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

[Annie McCoy]

Just a short primer.
Prime numbers are those numbers that are only divisible by themselves and the number '1'. The set of all primes starts with the number '2', and because all even numbers are multiples of 2, every prime number after that, is odd. Except for the number '2', no new prime number can be a multiple of two.

The next prime number is '3'. '2' and '3' are the only two prime numbers that follow in immediate sequence in the set of Integers or Natural numbers. After that, there are lots of primes that appear as "pairs", in that they are only two numbers apart, like '3' & '5', '5' & '7', '11' & '13'. In fact, it is generally accepted that there are an infinite number of prime pairs.

'3', like '2', is a prime number, thus eliminating all other numbers that are divisible by '3' as a next possible prime number. So, no subsequent prime numbers will land in any third place on the number line, such as: 6 (3x2), 9 (3x3), 12 (3x4 and 6x2), or 15 (you get the picture). The thing is, every time a prime number appears, the following sequence of number will never include another prime that appears in that prime's number of places from the parent prime. I mean, for the nth prime number, no prime will subsequently appear in the positions of n+n, 3n, 4n, 5n, ... and so on. Every prime number, by the nature of primes, becomes the least common denominator of its multiples. (There are no primes that have another prime as one of its factors. By definition, all prime numbers have only itself and '1' as factors).

Since there is only one prime for its multiples, and an infinite number of multiples for each prime factor, the further along the Integer numberline we go, the less likely we are to find the next prime number. Yet, they go on into infinity, just like their multiples.

Every prime number, thus behaves exactly like every other prime number with only the exceptions of '2', being even, and '3' being right next to '2'. Yet, according to the abstract I just read in which some mathematicians claim to have found a way to predict the next prime (in other words, they can determine the nth prime number), All they need to do that with are, the four primes: '2', '3', '5', and '7'.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4742238
From these, they have put together a Periodic Table of Primes, or PTP.
"We identify 48 integers out of a period of 2×3×5×7=210 to be the roots of all primes and composites without factors of 2, 3, 5, and 7, each of which is an offspring of the 48 integers uniquely allocated on the PTP."

I wish my math skills were better, because... How does that work?

-Will

Not a great/detailed answer since my maths skills aren’t great. The abstract interested me so I just spent the past hour and a half reading through and trying to formulate it without all the academic jargon here.

If you download the paper, the introduction explains their method well (that’s what I used to formulate this answer). They used a cyclic method and matrices to create the PTP.

The PTP is created using a CTC they develop.

The 48 integers are primes and composites without factors of the first 4 primes within the interval 11 to 211. These numbers become the left column of the PTP table and cycle(1) of the cycle used later in the matrices. These integers are the base for the whole thing.

The 48 integers are, r(1) = 11, r(2) = 13, r(3) = 17, …, r(24) = 107, …, r(48) = 211.

The matrices set out with interval [48(theta - 1) + 1, 48(theta)]. The formula for 48(theta) is r(n) + 210(theta - 1). Where theta is the cycle number. These matrices make up the CTC, with different cycles making up different matrices. Different cycles allow them to observe different patterns among the CTC.

They then use a further formula to eliminate all composites from the CTC.

They use the CTC’s obtained from different cycles (and observations of different patterns) to generate the PTP (which is a matrix of the primes within the given interval).

Using the CTC and PTP they’re then able to work out the total number of primes and twin primes within the interval.

I hope this helps at all

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It's becoming apparent that mathematical fields such as geometry, number theory, combinatorics and category theory are probably fundamental to the emergence of both spacetime and quantum mechanics. Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity as is required to describe what happened in the big bang or happens in black hole singularities might well be tractable in some encompassing more basal description of reality.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Whether a basal theory from which spacetime and quantum mechanics emerge requires Penrose's twistors, Wolfram's ruliads or something else remains to be worked out, but I suspect those descriptions are aspects of the same thing and perhaps subject to the limit of computational irreducibility. In some ways, the universe/multiverse appears strongly to be quantum computational. However, every age tends to describe reality using the technological metaphors of that age's most zeitgeisty technology.

