Mysterious Universe

Very nice food for thought. I like spooky stories as much as the next guy, but it’s nice to have a new theory to chew on every once in a while.

Great job, guys! Keep up the good work!

How do we even test his model?

The universe had a beginning, and therefore infinity is both conceptually and mathematically precluded within its confines. And of course, the mathematical demonstration of this is that any physical process where the sum of its representative equation is infinity (like the quantity of energy needed to propel a subluminal mass to lightspeed) is accepted as the mathematical proof that such a process is not dimensionally possible. Therefore, your statement “infinite amount of time” indeed exemplifies one of the discussed concepts of which you clearly “cannot conceive of” (or, if you would allow me to assist grammatically, more correctly stated, “of which we cannot conceive”). Bravado, however swaying it may be for some, does not replace education, nor mends loose thinking.   

I elect a downtempo music mix punctuated by a slammin’ dubstep track. Boom!

This is a very funny comment. Patrick mentions the guest has no concept of physics, but fails to mention a single specific point of contention (typical). Next, the hosts asked about what got him interested in this subject, not his credentials. Third, the “sore arm” had to do with a physic experience which Patrick completely misrepresents and ignores (again, typical). Reflects a complete misunderstanding and/or complete misrepresentation of the whole show. No wonder he stopped listening…he never really started.

OMG! you guys, thanks so much for the shout-out to my little 333 blog post on the PLUS extension. Ben’s reading of my post was just superb.

I agree with you. In the end, all these little synchronicities seem to be aimed at helping us figure something out; but they will only gently ‘nudge’ at us ever so slightly. We have to do all the heavy lifting ourselves.

Great interview with Fusco. Definitely he needs to return shortly for a second interview next year. There are some caveats I have with his ideas, like his claim that everything the human mind is able to imagine CAN exist —right now I’m thinking of a magical flying unicorn that can shoot rainbows up its arse… so does that mean there’s some part of the galaxy where such wondrous beasts exist?

Nevertheless, it’s a breath of fresh air to hear someone like Fusco propagate these ideas. It reminds me of the theories of Maxim Kammerer, who would also make a great guest.

Thank you Ben and Aaron for putting up what is by far the most professional website and podcast of its kind. I enjoy MU because it is one of the few places I can escape all the political and religious crap that surrounds us.  It is on that note that I must say I found this book to be nothing more than thinly veiled Christian apologetics, once again being forced down our throats nicely with a sweet coating of science and reason to conceal its motive.
The author likes to quote Einstein but he left out one quote that speaks directly and firmly to the flawed premise of his book.

“Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.
Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.”
-Albert Einstein  

I like the image of your unicorn! But I think his point is hard to accept at first, because it’s so unlike how we’re accustomed to viewing this. I think I get it, there’s an article on his site about it. He didn’t say that a mental image (unicorn) is already materialized in the universe, only that it could be. The image of your unicorn is a coherent and ordered collection of information, otherwise it would be completely unrecognizable by us as a unicorn or anything else. Where’s that organized pattern of information that makes up your unicorn located? In your mind. Where’s your mind located? In your brain. Where’s your brain located? In the universe. The physical brain is built from the same order of information (principles and laws) as everything else in the universe. Therefore, the mind must also be constructed in a way that’s consistent with that same information found in the universal laws containing it, and the brain that houses it. Therefore, every function of the brain–including the mind embedded within it–behaves according to the information from which it’s constructed, which is the same information determined by the laws of the universe of which that brain is a subset or product. So first, the image of this unicorn in your mind already exists as a real collection of information consistent with the information from which your mind containing it is constructed. If it wasn’t a real collection of information that physically exists, how does your brain conceive it? Isn’t thought information? Can it be materialized? Of course. We “materialize” mental images all the time when we create all kinds of things from a screwdriver to a space shuttle. Take a horse, graft a horn on its head (or manipulate a horse’s genetics to produce the horn and the wings), install the appropriate light emitters in the appropriate location (lol), launch it in the air, and you have your flying unicorn with the colorful posterior accessory. The point is not that it MUST occur naturally somewhere because the brain can conceive it. The point is that it COULD be made to exist simply because the brain can conceive it. The brain, just like every other structure and process in the universe, cannot perform in a way that is contrary to the information (universal laws) from which it is constructed. That means every function of the brain must be consistent with those same physical laws that govern its structure and function. When you step back and really think about it, how could it be any other way? The ramifications are huge and profound.

