How did existence come to exist & did it exist always exist?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

These interpretations do my head in, perhaps they are not real and the real time is something we can’t perceive directly, like the quantum: probabilistic, or on the other hand perhaps its just simply all there is like you say.

Travelling back in time is a strict crackpot theory in science, it has never been observed and so it is totally hypothetical.

Equations don’t forbid it but that means less than nothing. It’s entirely possible that the mathmos are full of crap. :slight_smile:

For all we know its just a matter of perspective, and there is no arrow of time.

22

Sidhe

I agree about time travel, einstiens all-time is subject to the same questions on limits etc, it is far more likely that it merely represents potentiality. We would have to say how e.g. the sun can exist now and another sun can exist a moment ago, it just illogical [string theory describes it to some degree, but has its own limits].

Perspective is after the fact, reality exists before and beyond life and human thought, I think we have to draw the reality map accordingly*. Relatively speaking it is more that there is a bunch of arrows that generally head in the same direction, so there is a single big arrow with loads going in multi-directions which the universal now moment, none actually go back in time except as relatively within that fuzzy moment. *Perhaps then, we could think of each quantum moment as having its own ‘perspective‘? [though the term is given a far wider meaning].

23

A quantum theory of time is stochastic and upsets not just scientists and philosophers, but God botherers as well. Which is why I like it. Everything is quantum even time: answers many questions about the nature of reality, and from what I’ve read its possibly testable in the next 100 years. If its proved that time is not discreet events happening in a linear fashion but a mean density of events that our brain perceives in a linear fashion, then we will know why gravity works with quantum mechanics after all and why its so hard to get it to do so without time being something else in the equation than is commonly thought, ie a dependant variable: dx/dt.

Where dt is dependant on the value of the variable dx in relativistic equations and vise-a-versa. Which is a fancy way of saying that time isn’t linear in needless maths jargon.

String theory is moribund IMHO.

Carlo Rovelli et al are where its at. :slight_smile:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli

24

Let’s take another crack at this:

Maybe existence is contingent on awareness in the same way that numbers are.

Let me put it differently. A number can not exist unless all other numbers exist. In other words, at the moment that one conceives of “four” three, two and one must also exist, as well as five, six and so on. Four can NOT exist without ALL number existing.

But do numbers even exist at all, I mean, in what way?

What Tab is saying is that when existence sprouted into being, it fanned backward and forward in time, much like if “four” sprouted into existence and thus all numbers before and after, including negatives, sprung into being. YET, do numbers really EXIST or, rather, in what MANNER do they exist, or are they just potentially existent?

Help me out here, where am I going with this? (if anywhere). It’s a mindfuck that’s for sure. Anything there guys?

25

Interesting. What is ‘dx’ and ‘dt’? I cant see that time is non-linear except in its aspectations, the overall effect of lots of tiny arrows going in all directions [all forwards] is a big arrow going forwards in linear fashion. Beyond our perceptions surely time is like this?

Time is not a physical thing no, along with most the rest of reality. However lets get down to fundamentals, you don’t have quantum in the beginning, you just have an emptiness [mass is essentially empty as is energy right?], then if we start at 0, then proceed, there is linearity. Then that time does not have a beginning we have a continuum thereof.

Picardy, I got stuff to do then I will try to help ~ sounds interesting.

26

Ok calculus lesson

calculus or differentials work on the basis that if you know one variable you can work out another from it.

For example Newton used it to derive the laws of gravity from constants and time. the time it takes something to fall is a rate, of distance (x) over time taken (t)

Thus dx/dt is the functional derivation of f(x) or sx/dt=f(x)

By using the laws of differentation for variables we can predict a value at any point on the graph by plugging in numbers.

So the simplest law is f(x)=nx^n-1 where x is a variable and n is constant.

So what is d/dx of or what is the derivative of x^2 between 0 and 2.

According to the formula its 2x ie 2x^2-1 - 0x^-1 or 2x2-0=4 and if we were talking in real world values dx/dt we could then further equate it to distance or distance over time taken it would be 4 secs and it would be related to meters. Commonly this is called rise over run or how far something increases over time x on the vertical axis and t on the horizontal.

