T = 0

reply to post by EnPassant

Listen, if you can't grasp what I am saying there is no need to try character assassination.

I am not assassinating your character, just killing your argument. I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you are saying; but what you are saying is both scientifically and philosophically illegitimate, as well as hopelessly confused.

1. Are fields of energy - quantum reality - truly anomalous or 'weird' or is that just an artifact of trying to measure energy with classical tools?

What is a 'field of energy'? What do you mean by 'quantum reality'? Define your terms — and in your own words, please. Quotes from Wikipedia, etc., will not demonstrate that you understand what you are talking about.

2. If an energy field exists according to a pattern that can, in principle, be described mathematically does that mean it is ordered and has a well defined nature?

See my answer to (1). Also, science does not recognise the existence of anything called an 'energy field'.

3. Can that nature be described by classical means?

What nature? See answers to (1) and (2) above.

4. If not does that mean quantum reality has a spacetime that is not classical?

There is no 'quantum reality' as distinct from, say, 'classical reality'. This question demonstrates the profundity of your ignorance of the subject you are trying to discuss. There is only reality, plain and simple. Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are ways of describing the interactions between objects in the real world. They are inconsistent with each other, but no physicist thinks they describe different realities because of that!

5. If quantum reality has a classical spacetime why are scientists perplexed by it?

Nonsense question. See previous answer.

6. If quantum reality has no spacetime does that mean it is truly chaotic?

Nonsense question. Do you know what chaos means in physics? It doesn't mean 'random' or 'unpredictable'. Quantum mechanics is not chaotic, and the need to devise a quantum account of chaotic behaviour in classical systems is an active field of inquiry.

7. If it is chaotic how can quantum fields of energy hold matter in being?

Nonsense question — as should be obvious to anyone who has read the foregoing.

8. Does the stability of matter imply quantum fields are stable - ie. are ordered?

Nonsense question.

9. If they are ordered is that equivalent to a quantum spacetime?

Nonsense question.

10. What is spacetime?

Spacetime is the n-dimensional manifold in which all successive states of the universe (given the initial conditions) are present. That is, the n-dimensional manifold in which all events occur. In Minkowski and Einstein's formulation, n = 4, but you can construct spacetimes with any number of theoretical spacelike dimensions. One of my friends works on modelling two-dimensional spacetimes.

I have taken far more trouble than your argument deserves.

reply to post by Astyanax


What I am saying is very simple and has been established by science. All I am bringing to the table is a philosophical viewpoint. The classical order of things exists. This is by and large, defined by general relativity. No doubt you will agree with this. But there is another order which is not classical. These are geometrically distinct orders of things and therefore distinct spacetimes. It has also been established by science that the classical universe, matter, emerged from energy. The classical universe is an emergent geometry.

'Chaos' is a misleading expression that should not be used in science. In chaos theory it simply means "so much stuff happening we can't keep track of it'. It is an unfortunate expression. Chaos really means no law and order, no spacetime description. Quantum reality is not chaotic nor is it classical from a mathematical point of view.

There was a time when matter did not exist. There was only energy (big bang). This energy must have had a mathematical description, otherwise we are dealing with chaos. If this energy field was truly chaotic it could not have given rise to the stable existence of matter because matter is what it is because of the pattern or order in the original field of energy. If chaos entered quantum reality matter would disintegrate.

Therefore there is an order of things that is not classical and that is equivalent to a distinct, but not separate spacetime.

Question number 11. Matter has a prescription, a mathematical order, where did this prescription exist before matter and classical spacetime came into being? It MUST have existed in the NATURE of the energy field that precedes matter, yes?

You are saying "these are not mathematically distinct because I say they are not" but this is not very sporting. What I am inviting you to do is to engage with a thought experiment, to imagine two distinct orders or spacetimes. If you succeed in this you will be in a position to ask if this distinction is real of has any philosophical ramifications. This is exactly what I have done.

reply to post by Astyanax

There is no 'quantum reality' as distinct from, say, 'classical reality'. This question demonstrates the profundity of your ignorance of the subject you are trying to discuss. There is only reality, plain and simple. Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are ways of describing the interactions between objects in the real world. They are inconsistent with each other, but no physicist thinks they describe different realities because of that!

The only substantial reality is energy. Matter per se, is a manifest geometry. This geometry could not be manifest without substance and this substance is energy. Ice is a manifestation of water. When ice melts its crystalline geometry vanishes. If matter evaporated the classical order of things would vanish. Physical spacetime would disappear. What would we be left with? Chaos or order?