I agree with Theo on this. The statement “infinite time” is an oxymoron (like “honest politician), for time is a measurable dimension, where infinity is not. The amount of energy required to propel a subluminal mass to lightspeed mathematically requires infinite energy, an impossibility within the confines of spacetime, which is why scientists declare it to be impossible. It’s the same with ‘infinite’ time or ‘infinite’ velocity. None of these are valid concepts within a dimensional universe–that’s basic physics. Also, dave1 is apparently not familiar with how time decays in the projected entrophic models of an elderly universe, so the prospect of his “infinite time” is very remote at best, and science fantasy at worst. So it seems clear that it is he who lacks a scientific concept of infinity.

He’s also off on the quantum entanglement thing. Fusco’s example of photon teleport is actually the quintessential expression of quantum entanglement commonly cited by physicists to the public as a prime example. As for the reader’s digest version, isn’t that the way something like that is to be presented to a broad audience? Or do you think he should have presented the whole interview as a lesson in advanced physics??? That he was able to take such a complex facet of this subject and present it in a ‘reader’s digest’ form is actually a compliment.

But even if we accept dave1′s flawed premise of infinite time, so that “everything has or will exist” at some point, does he mean that every possible thing and every possible scenario can exist (“even things we cannot conceive of”)–everything BUT Fusco’s model? Isn’t that hypocritical and intellectually dishonest?

And finally, it sure sounds like the hosts certainly understood what the guest was saying, and came away very impressed. That must mean dave1 thinks that Ben and Aaron are fools. If that’s the case, why does he even listen to their show??? I think such a seeming disingenuous motivation speaks volumes.

Uh oh, folks. Looks like we have another one of Einstein’s “radical atheists” of whom he observed, “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of
the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source… They are
creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.” You can hear the angered rage in his words that any of us would even dare to consider for a moment the possibility of anything outside a strictly material interpretation of the universe! At least, that’s what I think he’s saying through all the ranting. But once again, let’s look at the substance of his words:

Paul says (rants): “…oh well that makes all the difference! I’m sold on intelligent design now.”

Actually, if you stripped away every spiritual element that led him to his theory, Fusco’s model of the universe stands on its own. That’s what makes it so remarkable and unique. It also makes testable predictions. Ever here of Bohm’s implicate order or configuration space? Guess they’re ‘intelligent’ too. 

“Much ‘science doesn’t know this, therefore my theory is true.’”

Actually, Fusco never makes a statement like this, either in the interview or in his book. What he does mention occasionally is what establishment science ignores and dismisses, a fact that is well-known even among scientists. In fact, everywhere in his work, Fusco embraces the findings of science, but only disagrees at times with the conclusions that physicists draw from some of these findings. Big difference. You might have to calm down first to see this, though.

“He uses personal anecdotes in place of evidence.”

Another false statement. Fusco said that his personal experiences were observations that led him to his work, not that he incorporates these into the substance of his theory. This is like the nonsensical statement another poster made in here, saying that Fusco explains the universe by a sore arm. What rubbish! Just as Antonyabbot refuted dave1 above, Paul must have a very poor understanding of the subject to resort to such methods.

“He doesn’t even catalog events…”

He actually does point out numerous observable events. Where were you?

“…or make experiments to test his own claims.”

What about all the string theorists? Have any of them ever conducted a testing experiment? Then there’s Einstein. He formulated his theories based on experience (heaven forbid!) and observation. Name me one lab experiment that Einstein conducted. Waiting…..hmmm….I hear nothing. The only experiments he conducted were his famous “thought experiments,” a purely mental approach that Paul clearly rejects. And though Fusco’s no Einstein (who is?), the premise is the same, and so the same bogus attack he launches at Fusco could have been (and sometimes was) hurled at Einstein too. Theory comes before experimentation. Einstein made no experiments himself.

“..a few experiences he couldn’t explain (read: hasn’t bothered to explain)”

He actually does explain these kinds of experiences in his book, which would obviously be impossible to present in its entirety in such an interview, as any reasonable person could see. Yet another false statement.

“He’s just another crackpot….a court jester.”

Have you noticed that in his detestable mudslinging, Paul too did not even point out one specific aspect or detail of the actual theory itself on which he has a contention, and on which he could be debated and challenged? The stone-throwers never do, and for obvious reasons. All he can do is hurl insult and intimidation. A real intellect, this one. Arguments from such a guttural stance would be almost laughable if they weren’t so disturbing.

