Q&A

Q: "Elevated self importance in that the natural human tendency to relate all to one’s personal existence. Can you really assume your omnipresence? it seems that a major component to your conception of reality is the ability for there to be a manipulation in the space-time continuum or the fabric of some sense of reality as a result of human mental manipulation (hinging the reality of a phenomena {observed=unobserved} on the presence/lack thereof of your sense perception. also,The thing is about paradox’s is that they do not defy existence so much as they defy the reasoning made in the deductions prior to, My pointing out of the paradox was more of a means of making you question the conclusion in that single theory, can every possible chance (in the same multi-verse) exist at the same time? is there a line to be drawn on that separates the realms of reality if, by this reasoning, their existence contradicts? Non-existence is hinged on existence, you cannot have the concept of existence without the concept of non existence because with no contrast or polar opposite one can not know of either side. ( ex. We dont know what Cold is without measuring the amount of heat, vice versa, you dont know what light is without the existence of darkness) Parallelism may not be feasible because one can not know the outcome of said probability unless all other possibilities never happened. or to stretch even further, The existence of one universe may be hinged on the non existence of all others, or our knowledge or existence in one universe may be hinged on our non existence in others."

A: To clarify, all I assert is you cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that is not consciously perceived by yourself. This has absolutely nothing to do with how or whether “human perception”, either sensory or mental is capable of experiencing whatever happens to exist. So no, I don’t believe “elevated self importance” according to how you’ve defined it is at all a key to what I posit - again, all I’m saying is whatever you do not “perceive” (through thought, imagination, comprehension or whatever other form of non-human perception that cannot be understood through human experience), its existence can neither be proved nor disproved. There is a big difference between simply “observing” something, that is, to consciously perceive it in one way or another and to “observe through human perception” - to assert that all that could ever exist lies within the set of the latter would obviously be short-sighted, and is not what I posit. In other words, by supposing that that which cannot be perceived cannot be proved or disproved to exist, it does not in any way exclude the possibility of experience that has not yet been experienced or comprehended previously.

You cannot know what light is without knowing darkness, but there is a very important distinction to make that involves “conscious” perception or awareness of what you are perceiving. That is, a person who has been blind from birth supposedly “perceives” darkness for his whole life, but you cannot say that only darkness exists for him and not light, not because “objectively” (whatever that means) darkness can only exist with light, but because he has never been consciously aware that this perception of absence of light was in fact a perception. For him, the existence or non existence of light can neither be proved nor disproved, but only understood theoretically and not experientially, and the problem of existence again becomes simply a matter of what you are willing to define as existence.

Your question - in a single theory, can every possible chance exist at the same time? - Why not? Is this not at the heart of quantum mechanics? In the absence of the act of “observation” (perception, consciousness, whatever you want to call it), all possible outcomes exist simultaneously, and yet upon observation the wave function collapses altogether leaving only a single outcome. It seems like the debate you are raising is only a matter of what to define as “reality” - only the collapsed wave function because it is not within the human realm of comprehension to understand what it means to have all possibilities exist simultaneously? Is this not the very supposition you were arguing against when you question the absurdity of “elevated self importance” in the set of all possible universes? On a grander scale, probability itself is just another human-comprehensible theory. What has whether or not something is consistent with “probability theory” as comprehended by man got anything to do with the vast sea of other possibilities that cannot be comprehended? Why should comprehension be a premise of perception?

Opposites and Field

What is the difference between presence and absence if there is no definite way of defining the properties of the background? On a separate note, the naming of a charge as positive or negative is completely arbitrary, and there is no inherent absence or presence of “charge” in that sense just because the electron has been arbitrarily decided to carry a “negative” charge. Both positive and negative charge carriers carry charge, they just happen to be opposite charges (whatever that means) and cancel each other out when present in equal quantities. Same goes for particles and anti-particles, they’re the exact same thing except in the presence of equal quantities of both, there are no particles. Ok, that’s just for things that have an exact opposite, but that’s not really what the question is asking at all - what about things that don’t have opposites, where the only contrast is the absence of that thing?

What the hell am I talking about? Well, photons, for example, have no anti-particle. The presence of photons indicates the presence of light in an otherwise photon-less background (which is defined as a non-photon saturated.. “space”, I guess). In a dark room I see a beam of light, but what is the difference between seeing a beam of light in a dark room and seeing a dark line in an otherwise light (i.e. photon) saturated room? Seems like a pretty stupid question - obviously in one room there are more particles present (and at the opposite locations) than the other, but what if you just change your definitions such that “particle” actually means “absence of background (i.e., empty space?)” and “background” to mean “absence of particle” (assuming that the background in the second room is completely saturated by photons, which I don’t really know what that means, but anyhow..)?