HanoiLullaby

EnPassant
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

Time does not exist in a subatomic world, but we exist in a macro universe and can only frame our observations using spacetime, even when this leads to causality violations, which it can do.

Classical time does not (see my last two posts.) But time is not simply 'stuff happening' or 'change'. Time is the WAY change happens. It is spacetime. General Relativity describes material spacetime. But if there is a universe of energy then the mathematical description of the way change happens in that universe is a description of time. But it is not classical time. All matter can, in principle, evaporate back into pure energy. If this happened classical time would vanish. But quantum time would still exist. You would still have a field of energy, undergoing change in space and that is all that is required for time to exist. Time is merely a description of events and relationships. The geometry or nature of time depends on the nature of the reality it is describing, energy or matter.

If you make the statement that time is not "simply 'stuff happening' or 'change' " then how can you follow that with the statement that a "field of energy, undergoing change in space" is all that is required for time to exist, that is contradictory.

What is change if it is not a description of events and relationships?

I think your debate is fatally flawed.

What I am saying is that the mere fact that there is change is not enough. Change means time exists but does not define time. For a proper definition of time we need change + a mathematical description of the way change happens. This is what Einstein did and this is what led to the concept of spacetime. Change is evidence of time but not a full definition of time. For a full definition we need a mathematical description of the way change happens.

EnPassant
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

The 'elsewhere' is quantum spacetime, which is 'here' locally but because energy has a non classical mathematical description its spacetime geometry constitutes a distinct universe. It you haven't read this link it might make my point clearer.

Hmm...maybe I kinda see what your saying, but im not sure I know what your trying to prove, or what the point or importance of your idea, if true, would contain, what does it mean?

Reading the link, I think if I gathered one thing from your point, its that because matter does not exist forever or because matter is emergent, this means matter is conceptual, or not real? Are you claiming that the true nature of eternal reality is a pool of quantum energy that is far different in nature then the classical world of matter, and that everything that is not that pool of quantum energy, exists because something happened to/with/in/of that quantum energy to turn a lot of it into spatial and temporal geometric configurations of pseudo stable quantum energy, which because of the difference in nature to the fundamental quantum energy, this materialized quantum energy is able to do things like make atoms, and molecules, stars and planets and people?

I dont get what your trying to say with the whole, other universe someplace else (are you suggesting its outside of this one, in it, or on it? Are you suggesting, space, galaxies, planets and people, the entire planck length by planck length universe is a solid material geometry, and that outside of this universe, is an energetic quantum creator of the universe that is very different then anything in the universe? Why then can we know about quantum natures and detect quantumness within the universe?)

reply to post by ImaFungi

Reading the link, I think if I gathered one thing from your point, its that because matter does not exist forever or because matter is emergent, this means matter is conceptual, or not real?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Matter is a concept.

Are you claiming that the true nature of eternal reality is a pool of quantum energy that is far different in nature then the classical world of matter, and that everything that is not that pool of quantum energy, exists because something happened to/with/in/of that quantum energy to turn a lot of it into spatial and temporal geometric configurations of pseudo stable quantum energy, which because of the difference in nature to the fundamental quantum energy, this materialized quantum energy is able to do things like make atoms, and molecules, stars and planets and people?

Yes, you got it!

I dont get what your trying to say with the whole, other universe someplace else (are you suggesting its outside of this one, in it, or on it? Are you suggesting, space, galaxies, planets and people, the entire planck length by planck length universe is a solid material geometry, and that outside of this universe, is an energetic quantum creator of the universe that is very different then anything in the universe?

More or less. Quantum reality is 'here' in this local space that we, or our bodies, live in. But from a geometric point of view 'elsewhere' means in another spacetime. These two spacetimes, classical and quantum, are interwoven with each other, like salt in the sea. But it helps, conceptually, to see them as two universes. In fact they are if we define a universe as a particular spacetime.

Why then can we know about quantum natures and detect quantumness within the universe?

Because quantum reality is 'here'. Quantum effects impinge on the classical framework. When the two slit experiment is done trace effects are left on the photographic plate. These trace effects exist in classical spacetime and scientists are then in the unenviable position of trying to figure out what is really there in quantum geometry and all they have to work with is a trace effect in classical terms. The best hope may lie in mathematical physics as this is not subject to classical constraints.

