The Nature of the Universe, Time Travel and More...

I, of course, know nothing of what I write about. But you may be interested in the tiny bit in which I talk of time travel in one of my episodes of The Vulcan. https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-vulcan-episode-3-t-minus-negative.312683/

Any critique is welcome. Unless you think it sucks.

-Will

 

You might get more feedback in Trek Tech. It's mostly tumbleweed around here. I don't read fan fiction and I've read almost no official Trek novelisations. I've only read a few collections of James Blish TOS script adaptations and one DS9 novel, A Stitch in Time by Andrew Robinson. I've read an order of magnitude more Babylon 5 and The Expanse novels than Trek ones. Those fictional universes resonate more with me - it's just a personal preference.

 

Math made with brane theory perfectly predicts some things we see. The same thing could go for general relativity. We can't prove spacetime is curved but that math predicts things correctly.

 

What things that we observe? What things that alternate theories do not predict? Any references?

 

Math is an indispensable tool for science. It models our world, it suggests directions for investigation, it supports and, like statistics, provides scientists with "most likely" sceneries. However, it is at its best when used to disprove theories. If the math works, then maybe the theory is correct, but if the math doesn't work, then the theory can't be correct.

-Will

 

You've read more Trek stuff than I have. My fan-fic is just a whim and that it is in Gene Roddenberry's universe is only because I'm lazy and didn't want to develop a whole new world around my characters.

Anyhow, I'm not on this thread to get readers. I just thought of it as we were discussing time travel, etc. It is no problem to stick to the subject of the thread. I'm finding it highly educational.

-Will

 

Indeed - we know either general relativity or quantum mechanic is incorrect as they are inconsistent with each other. Possibly both are incorrect. String theory, while it appeared to offer a promising resolution, has been going for four decades or so and has yet to provide a single, testable prediction. Brane theory (pick one of many varieties) looks attractive but it is relatedly and similarly flawed. The standard model of particle physics is an embarrassing hotchpotch of adhoc fields and numerous free parameters.

I tend to agree with Wolfram that we might well have reached the limit of what is computationally reducible in describing reality symbolically. There could perhaps be new mathematics, beyond symbolic representation that is effectively 1D, which would provide new insights, but, eventually, I suspect we would again hit irreducibility. This might be the case however far we increased the dimensionality of mathematics.

 

The idea of dimensionality is as much mathematical slight-of-hand as the idea of the number '2'. There is plenty of real world application, but conceptually it is nothing but a construct of convenience.

Mathematically, there are an infinite number of dimensions. Each value on the Whole number scale can represent another dimensionless point in one dimension. In between each value of that infinite set of points are another infinite collection of points. Those values can be thought of as a second dimension. You get a grid; Whole numbers on the X axis, Real numbers on the Y axis. A coordinate system would then be expressed as (X.Y).

As you can easily see, a third dimension can be added in the same way. In the case of the Real number system, we define certain properties of Real numbers (a continuum) that makes it difficult to define a third dimension, but it can easily be done by simply adding a definition to the new set, within a set within a set, such that we can express multiple distinct values for any given Real number. There is no reason except the limits of our imagination, that such dimensional additions can't continue on forever.

Whether or not there are actual dimensions to Reality beyond what we perceive is immaterial to our conceptual math games. Until we can actually bring those other dimensions into our universe of perception, cause and effect, they will remain nothing more than interesting mental exercises.

In my opinion, the concept of multiple planes of parallel universes is less than reasonable. We think of divergent realities, where every decision can lead to the spawning of another parallel, but slightly different, universe that otherwise follows along on a similar path. I think, if such parallel worlds exist, it is much more likely that none of them will look similar. Perhaps we can look to the evolution of life as a model. There may be branches that split and diverge immediately, there may be parallel evolution of different ancestral groups, there may be evolutionary dead-ends, but most likely, too me, are the groups that evolve completely independently and in isolation to the others.

-Will

 

Where'd you hear this from? Inconsistency just means there's something we don't understand yet, not that the inconsistent things are wrong.

 

Attempts to construct a theory of quantum gravity produce infinities because of the inherent inconsistencies - therefore one or both theories must be corrected or replaced.
Quantum gravity - Wikipedia

Indeed, there are many things for which we do not have complete theories. It is possible that we never will without creating radically different mathematics that gets rid of ghastly hacks such as renormalisation, which have tainted modern physics.

I'm talking about the dimensionality of how we formulate mathematics as essentially a 1-D string of symbols - albeit with occasional hyperlinks. My intuition - and it is only that - is there might be higher dimensional ways of representing mathematical objects, manipulating them and constructing proofs. We know there are limits to what we can be shown with strings of symbols. I don't know what the limitations might be for higher dimensional representations.