Listen to you rant! You’ve gotten so much wrong, and twisted the facts so much, that it’s difficult to tell if you’re just confused or so enraged that you can’t see straight. Normally you don’t see reactions like this except when someone comes along with a concept that one finds so threatening. They then begin to throw out any statement, however outrageous or unjust to try and silence the troublesome voice. He must have done a good job for you to hate him so. It has to be personal to you, else why would you stoop to such insults? Shameful.

First of all, Fusco NEVER equated himself with Einstein, or any of the other historical greats. How dare you even suggest it. I just think you’re either so angry that you can’t see straight, or willing to say anything to make him look bad. You obviously conjured this up from somewhere, because there’s no evidence of his doing this in the visible, material world that you so promote.

Get it straight. It was I who made the comparison, and only to the extent to point out you had no idea what you were talking about when you falsely claimed theorists must make testing experiments before they publish. You7′ve backed off of that fubarb some, but then you’re still trying to twist this back by saying Einstein drew from others’ experiments. How is that the same? It’s not, and you know it. Fusco draws on other people’s experiments too. Leave this one alone, you’re only embarrassing yourself.

And again, you know full well (at least, I suspect you do) there is no requirement in the field of science to seek peer review on a mere theory to publish. I see you side-stepped that issue when I mentioned as but a single example the string theorists (and many others), who publish purely theoretical work without peer review. If I were you, I’d sidestep ithisyou, because your implication is bunk. Would you like a list of un-peer-reviewed theory publications from the world of science? Hawkings’ latest book for one, which one of his peers lamented it was too speculative after reading it. Try almost any issue of Scientific American. [Don't believe it, people, he's just trying to puff his way into making you think he has a point.] I guess you must hate them too.

Fusco had the courage to publish. It’s out there for anyone to review. How about the incredibly novel idea of reading it??? Moreover, he’s thrown the gauntlet down with physical predictions that are scientifically testable (like Einstein did–imagine!). This separates him from most such writers you’re ranting about. Anyone is free to test these predictions and discredit his model–if they can. And maybe his predictions will prove right. But that’s not this is really about, is it?

Fusco has a number of thought experiments. His bar magnet thought experiment on pages 130-133 is extremely thought provoking, and definitely opens the mind to previously hidden possibilities. Then there’s his two-penny thought experiments he’s conducted with audiences on a couple of his interviews to illustrate time paradox. So, there’s two. Done. Much better than the thoughts of an ape beating his chest.

And there you go again with the same false accusation, claiming Fusco’s model is based on a “feeling.” Gosh, you really must hate him. It’s rubbish, and you know it (at least, I hope you’re still rational enough to know it). It’s a cheap shot and a desperate grab. You’re so desperate to discredit him that you’ll say anything. And you’re still expecting people in here to take you seriously?

Fusco asserts in his book that his is a conceptual model only. You might see it as just the thought experiment portion. He never claimed it to be anything else. He likens it to a proof-of-concept model, perhaps like Da Vinci’s sketches of airplanes and helicopters and tanks. Do you hate Da Vinci too for what he did? Trouble is, his conceptual model provides some intriguing answers for so many questions posed to it, including certain anomalies of physics, in both a sensible and coherent way. It’s certainly unexpected, refreshing and even uncanny.

[Notice that Paul continues to attack the author and what he fantasizes as the author's approach, and yet makes not one mention of any specific facet or even a single detail of the man's actual theories. That's your clue as to what the real motivation is--the silencing of voices through insult and intimidation, and the frightening away of others for fear they'll receive more of the same. And someone actually "liked" this rant? Wow.] 

And finally, by your own admission, you’ve only never read his work, but only heard a 1-hour interview. Any clear thinking person would understand there must be much more to it.
Unfortunately, you obviously left clear thinking behind awhile ago with this one. So, if you’re so indignant about truth and integrity, why don’t yo actually read the book? That way, you’ll actually know something of what you’re talking about. That you have so much to say against this man, and yet you don’t know his work is very reminiscent to the mudslinging trolls we’ve all seen in forums. Find the right forum, start your Fusco-hate thread, and sling away! But if you’re going to try to destroy any man this vehemently, you better familiarize yourself with the work for which you seek to stake him. Otherwise, you’re doing no different here than a vandal in an angry mob.