Not necessarily. Check out Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)
Causal dynamical triangulation
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work. How did the universe begin? How will it end? - The Science Behind It.
The thing on the right is yelling at me for replying too many times. Of course if we had the proven solution for gravity we could wade through a lot of theories but even here I don’t see a self-contained universe as one precluding the existence of a larger box that we could be inside of, only potentially precluding its necessity. I only brazenly argue with confidence about boxes within boxes because I know no one can currently argue against it affirmatively rooted in absolute fact, not because of some innate wisdom. When gravity has a solution and people need to do real science and math I’ll gladly keep my silence and absorb while people put the puzzle together
It’s funny because this is related to the idea of space time itself being reflective of an atomic structure which in turn makes me think of a fractal. Or, perhaps not a fractal and we can go back to the cave allegory and our perception of space time is just an imperfect reflection of actual space-time (or something else?), which would again, take us outside the original box.
I’m just resistant to the idea that we can ever solve the existence of humanity through physics. I think at best it’s the model in which to test our ideas of the meaning of humanity. And with that pseudo-scientific dribble I leave the conversation to you fine sirs since we’ve already established I submit to authority and I don’t want to test that dialog box on the right.
[quote=“mattituckmatt, post:62, topic:7717”]
I’m just resistant to the idea that we can ever solve the existence of humanity through physics. I think at best it’s the model in which to test our ideas of the meaning of humanity.
Why not? Perhaps not physics because that requires physical dynamics at a extremely small and large scales that are beyond our abilities to duplicate. But what about our symbolic representations of the mechanics involved.
Robert Hazen makes a clear and persuasive case for the probability of Abiogenesis via mineral interaction.
And with that pseudo-scientific dribble I leave the conversation to you fine sirs since we’ve already established I submit to authority and I don’t want to test that dialog box on the right.
[/quote]
It is mathematics that predicted the existence of the Higgs boson. Fortunately, the experimental physics was within our ability and “eureka”, we caused a Higgs boson to become manifest for just an instant.
We had a glimpse of the quantum world, by imitating a little bit of the energies found in cosmic clouds (Cern).
I watched this lecture yesterday and have been thinking about it interlocking with a lot of the existential crap I’ve been posting on lately and frankly have found it to be an incredibly helpful tool to remind me of the nature of life as I contemplate it. You’ve reached into this former geology major’s heart and produced a gem.
