A Cosmology

[Kharakov]

The axiom/premise is flawed. You can't prove that reality is real.

What is 'real?' That there is Something rather then Nothing is indisputable. It is an Absolute. It is self proving without being circular. The nature of this Something is another question.

I'm absolutely positive that Underseer is talking about space that is orthogonal to a single 0 dimensional point source BB singularity.

In other words, all space is orthogonal (imaginary axis) to the real axis of 0 dimensional space (which is time). We just treat the 3 space dimensions as 1 orthogonal imaginary axis.

Of course, the real axis, being time, is not reality, because it has both infinite and no duration at the same time, which makes its existence paradoxical, which means it doesn't exist if it does.

And even if it does exist, since it has infinite existence, it is not real, because it isn't in the set of reals. Or is infinity in the set of reals? I should probably know that before I claim something about it.

 

[George S]

The axiom/premise is flawed. You can't prove that reality is real.

What is 'real?' That there is Something rather then Nothing is indisputable. It is an Absolute. It is self proving without being circular. The nature of this Something is another question.

Let us guess at the nature of the Absolute at the big bang. The content of the universe is/was finite. A sphere in 4-space. All dimensions on equal footing, all expanding out from a center. Or it began so close to zero even qm could not distinguish one location from another. Or smaller yet as pure energy. Never reaching zero as we peer back in time. The Something rather than nothing could be a god or other creator in a higher dimension and our BB is a created object. In that case let us skip the god part and higher dimensional being part and suspect that the Something was just all the stuff (energy|matter) that we know of.

Or if we turn the model I have been using inside out the BB is at the periphery of a sphere of indeterminate size, all the energy/matter as far away as it can get. A brane that has a center and is contracting since time is running toward the center. Over time the brane gathers energy at its center until it can't get any denser and explodes in a BB... The model works both ways and is self-caused.

Philosophically the selfness of feeling human is self-caused! One becomes self-aware. We understand self-cause. We each did it. Takes a human body and human mind to be a human self. To be a self-concept of being a human being being human. Self-caused.

This inside-outside flip is a reflection through (not a rotation about) the time axis.

 

[untermensche]

Where did this thing you imagine come from?

It is called the imagination and I can't explain it.

Thanks for asking.

If you're asking where the idea came from. The math is to take a complex conjugate of a Lorentzien spacetime and apply symmetry in 4 dimensions. See the work of Sean Carroll (http://preposterousuniverse.com/self.html) which goes in similar directions was surely part of the intuition pump.

If, by "comes from" you mean the "what caused" that One at the Big Bang the answer is the same in both directions: a collapsing universe.

An imaginary collapsing universe caused what?

 

[DBT]

What is 'real?' That there is Something rather then Nothing is indisputable. It is an Absolute. It is self proving without being circular. The nature of this Something is another question.

I'm absolutely positive that Underseer is talking about space that is orthogonal to a single 0 dimensional point source BB singularity.

In other words, all space is orthogonal (imaginary axis) to the real axis of 0 dimensional space (which is time). We just treat the 3 space dimensions as 1 orthogonal imaginary axis.

Of course, the real axis, being time, is not reality, because it has both infinite and no duration at the same time, which makes its existence paradoxical, which means it doesn't exist if it does.

And even if it does exist, since it has infinite existence, it is not real, because it isn't in the set of reals. Or is infinity in the set of reals? I should probably know that before I claim something about it.

What relevance would 'space that is orthogonal to a single 0 dimensional point source BB singularity' have to the issue of Matter/Energy and Perception of Existence?

 

[Kharakov]

I'm absolutely positive that Underseer is talking about space that is orthogonal to a single 0 dimensional point source BB singularity.

In other words, all space is orthogonal (imaginary axis) to the real axis of 0 dimensional space (which is time). We just treat the 3 space dimensions as 1 orthogonal imaginary axis.

Of course, the real axis, being time, is not reality, because it has both infinite and no duration at the same time, which makes its existence paradoxical, which means it doesn't exist if it does.

And even if it does exist, since it has infinite existence, it is not real, because it isn't in the set of reals. Or is infinity in the set of reals? I should probably know that before I claim something about it.

What relevance would 'space that is orthogonal to a single 0 dimensional point source BB singularity' have to the issue of Matter/Energy and Perception of Existence?

I'm sure some correlation can be found between my joke, Underseer's, and the point you made. The point was that reality of something is not necessarily real, reality can be imaginary as well, if you are using certain terminology.

However, now that you brought up relevance....

Irrelevant field theory is an emerging branch of cosmology, with physical roots that go back to the BB singularity.

IRT depends on some form of absolute nothing existing in our 3d space prior to the existence of quantum foam or any form of ME (matter/energy). The basic tenets of irrelevant field theory include the idea that a preexisting universe provided seed structure to the spacetime of our universe, and matter and energy were added to our universe with the preexisting spacetime curvature to guide the formation of galaxies, super clusters, etc.

The preexisting spacetime curvature seeds are still present in our universe, in the form of Dark Energy And Dark Matter (DEAD Matter for short). They only interact directly with one another in the preceding universe, in other words, their EM interactions are irrelevant fields in our universe, and ours in theirs, as the only specific interactions are gravitational.

I suppose the name Irrelevant Field Theory may be a bit of a misnomer, for the fields in the preceding universe can be used to manipulate sensitive structures in our universe.

 

[Bomb#20]

A wave function isn't a one-bit variable with two possible states, certain and uncertain.

And no-one says so. So what is your problem?

I'm getting the impression that we're talking past each other. We started with this exchange:

Assumptions

1) Physics works in either time direction.

Tried uncollapsing a wave function?

Measuring speed makes location uncertain. That is "uncollapsing a wave function".

It looks like you mean something different by "uncollapsing a wave function" from what I meant. A wave function collapses when the state vector changes from a superposition of eigenstates to one (randomly selected) eigenstate. You appear to be using "uncollapse" to mean some process wherein the state vector changes from one eigenstate to a superposition of eigenstates. That's a perfectly reasonable meaning for the word; but I was using the word to mean some (hypothetical) process wherein the state vector changes from one eigenstate specifically to the original superposition of eigenstates. I was arguing with George; and a speed measurement making location uncertain isn't an example of physics working in the negative time direction.

According to Wikipedia, there are three known counterexamples to the hypothesis that physics works in either time direction.

"Time asymmetries are generally distinguished as between those intrinsic to the dynamic physical laws, those due to the initial conditions of our universe, and due to measurements

The T-asymmetry of the weak force is of the first kind,
The T-asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics is of the second kind, while
The T-asymmetry of the noninvasive measurements is of the third kind."​

George brought up CPT symmetry to deal with the first kind of asymmetry -- the irreversible aspects of the weak force go in the opposite direction if you do a left-right reversal of the experimental setup and replace every particle with its antiparticle. (And presumably his proposed negative-time parallel universe is CP reversed to make up for being T reversed.)

Likewise thermodynamics -- yes, his parallel universe has entropy decreasing with time in violation of the 2nd law, but the point of having it connect to our universe at the Big Bang is to blame the 2nd law on the circumstance that the Big Bang was an abnormally low entropy state, which means just from statistical considerations entropy can be expected to get higher and higher the further away from the origin you get. (I.e., entropy in the parallel universe is rising too, from the parallel universe's own point of view.)

So I was challenging George to deal with the third case of physics not working the same way when time is reversed: measurement collapsing the wave function.