correct if you are talking of mathematical infinities, but even Cantor talked of an "absolute infinity". This is the sort of concept I am talking about. Mathematically (according to Cantor) this "overarching" infinity does not exist, yet he was unable to dispense with it entirely.

If a BB has happened an infinite number of times, there can be no more to happen. There can be only one "absolute" infinity, and that is outside the realm of mathematics.



You are coming back to these questions, I hope?

looking back at my last post, two things strike me.

1. "Absolute infinity" is tautologous, but I use it in deference to Cantor, and to stress that I am not referring to mathematical "infinities".

2. As I think that infinity is not a number, I use the term "an infinite number of times" reluctantly. How can we claim that something happens an infinite number of times and still maintain that we are discussing science, which exalts the concept of proof?

Re infinity, we are discussing matters beyond the scope of scientific proof, and are firmly in the realm of philosophy. We can agree on that, can we not? I do find your arguments re infinity quite mind-bending, Bill S. I wish I could understand the problem that you evidently see. As I see it, either the universe has always existed in some way, shape or form, or else it was brought into being by an ineffable cause which itself has always existed (with one foot outside the experience of time, rather like photons perhaps). Personally, beyond the semantics, I don't distinguish a difference between those hypotheses. It seems that you reject both notions because they're beyond scientific proof - which, of course, they are. On the other hand, what kind of proof could be presented to show that there was no existence of any kind before a given moment?

The above isn't intended as negative criticism. I don't have answers, just opinions. I'm all ears, as they say.

Bill, you are getting off into philosophy again. I'm not much of a philosopher, so I don't worry about things you seem to be worrying about. As far as I am concerned infinity basically means that there is no beginning and no end. Of course that kind of disagrees with my reference above to the infinity of positive integers starting at zero, but when it comes to philosophy I just can't get all excited about that sort of thing.

Now I do feel kind of uneasy about the idea that the universe has no beginning and no end. Intuitively I expect everything to have a beginning and an end. At the same time I have a problem with what there was before the universe came into being. However, that doesn't affect my daily life and all of physics still works just fine, so I don't expect to wake up in the morning and find out the universe has disappeared. Therefore I don't worry about it.

Bill Gill

I would like to agree, but scientists and mathematicians frequently talk of this or that being infinite, or happening an infinite number of times, or, even worse, saying that something can become infinite, or stop being infinite. This is fine, as long as they make it clear that what they are talking about is the mathematically infinite, for which, in my opinion, a less confusing term would be “unbounded”.

Absolutely none! In fact, I suspect that the nearest one can come to proof/falsification in this matter is the seemingly logical argument that there can never have been a time when there was nothing, or there would be nothing now. One trouble with that is that there are many who want to question the nature of nothing.

Worrying is not my thing, Bill. In particular there are three things I never worry about:
Money; because I don’t have any to worry about.
Maths; because I don’t know enough to know what is worth worrying about.
Infinity; because it wouldn’t make any difference.

It was that sort of disagreement that started me thinking about the feasibility of the infinite series. When I find something that makes no sense to me I tend to keep at it until it makes sense. When I then find people who think differently I want to test my ideas, but that tends to test their patience.

Here's a related opinion.
Neil Turok: "I think maths is a miracle"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3pGv91iaz7g

Bill Gill, you say, I say,Bill, you sayIn my opinion, the same is true of G~0~D. This is why I use a zero, 0 (a symbol of a no thing) here. Also, it is why I use the O (a symbol that includes everything) here. G~O~D is the all encompassing. But I hope you don't mind if there are those of us who honour philosophy as the mother of science and art. What then is your philosophy of Life--of body, mind and spirit? It seems to me that individual lives do end. So do cycles of days, weeks, months days, and so on.IMO, there was NO thing, G~0~D IMO, you, me, and others will eventually leave the cosmos made up of "things".

Bill Gill

A few more verses from the G~0~D-Spell according to St. Lindsay.

Correct that is a black or white answer.



Now you state the problem because the above was black and white.




And so you realize and state that BB is not a start if time is infinite




How you come to that conclusion from your above statements has completely got me.

DOES AN INFINITE LINE HAVE A START .... ANSWER NO ... NOT EVER IT DOESN'T HAVE BY DEFINITION

A ray does

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ray.html

=> In geometry, a ray is usually taken as a half-infinite line (also known as a half-line) with one of the two points A and B taken to be at infinity.

