Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Physics and Metaphysics - CTMU

Physics and Metaphysics - CTMU

Ratings: (0)|Views: 471|Likes:
Published by isotelesis
In a composite object (like a brain) consisting of multiple parts, the dual aspects of infocognition become crowded together in spacetime. But in the quantum realm, this “monic duality” takes the form of an alternation basic to the evolution of spacetime itself. This alternation usually goes by the name of wave-particle duality, and refers to the inner-expansive and collapsative phases of the quantum wave function. Where ripples represent the expansive (or cognitive) phase, and their collapsation into new events determines the informational phase, the above reasoning can be expressed as follows: as the infocognitive universe evolves, the absolute rate of spatiotemporal cognition cn at time n, as measured in absolute (conserved) units of spacetime, is inversely proportional to the absolute information density Rn/R0 of typical physical systems...i.e., to the concentration of locally-processed physical information. As light slows down, more SCSPL-grammatical (generalized cognitive) steps are performed per unit of absolute distance traversed. So with respect to meaningful content, the universe remains steady in the process of self-creation.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Supernova.html
In a composite object (like a brain) consisting of multiple parts, the dual aspects of infocognition become crowded together in spacetime. But in the quantum realm, this “monic duality” takes the form of an alternation basic to the evolution of spacetime itself. This alternation usually goes by the name of wave-particle duality, and refers to the inner-expansive and collapsative phases of the quantum wave function. Where ripples represent the expansive (or cognitive) phase, and their collapsation into new events determines the informational phase, the above reasoning can be expressed as follows: as the infocognitive universe evolves, the absolute rate of spatiotemporal cognition cn at time n, as measured in absolute (conserved) units of spacetime, is inversely proportional to the absolute information density Rn/R0 of typical physical systems...i.e., to the concentration of locally-processed physical information. As light slows down, more SCSPL-grammatical (generalized cognitive) steps are performed per unit of absolute distance traversed. So with respect to meaningful content, the universe remains steady in the process of self-creation.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Supernova.html

More info:

Published by: isotelesis on Apr 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
 All material at this website
© 1998-2005
by
Christopher Michael Langan
 
Flash from Deep Space: Supernews on Supernovas
 
At a January, 1998 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, it was announced that asurvey of distant supernovae by an international team of astronomers indicates that cosmicexpansion is being accelerated by an unknown repulsive force«a force that appears strongenough to prevent gravity from collapsing the universe.The supernovae are of an extensively studied variety known as
type Ia
. Type Ia supernovae,which result from the explosion of certain white dwarf stars, are so similar and steady inluminosity that they can be used as
standard candles
, or reliable measures of astralbrightness. Because they always shine with the same intrinsic intensity, it is possible to infertheir distances by the dimness of their light. Distance can then be plotted against speed of recession as calculated from frequency reductions due to cosmic redshift. Such a plot turns outto be increasingly nonlinear as distance increases, suggesting an unexpected acceleration.Most of those analyzing the data agree on the implications. Because the observed supernovaeare dimmer than would be expected had the rate of cosmic expansion remained constant since
 
their parent stars exploded, expansion must have accelerated since the supernovae were born,and some kind of accelerative force must pervade the universe. As early as February, 1998, anindependent group calling itself the
High-z Supernova Search Team
(
 z 
means
redshift 
) confirmedthis finding with a statistical confidence of 98.7-99.99%. Since then, further observations haveprovided yet more confirmation.
 
Among the candidates for a repulsive force are Einstein¶s
cosmological constant 
, representing a
 
form of antigravity associated with General Relativity, and quantum mechanical
vacuum energy 
,which produces outward pressure through the spontaneous creation and annihilation of virtualparticle-antiparticle pairs. Also receiving welcome air time are more bizarre ideas like
 X-matter 
and
quintessence
, strange forms of background energy that might be produced bymysterious physical processes as yet unidentified. In the minds of most theorists, the best bet is a combination of cosmological constant andvacuum energy. That would deliver the steady effect that has been observed, as opposed to the
 
fluctuations that might accompany X-matter and quintessence. Unfortunately, none of theexperts can give a constructive reason for why any of these influences should themselvesexist. No conventional theory incorporating the Standard Big Bang Model of cosmology canexplain why an expansive force should be evident or how it might have originated. However, an alternative theory does exist. It is virtually unknown to most physicists, whosestock repertoire is limited to theories that have been published by other physicists in exclusivescholastic journals unreceptive to strange new ideas emanating from unknown, academically
 
uncredentialed sources. It
has
, however, been published for a highly intelligent readership in a journal called
Noesis
. This theory is called the
CTMU
. Although
Noesis
is not, strictly speaking,a peer-reviewed journal, the CTMU has been extensively criticized and defended within it overthe last decade on the basis of published descriptions. The CTMU is not an ordinary physical theory. Instead of being just another system of 
ad 
 
