text:
Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:19am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...
Anonymous: on 10/18/11 at 5:11am UTC, wrote Will there be the essay contest this year?
Dr. Cosmic Ray: on 10/27/10 at 21:52pm UTC, wrote Hi Frank, I like balance and completeness, but I also like to mess with...
Anonymous: on 10/27/10 at 21:38pm UTC, wrote Ray, going after the messenger (Frank) because you don't like the message?...
Anonymous: on 10/27/10 at 20:32pm UTC, wrote Ultimately, potential AND actual are inseparably merged/interactive with...
Anonymous: on 10/27/10 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote John --correction to the 5th paragraph in my last post to you is as...
Dr. Cosmic Ray: on 10/27/10 at 17:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Frank, It sounds like you are beginning to understand Scales (how the...
Anonymous: on 10/27/10 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Hi John, with respect -- and you are a very capable thinker, I may add --...
FQXi BLOGS
CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Essay Contest 2010: What to Ask? [refresh]
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 14:09 GMT
We at FQXi are on a mission to build a community of people who support research on fundamental physics questions. We are always looking for creative ways to build connections between researchers in different fields, and between researchers and the wider public.
Our two Essay Contests have been great successes in this direction, generating worldwide interest from all manner of thinkers, including many of you. To enhance Community, we designed the contests to involve the entrants, Members, readers, and fans to an unprecedented level.
Our mission is why we put the entries on display for everyone to read, why we set up the forums for entrants and readers to discuss, and why we allowed entrants to vote towards the winners.
And, it is why we now ask your opinion on the 2010 Essay Contest topic.
We want a question that challenges writers and has no easy answer, but still allows something to be said. A question that is physics based and requires physics knowledge, but to which a non-scientist can still give an insightful answer. And of course, a question that is interesting and provocative--basically, a foundational question that everyone in the world will want to stop and think about.
To that end, we invite you to record your vote in our quick poll below. We've narrowed down the list to these ten topics. Select as many as you find worthy of the contest. This poll will not be the final determinant of the question, but we will use your opinions to help with the decision. If you have further ideas, or suggested rewordings, leave a comment below.
Remember, check as many boxes as you like and click 'vote'.
Roland Orre wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 16:48 GMT
Do we really exist?
If we add all forces and energies in the universe they sum to zero as I understand.
I imagine that it is possible to build a quantum computer where the bit flipping could be done without any additional energy. This quantum computer could execute an arbitrary complex world model, however without any exchange of information with the outside, the world within that computer would not be easily proven to exist.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 14:22 GMT
Another good, tough question. It's a bit broad, though, rather philosophical---perhaps more suited to the Templeton Foundation. Can you suggest something similar, but with a sharper physics focus?
Roland Orre replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 08:04 GMT
Eternal supercomputer?
Would it be possible to build a quantum computer that given a specific starting condition, i.e. a program, can continue to execute forever, producing non trivial solutions? The issue: can the information state changes in this machine, implementing e.g. a minimal Turing complete machine, be seen as completely elastic, thus act as a super conducting Turing machine where no external energy need to be added, or would the state changes cool down and stop the system over time?
To further clarify my question I may add: When I say cool down I mean an increase of entropy in the system, that is from an information theoretical point of view the entropy would remain constant, the quantum state changes would be ideal, but the interesting issue as I see it is: would there be any leakage of information between the state shifts of the Turing machine that could cause it to finally stop.
Anthony Martin (UK) wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 18:06 GMT
Do plants have a form of 'nervous' system, do they have an ability to 'hear', do they 'feel', do they play a greater role in the Gaia theory than first perceived and, do they communicate within a portion of the EM spectrum that has not as yet been deciphered? Are plants the parent 'spark' of abiogenesis?
Anonymous replied on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 18:25 GMT
Hello dear Anthony Martin,
Happy to know you, I love the horticulture which I practice since many years, and I am fascinated by the plants and flowers.
It exists a lot of correlations between animal cells and vegetals cells since the first differenciation billions years ago on Earth.
If the animals evolve, the plants too thus if an intelligence exists in the animals world...where is the family which is interesting.
I class anaimals and vegetals and some families are relevants about the evolution and the complementarity.
The urticacea(urtical order), the rutaceae(therebental order), or the rhoedal and others too for the essential oils...these aromatics are fascinatings .
All is linked in fact and complementary when we see our evolution....the frequences of communication seems relatives too ,can we understand their languages, perhaps only with the respect of these creations.
We are catalyzers of the truth, this universality in optimization....and the hour is serious about the ecology,a global strategy must be quickly put into practice, we kill plants and animals and species disappear in some years and the Universe, it has built these creations since 13.7 billions years, can we do that??? no evidently thus why ......
I find this question fascinating in general, but I don't think it is quite right for the contest. It's a bit too biology, too specific--can you suggest something similar, but more physics,cosmology, more broad?
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 10:52 GMT
Hello dear Brendan,
Indeed the lifes ,these biological polarizations are fascinatings.
You imagine the interactions in a biological life aged of 13.7 billions years.
If it exists a complexity , it is there in the lifes on a sphere.The center of our Earth is so incredible in its code.
It could be super to extrapolate some ideas about astrobiology and the lifes, Drake has made beautiful works about that.
In fact it exists some universalities, like eyes, brains, glands, ....after it is a question of thermodynamics and adaptation,...the system is the same in its whole but different in its parameters of evolution like color, h, pression, density.....we can imagine for exemple a little being, with a other color , some specificities due to the gravity more important...the environment is correlated too....in fact the diversity is so incredible when we correlate with the locomotion ,nutrition, reproduction and the adaptation more the intrinsic thermodynamical parameters.
The lifes are a pure physical system in 3D ....the adn and the amino acids are relevant too.....we can correlate with H CNO..CH4 NH3 H20 HCN H2C2....MORE TIME AND EVOLUTION AND ENERGY .........the system is universal and adaptable simply.
The complemenatrity like a universal foundamental .
It is fascinating all these lifes in our Universe, you imagine the number of lifes and intelligences, it is fascinating.
Sometimes I rest in my garden and I see the sky during night, my biggest dream is to discover this universe ,to voyage and discover these creations, these lifes everywhere.
In fact at this moment, just at this present, intelligences live on a sphere , many many lifes which evolve too .How are they, where are they, are they happy,....probably they ask them the same questions about the reality in evolution.
A sure thing they are a reality, it is logic .
It is fascinating
James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 21:31 GMT
Brendan Foster,
I tried to vote. A message appeared telling me I already voted. I have not voted. I am trying to vote. What do you think?
Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 21:46 GMT
It did the same to me.
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 03:27 GMT
Moi aussi. I looked at the results so far and then tried to vote.
bummed LC
Try clearing all Cookies, then reloading the page. That seems to work for me.
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 01:02 GMT
Same for me, even after cleaning cookies and reloading.
Anyway, since I cannot vote for it, here is my choice: Why the quantum?
Brendan, Can you please record this vote manually? Thanks
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 23, 2010 @ 22:59 GMT
This forum gets stranger every day.
Don't we all.
Don't forget to bring a towel
you are comic an funny, it is cool and the humor is so important .
Hoopy Frood replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 13:27 GMT
Excellent advice Anonymous.
Bee wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 06:41 GMT
I would suggest to make the topic "emergence in physics" into "emergence and reductionism in physics" you can't treat one without the other anyway. (Voting worked fine for me).
"Emergence & Reductionism--a two-way street?"
Jens Koeplinger replied on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 01:50 GMT
"Emergence and reductionism" would be wonderful! But - would we be allowed to shoehorn our pet project into the competition? ... :) ... Thanks, Jens
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 10:35 GMT
Very interesting to me.
Additionally i would propose the line of thinking about
"randomness & necessity -- mathematical & physical rules and the role of informational redundance"
Heraclitus replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 23:39 GMT
Stefan: "That which is in opposition is in concert, and from things that differ comes the most beautiful harmony."
Including, combining, and involving opposites, extremes, and differences is key.
Anonymous replied on Jun. 8, 2010 @ 23:41 GMT
Brendan, you said: "Emergence & Reductionism--a two-way street?"
This is generally correct. Complexity and simplicity, highly ordered and random, growth, less and more, and becoming other than we are are all involved with this. An excellent and linking concept that relates to "Emergence & Reductionism--a two-way street?" is the notion of "integrated extensiveness".
Glad to be of assistance at this excellent forum. Cheers!
Phil Gibbs wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 10:09 GMT
The display of votes made is unclear when viewed in Internet Explorer because of missing line break before titles, other browsers OK.
Which titles do you mean? The text of the questions?
Phil Gibbs replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 17:00 GMT
I mean the questions. I will try and attach a screen shot taken from IE8
attachments: q.jpg
Phil Gibbs replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 06:48 GMT
The results table shows the percentage of votes cast for each question, but what is the percentage of voters that voted for each question? It wont make any difference to the order of the results, but it would be a clearer indication of the popularity of each question.
If the average number of votes cast per person is three then the number of people voting for the most popular title is 16% x 3 = 48%. But what is the actual average? We know how many votes have been cast so we just need to know how many people have voted. Could the administrators tell us?
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 16:16 GMT
I did not vote for "What is the universe made of?" because I consider "made" a speculation.
Instead of fruitless contemplations on "Paradoxes in physics" I would prefer looking for serious mistakes, futile efforts, and other unsound tendencies.
John Merryman replied on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 00:04 GMT
I second that. Asking foundational questions cannot just be about expanding on what we know, but questioning it as well.
Helmut Hansen wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 16:37 GMT
In 1991 the scientific magazine OMNI published the article --The Mind of God--, in which the authors A.J.S Rayl and K.T. McKinney asked: Can science reach beyond physical reality and prove that a divine being or force oversees the Universe?
There is no other issue that is discussed so controversial like this one.
Many scientists, especially physicists, reject this kind of requiry. They fear for the continued existence of science, because science bases upon a certain narrowness, f.e. on the rigorous adherence to fact and inferential reasoning. They fear that science would lose its internal cohesion, if metaphysical questions are entering science. But other scientists are pointing to the fact, that it is no scientific heresy to settle on indirect evidence. Since no one has ever held a quark in his hands, the same reasoning could be applied to the search for God.
However, until today there is no actual research program to seek God. Most scientists believe, that such a research program would receive only little encouragement, because it is simply impossible. As God is traditionally defined as being invisible, he transcends all empirical procedures. It is therefore in principle impossible, to prove it in a scientific way.
But we have learned from a big fighter that --impossible-- is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it.
My question is therefore: How can we develop a modern metaphysics?
Hi. I would like to suggest a few more topics [some of these are perhaps way out!)
Are spacetime and matter two manifestations of the same thing?
Is there a connection between black-holes and elementary particles?
Why is spacetime four dimensional?
Why is there one time direction, but three space directions?
Do we really understand quantum mechanics?
Is gravity fundamentally different from the other forces?
Did the Universe have a beginning, or is it eternal?
Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe?
The physics and mathematics of the human mind
The `yet to be discovered' symmetries of the physical world
Tejinder Singh replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 17:24 GMT
Anonymous in the previous post is
Tejinder Singh
this post was moved here from a different topic
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 18:35 GMT
Hi dear Tejinder Singh,
Hope you are well ,I have answered you hihihi
Are spacetime and matter two manifestations of the same thing? Yes ,just the rotation implies mass in the duration.
Is there a connection between black-holes and elementary particles? Logically it is a sphere with a volume more important than stars , they turn and have a mass , thus of course the gravitational fields and the superimposings are linked like all gravitational systems in fact.Thus they cause effects on the galactic system evidently, the gravitation is the gravitation.They balance the system .
Why is spacetime four dimensional? The relattivity says many things about the locality and the globality and too about our past perceptions, relativistics,thus it is a question of referential but I think strongly what the time rests always like it is, the intrinsic duration perhaps can be interesting but only for the checking of the space.It is totally different in my humble opinion.We can only check the space and probably in the future some durations of the internal clocks of the spherical system.But never about the universal time constant, the time is purely irreversible.
Why is there one time direction, but three space directions? Because without these laws, the evolution won't exist with all its splendids creations, bilogical and minerals.
Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Of course no, we can imagine and we can approach but the scale is so far of us.Thus we must accept these limits due to the evolution and our young age simply at the universal scale.
But we are on the road due to our past thinkers and their splendid foundamentals equations, in fact the road is the road.
Is gravity fundamentally different from the other forces? No just different in their rotations
Did the Universe have a beginning, or is it eternal?Yes a begining of the physicality and yes fortunally at the unification of all spheres, yes the eternity begins between all .....the end doesn't exist, just the begining,
Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe? Of course everywhere in these billions bilions galaxies which turn around the center of this sphere which increases its density and its mass.There is an ultim physical aim netween spheres and it is there the eternity begins ....
Best Regards from an human on Earth
Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT
Multiverse or Universe?
1 of course and with many lifes and spheres.........
No offense, but you guys are posing questions which are way too broad in scope and border on the fringes of scientific inquiry.
I would guess that the average university scientist gets stuff like this in their mailbox every day -- someone writing, wanting an answer to an esotoeric question or offering some possible theory that explains the totality of existence.
There are no currently available answers to some of these questions and I think people need to be less ambitious in their desire for explanations.
FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 22:01 GMT
As for way too broad in scope, that's a tricky question: broad makes it open to lots of different essays, authors, and subtopics. More specific would probably lead to less essays and appeal to less readers (who have diverse interests), but may make more progress on that particular subject. We'll probably go broad on this one (as for the first two), but I think at some point it might be fun to try a more specific one to see what happens.
As for "the fringe of scientific inquiry", well we prefer "edge" or "frontier", but in any event, it's where we mean to be! And yes, I get things in my mailbox that make me cringe sometimes, but they don't make me want to be any less ambitious, or to tackle questions with already-available answers!
Making progress in understanding nature often doesn't come from getting a direct answer to a question but from knowing what questions are appropriate to ask in the first place.
There are questions that are appropriate to a situation and then there are outlandish questions which simply takes one off on a tangent, far away from the general direction that represents the progress that is desired.
If the question is too broad people will make it fit anything they happen to be working on. If it is too narrow you wont get enough essays on topic. For example question 1 is too broad in this sense, but questions 2 and 3 are about right.
Dear Anonymous, You have eyes, these beautiful spheroids, thus Look around you and you shall see this truth, simply.
I dislike several things on this sad Earth.....Money, arms and weapons, differences, borders and frontirs, business.....The ambitious thus has not understand the real meaning of the universality.
My econonic situation is catastrophic due to my kindness, thus you imagine how I like the ambitious, I eat them .And the others vaanitious I eat them too live or dead ,I alm already dead with all my past problems .
Thus you imagine my analyze of this reality.Nothing to do in fact , I work and that's all .....and my theory will rest with or without our approvements .....
Member Ian Durham replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 00:31 GMT
I think one of the points of FQXi is to push the boundaries. Yes, one always runs the danger of wandering into areas that skirt pseudo-science, but someone has to push the boundaries just as others must do the more incremental work. There must be a balance.
James Putnam replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 01:47 GMT
I will add that FQXi appears to appreciate the necessity to look within, and, review unanswered and poorly answered questions. In other words, from the boundaries back to the fundamentals, and back again to the boundaries perhaps on and on.
Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 20:16 GMT
You said "There are no currently available answers.......be less ambitious....." But this is scientific inquiry. When did not already having the answer stop scientists from trying to find one?
Scientific inquiry is concerned with forming answers to questions that can ultimately be verified empirically. Science is not a wild goose chase that involves tracking down things that go bump in the night.
Member Ian Durham wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 00:13 GMT
Here's a curious question that came up on my personal blog based on a discussion of the nature of mathematics:
Is mathematics an emergent phenomenon?
According to Chaitan mathematics is a sort of emergent accident within a transfinite set of self-referential loops.
Cheers LC
Never.......... physics yes and maths afetr, that's all ......EPR or Copenhagen ....oh My God that continues ......PHYSICS before Maths after
The transfinite alephs of Cantor with loops or strings OOOHHHHHHHHHH MY GOD The fractal of the uniqueness seems lost in an ocean of confusions due to some adds and superimposings where the foundamentals disappear .......
Member Ian Durham replied on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 11:48 GMT
I really need to read some of Chaitan's writing.
T H Ray replied on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 13:25 GMT
Chaitin.
One of my personal favorites. His philosophy has something in common with Hermann Weyl, in that they both (Chaitin and Weyl) hold a lot in common with Leibniz.
I just listened to a great interview with Chaitin on the Math Factor podcast. I love his ideas and it makes me think that we really have no clue what we're doing in physics (and parts of math, for that matter) though we like to feign knowledge. I just noticed Chaitin's an FQXi member as well.
Perhaps it will eventually be possible to empirically verify those potential answers as new theory and mathematics is evolved to do that task.
With respect it seems pretty much like a fabulous wild goose chase to me. The truth is always tantalizingly just out of reach and can never be completely or certainly captured. However it is not entirely pointless as the chase keeps us mentally fit, and interested in remaining mysteries of the universe. It gives people jobs, entertains the public, finds its way into new gadgets etc. Having the answers may actually be less important than the quest itself.
If by things that go bump in the night you mean the mysterious and unexplained then science should be there.It is only mysterious and unexplained because it hasn't been explained yet. The connection between infra sound and paranormal experience and feeling of unease is now recognized. The experiences are real but were dismissed as paranormal nonsense by some before a scientific explanation was available. Infrasound on Wikipedia.There is a section talking about the effect on animals and one about paranormal experience.
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 02:47 GMT
I favor the questions on "why quantum" and the origin of the second law of thermodynamics.
T H Ray replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 14:11 GMT
Lawrence,
Why quantum and the origin of thermodynamics is a good topic; however, I think it is encompassed in the question of whether nature is continuous or discrete.
Continuous vs. discrete functions, I think, leaves the question open for more specific mathematical treatment.
paul valletta wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 10:59 GMT
What would the consequences be if an allready "dead" cat, is placed into shroedingers box?
Are allready Dead cats always "dead"?
Answer: the cat would rot.
Steve Duduf replied on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 13:43 GMT
anwer 2: the dog too would rot
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 16:33 GMT
Regardless of the topic, I would strongly recommend to relax a bit the maximum character limit. Yes, it does promote brevity and cuts down on useless rambling, but the current limit is too much affecting the quality of the essays to the point of forcing them to become silly skeletons with limited literature references. If the goal is to present a high level overview of established facts, then the current limit is OK. But if the goal is to present new ideas, they need to be put better into context to be able to convince the non-experts in your narrow domain that what you assert is indeed valuable.
Hi dear Florin,
I agree , it is difficult to resume.
For exemple I have many many pages, more than 500 writed by hands , more the classments and others.
What do you think about a essay with 1 resume of ten pages and an attached piece more developped for a better understanding of the details.
That's right, it is difficult to resume in fact .It easier to continue the details than to resume in fact .
I agree that it was somewhat difficult to pare my ideas down to the former essay size (I purposely went under the limit because I didn't want to overwhelm with too much mathematics). However, could you imagine, say, 150 papers, each 15 pages long? I wouldn't be able to read them all...
Yes indeed for the jury , it will be difficult and long, I don't know.
Who has ideas ....?
One possibility we have been mulling in connection with both this and the wide range of technicality in the submitted essays is to keep the current limit, but allow 1-2 pages of additional endnotes, in which some additional technical material could be included for readers so interested.
Two pages of appendices is a great idea. If there are some hard calculations involved these can be referenced there. This liberates the main part of the paper for more physical discussion.
Anthony,
Adding appendices has the undesirable effect of weakening the overall logical cohesion of the essays. How about keeping the limit as is, but not counting the references section in the limit and restricting it to no more than 1/3 of the total size?
Well, these endnotes would, of course, be optional ;-)
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 02:59 GMT
Anthony, I'd vote for a few pages of endnotes.
Marshall Barnes wrote on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 22:45 GMT
I like the multiverse or universe question, myself.
It's a fun topic, but there is already a great collection edited by Bernard Carr that contains a bunch of really good articles on the topic (plus one by me):
Universe or Multiverse
Constantin Leshan wrote on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 19:46 GMT
I would like to suggest a topic 'How to travel the astronomical distances to reach other habitable worlds?'
Remember, the cosmos is vast and we live on small planet. Imagine the historic moment when the first Earth-like planet is detected deep across interstellar space.
Also a fun topic, but since the winner of the just-concluded contest wrote on exactly this subject, it might get a bit repetitive...
Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 23:24 GMT
I've reversed engineered what the multiverse must be like to be able to travel astronomical distances in a short time. I assure you, these are fertile grounds for interesting discussion.
Dear Leshan,
It is a real problem, perhaps just due to the evolution simply.
The distances between these cosmological spheres are a real problem for the check of space.
The special relativity seems a problem.
I like the special relativity and the perception of our physicality correlated to this point.
But the system has a problem when we extrapolate the interactions between spheres in the Universe.
Perhaps what simply we are too youngs and even too dangerous to discover an other planets with lifes and intelligences.
I don't know and I agree I don't understand why this limit.
