Cosmology

Given our record with less advanced cultures, a cosmic speed limit at the speed of light imposed on our kind makes sense from the point of view of beings advanced enough to actually live up to the Star Trek prime directive.

I think I should point out again that Curvature Cosmology eliminates the need for dark matter and dark energy. As one of Dream Woven's links pointed out, black holes are not a reality in some workable models.

The possibility that vastly distant celestial objects might be equally well expressible under dual and opposite exclusive interpretations raises the possibility again that there may be no further reality than our models. Whatever we think of as "out there" is only a matter of interpretation and which model we use, and either model is eqaully valid, like waves and particles are in the study of light. There is something vaguely scary about that.

We are animated postulates.

Here is Stephen J. Crothers explaining why there aren't any black holes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA It's a little long, but I found it entertaining. It looks like the only way to bring theoretical physicists down to earth when they start dividing by zero is satire.

I don't know if all of the competing models are equally valid, but until one gets some experimental data there is only the model's internal logic and one's personal metaphysics to justify it. I understand the Planck data has not provided for example any evidence of a multiverse and the lambda CDM standard cosmology model is still standard from this lecture by Charles Lawrence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCZdrfDHwgU This one is also long.

Good stuff. Only viewed the first one so far. Crothers is someone at the spear point of research. Great to hear him speak with such authority. Much of his talk inadvertantly illustrates another idea I have been talking about. He and his fellows are still hashing out the details of papers published in 1916. They are translating overlooked Russian papers from the 1940's. You see what I mean? See how long it takes humans to hash out truth in these difficult matters. With cyborg researchers, everything we are painstakingly piecing together would be accomplished in a matter of days or even hours.

I like Crothers also. As I see it, we are the cyborgs.

The belief in dark matter can be traced to big bang nucleosynthesis, BBN, (distinct from later stellar nucleosynthesis) and the discrepancy between the baryon-photon ratio observed in the microwave background and the way galaxies appear to behave now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis It is interesting that the standard BBN theory matches the data for hydrogen, helium, but not for lithium, however, the non-standard models apparently mess things up even more. It is good to see data putting limits on speculation.

I have to reply before I have properly viewed everything. But I must say I wish Crothers had gone even longer. He taught me some things about the tensor calculus supercripts and subscripts. As I inch my way along, I can get closer to the mathematical ideas that inspire these guys. There are some gaps in my understanding so confusing I cannot even point out what they consist of yet. But as I creep along, unexpected tiny parts of the cavern are suddenly illuminated from various investigations. Maker of collages, I take what I can to patch my understanding of existence into a coherent picture. I am sure that is what we all do.

I feel the cynic coming on. Contemplation of diverse models which each offers a reasonable view of the universe can do that, methinks. It's enough to make one go religious!

The thing is, most of those models got one or more things wrong. They each have flaws. There may be no such thing as truth. Can't define existence, can't define consciousness, can't define intelligence--we have a ways to go. The search itself is what is exciting, and I am disappointed that the vast majority of people miss out on all of the excitement and anticipation that goes with cosmology watching.

I'm following the cosmology debate, and enjoying it!

Here is a collection of conundrums for your interest: http://www.space.com/topics/expert-v...lawrence-kuhn/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamwoven

Here is a collection of conundrums for your interest: http://www.space.com/topics/expert-v...lawrence-kuhn/

---

I took some interesting rides there. At the moment I list slightly toward our being a type of simulation or auxillary consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamwoven

Here is a collection of conundrums for your interest: http://www.space.com/topics/expert-v...lawrence-kuhn/

---

I looked at Kuhn's video about information in this link: http://www.space.com/29477-did-infor...he-cosmos.html

I liked the way he presented the issue about what is fundamental and that there should be something that is fundamental. Also the title was interesting: "Does Information Create the Cosmos". That's the challenge. What is the most fundamental reality that creates what we experience right now?

Rather than "information", I would say the fundamental reality is "consciousness", in a general sense, not our human example of it, that is the fundamental reality. However, that would require finding a way to get electrons and photons from consciousness. This is not simply that they are "conscious" themselves in some way, but that they are a manifestation to us of consciousness. I don't know how that happens, but I don't think information works as the fundamental reality because of Searle's Chinese room argument and Nagel's discussion of what it is "like" to be something subjectively.

