Piece on the mathematical reality and relative dimensions
31 Oct
>
>
The 'statue of spacetime', the illusion of time-flow, and self-awareness explained in terms of the mathematical universe.
>
>
>
Take a 2 pence coin and say that it represents the visible universe at any one instant in time, then stack another 2 pence coin on top and say that 2nd coin represents the visible universe at the very next instant in time - we'll term it 'the absolute present time'. Keep stacking the coins up until you have enough 'absolute present times' to represent 13.82 billion Earth years worth - that's all the absolute present times that there have ever been between right now and the very beginning of the Universe (I do not say big bang because I am with the big bounce brigade on the origins of this particular Universe cycle - another day for that one though).
>
Now what are you left with?
>
You are left with a stack of coins that contain all of space and ALL OF TIME from the very beginning to the absolute present time 'right now' of the entire visible universe. Time does not flow when looking in on spacetime in this way, and all you are left with is a purely mathematical static object that can be defined by mathematical equations, just as much as a sphere or a dodecahedron.
>
>
Past, present, future....
>
If the absolute present time is represented by a 2 pence coin that is placed halfway up in the stack, then 14 billion years in to the future is represented by the half stack above, and 14 billion years in to the past is represented by the half stack below that middle coin - what is important to note here is that the future, the present and the past are all equally real and contain all of space and all of time.
>
>
The statue of spacetime.
>
If we zoom in to the fine detail of the stack of coins and focus our attention on, say the orbit of the Moon around the Earth you will see it leaves a spring-like spiral around a segment of the coins representing a stack of around 4 billion years, as it works its way from each present moment to the next orbiting around the Earth. It's a bit like when you take a photograph with a long exposure of cars moving in the city at night - you effectively get those light trails across spacetime.
>
But if we look at ourselves - complex organic life forms - then the trail we leave behind as we progress from each absolute present time is massively complex. Imagine the trails left behind from the movements of all your blood cells throughout your entire life, or every nerve synapse that has ever fired in your body - the result is a massively convoluted 'braid of life' which leaves a trail of braid up a segment of those spacetime coins, representing the entire duration of your life from the cradle to the grave.
>
Do this again for every strand of life that has ever existed and you start to see that this mathematical object gets sculpted in to an incredibly intricate statue - what I call the 'statue of spacetime'.
>
No matter how complicated the statue it is still a static mathematical object that can be defined by extremely complicated mathematical equations - so all life and all matter in the entire visible universe from the beginning to the present to the future, is nothing more than pure mathematics at its most fundamental level. Such mathematics can only be defined in terms of the relations it has to itself, just pure mathematical relationships that do not even require human handles such as 'integral, differential, integer, complex number'. This is because the mathematical structure was always there, whether we humans were or were not - it was always entirely independent of us - and we 'discover' mathematics we don't invent it.
>
Within this mathematical universe we find ourselves etching an intricate weave in to the pillar of spacetime for every moment we are here. We are in effect nothing more than spacetime graffiti!
>
>
The illusion of time-flow.
>
This is all well and good for an external view of spacetime, but what about ourselves who happen to be thrust right into the midst of it? I am sure you will tell me you are more than aware of the flow of time as you leg-it across Oxford road, narrowly avoiding the number 175 thundering down from Stockport or wherever, you will tell me that time definitely flowed and you have the piss stains in your pants to prove it! But less of the vulgarity, it's just in my own words u know wink emoticon
>
This is where it gets radical....
>
When you look out of your bedroom window every morning you think you are looking at the outside reality - you're not! You are 'looking' at a pattern of nerve synapses that have been triggered by your sensory organs - the eyes in this case - and that have left some kind of an imprint on a part of your brain which is responsible for your internal reality model. You are looking at your own reality model as perceived by the brain - and those images detected on the back of your retinas are both upside down and 2 dimensional, so you can get an idea of how much mucking about your brain does to the raw sensory data before it presents everything in 3 dimensions and the right way up.
>
The really real external reality is behind the stage curtain and you never get to see it.
>
>
How it works.
>
When you perceive 'the absolute present' you also perceive very short term memories of what was the absolute present fractions of a second previously, ALL AT ONCE. It is this 'all at once' perception of the absolute present and very near in the past absolute presents that gives the subjective impression that time flows when in fact it doesn't at all.