hoc 
equations purporting to describe some limited aspect of the physical universe, it has a uniquelogical structure designed to embed the very foundations of mathematics and philosophy. Yet,unlike many predominantly rationalistic theories, it is designed to resolve paradox on bothrational and observational levels, and thus makes verifiable statements regarding the nature of observable reality. Some of these statements, which range in application from quantum physicsto cosmology, relate to cosmic expansion. To query the universe regarding its true nature is to ask a very deep question. There wasalways a strange and touching mixture of humility and hubris in the idea that physicists couldobtain an answer to this question simply by looking through their instruments and carefullydescribing what they saw. After all, reality contains features like
mind,cognition
and
consciousness
that do not lend themselves to empirical techniques or scientificreductionism. Yet, they are basic, unavoidable ingredients of every scientific measurement everperformed and every theoretical explanation ever devised. Without conscious minds subjectingreality to cognition, science could not exist. The CTMU provides physics and cosmology with a logical framework that incorporates thesemissing ingredients in a way reflecting the nature of their involvement in measurement andtheorization. And as a bonus, it does what no other theory can: while painlessly absorbing thebulk of modern physical science and resolving many of its most stubborn and destructiveparadoxes, it coherently explains the cosmological implications of the evidence for accelerativerecession of type Ia supernovae in the context of a self-contained, self-creating universe. 
P
hysics and Metaphysics
 
(© 1998 - 2002 by C.M. Langan) 
Today
:
Metaphysics
::
Tomorrow
: P
hysics
 Today¶s dominant theory of small-scale physics,
quantum mechanics
, did not begin its long andsuccessful run as a physical theory. The reason is logical; its major premise, the
Heisenberg
 
Uncertainty Principle
, sets absolute limits on the accuracy to which quanta can be measured, andcursory logical analysis reveals that this defines a relation between measurer and measuredobject that cannot be expressed in a language describing measured objects alone. Sinceclassical physics was the latter kind of language, neither the uncertainty principle nor quantummechanics could be immediately classified as ³physics´. Rather, they belonged to a logicalmetalanguage of physics called
metaphysics
. Indeed, even at a time when physics routinelyexplains what the ancients would have seen as ³magic´, some physicists view quantummechanics with a touch of uneasy skepticism. The reason: it raises too many metaphysical-looking issues without satisfactorily resolving them. Relativity too was initially a metaphysical theory based on the formation of higher-order
 
predicates,
spacetime
and
spacetime curvature
, that had not existed in physics, drawing in theinterests of self-containment a higher-order causal relationship between the fundamentalphysical parameters
space, time
and
matter 
on a combination of empirical and mathematicalgrounds (a higher-order relation is a relation of relations«of relations of primitive objects,defined at the appropriate level of predicate logic). Since this describes a semantic operationthat cannot be effected within the bare language of physics as it existed at the time, relativitywas metaphysical rather than physical in nature. Nevertheless, it achieved quick recognition asa physical theory«not only because Einstein was already recognized as a professional physicist,but because it made physical predictions that classical physics alone did not make.It was recognized long before Einstein that observations of physical objects vary subjectively incertain parameters. For example, although objects are identical when viewed under identicalconditions, they vary in size when viewed from different distances, display different shapes fromdifferent angles, and seem to be differently colored and shaded under different lightingconditions. Einstein expanded the range of subjective variation of physical phenomena byshowing that objects also look different when viewed at different
relative velocities
. But inkeeping with classical objectivism, he showed in the process that such perceptual variations
 
were a matter of objective circumstance, in effect treating perception itself as an objectivephenomenon. Because this kind of empirical objectivization is exactly what is expected of theobjective empirical science of physics, attention was diverted from nagging metaphysicalquestions involving the interplay of rational and empirical factors in perception.Although he never got around to enunciating it, Einstein may well have sensed that perceptioncannot be understood without understanding the logic of this interplay, and that this logic is
 
instrumental to the inherently metaphysical operation of theoretical unification. Nevertheless,perhaps encouraged by his own apparent success in sidestepping this particular metaphysicalissue, he spent the second half of his career on a doomed attempt to unify physics in a purelyphysical context - that is, in the context of a spacetime model which went only as far asRelativity Theory. Since then, many bright and well-educated people have repeated roughly thesame error, never realizing that physical theory truly advances only by absorbing profoundlycreative metaphysical extensions on which no ordinary physicist would wittingly sign off. Like quantum mechanics and the Theory of Relativity, the CTMU is a metaphysical theory thatmakes distinctive predictions and retrodictions not made by previous theories. However, theCTMU makes no attempt in the process to sidestep difficult metaphysical issues. For example,Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to stabilize the size of the universe, but thendropped it on the empirical grounds of apparent universal expansion. In contrast, the CTMUgoes beyond empiricism to the rational machinery of perception itself, providing cosmicexpansion with a logical basis while predicting and explaining some of its features. Relativitypursues the goal of explanatory self-containment up to a point; spacetime contains matter andenergy that cause spacetime fluctuations that cause changes in matter and energy. The CTMU,on the other hand, pursues the goal of self-containment all the way up to cosmogenesis. Andwhile neither GR nor QM does anything to resolve the fatal paradoxes of 
ex nihilo
creation andquantum nonlocality, the CTMU dissolves such paradoxes with a degree of logical rectitude towhich science seldom aspires.To understand how the CTMU is a natural extension of modern physics, let us review the historyof the physicist¶s and cosmologist¶s art in the context of Cartesian coordinate systems.

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
adamshih liked this
leejlscribd liked this
isatis55 liked this
isatis55 liked this
mnhmnh liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->