Space?

[cho_pilo]

Cho
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. One of the reason I presented my thesis - which I have expended 15+ years of study and effort - to this forum was to elicit informed opinions. I desired to know whether or not the thesis I arrived at was meaningful to others or was merely nonsense. I am pleased to be engaged in what to me is a very fruitful discussion with several respondents that have given my thesis an interest that leads me to believe that it has some meaning at least to those that profess a belief in God. I have no idea whether or not your "It’s complicated " religion includes belief in God or not, but if it doesn’t you are the first non-believer to comment on my thesis as presented in this thread or my own , “God Exists, But How”. And that intrigues me!

You see, your "“completely absurd” and “nonsense” comments could be valuable to me if you could take the time to explain to me exactly why they are absurd and nonsensical. Unless you can offer a “why” you are merely hand-waving.

You’re suggesting that it is me who is doing the hand-waving? That’s beyond ridiculous in view of your own entirely speculative assertions in this thread.

I can only presume that you wrote those comments because my thesis in not “consistent with observations” as you imply that the “foam of quantum action” is. Please enlighten me, what observations have verified the “foam” is scientifically real and not mere speculation?

Well, the force that keeps an electron in orbit around a nucleus is mediated by virtual photons. That’s an easy one. Further, we’ve also detected W and Z bosons (weak force) using particle accelerators. How long do you think it will be before we have enough evidence to declare every force carrying particle a real physical phenomenon? It all kinda points in one direction, doesn’t it? That even at the smallest scales, space is never void of physical activity.

I happen to love science (I have a B.S. and M.S. in Physics and have done extensive reading in the subject); and I believe that “the foam of quantum action” is a “plausible explanation” for what current physics observes. My point is that the only plausible explanation for the “nature” of the quantum foam is that it is a manifestation of a deeper nature of space, namely that the space that is the substance of objective reality is discrete. That may not be acceptable science, but it just might be the truth.

The only plausible explanation? Are you kidding? The idea that space itself is a manifestation of energy; a physical substance itself, is just as plausible, at the very least.

Cho:

You might start with explaining what that stuff is that separates an electron from other electrons, and from the nucleus, of an atom. One-dimensional strings, perhaps?

God bless,
jd

Why not? String theory is a hell of a lot more impressive than any of the wild speculation you’re engaging in here.

It’s not a conundrum to me,

So you’ve successfully dealt with the problem of causal interaction then? You’ve explained the mechanism involved in an interaction between a immaterial and material reality? I must have missed that.

since I have a complete thesis that plausibly explains how reality has a spiritual component.
Yppop

You can’t provide a plausible explanation for the existence of something you can’t define, because if you can’t define it it’s impossible to determine if any evidence, physical or otherwise, pertains to it. Could you please summarize here your plausible explanations?

 

[Jaaanosik]

You’re suggesting that it is me who is doing the hand-waving? That’s beyond ridiculous in view of your own entirely speculative assertions in this thread.

Well, the force that keeps an electron in orbit around a nucleus is mediated by virtual photons. That’s an easy one. Further, we’ve also detected W and Z bosons (weak force) using particle accelerators. How long do you think it will be before we have enough evidence to declare every force carrying particle a real physical phenomenon? It all kinda points in one direction, doesn’t it? That even at the smallest scales, space is never void of physical activity.

The only plausible explanation? Are you kidding? The idea that space itself is a manifestation of energy; a physical substance itself, is just as plausible, at the very least.

Why not? String theory is a hell of a lot more impressive than any of the wild speculation you’re engaging in here.

So you’ve successfully dealt with the problem of causal interaction then? You’ve explained the mechanism involved in an interaction between a immaterial and material reality? I must have missed that.

You can’t provide a plausible explanation for the existence of something you can’t define, because if you can’t define it it’s impossible to determine if any evidence, physical or otherwise, pertains to it. Could you please summarize here your plausible explanations?