I search a link with stars and BH , indeed the light and the perception is due to our sun and the system perhaps is limited just at the star, thus after the system can be more interesting for the check of the space.
An other idea is this one, about the evolution of the universal sphere and its volume,
Let's imagine simply an expansion with an acceleration after it decelerates MAX volume, after the contraction appears and thus the space is less important between spheres and thus optimize the interactions between the different universal creations.The future is incredible...
There we can correlated with the conscious and the acceptation of our young age at the universal scale.
An other possibility is the check of the topology and the rotating universal system around the center, this point implies an other logic when we analyze our past and thus we can superimpose correctly the system of evolution.
An other idea is the contraction of the space if we link with the dark matter.
Indeed they are spheres (the same)without rotation thus no mass.The entanglement is correlated with the universe and thus the space between sphere is important because if we can implies a contraction due to an activation of the rotation, thus that implies a mass in a point and a reduction of the space.
Now of course for a space ship, we must check two main systems the fields and the speed ,thus two spheres of energy.the intrinsic system furthermore must have an autarcic ecological system , the methanization and composting shall permit this autarcy for foods and others even electricity adds with light or others.....in fact the biotechnology is fascinating.It is too the future of the technology,
Now if an intelligence comes here, thus they are more evolved , thus more conscious too ,or perhaps they can't interact ???? In all case if they come, hurry up dear friends of the universe, somethings are bizares here ,help us hihihihi
An interesting topic that bridges physics and philosophy might be something along the lines of:
In the absence of experimental evidence, what set of crieria can and should be used to judge the intrinsic value of a theory, not only to the community as a whole, but also it's value as a heuristic model of phenomeon?
There are plenty of new and radical ideas that have been put forth over the past decade or os. Unfortunately, the community as a whole never stopped to take the time to pasue and reflect on the process of conducting the business of science when technology(or the lack thereof) precludes our ability to confirm or deny the validity of te theory itself. Theory has progressed far beyond the realm of experimental verification.
Jérôme CHAUVET replied on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 21:08 GMT
Such a theory of theories,i.e., a meta-theory which would validate theories, should be self-validating, or one then would need to propose a meta-meta-theory for validating the meta-theory, and so forth without end... Indeed, really intriguing question.
J.C.N. Smith replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 12:33 GMT
"In the absence of experimental evidence, what set of crieria can and should be used to judge the intrinsic value of a theory, not only to the community as a whole, but also it's value as a heuristic model of phenomena?"
This is an interesting question, indeed. I think we all have some sort of instinctive "gut feeling" about how to answer this question, but has anyone ever set forth a generally accepted answer in a thorough, logical, concise fashion? Thomas S. Kuhn certainly touches on this in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' but it was not his principal target. Excellent food for thought, regardless of whether it becomes a topic for an essay contest.
Perhaps this topic falls more under the category of scientific method than foundational questions?
James Putnam wrote on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 14:36 GMT
I am still unable to vote. So, I will mention that I choose:
'Origin of the Fundamental Constants'
'Origin of the Second Law of Thermodynamics'
Jérôme CHAUVET wrote on Mar. 27, 2010 @ 20:57 GMT
One question I would wish to address in such an essay contest would be:
Can one find a given and finite set of axioms explaining the emergence of everything?
To me, this is pretty much the most fundamental question ever in the Cosmology field... Can one start building up a Universe by means of a finite collection of rules.
Jerome,
Check out http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/473
I believe the short answer to your question is no because of Geodel's theorem, but I am working to find an indirect solution. If you want, you can consider set theory as the answer for all emergence because set theory is the foundation of math, but this does not solve the question: "why those equations"? What is really needed is to find a way to distinguish/select one mathematical structure from another relative to its global usefulness in nature, and do that in a non-tautological way. Once the backbone if nature is obtained (quantum mechanics, relativity, standard model), the next problem becomes one of emergence of the rest of math in nature.
The Godel theorem in physics and cosmology probably involves the emergence of structure, or existence itself. There are a number of "layers" at which there may be alternative cosmologies, or universe in the multiverse. In M-theory and strings there are foliations of Dp-branes connected by type IIB strings in a QCD-like arrangement, where each brane corresponds to a "universe." Each universe of course has its regions where the inflaton field differs, similar to regions of magnetization in a ferro-magnetic solid. So the latter of these is the type I universe and the braney version is type II. Max Tegmark takes this to a level III which connects with many worlds version of quantum theory, and then beyond that is a type IV which involves different mathematical systems which describe causal principles --- or what might be analogous to that. Tegmark involves a sort of first order logico-set theoretic argument to skirt the Godel issue.
At the Planck scale there might be indeed the absolute end of structure, or the emergence of what I refer to as Godelian chaos --- a vacuum defined by self-referential loops of quantal(like) bits. So any structure, say what you regard as the axomiatic structure of the universe, is something which emerges as an accident. This would be some analogue of how Chaitan sees mathematics as a system of accidents which emerge from an uncountably infinite set of self-referential sets. We might call this the type V version of the multiverse, which is taken beyond Tegmark's mulitverse IV.
To be honest if we can get a handle on the type I and II we will have done well. This means we have some observational or experimental data to support such theories, however obliquely. This might be a 50 year enterprise through much of this century. We might get some handle on the type III, if quantum gravity gives some results on quantum foundations. As for type IV and beyond I have my doubts. It is not clear to me how such ideas have observable implications on our local universe. I will also confess extreme doubts about whether our species will exist long enough in the future, or survive our own induced anthropocene on this planet, for us to get some intellectual and observational handle on these ideas.
Roy Johnstone wrote on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 05:58 GMT
A newly developing field of research is "Quantum Biology". So could a question such as: -
Can and does the brain operate quantum mechanically?
fit into the FQXi format without being too narrow? It would also raise issues such as the existence of free will, emergence and reductionism at least. I don't believe this issue is settled yet, despite the findings of Tegmark for example.
BTW, I also get the "You have already voted" message when I have not!
There have been a few hints at quantum biology. The following tech-rev indicates some work along these lines. There are also proposals that quantum entanglements might be involved with bird navigation . I am not a big upholder of quantum mind ideas, and these ideas are somewhat conjectural at this time.
I would say 'is brain qm?' is too specific, but the broader topic of free will v. determinism is a good suggestion. And with that topic, an essay on whether the brain is quantum would fit well.
The brain is not QM-ical because simple order of magnitude decoherence arguments can easily prove it so. But the brain does not follow the distributive property of Boolean logic because different areas in the brain can represent different parts of a concept/proposition. What this implies is that the brain can sometimes violate Bell's inequalities, a fact already proven by clever brain experiments. But violating Bell's inequalities is not enough to prove the QM character of the brain.
@ Florin Moldoveanu:
Thank you for the reference... I discover your essay for the first time. I'm going to read it with great interest.
@Jerome,
Looking forward to your feedback.
Another interesting subject for an essay:
Will String Theory actually make a testable prediction before the end of the current millenium?
It's been 40 years now and the theory that has yet to make one single prediction that can be tested, let alone account for any observation that current theories cannot. If this was 1900 and a theory had been around for fourty years but had yet to make one testable prediction, such a theory would have been dismissed as a vacuous model of observed phenomenon.
String Theorists are holding out hope by clinging to nothing concrete other than the power of pure faith in evidence unseen that the frankensteinian creation will eventually rise from the ashes and come to life.
McCoy.."Good God man ! We are talking fourty years since its inception and the thing has undergone numerous mutations throughout the years, yet not one of these has succeeded in coming up with one single testable prediction."
Spock: "Logic suggests.."
MccCoy: "Logic ! The man's talking about logic ! It's not about logic, it's about what we can see. You green blooded, inhuman.."
Spock: "Really, Dr. Your failure to think logically will be your undoing."
McCoy: "Dammit man, I'm a scientist - not a logician. I can see with my own eyes that this man has no life in him !"
Kirk: "Are you sure he's dead, Bones?"
McCoy: "In medical school, they taught me what it means to be dead. He's dead, Jim."
Given the LHC and other effort will fail confirming expectations. Wouldn't it be the best question for an essay to ask: "Is there possibly something wrong in the foundations?"
My allusions to Frankenstein are not totally off the mark. The approach of String Theory has kind of resembled someone digging up a bunch of corpse' and snatching various pieces and parts off of the bodies and reassembling them into a very hideous monstrosity. The head is sewn onto the neck and bolts are jammed into the skull to keep it from falling apart. Limbs are hanging off by a thread and when the creature talks, everything it says is completely unintelligible. "Dubabewabee".
It ends up looking like something bolted and sewn together and passed off as the real thing. When people remind Dr Frankenstein that the monster really isn't saying anything concrete, he simply ignores this fact and continues on as if nothing is amiss. The Dr. tells us that eventually, he will come around and say something concrete.
hihihihi wawwwww what a post .
But who are you dear Anomymous, you see clear, who are you ?
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 13:25 GMT
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Is it a monster, or is it perfection?
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray and anonymous,
It is cool all that, but frankly that irritates me when a person writes anonymous .
Dear Anonymous, it's likeable to read your post but not cool to signs anonymous, that makes me nervous and I am persuaded I am not alone to think that, the transparence must be a reality, the universality is essential.
Bubba Gump replied on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 22:58 GMT
It's me -- Bubba.
hahahaha cool .
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 18:30 GMT
Interesting question,
I'm tempted to say of String Theory "It's dead Jim, dead!" But I have another thought to share.
At FFP10 Gerard 't Hooft said that it's no more complicated to solve the landscape problem in ST than it is to completely map the genome of a simple organism, perhaps a virus. Even if it appears intractable, he feels that given enough time and effort, it will one day be solved.
Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 07:53 GMT
"Is there possibly something wrong in the foundations?"
The cat is dead and an autopsy is in order to figure out why it makes such good predictions being as dead as it is.
This is a good one.
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 17:18 GMT
Since the early Greek philosophers we have understood the distinction between two important concepts: the underlying reality and our perceptual experience. Over the centuries, we have always mixed the two concepts at the same time and this amounted to not much. But if we take the perceptual experience alone, then we have an empirical approach….Science is this approach, the empirical approach....
Since the early Greek philosophers we have understood the distinction between two important concepts: the underlying reality and our perceptual experience. Over the centuries, we have always mixed the two concepts at the same time and this amounted to not much. But if we take the perceptual experience alone, then we have an empirical approach….Science is this approach, the empirical approach. What does it mean? It means that we recognize not knowing about the underlying reality and we we accept this ignorance because we have found about 300 years ago a pragmatic approach to this situation. We simply treat this universe as a black box. So, around the time of Newton, Descartes and others, this empirical method was born. The idea was that we would forget for now about the underlying reality and would consider the universe as a black box.
We would concentrate our study on our experience of the black box, i.e. the empirical approach and find the laws that best described our experiences. But no matter how successful the empirical concept is in this year 2010, the other concept (underlying reality) is still sitting on the back burner where we left it 300 years ago. We still don't know what's in the box. Because we do not know what the universe is made of (what is the substance) and what makes it work by itself (the cause), all of our best science remains an educated guess on outcomes. . In other words, the empirical method was meant to study our experience of the box, never to find its content, which must be addressed in a metaphysical approach. In that sense, we have no idea what we are really doing. No idea of what we are playing with. Anyone cares?
A complete knowledge would require both; the metric descriptions of physcis (scale dependant) and the logical understanding provided by a proper natural metaphysics (scale independant). Do we even realize what we left back there? A treasure, as the two oldest and most fundamental questions. In fact, these were the Original questions.
O.k. We understand here that physics is about our view and relationship with the universe not about the universe as it is. Because of that, this view is simply not fundamental with respect to the universe. Now, FQXI is good at asking really fundamental questions: What is the nature of time (a metaphysical question), and what is the limit of physics ( again, its limit is about not having access to a sound metaphysical picture). So in essence, FQXI demands a physics discourse on a metaphysical question…. Not logical!
These contests are excellent for unearthing new concepts, new ways of thinking, but the output of the exercise depends essentially on the judging. Judging is about understanding the question and realizing what you've got as an answer. Judges are not versed in, or even open to natural (without spiritual content) metaphysics, more specifically to ontology.
Now, even if FQXI realizes its commitment to fundamental questions and gets a person versed in metaphysics on the judging board, there is no guarantee that this person will admit the novelty since her frame of reference is metaphysics as previously conceived, studied and taught. It is obvious that present day metaphysics is not an efficient source of knowledge and whoever comes around with a solution will have to turn it on its head. This person would represent for the field what is called a 'Kuhn`s Outsider. He would not be readily understood or accepted. Still, it would be worth the try.
My choice of substance and cause in the universe is obvious.
Marcel,
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 09:59 GMT
Hello dear Marcel,
It is a beautiful post, thanks for this universality.
I agree with you about this real fact.
We can't deny this evidence about the entropy and the evolution.
It is like a physical aim in fact and a real optimization in time.
The spirituality is evident when we study sciences and truths.
At the age of 14 , I said me but how these particles know how they must become in fact ?
I searched why they can be adapted and why these gravitationalks stabilities.
The model of Bohr fascinated me , I think it is the better of our past thinkers.I classed all thus to understand the rule of these polarisations, mendéleev was a good partner for my classments.And Darwin of course.
The codes became my first focalization, the informations of particles are fascinatings, they build and they evolve, they polarise and synchronize.....
The spirituality is important but it is essential to differenciate the physicality with the eternity behind our walls .Because our system is in 3D and is intrinsically coded in the main central sphere, quantic or universal.
Thus we can have an universality and in the same time to respect its intrinsic laws of evolution.
You know Marcel when I was 18 years old perhaps,
I have read the book of Descartes about the method of the rationalization of the realism.
"Dicourses about the method" All is there about the difference between imaginaries creations and our realism in 3d.
His book is very relevant about the logic.
The spirituality can be logic too thus in accepting our limits and the evolution.
Thanking you for this post , very interesting about the synchro of the physics .
Paul N.Butler replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 16:32 GMT
Marcel-Marie Lebel,
You have a good point in that man has often attempted to look at the universe as a black (unknowable) box (entity) and concentration has been only on finding relationships between its observational outputs while ignoring the implications that such relationships lead us to as far as the existing underlying structure that generates them. Thankfully this in fact is not...
You have a good point in that man has often attempted to look at the universe as a black (unknowable) box (entity) and concentration has been only on finding relationships between its observational outputs while ignoring the implications that such relationships lead us to as far as the existing underlying structure that generates them. Thankfully this in fact is not always the case and when visualizations or explanations of the underlying structure that would create or generate the observed outputs and their relationships have been given, they have often allowed a great increase of knowledge in a short time even when those visualizations have later proven to be wrong or incomplete. The concept that matter is made from small indivisible particles called atoms rather than continuously divisible analog structures led to experiments that determined their approximate sizes and eventually proved them to be further divisible. This and other observations led to the visualization of the atom as composed of positive protons mixed together with negative electrons. Experiments to test this theory soon showed that this concept was also in error, but the information from these tests suggested an atom with protons (also neutrons, etc.) in the center surrounded by electrons. This visualization has been changed further in some ways, but it turned out that it can describe much of the observed data of how the elements can join together chemically to form complex compounds, etc. This along with most such visualizations depend on the observation that many things in the world appear and work much like other things, so that we are often provided with images that we can observe of those things that we can't yet observe. The atom image is much like a smaller version of the planets rotating around the sun or the sun rotating around the galaxy, etc., but whether the atom actually works in the way visualized or just in some other way that yields the same results, it nevertheless has led to great advances in chemistry and physics by causing the right observations to be made that ultimately tied together much observed data into a compact and connected assembly of interrelationships of observed data. Currently such attempts to visualize or explain the underlying structure (what is in the box) that generates the observed data outputs have been more discouraged than encouraged and as a result scientific progress has suffered. On the other hand, in some cases, a visualization does exist, but does not agree with observed data, but is nevertheless held to rather than being changed to conform to new observations. Particles of matter such as protons are viewed as dimensionless point objects even though the evidence suggests that they are composed of sub-particles (quarks) and collisions between such particles yield a wide range of results more in line with what would be expected of particles with internal structures. Attempts to understand and visualize how the hidden parts of the universe actually work when combined with conformance to observed data can be a great aid in the advancement of science. Whether we can ever completely prove such visualizations to be the way things actually work or not in reality, our thought patterns are greatly tied to our observations and we have a natural desire to understand the nature of the universe in terms of our observations. Because of this we can work more effectively to tie observed data together in ways that we can understand when it is done in accordance with observed structures. One must always keep such visualizations up to date by continually comparing them with newly observed data and changing them when necessary, however, or one risks being caught following a false concept. It would be foolish to consider such visualizations of how the underlying structures in the world work to be unscientific when they have demonstrated they are greatly useful if not necessary as an aid to man's ability to get an understanding of the world in which he lives.
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 02:57 GMT
Paul N. Butler
Thank you for the plea for the underlying reality and also for presenting it into context. I would like now to comment on your text so as to re-affirm some distinctions or to underline my agreement.
" it nevertheless has led to great advances in chemistry and physics"
First, in no way do I mean to diminish the immense success of science in all its various...
First, in no way do I mean to diminish the immense success of science in all its various fields. But this success may have lead to claims that do not belong to science but to metaphysics...In the context of the limits of physics … the idea was to find the wall where physics ends, and not look back but rather peer over the wall to see what physics is missing, not by miss-guidance but simply because it is not in its domain of application. This great success may lead one to believe that science may one day explain everything. It is not the case because science and physics have a precise and finite domain that does not include the underlying reality, i.e. not everything.
"Attempts to understand and visualize how the hidden parts of the universe actually work when combined with conformance to observed data can be a great aid in the advancement of science."
Science looks for the rules that connect facts for the purpose of predicting more facts. It may call "knowing about the rule" an explanation. But it is not "understanding". To understand something is to know the logic behind it. Because science is descriptive and metric, it is scale dependant. The logical understanding on the other hand is scale independent. We need both to have a complete understanding of the universe.
Science and natural metaphysics have each different goals, tools and testing grounds. For science, the altar of truth is the test bench. It is where two things are confirmed. First, the concept is verified and secondly, it is controlled and therefore useful. For natural metaphysics, the test bench is simple logic. Science has many non-physical models, but they are "quasi metaphysics" because the idea or concept it represents has been modified to fit the testing conformance. --- Whatever concept physics finds or guesses about the underlying reality, this metaphysical concept has to be spoiled in order to test it on a physical test bench. --- Why not let it be explained logically by a proper natural metaphysics and then, then, modify for physical testing, knowing well how you modified it for the purpose of testing?
"…such visualizations of how the underlying structures in the world work to be unscientific.."
Actually, natural metaphysics is in fact definitely unscientific! It is not science but another system to be applied to a different domain with different rules. This does not make it less important. It is what is beyond the wall and the wall between physics and metaphysics will remain. This wall, these limits are the definition of each system and domain. ( I do understand that "unscientific" is used here with the meaning of "having no value", a bit like metaphysics sounds like these days.)
I hope these comments clarify for you the distinction between physics and metaphysics, and underline their importance to each other.
Just imagine how much more we could do if we did know what the universe is made of and understand how it works by itself! By extension, what it is that we are really doing!
Bill Foehringer replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 13:33 GMT
Our visualizations are both insightful and limiting. For instance, black holes have been thought of in terms of mathematical infinities and singularities. While helpful to begin with, these concepts have been inherently limiting. Since black holes are real objects they are not infinities wrapped around singularities. They are finite extended objects.
Constantly, we strive to see beyond our self-imposed blinders. What is beyond the singularity? What is beyond the 'big bang'? What happens when space-timecontinues to accelerate? Surely undiscovered vistas not only mathematical abstraction. Physical insights are essential but are to be held lightly lest they solidify into mental blocks.
Anonymous replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 15:59 GMT
Indeed all these questions are fascinatings.
It exists a real aim for this Universe in building.And we are a part of this splendid equation of optimization.
The answers shall arrive with the evolution and our knowledges about this universal dynamic.
We were at the begining and we shall be at this unification in fact ,but what is this secret, of course it is like if we can't know this unknown, like if we must act like catalyzers and that's all.
The capacity of the intelligence, this human potential is incredible, we are like tools of harmonization.
We have a brain, an intelligence, a conscious, eyes, hands, ....and we can improve our environment logicaly and harmoniously.
The creations, these lifes, these biological beings are in complementarity and the number of interactions can be increased.
In ecology for exemple , the interactions soil plants animals H2O O2 photon....can be optimized in a small surface and volume, the system is exponential with some technics....aftter the autonomy and the balance permit to restabilize others weak ecosystems.
The men , the humans can make that simply with rationality and respect of our environment.
A equilibrium is essential between the human inventions and sociological systems and the nature and its diversity.
There we can multiplicate and add our creations for an optimized balanced global ecosystem.
I didn't know the Occam Razor, in fact it's important what says this principle.
We can add for optimizations some systems but we must use the constants without adds for a simplicity of the dynamic.
