You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[Wuwei]

Fort Fun Indiana
Just to be clear, is your idea of "nothing" exemplified by "a dense state of energy and matter"?

From wikipedia with search for QED vacuum:

The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.​

The virtual particles in the vacuum were predicted decades ago and verified by Casmir in the early 1990s.
The vacuum virtual particles also contribute to the apparent mass of a neutron and affect other phenomena. Krauss and others posit that the density of the quantum vacuum reached a threshold that somehow blew up (The Big Bang).

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's very odd for an informed person to watch you blindly and reflexively, insist something does not exist, when it in fact does exist.

What statement exactly have you misunderstood this time?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

From wikipedia with search for QED vacuum:

The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.​

The virtual particles in the vacuum were predicted decades ago and verified by Casmir in the early 1990s.
The vacuum virtual particles also contribute to the apparent mass of a neutron and affect other phenomena. Krauss and others posit that the density of the quantum vacuum reached a threshold that somehow blew up (The Big Bang).

Yes, I understand that, but note the phrase "is not really empty." such a system then cannot be described as nothing. Any system that has material properties is by definition something, Krauss has used wordplay to excite the imaginations of the naive and energize the poorly schooled radical atheists out there.

Krauss himself often strays into philosophy and metaphysics (which is unavoidable) but then claims that philosophy is useless, he's inherently self contradictory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, I understand that, but note the phrase "is not really empty." such a system then cannot be described as nothing. Any system that has material properties is by definition something, Krauss has used wordplay to excite the imaginations of the naive and energize the poorly schooled atheists out there.

Which leads inquisitive people to think about whether "nothing" can "be" at all. That it is merely an undefined, abstract concept that exists nowhere but in our minds. Like the number zero.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Which leads inquisitive people to think about whether "nothing" can "be" at all. That it is merely an undefined, abstract concept that exists nowhere but in our minds. Like the number zero.

I didn't choose the title of his book, he did.

The question (which I've asked many times and received no meaningful replies) is how can the presence of the universe be explained by science? All a materialist can say is that the universe just is, it exist and always has existed, however that is most certainly not a scientific explanation.

Ergo - science cannot explain the existence of the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't choose the title of his book, he did.

And inquisitive peope often read entire books, instead of just their titles.

Krauss addresses precisely what I said, in the book.

The question (which I've asked many times and received no meaningful replies) is how can the presence of the universe be explained by science?

At this time, in several ways. And maybe none of them are correct. But you keep making the same error. "Can explain" and "Having the one , correct explanation" are far from the same thing.

Ergo - science cannot explain the existence of the universe.

That is not correct use of that term. "Ergo" means "therefore, as follows..."

When you use such a term in a tautology, as you just did, you are committing useless fallacy. You said a statement followed.from itself.

And your not-conclusion -- which is just a repetition of your first premise -- is demonstrably incorrect anyway.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All a materialist can say is that the universe just is, it exist and always has existed, however that is most certainly not a scientific explanation.

That's false. A materialist can also say everything once began.

And both are in fact scientific ideas, in the general sense.

I think you mean to say we don't have the means to falsify them yet.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is not correct use of that term. "Ergo" means "therefore, as follows..."

It is correct, no matter, energy or laws means that the system's state can never change because there is no state and so therefore there's no mechanistic processes possible.

Recall that scientific explanations allow us to predict a future state from a current state.

You need to stop arguing in circles, making stuff up, pretending there's any meaningful substance to all this claptrap.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes. 4 years ago, but I'm still refining it. It is written in Java.

Is the source code open? in Github or anything?

 

[Wuwei]

Is the source code open? in Github or anything?

No. There are about 10,000 lines of source code. A lot of it is for the GUI and code that writes the java code for various algebras used. (The algebra can be extremely messy.) I wrote a paper in Word which explains the math to those unfamiliar with high-dimensional vector spaces and group theory. I plan on putting that on a YouTube video some time in the near future.

 

[BackAgain]

If your meaning is that we don't know which explanation is correct, I agree.

And is there a way that neither option is necessarily correct? Is there one where a combination of the two is the correct one?

But your analogy is poor, in that not all explanations are possible.