Cho Pilo,
Please, check the assumptions (starting points) of the thesis.
If you don’t like them and you dismiss them then it’s your choice and you can move on.
The thesis has a value to other people and it will exist regardless of your opinion,
Jano

 

[yppop]

Cho
Before a person labels an idea as nonsense or absurd, it is expected that the idea is understood. Obviously you haven’t taken the time to understand what I am suggesting. If you had, you would understand that I have no trouble with the idea of the quantum foam or the virtual particles of which it supposedly is composed, in fact, I consider them as supportive observations for the basic premise of my thesis that space is discrete and not continuous. To avoid conflict with scientific observations, my thesis describes a plausible way that objective reality is generated at the ground of reality. I borrow Bohm’s terminology to call what happens at the ground of reality, the implicate view, and what science describes at an experiential level as the explicate view. In describing reality from a dual viewpoint, I am able to present a plausible scheme for how God works while still keeping science’s descriptions intact.

Yes, I do believe that what science describes is plausible, in fact, I would concede that science’s descriptions, because they are derived from our direct experience of reality, might be “more plausible” than the plausible scenario I propose happens at the deeper level of reality - one that is beyond our direct experience.

I contend that discrete space is the substance from which all the matter and energy is derived; matter is nothing more than configurations of discrete points and energy is nothing more than the motion of such configurations (ponderable energy) or of vibrational motion of the discrete space itself (radiant energy). This idea then allows me to fill the gaps, that are inherent between the points of discrete discrete space, with continuous space, which is the spiritual component of reality.

This dual structure of reality, allows me to describe a mechanism, which allows the spiritual to form the material and cause the motion that is manifested at the explicate level as energy and time. I will not bother to describe the mechanism that I’ve already described in this forum. I don’t want to waste anymore of my time in repeating it to you; because you apparently will not accept it as anything other than nonsense. That is okay with me, and I will continue to post in response to others that find that my thesis may have some meaning. I prefer not to engage in discussions at the explicate level.

I am not arguing science; this is a philosophy forum and what I am presenting is metaphysical. Hence there should be no problem for an open-minded person to discuss the possibility of space being discrete and the consequent implications thereof.
Yppop

 

[MindOverMatter2]

virtual space.

 

[cho_pilo]

Cho Pilo,
Please, check the assumptions (starting points) of the thesis.
If you don’t like them and you dismiss them then it’s your choice and you can move on.
The thesis has a value to other people and it will exist regardless of your opinion,
Jano

Please summarize the assumptions of the said thesis here. Could you please describe the mechanism yppop was saying? (I don’t want to have to read the whole long thread).
If they are really plausible explanations, I’ll accept them.

 

[cho_pilo]

I am not arguing science; this is a philosophy forum and what I am presenting is metaphysical. Hence there should be no problem for an open-minded person to discuss the possibility of space being discrete and the consequent implications thereof.
Yppop

I very often ponder upon the fundamental nature of reality myself, and it’s common for me to find myself engaged in the construction of all manner of fantastic metaphysical structures that are well beyond anything science has to say. I’m quite certain that every single one of them is probably way off the mark, but I enjoy the process anyway. For me, metaphysics is the inevitable result of my enthusiasm for science. I want to know more than we currently know, so I naturally find myself imagining what that more might be.

It might surprise you to know that I think about the concept of God all the time. I always have. In fact if you strip all the religious and anthropomorphic BS away from the idea, I become agnostic rather than atheistic with respect to it. So when I encounter someone who, like me, is interested in exploring such an idea in a purely philosophical sense, I’m happy to dive right into the deep end and entertain all manner of outlandish scenarios. Please summarize your arguments/plausible explanations of “How does God exist” here.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Please summarize the assumptions of the said thesis here. Could you please describe the mechanism yppop was saying? (I don’t want to have to read the whole long thread).
If they are really plausible explanations, I’ll accept them.

The post #151 is a good recap of the assumptions. If you are serious then you should read the whole thread.

