Hi I’m Ockham,
Greetings from the UK! Please note from Wikipedia: William of Ockham (/ˈɒkəm/; also Occam; c. 1287 – 1347) was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, who is believed to have been born in Ockham, a small village in Surrey.] Ockham is the Anglo-Saxon and Occam the Latin spelling of the village near where I used to live.
My first degree was Mathematics and my second Astrophysics and Cosmology. I have done some work since in both planetary orbit theory (Trojan asteroids) and cosmology.
Well, in order to “kick off their (my) first discussion”.
The question I find intriguing is Stephen Hawking’s in his book ‘A Brief History of Time’: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
Welcome. I used to think that was a difficult question. Now I realize it’s not. It’s very simple - no one knows, and no one CAN know. That’s not satisfying at all, but who says it has to be? The simple fact is, we have no way of knowing if the concepts involved in answering the big question are even available to us. I think of fish. Let’s say there’s a really smart fish out there and he asks the big question. He’ll ask it in the context of concepts he has available to him, such as water, swimming, maybe currents, seaweed, other fish, etc. But no matter how hard he thinks about it, or performs experiments in a manner available to him, he’ll never come up with the concept of, say quantum gravity. And let’s pretend QG provides the big answer somehow. That concept is entirely unavailable to the fish AND he doesn’t even know it’s not available to him.
We are no different, just at a higher level. We can come up with all kinds of interesting and even True ideas, but like the fish, the answer may involve a concept we are entirely incapable of knowing about, ever. And we wouldn’t even know that fact.
So we’ll just have to be satisfied with the asking, or move on and just make our stupid puny world as nice as we can, limited fish that we are.
Thank you Cuthbert,
Yes, we are fish looking out at a greater reality, but we are inquisitive fish, and for one I cannot stop asking questions, even if the answer is beyond my ken.
As the basic nature of reality in the world of the very small, and once, in the Big Bang, the whole universe was in the world of the very small, seems to be mathematical in nature; as a mathematician I wonder whether mathematics is a discovery or an invention?
Thank you Cuthbert, Yes, we are fish looking out at a greater reality, but we are inquisitive fish, and for one I cannot stop asking questions, even if the answer is beyond my ken. As the basic nature of reality in the world of the very small, and once, in the Big Bang, the whole universe was in the world of the very small, seems to be mathematical in nature; as a mathematician I wonder whether mathematics is a discovery or an invention?It would have to be an invention wouldn't it? For mathematics to be a discovery, it would have had to have existed separate from us. It could only be the product of a sentient being, or am I crazy?
Thank you Cuthbert, Yes, we are fish looking out at a greater reality, but we are inquisitive fish, and for one I cannot stop asking questions, even if the answer is beyond my ken. As the basic nature of reality in the world of the very small, and once, in the Big Bang, the whole universe was in the world of the very small, seems to be mathematical in nature; as a mathematician I wonder whether mathematics is a discovery or an invention?It would have to be an invention wouldn't it? For mathematics to be a discovery, it would have had to have existed separate from us. It could only be the product of a sentient being, or am I crazy? Hi Handyman, Thinking mathematically is obviously the function of a sentient being, but whether the existence of such beings is necessary for mathematical truths to exist is, I think, debatable. Having been trained as a mathematician I lean to Platonic thinking in liking to believe 1 + 1 = 2 even before there were any sentient beings around to think it! I tend to think numbers or other abstract mathematical objects are objective, timeless entities which are independent of the physical world and of the symbols used to represent them. Fundamental physics seems to indicate such abstract mathematical structures are the 'reality' that lies behind the physical world, and determined the origin and subsequent evolution of the universe. But the question of the 'fire in the equations' remains.
The question I find intriguing is Stephen Hawking's in his book 'A Brief History of Time': "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"Maybe the same kind of process that determines the exact place where a photon arrives in a two slit experiment. Welcome to the forum!