 

[Will The Serious]

I have imagined a prime extractor based on music. At first, I thought the idea was genius, then I realized it was just another example of the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

The idea was to lay frequencies of sound on top of each other. A sound wave with a frequency of base-two would be smooth and steady. Then, on top of that, generate a frequency with a wave every three. The sound thus generated would peak every two, and every three, and would be loudest on every wave that was a multiple of both 2 and 3, but there would be a skip in sound at every 5th. I was picturing this on something like an oscilloscope or whatever the more modern device may be.

If, each time there was a skip in the composite sound wave, where you would find the next prime number, you then generated a wave at that new prime's frequency and added it in, you would get a new skip at the subsequent prime, and so on. The thought was that the rates at which sound waves could be generated would be more efficient at finding the nth prime than calculating with numbers in the abstract.

Upon thinking about it more deeply, I realized it had physical limitations as well as just being the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

(I have a cousin who has written a proof of the infinity of prime pairs. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing it, but it sounded fascinating.)

-Will

 

[publiusr]

Perhaps primes can be predicted
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-breakthrough-prime-theory-primes.amp

Maybe other things too.
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-ultimately-theory-quantum-materials.amp

I really like the 3D DESI flyby BTW

A new particle?
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-evidence-subatomic-particle.html

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I got horrible grades in both math and science, during my school years. So anything I learned later on came from reading different books on my own, and watching videos on YouTube. I don't wish to derail this thread by citing my sources, but I am currently a believer in "creation science", or the principle which says the physical and metaphysical can peacefully co-exist. Others with such a view include Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Maria Mitchell, just to name a few.

 

[Will The Serious]

"creation science", or the principle which says the physical and metaphysical can peacefully co-exist.

It is the nature of the two that is the real sticky point. Often it comes down to definition.

I find that if looked at from the right perspective, different views are often saying the same thing, just using a different language.

-Will

 

[Moviefan2k4]

It is the nature of the two that is the real sticky point. Often it comes down to definition.

I find that if looked at from the right perspective, different views are often saying the same thing, just using a different language.

-Will

To be fair, the term "creation science" has been used broadly, since being first established in the late 19th century. As a result, there doesn't seem to be much of a general consensus, apart from the basic concept that nature was formed by an intelligent mind. From that point on, there's all kinds of questions relating to things like a young or old Earth, literal 6-day creation vs. the so-called "gap theory", interpretations of the Biblical Flood and its aftermath, and the attempt to merge Scriptural teachings with Darwinism to form the widely-debated "theistic evolution" idea.

 

[Malicia]

I've been reading bitesize portions of this page recently and it's mind blowing how far in to the future the universe is predicted to exist. Due to the current age of the universe I assumed it would be in the billions not trillions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The PTP is disputed.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a60427695/prime-numbers-study-controversy/

Also, the paper has been taken down from SSRN.

 

[Will The Serious]

The “Second Law of Infodynamics” could prove We Live in a Simulation

Using his previously formulated Second Law of Infodynamics, Vopson claims that the decrease of entropy in information systems over time could prove that the universe has a built-in “data optimization and compression,” which speaks to its digital nature.

Information Could be the Fifth State of Matter
{Sorry, I did not know this link led to a members only page. Here is a similar article from Phys.org}
Fifth State of Matter

We know that when you collide a particle of matter with a particle of antimatter, they annihilate each other. And the information from the particle has to go somewhere when it's annihilated.

The annihilation process converts all the remaining mass of the particles into energy, typically gamma photons. Any particles containing information are converted into low-energy infrared photons.

If we assume that information is physical and has mass, and that elementary particles have a DNA of information about themselves, how can we prove it?