 

[yppop]

I very often ponder upon the fundamental nature of reality myself, and it’s common for me to find myself engaged in the construction of all manner of fantastic metaphysical structures that are well beyond anything science has to say. I’m quite certain that every single one of them is probably way off the mark, but I enjoy the process anyway. For me, metaphysics is the inevitable result of my enthusiasm for science. I want to know more than we currently know, so I naturally find myself imagining what that more might be.

It might surprise you to know that I think about the concept of God all the time. I always have. In fact if you strip all the religious and anthropomorphic BS away from the idea, I become agnostic rather than atheistic with respect to it. So when I encounter someone who, like me, is interested in exploring such an idea in a purely philosophical sense, I’m happy to dive right into the deep end and entertain all manner of outlandish scenarios. Please summarize your arguments/plausible explanations of “How does God exist” here.

Cho,
Ah! A meeting of minds, a truly rare event. Let’s see if we can accomplish that. I have a thesis, you have an open mind. Could you address my thesis from the metaphysical point of view and give an informed opinion? I think maybe you can if you make an honest effort (open-minded) attempt at understanding what I am presenting. I do not require acceptance, merely understanding. Once you demonstrate that, you can if you so desire label it nonsense. I do not rule that out. I will believe in God in any event; there are other reasons for my doing so. I will also remain a devout Catholic for another different set of reasons. Nevertheless I welcome your informed opinion and I believe that my thesis can have some meaning for anyone that believes there is a spiritual component to reality.

Jano recommends reading #151 for a good list of assumptions. What I am proposing there is a rehash of what I have already proposed, so if you’re interested, stick with us as I present the main ideas contained in the thesis.

The basic premise is: God exists! Metaphysically I treat it as an assumption, while “faithfully” I belief it is true. But let us stick with the metaphysical.

The second idea presented in #151 is the idea of an imlicate/ explicate level of reality. Simply: science describes at the explicate level what God creates at an implicate level.

No one can know God’s mind, but he gave us the tools to contemplate His presence, so my aim is not to unveil the truth, but merely to devise a plausible description of reality at an implicate level. Stick with it as long as you want and perhaps you will find something meaningful and useful to your own view of reality.

Yppop

 

[cho_pilo]

Any comments? If not next post will argue how duality arises from “space” to form a dual reality.

Initial comment - If you look at some Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, the problems you are trying to work out (such as the problem of causation between the physical and the non-physical) are already given solutions in those scriptures.

 

[cho_pilo]

Could you address my thesis from the metaphysical point of view and give an informed opinion? I think maybe you can if you make an honest effort (open-minded) attempt at understanding what I am presenting. I do not require acceptance, merely understanding. Once you demonstrate that, you can if you so desire label it nonsense.

I can see the picture you are trying to paint quite clearly. I mean, it’s not as if you have introduced any ideas that are particularly philosophically sophisticated. This is primarily because you haven’t even attempted to actually define what a ‘spiritual substance’ is, nor have you attempted to address the basic problem of causal interaction. In fact so far your ‘spiritual substance’ is effectively synonymous with nothingness in terms of the properties you’ve assigned to it (none).

So, let’s see. Physical reality, which is quantized, is ‘immersed’ in an unphysical reality, which is not, and physical reality is ultimately a different manifestation of unphysical reality. That’s essentially what you’re saying, and it’s really nothing new. Who hasn’t, at some point, considered the idea that physical reality ‘emanates’ from God somehow, or at least that it was at some point ‘emanated’. The details might change, but such ideas seem to have been around since the beginning of recorded history, and no doubt long before.