Another one of Kuhn's topics is consciousness: http://www.space.com/30937-when-robo...conscious.html

This is a good overview containing video interviews with some of the key people involved. What I found most interesting was Kuhn's separating the different positions into five categories. This is how I understand those categories.

1) Materialism. The only fundamental reality is unconscious matter. Consciousness emerges from unconscious matter.

2) Qualia Fields. Consciousness is not reducible to unconscious matter, but it is a separate field interacting with physical fields.

3) Panpsychism. Consciousness is not reducible to unconscious matter. Matter contains consciousness as a property at the smallest levels. There is some emergence involved to get from primitive to more complicated forms of consciousness.

4) Dualism. Unconscious matter and conscious souls exist interdependently. Both unconscious matter and consciousness are fundamental.

5) Idealism. Consciousness is the only fundamental reality. Unconscious matter does not exist but what appears to be unconscious emerges from an underlying consciousness.

Most people would agree with either 1 or 4. They are either materialists or dualists. I would agree with 5.

As I see the idealist position, not everything that we have a name for is conscious as that object, but the object emerges from simpler reality that is conscious. Consciousness is characterized by an ability to make a choice, no matter how constrained that choice would be. For example, a table is not conscious as a table, but the physical reality making up the atoms of the table are conscious or emerge from a deeper consciousness. Similarly the brain is not conscious as an objectively functioning brain although the cells within the brain would be conscious as cells. Nor is a robot conscious as a robot. If the object can be identified with a programmer who determined its behavior, then it is not conscious.

Positions 1, 2 and 3 are reductionist positions while 4 and 5 are not.

I went to Kuhn's "Closer to Truth" site for more interviews: http://www.closertotruth.com/ The interviews are short and give me a better understanding of the key people involved by listening to them speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I went to Kuhn's "Closer to Truth" site for more interviews: http://www.closertotruth.com/ The interviews are short and give me a better understanding of the key people involved by listening to them speak.

---

I used to watch the Kuhn show every chance I got.

We got rid of cable some years ago. I never heard of Kuhn before this thread.

One of the psi experiments reminded me of the Turing test. Unfortunately I can't remember which person was being interviewed. The experiment used two people in different rooms. One was talking about whatever came to his mind. The other was just thinking about something he was viewing and tried to influence what the other was saying by using his thoughts. He could hear what the other was saying, but the speaking person could not see him.

Also it looks like Ray Kurzweil didn't think that recent Turing test success met his standards: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-re...he-turing-test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

We got rid of cable some years ago. I never heard of Kuhn before this thread.

One of the psi experiments reminded me of the Turing test. Unfortunately I can't remember which person was being interviewed. The experiment used two people in different rooms. One was talking about whatever came to his mind. The other was just thinking about something he was viewing and tried to influence what the other was saying by using his thoughts. He could hear what the other was saying, but the speaking person could not see him.

Also it looks like Ray Kurzweil didn't think that recent Turing test success met his standards: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-re...he-turing-test

---

Yikes! Look at this. I do not think I have posted it before.

http://www.tony5m17h.net/SiragMcKayE8ID.pdf

There are some prose sections to this long paper that are readable. This is the Lie alghebra they are using to try to connect consciousness to quantum mechanics. At first I was under the impression that they were using seven and a half billion dimensions. But, ah, no worry. These are regular square matrices. Do not be discouraged that one of the matrices would be seven miles wide if each entry position were given one inch of room. Get your pencil out and start calculating!

I have no idea exactly how difficult this Lie algebra might be, because it is hard to even get an inroad. But I do know that p-adic theory may be the toughest I have looked at in terms of mastery. In p-adic theory (which is used within Lie Algebra), 48 and 1000048 are exteremely close numbers when p=10. Not sure how close 47 and 1000048 are, but I believe they are not considered close at all.

Lie Algebra evolved out of differential geometry. It is simply amazing how closely Gauss is tied to all these advanced maths that developed, some long after his death. The hand of Gauss is still all over conteporary research.