"If we assume that information is physical and has mass" + "If we assume...that elementary particles have a DNA of information about themselves"
"How do we prove it?"
Indeed!
From the Pop Mec article:

“We know the universe is expanding without the loss or gain of heat, which requires the total entropy of the universe to be constant. However we also know from thermodynamics that entropy is always rising. I argue this shows that there must be another entropy—information entropy—to balance the increase.

Vopson argues that this law plays a role in atomic physics (electron arrangement), cosmology (see above), and biological systems.

Of course, if his previous assumptions were true, they would have to have a roll in these things.

contrary to Charles Darwin’s idea that mutations occur randomly, mutations actually occur so that information entropy is minimized.

Vopson has a paper studying the mutations of the virus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
The Second Law of Infodynamics
More from Pop Mec:
“A super complex universe like ours, if it were a simulation, would require a built-in data optimization and compression in order to reduce the computational power and the data storage requirements to run the simulation,” Vopson wrote in The Conversation. “This is exactly what we are observing all around us, including in digital data, biological systems, mathematical symmetries and the entire universe.”
Vopson is still working in a physical Universe, if he is talking about the need to minimize data storage. Why simulate a physical universe if the information needed for that simulation is physical?
“A super complex universe like ours, if it were a simulation, would require a built-in data optimization and compression in order to reduce the computational power and the data storage requirements to run the simulation,”
"A super complex universe"
If the complexity of the universe can be boiled down to a few laws, a fundamental state of matter and time, complexity is an emergent state that needs no processing or storage. The universe becomes its own processor and storage.

In considering the use of DNA in design storage, consider that that DNA is both recreated and contained within the recreated larger cell. In computer science, addressing is the fundamental requirement. That's the tiny bit of information that points to those greater values that are not so easily and quickly searched and processed. When one wants to read a novel online, they start with the address of that first word. If the novel is stored all together in contiguous format, that initial address and the serial reading app are all that is needed. If the novel is cloud-based and stored across the Web, then each piece of the novel needs to also point to the next piece of the novel. Data compression requires a compression and decompression algorithm. So, the addressing becomes more complicated while the storage is optimized, but not necessarily minimized.

If we are going to consider a simulated Universe, we have to consider who that simulation is being read by. Physical or simulated?

-Will

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Spoiler: Veritasium - The Math that Predicted Black Holes Predicts even Stranger Objects

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Vertiasium talks about White Holes, Parallel Universes, the Einstein-Rosen Bridge; a "relatively short" video about this stuff which makes me want to watch "Sliders" again =D.

It also makes ST:2009 film seem viable when Spock gets sucked into a Alternate Parallel Reality.

 

[Will The Serious]

From an Occam's Razor approach, what could be a simpler explanation than the universe as pure Mind?

It is all just imagined. Row row row your boat... life is but a...

-Will

 

[Moviefan2k4]

From an Occam's Razor approach, what could be a simpler explanation that the universe as pure Mind?

It is all just imagined. Row row row your boat... life is but a...

-Will

In that case, you'd have to assume that your own mind is also imaginary...which begs the next question, "Why should you trust it?"

 

[Will The Serious]

Because it's the only one.

-Will

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Because it's the only one.

-Will

But if the mind is imaginary, the conclusion of "it's the only one" is nothing more than an illusion, which just further stresses the point. If you're going to base your worldview on the belief that everything you think and feel ultimately amounts to nothing, then it only follows you should never trust any of it. That's the problem with such concepts - they inherently defeat themselves.

 

[Will The Serious]

Perhaps you are right. However, if we were to consider that there were other minds beyond our own, how would we ever know?

In a phenomenal or physical Universe, time, space, feeling, even knowing, can't be trusted. The only experience we can be certain of is this one moment of existence.

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." He was looking for the first principle upon which to base all other absolutes. His mistake was in saying "I think", because that is unknowable. We can only have the momentary impression that we think. We don't know we think.

Thinking infers time. Time leads to a past and a future. These things might exist, but we only have this moment of knowing. Everything else is an illusion to us.