>
Time is real but the flow of time is an illusion of the workings of your own internal reality model!
>
Like a naughty 3-D flip-book, you flip the pages fast enough and the man appears to be screwing the lady, but page-for-page each image is completely static and unchanging. Each 'absolute present time' is analogous to this - a static etching on the static statue of space time, all of which is defined in terms of pure mathematics at its most fundamental level and time does not flow.
>
>
Your own conciousness and self awareness
>
'Ok but what about those voices in my head deena' - well if you are like me you will hear voices in your head too right?! Hey, it's the only way i get to have a decent conversation dearies smile emoticon or how about that 'eureka' moment - that moment of drawn inspiration, no computer can do that after all......
>
>
How it works.
>
Your internal reality model is split in to two parts, the first part is the internal reality model of the outside world - which it builds up a picture of via sensory input from your sensory organs. The second part of your internal reality model, models you.
>
Right now your internal reality model is modelling this page on Facebook, and modelling you reading its model of it! Your internal reality model IS your consciousness.
>
So consciousness is perceived by the complex interactions between the 2 parts of your internal reality model - the models of the outside world and you - interacting in such a way that you perceive its workings as self-awareness or consciousness.
>
Consciousness is no less a subjective phenomena as is the colour red, the smell of dogshit or the sound of 'the happy wanderer' sung by the local school choir - all of which are the result of firing synapses, and/ or more complex exchange patterns between those parts of the brain which process them.
>
Again we get back to the situation where everything becomes static and discreet across spacetime and it is all described by pure mathematics - matter, time, life, consciousness - all static mathematical objects at their most fundamental level.
>
>
>
Where the multiverse comes in to play with determinism (or not).
>
>
From this description of spacetime it becomes apparent that if the future is as real as the present, is as real as the past then there must be only fate and your life has already been mapped out in advance, the program has been compiled and there is no free will right?
>
Yes and no.
>
If you take any of the various multiverse theories they all share a common theme - everything that can happen will happen as reality splits (quantum multiverse) or we travel a few googleplexes of googleplex light years across an infinite universe (quilted multiverse) or we exist on anyone of 10^500 (and rising) different membranes (M-theory)....e.t.c...
>
This means that as real and set in stone as the future is there are an inifinite number of them, and it is like you are a raindrop falling down the windowpane - it can go along any number of paths, though all paths have already been determined in advance.
>
So it 'appears' we have free will, yet technically every outcome that will ever happen to you in the future has already been derived, and all of them will be served. So the next time you are contemplating suicide have no fear, because one of your 'youse' is going to have to take it at some point or another anyway - with a 100% probability and an infinite number of times over.
>
All of this kinda makes you afraid of nothing at all doesn't it?
>
>
>
>
>
Thx,
>
deena
>
Infinite time - finite space v's infinite space/ finite time (explaining the TARDIS)
>
>
>
Just a short explanation on viewing the statue of spacetime both externally and from within (see post below on the mathematical universe)....
>
>
>
'So how can space (and spacetime) be infinite deena? - not only are you saying I can view it from the 'outside' (so what's on the outside of space if it is supposed to be infinite?), but also when I view it externally how can I see around the edges of the statue?'
>
>
1. You are viewing it externally from the point of looking in from hyperspace - bulk space - or the inflaton field - a quantum field in a different dimension from your average casual space - depending on which theory we choose to examine, and the 2 penny stack is just an example for visualization purposes.
>
>
2. You are looking in from an aspect of infinite time-finite space. I always think of this in terms of the opening scene in Star Wars where you see this colossal star destroyer from its underbelly (see the first 20 seconds of the attached u-tube). Now say that star destroyer just went on and on and on as you pulled the camera back to compensate its size - all you would see is the same thing going on and on forever, even though you can see the edges on either side. You would be viewing it from an aspect of infinite time because it would take forever to see the entirety of it all and from an aspect of finite space because you can see the boundaries (OK you can't see all the boundaries, but it is still finite space on the other 2 edges and this is a 2-D example of something that happens in 3-D - space (spacetime has 4 dimensions, time being the 4th).
>
>
3. If you were stood on that underbelly of the star destroyer and looked back towards the base of the triangle you would see its entirety at 1 instant in time (finite time), but it would appear to be infinite in space - you would never see the boundary.
