Physics crossing over into philosophy... Mind-bending stuff!

Grall

Invisible Member
Legend
I've been checking out a few videos on Youtube from the Tenth Dimension blog (such as this one for example), and even though what he's saying is on a pretty casual-chatty level, I just don't get all of it.

I do get enough of it though to forcibly get my mind wrapped in ways I never imagined before. It's quite startling an experience. It's interesting to note that much of the highest levels of physics (and, by function, mathematics) becomes subject to interpretations that affect our physical world and how we percieve it, and thus - perhaps unintentionally - wander into philosophy...even religion, you might say.

The concept that there actually exists a minimum quanta of time is one such thing. Is it proof our universe is merely a computer simulation, and that planck time is the cycle length of each step of the simulation? HMMMM...!

On a side note, the above linked video talks a lot about the fourth dimension, but seems to deal with it more from a time perspective (no pun intended). When it comes to handling the fourth dimension as a physical property, I find Carl Sagan's explanation from roughly 30 years ago now very hard to beat. That man was a genious, at least when it comes to oral explanations of rather complicated subjects...
 
Actually it looks like just philosophy, at least from that video.

If it were science, I would expect this theory to be able to explain something that has been previously unexplainable or to be able to propose (from a theoretical point of view at least) a possible application.

The stuff its indeed interesting, though. It would imply that time is somehow reversible, although it also doesn't propose how.

LE: and one more thing. Maybe they (quite likely, actually) did though it out, but there are no hints to why a quantum superposition would be the "source" for the sequence of "consecutive shadows" that enriches every plank time "sample".

My opinion is also that since there is no clue as to how the quantum physics governed micro-universe affects our macro universe, physicists (or at least people that popularize physics) have established a habit of jumping over this wall ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The author isn't a mathematician, philosopher, or physicist, he's a musician, and most everything he writes is stunningly wrong. Just look at the Amazon reviews. A crank who doesn't even understand physics from a popular-science level.
 
The really interesting thing about higher levels of astrophysics, quantum physics, all of that, is that if you neccessarily want to bring some kind of creator entity into this, you could easily argue that what we're now discovering with science is the blueprints and methods of how a supreme being designed our universe. We're even finding out how life itself works on a fundamental level, through DNA research, MRI imaging and so on.

We're putting pieces of a puzzle together piece by piece. We know - or at least think we know - how heavy atoms came into existence, we're grasping somewhat at least how planets form, how stars and galaxies form and so on. A lot of this may be wrong - perhaps a lot of it is probably wrong! - but we're getting there, and fast too. To think that we didn't even know bacteria existed, or that they cause disease in human beings, as late as the 1700s. Today we can build bacterial DNA completely from scratch out of its constituent amino acids, and make it function in living cells.

Yet, we'll probably never be able to figure out what preceded the "big bang" - where everything came from, and what set everything off. We can speculate, but that's it. Nor can we know what will happen to the universe once it's expanded to the point that even atomic nuclei blow apart. This leaves the door wide open for interpretations involving the divine. Typically, what began with creation, ends with destruction in religions, and there actually is a Ragnarök predicted by currrently held scientific beliefs in our far future, even though it may not be as inventive as the one described in old Icelandic mythos...

Of course, most religious people feverishly hold onto the dogma that "god" waved his hand for a bit, said a few words, and *poof*. There everything was, 6000 years ago, complete with a fossil record stretching back 150+ million years, a geological record of ~4 billion years and a visible universe ~13 billion light years in diameter, complete with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on a beach.

Can't say the dogma makes much sense to me... :LOL:

Anyway, it's real interesting stuff.
 
The author isn't a mathematician, philosopher, or physicist, he's a musician, and most everything he writes is stunningly wrong.
Yeah, well, that may be so. Some of the stuff he said struck me as a bit odd. I looked up his name on Wikipedia, and there wasn't an article for him (although his name was mentioned in other articles - at least one as a composer; I figured it was some other guy.

In any case, some of what he says is quite similar to what I've read of what other people, actual scientists, have said, and there also is that same physics-philosophy connection. Relativity, how the speed of time varies in relation to motion, is just one such thing.

String theory, higher-order spatial dimensions and so on, is another.
 
By the way, just reminded that Stephan Hawking talks about a 7 (iirc) spatial dimensions + 1 temporal. He's a bit more reliable (although of course this can be debated as well) than the other people brought into this discussion.

The bit that I touched in the previous post was that if you would assume time is also a spatial dimension notions such as past and future shouldn't exists. Most physicists (if not all) agree that time can be traveled in a single direction only.

@Grall:
If scientists would stick to their equations, theories and principles all would be well. But all this "political" impact really annoys me. makes me think what the researchers (and mainly these people that speak for them) were after. Several issues just polarize opinions and it would appear they polarize scientific theories as well.

What can I, a layman, do if I wanted to know the truth regarding such an issue? I have to go and redo the research the scientists do, of course. Some people just choose what to believe anyway, while others (like me) stop believing anything. So science and science popularization is completely useless as in both cases it completely misses the point.
 
That is fraud there, new age stuff designed to draw spiritually interested into certain streams of the one-world "religion". Basically anyone who comes with "YOU are the master of your own universe" and other such ego-stuff is a scammer, that's the easiest way to filter them out.

If you like that topic, I'd rather recommend David B. Hawkins, "The Eye of the I" for starters. Or Kundalini yoga, or the Upanishads. That's where these new-age guys stole most of their philosophy.

Then there are also guys like Robert A. Wilson ("Prometheus Rising") or the people behind Kymatica (see YT or GoogleVids) that are somewhere in between, but I'm still undecided about those. The Kymatica group seems to be behind some sort of doomsday project and things like that make me suspicious right away. Wilson is just too much of everything, with lots of references to satanism and such mixed in. But still worth reading, even if just for purely educational purposes.
 
That is fraud there, new age stuff designed to draw spiritually interested into certain streams of the one-world "religion". Basically anyone who comes with "YOU are the master of your own universe" and other such ego-stuff is a scammer, that's the easiest way to filter them out.

yes, that's almost obvious. But I'm not sure that all these people are doing it conscientiously. Furthermore, there are other "scientists" that demonstrate (more or less) stuff from the Bible to prove God exists (or whatever).

On a personal note - by all means, I am a believer. But I would like to think that I've had some contact with science in my life. And it's just disgusting how casual or less casual "science commentators" try to manipulate people or justify themselves. As I said in my previous post, it does good to no one.
 
Back
Top