Quantum spacetime is all around us but it is hard to see it because our physical senses are designed to perceive ordinary classical spacetime. Quantum geometry can only be perceived by the arguments I am putting forward or by intuition and deduction from facts.

reply to post by EnPassant


Hm, ok. What do you mean by matter is a concept? Is this to say that matter is not 'real'? Like my cup and hand and computer and walls and food and car and street and earth, if these things are geometric constructs, concepts as you say, what does that mean, what are you trying to say about material, when you say it is a concept. Are you supposing there are 2 things that exist, things and concepts, and concepts do not really exist? Can you be more specific?

ImaFungi
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Hm, ok. What do you mean by matter is a concept? Is this to say that matter is not 'real'? Like my cup and hand and computer and walls and food and car and street and earth, if these things are geometric constructs, concepts as you say, what does that mean, what are you trying to say about material, when you say it is a concept. Are you supposing there are 2 things that exist, things and concepts, and concepts do not really exist? Can you be more specific?

If you take a piece of string and tie a knot in it you have created a geometric pattern. The piece of string without the knot is clearly different from the one with the knot but there is no substantial difference. Nothing of substance has been added to the string. The only thing that has been added is geometry, which is a concept. The string represents energy, the knot is matter. No, matter has no material substance. The only substance is energy. This gives an impression of how insubstantial matter is.

reply to post by EnPassant


I still dont get your point. Energy makes matter, matter can be made into energy. Energy is substance, matter is the substance of energy made novely different then energy normally is. Whats the big deal? A brick is just a rectangle, geometry, made out of clay and dust (or whatever bricks are made out of), but this simple building block of geometry can build magnificently intricate and stable cathedrals (for instance). An atom can exist for a relatively extremely long period of time, there are relatively an extremely extreme amount of atoms, if they are geometric building blocks formed from more subtle materials, so what, they can do cool things like make stars and people and everything you and humans have ever done and will ever do in existence.

reply to post by EnPassant

What I am saying is very simple and has been established by science. All I am bringing to the table is a philosophical viewpoint. The classical order of things exists. This is by and large, defined by general relativity. No doubt you will agree with this.

I do not. There is no 'classical' or 'quantum' order of things. There is only one reality. General relativity is a description of it. Quantum mechanics is another.

The classical universe is an emergent geometry.

According to whom? You?

'Chaos' is a misleading expression that should not be used in science.

Better tell the scientists who use it, then.

In chaos theory it simply means "so much stuff happening we can't keep track of it'.

Nothing of the kind. The word has a specific meaning in science, which you evidently do not understand.

There was a time when matter did not exist.

No there wasn't. Don't assume what you are trying to prove.

You are saying "these are not mathematically distinct because I say they are not" but this is not very sporting. What I am inviting you to do is to engage with a thought experiment, to imagine two distinct orders or spacetimes.

Not because I say they are, but because that is how science works.

I thought we were talking about reality. Physicists create toy universes (mathematical ones) all the time; I mentioned my friend the 2D universe specialist earlier. Imagining multiple spacetimes is kindergarten stuff, and nobody is interested in sandbox speculations that do not help advance our understanding of the real world.

Have a nice thread.

ImaFungi
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I still dont get your point. Energy makes matter, matter can be made into energy. Energy is substance, matter is the substance of energy made novely different then energy normally is. Whats the big deal? A brick is just a rectangle, geometry, made out of clay and dust (or whatever bricks are made out of), but this simple building block of geometry can build magnificently intricate and stable cathedrals (for instance). An atom can exist for a relatively extremely long period of time, there are relatively an extremely extreme amount of atoms, if they are geometric building blocks formed from more subtle materials, so what, they can do cool things like make stars and people and everything you and humans have ever done and will ever do in existence.

What is the big deal? Well, from an everyday point of view there is no big deal, but from a philosophical point of view and from a scientific point of view it matters. What it means is that there is something that precedes matter and this something has a sophisticated order within it because this order is able to manifest a material universe. It may also be helpful in understanding the strange results of quantum mechanics because the strangeness arises out of the difference between two time orders and it is difficult to measure the geometry of quantum time with classical tools. Surely it would help if people understood that the word 'time' can refer to two distinct geometries?

reply to post by Astyanax

There was a time when matter did not exist.