I could critique your particular ‘model’ in several ways, but I have a strong position in sticking with my original response, which is that there is no evidence that physical reality is ‘immersed’ in anything. You gave yourself away earlier when you focused on the question of what it is that exists between subatomic particles which tells me that, initially at least, you were thinking that that was where some sort of unphysical reality could be located. But since then you seem to have adjusted your position and now seem happy to concede that this is probably not the case. So in a way that is analogous to the manner in which the probable location of God has been pushed further and further into the unknown by science, you are now forced to try to situate this unphysical reality at even smaller scales. In fact I would imagine that even if you were to embrace something like string theory as a true description of the nature of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, you’d still be asking questions like “what reality are these tiny little oscillating quanta a energy oscillating within?” thereby ignoring the very real possibility that they are the very fabric of reality itself. I would further imagine that you might also suggest that there is still ‘space’ between strings, failing to realize that even though we can pin down the location of a string (if indeed a string is what a particle is), concepts like ‘location’ don’t mean much when the quantum world is left to it’s own devices, and that no-one is saying that they are spherical and therefore unable to completely fill ‘space’.

Further, there is also the possibility that the most fundamental component of reality is actually a field rather than a particle, and that particles are simply the excitation of fields, as described by quantum field theory in general. This would mean that the underlying structure of reality isn’t actually necessarily quantized at all, but merely appears to be.

My overarching point here is that science is not without voice when it comes to metaphysics. What you’ve done here, instead of being the result of trying to fix a legitimate flaw that you’ve discovered in existing theoretical models, is to posit the existence of an extraneous reality and then try to patch it in, thereby actually creating problems yourself in the process. I’m sorry, but I really wouldn’t use the word ‘plausible’ to describe something like that.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Cho,
I want to learn, please, can you point me somewhere where I can find somebody talking about something similar as discrete s-points jumping from now s-frame to next s-frame?
Thanks,
Jano

 

[yppop]

I can see the picture you are trying to paint quite clearly. I mean, it’s not as if you have introduced any ideas that are particularly philosophically sophisticated. This is primarily because you haven’t even attempted to actually define what a ‘spiritual substance’ is, nor have you attempted to address the basic problem of causal interaction. In fact so far your ‘spiritual substance’ is effectively synonymous with nothingness in terms of the properties you’ve assigned to it (none).

The idea of using the two modalities of space to introduce reality is, as far as I can tell, unique. I am familiar with string theory, quantum loop theory, and digital physics and haven’t found that idea in those venues. Causal interaction of the spiritual and material is explained by the holonomic mechanism. You obviously didn’t understand the philosophical sophistication of that idea.

So, let’s see. Physical reality, which is quantized, is ‘immersed’ in an unphysical reality, which is not, and physical reality is ultimately a different manifestation of unphysical reality. That’s essentially what you’re saying, and it’s really nothing new. Who hasn’t, at some point, considered the idea that physical reality ‘emanates’ from God somehow, or at least that it was at some point ‘emanated’. The details might change, but such ideas seem to have been around since the beginning of recorded history, and no doubt long before.

It appears that you comletely misread. It is discrete space (the substance of materiality) that is immersed in continuous space (the substance of spirituality) just as the rational numbers are immersed in the irrational numbers on the real number line. What is so absurd about that idea? Do you have trouble believing that the substance of objective reality is discrete space?

I could critique your particular ‘model’ in several ways, but I have a strong position in sticking with my original response, which is that there is no evidence that physical reality is ‘immersed’ in anything. You gave yourself away earlier when you focused on the question of what it is that exists between subatomic particles which tells me that, initially at least, you were thinking that that was where some sort of unphysical reality could be located. But since then you seem to have adjusted your position and now seem happy to concede that this is probably not the case. So in a way that is analogous to the manner in which the probable location of God has been pushed further and further into the unknown by science, you are now forced to try to situate this unphysical reality at even smaller scales. In fact I would imagine that even if you were to embrace something like string theory as a true description of the nature of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, you’d still be asking questions like “what reality are these tiny little oscillating quanta a energy oscillating within?” thereby ignoring the very real possibility that they are the very fabric of reality itself. I would further imagine that you might also suggest that there is still ‘space’ between strings, failing to realize that even though we can pin down the location of a string (if indeed a string is what a particle is), concepts like ‘location’ don’t mean much when the quantum world is left to it’s own devices, and that no-one is saying that they are spherical and therefore unable to completely fill ‘space’.