Talking about time being infinite in both directions is beyond stupid because it can't be or the "entire universe" couldn't exist ... here we are distinguishing the universe meaning beyond our universe as in everything that ever was and ever will be.




And that is the same situation as a Ray it's half infinite there are numbers outside the range which is all the negatives, so claiming it that range is infinite is completely wrong.

And there is the point I am trying to get you to understand that you people play word games with infinity without holding a truly strict definition on it.

To science and to me half infinite does not equal infinite and we will never agree it does ..... it is blatantly wrong.


Put bluntly time has to be a half infinite (starting at t=0) or a segement (starting at a and ending at b) ... the idea it is truly infinite is a direct paradox and totally absurd not even GOD can work that one because then GOD must have a GOD.

The concept that time must start is itself interesting because it leads directly to a question can time exist without space and vice versa ... think about GR carefully.

Incorrect, despite the upper case. It is you who are, inadvertently perhaps, playing with words, Orac. The description of a ray as half-infinite is merely a means to differentiate it from a line that extends to infinity in both directions. Infinity that has a beginning is nonetheless infinity.



No Orac, it's you who are completely wrong. The ray is not finite, and neither are the number of positive integers.


Despite the red text, you and science are, once again, not in agreement. As I've told you, the so-called half-infinite ray is in fact infinite. Has it occurred to you that there's no such thing as half of infinity, regardless of the nomenclature of convenience used by geometricians?

Complete garbage you can write a mathematical proof it ... it is dead simple it was done in the 18th century.


Here let me do it in layman terms for you.


Your and Bill's infinity is zero to positive infinity ... so I give you one number -1 is that in your range .... answer NO.

Therefore your infinity in not infinity of all numbers because I can give you a number outside the set.

Cantor showed in 1891 that by that statement alone you don't have an infinite set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_theorem


Your infinity is the positive infinity, a half infinity or even the infinity of positive real numbers BUT IT IS NOT INFINITY OF ALL NUMBERS ... blabber all you like it simply isn't any child can see it isn't and you can prove it.

To claim so is beyond stupid and science, mathematics and I are in complete agreement no matter what your ridiculous claim.

If you have a start point you can't have an absolute infinity of anything geometric, mathematics or in physics because something exists outside the set UNLESS you truncate it.

The only way you can make your stupid infinity conform to an absolute infinity is by truncating the set by another rule .... in your case by discarding or ruling out negative numbers.

Infinite time must by definition run from minus infinity to positive infinity seconds if you put a start in then there exists a time which must be before the start and time is therefore not infinite because a time exists outside the set. If you want to have that definition you have a positive infinite time but that is really interesting.

To show you how interesting it gets lets use you definition of infinity (0 ... positive infinity) the interesting question it poses and I want you to think on is what physics would cause that ... you just established an arrow of time with absolutely no basis for doing it ... your basis as best we can make out is you don't like negative numbers.

I bring this up because there is some interesting stuff being done on this at the moment ... I will expand the experiments if we can get over the word play garbage.

Okay so if we can get you past the word play around infinity lets look at what the problem is.

Here is an experiment done by Anton Zeilinger yet again (we hate him )

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4834

For those not technical here is the layman explaination

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2012/05/04/entangled-in-the-past-experime/


Now I want redewenur and Bill to think carefully what would happen in a universe that was guaranteed to only run forward because it had to start at t=0 and move forward to positive infinity.

I’ve just read (most of) page 1 of this thread, it seems to be largely a philosophical discussion, with a bit of maths thrown in. I read things like:

and I think, after all our discussions, could it be that Orac and I are on the same page?

All this stuff about infinite series, half-infinities and infinite time may be valid mathematically, but in reality, it is hard to see how they can make any sense at all.

What does seem to make sense is that, by definition, something that has an end is not infinite. We may not be able to assign a beginning, but it has an end, so it is finite. (No word play there, right?)

Physics, we are told, works just as well if we assign forward or backward directionality to time. If this is the case, something that has a beginning must also be seen as having an end if time is reversed. Here I refer to Orac’s link:

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2012/05/04/entangled-in-the-past-experime/

for anyone who might think that reversed time is not a scientific concept. (still no word play, right?)

Since this thread seems to have developed into something of a free-for-all in terms of personal opinions; here is a suggestion for which I have no more scientific proof than has been used to support many of the opinions in this thread.

The cosmos, i.e. everything that is, has been or ever will be, is infinite.