No there wasn't

There was a time that preceded the existence of hydrogen atoms, the simplest of all material structures.

reply to post by EnPassant


Ok. I think I had a related argument with a friend recently; They claimed that the most fundamental, the most smallest quanta of energy and the universe, is all that truly exist and the only true perspective if reality was observerless. I think to say that our observations of classical and macro 'stuff' is a unique and skewed perspective, that is obviously able to exist, but since everything we see is created of the most fundamental, everything we see is truly just the fundamental. He put it as the difference between the territory and the map of the territory, fundamental quantom reality being the territory, our perception being the map. One arguement I put forth (not sure if I am right and mostly agreeing with his arguement while still being skeptic) is the possibility that objects that are conglomerates can achieve qualities that are more then the sum of their parts and does this not suggest that macro objects are just as real, details just as important to note as the all encompassing fundamental nature that creates them. A car for example is more then the sum of its parts, in that the parts have to be in a specific geometry for the car to do its car things. In his theory, and like yours, if you had a large pool of clay, and then I came along and made some bricks out of it, you would be ignoring the difference in the bricks and clay by saying they are the same, and a cathedral made of bricks is certainly not a pool of clay. Another good example is water and ice, I think you may have used it, but are you suggesting there are no qualitative differences between water and ice, they are both h2o, the temporal nature of the geometry makes you state that the geometry is not real or something? If the fundamental nature of the universe is an eternal vat of energy, which can best be described as a liquid, or suggest a better description, and waves in this liquid interacting with waves creating waves, and parts of the liquid changing to ice, for analogy, your argument is that only the fundamental nature is real?

EnPassant
reply to post by Astyanax

 

What I am saying is very simple and has been established by science. All I am bringing to the table is a philosophical viewpoint. The classical order of things exists. This is by and large, defined by general relativity.

General relativity is a human description of what we believe to drive motion on macroscopic scales.

No doubt you will agree with this. But there is another order which is not classical. These are geometrically distinct orders of things and therefore distinct spacetimes.

What is a 'geometrically distinct order of a "thing"'?

What is the physical example, evidence and consequences?

ImaFungi
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Ok. I think I had a related argument with a friend recently; They claimed that the most fundamental, the most smallest quanta of energy and the universe, is all that truly exist and the only true perspective if reality was observerless.

Meaning that there is no 'Observer' outside of laws of ordinary quantum mechanics which has extraordinary "wave-function popping" capabilities?

Amen to that!

I think you may have used it, but are you suggesting there are no qualitative differences between water and ice, they are both h2o, the temporal nature of the geometry makes you state that the geometry is not real or something? If the fundamental nature of the universe is an eternal vat of energy, which can best be described as a liquid, or suggest a better description, and waves in this liquid interacting with waves creating waves, and parts of the liquid changing to ice, for analogy, your argument is that only the fundamental nature is real?

Are you saying that the dynamics and effective properties of large collections of particles & forces can result in something which appears to have significantly distinct dynamics and properties of the microscopic phenomena?

Yes, this is certainly true and not surprising now.

So do you mean to believe that the appearance of peculiar quantum mechanical 'collapse' and 'observer' actually comes about because of the phenomenology of macroscpically large systems of particles like experimental scientists and their tools? I'm with that 100%. I think Schroedinger also thought so as well. His point about the cat was not to suppose that a half-alive and half-dead cat was a physically useful or "true" description, but to mock believing in Bohr's postulates too seriously.

mbkennel

Meaning that there is no 'Observer' outside of laws of ordinary quantum mechanics which has extraordinary "wave-function popping" capabilities?

Amen to that!

Well I would certainly agree with that; but I think the crux of their statement was that if quarks are the most fundamental essence of reality, the final turtle if you will,(for example lets say that everything is made of quarks, and electrons, but yes there is a smallest most fundamental quanta that all things macro contain and are composed of) they are saying that everything you are looking at, everything you are, the planets and stars, is truly just quark interaction, and it is only because of our make up and natural modes of sensing reality, that we dont see reality as it actually is. My argument was that we do see reality exactly as it is, if even skewed to extents, we see it as it is in that the earth is a semi spherical object and water is different then rocks. His argument is that if there were no human observers, the universe would just be interacting quarks, and even that there are human observers, the universe is only interacting quarks. I am of the notion that every actual layer of reality is equally real, and that the qualitative differences in quark interaction, fundamental interaction, leads to real macro and classical phenomenon and objects, that cannot be ignored as entities unto themselves, because perhaps they can not be fully described by quarks and quark interactions. An example maybe would be, these letters and colors and forms on your computer screen are not really letters and forms on your computer screen, they are really 0s and 1s in the computer. Likewise an apple and a tree and a person is not really these objects, the truest perspective of the universal territory would be perceived on the level of the fundamental, the quarks and electrons.