>
>
This is a laymans example (mine in-fact), of what they mean when they talk about infinite time - finite space and infinite space - finite time perspectives, it might not be the best example but it works for me at least!
>
>
Oh and that stack of 2 pence coins goes on forever in both directions (infinite spacetime) - it does if the Universe is cyclic (which I am an advocate of personally), which has no beginning and no end. So the various bits of spacetime graffiti I mentioned (including you and me), just have to repeat (and repeat an infinite number of times), in an infinite stack of coins. And in the case of a multiverse you will also repeat on an infinite number of separate stacks (the multiverse is very rich in more ways than one then, lols, BOO - geeky joke!!)...
>
>
And this is just with regard the cyclic UNIVERSE, the cyclic universe can also be part of any of the multiverse theories, so technically if you are an advocate of the cyclic universe as well as the multiverse then you should be referring to them as the cyclic multiverses too, e.g. 'the cyclic quantum multiverse' - go on say that at a dinner party and impress everyone, lols!!
>
************************************************** *******
1. Rave is dead, long live electronica!
*** I just wanted too add a note to this piece before you read on - the proponents of early house/ balearic/ rave, well they get very protective about this certain musical magic they created, and quite rightly so - it's a spiritual thing, it's like criticizing someones soul and they will just shrug you off as an uninitiated - you just don't understand jog on m8. The title of this intro section is in danger of doing just that to myself so I just wanted to explain it - this music is in my soul and I am one of 'them' and I also take their view of shrugging off the uninitiated, but when I say 'rave is dead' I mean it as in rave has been discovered, right - we have gone past it and in-fact IMO they have never been able to recreate that magic in the tunes since those few early years when the pioneers built it. I do not mean to knock it in anyway, it is purely magical but I do understand sensitivities and they are very sensitive amongst the fraternity so please just take it as saying 'it's been discovered, but where will it lead us in the future, because I do believe that electronic music holds undiscovered keys, the only ones left to discover in our particular reality constrained by our laws of physics, thanks, enjoy the article ***
You see with rave coming up to its 30th anniversary, it becomes what Elvis Presley was to the new age romantics - its long-gone, history, dead and buried....or is it - is electronica still our only hope that music still holds secrets that lay undiscovered??
You see to my mind, and quoting Sir Isaac Newton, "I feel as if I am on a beach throwing pebbles into the sea of the unknown". That is to say that all we know right now is the beach, but there is an ocean of the unknown which lies right in front of us all.
If electronic music has been completely devoured and there is no more to be discovered then that truly is the end of music itself - electronica was the last bastion of the unknown and still remains musics only hope of salvation - the guitar has run it's course and long since gone the way of the lyre, there is nothing more to see there.
2. Quantum Electro-Acoustics...
This is a brave notion on my part and as such is a nonsense word, a word I make up to point to an idea, if you like a concept...
What will kids be listening to in 100 years from now - perhaps 'listen' is naive, more likely what will kids be uploading their consciousnesses to in 100 years from now?!
As physics grapples with deriving the consensus reality from the external reality so too cognitive science seeks to derive our own internal reality model (our consciousness if you like) from the consensus reality - see Max Tegmark for a very interesting treatment of the subject.
And so it is not improbable to assume that in 100 years from now we may well be uploading our very consciousnesses in to digital or quantum based logic processors - computers. But what will we find there, and how will it sound?
3. This is the sound of the underground, nope this is the sound of the wavefunction!!
3.1 Many Worlds
If you take Hugh Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics - and an increasing number of scientists now are, it's becoming the mainstream as opposed to the looney-left, with Everett finally getting the acclaim he so deserved in life but was denied through ignorance as is so often the case among the science community - then all reality is at its most fundamental level is pure mathematics. In terms of the jargon we are nothing but a wavefunction moving through Hilbert space which has infinite dimensions to it, the wavefunction never collapses and all possibilities are realized.
What does that mean? it means that every time you make a decision reality splits - you toss a coin and it lands both heads and tails, both outcomes are realized and reality splits. All you see in one reality is a head or a tail so it is 'as if' the wavefunction collapses - see Neils Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and just read 'collapse of the wavefunction' as 'gives a definite outcome'.
