HRG

Why "probably" ?

Of course it could be that every free neutron has its guardian leprechaun who decides when it should decay. This hypothesis is however neatly sliced away by Occam's Razor in favor of the current statistical theory.
"Rational" means what the universe is, not what someone believes it to be.
You should not draw an argument from a name because of its historic sources - and the actual theory is called 'quantum field theory'

BTW, do not confuse quantum randomness with "everything goes".
Why does it have to 'come from' at all? Unless we have strong counterindication, the default assumption should be that it simply is.
[quote]

does change and therefore time exist within this quantum scale? if so then it cannot have always existed due to the impossiblity traversing and infinite amount of past moments.
[quote]
There are at least three arguments against the old chestnut about the impossibility of an infinite traversal. Each of them is sufficient to refute the impossibility, thus this claim should be decently buried together with Zeno's paradox:

1) A traversal needs a begin and an end. In an infinite regress, all intervals between two actual events are finite.

2) Unless time is discrete, we traverse an infinite number of events every second. Infinite sums can have a finite result.

3) Who says that an infinite traversal is impossible, given an infinite amount of time ?

IOW, reality is not bound by what a philosopher can or cannot conceive of.

Regards,
HRG.

Sicknss Unto Despair

HRG, I could be mistaken, but I don't understand how, from any of these premises, your conclusion follows. Perhaps it is the case that actual infinites can be traversed, but, these arguments do not show the possiblility of traversing an invitie, rather they lend support to the impossiblity of traversing an infinite. If we want to argue against the impossiblity of tranversing an infinite we'll need something else.

For example, once again this is if i read you correctly, your first argument itself argues that one would need two actual events for the intervals between to be finite. You need a start and a finish. This doesn't appear to say anything about the possiblility of traversing an infinite.

Your second argument also seems to fail to prove the possiblity of traversing an infinite. As seen in the solution of Zeno's paradox, in order to have the sum of an infinite set of numbers produce a finite result, one needs to begin with two points (a,b) and then divide, with the number in the denomentator increasing towards positive infinity ( i.e. (b-a)/n0, (b-a)/(n0+n1), (b-a)/(n0+n1+n2), (b-a)/(n0+n1+n2...nn ) ). However this is not an actual infinite, we started with something finite, and divided by increasing the denomenator towards positive infinity. In order to produce the finite sum we needed to start with the finite sum.

On top of which, we can, say, take infinity and subtract all numbers larger than 2 (an infinite amount of numbers) from it and get 2, but infinity minus infinity is infinity. Thus indentical inputs (infinity-infinity) produce different outputs (infinite, and finite), which is incoherent. Which seems to lend support to the notion that actual infinites are just a concept in our minds and do not exist in reality.

In regards to your third argument, consider Russell's Tristam Shandy, who is in the process of writing his autobiography. Tristam is a slow sort of fellow and it takes him one full year to write about one day of his life. Now lets say, Tristam will never die. Will he ever finish his book? Russell thought he would, but Russell is obviously mistaken. The more years pass, the further behind poor Tristam gets. What we see here is, even given an infinite number of time, one cannot cross an actual infinite number of points. One can add towards infinity, subtract towards negative infinity, divide infinitely closer to zero by adding infinitely to the denomenator, however, one cannot traverse an actual infinite.

At least thats how i'm seeing it, maybe i'm mistaken?

Thomas Ash

I'm not sure Ockham's razor applies in this way here. If it did, it would be 'rational' to assume that an event is simply random, or statistical, when we can't as of yet identify the cause that determines what happens (eg. I don't know about power cuts, and I can't determine why my toaster works 20% of the time but fails 80% of the time .) You could also argue that just as in this toaster case I'd tend to believe there was some cause even if no matter how hard I or any of my toaster-expert buddies (of whom I have many ) looked I couldn't find it, because of my prior experience of everything turning out to have a cause even when previously seeming for all the world like it didn't, I'd be justified in doing the same with queantum mechanics. But what do you think?

Thomas Ash

Um... time is discrete - according to the very quantum mechanics you're making your whole argument on.

rainbow walking

Why does an infinity necessitate a traversal in it's entirety? Of course infinity can never be traversed, but it needn't be anyway for events somewhere within the infinite to transpire in a finite way. This universe could be one such event within an infinity of events. If this particular universe is a finite event within a larger infinity, then every event within the finitude of this universe will also be finite. If time, therefore is discete and particular to this event we call a universe, it doesn't follow that time will continue after the completion of this universe. Infinity would have to be a timelessness where events are instantiated that also instantiate time with their instantiation. It could then be said that there are timeless warps between events on the scale of a universe. It could also then be argued that there are timeless warps within such events. Thus these timeless warps close the gap between infinity and finitude. The timeless warp allows us to posit that an infinity of events can instantiate simultaneously. Much the same way we understand that an inumerable number of events occur all the time simultaneously through-out this universe every moment of every day. Especially when you break it down to the quantuum level.

Within such theoretical timeless warps an innumerable number of events transpire simultaneously. Such an event would be time neutral and thus fluctuate back and forth such that time would appear to flow forward within the crest of the fluctuation and backward within the valley of the fluctuation. Such warps would resemble a vacuum vortex where sub-atomic particles are pressurized, heated and violently smashed together and endowed with their spin, velocity, charge, value and trajectory. It would be an event equivalent to the rewinding of the clock and the source of gravity.

A classic example of the theoretical timeless warp is the black hole. It appears to both spew particles out and suck particles in. The reason being inherent in the fluctuations. As time fluctuated forward, (as we percieve time to flow) many more particles would be spewn from the event resulting in the nebulea that eventually cool and become the stuff of stars. As the fluctuation reverses, certain particles, (but not all) would appear to be sucked in but the appearance is decieving as it is only time flowing backwards at the moment the fluctuation changes, such that those particles last out would be the first to be sucked in with the time reversal.

Any particles passing within its gravitational effect would either be violently repelled or sucked in, depending on the fluctuation of the event. If the phase of the event is a reversal of time any particles approaching from without would be repelled. If the event is in a forward flowing phase any particles approaching would appear to be sucked in. From this we should be able to determine which phase black holes are in. All such phenomena should be attuned to the same phase and frequency. Otherwise you'd have a different looking universe. Such a theoretical timeless warp would be the source of all matter and its energization thus the regulator of universal expansion. Each such phenomenon, (and there are many of them) would be different in scope and effect. If this is true some parts of the universe would appear to be expanding faster than others dependant on the strength of the nearest black hole in relation to the system being observed. If true it also means that when the fluctuation phase of black holes reverses the universe will begin to contract. The reason this phenomenon appears to be a black hole is because the vortex is spinning faster than light. The necessary result of a certain class of star going super super novea.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.