The economy is on this road if this rationality is made , there I return about the rule like catalyzers for humans.The balance is easy thus if the main essential parameters are inserted and respected .It's not utilie to use not utile things when we have the solutions .....like what the complexity returns to the simplicity.
Paul N. Butler replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 04:27 GMT
You are right that you can define physics in terms of only having to do with looking at observed data and attempting to find patterns and relationships between such data elements without any attempt to connect the data or the relationships that are found between its elements to the underlying reality that generated the data and those relationships in the first place and you can...
You are right that you can define physics in terms of only having to do with looking at observed data and attempting to find patterns and relationships between such data elements without any attempt to connect the data or the relationships that are found between its elements to the underlying reality that generated the data and those relationships in the first place and you can define metaphysics as the search for the underlying reality by only using logical thought without taking any observed data or relationships of that data into consideration, but either approach by itself is lacking in ability to discern underlying reality and will also be detrimental to scientific advancement. My point is that although one may say that physics has nothing to do with a search for reality, the observations that are made and the patterns and relationships found in the observed data in physics are necessary inputs in any logical metaphysical search for reality and any understandings of the underlying reality that may come from such a logical metaphysical search using that observed data and such patterns and relationships can certainly be used as a guide in what observational tests should be done to gather further relevant data and as a help in finding new relationships in that data. In practice each person has some concept of what reality is to him and he also has some level of understanding from observations that he has made and some relationships that he has seen in those observations. We are made to observe and use our minds logically to gain an understanding of what we are observing and how our observations fit into our concept of reality and hopefully to develop a more detailed understanding of what is really out there in the world and how we can interface with it in a way that will be to our advantage to give us better lives, etc. Closing one's eyes and attempting to understand reality merely by logical reasoning without any observational inputs will only lead to failure and observing the world and looking for relationships in the observed data without also using logical reasoning to try to understand how these fit into the world around us will also lead to failure because each of those approaches would use only half of the processes necessary to get an in depth understanding the world around us. My point is that whether you call one part physics and the other part metaphysics they work best when used together as a whole. Observations need to be made and patterns and relationships in the observational data should be searched out. Then logical thought should be applied to the resulting data to attempt to understand more deeply what that data and its relationships are telling us about how the world works and what its underlying structures are that generates this data and its relationships. Then this new understanding can be applied to help us make new observations both to test the validity of the understanding of reality and also to test for the presence of new patterns or relationships that would be expected to exist if this concept of reality is true, to gain further more in depth understandings if it is true reality (or at least a representative image of the true nature of reality that would generate the same observed data and relationships). Over time in this way the structure of reality may be discerned while at the same time eliminating false reality concepts. My point is that those who do not limit themselves, but instead make observations and look for the relationships and patterns in the data and then use logical thinking to try to understand what kind of world would generate such things and how it would do so, are the ones that generally make the greatest contributions to the advancement of both physics and metaphysics as you have defined them. I may have created a new concept here that does not fit into your definition of either physics or metaphysics or maybe it could be looked at as a combination of both, but I believe from my observations of man and how and when great advancements have occurred that the combination of observed data, pattern, and relationship determinations, and logical thought that applies the acquired data, pattern, and relationship structures to the understanding of the underlying structures in reality that generates them (or at least some image of it that generates the same outputs) and then uses that structure as an input to guide the path of new observations so as to test the validity of the structural concepts and to look for new things that would be expected to be produced by such a structure and then repeats this procedure with the new data to refine and increase understanding is the approach that will lead to the greatest advancement at the greatest rate in man's knowledge and understanding and ability to apply such knowledge and understanding to useful purposes.
Member Ian Durham wrote on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 11:47 GMT
I thought of another possible essay topic:
What are the limits of mathematics (in describing the physical world)?
Steev Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 09:04 GMT
Hello dear Ian Durham,
It is so important this synchro and the limits.
That will permit to evitate all these falses extrapolations without sense.
The responsability of the sceinces community must be strong and rational.
It's very important for the evolution.
We must sort and class all these ideas with pragmatisme.
These things imply a lost of monney, a lost of improvement.....
That must change simply....because the students can't learn these stupidities.
They make me nervous with their pubs of nothing, they think they are scienctists,....they like monney and that's all..........a big joke for the sciences ...
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 14:09 GMT
"What are the limits of mathematics?"---We had something like this in mind under "Physics, Mathematics, and Reality".
Yeah, I guess that fits. Guess I already voted though! :)
Bill Foehringer wrote on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 14:43 GMT
The first two options and the option about fundamental constants could be rolled into one question. Did our universe spring from nothing if not from what did it arise?
Anonymous replied on May. 4, 2010 @ 19:37 GMT
Bill, what you call "the universe" is confined to only part of visual experience. The totality of experience goes way beyond this. The body -- including thought, feeling, vision, and emotion -- are all subject to the laws of physics.
"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." -- Bohr
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony." --Heraclitus
Dreams combine and include opposites/differences. Electromagnetic space -- the sun and photons -- is both larger and smaller than typical or ordinary space.
Gravitational/electromagnetic space as energy/light/feeling takes place in dreams, as dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general, or memory, imagination, and thought would be impossible. THINK! Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. Dreams make thought more like gravity and electromagnetism/light. It is impossible that the mathematical union/derivation of Einstein's G.R. equations AND the equations of Maxwell (for electromagnetism) is some sort of coincidence or error.
THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. The theory (or thought) determines what we can observe.
Plotinus said that what truth affirms it must also be.
Where FQXi (and others here) have failed miserably, is to not recognize and realize that:
The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 18:18 GMT
My suggestion for a contest topic is the same I made in the previous contest results forum.
How does changing one assumption about reality alter our view of the Cosmos (and the natural laws thereof)?
This is not quite the same as any of the choices above, but could include questions like the origin of the fundamental constants or continuous vs discrete, and so on. But it could also be 'is time linear?' 'does the universe have a beginning?' or what have you. The origin of 2nd law question relates to my FFP10 topic and therefore may be of interest to me too. Hmm.. Perhaps I'll just click all of the boxes.
I like your topic. I assume that the author specifies the assumption that he'd like to change and them discusses the consequences. Of course, if the correct change of assumption is made, it may explain everything -- hard to fit into an essay. It may be too open-ended, resulting in essays that have little in common.
A related idea is this: "Where should we put the mystery?" By this I mean that there are, for example, certain mysterious aspects of quantum mechanics, that may be responsible for many of the current mysteries, such as particle families, dark energy. dark matter, etc. Can we "shift the mystery" to another phenomena that will clear up many of these current mysteries. I believe that there will always be the essential or ultimate mystery, but I don't think that many of the current mysteries are in any way ultimate.
Is this what you're essentially proposing?
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 21:54 GMT
Yes! Thanks Edwin Eugene,
I believe that the best way to promote creative and interesting contributions is by leaving things somewhat open ended. That way, authors are free to pursue their pet ideas, but in a way that supports the intent of the contest.
I like your idea that making an assumption also shifts the mystery, or makes the question "Where is the mystery now." I think sometimes people get caught in a loop of searching where the answers once were. Subjects that once brought successes are funded, while innovations that could bring real answers are ignored, all too often. Open ended questions like "what happens if we change one assumption?" or "what becomes a mystery if we assume this is true?" keeps things interesting - by keeping the focus from being too narrow.
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 04:38 GMT
I tried to answer your last comment to me, but although it showed up on the site when I sent it, when I looked later it was gone. I sent it again and got the same response. I don't know if it was taken off for some reason or was too long or what because no reason was given here by whoever removed it. I am sending this short message to see if it gets in. If it was removed because of some reason I would like to know why, so I can try to avoid the problem in the future. Our conversation seems to fit into the (Physics and philosophy: How does one help the other) topic. You seem to be saying that for the last couple hundred years physics (looking at observed data and looking for the patterns and relationships in it) and metaphysics (trying by logical thought to understand the structure of the world and how it works) have been looked at as two completely separate subjects with the prevailing attitude that never the twain shall meet and you seem to be questioning whether this is the best approach or not, but you don't seem to come down firmly and plainly on one side or the other as to whether they should be joined together or not. What do you believe would be best? On my part I come down on the side of joining the two together because I have observed that scientific advancement has generally been the greatest when scientists have had good logically thought out visualizations based on the observed data such as those of the structure of the atom as a guide to help them determine which new observations to make to test the accuracy of the visualization and to look for new data that would be predicted by how the visualization describes things to work. The visualization can also allow a lot of observed data to be tied together under it such as happened in chemistry by using the visualized structure of the atom to help in gaining understanding of how atoms join together to form molecules, etc. Of course if you don't want to give away your position in any detail on the subject now in case this subject is ultimately chosen for the next contest, I can understand that also. By the way, the universe as we observe it (matter and energy, etc.) is made of motion. Now all you have to do is to understand how it works by itself and you will have it made.
Your welcome,
Member Ian Durham wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 01:40 GMT
So here's another suggestion for a question: how can we get more FQXi members to participate in the forum? Aside from our admins and bloggers, I'm the only FQXi member who seems to post here these days! Why is that and how can we change it? ;)
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 01:49 GMT
Good question Ian, but will any of the members read it?
Excellent question, albeit perhaps a bit off topic. So much to read, and so much to do, and so little time. I'd wager that members will make time to read and participate only if they find real value in it. I'm glad to see that at least one member apparently does. Perhaps Mr. Durham can suggest answers to his own question?
Lev Goldfarb replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 18:22 GMT
I think you know the answer to your question. ;-)
Perhaps moderated blogs/forums might be a partial answer, but I doubt.
Peter van Gaalen wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 18:57 GMT
According to rationalism we do not need empirical data in order to develop theories about the world, we can do without empirical data. According to empirism we need empirical data to develop theories about the world. The following question is queried according to empirism:
"Can we develop a theory of everything with all available data we have right now (april 2010), or do we need more data in order to develop such a theory? or can't we answer this question?"
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 13:47 GMT
I like this question, but I do feel it is a bit specific for the overarching contest topic. I think it would make for a great essay, though, and could probably be used for several of the categories suggested below. Especially 'what is the U.made of' or 'math, phys, and reality'. Start writing!
That's a really great question. According to Gregory Chaitin, a theory of everything is impossible anyway, but it's a great question nevertheless.
And I got your e-mail. I have it on my to-do list. I'm just been swamped lately with administrative work.
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 01:01 GMT
What is Chaitin's argument agaist a TOE? (Or even better how does he define the TOE?)
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 03:33 GMT
Chaitan's idea rests on incompleteness in any formalism. I think unification is really an attempt to put certain basic physical quantities on some equal or covariant footing. These might be seen with the units c, G, ħ, k_B, g --- the speed of light, gravitational parameter, Planck unit of action, Boltzmann constant and gauge coupling parameters. This is not quite the same as a theory of everything, for I would not expect such a theory to spit our recipes for baking bread, or controlling aphids in the garden. Further, in 50 years we may find some underlying aspect to the universe, a new force or some new aspect to space, which depends on another constant Y. So any real unification in physics involves the unification of fundamental fields or processes which we know about. This is possible. An absolute Russell-Whitehead level of a TOE in physics is probably not.
T H Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 04:38 GMT
That was an excellent summary of Chaitin. Fundamentally, as he demonstrated, if a certain degree of randomness exists even in arithmetic, programmed calculations of physical phenomena on a physical substrate have a built in error similar to the unpredictability of a coin toss. Most numbers are unknown to us anyway, and are likely to remain so; Chaitin's number, OTOH -- the halting probability of a Turing machine -- is "maximally unknowable."
I was at a conference a few years ago where Chaitin was a plenary speaker. At the Q & A afterward, a young woman began, "I'm not a mathematician, but I want to thank you ..." and then asked her question. Chaitin began his reply, "I knew you weren't a mathematician, or you wouldn't be thanking me ..." :-)
show all replies (30 not shown)
Peter van Gaalen replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 19:10 GMT
It is great that you are on this forum, it really matters if there are FQXI members present. And indeed it seems that you are the only member participating.
"According to Gregory Chaitin, a theory of everything is impossible anyway". A theory of almost everything (TOAE) will also do :). (And I mean that).
T H Ray,
"Kurt Gödel published his famous Incompleteness Theorem, which states that in every mathematical theory, no matter how extensive, there will always be statements which can't be proven to be true or false."
The interesting thing is if the statements in a mathematical theory that can't be logically proven to be true or false, if those statements can be empirically proven to be true by means of experiment.
In former days there where analoguous computers. They did contain concrete information in their cybernetical structure. Today most of the computers are discrete computers using bits 0 and 1. The abstract information is in the code.
If perfect theories are out of reach, then we can always try to develop imperfect theories that will also do.
Back in the late 1980s I was at a conference where Chaitan spoke and had a few lunch conversations with him on the axiom of choice. I was interested at the time in using the Banach-Tarski theorem as a way of looking at QFT issues. Chaitan stated he "didn't belive this stuff," but the alternative is an unpleasant sort of set theory IMO. I did work out around that time how Chaitan's idea of the Halting probability is involved with QM with sets of Stern-Gerlach experiments and a "no-go" on hidden variables.
There will never be a complete unification of mathematics. With physics all we can ever hope for is an effective theory which incorporates the issues I mention above. There will of course always be outstanding issues, and further observation may reveal some "substratum" to the universe which renders our unification (effective theory) terribly incomplete.
Thanks Lawrence.
Yes. Chaitin has said that it may be some time (50 years, I think--I can't remember exactly) before we decide how to do mathematics. The experimental program, and even algortihmic information theory itself, are really both quite young.
I don't think Chaitin's program can accept any nonconstructive proof, such as the classic set-theoretic proof of Banach-Tarski.
However, it is not beyond imagination that there are constructive proofs of B-T and other classical theorems that don't appeal to the axiom of choice. I realize I am out on a limb here, but I outlined such a proof in my unpublished paper, "On breaking the time barrier" (pg. 32 S2.2), InterJournal archive. If equidecomposable balls possess intrinsic characteristics that allow the construction of two equal volume spheres (i.e., sets of equal cardinality in the classic sense), we could have an algebraic mathematical model of physically expanding space that preserves the basic idea of the general relativity model of the universe (finite but unbounded). Hopefully this would satisfy Einstein's demand that continuous functions be described without boundary conditions, if the universe really is quantum mechanical. And importantly, the algebraic model would yield to precise computability.
(BTW, if anyone is put off by the title, my paper is not about time travel. It refers to analytic continuation of a time metric into hyperspace.)
The BT theorem, sometimes called a paradox, involves an infinite number of group rotations on a 5-fold decomposition of a sphere, and then the subsequent reconstruction. I have a book by wagon on this subject, though I have to admit it has been quite some time since I thought about this. Chaitan's objection boils down to the fact the BT theorem is not something which is Turing computed. In some sense this seems to get into the debate over continuum and discrete structures.
The AC is one of those Godelian undecidable statements, which is why it is treated as an axiom in the ZF set theory. One is free to work in either setting, as one wants. A not-AC set theory has elements of game theory as I understand it, which is a perfectly reasonable form of mathematics. Though there are some funny elements to this as a set theory. So we might imagine a situation where there is a sort of "oracle logic" which turns AC on or off. This oracle logic could be quantum mechanics.
The set of N Stern-Gerlach measurements has 2^N possible binary outcomes in the spin measurement. We can invoke Chaitan's halting probability to state that the number of these binary strings which are computable (halting etc) becomes a small measure of this set as N --> ∞. So a proposition there is some dynamics to the outcome of spin measurements (hidden variables) should be reducible from all of these binary strings as computed propositions of this statement. Clearly such is not possible. So we might then imagine this as being a proposition on some well ordering of elements or sets, which is not demonstrable --- there are in a physical setting no variables which "compute" subquantal information.
Food for thought maybe,
Good food for thought indeed.
The question of finite constructibility is crucial to making B-T tractable to computer analysis. Hence Chaitin's objection. If there is no proof that equidecomposability of the ball implies two spheres of equal volume, without infinite steps, the theorem remains useless to physical science. We can't truncate the computing process to get arbitrarily close to an answer (as e.g., computing the digits of pi or sqrt2)because the volume of the ball is bounded.
If getting 2 for 1 is merely a trick of the axiom of choice, it's recreational mathematics.
My own opinion, however, is that deeper principles apply, and AC can be discarded. As you say, well ordering as a first principle (by AC, Zorn's lemma or other equivalent propositions) is not physically demonstrable. My approach is to assume that nature is well ordered from hyperspace and work backward, so to speak. I.e., just as we 3 dimensional creatures with 4-dimensional brain-minds arrive at statistical results (e.g., central limit, and regression to the mean) by sampling large numbers of time-dependent events, nature arrives at order by sampling large numbers of hyperspatial events.
Maybe there is some sort of renormalization theory lurking here. The theory is proven with an infinite number of decompositions. Suppose we look at this as a Kleinian group system, where there is a limit point that defines a coset. This limit point is then a sequence of finite numbers of decompositions, which might for any n-decompositions is equivalent to n' decompositions for any n' > n. In this way the theory of decompositions might have some finite description without "infinity," but where in the limit the cut off does go to infinity (becomes Kleinian and AC) that structure is inhereted in the finite theory properly regularized this way.
Yes, Lawrence, normalizing on the two-sphere shell as the zeroth member of the order of n-dimensional kissing spheres (therefore 1, in 4 dimensions) is my fundamental approach. This allows a well order into hyperspace, and dissipation of the time metric on a self avoiding random walk.
Most exciting to me, though, is that this normalizing scheme is not by hand, but derived from first principles.
I think that physics which underlies strings is quantum code theory based on sphere packing. Strings are really then topological knots in a skyrmion type of theory, and branes similar on higher dimensions. The spheres or "atoms" are Planck units of volume.
I am not sure it this connects with this above discussion. The duplication of spheres would be some sort of further underlying theory. In the above the symmetries (quantum codes) are defined in a polytopic unit larger than the Planck volume. The Planck spheres are in a sense a single "letter" in the coding lattice. Maybe as one approaches the Planck scale at some point it become ambiguous as to how many Planckian volumes exist, which could potentially be understood by BT sphere duplication.
The connection is very immediate, Lawrence. What I show (my "time barrier" paper) is that the 4-dimension horizon is identical to the 10 dimension limit.
Because the Banach-Tarski construction is indifferent to volume preservation in any particular invariant dimension set, it really doesn't matter, in terms of n-dimension euclidean sphere kissing numbers, the internal volume of elements of the sphere kissing group in a given dimension. I show (pp 24--34) that the 10 dimensional external manifold is closed, while the internal plane is open (by fixed point hyperbolic projection), allowing network fixed point properties of connected manifolds in a self similar network. Fundamentally, a limiting radius in 10 dimensions forces duplication of 4 dimension spheres. (Thus, extra dimensions are not indetectably compactified; they are inherently nonlocal, consistent with quantum field theory.)
The conclusion supports time-dependent, organic, analytical continuation of physical space with hyperspace. Ultimately, this means that all of physics is generated by the feedback effects of dimensional self organization,communicated in nonlocal string vibrations on a cosmic supersymmetric string of n-dimensional projective Lebesgue measure length 1, originating in 10 dimensions. Whether we speak of 1 dimensional strings or 2 dimensional branes, a fixed length 1 measure in hyperspace lives on the boundaries of kissing spheres, measure zero. The approach to length 1 is asymptotic, n-dimensional dissipative (n > 4) implying that gravitational energy increases in proportion to nearness to the zero limit of length 1 and decreases to infinity over the order of sphere kissing groups (inverse square law).
Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 18, 2010 @ 13:42 GMT
Dear Tom,
E-Infinity #3 said "Irrationality of Phi is expressed by the fact that the fraction expansion involves only unity. In other words this is 1 divided by 1 plus 1 and 1 is divided again by 1 plus 1 and so on indefinitely. At infinity the result is the golden mean."
IMHO, this shares similarities with your statement "Whether we speak of 1 dimensional strings or 2 dimensional branes, a fixed length 1 measure in hyperspace lives on the boundaries of kissing spheres, measure zero. The approach to length 1 is asymptotic, n-dimensional dissipative (n > 4) implying that gravitational energy increases in proportion to nearness to the zero limit of length 1 and decreases to infinity over the order of sphere kissing groups (inverse square law)."
My models involve simplices which also imply the importance of Kissing Spheres.
I don't pretend to understand what E infinity is all about, so I can't reply directly to the similarity you suggest.
I can only say that what I mean by a fraction of length 1 in hyperspace, is that the fraction represents the total energy content of each dimension kissing set in relation to infinite dimension unity.
What I found was that on the 3 dimensional shell of 4 dimension spacetime, the energy was approximately 2.29% of cosmic length 1 (IOW, the cosmic bound energy would make the dimension value 4.0229 ...) in the zeroth member (3 dimensions) of the n-dimensional Euclidean kissing order (0.0229...). So the normalized order 1 (4 dimensions) of our Lebesgue measure universe has a dimension 1.0459... which means that the total energy content 4.59% of cosmic length 1 represents all the (baryonic) matter content necessary to account for inertial effects as observed. So what does WMAP data show for total baryonic content? -- 4.59% of the universe's total energy and matter. Exactly.