Infinity and time are not the same thing. Infinity is not a big number, nor an immeasurable expanse of time. We cannot define in terms of physical or temporal extent.

Because infinity does not involve either time or measurable space, there can be no change in infinity. Everything just “is”.
Our universe appears to have come into being at the BB, and time and space came into existence at the same spacetime event.

Our Universe remains within the cosmos, eternal and unchanging. Change is just something we think we experience because we are limited to 4+1 dimensions. Think of the spider in Flatland.

Space and time have no relevance outside our Universe. They are simply the means by which we are able to make sense of our world. Without the illusions of time and space the Universe would not be a suitable place for rational beings to evolve; we would not be here.

Not for one moment am I claiming that this how reality is. There is no way I could know that. All I am saying is that it dispenses with paradoxes and seems to hang together reasonably logically.

So I guess, back to the original question, the answer would be 'no'. The universe is not a mathematical construct.

However... Our 'known universe' could be. Whether big bang, or space ghosts, everything after 'known universe' creation seems to have a mathematical representation. This, of course, could be because we are a fabrication of the known universe's creation, and we created mathematics based on observations of said known universe.

Everything is what we say it is, until something else proves otherwise.

I am pleased to read the discussions on this matter. It's good to know there are people still thinking outside the box, or universe, as it were.


As far as t=0, I disagree. Even Star Trek TNG covered the possibility of negative time when basing it on present observation. Was a mind f--- of an episode, but it sure gets one thinking. Time itself exists only because of observation. Once observation was defined, time was defined. This does not mean the universe, or known universe, follows the same concept. It only means we use it as a basis for comparison, and a way to relate the happenings around us.

I wish there was a t=0 though. Would sure make time travel easier.

I think it would make no difference to future directed time travel, and past directed time travel works only if "you" are the only one who can do it.

My mind can travel backward, but my body sure can't...

And you understand me correctly Bill S and it is becoming important to science and QM

If I asked you to show me an infinite line in mathematics you draw a line with arrows both ends if you draw a line with an arrow one end it would be marked wrong.

The problem started getting confused in English language when we started using infinite with expectation value range of the use.

So no one has an expectation that distance for example can go negative (a negative sign is just a reference) so if I say infinite distance a one sided infinite is perfectly fine and neither parties would be confused. We would also say that infinite distance can never be real it's just a notional idea because you can't actually fix the two points.

What Rede and Bill are doing is making time expectation basis one sided without realizing that is what they are doing and not wanting to discuss what that one sided expectation is built on.

Where I am trying to get them to look at is T-symmetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry)




So yes what started out as a philosophical discussion I am going to invert on them because they are missing some understanding that science is aware of.

You don't seem to see the meaning of Cantor's theorem, Orac. Cantor showed that there are different orders of infinity, i.e. that some infinite sets are larger than others. However, any infinite set, by definition, contains an infinity of elements belonging to that set. The fact that it doesn't include elements that are not in that set does not mean that the set is less than infinite.


Who said it was? No wonder you're confused.


No, that's not what he showed. Check the wiki page again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_theorem


So you do see that the set of positive integers is an infinite set? good. Nobody has said that it's a set of all numbers, and it does indeed have lesser cardinality. But please cut out the "blabber", and other offensive remarks.

There you go again, Orac. Are you incapable of coping with a thread without remarks such as "beyond stupid"?

No one is suggesting your "absolute infinity". We are discussing infinities of differing cardinality.
"Stupid" again, Orac? You are insisting on an absolute infinity. I wonder why. Any infinite set will do, including the set of positive integers.

Why are you discussing time? I wasn't. As stated, the positive integers are an example of an infinite set. But if you want to talk about the infinite set that includes all negative integers, that's fine. Or perhaps you'd like to talk about the infinite set of real numbers.

Walk backup the thread the thing we were discussing was a paradox of two words

INFINTE TIME

What I am explicitly saying is that has two words ... extract the meanings

INFINITE = a set containing all possible values
TIME = the thing the set is made of


What Bill did was then say you could go from t=0 to infinity as infinite time.

My objection is simple you made a MASSIVE assumption at that point.

In other words Bill has converted INFINITE TIME into INFINITE POSITIVE TIME.

The argument is not about the word infinite it is about what basis Bill has for making that assumption is valid you can't for example do that with a line.

So forget the right hand positive infinity which you seem to be getting all hung up about he just truncated time at the start point with no reasonable justification by looks other than he doesn't like it.

