state of the universe

It seems to me that most people, whether they are actively concerned about the state of the universe or not, are comfortable with the notion that a universe does indeed exist, and that this universe does have some defined, or 'actual' state to it.

However, as an entity must exist in order to possess any state at all, and as existence is wholly dependent upon interaction(1), it can be said that the state of the universe is also dependent upon interaction.

In fact, Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity is a testament to this.

Even so, while many people may agree with the Theory of Special Relativity, they also hold the notion that there does ‘exists’ a universe, and that this universe does have some actual state about it.

In general, I have heard the argument put forth as this: “As Einstein revealed, there exists no preferred frame-of-reference within the universe, and therefore, there exists no unique frame-of-reference in which an actual state of the universe can be defined.”

However, implicitly underlying this argument lays the following notions: 1) That there is in fact a universe common to all frames-of-reference and 2) that there is a 'state' of this universe, although any two observers must disagree on its actuality.

I find the notion of an actual state of anything to be an oxymoron. I say this, as it meaningless to discuss the ‘state’ of something without implying interaction. Thus, any ‘actual’ state of the universe, in fact describes the actuality of a particular interaction, and not an intrinsic 'actual' state of interacting components.

In order to fully appreciate the relativistic nature of existence, one must take the notion that 'existence is wholly dependent upon interaction' to its logical conclusion. That is, as there are no preferred frames-of-reference by which the state of the universe can be defined, there are no preferred interactions that can establish an 'actual' state of the universe, or describe the universe as it 'really' is.

Or, to put it simply: There is no actual state of the universe.

1. Please read the post: existence and non-existence.

selfless flatworms

I find the notion that each sentient creature must have some discrete identity, or 'self' to be very natural.

I assume this discrete identity evolves from a combination of awareness of one's environment, and the creature's unique perspective of that environment.

Similarly, I cannot imagine my own self to be in more than one place at a time, or to simultaneously experience more than one perspective. Nor do I assume the 'self' of another person to be in any way related to mine.

However, some creatures, like flatworms are completely divisible. -That is, after a flatworm is cut in two, it is possible for each half to regenerate and become another full flatworm.









Now, if we assume flatworms have any degree of 'self', based upon its unique perspective and limited sentience, what can we say becomes of that 'self' when the flatworm is split in two (1)?

It is known that humans can survive a hemispherectomy, where one half of the brain is removed. Although it is technically impossible at present, it seems reasonable that a resected hemisphere could be transplanted into a donor body lacking both hemispheres. Would this operation split a human's 'self' in two?

1. To me this seems particularly challenging to any faith that would attribute a soul to a flatworm. Thus, it seems each time a flat worm is cut, a soulless flatworm is created, or another new soul is needed to fill the extra flatworm.

existence and non-existence

I believe one stumbling block that persists in physical theory today is the commonly assumed notion of objective existence.

Although the idea of existence sans relationship or interaction is illogical and contrary to all observation and experience, it seems to persist as a default for the basis of a large amount of theory.

This may be due to the assumed alternative: that of a bootstrapped existence. Bootstrapping is the idea that existence arises and persists through a self-sustained closed cycle of interaction.

However, if this is the case, it seems to me that bootstrapping might not be a fair alternative to the idea of objective existence.

I say this because bootstrapping requires non-existence '‘outside' of the interaction-cycle to allow for definition of relative existence. In fact, bootstrapping simply moves the apparent contradiction, it does not eliminate it.

In my opinion, it is best to consider existence and non-existence as two sides of the same coin. Rather than resisting the notion of non-existence, and attempting to construct reasonable explanations for our observance of existence, perhaps we should ask whether existence is reasonable without non-existence.

Or, to put it more simply: Perhaps we should consider existence and non-existence to be akin to the notions of hot and cold.

We often speak of hot and cold as if they are opposite entities, however, we know this is not true. Temperature is simply the kinetic energy of molecular motion. Hot and cold are only relative descriptions comparing multiple temperatures.

In fact, when we consider the possibility of an absolute zero state, the notions of hot and cold become meaningless. -We need only to provide the Kelvin to describe an object's temperature.

Thus, I suggest it may be more useful to alter our notion of existence and non-existence so that we do not see it as two relative entities, but rather to understand existence to be a scalable factor.