What about just talking about the universe of a perceiver? So, when you walk into a room with a fan on and you stay there sufficiently long and then you turn the fan off, then suddenly you “hear” silence, which really just means all of a sudden you realize that you were actually in a room where the background was filled with sound waves, and then you sensed the absence of sound waves. When you turn the fan back on, you then hear the fan because the background was the absence (rather than) presence of sound waves. In other words, unless there is a disturbance to the state of the room, you would never know what was present or what was absent, and once there is, it’s only a matter of definition of whether hearing things is a matter of “hearing” or “not hearing”. That is, if we’re only concerned about how things are perceived (which is all we could ever be concerned about anyways), then there should be no difference between saying “when I hear people talk I’m hearing sounds” vs “when I hear people talk I’m hearing silence” depending on your definition of sound and silence. 

So whatever, what relevance does that have to anything at all? Is the background in the above image actually black or white? Keyword being “actually”. This is a trick question, but not really, it’s just a stupid question because what do you mean by “actually”? The question assumes that there exists independently (of perception) an “actual” universe where there are definite truths (which may or may not be true) but in any case is completely meaningless to argue since you CAN’T know the answer. Usually however, there is either more “presence” or more “absence”, and the one of which there is more we call “background”. (So in this case, I guess most people should think the background is white. But again, this is a rather meaningless distinction - black board, white board, who cares? as long as you can read the words.)

So what’s the point? Indeed, what IS the point? Is the presence of meaning only meaningful if we assume an entire universe of meaningless background or is the absence of meaning the only actual meaning that is present in the universe where every infinitesimally small occurrence is incredibly meaningful? More simply put, what does “meaning” mean? Do I really care? Reader - do you feel the official feeling of “trippiness”? Or should I say, the lack thereof, assuming that there is no real reason why some experiences of perception should be categorized as “trippier” just because the other experiences were experienced more regularly? Does anyone know why people are so distinctively unphased by the “usual” when there is clearly just as much of a reason to feel bewildered by what you usually experience as there is to what isn’t usually experienced? Naturally, the subsequent discussion would be of “what does it really mean to be good or bad”, but I leave that to the future and proceed to -

The Higgs field. Standard Model says that this is what gives particles their mass - the “presence” of a ubiquitous field. But if a field is everywhere, what’s the difference between being there and not being there? Seems like a stupid question - charges behave differently in the presence of an electric field - but then what’s the point of supposing the “presence” (i.e., existence, but I don’t know what existence means, we’ll skip that for now) of a “field”. Well, I suppose a field is (obviously) just another mathematical construct, an “interpretation” of “what is there” but then again “what is there” is/can only be what you define (and furthermore believe) to be there, right? What do I know? I need a better understanding of field (theories).

Turning a sphere inside out

Math is weird. How do you even begin to imagine how entire universes of concepts are translated into weird manipulations of.. variables? It’s kind of like language, it’s a miracle that language could convey anything at all. In fact it doesn’t, does it? But people (well, most people at least) seem to even “think” in language. No wonder no one ever came up with anything terribly insightful. Well, even if they did, they’d have no way of communicating it, would they? Well that’s a relief.

Cat

There is as much uncertainty about the cat inside the box from the outside of the box as there is uncertainty about everything outside the box from the cat’s perspective inside the box, i.e., complete uncertainty. We are the cat.

How does a relativistic particle perceive a non-relativistic particle?

I would just like to point out again (to myself) that velocity is just a unitless number, since time carries the same units as distance in 4-dimensional spacetime, and the speed of light  just a conversion factor of seconds into meters, both of which are arbitrary units.

So what implications does this have to the question “what is a universe with only spacetime and photons”? In an exclusively radiation filled universe, can space and/or time exist? If so, how? Can/does empty space exist in between the photons? How can a photon exist as a (point) particle when it exists everywhere along its path simultaneously (i.e., what does it really mean to exist as a particle and a wave simultaneously)?

So I think I concluded that time only exists for non-relativistic particles and therefore does not exist for relativistic particles in the previous spacetime post so it makes no sense to talk about motion or moving for a universe with only photons since that entails rates of distance per unit time. Or rather, all motion in whatever universe is just a ratio in the photon’s perspective. We non-relativistic particles perceive relativistic particles as “moving” but they perceive us as “ratios”. What does that mean? What does it mean to “perceive something as a ratio”? I think that the photon (or neutrino or whatever) would be just as clueless about what velocity means as we are about what this ratio thing means..

Well, Einstein asks “what happens when we catch up with a beam of light” but what he really asks is “what happens to the perception of a non-relativistic particle when it reaches the same velocity as a relativistic particle”. What happens to the second half of the question “what happens to the perception of a relativistic particle when a non-relativistic particle suddenly acquires the same distance/time ratio as the relativistic particle”? Wasn’t that part of the deal too since in relativity everything is relative and so you shouldn’t just be questioning things from the absolute perspective of a non-relativistic particle? Did that second question get answered along the way/was I just not paying attention??? Uh…?

Mind and Matter by Erwin Schrödinger

I like it when theoretical physicists start realizing things about reality and consciousness beyond what is immediately materialistically apparent. (Well, philosophical realization in physics? It’s inevitable, obviously, unless you’re just like, dumb or something.) I don’t like it when physicists become obsessed with the “power and beauty” of science so much so that they think science is the best thing that ever existed - those, the tard kind.

Mind and Matter by Erwin Schrödinger