Am I right to conclude that if we take 1 to be true something like the simulation hypothesis would be incorrect? Essentially it is incumbent on us to believe that the universe exists outside our own individual experience?
This article makes sense to me. I have listened to many of your podcasts and remember you telling me back in 2012 (I might add), that you daughter suggested you created your own Podcast. She was so right, it isn’t funny. These days you use the word emergence often, along with branching and trees to name a few. Through this article I gained greater understanding of what you mean by all of this. I really enjoy how this article mimics what you are suggesting we all do is get in the middle glue or gunk where we can learn and create anything. While your vocab is not something most grandmother’s would understand and now at the age of a grandmother or great I am finding your work and your writings are getting more interesting and easier to comprehend. Yes, I have to work to get meaning but I could think of far worse things to work for than this. My comment for what’s it’s worth about asymmetry feels like it is logical way that a path forward can be seen, or energized as it’s not expected therefore no blinders or force to hold it in status quo.
Jim, this is a very good article and had me thinking about a lot of things that I read about in the physics realm. Every once in a while an author picks on one area and dives deep, without regard to a potential use… Your exposition here is clear and has the right amount of “coverage”. Well done. AND I have to admit that as I read your article I kept thinking to myself, “sounds like a data modeling exercise”. How many times have I had to consider inane elements in a model, just “because” or toyed with the idea that without use/structure, the only way I could model “that” is using a tag/value structure. Ugh.
Yes, could be. One of a few reasons I treat Commitment 2 more lightly than 1 & 3. There is a hypothesis or at least a conjecture that in the very early period after the origin, the tiny but ulta dense and hot universe was still in a single quantum state and that quantum fluctuations could be the cause of the non-homogeneity. Same could apply to a slightly later state in a small number of discrete quantum states. Perhaps then amplified by deterministic chaos.
Why oi chose to keep it in the three is that it could also have just been an initial condition.
In any case without at least a seed of non homogeneity, the who emergent game never gets tarted.
Without an initial seed of non-homogeneity nothing happens. It doesn’t take much because deterministic chaos would amplify an initial non homogeneity but you need that seed. if the universe is fundamentally stochastic at the quantum level (open question) that could do it or if deterministic, part of the initial conditions.
Am I right to conclude that if we take 1 to be true something like the simulation hypothesis would be incorrect? Essentially it is incumbent on us to believe that the universe exists outside our own individual experience?
This article makes sense to me. I have listened to many of your podcasts and remember you telling me back in 2012 (I might add), that you daughter suggested you created your own Podcast. She was so right, it isn’t funny. These days you use the word emergence often, along with branching and trees to name a few. Through this article I gained greater understanding of what you mean by all of this. I really enjoy how this article mimics what you are suggesting we all do is get in the middle glue or gunk where we can learn and create anything. While your vocab is not something most grandmother’s would understand and now at the age of a grandmother or great I am finding your work and your writings are getting more interesting and easier to comprehend. Yes, I have to work to get meaning but I could think of far worse things to work for than this. My comment for what’s it’s worth about asymmetry feels like it is logical way that a path forward can be seen, or energized as it’s not expected therefore no blinders or force to hold it in status quo.
Jim, this is a very good article and had me thinking about a lot of things that I read about in the physics realm. Every once in a while an author picks on one area and dives deep, without regard to a potential use… Your exposition here is clear and has the right amount of “coverage”. Well done. AND I have to admit that as I read your article I kept thinking to myself, “sounds like a data modeling exercise”. How many times have I had to consider inane elements in a model, just “because” or toyed with the idea that without use/structure, the only way I could model “that” is using a tag/value structure. Ugh.
This may be your most poetic writing yet. I get the need for asymmetry, but could it arise form the laws?
Yes, could be. One of a few reasons I treat Commitment 2 more lightly than 1 & 3. There is a hypothesis or at least a conjecture that in the very early period after the origin, the tiny but ulta dense and hot universe was still in a single quantum state and that quantum fluctuations could be the cause of the non-homogeneity. Same could apply to a slightly later state in a small number of discrete quantum states. Perhaps then amplified by deterministic chaos.
Why oi chose to keep it in the three is that it could also have just been an initial condition.
In any case without at least a seed of non homogeneity, the who emergent game never gets tarted.
Right on although not quite sure why commitment 2 is important.
Without an initial seed of non-homogeneity nothing happens. It doesn’t take much because deterministic chaos would amplify an initial non homogeneity but you need that seed. if the universe is fundamentally stochastic at the quantum level (open question) that could do it or if deterministic, part of the initial conditions.