With this perspective in mind, consider the following assertions:

-It is impossible to discuss existence without employing the notion of interaction.

-Existence may be described as a measure of interaction. Non-existence is therefore only a relative lack of interaction, and thus is a misnomer, or non-entity, similar to 'cold'.

-To speak of a non-interacting particle is meaningless, as it relies on objective existence (1). Therefore to suggest that something must exist in order for it to interact is also meaningless.

To view existence in this way seems satisfying to me. Furthermore, I find it interesting that absolute zero Kelvin may be unattainable. The same might be true of non-existence.

1. Please read the post: matter, space and time.

limits on uncertainties

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that for certain pairs of observable variables, an inverse proportion of uncertainty limits the precision of measuring the two variables.

Two of these variables are momentum (p) and position (x). For these variables:

ΔpΔx ≥ ħ/2,

where ħ is Planck’s constant divided by 2π.

This intrinsic uncertainty is very small, as ħ/2 ≈ 5.27∙10^(-35) kg∙m^(2)/s.

However, assuming that the universe has a finite size, it doesn' t seem reasonable that the uncertainty Δx could exceed its breadth. Thus, the precision of any measurement of momentum might be expected to have a limit imposed by this maximum Δx.

Two other observable variables that relate similarly are energy (E) and time (t):

ΔEΔt ≥ ħ/2.

Likewise, the age of the universe might provide a limit for Δt. These limits would have much greater consequence in the early universe.

Thus, it seems the nature of these intrinsic uncertainties might have changed as the universe has evolved.

uncertainty and individuality

Consider one particle that has an uncertainty in its position. Here, a Gaussian distribution represents this uncertainty about 1-dimension (x). The peak represents the most likely place to find this particle, with ever-diminishing likelihood as x→-∞ or x→+∞.



Now consider two particles of identical nature. By ‘identical’, I mean that any differences between the particles are completely undetectable to the observer. Thus, excepting position, these particles are identical to the observer.

If these particles also have uncertainties in their positions, their uncertainties will overlap.



As the particles have overlapping uncertainties in their position, to the observer, there are not two discrete particles. Unless the observer can measure the position of both particles simultaneously, one particle can partially serve as the other.

The degree to which both particles behave as a single entity (rather than two discrete entities) would be proportional to the inability to know the position of both particles simultaneously.

memory

Thinking about memory, I picture my grandmother.

I cannot retain a static image of my grandmother in my mind. It seems involuntarily mutable. Still, I feel that I am consistently thinking about my grandmother.

I 'see' in my mind's eye impressions of my grandmother, somewhat visual, somewhat emotional. I 'see' a part of her kitchen as well, but not her in it. I then 'see' her in her cottage. I can 'hear' the sound of her voice, but I do not understand the actual words.

These impressions are all fleeting, but unified by a common theme.

This inclines me to think that recollection of memory is a dynamic process of the brain, possibly similar to the playing of a film strip. -That memory is a merging of re-experienced impressions, unified by a common theme, 'played' in quick succession.

If I think of my grandfather, I get different impressions. However, the same view of their kitchen appears in the sequence.

I would guess the memories of my grandfather and grandmother are not wholly discrete in process, or in the function of my brain.

matter, space and time

Picture one point particle in infinite, otherwise empty space. After some thought, it becomes apparent this is an impossibility. The point particle has no reference for its position or any evolution of state. Nothing can interact with it. The scenario is impossible.

Now imagine two point particles in the same infinite space. The particles exist only in terms of one another. Evolution of state and position are very weakly defined.

Add another particle. With three particles, spatial information gets much more complex. Two particles can be closer to each other than the third. Evolution of state gets much more complex as well.








As more particles are added to this scenario, it becomes evident the that both time and space become more defined. As time is defined by evolution of state, and space is defined by relative position, it can be said that time and space emerge together as a function of the presence of matter.

Now, imagine that one of the particles becomes relatively distant from the others. What is the consequence?








As the relative distance between this particle and the distances between the others grows, this particle’s state begins to resemble the two particle system. This particle’s time and space become less defined as the distance in-between gets relatively large.

It is known that matter alters space and time via its gravitational field. It is interesting that time is relatively slowed as a gravitational field increases in strength.