Hi Holiday,

There are forces within any given object in being, and then there are the forces that being is subjected to via its environment, you might say its a continuum, a being affecting its environment while the environment affects said being. Not sure this was what you had in mind? It is interesting that, if we are to believe professor Dawkins, what we consider our being is a construct of our genes, we the vehicle, this must be true of all organisms, but, what of the being of the non-living world, the forces within must be, the more elemental.

Well see, I am wondering what is truly applying the force when we say the electromagnetic force. Electrons and protons attract, thus opposite charges attract. But what is being applied on the electrons and protons to have that attraction? Is it external or internal?

Do electrons have that property to be negative, and what makes them so?

More broadly, what in actuality supplements the need for conditions? The universe can't be what it just is unless there are infinitely many universes. And then the universes (or a multiverse system) must have influences on one another to generate the rule that no universe can be the same. Yet we must therefore assume the irrationality of the statement and come to terms that there must be conditions for the said number of universes. And it goes on and on and on. That is such a circular, irrational perspective on actuality that I just will not come to terms with.

So I am not willing to accept the way forces are said to be "forces" in that they externally act, as if the idea that separate beings will mean there to be forces.

This just cannot be accepted unless the four fundamental forces of nature were once bound, which is said to be so I suppose. Otherwise where would the forces be if not in the singularity where the forces can only exist as properties.

I am just a little confused with this. If all matter was held in a singularity, what do you call the matter? What do you call the energy for that matter? It cannot be the same as today. If the universe is expanding does that not imply that the forces of nature are internal properties?

Unless there is a detail that can be noticed in the inflation of space-time whenever a force comes to be external and not a property (when it separates), but still, somehow tied to specific forms of matter.

A way to prove this would be to examine the shape of the sudden inflation of the universe in the first very very brief amount of time. If it occurs in sort of ripples then that should suggest something. And now there seems to be this emergent property of dark energy causing this sudden ever more expansion of the universe. Has anybody noticed the x^3 relationship in the shape of the expansion? Like the universe would eventually fall back on itself antiparallely.

The fundamental forces of nature can be defined as interactions of particles with each other through the interchange of intermediary particles. For instance electrons for the electromagnetic force and gravitons for gravity. In that sense forces are both external because of the presence of other particles and also properties because not every particle is subject to the same forces.
Alternate explanations may define forces not in terms of Newton-like forces but as the result of geometries, a method of explanation which applies to gravity.

Why say an electron though, because a proton is needed all the same to demostrate the entirety of the electromagnetic force.

Force, as used in physics, is imaginary; i.e. the idea of some ghostly agent, which can only be identified by its effects, causing other movements is silly, but very useful in calculations: in fact, all but essential. There is no reason to assume the existance of force; it is not neccessary except for practical work.

... it's interesting to wonder if the strong and weak nuclear forces will at some point in the future be rephrased as space-time geometries (as Einstein did for gravity) ... electromagnetic flux, on the other hand, seems to be a different kind of animal altogether - it's the only one that humans can control at will, and it's also the only one that seems to require the cooperation of an object in the flux for any "force" to be felt, let alone the direction of the "force" to be determined (positive, negative, and neutrally charged objects each behave differently - or not at all - in an electromagnetic field) ...

boagie said:



Such as............?

And on what do you base this claim?

What even is a force? Can anyone define a force without relying on its effects? If not, what reason is there for assuming its existance?

If you doubt my logic, consider this. Take any number of phenomena, chosen arbitrarily, and then say that they are the result of X. X can therefore only be defined in terms of those phenomena. How does this differ from 'force'. Both are principles of organization, not realities.

- sight is electromagnetic force working upon charged particles in light receptors in the eyes
- touch is contact force working upon contact sensors in the body
- hearing is differential force working upon membranes in the ears

The first is one of the "fundamental" forces mentioned by Holiday; the latter two are "compound" forces that are compositions of fundamental forces ... so I guess there are a few ways you could choose to interpret this ... 1) your senses aren't lying (force is real); 2) your senses are lying (force isn't real); 3) your senses aren't lying but there's no such thing as a compound force (nothing holds matter together - it just is ... so only electromagnetic force is real); 4) ???

And what are the implications of each of these choices? ... for example, if you choose interpretation #2, what ramifications does that have for the "reality" of human experience? ... if you choose interpretation #3, what ramifications does that have for the predictive power of mathematics and science?

I think the entirety of any force would be considered the conditions objects have with other objects. So a proton is conditioned to be attracted to an electron. This would be like paul's interpretation the way I see it. However, even though this is biased upon the functioning of the universe, the efficiency of such a claim is poor. I mean, we cannot establish a different scenario for every single possible set of conditions without considering that the conditions are not always in a state of "something", monifying the whole efficiency, making it as good as can be.