Just to reiterate - according to Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction never collapses and 'you' see both outcomes in separate realities (the quantum multiverse). Within each of those realities a definite outcome is observed which gives the impression that the wavefunction has collapsed.
3.2 Copenhagen
The Copenhagen interpretation asks us to believe that the wavefunction breaks down for 'big things'? but 'for some reason' does not break down at the quantum level. It is an interpretation of convenience, it is not backed with any solid proofs and as such not scientifically rigorous (it would probably be rejected by all major physics review bodies if submitted as a technical paper in today's climate - think on that Copenhagen enthusiasts!), and we are just asked to accept it as a wise man once proclaimed it - where have we heard that kind of nonsense before?! It still goes in all the text books, because in my opinion the community don't have the bo&*%$#!ks to present the many worlds theory as the de-facto interpretation, as it may appear to be too meta-physical for the average Joe in the street to get his or her head round, even in spite of the fact it comes with a lot more leverage - it stands up. Either way most of the scientific community see the Copenhagen interpretation for what it is these days - an elaborate fudge factor.
Now this might sound very naive to a quantum scientist and I am laying myself on the track to be denounced as amateurish and layman, but so what - I am an amateur when all said and done, so correct!!
If we can transduce electronic signals in to acoustic waves and perceive them as sound or music, might it not be silly to ask the same of the wavefunction - the probability wave who's evolution is defined entirely by the Schrodinger equation? As a purely mathematical entity is the probability wave 'tangible' as such, and does it even need to be in the first place in order to manipulate its evolution when we seemingly manipulate more and more things 'virtually', and concepts and theories are becoming ever more abstract as time progresses?
Might one of the many aspects of such manipulations involve transduction and the subjective impression of 'sound' - the sound of reality at its most fundamental level.
4. I was standing, you were there, 2 worlds colliding, and they could never tear us apart....
I don't know, i'm out of my league when it comes to discussing quantum mechanics, but nonetheless it's fun to try, and provides a nice mental stimulation. Is the future of dance music quantum, of course it could be argued that it already is 'quantum' involving the flow of electrons/ charge, but what of the wavefunction? - will it ever be subjectively perceived by our own internal reality models? can our internal realities directly observe the external reality - and how would that 'sound'?
5. The Ghost Rave!!
Tegmark argues that there can never be a quantum consciousness because of a process known as decoherence which is going on in our brains all the time. It means we will never perceive a quantum superposition because it becomes 'observed' almost instantaneously by nearby atoms in our brains, and the wavefunction 'appears' to break down before we perceive anything otherwise.
Yet I am suggesting that in the future if it is possible to take our own internal reality model out of the biological - take the brain outside of the brain if you like, then what is left to 'observe?', if we can isolate our consciousness from atoms, photons, neutrinos e.t.c. and this internal reality model can only be described in terms of pure mathematics, thus having no 'presence' if you like, then shouldn't we be left 'staring' directly in to the wavefunction itself?
Would we - in terms of the medieval explanation of such things - have turned ourselves into ghosts dancing to the sounds that exist in 'the world which lies beyond'? one things for certain - I doubt it will sound even remotely like a harp!
************************************************** ************
Sir Roger Penrose explaining deenas thoughts below!!
09 May 2015 at 4:14 AM
What a find indeed!!!
I was particularly encouraged to hear Roger echo my 'was Hawking right all along' question due to the evaporation of black holes taking away the entropy they contain (around 15 minutes in to the talk) - He seems to think so, big gold stars to deena then hey!!!! :-)))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ
Edit Delete
Black holes, Hawking radiation and the eventual fate of our universe
05 May 2015 at 12:56 AM
Damn i feel so anxious after drinking - it really is nasty and I shall be abstaining again for a long period of time, but maybe if I can use this profile as a kind of thought sketchpad I might be able to distract myself away from this inner worry I feel.
The vacuum of space - well it's only a vacuum 'on average' you see quantum theory can only predict things in terms of probabilities, and a vacuum is 'probably' a vacuum with this amount of % it has to do with uncertainty. So what else could there be? well quantum jitters for one - the breakdown of a quantum field results in the instantaneous creation of 'virtual particles' this is allowed so long as these virtual particle-antiparticle pairs instantaneously annihilate each other thus restoring the balance of 'nothing an average'.
