Origin of Creation

[Rutarete]

Well well, this thread has just passed the two-year mark.

@zso - I'm not quite sure where you're coming from with the response of the singular imaginary entity of existence (that could have been phrased better). To elaborate on my views in the OP - in the 'beginning', there were two possibilities: the possibility of no more possibilities and the possibility of more possibilities. Us being all a figment of your imagination doesn't mean you are the complete origin. If you're our origin, what's yours? Thus, I go back to possibility.

[cometbah]

We can have models to which things from beyond the observable universe are relevant. A simple, 'every-day' example: we can model a system to see what something in the system will look like in the future. However, that doesn't mean that the future-thing can be said to 'exist' for us (at least not yet!).

What does it mean to "exist"?

I would propose this:

If it is physically possible for information about something to reach an observer within a certain time frame, then we say that this thing physically exists for that observer in the context of that time frame.

Or (rephrased, but intended to express the same idea):

If for all events that can possibly occur in a given time frame, at least one event results in information travelling from a thing to an observer, then that thing exists to that observer in the given time frame.

Examples:

'Walkmans (..Walkmen..?) existed in my life time.'
What it really means: More than one Walkman were so positioned in the universe that I could have observed them within my life time.

'There were no computers back in the 16th century.'
What it really means: Throughout the period of time we call the 16th century, no one could have observed a computer.
What we omit (and assume) in the sentence: The identity of the observers (presumed to be 'all humans')

'Dragons never existed'
What it really means: From the beginning of time to the present (we will ignore the difficulty in defining 'present' for now), no one could have observed dragons.
What we omit (and assume) in the sentence: The identity of the observers (all humans)

'Mammoths don't exist anymore'
Meaning: At present, no one could observe mammoths.
Omitted: Observers, time frame (presumed to be some period of time that can be reasonably called 'present'; exact inteval depends on subject of discussion)

'Nanobot soldiers don't exist.'
Meaning: At present, no one could observe nanobot soldiers. (but may be possible in the future)
Omitted: Observers, time frame

[OldTrees]

@cometbah
I enclose a die in a box. I shake the box to roll the die. Now your definition says the die exists (in reference to me) but its value (what I rolled) does not?

[Bloodshadow]

@cometbah
I enclose a die in a box. I shake the box to roll the die. Now your definition says the die exists (in reference to me) but its value (what I rolled) does not?

Technically it still does. Your box is not an event horizon, so there will still be some information that passes out of the box when you shake it (e.g. the sound the die makes inside the box) that, at least in theory, tells you what value you rolled. And then there's the quantum mechanics problem of the wavefunctions of everything being entangled together. This is actually a similar problem to Schrodinger's cat, I think. Now, if your box is an event horizon, and you throw your die into it, then the die probably doesn't exist anymore. If you throw something into a black hole, does it still exist?

[OldTrees]

@cometbah
I enclose a die in a box. I shake the box to roll the die. Now your definition says the die exists (in reference to me) but its value (what I rolled) does not?

Technically it still does. Your box is not an event horizon, so there will still be some information that passes out of the box when you shake it (e.g. the sound the die makes inside the box) that, at least in theory, tells you what value you rolled. And then there's the quantum mechanics problem of the wavefunctions of everything being entangled together. This is actually a similar problem to Schrodinger's cat, I think. Now, if your box is an event horizon, and you throw your die into it, then the die probably doesn't exist anymore. If you throw something into a black hole, does it still exist?

Would we really be able to (in theory) determine the value merely from the sound? If so then my example was flawed. I was trying to give an example where the existence of the die was known and the value of die was unknown and then ask about the value of the die. (Since it is a die and not a quantum particle I should avoid superposition correct?)

[Savage]

Comet, I am still confused on your post in relation to origin of creation.

[sixers]

Existence is a funny thing. Kind of amazing that there is something rather than nothing. And that part of this "something" eventually became self conscious.

Too bad the human race will probably go extinct before we come anywhere close to figuring out the nature of our universe.

There are a lot of pretty cool hypothesis, though.

[Bloodshadow]

Would we really be able to (in theory) determine the value merely from the sound? If so then my example was flawed. I was trying to give an example where the existence of the die was known and the value of die was unknown and then ask about the value of the die. (Since it is a die and not a quantum particle I should avoid superposition correct?)

Everything is quantum, man. That was the problem with Schrodinger's cat. It's made of so many particles that trying to apply quantum mechanics to it is practically impossible. We still aren't really sure where the quantum stuff ends and classical stuff begins.

The only way I can think of to make sure that you don't know about the value of the die is to make the box an actual event horizon, in which no information can travel beyond it. Otherwise, it's not just the sound. We can measure the gravitational interactions of the atoms in the die with all the other atoms in the universe, etc, etc, and in theory predict what value the die takes on.

[cometbah]

@cometbah
I enclose a die in a box. I shake the box to roll the die. Now your definition says the die exists (in reference to me) but its value (what I rolled) does not?

Its value does not physically exist.

[OldTrees]

Would we really be able to (in theory) determine the value merely from the sound? If so then my example was flawed. I was trying to give an example where the existence of the die was known and the value of die was unknown and then ask about the value of the die. (Since it is a die and not a quantum particle I should avoid superposition correct?)

Everything is quantum, man. That was the problem with Schrodinger's cat. It's made of so many particles that trying to apply quantum mechanics to it is practically impossible. We still aren't really sure where the quantum stuff ends and classical stuff begins.

Please double check and then correct me if I am wrong. But wasn't the cat a failed thought experiment to disprove quantum superposition by comparing it to how classical stuff does not superposition?

[Bloodshadow]

@cometbah
I enclose a die in a box. I shake the box to roll the die. Now your definition says the die exists (in reference to me) but its value (what I rolled) does not?

Its value does not physically exist.

But as I said, we can theoretically obtain its value by measuring the interactions of the particles in the die with the particles outside the box; such interactions can penetrate the box unless the box is an event horizon.

Please double check and then correct me if I am wrong. But wasn't the cat a failed thought experiment to disprove quantum superposition by comparing it to how classical stuff does not superposition?

As a quantum system the cat is ridiculously complicated, possibly having many, many, many more states than just "alive" and "dead". That's why you can't just say the cat is in a superimposed state of dead and alive. Also, one cannot completely stop observing the cat. To observe something is to interact with said thing, and every atom in the cat interacts with every other atom in the universe via gravity and other forces. Thus, the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is a simplification so gross that it's practically meaningless.

[cometbah]

The cat is only a tool for 'amplifying' the effect of a random event, to make it more readily observable. The thought experiment does not involve 'trying to apply quantum mechanics to many particles', in my understanding.

But to get back on topic:

Comet, I am still confused on your post in relation to origin of creation.

Bloodshadow suggested that some things have been observed to spontaneously come into existence.

I responded by distinguishing two different concepts of 'Universe', one of which belongs to the other (i.e. 'smaller'), and suggested that it is only conceivable for things to spontaneously come into the smaller one, not the bigger one.