Are you saying that the dynamics and effective properties of large collections of particles & forces can result in something which appears to have significantly distinct dynamics and properties of the microscopic phenomena?

Yes, this is certainly true and not surprising now.

So do you mean to believe that the appearance of peculiar quantum mechanical 'collapse' and 'observer' actually comes about because of the phenomenology of macroscpically large systems of particles like experimental scientists and their tools? I'm with that 100%. I think Schroedinger also thought so as well. His point about the cat was not to suppose that a half-alive and half-dead cat was a physically useful or "true" description, but to mock believing in Bohr's postulates too seriously.

Yes I always approached Schrodinger cat in that way, and felt the people who didnt were like the people who took the double slit in a fictitious and sensationalized and misinterpreted fashion.

For your first statement, Yes I think, a hydrogen atom is more, or at least objectively different from an electron and a proton. This I felt was related to the OPs arguement, for example he mentioned that if you took a string, and tied it into a geometry, though it appears different, in essence it is still the same string. I took this to speak at the idea that a quantity of energy existed, some of that energy materialized, which can be likend to a string taking on a geometry, and now the materialized energy has different properties and potentials, but in essence it is still that foundational and fundamental energy. The op then loses me from there, when speaking about different times and universes.

I think the appearance of peculiar things in quantum mechanics can because fundamental nature is peculiar and 'distant' in terms of what we are used to. What do you mean by the weird 'collapse' and 'observer'? I think wave functions are collapsed regardless of observer, I think quarks and electrons actually form stable units of atoms, and atoms molecules, and molecules objects, and according to the natural rules of energy and molecules, these objects can exist stabley and have different and unique traits, and react in unique ways a la chemistry and biology and physics. So I think the fact that an apple can fall from a tree, travel through the air, and hit the ground, I think these objects exist as stable entities regardless of observers. The double slit experiment though I have looked into it many multiple times and in multiple ways, I am still unsure about what the collective of physics thinks about it, im not sure what is thought about non locality, im not sure what is thought about wave interference patterns of light, and particle/wave duality. But yes as far as I know, I think those affects are because of the means in which scientists do the observing, with equipment that directly influences the 'it' that is attempted at being detected. It seems like a sort of impossibility, or if these problems are to be solved it has to be by inference and intelligence, like doing the side pieces of a puzzle first, and cornering your conclusion. Taking a picture of the camera you are taking a picture with seems like an impossible task until you remember mirrors exist, but then even still the information you receive may not be entirely accurate.

If physicists could describe every single aspect of reality only by using the fundamental, the tiniest parts that make up all reality, would that be a complete and accurate description of reality, could the appearance, shape, rotation, of a galaxy be explained in quantum/fundamental means, by only using quarks, electrons and the forces?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Ice is real if geometry is real. All classical geometry is real enough but it is only geometry. it is not a real sustance. What I am saying is that it is not the only geometry, it has a source in another spacetime. Locally that spacetime is here but it is not available to our senses. consequently there are two universes. As a result there are problems if we try to measure a quantum event with classical spacetime because quantum events have their own spacetime. This is why quantum reality seems weird. It is weird by classical standards because in its depths it is not doing classical stuff according to classical time. It has its own time order.

reply to post by EnPassant


By 'different time of order', what you are really saying is the smaller components of stuff travel and react at higher natural velocities (I think)(By different components of stuff I mean the layers, a rock, molecules that make up the rock, atoms that make up the molecules, subatomic particles that make up the atoms, particles that make up the subatomic particles, it is those bits and quanta of energy which you are claiming have a 'different order of time'). Its really that they vibrate and move at different speeds, higher frequency then the total matter they make up; its said electrons are constantly vibrating and nuclei sharing electrons is how materials exist stabely, so why when we look at our hand dont we see electrons vibrating; well its because that micro world is so much smaller then the macro world we are made of and exist in, and its reactions occur in such smaller areas of space, if an electron around an atom is constantly vibrating the quantity of space in which it is vibrating must be unfathomably small. But I personally dont think we live in a different time, I think it is one fluid/smooth connection from the smallest to largest; Because of the quality of the small and subsequent interactions, higher orders of order came/come about, and the higher orders are stable entities, matter.

