Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
82 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (6 members, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,276 Year: 4,388/6,534 Month: 602/900 Week: 126/182 Day: 6/27 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 327 (457814)
02-25-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
02-25-2008 5:11 PM


The point is not the lingo, but the fact these "principles" have no matter or energy, and yet have the ability to give rise to matter and energy.

Your cells have no brain or heart, yet they have the ability to give rise to brains and hearts.

So what?

Haven't you ever heard of emergent properties?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 5:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 17 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 5:45 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 327 (457823)
02-25-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-25-2008 5:29 PM


Catholic, it's a little deeper than that.

Actually, I think it is deeper than the depth that you think it is.

Cells actually consist of physical properties. What cavediver is saying when he says it consists of "nothing" is that it consists of no matter or energy (defined by physics).

If energy/matter is an emergent property of the field, then what's the problem?

Personally, I question stating a field has no energy even if it is a field that has no matter but I recognize what that's problematic for physics (definition of energy must contain matter).

Think of it as energy being an emergent property of a quantum field. Then the field, itself, doesn't need to have energy.

But whatever this consists of, it does give rise to matter. Imo, this is worth thinking about. My word for "nothing" is "immaterial."

Immaterial, to me, means that it just lacks mass.

Light is immaterial, but it isn't nothing.

It's not nothing because we see it's effects and it can be described mathematically but since it has no matter, it is an immaterial something.

Well, if you want to use the word 'immaterial', then go right ahead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 5:29 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 5:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 327 (457826)
02-25-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
02-25-2008 5:55 PM


There is no problem. Just pointing out the "field" as you say has no energy or matter. Energy and matter originate from an immaterial state.

So what?

Light is not immaterial. Maybe you aren't getting the concept here?

Maybe not. Please enlighten me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 5:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 6:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 327 (457839)
02-25-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
02-25-2008 6:20 PM


Light consists of photons. Photons are particles and have energy.

What I said in Message 18 is:

quote:
Immaterial, to me, means that it just lacks mass.

Light is immaterial, but it isn't nothing.


What I was saying is that light doesn't have (rest) mass so by some definitions it can be called immaterial. Its a small point, but I think that is a better definition than immaterial means "nothing".

quote:
immaterial

adjective
1. of no importance or relevance especially to a law case; "an objection that is immaterial after the fact" [ant: material]
2. without material form or substance; "an incorporeal spirit" [syn: incorporeal] [ant: corporeal]
3. not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities" [ant: material]
4. not pertinent to the matter under consideration; "an issue extraneous to the debate"; "the price was immaterial"; "mentioned several impertinent facts before finally coming to the point" [syn: extraneous]
5. (often followed by 'to') lacking importance; not mattering one way or the other; "whether you choose to do it or not is a matter that is quite immaterial (or indifferent)"; "what others think is altogether indifferent to him"

From here.


We were talking of what gives rise to particles, mass and energy, not emergent properties after that occurs.

And what gives rise to particles, mass and energy is not made up of particles, mass and energy. They come from quantum fields.

Like I was originally saying, you could think of particles, mass and energy as emergent properties of the quantum field.

My position is both veracious and consistent, so can we move forward now?

Where we left off was me asking:

quote:
There is no problem. Just pointing out the "field" as you say has no energy or matter. Energy and matter originate from an immaterial state.

So what?



This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 02-25-2008 6:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 327 (457910)
02-26-2008 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
02-26-2008 12:19 AM


So what in your view does the quantum field consist of?

I don't think that it "consists" of "stuff". It is pre-stuffs.

It is a very complicated field and I don't feel capable of explaining it to you.

How much do you know about fields?
Do you know Calculus?
What about Algebraic Geometry?

Somebody can't just come in here and say: "The quantum field consists of blah blah blah...."

You have to understand the math and some pretty difficult concepts to begin to understand, or spout, the descriptions of what a quantum field is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:19 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 10:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 327 (457911)
02-26-2008 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Calypso
02-26-2008 1:41 AM


I'm paraphrasing but this would mean mass does warp space. So is this not correct?

A tidal wave is a warp in the ocean, so does the ocean warp waves?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Calypso, posted 02-26-2008 1:41 AM Calypso has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 327 (457924)
02-26-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
02-26-2008 10:50 AM


What in your view does red smell like?


It's a question to see what you think, not seeking an explanation for myself.

I don't think the quantum field consists of anything. Although, I don't mean to imply that it is an absense of anything. Its a field with a shit-load of degrees of freedom. Its not like I can describe it in a visual sense. And I'm not even that sure that I understand it all that well.

And in reality, you don't have to understand the math to understand and discuss this point.

Actually, you kinda do. Otherwise, it'd be like trying to describe what red smells like to someone who is colorblind.

You have to understand the math to understand how it works, but that it is there and works doesn't take math.