This is not a very good description of what I am proposing; are you not able to interpret what I have written in the context that God exists? Is your imagination locked into the scientific view of reality? Surely if God exits then there is something deeper going on than what science describes. You have implied that you believe in some kind of spiritual presence, then why are you so adamant in dismissing all the possibilities that I propose? If my thesis is complete nonsense, can you not be more specific about why it is nonsense beyond the call for “evidence”. That is the materialists’ intellectual equivalent to the theist’s cry that “God did it”, a cry I am trying to rectify by showing HOW God might work.

Further, there is also the possibility that the most fundamental component of reality is actually a field rather than a particle, and that particles are simply the excitation of fields, as described by quantum field theory in general. This would mean that the underlying structure of reality isn’t actually necessarily quantized at all, but merely appears to be.

Fields don’t tell me how God works. But perhaps you could enlighten me as to the nature of the field? What is the substance of which they are composed?

My overarching point here is that science is not without voice when it comes to metaphysics. What you’ve done here, instead of being the result of trying to fix a legitimate flaw that you’ve discovered in existing theoretical models, is to posit the existence of an extraneous reality and then try to patch it in, thereby actually creating problems yourself in the process. I’m sorry, but I really wouldn’t use the word ‘plausible’ to describe something like that.

I find no flaw in existing theoretical models, I just claim they lack comprehensiveness. I have no problem with your view that my ideas are: absurd, nonsense, lack philosophical sophistication, lack originality, et.etc., I find that your failure to explain why they are nonsense a waste of your time.

Cho, you’ve had your say and I am not impressed. I have no idea who you are or the level of your education so please don’t feel obligated to answer the questions I included in this post because I have no need waste my in quibble with you any further. Thank you anyway for your interest…

Yppop

 

[yppop]

JD, Jano, and Wussup

Sorry for the diversion. If you are still with me, here is step 2. in the review I promised:

The first step in developing a thesis that explains how God exists in the world is to find a way to introduce duality. I found that the nature of space lends itself to exactly that. In order to understand my thesis it is essential to understand the mathematical nature of space. The Greeks (in spite of Zeno’s paradoxes that demonstrated that if space is continuous there can be no motion and if there is motion space cannot be continuous) established the assumption that space is continuous and that assumption is still with us. That assumption squeezed out any room for the spiritual to share reality with the physical.

However by assuming that the space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete, duality follows naturally. The reason is that discrete space is filled with gaps that can only be filled with continuous space. The rationale for this derives from the nature of the real number line. When Descartes developed analytical geometry he introduced the method of describing space by assigning a set of three numbers to each point in 3D-space. With set theory and transfinite arithmetic, it can be shown that every point on the real number line is equal to the same number of points in 3D-space. Hence every point in 3-D space can be represented by a number on the real number line.

I contend that all of objective reality, i.e., the physical elements: matter, energy, and time, are constructed from the fourth physical element, discrete space, and the gaps in the discrete space are filled with a substance that can be characterized as continuous space. Thus, discrete space is the substance of the physical component; continuous space is the spiritual component.

The rational numbers, those consisting of the integers and the ratio of integers, define discrete space. Every rational number on the real number line corresponds to a discrete point in 3D-space. There is an infinite number of rational numbers signified by the first transfinite number, Aleph(0). The irrational numbers that fill in the gaps are infinitely greater than the rational numbers as signified by the second transfinite number, Aleph(1).

Aleph(1) = 2^Aleph(0).
and
Aleph(1) - Aleph(0) = Aleph(1).

