deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
more ▶

Featured in Groups:

Details

August 17, 2007
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 109
Favourites: 0
Views: 351 (0 today)
[x]

Journal; Multiverses

Journal Entry: Fri Aug 17, 2007, 9:18 AM
  • Mood: Alienated
  • Listening to: http://www.last.fm/user/j4m3sb0nd/
Just thought I would change my journal with something new, here is something I wrote a few months ago (19th August 2007), feel free to ponder and share your thought:

Perhaps the following will be considered a compilation of conceptualisations and ideas, however, they are no doubt naïve and I imagine that others have thought of such ideas before, being within human comprehension. Even so I feel that they are worthy of thought, and so I will elaborate on them as a maelstrom of philosophical thoughts for further exploration.

Firstly consider black holes, should they even exist, considering that even their existence is debated. Described as infinitely dense matter; as with anything labelled infinite, one could even consider it incomprehensible – it is not unusual for philosophy to muse about such things upon waiting for further exploration by scientific means. One philosophical idea I suggest is that black holes are just like the theoretical metaphorical 'bubbles in a simmering pot' that contemporary astrophysics think our universe as being part of – one of many universes, a multiverse. If you where to be the observer of this 'simmering pot', perhaps it would seem that the bubbles where infinitely dense, surrounded by an expanse, perhaps not, either way this concept leaves a higher echelon above the universe as being ambiguous.

I imply that we are able to 'see' multiverses from this universe in the form of 'infinitely dense' black holes, and that perhaps our universe could be seen as a black hole in another universe – if it held the same physics, and if not, perhaps it would appear as an equivalent oddity within another universe. Perhaps this concept is more tangible by giving a tangible description, consider that many atoms are quite hollow, and it is only our own minds which fill in the gap of such things being solid. If you had a powerful enough means of magnification, you could probe between the hollow atoms of say, an ordinary desk. From our own human eyes, it could be said that the desk seems to be infinitely dense from an aesthetic point of view – it is not transparent, it has no tangible holes, it is solid. And yet, with the right tools we learn otherwise, we learn there is great space between such matter - and so it may be with black holes, should they exist.

To see an entire universe in such a small form from a universe the size of the one we exist in would logically seem infinitely dense – to create space between such dense matter would be decompress a universe – to have the size of an uncompressed universe, seemingly infinite, just as the matter is. It is in this thought of procuring plausible elaboration upon the incomprehensible that it can be realised how this very principle extends beyond multiverses and into the mundane – there are many things which may seem superficially unexplainable, and yet it is only this; superficial. Perhaps it is beyond human comprehension as of current; or perhaps it is only perceived as such – this is an important thought to consider in every day life. It is with this that I conclude the practice of philosophy is not merely a trivial one, even as it seems to be ignored in this contemporary society, for whether it be in the study of metaphysical issues or humanity, all can be related to the greater comprehension of all things; a sense of enlightenment; understanding.

-

Also, I would hope to make a new piece soon, but photoshop is increasingly running slow. ;p

Calendars:



Finished Collaborations:
`j4m3sb0nd + ~BPauba = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + =Nameless-Designer = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + !Rockmount = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + !Rockmount = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~xgod-0 = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~Formor = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~Logos4 = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~kheng = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + =TDBK = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~Pada-wan = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~internethead = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~AP123 = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + !c0rtex = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~ColdFlame1987 = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + !c0rtex = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~xgod-0 = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~Icecore09 = [link]
`j4m3sb0nd + ~xgod-0 = [link]


Click here to view list of people watching me:
[link]

Add a Comment:
 
:icondinesiac:
Hrm. I suppose I'd have to know what you meant by Realms.
Reply
:iconj4m3sb0nd:
I suppose I mean it to be synonymous with another 'universe', which may or may not have different 'laws'.
Reply
:icononesixone:
~onesixone Aug 18, 2007  Hobbyist Digital Artist
lol, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by forces "not existing" but even if they don't then you still have to admit it's a very useful method of describing many observable phenomena. If you can't find a way to describe a phenomena, you have no way to understand it, no matter how much you use your imagination...
Reply
:icondinesiac:
True, you can know nothing by observing phenomena. That's why empiricism is bunk. Force is a useful way of describing something, but is a simplification of what is really going on. For instance, look at Kepler's elaboration on the principle of Universal Gravitation. There's an obvious going on there. However, explaining it down to a force doesn't help you know what's going on. You're just describing phenomena. The systems of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Brahe all accurately describe how the Solar System looks, but they're all wrong. Every one of them. Copernicus was probably the closest but he said "Well you can't know what's going on but I can describe it in a mathematical formalism" So how did Kepler figure out the right system for all the planets (including the ones he didn't see)?

Forces destroys your ability to discover real principle in science. That's why Einstein hated Newton. "Real science begins with Kepler and is continued through Reimann"
Reply
:icononesixone:
~onesixone Aug 19, 2007  Hobbyist Digital Artist
And that is why Einstein's work during his later life is considered to be obsolete by today's physicists. Einstein spent most of his last years trying to disprove much of what he had already proven earlier because they conflicted with his own idea of how the universe worked.

I can't say whether or not this is a good or a bad thing, however, as the human world is really developed around practicalities and we would rather know what to expect as a result, rather than being bogged down on details. This isn't simply from laziness, it's because this is what works in our society, and what is considered the more important piece of information.

