I admit I got relativity from physics and simply saw its universality beyond motion. Thus rather than velocities being relative, it follows that all things are relative and cease to "be" in an empty universe.
Thus we arrive at the problem of self because Self suggests a self-reference or self-relativity. We don't classically look to other people to find ourself (altho in more sophisticated views we necessarily do). There is a contraiction in self if all things are relative. What is self relative to?
So I came to think of quanta. Relativity doesn't postulate an ontology of discrete entities rather the general rules of space-time manifolds relative to masses.
In Quantum physics there is the general field described by the wave equation, but there is also the collapse and the discrete "entity". In a relative world what is this entity relative to? That is exactly what an "observation" is: a relativising of the wave equation to a particular frame of reference and thus a discrete "self" - which is not really self since it only occurs under relative conditions.
Is that meaninful? Is that the problem? ... he asked so incredibly naively
===
Reading/Listening further it seems Physics always postulates Absolutism. Space-time is Absolute. Apparently Einstein and others didn't like the term relativity because it ain't relativity.
There is something interesting in the relationship between relativity and absolutism. Am I right to postulate that "all things are relative"? Isn't it that relativity itself is relative to absolutism? If you relativise the relative you get the absolute so to speak. And if you seek the absolute truth of the absolute itself you get the relative. Self reference becomes the coin whose sides are relative and absolute.
NULL of course is neither relative nor absolute - isn't it the coin, or the space "between" the two?
Old physics coming back here. Article in Metro still to finish reading but raises the issue of gravitational energy being negative and possibly equal to the positive energy of the universe. Thus the universe adds up to Nothing. I was aware of this as long ago as school so it's not new. Was very recptive to that idea as it mirrored an idea of my own at the time that the universe might arise from the separation of matter and anti-matter - naively not understanding that their sum is still the potential energy required to separate them.
What kind of Nothing is this? It is Zero. Well unfortunately Zero is positioned on the number line, and arises in relation to other numbers and therefore exists within a "theory". While the sum of energy in the universe may indeed be Zero this is kind of like a "coincidence" because it could be otherwise. A theory by definition selects certain values from the infinite possibilities - that is what gives it meaning. For example a theory of how a ball travels through space describes only a locus of points within an infinite solution space. If the solution was all of space it's not a very good theory! But what is evident is that we needed to know the "solution space" (literal "space" in the example) to create a theory. My question always is how do we construct the solution space? This is why Zero is never an absolute answer because it is Zero within a solution space... and the solution space aint Zero - that would be meaningless. So quickly the search for Absolute arrives at the meaningless and that is where NULL comes in. The Mind is large enough to encompass the meaningless. Thus to push the boundaries we have to leave meaning behind. The particular values that we arrive at within solution spaces may have remarkable symmetry and beauty** and may suggest hidden truths to the universe that we simply can't grasp within the theory - but why to an information processing device is Zero any different from Ninety-Nine? The only answer I have seen to that is Occam's: the best theory is also the simplest. If you can predict the motion of a ball with an 20byte algorithm you have a better theory than a 30byte algorithm. Zero is nice because it is 1 bit. But a theory with an answer of 1 is equally nice. But I've just made a new problem because why does size matter... ad infinitum.
**The Symmetry and beauty - the qualities of good theories (especially in physics and mathematics) - would have to be explained by a theory which lacked neither symmetry/non-symettry nor beauty/non-beauty. Clearly this is in the realm of the meaningless. But it illustrates some of the qualities of the "space" we call meaning.
p.s. was intrigued by the "absolute" nature of space-time and of the speed of light. Where does this "absolute" quality come from. It seems to be a implication of the concept of "reality". That things "are" and are "facts" and have discrete values suggests that they have an absolute nature. While that may be relative to something else we just push the boundary of absolute a stage back. The value is relative but exists within an absolute framework. Quantum physics is interesting in this regard... i really need better maths :-(
No comments:
Post a Comment