What does this mean? it means t is dependant on x to the formula nxn^-1. And we can use that to predict change in time or change in position or change in any variable given any dependant variable.

so speed=distance/time or s=dx/dt

There we go. Now if there is a solution to the equation then it is called a differential and it is defined. If not then we have to rely on non calculus or approximations to calculus. We can also work out things like how much fuel a space ship would use given certain parameters, which would be an integral of dx/dt or the area under a graphs line or the differential where the total area of fuel=0 at time t. an integral and a differential are inverses of each other, so applying the rules of differentiation to an integral would take us back to the original value of x and then again called a second order differential would give us the first order derivative of x. If there is no solution and there often isn’t then again you can’t derive it from calculus and Newton gets angry. That’s where QM comes in though because you can unify the nice little equations in special relativity with quantum mechanics but not general relativity because there aren’t discreet solutions to certain problems in the field model partly because general relativity is not absolutely discrete to position like special relativity is. So it sometimes breaks the line of the graph, and when that happens we say it is non linear, and we usually just got an infinity fired back at us, or a logically inconsistent value. Gravity works on some slightly odd variables that are derived from cosh and sinh and are non euclidean geometry, that is to say there are either more or less than 180o in a triangle, unlike in flat space where it is always 180o and Pythagoras’s theorem is entirely constant. It’s these that can break space, and these that lead eventually to the idea that space and time and gravity don’t go together with each other at the level of the quantum unless we explain one of the dependant parameters in a novel way, thus stochastic time.

27

Ok thanks for the science lesson, :slight_smile: my brother is the physacist of the family and hence has the relative genetic disposition to such things ~ I don’t. :stuck_out_tongue: Perhaps as math is abstract, then non abstract realities [i.e. reality] don’t always go by it, hence the math is a best fit solution. One has to wonder if it simply isn’t flexible enough, I certainly don’t see how we can explain the fundamental natures and reality map with it.

28

No ones ever found any solutions to some things in the theory of fields and general relativity. But of course maths is abstract but in physics most values found are extremely accurate so if that is the case they accept that the formula is close enough to reality to call it theoretical. Of course you have to run an experiment to establish this, unless you are a string theorist then its likely to remain always totally removed from experiment, or so it seems. They don’t like experiments much.

A definite integral is an exact value, an indefinite integral is one that is totally formulaic and has no exact digital value, in that case its an abstraction only and a general rule for all values of x,y,t etc. And for everything else we fudge it by approximating it with ever thinner strips of the curve of the graph, which is why a derivative is related to an integral because one is the graphs line the other the area bound by that line. Of course its nice to have a volume model but not always necessary. For example you can work out the volume of a sphere from a triple integral of a circle. You could have 4D or 21 if you want to get silly but my limit is 3 atm. :open_mouth:

29

Sure thing. :slight_smile: May I ask if there is a single example of an absolute value? …and while sure you can derive the equation for a sphere from a triple integral of a circle, yet in real terms there are no examples of perfect circles nor spheres ~ or so I am led to believe.

So how do we apply math to questions about the reality map, surely it only answers approximations of existent things, do we not have to go beyond the universe in order to define its environment ~ and how it came into being or does exist?

30

That’s easy to answer pi is an irrational number (ie it is impossible to define as an exact number) so it’s an approximation and so is its absolute value indeterminate, equations like this they sometimes call transcendental because they are beyond what we can know precisely we put pi in as an approximation and so we get an exact value of a sphere to x decimal places where x is finite at the limit of finite numbers. e is another example of a transcendental number a sub class of irrational numbers.

In maths absolute just means its distance from 0 positive or negative so all whole numbers have absolutes and all are positive.

abs|-1|=1

Think about it though if a sphere contains x amount of water to 300 decimal places, does anyone practically care if that is not precise since that’s below a threshold where its for all intents an purpose indistinguishable from the abstract exact valuable in the real world. We can’t really divide it up in a graph to smaller real values, we’re through the quantum and into the purely abstract realm of size.
You might of used this term abs in a computer program to get rid of negatives.

31

In philosophy surely absolute means just that without exception, if we said there is one god or one reality, we don’t mean that it is almost a whole god or reality ~ near enough to say it is. Hence when we talk about absolutes we should go by the absolute meaning of the term. If we do not we are just agreeing with sciences approximations and will get no further to the truth than they will, philosophy has to be something other than science whilst listening to it. Or perhaps we could say that the sciences are largely kinds of philosophies, but there are other kinds too.

