Subject: emergent timespace OR emergent massenergy
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999
Organization: Ceptual Institute
Dr. Todor Pfliegel wrote:
Jamie,
This time I wish to concentrate upon one single question: "Does empty timespace, i.e. without any matter, objectively exist, or does it not?"
I am certain that empty spacetime does not exist. The species of Dinosaurs existed as long as there were individual dinosaurs living on the earth. Humanity objectively exists as long as there are people living on this planet. But humanity, naturally, is not only the sum total of individuals; it is a new quality with many such properties which none of its individual members has, - e.g. culture and civilization.No higher category can exist without lower categories which are its constituents.
Dodi.
Dear Dodi,
I understand your view ... its one of the current cosmologies... mass/energy comes into existence and brings with it the qualities of space and time. The notion of an 'inflationary universe' is built on this premise, for example. Which premise you refer to as a 'certainty'.
There is little for us to discuss then, I should think, since I posit the opposite premise ... that dimensionality unfolds as spacetime, and as part of the unfolding mechanisms and processes, spacetime contorts into knots/strings/waves/loci that transduce into what we recognize as energy/mass. Energy/mass are considered 'coagulants' of spacetime ... something similar even to vapor under pressure that suddenly transforms into fog condensations when the "space" expands and pressure drops precipitously. Precipitation. Only the precipitation isn't composed of any thing 'dissolved' into spacetime, but is the spacetime itself. Some of the spacetime expands emptily, and some of it undergoes little nodule transformations and become 'something' - in and among the unfolding and expanding 'emptiness' that is spacetime.
I suppose our ideas represent the ultimate egg~chicken debate ... dealing as we are with the most fundamental of fundamentals. And I don't anticipate that we can resolve these views because - we're looking at mass/energy which is always co-present with spacetime, and, spacetime which is always co-present with mass/energy. Yin-Yang. Different qualities that apparently don't exist without the other, yet it is impossible to guarantee that some of that qualities produce the other one .. and specify which created which. You have one scenario, I another. They each seem valid to us respectively, according to our imaginations and learnings.
I would be wrong to engage in a debate where we have few good analytical handholds. :-) Especially because my thesis comes awfully close to a theory that has been debunked by some ... the Steady State version of the universe. You might reasonably ask me to justify why spacetime doesn't produce mass/energy spontaneously in the midst of the vacuum - in some continual and obvious fashion. And all I could counter with is .. there are some ZPE (zero point energy) theories which do entertain the possibility of mass/energy popping into existence from what they call 'the quantum soup' (that I would rather call the dimensional topology).
But we have no unimpeachable 'proof' to offer each other, to sway our positions. If you can think of some that I haven't considered, I would be grateful to read them. I demand of myself to stay open to alternatives, even if I have to rebuild my own house of thoughts. As of the moment though, sans God whispering into our thoughts the 'actualities' of existence, we are at a too soon arrived impasse of our views. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Jamie