This means that God can remove an infinite number of rational numbers (discrete points) from the real number line (the continuity of points) without diminishing Aleph(1) in the least. However God does not need an infinity of discrete point to create object reality, the job was done with a very large but finite number, I imagine about 10^184 should be enough. I will refer to this number of discrete points as, s-points. It is important to know that in the model of dual reality (MDR) it is the s-points that are the substance of matter, energy, and time as experienced and observed at the explicate level.

I will continue as long as you want and will respond to questions and comments.

Thank you for your interest.
Yppop

 

[cho_pilo]

Causal interaction of the spiritual and material is explained by the holonomic mechanism. You obviously didn’t understand the philosophical sophistication of that idea.

Holonomic mechanism? How vague. The question is simple: How does your ‘spirtual substance’ interface with physical reality, if it is not physical itself?

Do you have trouble believing that the substance of objective reality is discrete space?

It makes a lot less sense to me than the idea that space itself is ultimately a different manifestation of the same ‘stuff’ that everything else is composed of.

Is your imagination locked into the scientific view of reality?

Of course it isn’t. My imagination is my imagination.
yppop;8813863:

Surely if God exits then there is something deeper going on than what science describes.

There is almost certainly something deeper going on than what science can currently describe anyway, because it isn’t finished.

You have implied that you believe in some kind of spiritual presence, then why are you so adamant in dismissing all the possibilities that I propose?

That’s not what I meant when I said that I think about the concept of God. Just because I can imagine something, doesn’t mean that I think it’s real. At the risk of doing further damage to the ontological reputation of the much revered invisible pink unicorns, although I can imagine all manner of wonderful and elaborate scenarios involving them, I don’t really think that they exist outside of the realm in which they emerged (the imagination).

If my thesis is complete nonsense, can you not be more specific about why it is nonsense beyond the call for “evidence”. That is the materialists’ intellectual equivalent to the theist’s cry that “God did it”, a cry I am trying to rectify by showing HOW God might work.

One is the positing of the existence of some sort of agency to account for a phenomenon that is not understood (once upon a time it was things like thunder and lightning), whereas the other is a request for someone to justify a positive claim. I really don’t see the equivalence there.

As for my characterization of your ‘model’ as nonsense, I’ll retract the word if it makes you feel better. I’d be happy to simply use the term unbelievable, and it is now and always has been primarily because in addition to there being no supporting evidence, you are positing the existence of a realm that by virtue of essentially labeling it as ‘unphysical’ is fundamentally incompatible with physicality from the standpoint of causal interaction.

If you were to propose instead that there are far more sophisticated and perhaps even ‘subtle’ notions of physicality that are at play, you’d be in a better position. I mean, have you ever asked yourself why it is so necessary that God be an immaterial entity? It seems as if the idea that God may be (even if it is only in principle) physically detectable somehow is wholly unpalatable to most theists, even sacrilegious. But why? Thousands of years ago when these ideas first emerged our concept of physicality was ridiculously limited. Now, even the most mysterious of phenomena are understood in naturalistic terms, so what’s the problem with a naturalistic God? Does it suddenly mean that God couldn’t have created the universe? Not at all. In fact although I would still be an agnostic atheist even with regard to some sort of preexisting physical agency, I’d be likely to take the idea at least a little more seriously.

But perhaps you could enlighten me as to the nature of the field? What is the substance of which they are composed?

At some point, something has to be fundamental, unless you’re OK with some sort of infinite regress, and what is fundamental isn’t composed of anything. It simply is what it is. You should have no trouble accepting this principle since you no doubt believe that the same is true of God. I would inquire as to why you like to create metaphysical problems where they don’t need to be, but the answer is clear: you’re working backwards from a conclusion that you’re unwilling to revise.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Cho,
What do you know about Planck constants?
Why there are such a things as Planck time and Planck length?
Isn’t it obvious that our spacetime ticks at the rate of Planck time?
If it ticks then it must be discrete, don’t you agree?
Jano

 

[cho_pilo]

Cho,
What do you know about Planck constants?
Why there are such a things as Planck time and Planck length?

