Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The need to understand singularity.
The following post was prompted by the Aeon article linked below:
What the author is expressing here is really an indication of the problem we with have with singularity. The fact of the matter is that, as we understand it today, it is wholly unable to be consistent with itself and the formalized expressions that describe relativity. And this is so because it currently starts with the assumption that a single, immaculate moment of infinite mass began the cosmological process of what and when. An infinite potential that begins with no preceding specifications other than it is infinite.
From this inherent inconsistency does all of the seeming difficulties of quantum theory arise; especially as it relates to accepting either the “Copenhagen Interpretation,“ “Objective Collapse interpretation ,” or the “Many Worlds” interpretation. And the only way to resolve this, in my opinion, is to restate singularity as follows:
An unbounded process of infinite potential; an eternal of no time or space dimensions of its own where potential is a combination of both infinite boundaries, and infinite vectors of meaning association, within which to create new boundaries, within that unbounded, singular process.
This infinite potential cannot be static so its very being assumes an automatic existence of realities going out in infinite angles of relative direction (derivative of the various permutations of first order interaction constants, of which more will be said), realities where the arrow of time is the vector of association, or interaction, wherein is created both physical meaning space and sentient meaning space. All of these vectors then having an infinite corresponding set of initial reference points for which to set the base constants for which first order interactions will be able to constitute meaning.
There are a couple of things to remember here as these vectors expand out into their growing space time relationships, or over all meaning.
The first is that boundaries inside each are relative to the vector at hand, and remain deterministic only to a certain scale of energy. Higher energy scales mean more potential for vector cross talk, for lack of a better term, so require increasing probability resolution to describe; especially as sentient meaning space and physical meaning space begin to interact to a greater degree within the same vector of association.
The second is that physical meaning space is deterministic in the context of the first order of interaction, which is the creation of information as discrete units in a given sequence over time. Meaning in that context is inherent in the initial interaction constants, in conjunction with the given characteristics of space time at any major differential of expansion. Sentient meaning space, however, is where quantum complexity really comes into its own for it is here that the act of observation takes on fundamentally different aspect. Sentient choice in not only how an observation is conducted, but with the meaning assumptions already held in the individual meaning processing system, affect how the observation will resolve event probabilities.
Having realities branch off at every quantum moment is a great deal more consistent with a Cosmological whole when that cosmology begins with a singularity conceptualized as an unbounded process of time vectors originating from every possible reference point. That, in itself, however, would not be enough, in my view, to account for quantum complexity without also allowing that each vector of reality is made up of both physical meaning space and sentient meaning space. This necessarily gets us into the philosophical realm, but that would be necessary in any case. The problem for science in general is that, powerful though empiricism is, it can only take us so far in understanding the Cosmos. As the author of this article already stated, in the quantum world there is no objective observation. Which is no more than to say that there are limits to what we can objectively measure and test. Conclusions will, therefor, ultimately come down to subjective consideration, and choice.