It is important to know that I did not insert these values by hand. They are derived by calculation, from first principles.
Paper attached.
I have gotten behind on my reading lately. It looks like I need to catch up with your ideas. I'm not saying that El Naschie's E-Infinity theory is correct. I'm saying that you and I have ideas that may be remotely related to El Naschie's E-Infinity. A year ago, I suggested to Steve Dufourny that he should look into fractal sphere packing. After all, he is fully committed to Spheres already.
The equation for the Golden Mean, phi is: phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0, therefore numerical approximations for phi sound similar to your assymptotic approach to length 1. However, you and I take different approaches from El Naschie and have developed different important numbers.
Argh. I am such an idiot with these links. Here again:
Ray, you could be right. I just don't know what "fractal sphere packing" means, or what Steve means at all by "sphere" -- his claims, which I don't even grasp in the first place, aren't accompanied by a mathematical theory, that I've seen.
Here is the iterative approach towards phi (see attached pdf - math is the universal language). This is not my original idea. I think I saw something like this in one of El Naschie's papers. If you approximate "..." with the number "1", then this builds ratios of Fibonacci's Sequence, which are well-known to converge on phi:
phi ~ 2/1, 3/2, 5/3, 8/5, 13/8, 21/13, 34/21, ... -> 1.618034... OR
(phi)^(-1) ~ 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/8, 8/13, 13/21, ... -> 0.618034...
attachments: phi.pdf
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 13:06 GMT
He oh THRAY?
I have nothing to do with you, thus forget me please , thanks.
You are a comic and that's all , vanitious and if you do not understand what is my THEORY OF SPHERIZATION , thus ask logic questions if you can or perhaps study still and always ,No but I dream you are jaleous or what, my work is serious thus do not confound, It's not my false.
No but I dream, return at school if you don't see the spheres , the circles, the toris, the spiral, the elipse, and all the realism .
You want maths HERE AND NOW .....ASK LOGIC MATH QUESTIONS AND I WILL ANSWER YOU.We shall see the asks and the answers here in total transparence.
OR FORGET ME(do not use my name, it's a kind of real respect, i have no time to loose with these stupidities of babby.
I don't get your point, Ray. Of course, I know that the Fibonacci sequence converges to phi. The discovery long predates El Naschie, though.
I am waiting , I am waiting real asks with real maths tools.
All that is hallucinating.
If this thread is about maths , me I am the queen of England.
If to use maths tools is the solution, that becomes ironic about the real physicality, you know the gravitation and the thermodynamics.
Never you speak about real physics, you confound all .....
No but I dream , SPEAK ABOUT GENERALITY AND NOT THESE LOCAL STUPIDITIES PLEASE ,.....
I am trying to connect with what your paper with coding systems, such as in 3 dimensions the 6 connects with the hexacode. Towards the end I recognize some basic sphere packing results, such as Conway & Sloane. If you could write a brief overview of this it might be helpful. There are a number of things which seem very strange, such as equation 5.
Hi Lawrence,
Fundamentally, I am getting to how inertia is encoded into a universe whose Omega mass is 1 (on the boundary between open and closed). So my theory is classical, with quantum theoretic properties of uncertainty and nonlocality extended to the inertial universe.
Eqn 5 describes how mass points exchange energy in proportion to mass, time and distance, in terms of complex...
Eqn 5 describes how mass points exchange energy in proportion to mass, time and distance, in terms of complex analysis. Every point of space has a unique escape velocity, which changes continuously. I have taken the distance-time measure of special relativity, c^2, and converted it to sqrt c^2, which is of course, c. This means that the 4-dimension Minkowski space of general relativity is reduced to a 2-dimension complex space, with the result that the real part (of complex number a + bi) is zero. IOW, if we speak of the Riemannian geometry that produces a 4 dimensional Pythagorean Theorem, the square root of the diagonal will be incommensurate with the sum of the sides of the triangle, same as in the 2 dimension Euclidean version. Then, with mass points exchanging energy, the asymmetric relation (differing escape velocities) between any two points will produce a ratio a + bi/a + bi that is real and nonzero, even though the real part of each vector is zero. In quantum theoretic terms, the energy exchange is instantaneous (quantum jump). In classical terms, observers at rest from each vector will experience identical elapsed time.
Reconciling elapsed time with imaginary time, then, necessarily extends calculation to the complex plane, because the nonlocal communication between points is asymmetric; i.e., when we convert what I term Psi radii, to area (Psi(r^2))we find that the areas are incommensurate between vectors, which suggests that information has been lost; imagine that the two slit experiment were conducted simultaneously between two observers, and that the interference patterns received at each node were slightly different.
Now, if we are going to assume that Omega is 1 (as observation so far bears out), then the information that is lost when we sum the forces of gravitation over the entire universe must be very slight; these areas of uncertainty (as I call them) between bodies are small in relation to their mass and large escape velocities. Nevertheless, the slightly open/slightly closed universe (if we accept conservation of mass/energy) has to keep account. So if mass-energy is conserved, information defined as physically real (Shannon) is entropic, dissipative.
That's where the sphere kissing enters. We find that the four dimension group with kissing number 24 is normal 1 in the kissing order, as an integral value. When one inserts, however, my epsilon term (derivation found in ICCS 2006, eqns 4 & 5) for nonintegral values in the kissing order, I hope that it's clear that the decreasing nonintegral values compared to integral values for each dimension group represents n-dimensional dissipative information, n > 4. The significance of this I explained to Ray in an earlier post, this thread, April 18 15:05.
Still maths without real physicality ...an imaginary time here, an extradimension there,....a Rienmann here...Euclid here....commutativity, associativity .....you can compute that and that's all,always the referential is false and like the physical referential is all...thus all is false, sorry I just says my opinion.
A minkowski here , a complex there...a time machine also No?,,,,,
Your serie is false
You referential is false
Your foundamentals are falses
Your substitutions are falses because you do not undertsnad the physicality , the relativity, and the gravitation more the evolution thus you do not understand the mass ,....
Even for the kissing spheres problem, it's far of the real entanglement.
Indeed the main central sphere is the biggest volume and the serie is the same than the number of cosmological spheres.
Attention I speak about 1 quantum system....furthermore the evoluition implies a specific entanglement where lattices between spheres evolve, and the volume decreases in the fractal serie....thus always false your idea.Because you do not insert the real number and the real volumes....
Tom et al,
The lattice systems in the foundations of physics I see somewhat differently I suppose. Quantum codes emerge from sphere packing with the Hamming distance. For instance the E_8 lattice (Gosset lattice) has the Hamming [8, 5, 3] and [8, 4, 4]. The second of these defines a Hilbert space structure by the self duality on the 4-lattices. These sublattices in four dimensions are...
The lattice systems in the foundations of physics I see somewhat differently I suppose. Quantum codes emerge from sphere packing with the Hamming distance. For instance the E_8 lattice (Gosset lattice) has the Hamming [8, 5, 3] and [8, 4, 4]. The second of these defines a Hilbert space structure by the self duality on the 4-lattices. These sublattices in four dimensions are the 24-cell, with an so(9) symmetry in the B_4 representation or in more generality the F_4 lattice. This lattice is a system of Hurwitz quaternions and the so(9) structure is related to the holographic system for the "Galilean string" in 10 – 1 dimensions, reduced on the light cone or infinite momentum frame. The first of these structures involves a 5-lattice and co-lattice in 3 dimensions. The 5-lattice is a tessellation of a D5-brane, and the dual D3-brane has a boundary in 2 dimensions. The D5-brane is the NS5-brane and the 2 dimensional brane is the M2-brane.
There is a higher system, which is the Leech lattice Λ_{24} with the Mathieu code M_{24}, a sporadic group. This is formed from a Jacobi θ-function perspective from three octonions or E_8's. These three octonions in a supersymmetric setting define a Jordan matrix system in 27 dimensions, with the addition of three scalar fields. In terms of the Hamming system there are [24, 8, 5] and [24, 12, 12] as most relevant. The first of these is a Steiner system which defines 759 octads. The second of these again defines a Hilbert space according to H_4 lattices, which are the 120 and 600 cells for the icosian system of quaternions. These self-dual sublattices define [4, 2, 2], which is a Hamming code for a spacetime structure with holographic structure --- such as the AdS spacetime. In fact a tessellation of the H_4 defines an anti de Sitter spacetime.
The Leech system is the spatial portion of the 26-dimensional spacetime, where one of the three scalars in the Jordan matrix algebra is constrained by a light cone gauge. The subsequent two scalars can have either (time, space) or (time, time) interpretation, or a Lorentzian or AdS setting. The Leech lattice does define a Golay (Mathieu) coding system. The additional two define a projective variety system. This is another code system called the Goppa code, which in the 26-dimensions is a fibration with the Golay code.
The importance of these coding systems is to arrive at a complete understanding how quantum information is preserved. The holographic theory or black hole complementarity indicates that information is preserved, but as yet there is not a scattering matrix theory for this. The holographic theory is an S-matrix theory for the exterior set of strings near a black hole horizon. As yet this is not fully tied to the complementary theory for what an observer falling with the string observes. The string becomes tied to the interior D3-brane with M2-brane boundaries or which define a "stack" in the D3-brane. This connects with the end of the first paragraph. The relationship involves modular forms, which I will not go into at great depth here. However, the two S-matrix theories, one for an observer watching a string from outside and one for the observer falling with the string, are related to each other by modular systems. Both the Golay code M_{24} and the Goppa codes are "modular." The first is modular according the Jacobi θ-functions and the Goppa code is modular as an elliptic curve system. The modularity for the Goppa code is a manifestation of the Tanayama-Shimura theorem proven by Wiles in the mid 1990s --- modular forms are elliptic curves.
Most of the work I have been doing has been to work up the physical concepts which lead to these constructions.
Dear Lawrence,
Are we dealing with 8-D octonions and 4-D quaternions, or are we dealing with a 4-D complex twisted pair of quantions (two (1,3,3,1) symmetries) rather than a 4-D quaternion (one (1,4,6,4,1) symmetry with different algebraic properties)?
Also, I think the phase transition that produced Inflation may have also produced Scale Invariance. Until we better understand Inflation, we should not exclude this possibility.
The Leech lattice is the system of the Jordan matrix model. The three E_8 in a supersymmetric setting construct the tesselation of the H_4 from the E_8's. The tessellated H_4 is an anti de Sitter spacetime which is equivalent to an N = 4 supersymmetric conformal field theory. The three E_8 in the J^3(O) are framed in a supersymmetric setting, one E_8 contains the vector fields and the other two the spinor field and conjugate.
I think we are going to the same place, from opposite directions.
My approach is classical. By that, I mean that the vacuum energy is assumed unitary, and the theory that follows from that assumption explains broken symmetry in our familiar four dimensional spacetime. This is a direct answer to Einstein's challenge, that one who wishes to successfully describe reality as other than a 4 dimension continuous field has to have an algebraic explanation.
The final paragraph to Appendix II, "Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field," from Einstein, 1956, The Meaning of Relativity, reads: "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory."
I appreciate the mathematics of geometric symmetry; however, I consider that these structures are the frozen outcomes of dynamic energy transfer in continuous spacetime, not the cause of physical phenomena. After all, there could be a practically infinite variety of shapes that satisfy solutions to observed physical action. That's the problem with string theory -- too many solutions.
When one considers a unitary spacetime as the only physically real component of creation, energy/mass is created by dynamic interaction between the vacuum and its "holes," with the size of the holes determining the mass. So I fundamentally agree with relativistic quantum field theory and its string theory extension to n dimensions.
Extra dimensions are necessary to impart an algebraic model to the phenomena, because we can't describe discrete masses nor field boundaries between them without that algebraic order. However, I think that the model itself is the effect of that underlying order, not the cause. That is, nothing but the gravitational engine itself drives evolution of elementary particles and any structures they may form at any scale; self organized space and time are entirely sufficient. At the end of the day, I think that the final theory (or as near it as we can come) cannot be other than a continuous field theory with supersymmetry.
Supersymmetric particles, however, need have only field properties, if they exist (so to speak) on the "other side" of the time metric, which is a 2-dimensional field of imaginary time, not a 1-dimensional metric of real time.
The role of complex numbers in quantum physics is extended to higher Cayley numbers. C = 2^n, for n = 0, 1, 2, 3 defines respectively the reals, complex numbers, quaternions and octonions. The reals are fairly well understood, and the complex numbers are really a pair of real numbers with a multiplication rule. The real numbers in physics exhibit a huge range of structure and define classical mechanics. The real structure may be extended into various types of variables, including those which are matrices. This leads to symplectic structure or {q, p} = 1 for Poisson brackets, and the Lagrangian-Hamiltonian forms of classical mechanics. This is very complex an elegant physics which describes a huge range of physics. This leads of course to quantum mechanics, where the Poisson bracket is replaced by [q, p] = iħ. The momentum and position variables define the generator of a complex wave function with θ = pq/ħ and the wave function ψ ~ exp(-iθ). Now the symplectic structure for variables in the reals is replaced with two sets of commuting operators (eg. one position the other momentum), which are not mutually commutative. Of course this describes standard quantum physics and gives the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the whole theory of atomic physics.
Beyond this are the quaterions, which has its origin in the Dirac equation. Now there is a huge range of structure here, and quaterions are really pairs of complex variables. Complex variables stem from i^2 = -1 = exp(iπ) and quaterions extend this to the rule
I^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1
Quaterions describe quantum fields and are important for particle physics with fermions and with supersymmetry. This then leads further to octonions. Quaterions are noncommutative variables with respect to directions. In fullest generality operators corresponding to x_i and x_j will obey [x_i, x_j] = ω_{ijk}x_k, where ω_{ijk} = ω(G, ħ, c)_{ijk} has a quantum mechanical content with gravitation. Now this noncommutative structure maybe more generalized to nonassociative structure. This structure is not at all well understood, but we might consider the following. Two quantum groups, or quaterionic systems, G and G' may describe fields or strings with a black hole according to different observers. An observer at a fixed distance from a black hole will observe a string falling towards a black hole to exhibit very different physics from an observer who falls in with the string. The S-matrices involved with these two groups have different domains of causal support and are thus in a general sense not commensurate. This map between different quantum groups (braid groups) is an associator, which in a general setting has an underlying octonionic structure.
So this is sort of the "ladder" up from classical physics to the quantum realm, up further to quantum fields and potentially up to holographic quantum gravity.
hihihihi I catalyze I CATALYZE THE MATHS BUT IS IT TRUE ,,,,????
T H Ray wrote on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 16:27 GMT
Here's a nice article on the subject:
Chaitin
The Math Factor did a great interview with Chaitin that just recently got uploaded but seems to only be available if you subscribe through iTunes (for some reason it's not on the main Math Factor website). It's about an hour long, but it is definitely worth listening to. The interview was done about three years ago but was not posted until recently.
Thanks for that interview source. I had no difficulty downloading it to my Mac, and will look forward to listening.
I was fascinated, when I heard Chaitin speak in person, by his ability to hold forth and hold attention for 20 or 30 minutes without notes or visual aids, on a highly technical topic to an audience of widely varied degrees of mathematical knowledge.
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Apr. 17, 2010 @ 09:23 GMT
thanks for the link to the article about Omega and for the hint to the interesting interview with Gregory Chaitin. I found it as streaming media on http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail?pid=18637 .
My proposal for the upcoming essay contest would be the tension between
As far as i can see, Omega has no redundance in it which can be reduced to a finite theory to generate Omega step-by-step with arbitrary accuracy. Our world, including maths, obviously can be reduced/compressed in large parts to describe seemingly different phenomena (to arbitrary accuracy?). Are these phenomena only examples/instances where the halting problem doesn't occur? What connections are there between the definition of Omega and the many-world-interpretation of QM?
The Chaitan halting probability Ω with physics probably involves issues such as renormalization group flows and whether or not the cosmological constant on the so called "landscape" is Turing computable, or whether there is some probability for there being a halting procedure for computing it. In a quantum cosmological setting a particular cosmology (a universe in the so called multiverse) has its Λ set on the landscape by the random occurrence of the inflaton field on a false vacuum. Is this in some ways computable, or is there some bound on the halting probability for this being a computable outcome for a cosmology? In this sense the fine tuning problem might be a manifestation of a halting probability for a quantum computer (a quantum cosmological computer), with a bounded QP algorithmic structure to compute a particular outcome --- such as what we observe.
I think that's fairly close to the question of the nature of mathematics which, ultimately, is at the heart of physics as well.
Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 17, 2010 @ 09:58 GMT
Hi Fqxi,
A very interesting idea is to focus on the study of water and fire for example,
The water is fascinating , this gravitational stability is fascinating .
that becomes tedious , oh my god that becomes tedious , they turn in round .
FQXi Makes something , people comes and after return because that becomes tedious , et tatata et tatati et tatata , I think people prefers the quest of their system and the whole is forgotten .....that becomes tedious .
A little of creativity dear fqxi a little of creativity, hihihi
jbg wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 08:26 GMT
this is a very inspiring endeavour. as a result, i found myself compiling a list of additional questions relating to foundational aspects of reality, next to some of the more stranger things that reality harbours (e.g., life and consciousness;-).
unfortunately, the list got a bit long and somewhat idiosyncratic, so i decided to stick it in a blog post: a few questions...
Lots of questions...One that I liked especially was "why does macro-reality appear so well-ordered whilst the quantum realm is so bizarre?"
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 23, 2010 @ 07:39 GMT
your list of questions is very deep-asking and provoking in one or the other way.
One question i asked myself by reading your list, is, if most of your/our questions could ever get a *scientific* answer. My feeling is that possible answers to most of these questions will remain forever in the domain of subjective speculation. The next question is, why could this be the case? (the question *which* of your questions could belong to this subjective domain would be in my opinion a very interesting subject for further discussion here).
My personal opinion why most of those questions could belong to the subjective domain, is, because the main tool of scientific reasoning - logics - is self-restricting in a Gödel/Chaitin-sense. With logic one can never explore if there exists a level of meaning that transcends logic. Logic cannot give a definite answer to this question - or could it nonetheless?
If you talk to Bob Griffiths (developer of the consistent histories approach to QM), it's the classical world that looks weird.
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 11:45 GMT
I agree with Griffiths. Quantum mechanics is really a nice simple theory with linear waves, Hermitian and unitary operators and so forth. How this gives rise to a large scale classical world is strange. Quantum mechanics appears strange because we observe it from a classical or macroscopic perspective.
Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 02:24 GMT
I already voted, but I would like to add some questions to be considered for next essay.
Why does math work when describing physical phenomena?
Do we agree that physics is just descriptive / prdictive and it should never ask/answer why?
(math shows how, never why).
Isn't it that finding "what the universe is made of" is as pointless as finding the name of God?
(each religion and language has several names for God)
The topics where there some how already but nevertheless I like more agresive questions.
And by the way, when will the contest begin?
I agree you say
math shows how, never why.
indeed indeed
After reading the previous posts a more fundamental question comes to mind.
Which are the fundations of physics we all agree?
"How space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy" is DiMeglio's idea from the prior essay contest -- Jonathan Dickau liked it alot, remember?
Jonathan Dickau wrote that it is "right on".
Christian Corda said DiMeglio's essay was "philosophically excellent".
Remember Florin twisting things and lying outright in the last essay contest.
For Florin M. to speak of a TOE is a joke. Florin doesn't even know or properly understand what the fundamentals are, to begin with, to speak of a TOE (theory of everything).
Ray, you do not have DiMeglio's and Corda's background, abilities, and knowledge either.
C'mon Frank. Be a man and put your name on these silly blogs. We all have different backgrounds. I have a Doctorate in High Energy Physics. Isn't this blog supposed to be about foundational questions in Physics? Nonetheless - I am not criticizing your background. I am criticizing your presentation. I hope that you have at least read (and preferably studied) Klingman's ideas. I honestly think that is one way to present your ideas in a more scientific manner.
You are a delusional crackpot and a liar. Dr. Corda never endorsed your so-called theories from the scientific point of view, but only as science fiction. I am glad I got to expose your academic dishonesty. You filled your posts with insults, lies, and victimization poses. You don't even have the guts to sign your posts, but everyone here already recognizes you even as anonymous.
Lawrence Crowell initially said that he did not see why or how DiMeglio's essay -- that the dream demonstates space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy -- is wrong. Indeed, Lawrence further stated in writing that he hoped DiMeglio's essay was not correct.
Ray, that is your idol talking.
Frank - During the essay contest, I gave a half-serious, half-smart-alec response to your questions, and *SOMEONE* (I assumed it was you) simultaneously gave me a '1'. I warned Lawrence to be careful answering you - that you had a potentially malicious vote. I thought that Lawrence's answer was brilliant - he 'out-Franked' the real Frank Martin, and yet he also recieved a '1' vote shortly thereafter. My scores later surged and I was in 5th place prior to the judges' scoring. Unfortunately, Lawrence's scores never recovered. I think you were jealous that Lawrence could write better 'Dream' non-sense than you.
The past is the past. Neither one of us won that last contest, and being beligerant towards each other probably hurt everyone involved. I'm serious though - you need to read Klingman's ideas. If you don't understand his ideas on the first read-through, then read it again and again until you mostly understand his ideas. His idea was as 'odd' as yours, but he understands how to present real Physics.
Thanks Ray for jogging my memory. I had no idea what "anonymous" was writing about. I did try to politely skirt the issue as I recall.
Frank DiMeglio reminds me of L Ron Hubbard, both in the nature of what he proposes and in his behavior. For those who are not aware L Ron was a science ficiton writer who converted his stories and his "Dianetics" theory of psychology into a type of religion, called Scientology. His Dianetics theory was deemed complete hogwash by the psychological community. During the estate settlement his estranged son declared something to the effect, "98% of what L Ron Hubbard ever said was a lie."
I can't say whether Frank is of this sort entirely, but he seems to think he gets endorsements from people, when in fact they are nothing of the sort.
DiMeglio is anonymous because FQXi says his ideas are not credible.
Maxwell and Bacon wrote on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
"...the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter"
"..., all perceptions, both of sense and mind, are relative to man, not to the universe."
The interactive nature of thought, gravity, feeling, and electromagnetism/light escapes you all at FQXi.
The range and extensiveness of feeling is central to any unified theory of physics. Did you know that?
We need DiMeglio at FQXi, like him or not. He is a genius of the highest order from what I can tell. Steve is right, he is a universalist in his thinking. That type of thinking is super valuable and very rare.
Anonymous replied on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 00:31 GMT
Thank you again anonymous for your support at this crucial moment. I understand how immensely important it is that I participate in the next essay contest. I will not let you down.
The next essay contest should be about advancing/developing the idea that the dream merges and balances electromagnetism/light and gravity. Although this idea is a proven fact, it is of the greatest significance.
DiMeglio does outsmart himself.
Don Limuti(www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 01:03 GMT
I second Brendan's suggested question: "why does macro-reality appear so well-ordered whilst the quantum realm is so bizarre?"
And another good question is: "Exactly when is this contest going to begin?"
The question was asked by user jbg, not me.
When begin---It will be later this spring.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 22:00 GMT
There is yet so much that we, the physics community, do not understand. Quantum Mechanics is an advanced guessing game that they call information. Entropic gravity means that information attracts other information. I think it is becoming clear that we've reached our limit of understanding.
I say that we have not just now reached the level of our understanding. I say that our level of understanding was reached as soon as we began to guess about the nature or natures of cause. There are many missing answers that go way back.
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 03:42 GMT
It's hard to determine "cause" for physics. It's a very integrated system which makes it hard to find a "first cause". In spite of this, I do have some ideas. Particularly, the Discrete Field Model.
James Putnam replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 14:58 GMT
It looks like our last two messages have disappeared. They both had to do with mass. We have different views there and that is fine. With regard to my message about cause; I meant that all causes are guesses. The idea of introducing causes into theory introduces artificial stopping points in learning. I have said enough here in these forums and blogs to recognize that this viewpoint doesn't attract interest. The same thing happened with my message about mass and units of measurement. Anyway, I think you write interesting messages. It is good to have people looking in different directions.
show all replies (114 not shown)
For the life of me, I can't find your other message. I spend 30 minutes looking for it. I even copied the whole topic to MS notepad and searched for keywords, it's lost. I think if an FQXI Administrator had edited it out on purpose, he would have documented that: "such and such post was deleted because I didn't like it"; or something like that. I'm guessing it got lost or...
For the life of me, I can't find your other message. I spend 30 minutes looking for it. I even copied the whole topic to MS notepad and searched for keywords, it's lost. I think if an FQXI Administrator had edited it out on purpose, he would have documented that: "such and such post was deleted because I didn't like it"; or something like that. I'm guessing it got lost or deleted by accident.
"The idea of introducing causes into theory introduces artificial stopping points in learning. I have said enough here in these forums and blogs to recognize that this viewpoint doesn't attract interest. " What could be more important that Cause? ... why? I was raised by my mother who was heavily entrenched into occultism and mysticism. Most intelligent people dismiss such ideas as being evolutionary firmware for the brain that fools our sense. But I'm one of the few highly intelligent persons who (1) does not suffer from schizophrenia and (2) has stood face to face with entities that are not supposed to exist.
CAUSE is extremely important to me. What causes these experiences? I regularly ask for help and assistance from disembodied intelligences; I make it a point to only work with those who are honorable and work within the framework of the Golden Rule. I like to be able to sleep at night, knowing that, whatever might be around me, it's trying to help me. I don't want anyone or anything to bring chaos into my life. I have no time for chaos.
Entropic gravity is a new level of the elaborate guessing game of physics. They say that information entropy causes gravity. I can't seem to get anyone to tell me exactly what kind of information they mean. But somehow, black-holes have 1's and 0's on their surface, and they call that holographic gravity.
I'm not knocking them for it. We are just very far away from what is solid and easily definable. We are exploring a conceptual landscape.
My point is this: determining the cause allows you to make progress; it's the ability to get results that nobody else can. To be bluntly clear, if I ask for help in physics from God, spirits and other dis-embodied intelligences, most intelligent people would expect my results to be confusion as I get lost in nonsense and gibberish. However, I have achieved results as follows:
1. shown that time travel must be impossible because it violates energy conservation.
2. Many worlds interpretation must be impossible because it violates energy conservation.
3. Faster than light propulsion DOES NOT lead to time travel; that is a fundamental misunderstanding of GR.
4. Astronomers look at light from far away stars, which is an image of the past. Even if we could travel FTL, we wouldn't be able to change the past of anything.
5. Alcubierre hyperdrive is energetically unfeasible. We can't just convert planets, stars and universes so we can trek around the galaxy.
6. Proper Hyper-drive physics requires a more reasonable use of energy. This forces us to consider/look for/hope for the existence of a faster space-time, a hyper space.
7. Messier 87, a huge and powerful galaxy 60 million light years away, has been emitting a jet of energy that appears to travel superluminally. Skeptics try to explain it away as being along our line of sight; however, it turns out that these jets, on average, not along our line of sight. Some jets clock a 9c.
Cause leads you to what is real. I think that non physical intelligences exist. If I am right, then I can ask them for help. I have, and I have gotten results. Very good results. My results are so good that nobody here on this blog wants to debate me. But I love to debate...
If you correctly identify the cause, you can figure out how to use it, how to correctly work with it. You can get results. You can demonstrate those results in real ways, like winning debates.
I believe your message about mass referred to mass as something substantive that exhibits resistance to force? My response was to identify mass as the property of resistance to force. Matter resists force. Mass is the reason why. Mass is that property of matter that causes matter to resist force. When we finally learn why matter resists force, then we will learn what mass is.
When I challenge the credibility of theoretical guesses about what cause is, I am speaking only about theoretical physics. I am only confronting the mechanical ideas about what cause is. They are all theoretical guesses. We only learn about patterns in effects. Effects are all that we observe. If we could show that all effects are due to a single primary cause, then we would have only one unknown. No matter what the theory is, we will always have that one unknown, mechanically speaking that is.
However, what I see as having occurred is that there are patterns of effects that, we identify as being so different from one another that, we conclude they must be due to separate causes. In other words, our lack of understanding leaves us unable to see fundamental unity in the patterns of effects. We then conclude, in order that we may proceed into the unknown without explaining cause, that cause is whatever we need, because we are stymied as to how otherwise proceed, to give theoretical reasons for patterns in effects that appear to be unique. We cannot connect the various patterns together, so we conclude that it is due to the existence of separate fundamental causes.
I say that it is due to our lack of fundamental understanding about the nature of cause. Separate, unique causes are not real fundamental causes, they are evidence of intellectual gaps in our understanding about the operation of the universe. Every one of the causes of theoretical physics is theoretical, meaning artificial. The equations of theoretical physics never contain cause except in the symbolic representation of the equals sign. Initial conditions equal, in other words are caused to change into, final conditions.
I agree that mass resists force in the inertial sense. To me, energy takes different forms. Light (photons) are the electromagnetic form of energy that manifests as a field, it is spread out in space. Matter is a kind of energy that is very localized in space. When considering both gravity and inertia, mass and energy would be interchangeable. They should both generate gravitational forces, they should also both require a certain amount of force to change their inertial frame.
Cause is like a chain that is, on one side, attached to the bumper of a pickup truck, and the other side is wrapped around a stump. So, why did the stump suddenly get pulled out of the ground? Well, if we look, there are several links of a chain that wrap around the stump. Ok, so how did these links of the chain pull the stump out of the ground? Well, those links run, one link to the next, to the bumper of a pickup truck...
In other words, cause can be hidden as links in a chain. If any one of those links are removed, the chain is broken and the cause is removed. Yet one link alone is not sufficient to pull the stump out of the ground.
If you're an ant that lives in the ant pile next to the stump, you can barely comprehend the existence of one link. We are all the ants who are trying to understand the forces that operate in and around us. We need to understand these forces so that we can benefit from these forces.
Georgina Parry replied on May. 4, 2010 @ 23:34 GMT
I like your links in a chain explanation.I think also sometimes it is easy to find a chain of events and give simplistic cause for each event in the chain. Whereas the real situation is far more chaotic and there may be multiple unobserved or unaccounted influences that cause a tipping in a particular direction of change or influence the out come in some way. Assigning this or that as the cause does not mean that it acts in isolation.
To stay with your example, other variables might be condition of stump eg. wood rot, ground conditions, weather conditions, metal fatigue or corrosion of bumper, condition of vehicle engine, gears and tires, experience of operator, enough fuel to operate truck, maybe payment of cash in advance. All of the variables known and unknown must give those spatio-energetic conditions that permit the stump to be extracted.
Certain variables can be controlled in order to give a good probability of desired outcome. They are put into the system of the universe and there is an out come. Hopefully as expected but not always. Only by controlling every single possible variable known and unknown can the out come be certain. You might do every thing right for your stump extraction and then find the truck operator has died of a heart attack. The stump is still in the ground because despite all of your preparation and checks you didn't take the farm hands health on that particular day into consideration.
Dear Georgina,
While imagining the stump in the ground metaphor, I was actually thinking in terms of the ants defending their home. If the driver had a heart attack, I would think that was just blind luck from the point of view of the ants.
But you are right, there are usually a great many things that have to go right in order for something planned to actually manifest. In terms of determining causes within the scope of physics, I guess it depends what you're looking for. If you're looking for an spatio-energetic point of view, then all you have to do is design/describe the right kind of transform that makes it easy to see; perhaps a quaternion model. If you're looking for a hyper-drive, then you have to figure out what is causing space itself function the way we observe it to.
Yes, looking on the bright side, lucky ants.
I think that the chaotic, complex and unpredictable nature of the universe needs to be taken into account as well as having simplified mechanistic models.
Georgina,
Are you being humorous? If the universe is unpredictable, then you can't create a model to predict it. If it's too complex, you also can't make a model that is not incredibly and unproductively complicated. Mother nature has already provided us with a way to account for the chaotic, complex and unpredictalbe nature of the universe. It's called intuition.
GeorginaParry replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 06:02 GMT
No. The ants amused me but I am being serious about chaos.
The complexity can be simplified to give an approximation of what is occurring without being absolutely perfect in detail. It is not possible to map the change in position of every particle in the universe. So a model will be imperfect because of simplification of the complexity. A model is not reality itself it is a representation only. As are our our models of hydrological systems and weather and climate.
It is not possible to predict with absolute certainty because there are many different variables, known and unknown which are all playing their part. We can not use models to see nor control the future. We can only use them to give an indication of what is considered most likely to happen, given the variables that have been input into the model. This means that an unknown variable that has not been input into the model could change the out come completely.
Yes "intuition" or a guess as to what the weather will do in 2 weeks time may be as good or even better than the prediction of the best long range weather forecast model. Numbers in a model are not a real weather system. What happens in the universe has an element of chance or unpredictability due to chaos. That makes it more than a mechanistic clockwork system. There are many possibilities and any slight variation may possibly lead to a different outcome, which falls outside of the prediction based on simplistic mechanistic cause and effect and trends.Imo.
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 10:36 GMT
The complexity is not a correlation with the chaos.
The chaos is only a local perception or a short moment inside a harmonious serie.
We can't say that dear Georgina, the universe is not chaotic, really it's essential even .
The complexity is in the creations, the mass which evolve.
It's a pure road os harmony when we take the gauges and the main referentials, foundamentals furthermore with its intrinsic constants.
The complexity is not the sister of the chaos, it's purely impossible .The chaos is just a human perception and even actions by humans, that's all.These effects never shall interact with the universe in its whole, these causes thus do not exist in an universal point of vue.Thus the chaotic effects thus also do not exist in fact.
Ray Munroe replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 12:45 GMT
Dear Steve and Georgina,
'Chaos' can lead to 'simplicity'. Consider the Lucas numbers: 2, 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 18, 29, 47, ... where
2 = (phi)^0 + (-phi)^(-0) exactly
11 = (phi)^5 + (-phi)^(-5) exactly
29 = (phi)^7 + (-phi)^(-7) exactly, etc.
with phi = (1+SQRT(5))/2 = 1.618034... = Golden Ratio,
with 2+1=3, 1+3=4, 3+4=7, 4+7=11, 7+11=18, 11+18=29, etc.,
and with 4/3 ~ 7/4 ~ 11/7 ~ 18/11 ~ 29/18 ~ ... ~ phi = 1.618034...
Thus, 'fractals' may lead to 'integers', and 'chaos' may lead to 'simplicity'.
You may e-mail me at mm_buyer@comcast.net if you want more details.
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,
The chaos seems just in the locality with a very short moment but never in the whole of the equation.
Could you tell me more please about this serie of Lucas.Why the two in first ?
You said "The chaos seems just in the locality with a very short moment but never in the whole of the equation."
If we introduce scales and scale invariance, then we might require equations that mix powers of phi with like powers (scaled) of the inverse of phi. Thus, the Lucus numbers only make sense in this application if there is a broken symmetry - such as Supersymmetry - that is scaled relative to the symmetry/ Universe that we observe.
You also asked "Could you tell me more please about this series of Lucas. Why the two in first?" Any number raised to the zeroth power is one, so (phi)^0 + (-phi)^(-0) is just a fancy way of writing 1+1=2 within the context of the Lucas pattern that is being defined here. The integer two is strange because 1/2 is not approximately phi, whereas ratios further down the sequence, such as 29/18 = 1.6111... ~ 1.618034... are approximately phi. However, the two is consistent as the zeroth term in the Lucas series within the context of 2+1=3.
Thank you Dr Cosmic Ray,
The series are numerous, Bernouilli, Euler, Fibonacci, Lucas now....many divisions shall give this ratio in fact.
T H Ray replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 16:56 GMT
James, you wrote to Jason "I believe your message about mass referred to mass as something substantive that exhibits resistance to force? My response was to identify mass as the property of resistance to force. Matter resists force. Mass is the reason why. Mass is that property of matter that causes matter to resist force. When we finally learn why matter resists force, then we will learn what mass is."
Einstein answered this long ago, with the equivalence principle. Because inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, mass is what makes smooth spacetime lumpy.
It seems often that when what something "is" has been explained over and over, someone wants to know what "is" means.
You said: "It seems often that when what something "is" has been explained over and over, someone wants to know what "is" means."
Wow, you just cannot seem to lower your eyes far enough to spot lowly me can you?
You said: "Because inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, mass is what makes smooth spacetime lumpy."
Mass is mass. It is not a surprise that it looks the same in different equations. Mass is not a cause. Mass is an effect. That is why it shows up in equations. Cause never shows up in equations unless the theorist is distorting the properties included in the equations. Every cause is represented always and only by the equals sign. Nothing that we have seen or can do will ever effect either pace or time. There is no place on this earth where any physicist has captured and contained either space or time. For that matter, there is no place on this earth where any physicist has captured and contained energy either.
There are no known causes for anything. There are only imagined causes forced into equations, either the left side or the right side, by physicists. The right side is always about initial conditions. The left side is always about final conditions. The means by which initial conditions change into final condtions is represented by the equals sign. No one knows how to explain the power behind the equals sign. The invented forces of theoretical physics are only imaginary. The universe of theoretical physics is only imaginary. If we actually knew anything about why the universe operates as it does, there would be no need for theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of inventing imaginary causes.
James, you wrote, "Wow, you just cannot seem to lower your eyes far enough to spot lowly me can you?"
Don't sell yourself short. I never reply to anyone when it's not worth it. And you always give me something to strongly disagree with. Put it in perspective, though: I disagreed so much with John Horgan's book The End of Science that I read it three times. It was a rich source of personal insights from the world's leading scientists, even though I thought, and think, that Horgan's premise ("ironic science") is completely wrong. As I do yours.
"If we actually knew anything about why the universe operates as it does, there would be no need for theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of inventing imaginary causes."
Theologians and philosophers want to know why. The less ambitious among us are satisfied to know how. And we do know how spacetime affects mass, and vice versa. Those causes and effects are empirical.
You said: "Don't sell yourself short. I never reply to anyone when it's not worth it. And you always give me something to strongly disagree with."
Well I guess I maybe, kinda, sorta, shoulda be thanking you for that back handed compliment; but, I do not sell myself short, others dothat for me all the time.
You said: "Theologians and philosophers want to know why. The less ambitious among us are satisfied to know how. And we do know how spacetime affects mass, and vice versa. Those causes and effects are empirical."
You are mistaken again. You do not know even 'how'. You only know about patterns in effects. Everything else that you think you know is contrived. It is theoretical. It is made up. No one knows what cause is.
James, that you perceive it as a backhanded compliment only further betrays your negative image of your own worth. What do you care what I think, anyway?
Saying that "no one knows what cause is," however, is equivalent to saying that "no one knows what existence is." You got me there.
You said: "James, that you perceive it as a backhanded compliment only further betrays your negative image of your own worth. What do you care what I think, anyway?"
Wow, you are looking even further down. If you do yet understand why you do not see me, it is because I am not down where you are looking.
You said: "Saying that "no one knows what cause is," however, is equivalent to saying that "no one knows what existence is." You got me there."
Everyone nows what existence is. Existence is experience. We experience. We do not know why we experience. No one knows why we experience. With regard to theoretical physics: No one knows how we experience. I repeat that: no one knows what cause is. Your causes are imaginary, in other words, theoretical. What is not imaginary is that we can experience existence. The important question, after we rid ourselves of mechanical theory, is: What is the origin of intelligence?
Your studies can help us solve mechanical type problems. Your science has nothing to offer us with regard to real meaningful existence. It is meaningful existence that is real. Why is it meaningful? It is meaningful because the universe is formed from the property of meaning. How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing against you right now? Why not consider that problem first before claiming mastery over space and time?
This is how it seems to me. Complexity is discernible order on the boundary between that which is so complex it appears disordered and that which has a relatively simple, clearly apparent order. Within that which appears disordered, chaos, there are so many unknown variables, that can not be accounted for, that any change could potentially cause a large difference in outcome. Having said that does not imply that there is -no- order within the chaos.
There are complex patterns of change that appear to be self similar over different scales and these patterns could theoretically be used to understand and make predictions of what -might- happen even within a chaotic system. By looking at the patterns of change rather than individual processes.This is necessarily another human simplification of a more complex natural phenomenon. The model may show one or several different equally possible out comes or probabilities of different possible outcomes, when different values for variables are input. Rather than always one and only one possible outcome.
I agree that there are discernible processes and series of events and rules within the universe that can be used in models that allow some predictions to be made. However there is, imo ,also chaos which makes it more than merely mechanical and totally predictable.
It unfortunate that within the English language chaos has negative connotations. It is considered too disorderly to deal with or cope with. It is considered dangerous because of its unpredictability. Because of that potential for harm and being the opposite of clear order it may be associated with evil. These negative associations have nothing to do with the scientific notion of chaos. It is not a bad thing. It leads to variation, the unexpected, new potential rather than mere mechanical repetition of the one and only possible course and its inevitable outcome.Imo.
James,you wrote "Everyone nows what existence is. Existence is experience. We experience."
We do, eh? How do you know?
I accept that ultimate truth is unknowable. I accept that it is not possible to construct a perfect scientific model of reality. Should that prevent scientists from making such attempts? I don't think so.
An artist may be incapable of painting a real lily pond. Even his best painting will lack the actual movement of the water, the realistic glimmer of light playing on the surface, the minute changes in the ripples as the breeze blows, the darting insect life etc etc. Does that stop the artist from wanting to capture a "distilled essence" of what it is to him. Made of paint and canvas not living water lily leaves photosynthesizing and live fish swimming and feeding and real rays of sunlight.
Of course the artist will always fall short of the perfect representation given -what- he is doing and what he is -using- to do it. Does it matter? I don't think so. He is creating something that he and others may appreciate for what it is. Not the real thing but a hopefully good, possibly beautiful representation. That allows others to comprehend something about what the lily pond is like. If the artist holds up his painting will you say "but that's not a real lily pond?"
We do, eh? How do you know?"
That is the point. You do not know how we know. You do not know how you know. You are acting as if you know by promoting the imaginary, invented, theoretical speculations of theoretical physics. The answer is not a part of mechanical theories. There is nothing that you can offer that will help to answer your own question. The reason is that your answer is not allowed to include reason.
How are you ever going to explain reason if you must disregard reason? Theoretical physics is the science of mechanics extended to the operation of the universe. Mechanics is usefull dumbness. It is usefull by the intelligent properties that you do not yet recognize and therefore do not yet understand. With dumbness as your base you have no way to move forward. For example I asked in a previous message: 'How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing against you right now?' I remain interested in your's or anyone's answer to that question.
You said: "Should that prevent scientists from making such attempts?"
This looks very much like a question. When you said 'enough questions' that was a two way street. You shut it down, but I start it up again. Are you interested in answering my questions?
When it's all said and done, Physics is just a model of nature. This is why I don't consider it disrespectful/ sacrilegious to talk about a TOE. After all, our best models of nature are only as good as our best data (which is incomplete - there are always new horizons to explore - LHC, astrophysical, etc.), our best mathematics (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says this is also incomplete), and our best models. As such, the search for a TOE is the evolution of a process.
If you look at a Feynman diagram, it is easy to define past and future, but the exact passing of time, the exact cause, and the exact effect may not be obvious. The irreversible nature of processes (2nd Law of Thermo) may not be obvious. Nor is the origin of consciousness obvious. These are some of the limitations of our models. Accept it and try to make progress despite it. Or reject it and try to make progress despite it. Physicists might care where you start and end, but nature doesn't.
An artist's rendering is only as good as his best canvas, his best brushes, his best pigments, and his best abilities. We don't have 'magic paint' that can transform into the real thing.
it was a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to answer it. It was put there to emphasize a point and perhaps make you think about your own opinion on this matter. I have already stated my own.
"...it was a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to answer it."
Then I won't. Best whishes to you.
James, you wrote, "For example I asked in a previous message: 'How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing against you right now?' I remain interested in your's or anyone's answer to that question. "
No, I don't think you really are interested. However, whether you understand it or not, or whether it means anything to you or not, the experiences that those photons excite in you or anyone or anything else physical, can be exhaustively and objectively explained by ... ready?
Mechanics.
Ok, I will assume that you are not joking. I am ready! When photons hit us why does anything more than changes of velocity in our particles of matter occur?
No, I'm not joking and you aren't ready. Why not learn some basics of statistical and quantum mechanics? Particularly when it comes to sense data, all that one _does_ know objectively is the mechanical chain of events by which data is translated into coherent statements which we call consciousness. That we create models from this sense data gives us science. Our personal experiences are not objective; the models are.
And, my good friend, information originates from changes in velocity. Einstein once said that one could describe a symphony as variations in sound wave pressure -- and that's absolutely true. He further said, however, that such a description would neither reveal the meaning of a symphony, nor contribute to our enjoyment of it. What he meant, as he also said elsewhere in various forms, is that no meaning transpires at all, until one constructs a theory, a model, which incorporates the data.
I know you don't see your view as anti-science. Can you find a scientist who shares it?
"...all that one _does_ know objectively is the mechanical chain of events by which data is translated into coherent statements which we call consciousness."
If you are one who knows this, then please explain the path from changes of velocity to consciousness?
"..What he meant, as he also said elsewhere in various forms, is that no meaning transpires at all, until one constructs a theory, a model, which incorporates the data. .."
This statement, that you attribute to Einstein, is obviously backwards.
Rephrasing it: No model can transpire at all until one attaches meaning to the data.
Until one has a notion of how science is done, I suppose it does look like smoke and mirrors.
I regret that I do not have the patience to start from the beginning. Just find one scientist who agrees with you, just one, and we'll have a go.
"Until one has a notion of how science is done, I suppose it does look like smoke and mirrors.
I regret that I do not have the patience to start from the beginning. Just find one scientist who agrees with you, just one, and we'll have a go."
Nice smoke and mirrors Tom. Lets remove both of them. If your defense is that the mathematics is too complex, then just explain the ideas behind the mathematics. Afterall, mathematics is only two things for the scientist. One is it provides a great many shortcuts to replace counting. The other is that its symbols represent our thoughts, and, its rules help us to keep our thoughts straight. You could try to explain your thoughts. The counting can come later.
I thank you very much for this beautiful and clear answer.
It's interesting what you say about the language interpretation and the associations.
That permits to distinguish the real sense of this word indeed.
You insert also a good idea of superimposings.
These ideas can be indeed superimposed but can be sorted also....I beleive the objectivity is like a constant and the subjetivity like a serie which tends towards this rationality.In this case, we must be rational about the superimposings ,and thus too, the different subjective interpretations.
It exists only one reality and indeed several subjectives realities, how can we thus superimpose correctly ?
James, I'm asking you for just one scientist, one single reference from the scientific literature, that supports your philosophy. This idea that you have, that what you think reality "is," is universally shared, doesn't hold water. There is nothing objective there.
And I was asking for at least one straight answer. I work alone Tom. I have no references. By the way, your theories do not hold water. If they really did, then unity would not be the phantom of the universe or the universes or the extra added on whatevers. Unity would be right there in front of your eyes beginning with the fundamentals.
Excuse me? I work alone, too, and somehow I have no problem finding support in the scientific literature.
Now if you think that what you see in front of your eyes is in front of anybody else's eyes ... whose? Straight question.
I know that there has been a lot of conversation on this thread about information and the emergence of intelligence. These are difficult issues for physics to directly address, but I was working my daily Sudoku puzzle (actually tomorrow's - I try to stay a day ahead of my calendar) and had this thought for the day.
I think that Hyperspace exists. OK - we don't yet know how to touch it, but an Octonion E8 of Hyperspace can contain a significant amount of information with 240 roots versus a simple zero/ one bit processor. This E8 digital memory storage device is how fundamental particles 'remember' their properties. Many of these quantum numbers are interrelated via (hidden, multi-dimensional) conservation laws. Now if we measure one quantity, it may affect the outcome of another quantity via these conservation laws. This causes 'entanglement' across Spacetime and Hyperspace and is analogous to solving one entry in a Sudoku puzzle that automatically solves an entry on the other side of the Sudoku puzzle via conservation laws (i.e. the 'conservation' rules of the game permit only one of each type of digit for each row, column and block).
I realize that this sounds very 'mechanical', and James would be frustrated at the lack of an explanation for intelligence. I understand your frustration James. I am also frustrated at the lack of an explanation for free will (if it exists!). As Tom says, the particles themselves have a degree of sentient intelligence - they at least have access to these Hyperspace E8 digital storage devices that allow them to 'remember' what 'digit' (particle properties) they are and the 'rules of the game' (conservation laws). Perhaps a small amount of the data gets 'scrambled' (one bad Sudoku entry can mess up the entire puzzle) in the translation from Hyperspace to Spacetime. This leads to smeared phase spaces that behave like probalistic quantum effects and statistical effects such as irreversible processes.
Do you like my thought for the day? Now I'll get back to finishing tommorow's Sudoku puzzle...
Your question had to do with support from a scientist. I have no scientists as references. I wrote two essays for the two FQXi contests. Read the first one, electric charge just disappears into thin air. Read the second one about why theoretical physics does not represent the real universe. When I have completed work that I feel is correct, I post it at my website that has been number one on any search engine since 2001. I do not need approval from anyone to do that. Others may read it or not as they wish.
Search the words New Physics Theory. When I have a high degree of confidence in my work, I put it out for all to see. I take the heat for it without ducking. I say nothing about what I think until I can support it. What you will not get from me are circular, wordy answers that essentially go nowhere. It is not support from others that I seek. It is performing work that no one else will do. It is work that almost completely revises theoretical physics.
That is the kind of work that must be done by an individual. It will continue regardless of the extent to which some others might direct disrespect toward me. Disrepect has nothing to do with advancing science. Valid questions and meaningful answers advance scientific learning. How close are you to accomplishing unity? I start with it.
You wrote, "Your question had to do with support from a scientist. I have no scientists as references."
Of course you don't, because from a scientific viewpoint, your claims are the veriest nonsense. However, you still want to call your beliefs by the name of "science," don't you? Why? -- because for the last 400 years or so, science as we know it has overtaken by bounds the claims to truth of theology and philosophy. So now, many of those who want to credibly promote their claims to know how nature works, cry "YOUR science is crap. Fortunately, I have the TRUE science." This is also nonsense, because the scientific enterprise is a universally objective methodology. Science is cooperative and self correcting. It is not "my science" or "your science."
I respect your right and your ambition to publish, to have followers, to stand by your beliefs. It just isn't science, that's all. If you think that someone who points that out is "disrespecting" you, think about the disrespect you show to science by trying steal its hard won credibility.
"...So now, many of those who want to credibly promote their claims to know how nature works, cry "YOUR science is crap. Fortunately, I have the TRUE science." This is also nonsense, ..."
Actually I did no crying here. I was respectful and interested in what others have to say. You started throwing that Crap charge first. I think you have been disrespectful from the beginning. I also think that you dance and dodge but do not answer questions. If that is representative of your versions of science, you can have it. You decided early that my ideas were clearly wrong and you were disrespectful toward me about it, I am pointing out to you that you live in a glass house and, that is what my messages are meant to convey to you. You are of course welcome to begin to give straight answers in defense of your 'universally objective methodology'.
In the meantime, I say that beginning with unity is a superior approach to theoretical physics rather than instituting disunity and then scrambling near the end to force unity as if it is an afterthought. You invent causes. You have no connection to the two most important properties in the universe, life and intelligence. You cannot show unity for a universe that is clearly orderly. You speak about time and space as if you have experimented upon them.
Your science has left many unanswered and poorly answered questions behind, while, it pushed ahead by brute force. For example, what is thermodynamic entropy? You are welcome to give a mechanical answer. Your approach has left you with a science that has to be continually patched up. That is what I think. If you disagree, I have no problem with that. Why have you chosen to discuss my ideas? I believe it originally started with your belief that somehow mechanical can account for intelligence without intelligence. You nor anyone else can show that to be the case. I say you can't even begin to show that.
You wrote, "I realize that this sounds very 'mechanical', and James would be frustrated at the lack of an explanation for intelligence"
Heck, Ray, why apologize for saying what we know to be true? "Intelliigence" is never defined as a primary property of a system or an element of a system by anyone but James. Adaptation is perfectly adequate to explain a Gaussian distribution of degrees of adaptability in a population. Intelligence is a word to statistically describe variability; it has nothing to say about individual members of the population.
Aside from that, mechanics explains the kinetic activity that organizes members into that frozen picture (bell curve). Of course, there are many models that one could apply as a primary mechanism for the property of adaptation (e.g., self organization, self organized criticality, random mutation/natural selection, chemical self assembly ...). None start with an assumption of creative intelligence creating intelligence. I am expecting James to discover the Intelligent Design argument any day now, and then we'll have to debate that, too. I would rather stick to science.
You wrote, "As Tom says, the particles themselves have a degree of sentient intelligence ..." Not exactly. I said there is no way in principle to demonstrate that they don't.
You think I am being disrespectful to you personally, while I am actually (guilty as charged) disrespecting your claims. They have nothing to do with objective science. They go way back to William Paley, and have been found lacking.
You think my answers are obscure. They are not. They are for the most part, in fact, nocontroversial. Until you crack open the literature, we won't have any any basis for a scientific discussion, since practically all that wrote in this last screed has been falsified. I'm not going to delve into it point for point.
I will respond to "Why have you chosen to discuss my ideas? I believe it originally started with your belief that somehow mechanical can account for intelligence without intelligence. You nor anyone else can show that to be the case. I say you can't even begin to show that."
Heck, most any researcher in the field can show that to be the case; I don't ask you to take my word for anything. Try reading someone else's work. E.g., Steven Strogatz's book Sync. Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar. And on the subject of quantum information, I am almost finished with a wonderful and newly published book by FQXi's Vlatko Vedral, Decoding Reality (it has its own discussion forum here).
This exchange started to seem familiar while I was recalling references. Check out the Wikipedia discussion page under the heading "Self-organization vs. self-ordering," here.
I also provided references and editorially cleaned up the section "Self organization vs. entropy" on the main article page, if you're interested in that.
Ok, you were only disrepecting my claims. Your answers are obscure. How does matter tell space what to do and how does space tell matter what to do?
From you, "Until you crack open the literature, we won't have any any basis for a scientific discussion, since practically all that wrote in this last screed has been falsified. I'm not going to delve into it point for point."
So I am unread. What about one point. I asked what is thermodynamic entropy?
From me: ""...I believe it originally started with your belief that somehow mechanical can account for intelligence without intelligence. You nor anyone else can show that to be the case. I say you can't even begin to show that.""
From you: "Heck, most any researcher in the field can show that to be the case; I don't ask you to take my word for anything."
The answers I have seen put forward are lists of parts involved. Listing the parts does not explain how they do what they do. Well, it is possible to give mechanical explanations for why parts do what they do so long as those parts do only mechanical functions, but the path from theoretical dumbness to factual intelligence has not been explained. The parts must be doing something far above the level established by mechanical theory.
I asked: How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing into you right now? I am not asking for a list of the parts involved or the chemical processes that occur. As important as they are, they are still defined from the mechanical perspective. At some point, there has to be an introduction of meaning.
"Self organization vs. entropy" Ok I will read that link since you played a role in it. I will see if it is a real explanation. In the meantime, you keep using that 'self organization' phrase as if matter knows what to do without knowing what to do. How does dumb matter self-organize into intelligent life?
We are alone but we are not alone ...that is the real question....
About "Self organization vs. entropy" it's the same simply , it's the same, the codes are in the physicality and the entropy has two interpretations simply.
In fact when we analyse the whole,The mass was predicted, the intelligence too and the conscious increases....the mass increases, thus the intelligences thus the consciousness.
ps dear James you say what is the thermodynamic entropy?....I have a humble thought since several years about this entropy....all has the maximum entropy at the wall , thus with the fields , this entropy simply divides itself in correlation with its intrinsic systems of entangled spheres and their specific rotations wich implies rules and complemetatrity.
All has the maximum in the two sense towards walls,cosmologics or quantics.Behind these wlls ,it's a different entropy wich is infinite but with no sense of physicality.Hope I am understood hihihi
In fact it's a real potential around us but of course we are youngs at the universal scale.But the energy is everywhere in this maximum, it's interesting for the technology of thermodynamics.We could nourish the world with one water drop in this line of reasoning.It exist all the energy of the universe in one water drop like in one molecule of O2 or in a simple piece of Fe ....I think strongly that all the secrets of energies are in correlations with these rotating spheres iplying mass and energy .In this logic the time has polarised the light and the mass ,a little if we say "the gravity is a modulator of evolution in this constant of time, the density of this number of spheres increases and the quantic number doesn't change.The entropy is everywhere in the main central codes of becoming in fact.
In this logic we see the relativity, the gravitation, the time linked in their presents and evolving.
I have read the Wikipedia article and its Talk portion. As you said there: "Self organization is indeed an observed natural phenomenon." Yes that is clearly true. Perhaps a part of our disagreement might be due to a perception that I think that an external element is necessary to impose self-organization. I don't think that is the case. I clarify this because of your remark: "I am...
I have read the Wikipedia article and its Talk portion. As you said there: "Self organization is indeed an observed natural phenomenon." Yes that is clearly true. Perhaps a part of our disagreement might be due to a perception that I think that an external element is necessary to impose self-organization. I don't think that is the case. I clarify this because of your remark: "I am expecting James to discover the Intelligent Design argument any day now, and then we'll have to debate that, too. I would rather stick to science." You have jumped to a conclusion that is unwarranted by anything that I have said. I have no quarrel with relying upon natural properties. I have no objection to accepting the obvious evolution of the universe and its intelligent life.
Quoting from the article: "As a result, processes considered part of thermodynamically open systems, such as biological processes that are constantly receiving, transforming and dissipating chemical energy (and even the earth itself which is constantly receiving and dissipating solar energy), can and do exhibit properties of self organization far from thermodynamic equilibrium."
Here is how I disagree: The quote above refers to energy. Energy is one of those many mechanically defined properties. As I have said in the past: Physics defines the fundamental properties of the universe to be dumb and mechanical. Energy has no intelligence. It is, however, scientifically bestowed with whatever powers are needed to form our universe. This is theoretical magic. Physics does not get to arbitrarily define powers to suit what is clearly an ideologically driven choice. They desparately want to avoid intelligence as a property, so they must define the world out of unintelligent properties. Yet these unintelligent properties are 'just given without derivation' all the secret powers needed to cause the universe to give birth to intelligent life.
Brash statements are made to the effect that: "...we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a prior." You appear to equate learning about self organization with knowing the cause of self organization. No one knows what causes anything to occur in the universe. We only know about effects. That is all that you know about self organization.
With regard to intelligence being an emergent phenomenon, that is representative of the kind of thought that is holding scientific learning back. Instead of claming intelligent life for free, show the link between the dumbness and the emergence of intelligence. As usual I am not asking for a parts list. I am asking for a real scientific linkage between mechanics and meaning. There is no need to refer to a guiding hand of God. I don't use that kind of answer. I just refuse to go blindly along with the theoretical physics claim to knowledge that clearly lies outside its mechanical models.
The damage done is that other disciplines think that they must find ways to link their own knowledge back to that of fundamental physics. The mechanical ideology is holding the other disciplines back. I think the process should be reversed. I think that the other disciplines should be freed from mechanics and begin to lead theoretical physics out of its self-imposed chains. Then perhaps we could finally begin to understand the means by which self-organization of the universe and its most important properties, life and intelligence occur. Hopefully, scientists will learn to not run away from the very natural property of intelligence.
James, you wrote: "Your answers are obscure. How does matter tell space what to do and how does space tell matter what to do?"
It is neither obscure nor mystical. We know that on the average, spacetime is flat, Euclidean. The presence of mass warps that smoothness, so that variations in mass follow the contours created by the warping.
"So I am unread. What about one point. I asked what is thermodynamic entropy?"
The process by which less energy becomes available to do work in a closed system. Colloquially, the tendency for a closed system to go from order to disorder.
"Well, it is possible to give mechanical explanations for why parts do what they do so long as those parts do only mechanical functions, but the path from theoretical dumbness to factual intelligence has not been explained. The parts must be doing something far above the level established by mechanical theory."
It is only you who assumes "dumbness." Theorists following scientific method do not. In fact, "intelligence" as an objective property has been very well explained. It is only your personal, private definition of "intelligence" that lacks both explanation and coherence.
"At some point, there has to be an introduction of meaning."
Yes. And objective meaning necessarily follows from coherent definitions and questions. Not from personal belief.
James, you asked, "How does dumb matter self-organize into intelligent life?"
How do you know that matter is "dumb?" Your question is entirely incoherent, because you are starting with an unprovable assumption leading to an erroneous conclusion based on an incomprehensible and subjective definition.
We already _know_ that matter self organizes into intelligent life, using an objective definition of intelligence, that refers to variations in adaptability. No one knows what you mean by "intelligence" except you.
James, you wrote, "Energy is one of those many mechanically defined properties."
No it isn't. One can't even parse what you mean by "mechanically defined." Energy is simply another form of mass. Even though we don't yet know the origin of inertia, we do know how it works.
Mechanics -- from Mach (The Science of Mechanics, a classic), to the statistical mechanics of Boltzmann and Maxwell, to quantum mechanics -- inform us of how simple things make complex patterns. Understanding phenomena in these terms doesn't tell us "what it all means;" however, it does tell us that one need not assume more complicated causes ("intelligence").
"Hopefully, scientists will learn to not run away from the very natural property of intelligence."
They haven't. You have.
I have not weighed in on this topic much. I think that we might want to replace the word "intelligence" with a more general concept called consciousness. We might then ponder whether consciousness is somehow scripted into the universe. It might be, but we are not at a point where we can really address that question. The reason is that we don't understand what consciousness is. There have...
I have not weighed in on this topic much. I think that we might want to replace the word "intelligence" with a more general concept called consciousness. We might then ponder whether consciousness is somehow scripted into the universe. It might be, but we are not at a point where we can really address that question. The reason is that we don't understand what consciousness is. There have been a number of proposals about this, such as the anthropic principle, but the strong AP is in effect a tautology. So we are in effect faced with a measure of ignorance, but this does not mean that our understanding of the universe is false.
The question might be posed according to the so called fine tuning problem. In effect if the low energy values of gauge terms and fermion masses were different the universe would have different structures. The complexity of biological molecules suggests that if the fine structure constant α = e^2/ħc ~ 1/137 had been different that the structure of such molecules might not be possible. Polypeptide bonds for dihedral angles, and these would differ if the electrostatic force was different in its strength, and the net effect down a molecular chain would be amplified down the chain. So it does suggest that the observable universe may have some extremal condition on the level of complexity possible in the universe. This supremum or extremum for high complexity then leads to formation of life, by mechanisms not understood, which then sets up the evolutionary process and so forth. This ultimately lead to what we define as intelligent life, a form of ground ape exponentially rampaging out of control and which runs its world by construction thousands of nuclear warheads.
The high energy world involves grand symmetries with large gauge spaces. This grand symmetry is responsible ultimately for transforming a vacuum state into a vacuum state, or in preserving a void. Then as we run the renormalization group flow down from the Hagedorn temperature these symmetries are broken and at very low energy we have the world more or less as we observe it. The symmetry of the world is significantly reduced, but in its place there is a huge degree of complexity and structure. So the transition from the high energy vacuum, called sometimes the false vacuum, to the physical vacuum at low energy with broken symmetry and massive particles appears to transform symmetry into divergent structures with some extremal degree of complexity.
Back to the matter of consciousness, we might ponder whether the universe has this extremum of complexity so it can give rise to conscious observers who intelligently understand the universe up to some limit of what is knowable or observable. In this way maybe the universe confers a form of ontology to itself, so the universe by having internal conscious awareness of itself and an intelligent representation of itself there is some aspect of existential or ontological being-ness conferred to the universe, or what philosophers called reification. Of course it is not possible at this time to know scientifically whether this is or is not the case. Such a notion might remain permanently within the domain of philosophy.
This apparent ignorance does not mean that physics and cosmology is patently false. We do manage to understand something, even if we are not able to understand everything.
As a bit of a postscript, I attach an image of the histone octomere. This is an 8-fold polypeptide which DNA wraps around on to package DNA into chromosomes. Thes second of these is a channel gate across a cell membrane. Before one addresses questions about the nature of intelligence, we might first ponder how the universe is such that molecular complexity of this form can exist.
attachments: histone.JPG, 2bob_bio_r_500.jpg
Yes - Consciousness or the emergence of intelligence/ self is poorly understood.
Edwin Eugene Klingman tried to tie in a relationship between Gravitational and Consciousness Fields that is similar to the relationship between Electric (radial) and Magnetic (tangential) Fields. It is an interesting idea, but pure conjecture without better data.
Frank Martin DiMeglio tried to approach the TOE through the power of Dreams. Should we count Dreams as the sixth sense behind sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste? How many 'charges' does the Dream carry? We know that human vision is based on 3-color 'charges' (a red, green, blue triality symmetry) whereas birds have 4-color vision and many mammals have 2-color vision. We know that human taste is based on 4- or 5-flavor 'charges' (a bitter, sweet, sour, salty, umami pentality symmetry). I think that scientists have overlooked the Dream as a sense because everyone has different types of dreams, and it seems to tie in with our creative nature more so than our senses. But what if our Dreams are our way of sensing the Multiverse, and we have different Dreams because the Multiverse is so large? I think Frank Martin's First Postulate should be "Dreams are the sixth human sense". That assumption is either right or wrong, but it would allow Frank Martin to build the theoretical framework that he needs to present his ideas in a more scientific manner.
Regarding the discussion that James and Tom have had. Is intelligence an - as yet - unexplained emergent property of matter, or do fundamental properties each have their small quantum of 'intelligence'? How could we know?
While I agree that intelligence and consciousness may share identity in many if not most properties, there is no way at present to make the definition of "consicousness" even intersubjective (which is as close, I think, as we could ever come to an objective framework for consciousness), while "intelligence" already has an objective operational definition.
Re the anthropic principle: if strong AP is tautology, weak AP is trivial. I.e., we interpret data only through our human filter, through theory. Though James seems to think that there is a way of knowing, without the benefit of theory a priori, he would never be able to demonstrate it. It isn't science. And while I am not so arrogant as to think that science will necessarily ever be able to answer every question, it is certainly suited to answer _scientific_ questions. And that is really the full extent of my objections to James's claims: don't call it science when it ain't.
The postulate P: Dreams are a sixth human sense
is demonstrably untrue in the context of science. If P, then
Q: Information interpreted by the known physical senses may be false (inasmuch as dream experience often contradicts physical possibility).
If P and not-Q, then dreams are not differentiable from the known senses, and P is a superfluous assumption.
If P and Q, science is useless, a recreational delusion whose results are merely accidentally true.
If not-P and Q, science is unnecessary.
The weak AP is in a sense trivial, and frankly it does not do anything than to serve as some falsification of existing theories. An example was with the classical hypothesis for the energy source of the sun, which was gravitational contraction. That could only last a few 10's of thousands of years, but by the late 19th century it was well established that the Earth was many millions of years old and life evolved through this vast time period. We human arose from this process and so this acted to falsify that classical theory of the sun. This is an early example of how the WAP worked in science.
I agree that James' ideas are not scientific. He is frankly asking different types of questions IMO than scientific ones. He thinks that because relativity does not tell us how intelligence arose that it is somehow false. In one sense maybe he is right in that relativity makes no prediction for intelligence, ergo it fails outside this domains of experience. Yet this does not mean relativity theory is wrong on everything, which he seems to think. Indeed he has claimed that most of science is false because of this.
The matter of intelligence and consciousness is terribly subjective. We don't know exactly what consciousness is, and it may not exist in any objective sense. Consciousness may simply be a sort of illusion or projection of sorts, no matter how much we experience it. Intelligence might be defined in a number of ways; linguistically, analytically, spatially and so forth. Octopi have a degree of problem solving abilities, and further have an enormous amount of neural processing abilities which permit them to change their colorations so as to camouflage themselves. So there is in these cases maybe spatial and analytical intelligence. They also communicate by color changes. Some birds have been demonstrated to have numerical abilities, and of course we know about whale communications or songs. We might never be able to prove it, but these animals probably do have a conscious experience associated with these abilities.
While we Homo sapiens have remarkable abilities to abstract things, project ourselves in space and through time (future planning etc), and can express these through linguistic expressions. We also have an incredible capacity for stupidity. This is largely seen in our penchant to select the worst of our lot to run our affairs at large. I am astounded by these people who fawn over Sarah Palin and want her to hold the highest office of this nation, when she can hardly hold a coherent or consistent thought. We humans have a tendency to let wackos run the show, with a rich history of mad kings, dictators, fuehrers, and of course the phase of mad emperors of Rome. So to the extent we are intelligent we are also deeply stupid and capable of being very dumb at the same time.
My words: "Your answers are obscure. How does matter tell space what to do and how does space tell matter what to do?"
Yours, "It is neither obscure nor mystical. We know that on the average, spacetime is flat, Euclidean. The presence of mass warps that smoothness, so that variations in mass follow the contours created by the warping."
You know that on the average your...
You know that on the average your equations tell you something. They do not tell you about space or time. They tell you about the motion of objects. They do this by modeling patterns in changes of velocity. Those changes are reflected in your equation by letters such as 's' and 't'. Neither of those letters has ever been able to reflect upon any properties of either space or time. Distance is measured by objects. Time is measured by rate of activity of objects.
Everything is tied to the objects. The objects are not made of space or time. The objects do what they do in the way that they do it for reasons that you do not know. That is unless you actually have some pieces of bent space and time to show to the world. Gravity is a force and it causes acceleration, It shares this ability with all other forces. You do not know why gravity does anything. That would be claiming to know what cause is.
No one knows what cause it. I say that repeatedly because theoretical physics keeps acting as if their equations tell them what cause is. The equations do not contain cause except as represented always by the equals sign. This spacetime thing should have been unsaleable to scientists. Peel back your onion on spacetime and you will find nothing there to present to the scientific world for proof. You might as well say that some supernatural agent is at work.
My words: "I asked what is thermodynamic entropy?"
Yours: The process by which less energy becomes available to do work in a closed system. Colloquially, the tendency for a closed system to go from order to disorder.
Yes that is kind of an answer. It is the explanation of the process that is the real answer. What is the role of temperature in that process? Also, if there is a container of an ideal gas in a condition of equilibrium and its walls are adiabatic, does the gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy?
Yours: "It is only you who assumes "dumbness." Theorists following scientific method do not. In fact, "intelligence" as an objective property has been very well explained. It is only your personal, private definition of "intelligence" that lacks both explanation and coherence."
Dumbness is not assumed. In theoretical physics it is a given. None of your fundamental forces include anything except the ability to cause changes of velocity. Your inanimate base materials can clump together, but they have no way of doing anything intelligent. I refer to theoretical physics as being mechanical, i.e. dumb. I use this term in a broad sense not limiting it to macroscopic examples of machinery type operations.
The mechanical concept that I use is one of inanimate, unthinking actions supposedly resulting from one or more of the fundamental forces of theoretical physics. It is dead and yet is full of useful action. It does not include properties of awareness and intelligent purpose. It is a universe described as being the opposite of intelligent life. From your unintelligent base properties you do not get a free pass to claim that they are what gave rise to intelligent life. You keep referring to effects as if that proves anything about your causes. You can study intelligence all you want, but you cannot relate it back to your dumb fundamental forces.
My words: "At some point, there has to be an introduction of meaning."
Yours: Yes. And objective meaning necessarily follows from coherent definitions and questions. Not from personal belief."
You keep claiming scientific rights to meaning. All you can do is to study the existence of meaning. Your 'belief' that you are defining the origin and evolution of meaning is false. You can do no more than tell what the universe reveals to us through its effects.
Your words: "We already _know_ that matter self organizes into intelligent life, using an objective definition of intelligence, that refers to variations in adaptability. No one knows what you mean by "intelligence" except you."
Of course we know that. It is the proof that theoretical physics does not describe the fundamental nature of the universe. By intelligence I mean the ability to discern meaning from data. How do you explain the fact that you can discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are crashing into you right now? When you answer that question, then you will understand the meaning of intelligence.
My words: "Energy is one of those many mechanically defined properties."
Yours: "Energy is simply another form of mass. Even though we don't yet know the origin of inertia, we do know how it works."
Energy has no intelligent properties. It is what theoretical physics defines it to be. The definitions do not include any properties that have any chance of producing intelligent life. The fact that intelligent life exists is evidence that your equations do not include the real fundamental properties of the universe.
Energy is force times distance. Mass is resistance to force. Saying statements like 'Energy is simply another form of mass.' is one clear example of trading words for words without explaining anything fundamental. You cannot produce one thumble full of energy. No one has ever conducted an experiment on energy as a substance. Mass is not a substance, it is a property of matter. Matter resists force and we call that effect mass.
Dr. Crowell,
"I agree that James' ideas are not scientific. He is frankly asking different types of questions IMO than scientific ones. He thinks that because relativity does not tell us how intelligence arose that it is somehow false. In one sense maybe he is right in that relativity makes no prediction for intelligence, ergo it fails outside this domains of experience. Yet this does not mean relativity theory is wrong on everything, which he seems to think. Indeed he has claimed that most of science is false because of this."
Theoretical physics went astray all the way back at f=ma. Einstein did not improve matters. He has made matters worse. Now we have to debate mystical ideas such as spacetime. My intent is to correct the fundamentals. That is what my work entails. The fundamentals are wrong. When we finally learn what mass is, almost all theory will change radically.
F = ma is pretty canonical stuff, and frankly anyone who regards it as "astray" has gone out on a limb --- and sawed it off behind them. We have of course been over this, and it comes back to you assertion that the failure to include intelligence is what got physics astray. The funny thing is that we can well enough define force, mass and acceleration, but we are not sure what we mean by intelligence.
"F = ma is pretty canonical stuff, and frankly anyone who regards it as "astray" has gone out on a limb --- and sawed it off behind them."
It is not canonical. It is where disunity was first forced into theoretical physics. As far as that limb is concerned, I only speak about those matters for which I have already done the work.
Your understanding of special and general relativity, statistical and quantum mechanics, scientific method, and contemporary research results in self organized systems is so vastly wrong that I don't where to begin correcting you.
So I won't.
I tend to second Tom's assessment. It is hard to know where to begin to repair the damage and set James straight on things.
Tom & Dr. Crowell,
I understand what you mean: Go read a book: Can't begin to explain: We know for certain: Its hard to know where to begin: Etc.
Tom, you did not answer my last question about thermodynamic entropy, the ideal gas and adiabatic, equilibrium example. That is something very simple that you could have straightened me out on. Does the gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy?
Anyone who thinks that the everything that is real (capable of causing other things) must have simple or finite, definite or easy to see causes, might be naive.
I am an electronics technician. One of my jobs is to troubleshoot electronics boards. In effect, I am searching for the cause of some "phenomena". Occasionally I get lucky; for example, an LED doesn't light up, and it's because a resistor is missing from the pathway. That is an easy to identify "cause". I have also chased a problem into a processor chip with 160 pins. In that instance, determining the "cause" is not so easy.
Does science only deal with causes that are easy to identify?
"Anyone who thinks that the everything that is real (capable of causing other things) must have simple or finite, definite or easy to see causes, might be naive."
Since I certainly do not see myself this way, and since your did not make it clear whether or not you are thinking I might be naive, I will give an opinion that is meant to be helpful. When I speak of cause, I am speaking about the fundamental causes put forward by theoretical physics. I am not speaking about a billiard ball striking another billiard ball. I am reaching all the way down to why they impact each other in the manner that they do. The answer is far more general than restricting it to the billiard balls as if they have their own unique means of cause.
The causes of theoretical physics are all made up. The patterns seen in effects only tell us about effects. However, when there are patterns of effects that seem so very different from one another that, we cannot determine that they have the same source of cause, the practice has been to give up the search for unity and introduce another unique fundamental cause.
There is at least one cause. We cannot know what it is. We can give it a mechanical interpretation if we so chose. As long as we allow for one fundamental cause only, then no real harm is done. We have not introduced disunity into theory by that act. As soon as we start guessing that there are other fundamental causes, we have done theoretical damage at the fundamental level. All theory that uses those fundamental causes is inherently damaged.
That does not mean that the mathematics will not give us good results in predicting effects that fit within the patterns that the mathematical equations are designed to model. The damage is that we will not understand the true nature of the fundamental properties of the universe and, we will be confronted with higher level theoretical disunity that we cannot overcome and correct back to one cause.
So, just in case you were thinking that I may be naive, I do not agree.
Of course a gas which obey the natural gas law is thermodynamic.
"Of course a gas which obey the natural gas law is thermodynamic."
I asked if it had the property of thermodynamic entropy? The question has a purpose meant to clarify something about thermodynamic entropy. If thermodynamic entropy is a process, then what does the example tell us about that explanation? Does it support that answer or not?
I can't call anybody else naive without also calling myself naive; particularly about cause and causality. The laws of physics continue to stump us, not because we're not intelligent or thoughtful, but because the laws of physics have such a strange and weird relationship to causality.
For example, a photon finds itself in court, before the judge, for trespassing.
Judge: "Did you come through the left slit or the right slit?"
Photon: "Both."
Judge: "Don't get smart with me, boy. I'll put you in jail. Now answer my question truthfully. Did you come in through the left slit or the right slit?"
Photon, looking around nervously: "Will my jail cell have bars?"
All of the logic in the world is not going to change the nature of quantum mechanics. Since the photon can take both slits simultaneously, but only be caught in one slit or the other, then we have a problem with trying to establish causality. I am beginning to think that the laws of physics are not the result of anything mechanical, or anything that is distinct, solid, or physically understandable.
James, I am not sure what you are asking. The natural gas law is a simple example of a thermodynamic system. For pV = NkT then dT = (1/Nk)d(pV) and entropy is computed as dS = dQ/T. For Q = cT, c = heat capacity c ~ Nk, then
S = c∫dT/T = c ln(T'/T).
One may substitute d(pV) in this and vary p or V as is of interest.
Beyond this I am not sure what you are asking.
This is not really a mathematics question other than being a matter of substraction from an initial state of thermodynamic entropy to a final state of thermodynamic entropy. Does the ideal gas, in a condition of equilibrium, inside a container with adiabatic walls have an initial state of thermodynamic entropy? If it was placed in contact with another container of ideal gas at a different and lower temperature level of equilibrium with only a diathermic wall between them, would my first container have a store of thermodynamic entropy such that it can transfer some of that thermodynamic entropy to the second container?
In other words: If there is an ideal gas, in a condition of equilibrium, inside a container with adiabatic walls, does that ideal gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy? While it is sitting there waiting for someone to change its adiabatic walls into diathermic walls and allow it to interact with the environment, does it have the property of thermodynamic entropy?
"Regarding the discussion that James and Tom have had. Is intelligence an - as yet - unexplained emergent property of matter, or do fundamental properties each have their small quantum of 'intelligence'? How could we know?"
I don't think that the universe intends to reveal anything to us other than its track record. My choice is to follow the example of theoretical physics and take complex properties apart until we find the simpler ingredients that combine to form greater complexity. All of the potential properties necessary to form greater complexity must be present in those simpler ingredients. All of the effects that have ever occurred in this universe must have their cause fully in existence from the beginning of the universe. No magic should be added along the way of development.
The key, I think, to advance scientific learning so that we can stop pretending to explain intelligence and life with simple properties that lack intelligence and life even in the most rudimentary forms, we must be willing to rise above the mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is useful for solving mechanical type problems, but clearly outdated in terms of understanding the nature of this universe.
Mathematics is presently a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Mathematics about mechanical type functions can no longer be credited with being the language of the universe. The act of tracing life and intelligence inward, downward and backwards so that we may learn the universal properties that gave rise to intelligent life, will include the use of mathematics and logic. However, the properties to which mathematics and logic will be applied will no longer be those of current theoretical physics. That is what I think.
James, you wrote "Mathematics is presently a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Mathematics about mechanical type functions can no longer be credited with being the language of the universe. The act of tracing life and intelligence inward, downward and backwards so that we may learn the universal properties that gave rise to intelligent life, will include the use of mathematics and logic. However, the properties to which mathematics and logic will be applied will no longer be those of current theoretical physics. That is what I think."
Unfortunately, what you think is entirely disconnected from what mathematics and mathematical physics actually is.
Mathematics is a language, yes. However, any mathematical statement can, in principle (though it might be extremely tedious, unnecessary and impractical to do so) be translated into any natural language. IOW, anything of objective value that one can say in English or any other language, one can say using mathematics.
What you prefer, however, is not objective value -- you prefer whatever value that you arbitrarily assign to your personal beliefs. You start off believing that the universe is not mechanical and that intelligence a priori is the cause of intelligence a posteriori, without ever defining "intelligence". So in your false logic, intelligence is a non-mechanical property of "life" (which you also do not define), that originates from a source that science has no means to describe. If all that were true, science and mathematics would be obviated entirely, and we could all grok whatever meaning we individually pleased, even though our beliefs contradict one another, and all those beliefs would be equally valid. And hey, you could be right -- who knows? In fact, there is no way one could _ever_ objectively know, _in principle_.
If you understand nothing else of what I said, understand this: science is a cooperative, objective enterprise. If we are wrong, we are all wrong together. Your view, to once again echo Pauli, is "not even wrong."
What a thread, don't stop dear Friends.....the entropy is so spiritual in fact.
a few people understands its meaning.
All the laws in thermodynamics are in this spriritual point of vue.
Let'sb take the ideal gas ......He Ne A ...vapors of.Na Cd Hg....Monoatomic 3/2R 5/2R 5/3R.....DIATMIC H2 D2 O2 N2 NO CO ...polyatomic CO2 CH4 Cl2 BR2 NH3...ALL THAT IMPLIES THE UNIVERSAL R constant ...this unit permits to see the heat capacity in its specific fractal of fields, specifics for all different systems of ideal gas.....the solids are in this logic
Dear James you say....If there is an ideal gas, in a condition of equilibrium, inside a container with adiabatic walls, does that ideal gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy? all is linked with this entropy.....all has the same maximum quantity of energy .Thus we can imagine the number of systems of entropy....wawwww a big big potential this energy everywhere.
And of course all that is in 3D SPHERE oooops the physics before and the maths after .hihihi
James Putnam, replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 18:47 GMT
You said: "Mathematics is a language, yes. However, any mathematical statement can, in principle (though it might be extremely tedious, unnecessary and impractical to do so) be translated into any natural language. IOW, anything of objective value that one can say in English or any other language, one can say using mathematics."
What does this have to do with what I said? I...
What does this have to do with what I said? I said: "Mathematics is presently a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. ..." I did not say that is the only thing that mathematics is used for. With regard to communicating in language, they are all formed from symbols period. Choose any one and translate it into another. This point of yours stops way too soon. The challenge is that everything communicated to us is in the form of symbols. Not those convenient symbols of choice used in math or verbal language, but, purely natural symbols with no meaning other than what we apply to them.
Regardless of the means which one may choose to discuss, the symbols are always in the form of photons. Tiny, truncated, discontinuous, scrambled, symbols informing us that a myriad of particles have changed their velocities. The point that you keep avoiding is that none of this could make any sense unless we already know everything that we will ever learn from it. We must apply the meaning to it without ever having received meaning from it. Learning that all learning comes in the form of photon symbols is the key to understanding what intelligence is and where it resides.
You said: "What you prefer, however, is not objective value -- you prefer whatever value that you arbitrarily assign to your personal beliefs. You start off believing that the universe is not mechanical and that intelligence a priori is the cause of intelligence a posteriori, without ever defining "intelligence".
