The Mathematical Universe

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi everyone,

I came across this YouTube Video and thought I'd share it:



How many points have I made in this thread (and over the last few years) that correlate with this video? Quite a few actually.

I have a rather minor issue in how it presents Time as the Future already Existing, but otherwise.. it's not half bad. Hope you enjoy it.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[RoccoR]

Re: The Mathematical Universe
※→ Dave Oblad, et al,

Once again, you've brought us a gem... I love these QGR (Quantum Gravity Research) Videos are very great stimulus for thought.

• "All time is effecting - all the time."

One of the simplest sentences used in the video; → and I not even sure I know what it is saying. However, this little video (very well done) does go a long way in explaining how the a few of the characteristics of a Supreme Being (SB)/Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC) might work:

• Omnipresence ⇔ present in all places at all times.
• Omnipotent ⇔ the SB/UCC introduces choice - the observation brings about the reality with no external limitations.
• Omniscient ⇔ knowledge of everything; unlimited and complete.

It is a great video and packed full of both information (which we don't know what that is) and new questions.

It does suggest that time is the same everywhere and a necessary component for this crystalline (mathematical) universe (a tetrahedron).

The in Quantum Mechanics --- Gauge Symmetry and the Golden Ratio are somehow related to reality. And that consciousness formulates a "Planck Length" based code that reality in a pixelated code. The idea that these exotic particles generated in colliers (like the LHC) can transform into any other exotic particle, i interesting.

In fact, I find all the QGR Presentations extraordinarily interesting.

Having said all that,

Most Respectfully,
R

[someguy1]

Hi everyone,

I came across this YouTube Video and thought I'd share it:

Wig flipped sir!

[mitchellmckain]

One of the simplest sentences used in the video; → and I not even sure I know what it is saying. However, this little video (very well done) does go a long way in explaining how the a few of the characteristics of a Supreme Being (SB)/Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC) might work:

• Omnipresence ⇔ present in all places at all times.
• Omnipotent ⇔ the SB/UCC introduces choice - the observation brings about the reality with no external limitations.
• Omniscient ⇔ knowledge of everything; unlimited and complete.

Except that I don't think these do work.

• "Present" at a time and place means being a measurable part of the space-time structure of the physical universe. It means having a mathematical relationship to other things according to time and space. How can this possibly be of any meaning when applied to God who is not measurable as having any such mathematical relationship to other things? Therefore, this does not even begin to satisfy as a definition. What does? How can the spiritual being called God be present in all places and times without such a measurable mathematical relationship? Well, other aspects of our presence in a time and place as sentient beings include awareness of the events at that time and place and the potential for interaction with them. These are at least applicable and thus we can equate omnipresence to the awareness of events in all times and places as well as the ability to interact with those events if He so chooses.
• Omnipotent ⇔ the SB/UCC introduces choice - the observation brings about the reality with no external limitations. While this one brings up some intriguing points for clarification, some elaboration is needed and it is not quite a definition of the term. But the implication here is that omnipotence means power without external limitations and does not exclude the possibility of self-limitation and logical consistency. But I would elaborate to address particular abuses I have heard by saying that omnipotence does not mean the ability to accomplish anything by whatever means you care to dictate. Furthermore, I suggest that authentic omnipotence would also include a power over oneself to be or become whatever one chooses rather than being confined to the dictates of somebody's theological definitions of them (such as those declaring Him omnipotent and thus enslaved to the dictates of power making Him incapable of such things as sacrifices and risk).
• Omniscient ⇔ knowledge of everything; unlimited and complete. The problem here is that knowledge is a form of power and as such, omnipotence should mean having the ability to know rather than being forced to know whether one chooses so or not and thus making one incapable of things such as giving someone privacy and exercising a little faith. But if God does give someone some privacy, wouldn't that contradict omnipresence? Not necessarily. The particular privacy which I believe God gives us has to do with what we will choose before we make our choice. This is a privacy required by our freedom of will, for if God interacts with us based on a knowledge of what we will choose before we choose it, then His influence in our lives becomes absolute control and our free will vanishes. If what we will do before we do it is something known by anyone then there is no superposition of possibilities and we are reduced to nothing more than a fancy holonovel whose character's lives are already written and the whole universe becomes an inanimate object without life and consciousness.

