In spacetime (matter) and beyond spacetime (energy)

[Roger Clough]

Hi

 

Since there has been some question from materialists about my use of the phrase "beyond spacetime",

I thought I would show that this is a perfectly legitimate concept now being investigated

by the likes of Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin.

 

Here is a 2011 article discussing phase space, which is another name for

one form of "beyond spacetime":

 

Beyond space-time: Welcome to phase space

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.700-beyond-spacetime-welcome-to-phase-space.html#.Ub7EqJy0S-U

 

As I gather, the issue has arisen from:

 

1) Explorations beyond the spacetime world of Einstein, and

 

2) The fact if bodies collide inelastically, one has to consider

the conservation not just of energy or of momentum, but

I believe of their sum.

 

In looking into this, I see that energy, being a scalar, is beyond spacetime,

while momentum, a  vector,  is not.

 

Since I have been referring to mind as being beyond spacetime,
perhaps there is a connection between mind and energy.

 

- Roger Clough

 

 

 

Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/17/2013

See my Leibniz site at

http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough

[Roger Clough]

The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of

    the Platonist, Leibniz

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

 

A. Leibniz would agree with these views of Smolin:

 

A1.  QM is unfinished.

A2. Time is not well understood. Leibniz did

    not think of time as substantial or time as flowing,

    it is just an indexed sequence of events.

A3.  There is no multiverse, only the universe.

 

 

B. Leibniz would disagree with Smolin on these issues:  

 

B1. Smolin believes that computationalism is false (because there cannot

     be internal isomorphisms. Here the issue of Leibniz's

     pre-established harmony might be challenged. Hmmm).

 

B2. Smolin is not a Platonist. (Leibniz was.)

 

 

 

 

"Lee Smolin's view on the nature of time:

    "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both 

deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper 

problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."[11]

Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a "final theory":

    "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because 

I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics 

that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, 

and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands."[12]

In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views (the sentences in italics are quotations):

    There is only one universe [I agree. RBC. ] There are no others, nor is there anything isomorphic to it. 

Smolin denies the existence of a "timeless" multiverse. Neither other universes 

nor copies of our universe — within or outside — exist.[clarification needed] No copies can 

exist within the universe, because no subsystem can 

model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside 

the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. This principle also 

rules out the notion of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the 

history of the entire universe [computationalism - L would disagree.

due to his concept of Pre-established Harmony. RBC] , a notion more metaphysical than scientific. 

    All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that 

is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is 

situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly [I disagree. This rules out Platonism, which Leibniz and I believe in.

L also b elieved that time as not real, only an indexed set of situations.  RBC]. 

    [The following paragraph is in accord with Leibniz, except that L held that only ideas are real  - RBC]

Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next or 

future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this process causing or implying

 future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an aspect of causal relations. 

A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, without causing or implying 

some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next moment. Things that 

persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. 

An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom at the next moment. 

    Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed regularities, when time and particularity 

are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical platonism [ Leibniz and I are Platonists- RBC] , 

and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".

He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims "cannot help us to do science."[13] [See below]

 

He also advocates “principles for an open future” which he claims underlie the work of both healthy scientific communities and 

democratic societies: “(1) When rational argument from public evidence suffices 

to decide a question, it must be considered to be so decided. (2) When rational argument from public 

evidence does not suffice to decide a question, the community must encourage a diverse range of 

viewpoints and hypotheses consistent with a good-faith attempt to develop convincing public evidence.” (Time Reborn p 265.) 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Anthropic Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

" The anthropic principle (from the Greek, anthropos, human) is the philosophical consideration

that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.

Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the

fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is

unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.^[1]"

 

^{[I hvae no problem personally with the AP, not sure as of the moment about L's  view.  RBC]}

 

Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/18/2013 

See my Leibniz site at

http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough

 

____________________________________________________________________
DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking  www.dreammail.org

[Richard Ruquist]

Smolin believes in a multiverse else his fecund cosmology makes no sense.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[spudb...@aol.com]

The article seems to go along with Gauriga and Vilenkins Chaotic Inflation.  This would be occupying the phase space in the article. Is this what you see as well?

[Richard Ruquist]

Google does not know about 'Gauriga and Vilenkins Chaotic Inflation'.

It needs to be educated.

yanniru