Because if you try to put some fundamental constants of nature into an equation that gives a dimensionally-correct time or length, that’s what pops out.

Isn’t it obvious that our spacetime ticks at the rate of Planck time?

Not to me.

What do you think it means for spacetime to “tick”? Where and how does it tick? And what do you mean by “at the rate of Planck time”?

If it ticks then it must be discrete, don’t you agree?
Jano

How do you know it ticks?

 

[yppop]

Jano,
Just so you know I appreciate your interest in the idea of discrete space and that I am not the only one thinking in that direction here is an excerpt from an article that was published in the Sept, 2011 issue of the “Physics Essays” journal entitled “The Inflaton Space-time Model: Making Sense of the Standard Models of Particle Physics and Cosmology”:

" …Time that flows, that is, time that behaves as we perceive it to behave, is a problem for some physicists. Julian Barbour [13] notes that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, an attempt to write down the wave function of the universe, is independent of time. This shouldn’t surprise us, because we know that there is a reference frame in which the universe is atemporal. However, Barbour goes so far as to conclude that time that flows is merely an illusion. ]Brian Greene[14] points out that Einstein’s theory of special relativity requires that all of space-time, that is, all of space and all of time, be present at once. Since special relativity is well-verified by experiment, Greene, too, concludes that the time we perceive, the time that flows, is merely an illusion. He actually states flatly that there is no justification in the laws of physics for a time that flows. This is a little like the meteorologist stating flatly that it cannot possibly rain, when a look out the window would show that it is already raining quite cheerfully. If the laws of physics cannot accommodate a time that flows, there must be something wrong with them, because the flow of time is also well-verified by experiment, most notably our experience. Both Barbour and Greene imagine time sliced up into “nows” or instants. They imagine that each instant is like a photograph that shows everything that exists at that instant, including the position of every particle and the feelings and memories of every person." …

If time isn’t flowing, then it must be “ticking”. The article goes on to argue that the “flow of time”, is made real only by our memories; that is to say, that the “flow of time” is part of subjective reality, whereas time is more incremental for objective reality.

I have read both Barbour’s and Greene’s books and what they contend is that reality increments as a series of NOW’s, an idea that is not unlike my contention that at the ground of reality, time is the result of the incrementation of configurations of s-points. Cho, of course, will ask for evidence. However since there is no evidence that at the ground of reality space is either discrete or continuous, a philosophical construction can be built on the basis of either assumption; no evidence needed. At my age wasting time quibbling with someone whose background is a mystery to me is not something I care to do, so I plan to do my best to ignore Cho.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

The first step in developing a thesis that explains how God exists in the world is to find a way to introduce duality. I found that the nature of space lends itself to exactly that.

Yppop:

I agree to a large extent. I view the spiritual as that which not only fills areas between s-points, but also, resides within the matter that is formed at your explicate level. That is the only possible conclusion we can draw from an understanding of “infinity.” The Infinite must include all that is within discrete space, i.e., the universe, but also, must include all that is beyond the universe. Infinity is completely and totally inclusive. Saying that is not saying the same thing that is said by pantheists.

In order to understand my thesis it is essential to understand the mathematical nature of space. The Greeks (in spite of Zeno’s paradoxes that demonstrated that if space is continuous there can be no motion and if there is motion space cannot be continuous) established the assumption that space is continuous and that assumption is still with us. That assumption squeezed out any room for the spiritual to share reality with the physical.

Except that even contiguous particles have boundaries, i.e., they have “separateness.” There cannot be anything material within that separateness. To conclude otherwise is to say that all matter is in contiguous contact. Hence, the idea of a “foam.” But, even in a foam, there must be space for place. A photon, in order to move, to vibrate, must be able to alter its (or, have its position altered) within an unrestricted space, of some sort. It is not difficult to see how continuous space causes, under your scenario, at least, in my opinion.