[dandelion]

I’m not sure about the reliability of the videos, nor that “QGR” group headed by someone named Klee Irwin.

[DragonFly]

Hi everyone,

I came across this YouTube Video and thought I'd share it:



How many points have I made in this thread (and over the last few years) that correlate with this video? Quite a few actually.

I have a rather minor issue in how it presents Time as the Future already Existing, but otherwise.. it's not half bad. Hope you enjoy it.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

So, since all the particles and forces can change into the others this requires (by math?) an 8D relation/crystal, which is all possible futures already there all at once, including a Great Consciousness. Seems OK. Its shadow in 4D has tetrahedrons flipping about through observations/interactions that traverse/choose the future, although the future also pulls forward.

This is along the lines of the Eternal having to be everything, since no one, specific design could have been imparted to it.

[RoccoR]

Re: The Mathematical Universe
※→ dandelion, et al,

What's in a name?

I’m not sure about the reliability of the videos, nor that “QGR” group headed by someone named Klee Irwin.

(COMMENT)

I understand that Klee Irwin is a wealthy businessman with more than a passing interest in Physics. The Quantum Gravity Research (QGR) Center, is located (I think) upscale research park over by Mountain View (CA).

Remember, guys like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard all started in garages.

Most Respectfully,
R

[dandelion]

Rocco, I just think the video can give misleading impressions and about accepted science and quotes.

[RoccoR]

Re: The Mathematical Universe
※→ dandelion, et al,

Yes, everyone has a slant and agenda when it comes to addressing the topic; you are right, no question.

Rocco, I just think the video can give misleading impressions and about accepted science and quotes.

(COMMENT)

But when evaluating these presentations (Alternative Approaches versus Mainstream Science Approaches) - one MUST consider the blunders of the past.

Remember, Prof Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for his work on Relativity (Special or General). Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prize for his 1905 Paper on the Photo Electric Effect in 1921. BUT, even after Arthur Eddington (through Photographs taken during an eclipse -1919) demonstrated that the Einstein predictions (General Relativity and specific predictions) were accurate. Some mainstream physicists of the time thought these prediction so unlikely, that the geometry of space was altered (gravitational effect), by the proximity of matter; that a second expedition to 90 Mile Beach in Western Australia for the 1922 Eclipse → and Professor William Wallace Campbell mounts a second expedition (as well as 6 other prominent scientists). So many within the mainstream community of Theoretical Physics were very much skeptical and not willing to accept the Eddington's proof. They wanted a closure examination. Of course, the rest is history... Professor Campbell settles the matter once and for all.

But the point being is that mainstream science can be, at times, very dogmatic; unwilling to upset the apple cart of previously profound scientist like Sir Isaac Newton. But the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences never awards a second Noble Prize to Einstein for the equivalence of matter and energy (E=mc²).

Just because we might have a different agenda in the twin disciplines of "Metaphysics & Epistemolog" [concepts of and reality (ontology) and knowledge (what is the case - what can we know and how do we know it)] does not mean that we should discourage and give due consideration to the alternatives outside the mainstream. After all, can you subject M-Theory Models to the Scientific Process (is it even real science)?

Again, I appreciate your position.

Most Respectfully,
R

[dandelion]

Yes, Rocco, thanks, I don’t want to discourage thought, but think it can help to question whether notions are supported by accepted science and reliable quotes, like presentations from the Ri, etc., more likely give. If you were interested in evaluating this presentation more, as you'd know, you could do things like google some criticism, and look at the group’s page of papers published and note which on key issues have been peer-reviewed or subject to any quality threshold, citations, etc.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Dandelion,

Was Einstein's Relativity ever Peer reviewed? And had it been, do you think it would have gotten a fair review from a bunch of old men thoroughly entrenched in "Accepted" Newtonian Physics?

Why didn't Einstein ever get a Nobel Prize for his work on Relativity? I understand the necessity of Peer review.. but it comes at a price against the ever present Dogmatism in Science.