The question I find intriguing is Stephen Hawking's in his book 'A Brief History of Time': "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"Maybe the same kind of process that determines the exact place where a photon arrives in a two slit experiment. Welcome to the forum! Thank you GdB!! Well, in response to your suggestion let me point out that I have also been posting in the Science and Technology Forum, The 10,000 times faster than the speed of light?] thread about that problem, the collapse of the wave function. In Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle] the Big Bang was the ultimate quantum mechanical experiment and it is our observation of the universe today that collapses the wave function of the entire universe in such a fashion that observers like ourselves are possible. We are the ones breathing fire into the equations!! If that is not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps then I don't know what is!
In Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle] the Big Bang was the ultimate quantum mechanical experiment and it is our observation of the universe today that collapses the wave function of the entire universe in such a fashion that observers like ourselves are possible. We are the ones breathing fire into the equations!! If that is not pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps then I don't know what is!Yeah, it is great, isn't it? ;-)
Thank you Cuthbert, Yes, we are fish looking out at a greater reality, but we are inquisitive fish, and for one I cannot stop asking questions, even if the answer is beyond my ken. As the basic nature of reality in the world of the very small, and once, in the Big Bang, the whole universe was in the world of the very small, seems to be mathematical in nature; as a mathematician I wonder whether mathematics is a discovery or an invention?It would have to be an invention wouldn't it? For mathematics to be a discovery, it would have had to have existed separate from us. It could only be the product of a sentient being, or am I crazy? Hi Handyman, Thinking mathematically is obviously the function of a sentient being, but whether the existence of such beings is necessary for mathematical truths to exist is, I think, debatable. Having been trained as a mathematician I lean to Platonic thinking in liking to believe 1 + 1 = 2 even before there were any sentient beings around to think it! I tend to think numbers or other abstract mathematical objects are objective, timeless entities which are independent of the physical world and of the symbols used to represent them. Fundamental physics seems to indicate such abstract mathematical structures are the 'reality' that lies behind the physical world, and determined the origin and subsequent evolution of the universe. But the question of the 'fire in the equations' remains.I used to think of mathematical objects as Platonic as well...until I heard that Economists use many of the same objects to express and investigate the economy, i.e. the human, non-timeless world. It was a sad day for me.
I used to think of mathematical objects as Platonic as well...until I heard that Economists use many of the same objects to express and investigate the economy, i.e. the human, non-timeless world. It was a sad day for me.You are such a romantic, CuthbertJ.
I used to think of mathematical objects as Platonic as well...until I heard that Economists use many of the same objects to express and investigate the economy, i.e. the human, non-timeless world. It was a sad day for me.You are such a romantic, CuthbertJ.I said it WAS a sad day, past tense. Nowadays nothing surprises me, and all the romance is gone. I'm in it for nothing more than a few shits and giggles. ;)
Hi I'm Ockham, Greetings from the UK! Please note from Wikipedia: William of Ockham (/ˈɒkəm/; also Occam; c. 1287 – 1347) was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, who is believed to have been born in Ockham, a small village in Surrey.] Ockham is the Anglo-Saxon and Occam the Latin spelling of the village near where I used to live. My first degree was Mathematics and my second Astrophysics and Cosmology. I have done some work since in both planetary orbit theory (Trojan asteroids) and cosmology. Well, in order to "kick off their (my) first discussion". The question I find intriguing is Stephen Hawking's in his book 'A Brief History of Time': "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"Hello Ockham, Welcome, Stephen Hawking is trying to figure out the answer to what created the universe. What I found interesting is that in one of the oldest known Genesis stories by the Vedas. They said that the earth is make of stardust and that mankind may never know how the universe was created. The Vedas go back to pre-history. So I guess what you’re doing has been a interest of the human race for a very, very long time.