Entscheidungsproblem - Wikipedia

 

First, of all at this level of science, one should cite papers not Wikipedia. I cannot find what you are referencing in this article. If you are referring to the nonrenormalizableness of gravity and perturbative theory, to quote your own citation:

I don't know if I'm just misunderstanding you, but this is arbitrary and vague enough to be meaningless to me.

 

I think that statement says it all.

Not at all. What Zaprudder is trying to say is, the model we are using to represent all conceptual space, real world 3D space, extra-dimensional space, inter-dimensional and quantum space, is essentially a one dimensional string of symbols (numbers and operators). It is like trying to represent a cube when all you have is a one-dimensional line to draw on; no 2D piece of paper or 3D piece of clay.

Imagine you only have a one-dimensional line. Your job, with the use of various dot and line attributes (texture, colors, weight maybe), and you have to represent a sphere, a pyramid, and a cube, by only making marks on that line. He is saying, that is what Math does.

In ancient times, math was done through geometry. Line segments were drawn and mechanically divided or added. A mathematician worked out problems in ratios, relationships and solved pure math problems with dividers, straight edge, compass, and pencils.

-Will

 

I read a SciAm blurb about a mis-translation of Newton that went un-noticed for 300 years.

 

You don't give any peer-reviewed references when making your bold assertions, so why should I?

But anyway:

Quantum gravity - Scholarpedia
Is Carlo Rovelli's review paper good enough for you?

Perhaps not understanding depends on your existing knowledge of automated theorem proving and the Entscheidungsproblem. I know I'm not talented enough to contribute meaningfully to transcending what we now recognise as the fundamental limitations of mathematics.

You seem to think you can uncover deep and meaningful answers to the nature of reality on a Star Trek message board. If so, I suggest you find a proper mathematical physics forum.

 

Indeed. It's a well-known problem to anyone who has ever skimmed the subject. There are many, many review papers, articles and books on the subject. Wikipedia is but one stepping-off point. I doubt I can solve it. People much more talented than me have tried and failed.

I'm suggesting something more abstract than constructive Euclidean geometry, but essentially, yes. I find M C Escher to be inspirational. What if there exists a symbology beyond the 1-D kind?

Well, he did write in Latin and I always found it could be an ambiguous language - perhaps deliberately so - like Italian, which is amenable to playing many subtle word games. Some would say that Newton wasted many years studying alchemy and other arcane arts. It was remarkable what he did achieve in the relatively small portion of his life that he devoted to advancing mathematics and natural philosophy.

 

It is "conceivable," as Disposable_Ensign quotes, in the "correct" theory of extra-dimensional mathematics, a non-linear or poly-linear calculus may be developed that can efficiently resolve many open problems around complex space and imaginary states.

Computer math, with its ability for parallel processing, its structure of lines of symbolic math arranged in rows, its ability to loop, call functions and return values to earlier variables and various data structures, may be leading us into just such a discovery. For now, all that complexity can still be broken down into a one-dimensional linear string of symbols.

I think, if such a fundamentally different tool is to exist, binary symbology and digital computing won't be able to bring us all the way there. It will take more than a tri-state transistor to handle it.

-Will

 

Any computer program is reducible to a Turing machine, so it would be limited just like any formal or axiomatic system. Of course, there is still the unresolved debate about whether human consciousness can be similarly reduced. We humans are obviously flawed and sometimes we appear to intuit beyond the bounds of what is obvious, and subsequently attempt to fill in the gaps. People such as Roger Penrose have argued that the "specialness" of human intelligence lies in quantum mechanics, so perhaps quantum computers would have more traction in exploring new mathematical realms. However, my understanding is that any problem solvable on a quantum computer or indeed a quantum Turing machine is also solvable on a conventional computer, albeit more slowly, so both are subject to the fundamental limitations of what is computable.

 

I was pointing out that your own source disagrees with you.

That's what I'm saying. I'm not qualified to discuss that. Kudos to you that understand that.

You're also posting in a thread called "The Nature of the Universe", on this Trek message board.

 

It really doesn't as @Will The Serious pointed out. I doubt you did more than skim the Wikipedia article to find a contrarian quote, only to fail abjectly. The review by Rovelli is perhaps more succinct and direct as to the nature of the problem and the possible resolutions.

No-one here is really qualified to discuss any of this, not should we expect them to be. I obtained my PhD in a much easier area of physics a long time ago and I've never felt my mathematics was anything like good enough to be a theoretician. If someone in this thread is qualified, they should perhaps direct their intellect somewhere else where it would be usefully applied.

My point exactly. It's not an arena where one is going to find serious, reasoned intellectual discussion by current experts in the field of theoretical physics. It a forum for people with various degrees of assumed Dunning-Kruger adequateness to spout ideas that ideally should have some basis in actual mathematics and physics. In reality, some of the stuff posted in this subforum is complete gibbering nonsense lately. I shall leave it up to the readers of this particular thread to decide whether that applies to the contributors, including myself.

 

Webb seems to point towards MOND...so Issac might get the last laugh yet.