But this is completely pathetic metaphysical speculation on my part, so here goes...

If in fact all conditions of the universe are simply the interactions of a single state, then there is always equilibrium, and it would reconcile steady state with this quantum mess we see. Steady state is describing the shell (infinity-infinity') or whatever you'd call the universe's existence. And the quantum mess or fluxuations of the universe are just the interior goo.

Now... you'd think that the interior has to remain in equilibrium to attain the equilibrium of the "membrane/shell" (even though that's a complete misconception of what I'm trying to say)... but no. The interior goo can do whatever it pleases as long as it does what the universe does now, because the universe that we exist in actually, would be assuming the equilibrium that it is(or perhaps, trying to get too).

And forces are really just equilibrium defining the deterministic interior's projectory sort-to-speak. Perhaps the deterministic process is syntactual evidence of the undefinable state of dimension the universe is in objectively. Dimension... its all just reality.

... interesting thoughts ... but what kind of meaning would the external appearance of the universe have for the universe's interior goo (us!)? ...

There is no external. It's just not right to look at the universe as closed in

... so where does the membrane/shell exist? ... between the interior goo of the universe and us? ... how can that be? ... we are the interior goo of the universe! ...

The membrane/shell is not important. I just thought it'd be easier to see the single state via the resemblance of the universe externally. So the shell part helps out. But yes, its completely wrong. It does not exist, IMO. The universe is not bound by anything spatially satisfactory, if that's the right term to use.

In fact, to make things easier, I hope... lets try a thought experiment.

If the universe is all relative, then can it be bound?

If the universe is absolute, then how can it not be bound?

When I say bound, I think it is silly to see this spatial, pictorial "membrane" surrounding the universe, because that would constitute an external void. So how do I get rid of the externalities involved in the boundness of the universe. (This might just be reasoning for the universe to be all relative, but I will not accept that, there must be some inherent monifying to bind the deterministic trait the universe has).

So... in order to get rid of the externalities while still having the boundness via monifying the universe... I have to assume the spatial geometry we perceive is only defined in reality in that it is a matter of perception. In actuality it would be undefined. Conditions satisfying conditions... how is this spatially defined? It seems to me that spatial geometry is but a contextual process to alter the unbiased data of the actual universe, not this reality deceivance. But then again, that's just my opinion. (this is metaphysics)

And back to the first question, if the universe is all relative, then can it be bound?
IMO, no, unless we consider there's a duality in the binding. So I guess the mind is an example, but that's no fun because then I see no alternative than to adhere to this "one-consciousness" crap. Why duality? Dualities is spatially satisfying [which is relevant to reflection of reality only, making this ok, dimensions are not objective (oh man, I'm going to have fun thinking up an experiment to prove this] Why are dualities spatially satisfying? They oppose, which is universal in the nature of the dimension, the shapes seem to adhere to right angles, except 1D which disregards reality/binary. 0D is as much monistic as 1D. They are the same thing in this respect.

Yes I realize the universal nature of dimension, it is proof of the monifying trait of organization of the mind. The binaric functioning of the mind via opposites is denoting to dualistic processing in the potential of data.

Second question: If the universe is absolute, then how can it not be bound?

Well please tell me if there is a way of having it not bound in some respect. Think of infinite lines potentiating from a single dot (or line, I think I'll be more inclined to say line later). The boundness is the dot. And the line is the same as the dot, and infinity--infinity` correlates to the line, which is a syntactical representation of the universe, IMO (in terms of organization). And then you'd ask (well I ask), how big is this infinity is represented by this initial/final causal "binaryness"? Well the dot! The dot is the same as the line because of this. The dot alters the syntax of infinity to actuality, away from reality. So all we see as lines are the same as dots. I think we could use this to assume that because dot is 0D and line is 1D, the change in dimension constitutes for us seeing non-straight lines to keep the right angular nature/duality/symmetry, whatever you'd call it.

Anyways? back to forces. If the potentialities aka indivisible objects (which is an empirical example of a fractal monistic, aka a boundness that is one, that is fractal obviously because it is at a different level of perception, (macro, micro) ) are dots, then the forces might be lines.

Ok, I'm going to stop for now, because I can tell this is becoming unreadable.

... this ought to blow your mind: Wapedia - Wiki: Andrei Linde ... there's your membrane!

Yes there are membranes, but I'm talking about the syntax of everything when considering the universe. There's olber's bubble, and there are considered to be membranes as part of the string theory too. I'm not refuting that.

... what is it that you mean when you say "the syntax of everything"?

The universe as it applies to everything. Membranes are within, but imply there is still an exterior.

Unless there is an infinite void outside of the membrane, but this is silly, a void is boxed by uniformity, and separated from the interior so IMO it doesn't work. There just cannot be an infinite void of space or vacuum or whatever.

... or maybe the membranes of other universes? ...