However by assuming that the space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete, duality follows naturally. The reason is that discrete space is filled with gaps that can only be filled with continuous space.

And it derives from the logicality that reality cannot impinge upon other reality in such a way that neither move, or, if they do, they must move in simultaneity. If that were the case then all of space and matter would be limited to a very finite potentiality of movement. But, from observation, we can see that that is not so.

I contend that all of objective reality, i.e., the physical elements: matter, energy, and time, are constructed from the fourth physical element, discrete space, and the gaps in the discrete space are filled with a substance that can be characterized as continuous space. Thus, discrete space is the substance of the physical component; continuous space is the spiritual component.

Yes.

The rational numbers, those consisting of the integers and the ratio of integers, define discrete space. Every rational number on the real number line corresponds to a discrete point in 3D-space. There is an infinite number of rational numbers signified by the first transfinite number, Aleph(0). The irrational numbers that fill in the gaps are infinitely greater than the rational numbers as signified by the second transfinite number, Aleph(1).

Aleph(1) = 2^Aleph(0).
and
Aleph(1) - Aleph(0) = Aleph(1).

This means that God can remove an infinite number of rational numbers (discrete points) from the real number line (the continuity of points) without diminishing Aleph(1) in the least. However God does not need an infinity of discrete point to create object reality, the job was done with a very large but finite number, I imagine about 10^184 should be enough. I will refer to this number of discrete points as, s-points. It is important to know that in the model of dual reality (MDR) it is the s-points that are the substance of matter, energy, and time as experienced and observed at the explicate level.

This thesis implies the type of “infinity” that is continuously expanding ad infinitum. In what manner is it expanding? I can see, to some extent, that it is possible that reality is on the march towards parity with God, in a magnitude sense. Especially because He is maximally fecund.

God bless, and let’s continue,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Jano,
Just so you know I appreciate your interest in the idea of discrete space and that I am not the only one thinking in that direction here is an excerpt from an article that was published in the Sept, 2011 issue of the “Physics Essays” journal entitled “The Inflaton Space-time Model: Making Sense of the Standard Models of Particle Physics and Cosmology”:

If time isn’t flowing, then it must be “ticking”. The article goes on to argue that the “flow of time”, is made real only by our memories; that is to say, that the “flow of time” is part of subjective reality, whereas time is more incremental for objective reality.

I have read both Barbour’s and Greene’s books and what they contend is that reality increments as a series of NOW’s, an idea that is not unlike my contention that at the ground of reality, time is the result of the incrementation of configurations of s-points. Cho, of course, will ask for evidence. However since there is no evidence that at the ground of reality space is either discrete or continuous, a philosophical construction can be built on the basis of either assumption; no evidence needed. At my age wasting time quibbling with someone whose background is a mystery to me is not something I care to do, so I plan to do my best to ignore Cho.

Yppop

Fr. Spitzer, in his new book, New Proofs for the Existence of God, defines time as: the “aggregating succession of non-contemporaneous distension intrinsic to changeable reality.”

A “succession” means precisely that time flows. If time were not to flow, then all manner of contradictions and irresolvable contiguity problems would result. This aging universe would not be knowable as everything in it would entail contradiction, as everything would be the self-same. So, it cannot be imaginary. It must be real and derived from a clear perception of an aggregating yet non-contemporaneous succession.

God bless,’
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Because if you try to put some fundamental constants of nature into an equation that gives a dimensionally-correct time or length, that’s what pops out.

Not to me.

What do you think it means for spacetime to “tick”? Where and how does it tick? And what do you mean by “at the rate of Planck time”?

How do you know it ticks?

How do we know it ticks? Well, have a look here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/a/3/ca367c1c058c93eeb2e63ec221b4e9e4.png - from Wikipedia

Planck time is defined based on reduced Planck constant, gravitational constant and speed of light in a vacuum. If quantum theory stands then it seems we can not have smaller time then Planck’s time.