Black holes - now here's where black holes play a part, if these spontaneous virtual particles present themselves near the event horizon of a black hole (the point of no return from which even light cannot escape), then the anti-particle (which has negative energy, I know it's a bit of a headfuck but just accept it - energy can also be negative ok, like a photonegative of a picture let's say) may end up falling through the event horizon (it is always the anti-particle which is attracted in to the black hole, can't exactly remember why but nevermind for now), once in it cannot get back out and spontaneous annihilation cannot occur - the other particle is then radiated out from the black hole and it is this that we know as 'Hawking radiation' It means a black hole must have a temperature, no matter how small. Anyway - because the antiparticle has a negative energy it acts to erode, or evaporate the black hole and given a few trillion years or so would completely dissipate it.
So here's a little bit of 'thoughtpad' from deena I cannot verify my ponderings - they are just that, ponderings........
It is now thought that every galaxy has at its centre a supermassive black hole, that's every galaxy, that is what the science is telling them - black holes are necessary for the creation of galaxies in the first place - and what do they do? well they munch a lot of gas and dust, the odd star that is unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time then just as your tummy after a hearty meal - they expand outwards, the event horizon grows, entropy is conserved and can be directly related to the surface area of the event horizon (another topic for another day, but was indeed the basis for the black hole wars between Steven Hawking and Leonard Susskind - Susskind was eventually shown to be right entropy is conserved so sorry about that Steven!
What I must ask is this - will the supermassive black hole eventually devour the entire galaxy that revolves around it (we go around it like a carousel once every couple of hundred million years or so - about the same time the dinosaurs ruled the planet - the milky way galaxy is in a state or rotation about its centre u see) oh and another thing - the only stars you can see when you look to the sky every night are ones which belong to our own milky way galaxy - the eye cannot see beyond the boundaries of that. But if the growth of a black hole is perpetual - more matter in = stronger gravitational attraction = more stars fall in = expansion and stronger gravitational attraction = more stars............ Then it must be entirely conceivable that a supermassive black hole will eventually eat everything up, completely devouring the galaxy.....and then? well anti-particles enter due to quantum uncertainty and a very very long drawn out process of evaporation - does it eventually, like so many forumers i could care to mention 'dissapear up its own *** in a cascade of nastiness? and what of the second law of thermodynamics? what happens to the entropy? is this a direct violation, was Hawking right after all?? And if this was ho happen in every galaxy what would it mean for the fate of the universe? will there eventually be nothing left other than a sea of hawking radiation? I suppose it all depends on whether the universe will continue expanding forever or whether it will eventually succumb to gravity and fall back in to itself in an almighty big crunch - all I can predict is that the rides going to get rough and nothing lasts forever - not even nothing lasts forever :-) we're all doomed aren't we, this hasn't done much for my anxiety lolo but acceptence of ones fate is always an important stepping stone to overcoming isn't it.
************************************************** *****************
entanglement and reality at the quantum level....
03 May 2015 at 9:28 PM
2 entangled photons are sent from either torch A or torch B, (deena holds the torches in her left and right hands and flashes accordingly ??!) the photons are then seperated and redirected through a prism, the first photon is sent to a pair of photosensitive screens placed either side of deena where andy and gordon are sitting and the result is recorded on each screen, though neither andy nor gordon look at the result yet. The second photon travels on, perhaps a billion light years to a second detector where peter sits to collect the result on his photosensitive screen, he does not know which torch deena originally flashed and the result he sees on the screen will manifest itself as an interference pattern (a series of lines similar to a barcode), however if peter uses a powerful telescope and looks out at the incoming photons before they land on the screen he will know which torch was flashed and the result he sees on the screen will manifest as 2 parallel lines depending on which torch was flashed (this is known as the wave-particle duality of light and is a most interesting phenomenon in its own right). Because the photons are entangled the measured result at peters screen will instantaneously determine what WAS RECORDED ON BOTH andy AND gordons SCREENS A BILLION YEARS PREVIOUSLY, and when they eventually look at their screens the pattern they see will depend on whether peter looked out with a telescope or not 1 billion years after the original recording was taken and captured for posterity.
The future effects the past even when the past was recorded - until the RECORDING is observed it is in the air (a state of quantum superposition) until a future event has occured that instantaneously decides what was RECORDED for posterity a long time ago.