Of course not. My point was that many get properly rejected as impossible or improbable.

Unlike the random guesses in your analogy.

I didn’t make any random guesses. You really don’t follow along very well.

The ones we have aren't just guesses.

They kind of are, though.

They are derived from the properties and laws of our universe.

Pick and choose time. Laws of our universe say that matter / energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Yet, we do have matter / energy. Where did it come from? Any explanation that fails to include the notion that it cannot have been created must (necessarily) deny the contention that neither can be created or destroyed.

The magical nonsense? It doesn't undergo this rigor. Which is also the reason it can't be ruled out. Ever. Kind of a sign of utter nonsense.

Your claims have no scientific rigor.

1. Law of science: matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

2. There was a pre-time when there was no time, no space, no matter/energy.

3. But into that absolute void there arose a probabilistic quantum bubble! And from that bubble sprang matter/energy time and space.

3 violates 1. For 3 to be true, the explanation must deny the major premise and that’s an appeal to something beyond and above the laws of science. It is literally super-natural.

You prefer your contradiction to any other appeal to something supernatural. That’s all.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No. There are about 10,000 lines of source code. A lot of it is for the GUI and code that writes the java code for various algebras used. (The algebra can be extremely messy.) I wrote a paper in Word which explains the math to those unfamiliar with high-dimensional vector spaces and group theory. I plan on putting that on a YouTube video some time in the near future.

The math is far beyond me, very abstract from what I just read.

Given the mathematical nature of the code I wonder how the programming might look if coded in a functional language. The F# language is very well supported on Windows and drawing to the screen very well supported too, this might interest you:

Functional Fractals — Mandelbrot Set in F# - Michael Heasell

michaelheasell.com

If you've never used functional languages in earnest then these kinds of problems are well suited to them and a great way to learn more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And is there a way that neither option is necessarily correct? Is there one where a combination of the two is the correct one?

I would say, yes.

They kind of are, though.

Not all guesses are equal. They are not just speculative guesses. They started as that. Then underwent rigorous process.

Your claims have no scientific rigor.

False, of course. And they aren't my claims. The possible explanations we have derive from the properties of the universe and have undergone extensive rigor.

 

[Wuwei]

That looks stunning, I don't understand the mathematical basis of it, but visually it is remarkable. The use of music too is fascinating, somehow lends a depth to it that silence does not, this is another computed video that does that, mesmerizing:

The video you show is constructed by very creative video artists using open source code. Mandelbulb is one popular system.

The videos I am doing are more like "discovered art". My only creativity is in the math and choosing false colors for the images.

 

[Unkotare]

Which leads inquisitive people to think about whether "nothing" can "be" at all. That it is merely an undefined, abstract concept that exists nowhere but in our minds. Like the number zero.

It must have been tough to see that as the results of you SAT.

 

[Wuwei]

If you've never used functional languages in earnest then these kinds of problems are well suited to them and a great way to learn more.

This is the computer generated inner loop for a 4-D algebra. The maximum number of iterations below is loops = several 100s, which is applied to about a million pixels. A ten second video clip would require the loop to be used around 240 million times.

The Inner Loop Code for one point, c[]:

for (k =0; k < loops; k++) { // k = the max number of iterations allowed
e0=E[0]; e1=E[1]; e2=E[2]; e3=E[3]; // Transfer old Vn+1to Vn

E[0] = c[0] + e0*e0 – e1*e1+e2*e2 – e3*e3; // TheA computation
E[1] = c[1] + 2.0*( e0*e1 + e2*e3 ); // The B computation
E[2] = c[2] + 2.0*( e0*e2 -e1*e3 ); // The C computation
E[3]= c[3] + 2.0*( e0*e3 + e1*e2 ); // The D computation

magn= E[0]*E[0]+E[1]*E[1]+E[2]*E[2]+E[3]*E[3]; //Vector length squared

if(magn> escape) break; // When to escape the loop
} //End loop

A 9 dimensional algebra would require, for each iteration, around 81 multiplications and 81 additions in double precision floating point. I'm not sure if a functional language could increase the speed of the inner loop.

 

[BackAgain]

I would say, yes.