Huh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 10:50 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 327 (457932)
02-26-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
02-26-2008 12:24 PM



The point is that it has neither mass, nor energy (from a physics perspective), right?

It is immaterial in that sense, right?

To use your analogy, a blind person can accept that red is a color whether he visualizes it or not.

Sure, we've already covered this.

So what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 327 (457935)
02-26-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by randman
02-26-2008 12:36 PM


So the universe is first and fundamentally immaterial with the material aspects of the universe being a derived quality, right?

Sure, continue.

Just make your argument without all the reassurance, please.

But, what is a "derived quality"? I think "emergent property" is a better way to describe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:36 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 327 (457937)
02-26-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by randman
02-26-2008 12:43 PM


We live in a immaterial universe at it's most fundamental level.

Its deterministic at that level too.

I just think it's interesting that physics shows all energy and matter are derived or emerge from an immaterial state with no mass or energy.

I dunno, lots of things have emergent properties. I don't find it all that "interesting", at least, not any more than other things.

Like I said first, cells don't have brains are hearts yet they can form brains and hearts. Don't you find that just as interesting and energy/mass emerging from non-energy/mass?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 12:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 2:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 327 (457954)
02-26-2008 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
02-26-2008 2:16 PM


but is there any scientific evidence that the universe is deterministic?

I'd bet that there is, but I don't have anything to present here.

think it's a major discovery, qualitatively different than mechanistic emergent processes since here energy and mass stem from an informational design/principle or perhaps just calling it "X" is what we need to do for this forum.

It doesn't suggest that energy and mass "stem from an informational design/principle" though. Basically, you're just seeing what you want to see.

When in doubt, assume god :rolleyes:

Look, there's a field with a shit-load of degrees of freedom that when warped takes the form of energy/matter. There's no information design/priciple in that, its just the way things are.

Do you also see design in the way that red smells?

Exactly how energy and matter appear from "X" which is absent energy and matter has to one of the great mysteries of modern physics, but we can say it happens.

I'm not even sure that its that big of a mystery. The problem isn't in how energy and mass appear, but in unifying everything in to one quantized field(s).

Cells are physical and so the idea that physical parts make up more physical parts is a non-starter.

The point of that analogy is to show you that its not the unique of a thing, its not that big of a deal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 2:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 327 (457959)
02-26-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
02-26-2008 2:48 PM


Huh? Then what the heck does it stem from? Nothing?

No, they stem from warps in the quantum field.

The fact is we are dealing with something, and that something contains specific information that directs the production of matter and energy.

Nah, I don't think its really specific informations and it also isn't directing anything.

If I drop a hammer it falls to the ground. There is no 'specific information' that 'directs' the hammer to fall.

Call it what you want, but it seems more you are not seeing what you don't want to see.

I know you are but what am I? :rolleyes:

If it behaves in any predictable manner at all, it has a design or whatever you wish to call it. It consists of ordered information at a minimum.

But that is where you're wrong. I can predict that the hammer will fall without any design needed whatsoever.

but the Pavlovian response to the word "design" is weird.

Its all your fault. Whenever "you guys" smell any hint of design, you take it and run with it and make all these outrageous claims. I have to reply to you differently than other people. I have to be careful so you don't start running.

It's ordered information.

But its not. That is what you WANT to see, so that is what you are seeing.

but the point is that it has no energy and mass and contains specific order and information, and from that we see mass and energy arise

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't start running.

What makes you think it contains specific order and information?

Where did you get that from? Are you sure your not just making stuff up?

It's no mystery that energy and mass are created or arise from nothing, at least nothing physical?

Not any more.

It is a pretty big deal to discover that the universe is fundamentally non-physical.

I learned in frickin' grade school that the majority of our desks was empty space. It was a pretty big deal.

But really, its not.

The same goes with this "fundamentally non-physical" emergence of energy/matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 02-26-2008 2:48 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-27-2008 2:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 327 (458111)
02-27-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
02-27-2008 2:23 AM


Without gravity, the hammer doesn't fall to the ground. The specific information within the force of gravity is at play.

You're butchering what it means to be information so you can conflate it with being designed :rolleyes: There is no specific information within gravity. But whatever, I don't care to waste time on this anymore. Besides, I don't want to get Moosed...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-27-2008 2:23 AM randman has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 327 (459049)
03-03-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object
03-02-2008 6:42 PM


We know that anyone can prove anything with numbers.

:rolleyes:

Then, with numbers, prove God exists :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-02-2008 6:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action
 Message 100 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-03-2008 5:26 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 327 (459865)
03-10-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
03-10-2008 10:53 AM


Re: Space-time
Wow, I've been away from awhile and you are still asking this nonsense question:

If Space-time was not created, where did it come from?

:laugh:

From? It has existed for all of time, it can't come from....

What is this, like, the 100th time you've told this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 03-10-2008 10:53 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022