The problem here is that logic in classic physics is sort of nonsense and meaningless, Bill even sort of says that. So he justifies he can do it because of a word puzzle he can play in classic physics

HOWEVER

If we bring the standard model including it's QM underpin in now you can't just do that there is a massive problem in trying to do that and it is completely testable because you end up with a spinor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

Look at [Time reversal of the known dynamical laws]




So at a science level INFINITE TIME versus INFINITE POSITIVE TIME lead to different results and it is testable the fact those two things are different is profound and important.

I have never said that time had a start. I clearly said that, for the purpose I was discussing, time was infinite. I then said that at some point in that infinite time a big bang happened. And as time went on the big bang faded back into the quantum nothingness. I also said I don't necessarily believe that is the way it is.

Bill Gill

And as I said science can show that is wrong at science, that statement is no different to the stance I take if a religious person says the universe is only 6000 years old.

Post 2008 we can show the universe and time are both finite they have to be to start as demanded by the standard model, CDM cosmology and QM.

Those theories and models lead directly back and we can define the initial conditions of the universe

Go back and read T-symmetry article again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

All science approaches now end up in the same position



So science has a defined accepted position as prescribed by all it's main current theories and models that the universe is finite in size and time and with a start conditions and an unknown end condition.

We can even set a time with error on the start 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ... see the error range that is a scientific statement not an approximation or a guess.

The question of the initial conditions of the universe is outside science and is akin to asking a religious person does GOD have a GOD.

Now you can chose not to accept the standard model and current theories and believe time and the universe are infinite, you can even play word games with infinite, but can you all please stop saying science says any of that because it doesn't.

I have no doubt there may be scientists that don't accept that view as many religious people won't but in science we settle these things by the rule of "put up or shut up".


If you don't like that as a scientist then off you go and overturn the standard model and all the current theories like CDM.

Orac: "So science has a defined accepted position as prescribed by all it's main current theories and models that the universe is finite in size"

- 'Science' takes no such 'accepted' position, as anyone with a little time to spare will discover that for themselves from the web publications of real scientists. 'Science' simply does not know.

Orac:- "Those theories and models lead directly back and we can define the initial conditions of the universe".

- No 'we' can't. 'We' can get close to it, but GR cannot be applied to the Planck era, and a working theory of quantum gravity would probably be required to go further.

Orac:- Now you can chose not to accept the standard model and current theories and believe time and the universe are infinite, you can even play word games with infinite, but can you all please stop saying science says any of that because it doesn't."

- Since it's clear that you are not a scientist, you are in no position to advise people re what they should and should not say.

Believe what you want Rede ... that's your choice ... you want to construct an argument or leave it at that?

I am more than happy to be called not a scientist call me a janitor if it makes you feel happy .... so you are the scientist I am the janitor construct your argument.

For anyone interested in the more technical aspects the moment QM became bound into the creation of the universe via the standard model you have an initial state of the universe and that initial state has bounds and characteristics that you can't whimsically decide.

One of the better online sources of the issues at a laymans level. I do warn it's background is quantum gravity but that is not important to explaining the issues

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/quantum_cosmo_path_integrals

The key point to the problem is you have to have an exact and described quantum state if QM is present at the birth of the universe and there are definitely only a few ways to do that the link gives you 3

(i) A universe without a past boundary
(ii) Quantum tunneling
(iii) Hardset physical symmetry


So from a science point of view your challenge is to work out what initial quantum states of the universe can you think of and are they compatible with the current universe.

The other alternative is to crush QM out of existence at the birth of the universe, this was the old method that was favoured by science in the era that GR dominated the landscape and the discovery of the Higgs ended.

I am not here to tell you what is right or wrong but provoke discussion.

Make your choice how you want to start the universe and layout your argument and lets see if it holds up to scrutiny.

For those who want a short version of why time can't be infinite in a QM universe

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/path_integrals

That formulation does special things to time



So now your question is could any of that be done on an infinite volume of space and an infinite time.

The answer is obvious .... NO because the path integrals become unbounded in the sample given above in the link the particle is now going from infinite point A to infinite point B via infinite points in between and the description is meaningless.


So under path integrals Infinite time = Infinite space and it is a standard question asked routinely by people studying and thinking about QM

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...mensional-space

Note this echo's back to the particle-in-a-box you start out with in QM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box)

You have to define a box or no calculations are possible.