There is nothing to trust or mistrust. There is being. There is being only because there is someone to experience being. Beyond the simplest, most fleeting concept, we can not say more with any confident absolute.

However, we do have the experience of being, and all the complex, mysterious, puzzling, hidden rules, and enigmatic discoveries our moment has conjured up. What else is there to do but to exist within it? We have no choice.

In ancient Greece, the conclusion for determinism was common, except, I believe it was Parmenades who said we do have a choice. We may be caught in this universe, whether real or imagined, we may not be able to act with free-will against the cause and effect of a cosmos that acts with physical or metaphysical rules, but we have the choice to be awake to it or we can remain asleep and unaware. The outcome will be the same. But there is that one choice. Experience the world, and the only way to experience the world is through our senses, our imaginary, illusion, deceiving senses. Even our scientific instruments need our senses to tell us what they measure.

-Will

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Perhaps you are right. However, if we were to consider that there were other minds beyond our own, how would we ever know?

That's where trust comes in, because relying solely on your physical senses doesn't work. After all, we can perceive things in life such as fairness, justice, compassion, and even love...yet we know deep down there's no natural source for them. You don't see any evidence for them in our DNA, or other such molecules. They are metaphysical in nature, but it doesn't make them any less real.

In a phenomenal or physical Universe, time, space, feeling, even knowing, can't be trusted. The only experience we can be certain of is this one moment of existence.

If you're talking about temporary mortality, I'd tend to agree with you. But the moment you add anything metaphysical to the mix, that brings in the concept of eternity...which involves an entirely different set of parameters.

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." He was looking for the first principle upon which to base all other absolutes. His mistake was in saying "I think", because that is unknowable. We can only have the momentary impression that we think. We don't know we think.

Thinking infers time. Time leads to a past and a future. These things might exist, but we only have this moment of knowing. Everything else is an illusion to us.

I don't know anything about Descartes, but I think another way to look at his statement would be to ask the question, "Do we really want to spend the rest of our lives, second-guessing ourselves all the time?" Where is the practicality or reason in that?

There is nothing to trust or mistrust. There is being. There is being only because there is someone to experience being. Beyond the simplest, most fleeting concept, we can not say more with any confident absolute.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here. I live much of my life by the very notion of absolute trust, deciding on an almost daily basis who I will apply those values to, when, and why. Life isn't just about me, or my conveniences; others must factor into the equation by default.

However, we do have the experience of being, and all the complex, mysterious, puzzling, hidden rules, and enigmatic discoveries our moment has conjured up. What else is there to do but to exist within it? We have no choice.

So you're willing to accept the possibility of mysteries, puzzles, and enigmas, but deny absolutes at the same time? I really don't understand this line of thinking from anyone. Must everything remain an unsolvable question to you?

In ancient Greece, the conclusion for determinism was common, except, I believe it was Parmenades who said we do have a choice. We may be caught in this universe, whether real or imagined, we may not be able to act with free-will against the cause and effect of a cosmos that acts with physical or metaphysical rules, but we have the choice to be awake to it or we can remain asleep and unaware. The outcome will be the same. But there is that one choice. Experience the world, and the only way to experience the world is through our senses, our imaginary, illusion, deceiving senses. Even our scientific instruments need our senses to tell us what they measure.

Determinism says that individuals have no free will, and as such we can't be held morally responsible for their actions. Personally, I think that's crap. Take our legal system, for example - if it operated by deterministic principles, no criminal would ever go to jail.

As for your argument about us not being able to fight against metaphysical forces, I also disagree - we do that every day. Think about it: how many times has someone really angered you, and you wanted to attack them for it but held yourself back? That's not just from a fear of being legally punished; something inside told you it was a wiser choice. The same principle holds true, if you feel like cheating on a love interest, but don't go through with it. You may love and care for them, and you don't want to see them hurt...but that's also a metaphysical position, and you make a deliberate choice to live by it.