Although yes, after doing a little reading up on wiki and google, I see where you are coming from. Science and mathematics are simply "languages" devised by man in such a way that we can decipher the universe, and it is very likely that we are missing the bigger picture by dumbing it down. Much like when a picture is converted to Jpeg ;)

I'm just musing here, I'm not really up to date with everything ^^;
Reply
:icondinesiac:
The course of Einstein's life was spent attempting to destroy Newtonianism from the very beginning. His limits only existed in punting on the question of Bertrand Russel (who is probably the most evil man of the 21st Century-- Hitler, Idi Amin and Dick Cheney all considered). As for modern physics, what modern physics?

What you said later on in this post only scratches the surface. Society such as it is, is bankrupt morally as well as intellectually, philisophically, and most importantly, economically. There is no solution to the collapse of the global economy that exists in the currents of accepted modern physical science. None. There have been no major discoveries made since Einstein and Godel. Iphones don't count. Fusion technology was on the verge of breakthrough in the 70s, and now its spoken about like some science-fiction bullshit. We can't even go back to the moon for the next 17 years, yet we already fuckin' went there! Science in today's Universities...in today's culture...is dead.
Reply
:icononesixone:
~onesixone Aug 20, 2007  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yes, the vast amounts of technological improvements over the last century have absolutely nothing to do with work on ground-breaking scientific research. </sarcasm> I don't care about the IPhone either, so let's ignore commercialism for a while and look at something that actually benefits man-kind, have a look at the health industry! Bloody hell, we're moving forwards in leaps and bounds, and this is solely thanks to the constant research being performed by today's medical scientists. And how is this achieved? By scientific practice, involving measurements and statistics. Advances is bio-chemistry, diagnostic radiography techniques, therapy/treatment plans, this is science as it was meant to be: directly benefitting man-kind.

Why would we want to go back to the moon either? What more can be done or proven by going there? Sure there's the inspirational aspect to it, but there's also the cost, and didn't you say you wanted the help to economy?

As far as I can see science is still alive (and kicking some ass too.) Philosophical science is dead, because ultimately it can never be used to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. I take it when you are speaking of Russel you are speaking about his support of the analytic philosophy over idealism? I've never heard of idealism before just now, and I can't quite comprehend how anyone could have ever thought this to be the correct method of explaining the intricate ways of the universe...

I can tell you that Fleischmann and Pons didn't make their observations of cold fusion by using any methodology or technique that was any different from the way scientists go about their experimentation today. And in fact the technology is still being researched today, have a read [link] some of the most recent discoveries have even changed the general opinion from total scepticism to a belief that this technology is very plausible.

As someone else in this journal has said, it's man's very nature to be inquisitive of the universe around him, and to wonder why it's there and how it works. Unfortunately we are all different individuals, with different methods and perspectives on how to achieve this. Ultimately if it works, it works...
Reply
:icondinesiac:
Cold Fusion, and Regular Fusion for all that matter, are all but dead. I remember reading about how they had great evidence of cold fusion in 1991. Then I went back through FUSION Magazine and they were writing about great proof in 1984.

ITER is there yes, but Fusion is 75 Years old. That's not new, and that's not leaps and bounds. 75 Years after finding out about Cold Fusion and we still don't know if we can really do it? You're talking about inching ahead with things that have been around for 100 years in some cases. Most of that is due to the fact that there's no money put into these things, and they're forced to devour their own children or sell to military contractors to keep any semblance of scientific breakthroughs alive.

That's what happens under a state of Fascist control. But that's not the point.

Why have we not gotten a fusion reactor that can make break-even? (Perhaps the ITER will do this, but only this). Sure saying something like "Elementary Force" describes an effect, but Blue can describe the sky without telling you anything about its composition or why it exists such as it does. Maybe it even gives you an indication as to these things. But empiricism is not how Kepler discovered the Orbits. It's not how Gauss determined where Ceres was going to be. It's not how the Integral Calculus was created by Leibniz.

Talk to the Fusion Board at General Atomics. Talk to the Russian Academy of Sciences. Talk to the head of NASA. Talk to the people that I work. They will tell you that science died with Einstein and Godel, and it's only kept alive by the work being done on people like Kepler, Bach, Mozart, Riemann and Leibniz.

Further, nothing was ever discovered in modern physical science except by what you term ';philosophical' science. In fact, there is no such thing as un-philisophical science. What Russel promoted (Besides an imminent and continual domination of world empire forced by the threat of Constant Nuclear War)...(Oh, and killing all the 'niggers' because they're dumber than the generic white folks) was that a great scientist could prove to anyone that snow was black and the sky was red. He was a sophist, and an evil man. What all these scientists knew, including Einstein, Cantor, Godel, and some of the contemporaries surrounding them, is that they COULD discover truth. Maybe philisophical science is more ambiguous, so lets call it Epistemological science.

Lastly, we are in total agreement. Man is not only inquisitive, but the only creature in the known Universe with the ability to increase his power to survive by creating higher levels of technology and increasing his potential-relative population density. This is what Einstein as well as Leibniz and my hero, Benjamin Franklin term "The Work of God." Read what Cantor writes about infinite and transfinite series. Read Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia which is the document which launched the Renaissance and Kepler's drive to discover the mysterium cosmographicum.

PS. We want to go back to the moon, not because it returned double the money to our economy that we put into it, not because it was the most dense period of US science driver project aside from the Manhattan Project, not because we could learn so much more from colonizing the moon and also Mars, 'not because it is EASY...but because it is hadd' (-Kennedy)
Reply
:iconbeyondsight:
I believe* black holes are also refered to as quantum singularities.

Aren't they?
Reply
:iconbeyondsight:
it seems you actually have schooling on this matter.
Do you care to explain?
You certainly talk like you are educated.

I'm actually having trouble understanding what you are saying. (heh :D)
Reply
Add a Comment: