Could matter be subdivided downward and upward to infinity?

[Alan McDougall]

A possible model for infinity is that in an infinite multi-universe model, infinity stretches both up and down vertically from our universe. For this to work, the absolutely smallest indivisible particle in our universe’s quantum world, make up separate tiny infinitesimal tiny finite universes that are the bricks or building blocks of our much larger universe There could be an infinite number of these infinitesimal universes, going ever downwards creating smaller and smaller universes, to infinity.

Our universe could be likewise a tiny quantum building brick or block of a much larger universe ours .Not into one final mega universe because there is always a next level up or down. Therefore, it goes thus, our universe a smallest component to a next larger universe, that universe is likewise universe a component to a next larger universe and so on infinitely. Alternately, the same model moves infinitely down to next smaller and next smaller universal building blocks. Of course, this is only speculation and conjecture by my restless mind.


ALAN

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

A possible model for infinity is that in an infinite multi-universe model, infinity stretches both up and down vertically from our universe. For this to work, the absolutely smallest indivisible particle in our universe’s quantum world, make up separate tiny infinitesimal tiny finite universes that are the bricks or building blocks of our much larger universe There could be an infinite number of these infinitesimal universes, going ever downwards creating smaller and smaller universes, to infinity.

Our universe could be likewise a tiny quantum building brick or block of a much larger universe ours .Not into one final mega universe because there is always a next level up or down. Therefore, it goes thus, our universe a smallest component to a next larger universe, that universe is likewise universe a component to a next larger universe and so on infinitely. Alternately, the same model moves infinitely down to next smaller and next smaller universal building blocks. Of course, this is only speculation and conjecture by my restless mind.


ALAN

I actually wouldn't call what you have written here conjecture. Some of the math supports this position. The quantum world would also support such a position. Even though it is difficult to imagine it isn't completely beyond comprehension.

If anyone objects, all you have to offer them is to show them a picture of a galaxy and ask them how big a person would be in scale of the picture. The reality of the answer is that the person would be so minuscule that it borders the invisible. A very nice parallel with molecular scales.

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by Krumple

I actually wouldn't call what you have written here conjecture. Some of the math supports this position. The quantum world would also support such a position. Even though it is difficult to imagine it isn't completely beyond comprehension.

If anyone objects, all you have to offer them is to show them a picture of a galaxy and ask them how big a person would be in scale of the picture. The reality of the answer is that the person would be so minuscule that it borders the invisible. A very nice parallel with molecular scales.

Physicists talk about the ultimate division of matter would result in what they call the "Quantum foam of the vacuum" of which a teaspoon full would contain sufficient energy to biol all the oceans of earth

Have you read about this or do you know about it??

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

Physicists talk about the ultimate division of matter would result in what they call the "Quantum foam of the vacuum" of which a teaspoon full would contain sufficient energy to biol all the oceans of earth

Have you read about this or do you know about it??

Yeah I am familiar with it. In fact an apple has more energy than an atomic bomb has, but the only difference is how that energy is contained.

Not only that but if you really delve deep into quantum theory an apple is in all it's possible states at the same time. Which defies all sorts of notions to how we view reality. How can an object which appears to have a fixed position occupy all points equally?

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by Krumple

Yeah I am familiar with it. In fact an apple has more energy than an atomic bomb has, but the only difference is how that energy is contained.

Not only that but if you really delve deep into quantum theory an apple is in all it's possible states at the same time. Which defies all sorts of notions to how we view reality. How can an object which appears to have a fixed position occupy all points equally?

Are you referring to quantum non-locality?

[Reconstructo]

Matter is a mental-model. I think it's important to remember to what degree science is network of exactly such mental models.

Reality Prime (itself a mental model) gets filtered thru our mammalian brain and thru the cultural software of this brain. So discussions about "matter" are largely discussions about our mental models. I think this is significant. You may not.

Regards

[prothero]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Matter is a mental-model. I think it's important to remember to what degree science is network of exactly such mental models.

Reality Prime (itself a mental model) gets filtered thru our mammalian brain and thru the cultural software of this brain. So discussions about "matter" are largely discussions about our mental models. I think this is significant. You may not.

Regards

yes it is very common to confuse our models with reality. Then there was Kant's idea that our mind imposes categories on the world. That we are programmed only to perceive or conceptualize the world in certain ways.?
The raisin pudding or the orbital model of the atom is clearly wrong.
Our ability to even create a model for quantum mechanics is questionable.

[Reconstructo]

I agree, and I would go so far to say that mental models are our reality, that "reality" is the name of the sum of these mental-models.....But "reality" is one of those grand words that mean so many things in so many different sentences.

I see Nietzsche's notion of truth as a "mobile army of metaphors" as related to the description of sub-atomic particle/waves, as well as to the conceptual (pseudo-) foundations of philosophy that so many take for granted, as axioms. (On the Prejudices of Philosophers is great on this.)

For instance, objective reality. It's one of those "lies" that's necessary for survival, and yet so often scientistic types (as distinct from scientific) make an idol of it. They want to be the voice of this reality as the priest once enjoyed being the voice of God(s). Don't try to tell them that we should settle for the sophistication of our mental models.