Not all guesses are equal. They are not just speculative guesses. They started as that. Then underwent rigorous process.



False, of course. And they aren't my claims. The possible explanations we have derive from the properties of the universe and have undergone extensive rigor.

You either intend to miss the point or you truly just don’t understand.

It isn’t disputed that not all explanations are equal. Indeed, absent proof, any explanation might turn out to be wrong. That’s right! Every single “explanation” proposed so far could be wrong.

I never said otherwise.

But the rigorous scientific study which your theories postulate are non existent. Mathematical models may exist. But all depend on one way of another on an underlying assumption which begs the initial question: where did that come from?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is the computer generated inner loop for a 4-D algebra. The maximum number of iterations below is loops = several 100s, which is applied to about a million pixels. A ten second video clip would require the loop to be used around 240 million times.

The Inner Loop Code for one point, c[]:

for (k =0; k < loops; k++) { // k = the max number of iterations allowed
e0=E[0]; e1=E[1]; e2=E[2]; e3=E[3]; // Transfer old Vn+1to Vn

E[0] = c[0] + e0*e0 – e1*e1+e2*e2 – e3*e3; // TheA computation
E[1] = c[1] + 2.0*( e0*e1 + e2*e3 ); // The B computation
E[2] = c[2] + 2.0*( e0*e2 -e1*e3 ); // The C computation
E[3]= c[3] + 2.0*( e0*e3 + e1*e2 ); // The D computation

magn= E[0]*E[0]+E[1]*E[1]+E[2]*E[2]+E[3]*E[3]; //Vector length squared

if(magn> escape) break; // When to escape the loop
} //End loop

A 9 dimensional algebra would require, for each iteration, around 81 multiplications and 81 additions in double precision floating point. I'm not sure if a functional language could increase the speed of the inner loop.

You'd lose all the loops if this was recoded in a func lang like F#, also by eliminating variables too, the probability of subtle bugs greatly diminishes, which is one of the attractions of func langs along with often reduced dev time.

It would certainly be interesting but no doubt not a five minute rewrite!

In essence we just transform data by passing it through functions, and there are operators for working on lists and so on that make some problems very elegant when coded.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is the computer generated inner loop for a 4-D algebra. The maximum number of iterations below is loops = several 100s, which is applied to about a million pixels. A ten second video clip would require the loop to be used around 240 million times.

The Inner Loop Code for one point, c[]:

for (k =0; k < loops; k++) { // k = the max number of iterations allowed
e0=E[0]; e1=E[1]; e2=E[2]; e3=E[3]; // Transfer old Vn+1to Vn

E[0] = c[0] + e0*e0 – e1*e1+e2*e2 – e3*e3; // TheA computation
E[1] = c[1] + 2.0*( e0*e1 + e2*e3 ); // The B computation
E[2] = c[2] + 2.0*( e0*e2 -e1*e3 ); // The C computation
E[3]= c[3] + 2.0*( e0*e3 + e1*e2 ); // The D computation

magn= E[0]*E[0]+E[1]*E[1]+E[2]*E[2]+E[3]*E[3]; //Vector length squared

if(magn> escape) break; // When to escape the loop
} //End loop

A 9 dimensional algebra would require, for each iteration, around 81 multiplications and 81 additions in double precision floating point. I'm not sure if a functional language could increase the speed of the inner loop.

Actually even just recoding this in C# (very comparable to Java) and leveraging Linq, could simplify the code a lot, you'd be able to use Parralel.ForEach for example. that could leverage multiple cores.

Write a simple parallel program using Parallel.ForEach - .NET

In this article, learn how to enable data parallelism in .NET. Write a Parallel.ForEach loop over any IEnumerable or IEnumerable data source.

learn.microsoft.com

FYI

 

[Wuwei]

But the rigorous scientific study which your theories postulate are non existent. Mathematical models may exist. But all depend on one way of another on an underlying assumption which begs the initial question: where did that come from?

Rigorous studies of the results from the COBE and JWST satellites have given lots of understanding to the nature of the universe. A mathematical model describes the behavior of phenomena. The only underlying assumption is that the universe and matter can actually be modeled by mathematics.