In other words QM is explicit you have to define a finite space or a finite time (and defining one defines the other) as stipulated by path integral mathematics.


So unless you are arguing to crush QM out of existence at the beginning of the universe or you are arguing that path integral function is wrong then our universe must be finite in size and time.

The CMBR creates the real problem because it was there at the beginning of the universe we have to be able to create a path integral on it and that has implications .... for some it may also explain why the CMBR becomes the "universe observer".

You can go much deeper than this but I think that is sufficient to show you the problem.

Rede since you are the scientist try Lubos explaining it
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/edward-witten-and-ivarepsilon.html ... he gives you multiple prescriptions to the problem and they all end the same way.

I should say that those who don't like science but understand it usually try to explain it away like the philosopher Mortimer J. Adler did

http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/is-time-finite-or-infinite-time-before-the-big-bang/



From a janitor perspective that is absolute garbage because I am not a philosopher and I have absolutely no data or any reason to even make a guess if time extends backwards and well may I ask does GOD have a GOD to a religious person.

The answer to both questions is the same ... the question is stupid or at least not answerable.

Orac, you are still putting words in my mouth. I never said that time had a start, but you do. I never said that time was infinite, but you claim I did. In every case I said I don't know. Now you claim that I am saying that QM is wrong. I'm not. I'm saying that QM doesn't answer all the questions. And I'm not going to accept anybody's word on the final answer until there is documented testing of the facts to support that answer. In the meantime I am still interested in speculation about that final answer. I also recognize that some of the speculation seems to make more sense than others.

Bill Gill

Ok .. I didn't quite get that from what you said ... you seemed to be insisting something which I obviously misunderstood?




As I keep telling you QM doesn't answer any questions it is not framed in that way ... it describes inevitable outcomes based on assumed conditions. Why those conditions are relevant it hasn't a clue.

I keep trying to understand if again I miss what you mean in the above and you do get it but I lose it in translation because I keep having to say that statement.

Just to be clear in QM is framed very much like GOD it is based on assumed priors (and I am not equating the two in any way beyond that). Try asking a religious person why GOD exists it is the same as asking QM to explain anything about the universe.




The answer you seek can't be answered and never can be not even invoking GOD will solve the problem.




From a science point all we can do is take everything back to the start of our observable universe which is really no different to religion and they call their observable universe GOD.

So assuming we are staying within that time region yes speculation is interesting.




Yes I realize that but at times you repeat things I feel that we have explained like "QM doesn't answer all the questions" .... we have clearly established QM doesn't answer any questions it doesn't seek to answer any it simply predicts things. The problem is we haven't ever found a prediction QM gets wrong and it's not for lack of trying.

That's probably a fair assumption. However, as I see it, that does not necessarily mean that we cannot devise mathematical constructs that might help us to understand the nature of the Universe. Undoubtedly that is what scientists and mathematicians are striving for all the time.

If the bandying of a mixture of science, speculation, personal opinion and insults which seem to characterise this thread is anything to go by, "quot homines, tot sententiae" is still alive and well in SAGG; a situation which I applaud.

Less fortunately, there seems still to be a tendency to ignore selected "sententiae".

abundans cautela non nocet

acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt

ad meliora

semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat

Thank you Lord de Ramsey

Omnis hoc lingua Latina, vetus memorias adfert; sed,nimium vetus pro hoc stercore cresco.

I agree. As I stated before, in too many words; math is based on observation, observation is not based on math.

Believing the universe is a mathematical construct makes me think of the intelligent design concept. I don't agree with this idea, but I could see how people would find comfort in the belief.

I like thinking our known universe may just be a tiny tranquil island, in an infinite ocean of pure chaos. Imagine the self aware 'meat' sacks in the next island over, thinking they know it all too.
Just like vikings and the new world. All we need is a rickety boat, and some determined folks to make the trek. Give us a billion years or so, then maybe. Ahh, fantasies.

deos?

Google translate Bill.S it makes mistakes.

Change it to "deus" and it will make sense what Paul meant your showing off that you speak it

Google translate of your phase is funny you will get a kick

"All this, the Latin language, the old memories it brings;"

Dei, or deorum if you are a polytheist.

What did Google translate make of the second part?

but, too old for this [censored] increases

It looks as though Google translate is not to be relied on!

Nimium vetus pro hoc stercore cresco = that well known expression from the Die Hard movies: I’m getting’ too old for this ****!