Is part of the reason for this statement of yours to bring up consciousness? Our brain seems to be the control center for our macro material bodies, and our brain seems to utilize the more subtle and speedy potentials of reality. Would you claim differences in orders of time here as well; though when I think about it, there seems to be a pretty fluid reaction time to the amount of words I can think of and my physical ability of typing them, also if you take note of sports, basketball for example mental decisions are being made every pico second by multiple people which creates a continuum of physical action. I still dont know what you mean by 2 different universes, and multiple orders of time. If I can walk 10 yards in a shorter amount of time then you does that prove a different order of time? If I can walk 10 yards in shorter amount of time then an ant does that prove different order of time? If I can walk 10 yards in shorter amount of time then a single celled organism does that prove different order of time? If an electron can travel 10 yards in shorter amount of time then me does that prove different order of time?

The separate universes you speak of, imo, are intimately linked, the fact that light speed is light speed, has absolute and unavoidable direct affects on the nature of matter, and the nature of everything quantity and quality and foundation and fundamental and composite has affects on the nature of everything. You need to be more clear in painting and expressing the picture which you see as truth, for it is not getting across to me what you are actually picturing. 2 separate universes, is this idea of yours birthed out of the talk of currently irreconcilable theories of quantum and classical, and so you made the conclusion that 2 separate universes exist, a quantum and a classical, and that the quantum exists somewhere else for some reason, and what it beams classical material to another area, why and how would it do that, are you trying to or thinking of evoking hologram and simulation stuff as well here?

After rereading your post this reply is to, I think I understand what you are saying while I dont agree about saying there are separate universes, I agree that the quantum and seemingly fundamental nature is different in multiple ways compared to the more macro material and structures the fundamental interact with each other to create, we are the macro material structures that are results of quantum and then classical interactions occurring for an amount of time, now we are trying to learn about reality, and so we are trying to probe into the fundamental nature of nature, and the results have been different then the classical mechanics we are used to as born humans who learn to walk and poke things and throw things and do things. It would be like if you were a minecraft character, who pooled together with a lot of other minecraft characters, in order to come up with ways to figure out, what minecraft 'really' was.


You say 'it is not a real substance' speaking of classical geometry. I would argue that if the fundamental nature is a real substance, if say 1000 quarks exist and they are fundamental nature, and they can interact in a bevy of ways and form stable particles etc. if those 1000 quarks are substance, then the geometries they form are substance as well, and because by combining together and interacting they can achieve more then they can achieve on their own, it is even more intriguing as a substance ( like I used the example of a car in an earlier post. If all that existed in the universe were car parts, that would be cool and a substance, but if those car parts were to be organized together to make a car, it would still be a substance, and that substance and geometry would be noteworthy, as it would have different affects, abilities, potentials, then the parts). Like organic chemistry, there appears to be a very finite number of possible atoms in the low hundreds for now, but under certain conditions put a million metric muck tons of atoms in an area under different conditions and you can get earth and all its lively glory.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I don't think the quantum world is 'small'. An electron is in reality more than a point particle. It only looks like a point from a classical perspective. It seems to be the point where a field of energy impinges on the classical geometry. A scientist once said (I forget his name) that there is only one electron in reality, only one electronic field of energy in the universe and this field touches classical geometry at many points. If you could go into the electron and go through it, you might find yourself in a vast spacetime of energy.

Substance is the stuff of reality. A construction, such as the car you mention, is not more substance, it is more geometry, more form. For example, suppose you have a lump of bronze. This, in a simple sense, can be seen as substance. You can make the form of an eagle out of the bronze or you can make a fish or a horse. The eagle is geometry. So it is with matter, it is merely geometry. If you melt the eagle down you are left with a lump of bronze. The eagle is gone, but it has not gone anywhere, it is just gone. The 'eagle' is a property of the bronze and classical spacetime is a property of energy. It can, in principle, evaporate and vanish, just like the eagle. The substance of classical geometry and of matter, is energy. This energy is everywhere and it has its own mathematical description which makes it a distinct geometry or spacetime.

As for quantum reality and consciousness - I think Roger Penrose is interested in this. I have no idea if it is true but I suspect there is something in it.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


We know that the 4 dimensions we call space / time are flat within an acceptable margin of error. Everything else is masturbation.