Anyway, I only posted the video because it had so many correlations to what I've been saying for a very long time. And.. it was pretty well done. (better than what I could create anyway.. lol)

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

[hyksos]

[dandelion]

Hi Dave,

Yes, it was more that the group’s positions were presented so strongly that, if taken as accomplished facts, could perhaps stifle seeing some problems and perhaps stifle interest in questioning more possibilities from what is available.

But, that was a fascinating question and I really enjoyed learning more about it. I may bore, and this is off topic, so I’m very fine with this being deleted, but wanted to share at least for now what I found. I hope the info is ok, see what you think. I guess you mean Einstein’s special relativity. It looks like special relativity was published by people rather suited to evaluating it, but I don’t know about the process back then. He seems to have had a problem with a journal sending his work to be reviewed anonymously, “Moreover, the story raises the possibility that Einstein’s gravity-wave paper with Rosen may have been his only genuine encounter with anonymous peer review” (http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/lee ... review.pdf ), and perhaps he was more used to having his work seen by people he was more able to evaluate for their suitability to evaluate his work. It may be that his work had been subject to peer review, but not subject to a system of anonymous peer review?

General relativity was published while Einstein was working as a patent clerk in 1905 in “Annalen der Physik”, which wiki refers to as the most respected journal of the time, “Annalen der Physik (English: Annals of Physics) is one of the oldest scientific journals on physics and has been published since 1799. The journal publishes original, peer-reviewed papers in the areas of experimental, theoretical, applied, and mathematical physics and related areas.” (wiki).

Before special relativity was published in 1905, Einstein had already had papers published in that journal from 1909 or 1901. Einstein was also asked to contribute reviews himself to the journal, according to this- https://www.jstor.org/stable/230013?seq ... b_contents .

In 1905 he gained his PhD and as well it was his miracle year- “The Annus mirabilis papers (from Latin annus mīrābilis, "extraordinary year") are the papers of Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four articles contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, mass, and energy“( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers )- which included publication of special relativity.

The editor of the journal from 1901-1905 was Drude, “In 1894 Drude became an extraordinarius professor at the University of Leipzig;” … “In 1900, he became the editor for the scientific journal Annalen der Physik, the most respected physics journal at that time. From 1901-1905, he was ordinarius professor of physics at Giessen University. In 1905 he became the director of the physics institute of the University of Berlin. In 1906, at the height of his career, he became a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences... ” (wiki).

One of Einstein’s earlier papers may have even contradicted some of Drude’s work, but was published. I’ve read Drude went on to cite Einstein’s special relativity paper a couple of times in his own papers prior to death, the year following publication.

Drude was assisted by Planck, the leading figure of German physics at the time, who consulted on theoretical physics for the journal, whose work Einstein’s papers extended on, and with expertise relevant to special relativity, etc. Planck went on to build on Einstein’s work and at least by 1908 was writing to Einstein asking about their interests.

“It took a few years” … “for Einstein's achievements to be fully acknowledged by the physics community. But the process started almost immediately in 1905” (Stachel). By 1908, Einstein was considered a leading physicist and appointed lecturer at the University of Bern. In 1909 Einstein was called to a chair of theoretical physics created for him at the University of Zurich, and invited lecturer at the German science annual meeting. http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html

“Despite the greater fame achieved by his other works, such as that on special relativity, it was his work on the photoelectric effect that won him his Nobel Prize in 1921: "For services to theoretical physics and especially for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." The Nobel committee had waited patiently for experimental confirmation of special relativity; however, none was forthcoming until the time dilation experiments of Ives and Stilwell (1938),[6] (1941)[7] and Rossi and Hall (1941).[8][dubious – discuss] “(wiki, the page already linked about his miracle year.)

[dandelion]

Oops, typo, I meant to write that Einstein had been published in that journal from 1900 or 1901, before it also accepted special relativity in 1905. I had read from 1901, then after posting also read from 1900, and edited unsuccessfully.

[hyksos]

(tried to mention the Hadamard Condition here. But still doing research. Too early to make a call)