Some of our physical senses may be unreliable at times, but that doesn't mean they're our only avenue for things like this. Naturalism completely fails in this regard, because it assumes that "all you have is what you are."

 

[Will The Serious]

Life isn't just about me, or my conveniences; others must factor into the equation by default.

From another perspective, life is only about you. Any consideration of others may stem from a number of other factors. Consequences for our actions, real or imagined, are serious considerations. Do we want to stay out of jail? Do we want to develop our continue good relationships with another? Do we have a sense of "fairness" outside of self-interest that may actually be programmed in to our psyche? These things still exist, whether they are real or imagined. For me, it's about who I want to be. I am generous or kind or tolerant or helpful because that's the type of person I want to be. It doesn't matter about fairness or reciprocation or consequences as much as I am who I intend to be. It is all about me.

Determinism says that individuals have no free will, and as such we can't be held morally responsible for their actions.

Determinism also says we must hold ourselves (individually and the group) responsible for our actions. We Live according to the rules of cause and effect.

"Do we really want to spend the rest of our lives, second-guessing ourselves all the time?" Where is the practicality or reason in that?

Why wouldn't you want to do that? Where is the interest in living if some radical pragmatism was the driver for living?

Let's keep life fun. Otherwise, why? After all, this is a science fiction fan site. We are not here for practical reasons.

-Will

 

[Moviefan2k4]

From another perspective, life is only about you. Any consideration of others may stem from a number of other factors. Consequences for our actions, real or imagined, are serious considerations. Do we want to stay out of jail? Do we want to develop our continue good relationships with another? Do we have a sense of "fairness" outside of self-interest that may actually be programmed in to our psyche? These things still exist, whether they are real or imagined. For me, it's about who I want to be. I am generous or kind or tolerant or helpful because that's the type of person I want to be. It doesn't matter about fairness or reciprocation or consequences as much as I am who I intend to be. It is all about me.

No offense meant, truly...but this does read as a little egotistical, at least from my perspective. If all you can think of regarding your interactions with others is what you will get out of it, where's anything like selflessness or humility? I highly doubt you can chalk up everything like that as just being "programmed in to our psyche".

Determinism also says we must hold ourselves (individually and the group) responsible for our actions. We Live according to the rules of cause and effect.

That's only half the case though, in many situations. I've used this example before, but let's say you see a disabled person crossing the street, who's completely oblivious to a speeding car headed their way. You can't warn them, so there's only two choices - risk your own life to save theirs, or let them die. Strictly speaking, that goes against a simple "cause and effect" dynamic - it involves free will, bravery, and sacrifice.

Why wouldn't you want to do that? Where is the interest in living if some radical pragmatism was the driver for living?

I just don't see any rationality in constantly asking ourselves whether we're doing the right thing. Eventually, we all must take a stand based on conviction.

Let's keep life fun. Otherwise, why? After all, this is a science fiction fan site. We are not here for practical reasons.

This particular section is not strictly limited to fictitious discussion. It may not be as open as the Miscellaneous or Neutral Zone, but it seems there's still some room for branching out a bit.

 

[Will The Serious]

This particular section is not strictly limited to fictitious discussion. It may not be as open as the Miscellaneous or Neutral Zone, but it seems there's still some room for branching out a bit.

Of course, you are right. I'm only pointing out that if pragmatism was the driver, why seek a board like TrekBBS to discuss these issues on. I would speculate that you are here because you're a fan of Star Trek, which leads me to believe you are not limited in your interests to practical matters.

I just don't see any rationality in constantly asking ourselves whether we're doing the right thing. Eventually, we all must take a stand based on conviction.

Where do those convictions come from? Why would one decide on a set of concoctions and not constantly reassess their rationale?

Be awake. Don't hit the cruise control on life and think you can just close your eyes. If you're driving, pay attention always. That means asking questions. The most fundamental question one can ask oneself is, what is the right thing to do. It's ethics. Ontology and metaphysics, asking oneself, "who am I," are all to answer that first question.

-Will