Logical Hierarchies

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />What would "meta-science's" philosophy be in regard to hierarchical structure in physics? Do some principles of physics subsume others? Or, are principles independent of one another ... yet interact at the level of our experiments? For instance, is the nuclear force logically independent of gravity or is it connected at some higher level where another concept subsumes both?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In MM, all substance is infinitely divisible and infinitely assemblable. So in that sense, it is heirarchical. But the axiom that the universe looks essentially the same at any scale implies a certain sameness to all the hierarchical levels. And the principles of physics, which arise from logic and not from observation or experiment, are necessarily applicable universally.

So the nuclear force has some things in common with gravity and some things unique to its scale of applicability.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At base, if there is no such hierarchy, it must be impossible to "finish" the science of physics (I mean here, of course, that we may never finish what we may deduce from "higher" principles, but we should be able to finish the upper principles themselves ... IF ... there are a finite number of them which would be the case in a hierarchical system).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In that case, I must reverse the previous answer because the "hierarchies" I mentioned are infinite in number. In any case, we have no trouble "finishing" physics in the sense of finding laws of physics to describe phenomena we can detect. But we will never finish exploring the unique configurations that arise everywhere in space, time, and scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is there a "starting point" in physics from which we may (at least in principle) deduce the universe? Or, is physics open ended at both ends?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The former for the overall picture; the latter for the details. That is what the first five chapters of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> are all about -- deducing the universe from first principles only. -|Tom|-

I ordered your book because the copy I bought about ten years ago must be dated somewhat based on the info provided in your store.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And the principles of physics, which arise from logic and not from observation or experiment, are necessarily applicable universally.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I shall be interested in any elaboration of this in your updated book.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />I shall be interested in any elaboration of this in your updated book.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The particular point about the principles of physics can be found at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp -|Tom|-

What would you think of a big bang type scenario wherein from our scale of observation there are a finite number of "steps" back to the bang ... but ... an infinite number of steps to that initial state if we descend to smaller scales? Thus, the chain of causality extends through an infinite number of interactions each occurring over a finite duration ... and ... each event at our scale has an infinite causal pedigree.

This would not then be "ex nihilo" in the common meaning of the term but would be ex nihilo from our point of view which would perceive it as a finite time.

EBTX,

I am out of my league here but as a lay person it seems to me that if you assume no quantum steps but a purely analog process then your assumptions seem to ring true.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />What would you think of a big bang type scenario wherein from our scale of observation there are a finite number of "steps" back to the bang ... but ... an infinite number of steps to that initial state if we descend to smaller scales?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why a big-bang-type scenario? That presumes an expanding universe, whereas all available experimental tests indicate that the universe is not expanding.

As for number of steps, the condition you describe is always true between us and any event -- it is a finite number of seconds or years, yet an infinite number of infinitely divisible time steps.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thus, the chain of causality extends through an infinite number of interactions each occurring over a finite duration ... and ... each event at our scale has an infinite causal pedigree.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Other than resolving Zeno's paradoxes, I don't see what advantage you are seeing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This would not then be "ex nihilo" in the common meaning of the term but would be ex nihilo from our point of view which would perceive it as a finite time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We perceive all time intervals as finite even though all have an infinite number of steps. What has that to do with creation, "ex nihilo" or otherwise? Your point was lost on me.

Have you read <i>Dark Matter...</i> to see how this infinitely-divisible-time idea is actually implemented in MM? I assure you it involves no "ex nihilo" steps. -|Tom|-