"Kairogenesis"

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

I realize the philosophy subforum on a fantasy-book forum is not the best place to peddle my own theory of Big Bang physics, but here goes (I am under time constraints so this will be unfinished for the time being):

Kairogenesis

The concept of kairogenesis--creation by time--explains the cause of the initial expansion of space as a function of time itself. That is, the mere passage of time causes the initial condensity to unfold. To the question, "Why does space have three dimensions?" it answers, "At the beginning of the expansion of space, space was zero-dimensional,*1 and over time it increased in dimension," though as far as the theory thus far expressed goes, it is not evident that space's dimensionality would have ever stopped increasing. Accordingly, kairogenetic theory applies the "Copernican principle" not only to the position and magnitude of things in observed space, but to the very dimensionality in which position and magnitude are assigned.

*1 In keeping with what I will call "the Kantian axiomatization" of physics, I do not say that the initial expansion was the absolute beginning of time itself. Prior to t = 0 in this context, it might very well have been that space was, say, 10^10-dimensional, and that some causation in the prior epoch resulted in the initial condensity of our metric. Or, perhaps space oscillates between negative and positive integral dimensionality, and just prior to t = 0, here, space was -1-dimensional. What is important is that the mere passage of time is a specific kind of cause with a specific kind of effect (changes in spatial dimensionality). As will be explained, it is possible to describe the increase in number of points in the spatial metric by reference to the greater number of points in the polytopes of space, as these genetic polytopes become more complex with the passage of initial time.

[Skyweir]

Gosh this IS fascinating but I fear it exceeds my current understanding.. but will follow with interest the comments of those that know more than I.

Please keep posting though .. as I am enjoying reading your posts very much And if you feel to expand on your introduction a little more, that would also be great. But if not I will wait for others to post thoughts. And hopefully that will assist me to connect some of these dots.
Cheers

[Vraith]

I think some in what you say can't really work that way...and some I'm not sure how things would work [where they come from where they go...]...but it points at some entertaining/hard problems, perhaps. Or some fruitful digressions.

Directly on the Timely topic, though:
I argued pretty vigorously with Fisty...though it's a position I didn't always hold...saying that while time is highly connected to/contingent/dependent/intersectional with space, it is a different KIND of thing. Partly because::

There ARE physicists out there arguing for the reality of time...

Even if they aren't on the right path yet, they're right that the block universe/illusory time has serious issues.
Lee Smolin [who has written both popular and technical things on it] said something like what I said elsewhere about superdeterminism...roughly "If the future is already set, then everything we value/think is an illusion, too, along with time."

I went and hunted down a Quanta article from a while ago on the topic.
Fun quote: "I'm sick and tired of this block universe. I don't think next Thursday has the same footing as this Thursday."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate ... -20160719/

[Skyweir]

The future does not exist. It does not! Ontologically, it's not there."

Fabulous article

Interesting distinction

"The future is not now real and there can be no definite facts of the matter about the future." What is real is "the process by which future events are generated out of present events,"

"The fact to be explained is why the universe, even 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, has not reached equilibrium, which is by definition the most probable state, and it hardly suffices to explain this by asserting that the universe started in an even less probable state than the present one."

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

I argued pretty vigorously with Fisty...though it's a position I didn't always hold...saying that while time is highly connected to/contingent/dependent/intersectional with space, it is a different KIND of thing. Partly because::

There ARE physicists out there arguing for the reality of time...

I'm definitely in the time-is-real camp. First, all the experiments we use to test theories, occur in time, so epistemologically, a theory that ruled out the existence of time would technically rule out our only means of testing theories (in time), so at least in a semantic sort of way, time-is-unreal theories could never be confirmed.

As for whether pure time itself carries causality, and why this would do anything to space expanding, and what space and time themselves are... I have Kantian answers to many of these questions, I suppose, for present purposes namely as the doctrine of the Analogies of Experience. My idea is that the inflatons are kairons, time-particles, the concrete permanence attributed by Kant to the fundamental dynamical relationship between space and time. Time fills space up with its essence, in a weird way. Now the second Analogy covers the linear synthesis of empirical information, so concerns the question of time's own dimensionality (which I think might itself be changing, too).

The third Analogy can be used to "axiomatize" field theory in general: the community of substance just is a field. Or so I hope to eventually be able to show...

[Ur Dead]

Kairogenesis.. find that hard to digest..

How can something happen from time when time itself does not exist?

Suppose it did, what was there to witness it? Without a observer there isn't
proof that an event happened. All is speculation. Sorta like faith.