simple
Right, more than the things that you said people were brain bleeding over
Yes but if you recall I was responding to this statement of yours
The question remains, however, what is the 'universe'? Is it just time and space, and what we have discovered, or is there more?
I was sensing,perhaps wrongly, that you were hand-waving aside the vast amount of understanding that is present in science concerning the boundaries of knowledge. that there is more to what people are bleeding brain cells over is just additional effort on the part of real thinkers.
I'll ask you as well, do you know what time is exactly? If not, there goes one of the two. In the veiw of some scientists, even the space bit needs to go, so whats that leave you?
That depends on what level of knowledge you are willing to acquire.
Time is simply a measure of a property of the universe. It is a dimension ,one among others that define the
structure of that in which we find ourselves.
Now this
is an exact accounting of what time is.However,there are subtleties that are at first not apparent but further study only reveals the details of the structure not a different nature of what time is.
Now,I will not argue the "view of some scientists" because you have not presented to me either their names nor,at least,their arguement that I might understand what this means.
"Most perplexing of all, spin nets and spin foam cannot be thought of as existing in space and time. They reside on a more fundamental level, as a deep structure that underlies and gives rise to space-time.
Certainly. That there is a deeper level is understood in science. The mathematics of quantum field theory required that there be a vacuum energy in order for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to operate. There is,if you were to remove all matter and forces from the universe a "virtual" background of particles that flit into and out of existence continuously and constitute an enormous energy "potential". However because these particles exist for less than the Planck time they do not interact as such with our world. however the energy is measureable underthe proper conditions. This energy is
extraordinary. A cubic meter of this zero point energy is capable of boiling the oceans of Earth.
As for you energy, I think it was you who gave simple the link that admitted it also is not known what it really is. Add gravity to the list, although some claim they know, in the elite higher knowledge of advanced math, but it would take years to explain! With all these limits to our actual knowledge, I think that those who portray a high priest attitude, and pretense of knowing everything (not that you do) should be taken to task, and knocked down a few pegs. I never sensed that attitude much from einstein, or Feynman, or many others, but some, on this forum wreak of it. Yet, would likely be the first to decry things like the unseen forces on earth at work and known by most men since time began. Making a few thousand loaves and fishes from a couple little loafs, and a fish are taboo, but making a universe from nothing, and expanding from less than the size of a proton, to a grapefruit in a fraction of a billionth of a second is science.
Energy is not known because the nature of it is purely mathematical and gives no hint of the mechanism by which it manifests itself. Gravity is well known because we can study the force of gravity and tie it to the structure of the universe. It is intimately tied in with the geometry of the universe and these things are well known in that we can make predictions of what it should do under given conditions and these predictions have always matched observed phenomena when we get the model correctly.
You also must understand the level of confidence that is portrayed within the mathematics and how the understanding we have of the fundemental forces allow us to say with what may appear to be "high priest" attitude {which I am sure does actually go on in some people} that certain things like walking on water or making more food from a given limited amount are not possible.
Like Martin Gardners carpenter puzzle when you understand the answer you immediately realize that there can be NO OTHER solution to the condition observed.
Evidence of what kind? The kind you could practice math on? The kind you could fit in a tube? Surely you have heard there have been evidences of more than the natural among most people on earth? Besides, I could give yo evidence of energy, time gravity, etc., does this mean you can explain it?
Evidence that can be replicated and experimented upon to determine that it is an actual phenomena and not the all too human propensity for error. As Feynman once said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
This is why logic and math and careful reasoning are needed to winnow out the actual from the plausible,from the border line, from the mistakes,from the experimental errors,from the statistically insignificant, from the delusional,from the absurd,from the lies,from the attention seeking and from the impossible.
Feynamn also said that "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "
Good, you admit that there is a restriction of understanding. As for any new physics, we really don't know if or what they will be, replace, or cause a rethink to anyhow. I wouldn't hold my breath
Restrictions of understanding nowadays is in the details and not in the general overview.The replacement of "old physics" with new alters only our way of looking at things which is artificial anyways. However, the phenomena themselves are what they are and follow rules regardless. These rules do not change as we study them deeper but are refined to reveal the next layer which also follows the rules of the higher level but add complementary rules that govern their level.
How would you know? Get by the restrictive bottlenecks, and get a grip on the core concepts. like time, and then maybe you can tell us something. It would be better to say something like 'our current understanding, or lack therof, of nature, indicates it is so complicated, it would take years to explain, and it could,'t be in english anyhow'.
The problem here is that you are not communicating to US what it is that we are failing to explain to YOU. If you do not know the question you are trying to ask how can you expect us to know an answer or to even postulate one. What is it that you do not understand that science is failing to give you reasonable means by which to inquire on your own?
So have you found the it that took nothing and produced the hot soup that gave us our universe?? Have you found the real nature and cause of many forces, like time, etc? Have you determined the finiteness or not of the universe, or many other things? Yet, what, you think you can turn around, and tell us that say, ghosts are not real? What even is 'real'? A universe from nothing is real, but something like non physical entities seen actually by millions are not real? Why, because you can't touch them? Can you touch a quark, or a Plackt unit?
But that is the point of the investigation and discovery. We find that "nothing" is different from our intuition about nothing, the vacuum energy of the universe which science has revealed
is nothing and as a consequence the universe has a underlying structure that is different from the physical world we occupy.The world is subtle and requires that we give up our pre-concieved notions about it that we form through our senses because they are quite simply inadequate for understanding the real workings of the world.
Yes we have a good understanding of the interrelationships of many things and no we do not understand it all but what we do understand precludes the possibility of things like ghosts as ghost stories present themselves to us. Look ,a ghost that appears to a person,if it is real, is interacting with the structure of the eye which means it is using the electromagnetic force to produce the light which the structure of the eye physically responds to. That "light" can be measured and verified and recorded and we never find this to be the case do we?
I see no evidence that there is nothing else besides a physical universe at all, do you? If there is, we haven't scratched the surface of what wonders we may yet explore, somewhere, over the rainbow.
I see no evidence against invisible,immaterial things forever beyond our investigation? We can conjecture on that all we want but it cannot ever interact with us for then it would become physical with all the attendent restrictions and evidence.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2005-10-23 10:14 PM
But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
™ Version 4.2