For example, when we try to define infinity in science we could think of it as an absolute and a number, in philosophy would we not say that giving it such a value [or any value] is to give it a limit when we have first defines infinity as unlimited. Science/math would consider an infinite set 1,2,3,…. As an imagined set that is just there, we can then add other infinite sets [injectives etc] to that, but I would ask if it is even plausible to construct a set of integers [limits] into an infinity, and thence to add further infinities to it.

If I remember correctly much of this kind of maths has its origins in the hindu philosophy; ‘you can take an infinity and make another leaving an infinity behind’ hmm or is it this; ‘you can take one infinity from another and an infinity is left remaining’, anyway the point is that the two ways of thinking produce a very different way of drawing the reality map. With the mathematical and hindu version, we can keep adding hypothetical universes, or we can stretch this one into infinity yet keep it finite, It all works a bit like an elastic slide rule. With the philosophical way you cannot ‘play with infinities’, you just have one, and so as like in the op the supposition is that the past cannot be infinite, we have to conclude that nor can the future be so. This is an idea, time can either exist or not exist, the fact is that something has to stretch to the length and breadth of reality and we have to map that out accordingly. We cannot imagine that the universe encompasses the whole unless it has an infinite base, more importantly, we cannot imagine that somehow the universe is kinda just sat there, and there is nothing surrounding it, and it just popped into existence for no reason at all and has no environment.

In other words, the reality map has to make sense, if math doesn’t describe it then it is not valid to use it to do so. If math does describe it then we have to show how? …and no amount of geometry is going to do that as all the shapes all have limits, beyond which must be something even if an infinite emptiness.

So lets get down to simple fundamentals; what is your measurement system going to be?
:slight_smile:

32

Lets start with something simple; how many universes are there?

33

Pi. :wink:

34

If you don’t mind I’d like to take more than a few hours to think about what you’ve said, and I’ll report back tomorrow, so as to avoid being silly and just saying something like pi.

I will say this though your thoughts aren’t unique have you read this:

EDIT:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph-null

Cantor formalised the idea of infinite infinities, the set had to contain at least one infinity but was not confined to being just one infinity.

35

What; 3.14159…

This leaves an infinite amount remaining [as infinity is not reached]. :slight_smile:

edit;

sure please do so, this could be fun.

36

Sorry I reread what you said and edited. My bad.

37

No problem. :slight_smile: Cardinality is where its at, as concerns my antithesis to set theory.

38

39

I read “the book of nothing” a while back - made some notes about it on my blog. Hang on.

The bit in bold is the important bit. ie - we’re doing all our maths, and thinking in general, in little lagoons of standardized universe amid great oceans of crumpled, non-homogenous, anything-goes universe. Sure, the laws of physics shouldn’t just fall over and die in such regions, but - and it’s a great fucking big ‘but’ - in those regions may exist complexities that are able to support further emergent properties and phenomena that we’ve never seen, and probably never will - but if any of the effects of those ‘localized’ FUBAR’s propagate at somehow faster than lightspeed, then we’ll feel them.

Perhaps, maybe etc. I call it the “Here be monsters” theory.

40

I have idea what that website was trying to express.

This is the second time that I have come across the phrase Godbotherers (and both in the same day) and both from pommy bastards… :smiley:

I am not so smart and so will try to give my input in a dumbed down way.
Let us define:
Existence = (+1)
Non-Existence = 0
Anti-Existence = (-1)

Then we can conclude that
(+1) = (+1) + 0
0 = (+1) + (-1)
0 = 0 + 0
(+1) = (+1) x (+1)
(-1) = (+1) x (-1)
0 = (+1) x 0
0 = (-1) x 0
0 = 0 + 0

Infinity can be described as:
+Infinity = (+1) / 0
-Infinity = (-1) / 0

The question then comes down to: can Infinity exist if it is formulated from non-existence?
I would say the answer is !

A different way of thinking about infinity would be to assume a continuum, e.g. t = t + delta (where delta is very very small)

Here, t is dependent upon an incremented previous t.
The previous t no longer exists as it has been replaced by the current t.

A continuum occurs when the creation of one thing is dependent upon the destruction of another thing (e.g. today exists as yesterday ceased to exist).
In actual reality the creation of one thing equates to the destruction of that same thing - without any abrupt changes in the state of that thing (a smooth transition).

Continuums are both sound principles when using philosophy or physics.