Hello Ockham, Welcome, Stephen Hawking is trying to figure out the answer to what created the universe. What I found interesting is that in one of the oldest known Genesis stories by the Vedas. They said that the earth is make of stardust and that mankind may never know how the universe was created. The Vedas go back to pre-history. So I guess what you’re doing has been a interest of the human race for a very, very long time.Hello Mike and thank you! The quote I like is, ""Be humble, for you are made of earth, be noble, for you are made of stars" – Serbian proverb"
... The quote I like is, ""Be humble, for you are made of earth, be noble, for you are made of stars" – Serbian proverb"Welcome. There was, until recently, an extraordinary poster on this forum, whose moniker was "Occam". The spelling was slightly different, but he believed, as you do, that the simplest explanations are most often the correct ones. I like the quote you presented, also. I don't think I have heard it before. Thanks.
Welcome. There was, until recently, an extraordinary poster on this forum, whose moniker was "Occam". The spelling was slightly different, but he believed, as you do, that the simplest explanations are most often the correct ones.Thank you Tim, I thought 'Occam' still posted here; when I signed up I tried to use his moniker spelling but was told it was already in use, which is why I explained the variation in my first post above. I used to live in Surrey (UK) quite near the village of Ockham where in the thirteenth/fourteenth century a monk used to live who had a rather famous razor. 'Occam' was the Latin spelling of that Anglo-Saxon village name.
Our Occam lived until he no longer did, as shall we all.
Just learning of Occam’s demise. RIP Occam. He shall be sorely missed. His was truly a beautiful mind and a jovial spirit to the very end (think he lived wells into his eighties). Not to come off as a Buddhist mystic or anything of the sort, but I’d like to think of the new Occam as a reincarnation of the late one.
Just learning of Occam's demise. RIP Occam. He shall be sorely missed. His was truly a beautiful mind and a jovial spirit to the very end (think he lived wells into his eighties). Not to come off as a Buddhist mystic or anything of the sort, but I'd like to think of the new Occam as a reincarnation of the late one.I shall try. Indeed RIP Occam.
Hi I'm Ockham, Greetings from the UK! Please note from Wikipedia: William of Ockham (/ˈɒkəm/; also Occam; c. 1287 – 1347) was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, who is believed to have been born in Ockham, a small village in Surrey.] Ockham is the Anglo-Saxon and Occam the Latin spelling of the village near where I used to live. My first degree was Mathematics and my second Astrophysics and Cosmology. I have done some work since in both planetary orbit theory (Trojan asteroids) and cosmology. Well, in order to "kick off their (my) first discussion"....I'm sure this is a novice answer for someone of your scholarly caliber, so consider it a philosophical one. I think energy is what makes stuff, stuff. The math sets the rules and boundaries and the energy fills those boundaries, and sometimes flexes and bends said boundaries. I believe we as humans, are first and foremost, chemical reactions. Since the most primitive known life comes from "smokers," which is full of thermal energy, it's conceivable that our origins are somewhere deep in those abysses. I believe energy and chemical reactions are god.
Hi I'm Ockham, Greetings from the UK! Please note from Wikipedia: William of Ockham (/ˈɒkəm/; also Occam; c. 1287 – 1347) was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, who is believed to have been born in Ockham, a small village in Surrey.] Ockham is the Anglo-Saxon and Occam the Latin spelling of the village near where I used to live. My first degree was Mathematics and my second Astrophysics and Cosmology. I have done some work since in both planetary orbit theory (Trojan asteroids) and cosmology. Well, in order to "kick off their (my) first discussion"....I'm sure this is a novice answer for someone of your scholarly caliber, so consider it a philosophical one. I think energy is what makes stuff, stuff. The math sets the rules and boundaries and the energy fills those boundaries, and sometimes flexes and bends said boundaries. I believe we as humans, are first and foremost, chemical reactions. Since the most primitive known life comes from "smokers," which is full of thermal energy, it's conceivable that our origins are somewhere deep in those abysses. I believe energy and chemical reactions are god.Hi NolenTwoHundred, yes indeed energy is essential. It will be more than very interesting to see if there is/or has been/ life on other planets. Mars is the prime target but many of the frozen ice moons of Jupiter and Saturn have liquid oceans under a crust of ice. Deep, deep, down in their abysses there may be 'smokers. and who knows? "Life Jim, but not as we know it!"