See the above statement.
You said: "So in your false logic, intelligence is a non-mechanical property of "life" (which you also do not define), that originates from a source that science has no means to describe. If all that were true, science and mathematics would be obviated entirely, ..."
Your sources are not defined. Many of your properties used in your mathematical equations remain undefined to this day including mass. No one knows what cause is including you. Every cause that you build your fundamental beliefs upon are fabricated. They are invented. They are brought into being out of ignorance. You do not know how to derive unified fundamentals, so you divide them up by inventing separate causes. Every one of which is only a name incapable of being defined. The only things that you have to refer to on a fundamental level are effects.
You said: "If you understand nothing else of what I said, understand this: science is a cooperative, objective enterprise. If we are wrong, we are all wrong together. Your view, to once again echo Pauli, is "not even wrong."
I understand your frustration. I also am having a very difficult time getting you to understand that science must be based upon reality. That reality includes changes of velocity, life and intelligence. It has to include all three in a unified form. You do not get those last two for free. You define the fundamentals of the universe by excluding properties of life and intelligence. You observe that the universe gave birth to intelligent life, you then conclude that excluding life and intelligence is, therefore, the way to produce life and intelligence. This is not logic or science.
Here is a copy of that message you couldn't locate:
You said: "Sorry still for my bizare litteral english,but I try to make simple."
You do not need to apologize. I am very lucky that we do not have to post our messages in French. I would not be able to participate. I thank others in the world like yourself that you can participate in English.
You said: "On the other side I agree about the confusions about the relativity, but the errors come from others and not from Einstein.....it's totally different, thus it's not false, just the interpretations of others are falses in my humble opinion."
I feel confident that the error is inherently in Einstein's theory. I acknowledge that it makes great predictions. I think though that its reliance upon relative space and relative time leaves it without a solid empirical base. We cannot experiment on either space or time. If his theory had real merit, then it would make predictions about the behavior of material objects without involving either space or time.
We experiment only with objects. We learn only about the behavior of objects. Our theories should be about objects and be firmly based upon experimental evidence about the behavior of objects. We know nothing about either space or time except that they exist. We move in space and we take our time doing it.
That is what I think. What do you think?
James, you wrote: "I understand your frustration. I also am having a very difficult time getting you to understand that science must be based upon reality."
No, science is not based on a priori assumptions of reality. Reality is what science attempts to model.
"You define the fundamentals of the universe by excluding properties of life and intelligence. You observe that the universe gave birth to intelligent life, you then conclude that excluding life and intelligence is, therefore, the way to produce life and intelligence. This is not logic or science."
I'm afraid it is, James. What is not logical or scientific is to assume that which one is trying to demonstrate.
You said: "No, science is not based on a priori assumptions of reality. Reality is what science attempts to model."
"...What is not logical or scientific is to assume that which one is trying to demonstrate."
Theoretical physics is presently victimized by both of these practices. Science is trying to model reality, yes. The difficulty it is running into is that it is also trying to remain true to an ideology at the same time. It cannot do both succefully. Reality includes change of velocity, life and intelligence. Theoretical physics has only the first of these.
Its models include belief in that ideology based upon making sure that life and intelligence never get mentioned anywhere close to the definitions of the fundamental properties of the universe and is to be kept out of consideration until it can no longer be denied. This ideology is unscientific. The other problem it encounters is that it embraces disunity right from the start of theory. Neither one of these practices has any scientific justification. Unity must come in and ideology must go out.
I thank you very much dear James, It's nice .
Stevi is happy .
ps I must study language ,you know I dislike that, it's the english rest of my school,thus of course I must improve.
James, your false premises continue to lead you to wildly erroneous conclusions.
Science is neither ideology nor religion, those enterprises that assume what they are trying to prove.
And although scientific knowledge never rises to the level of proof beyond all doubt, it is the only demonstrable form of objective knowledge.
Do yourself a favor and learn it. Perhaps you will discover that life and intelligence are indeed integrated into that process -- right from the beginning.
Yes it's that and all in 8d with a time machine .....the spirituality is different and can be realist ,....your ideas are not realists and not spirituals ...just sciences fictions for the public and the sell of books ....all is said and all words are nout sufficients ....good book thus...
ahahaah transparence egal veritas =3d =universality .....
Inutile to imply confusions for people who understands ...don't loose your time with people who understands...hope you understand .
James understands you no
that's all for the moment !
All the equations you use have been made with "maths physics spirituality" by people who searched and search still and still ....if you focus only on one center of interest, never you shall ponder an universal equation.....like mvV FOR ALL PHYSICALS REALS OBSERVABLES SPHERES QUANTICS AND COSMOLOGIC INSIDE ONE 3D SPHERE .....
Humbly, it's purely and basically not possible to ponder an universal model without these foundamentals correlations which are ......the universal spirituality, the observables physical reality in 3d sphere and the mathematical methods inside this finite system implying the correct serie and its numbers.
The evolution is specific .
We can't insert falses roads simply.I am ok for the maths when they explain correctly our reality.
let's derivate of course but with rationality......many people says in the sciences community ...shut up and calculate...I d say shut up, observe, contemplate, analyze, and calculate finally .
It's not sufficient to calculate if you don't understand the main universal referential and its pure topology in 3d , the taxonomy and the topology are essentials.An unuiversal shere thus and its center where all turns around ....there is an ultim aim in this physicality between all these cosmological spheres .....
You are not referring directly to what I say.
You said: "Science is neither ideology nor religion, those enterprises that assume what they are trying to prove.
And although scientific knowledge never rises to the level of proof beyond all doubt, it is the only demonstrable form of objective knowledge."
I said that theoretical physics has an ideology. That ideology is to assume from the beginning that the fundamental operation of the universe must be explained in mechanical terms only and anything having to do with life and intelligence must be barred. Then later when life and intelligence can no longer be denied, the believers in a mechanistic nature of the universe just blatantly claim without justification that life and intelligence arise from unlife and unintelligence. You could not possibly show that that is true. You can only declare it. Unprovable declarations do not pass by me.
You said: "Do yourself a favor and learn it. Perhaps you will discover that life and intelligence are indeed integrated into that process -- right from the beginning."
Of course they are. If only theoretical physics would recognize that to be the case, we could move forward in understanding the nature of the universe. That plus expelling disunity from its theories.
You would do yourself a favor if you learned first: What electric charge is. What mass is. What force is. What temperature is. Etc. Then at least your mechanical perspective would finally address its fundamental ignorance. Removing ignorance would at least straighten out mechanical theory so that unity would no longer be hidden and would leap out in front of your eyes.
Secondly, you would do yourself a favor if you actually attempted to answer at least one of my questions. The one you should start with is: How do we discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are constantly crashing into us in mixes that are never repeated? You appear to avoid the most important questions that science should be addressing.
What about your 'information entropy' theory? Where physically does that future information reside? Where did your used 'past' information go to. Is it still around in this universe or is there an unaccessible storage space hidden in this universe? Are you talking about another theory based upon properties that can never be shown to be real?
I suggest, that before you start trying to extend the general 'entropy concept' into clever but unscientific models, that you actually first learn what thermodynamic entropy is. I suggest that you go back to the beginning and straighten out your fundamentals.
Your theoretical speculations are based upon a history of both learning and lack of learning. The scientific method should never allow theory to advance beyond unanswered or poorly answered questions without requiring a warning to be expressed that the theories that follow need repaired as soon as possible.
The universe operates on principles which can be understood or modelled by physical and mathematical methods. Call this materialism or mechanism or what ever you want, that is what constitutes physics. You and others, many of whom are in the religious communities, may object to this. Yet to assume otherwise is to say that some form of will, intention or supernaturalism is behind existence. This may be Shopenhauer's "Will & Representation," or it might be magic or gods or pixie dust. The problem is that these ideas have no logico-emperical represntation, and are thus excluded from consideration. To complain about this is not to say that theoretical physics has a flaw, but to effectively reject science itself.
YOu said: "The universe operates on principles which can be understood or modelled by physical and mathematical methods. Call this materialism or mechanism or what ever you want, that is what constitutes physics. You and others, many of whom are in the religious communities, may object to this. Yet to assume otherwise is to say that some form of will, intention or supernaturalism is behind existence. This may be Shopenhauer's "Will & Representation," or it might be magic or gods or pixie dust. The problem is that these ideas have no logico-emperical represntation, and are thus excluded from consideration. To complain about this is not to say that theoretical physics has a flaw, but to effectively reject science itself."
Excerpt: "Yet to assume otherwise is to say that some form of will, intention or supernaturalism is behind existence."
You just will not admit that intelligence is natural. It is the first property to turn to to understand the operation of the universe. The universe came first, but everything we will ever understand about it comes from our own source of reason. I suggest that you drop the silly derogatory descriptions of those who do not agree with you, and recognize that the key to understanding the universe begins with understanding ourselves.
I notice that you do not answer direct question very well. What is your response to my question about discerning meaning about the universe in my last message to Tom? What happened to the response to my last question to you about thermodynamic entropy? What is your justification for pushing theory way beyond empirical knowledge? Why do you trust in theoretical properties that cannot be demonstrated to be real? Why do you trust in a mysterious, strange, unempirical series of causes that offer you nothing more than clumped objects bouncing off of each other throughout a dead, dumb universe?
Why do you resort to scientifically empty declarations that are only your opinion and are sometimes derogatory to promote your ideas instead of responding with direct, scientifically informative answers? I believe this is a repeat question of mine: What is the empirical, not speculative theoretical, evidence that demonstrates that gravity is not just another force, in a generic sense, that causes mass to accelerate?
I think we can have a spirituality and be rational in observing our world.
The universalism is evident .
The evolution is so beautiful, we see the harmonization since the 13.7 billions years ......we can't deny this evidence, and we can't confound the universalism and the human interpretations.
These confusions are not necessary in fact .
And it's more rational to speak in 3d evolution and harmonisation than with magics numberization of our dimensions.....in fact we have a wonderful universe which evolves and we can make many things but in accepting of course our foundamentals laws.
An excerpt from my contest essay:
Empirical physics has shown that we receive all information via photons. How do we discern meaning from their always changing formations flying to us at light-speed? Not only do we discern those meanings, but we intelligently adjust them enabling ourselves to view the universe in a more practical form. It is an important clue that we visualize things...
Empirical physics has shown that we receive all information via photons. How do we discern meaning from their always changing formations flying to us at light-speed? Not only do we discern those meanings, but we intelligently adjust them enabling ourselves to view the universe in a more practical form. It is an important clue that we visualize things differently from the literal interpretation of photonic information.
We receive photon information, but, we interpret the universe differently from what is literally communicated to us. How is it possible for us to visualize the universe differently from the only information we have ever received about it? Any original, intelligent conclusion on our part demonstrates the pre-existence of the information necessary to form that conclusion.
Why can we visualize anything at all? For example, we do not see what is happening at a distance. Our reception of information is not experienced over distance. We only know about distance because we receive information that our intelligence interprets and uses to form a visualization of distance. We form the image of distance in our minds without ever having experienced distance. The mind decides by its own inherent store of possible meanings, what it thinks the outside world is like.
Each individual photon is a very tiny sign that a nearly insignificant effect has occurred. The effect always involves change. That effect may or may not be related to effects signified by other photons. We absorb this mishmash of information about multitudinous effects and make sense of it. We have never seen that same data in that same form before. Our mind forms, by its own source of knowledge, a best guess concept of reality.
Our mind decides and selects which patterns are most significant. It superimposes continuity onto the selected data and draws an image of its conclusion. We anticipate properties that do not exist. For example, we anticipate continuity and no change. We experience discontinuity but invent continuity. To do this, we add information. That information is inherent within us. We experience change but invent no change. We have the ability to add unlearned information that fits neatly into learned information.
It is generally believed that learning comes through our senses. However, for patterns of information to be logical to us, the patterns and their possible meanings must already be in our possession. Both of these must be internally available for use before we can learn from even our very first experience with the outside world. Experiences must be anticipated by our minds or the signs signifying them can have no meaning. We are born with the ability to anticipate everything that we will ever learn about the universe.
We receive photonic information and think for ourselves about its possible meanings. Thinking is a process of multitudinous bit-by-bit discovery and best-fit evaluation of photonic information. The mind will even disregard good data in favor of what it expects to see. That is why optical illusions work. For example, lines that are definitely parallel will sometimes be visualized as being curved. Even when we know the answer is wrong, our mind continues to deliver it to us again and again.
Theoretical physics is not immune to the problems encountered by our minds when trying to understand reality. It is dependent upon choices and victimized by illusions. When professionally derived theory repeatedly dictates imaginary causes to our minds we become conditioned, similarly to experiencing optical illusions, to accept distorted concepts and images.
Theoretical physics should free itself from its mechanical ideology. It should correct its lack of fundamental unity, and, discard its odd, mathematically based, speculations. It should expand its ideas in favor of trying to learn the true, intelligence producing, fundamental properties of the universe. Otherwise, it risks reduced relevancy. Theoretical, mechanical illusions must ultimately give way to a study of the fundamental nature of intelligence.
Of course intelligence is natural. That is not what I am objecting to. I don't think however that because physics does not include some theory of consciousness or intelligence that it is wrong. QED is a perfectly established and empirically supported theory of quantum EM and fermions (electrons), and these basic particles are no more intelligent than a door post. I don't think the substratum of nature behaves in some intelligent manner or with a teleonomic goal. Molecules on the early Earth did not intelligently behave so as to give the emergence of life. Evolution further did not operate in some goal oriented process to give rise to Homo sapiens. A neuron does not decide to release an action potential so there is some mental awareness. The universe is simply large enough with a huge range of possible configurations and collective states so that life and what we call intelligence or consciousness can exist. Of course we don't have an operating theory for this, but one start is to address the gauge hierarchy problem, the IR end point of renormalization group flow and how it is that say α = e^2/ħc ~ 1/137 has the value it has.
I simply don't think that outside of our selves or similar intelligent life forms that the universe is somehow intelligent in the sense of consciously directed decision making. We might of course talk about molecular intelligence, such as how viruses or bacteria may evolve and select for hosts. Think of the AIDS pandemic as a battle between our neural intelligence and the molecular intelligence of a retrovirus. But this does not mean I think HIV virions are intelligent in the sense we are. The universe is a type of quantum computer that runs some grand encryption coding system, maybe the Leech lattice. Yet I don't think this means the universe or black holes are some how intelligent. It just means that quantum information is transformed according to certain symmetries or sporadic groups so that quantum information is ultimately conserved.
Dear James......The Universe is a synaptic system of interactions ....emission ....reception.....thus the center of our Universe and the centers of our quantum architecture are essentials.....The thalamus and the associative centers show us the road of the intellectual faculty ...the polarity and the biological captors continue to evolve and thus permit to increase their mass thus their intelligence thus their consciousness.
An example ...Selacian ...fishs...reptilians....inferior mamalian ..superior mammalian...human....with this simple example of evolution , you shall see the increase of the brain simply ...SPECIALISATIO,DIFFERENCIATION,EVOLUTIVE POLARITY,INTRINSIC CODE OF GRAVITY .......in this example, we see also the spherisation.
It's not one particle which can be intelligent but a number of particles agenced ...like a biological life(here us the humans)....The intelligence was predicted because it's a catalyzer with the conscious of our environments.
We can imply universal stimulis for an universal optimization.
You said: "I don't think the substratum of nature behaves in some intelligent manner or with a teleonomic goal. Molecules on the early Earth did not intelligently behave so as to give the emergence of life. Evolution further did not operate in some goal oriented process to give rise to Homo sapiens. A neuron does not decide to release an action potential so there is some mental...
You said: "I don't think the substratum of nature behaves in some intelligent manner or with a teleonomic goal. Molecules on the early Earth did not intelligently behave so as to give the emergence of life. Evolution further did not operate in some goal oriented process to give rise to Homo sapiens. A neuron does not decide to release an action potential so there is some mental awareness. The universe is simply large enough with a huge range of possible configurations and collective states so that life and what we call intelligence or consciousness can exist. ..."
What can be said is that all effects that have occurred in this universe whether patterns in changes of velocity, the evolution of recognizable life, or the climax of forming higher intelligence all had to have been provided for potentially since the beginning of the universe. This means that every combination of partcles that resulted in something new looking, whether we recognize it as having meaning or not, was designated by the initial properties of the universe to have that purpose. No magic is permitted or wanted here.
Every result had to have been designated according to the arrangement of particles. Our particles that are participating in our intelligent life cycle will return to the Earth. They will no longer be recognizable as having the potential to combine again into human intelligent life, but it is potentially possible because that is what they have always been able to do right from their first existence under favorable conditions. Universal meaning is there in some form whether simple or complex otherwise nothing meaningful can happen.
You do not get to claim these results have any connection to your theories unless you can show how. That means you must recognize that intelligence from its highest level can be traced back to its simple looking original disassociated parts and finally to those fundamental properties that have that potential to lead through a series of prescribed purposes to achieve that which it was always prepared to do. No new meaning, purpose, or other property can be added to the universe after its orgin unless one invokes some mystical outside cause. I do not.
You said: "I simply don't think that outside of our selves or similar intelligent life forms that the universe is somehow intelligent in the sense of consciously directed decision making. We might of course talk about molecular intelligence, such as how viruses or bacteria may evolve and select for hosts. Think of the AIDS pandemic as a battle between our neural intelligence and the molecular intelligence of a retrovirus. But this does not mean I think HIV virions are intelligent in the sense we are. The universe is a type of quantum computer that runs some grand encryption coding system, maybe the Leech lattice. Yet I don't think this means the universe or black holes are some how intelligent. It just means that quantum information is transformed according to certain symmetries or sporadic groups so that quantum information is ultimately conserved."
I don't know exactly what you have in mind when you say 'consciously directed decision making', but I would replace those words with the recognition that all effects of any kind had to have been provided for fully in their potential form or they could never have occurred. As far as what the universe is, it certainly is not a computer of any kind. It is the source of natural real intelligence that cannot be transferred to any computer system. I don't think that black holes are intelligent either, but whatever purposes they satisfy and whatever actions they perform, it was provided for in full in potential form right from the beginning of the universe. What do you think about my question regarding our ability to discern meaning from photons?
For the what do you think? in late but simply .
I think dear James, your are a real searcher of truth , and simply I like read your posts.
Lawrence wrote, of James, et al, philosophy:
"The problem is that these ideas have no logico-emperical represntation, and are thus excluded from consideration. To complain about this is not to say that theoretical physics has a flaw, but to effectively reject science itself."
What he said.
James, you asked, "What do you think about my question regarding our ability to discern meaning from photons?" (You last asked this of Lawrence; however, you have asked it of me as well.)
I think you have no idea what "photon" means. A photon is a particle of light, a massless energy exchange particle in that class of particles known as bosons.
Like all bosons, it carries information from one mass point to another, about the state of the system at the instant of change. The meaning is in the state and the change of state.
You keep insisting that there is some meaning beyond what theoretical physics describes (in a quite precise manner, in fact); this is a hollow and meaningless claim. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a priori meaning ("intelligence"); however, as I told you before, there is no logic nor science in assuming what one is trying to prove.
The only thing I can offer, though very informally, is the prospect that at the Planck scale the universe may be a self-referential tangle of states. The emergence of structure at larger scales then means the self-referential aspects of this still persist. It persists in the existence of internal observers who come to some understanding of the universe. So consciousness might then be a manifestation of this. This is not a theory in a proper sense of the word, for there is as yet no handle from which to make such as conjecture work. This further may require that consciousness itself be some aspect of Godelian self-reference.
As yet we are so far removed from being able to address these issues that it is not worth devoting much time on them. I know, I spent quite some time on this matter in the early 1990s, and frankly we just don't know enough to say much about this. There is also considerable resistance to such an idea as well, for in a sense this might mean not the salvation of physics and cosmology, but rather their end.
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 09:06 GMT
I saw a post of Mr Johnstone on Cosmic consciousness....and it's well resumed ....here is the post
"Hello Dear Roy,
You say....I think there is enough evidence to show that the conscious mind/brain system most likely has quantum characterisics. There is already empirical evidence of quantum entanglement in photosynthetic organisms enabling highly coherent transport of excitations, with coherence times of order picoseconds in what are very "noisy" non-equilibrium environments. This is achieved by densely packed (antenna) protein molecule complexes. Genetically these organisms can be very complex with some having up to 4,000 more genes than human beings!
I totally agree ....the mass evolves .....the number of entanged spheres more their specificities like the velocities of rotations,.....are in a dance of evolution.
Thus James sees clear the rule of intelligence and the rule of the informations by the flow of photons, the informations of complementarity and of evolution are an evidence.
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 16:35 GMT
You said: "I think you have no idea what "photon" means. A photon is a particle of light, a massless energy exchange particle in that class of particles known as bosons.
Like all bosons, it carries information from one mass point to another, about the state of the system at the instant of change. The meaning is in the state and the change of state."
Ok use your response above to help you answer my question below. It is about actual reality that involves something very important and fundamental about how our intelligence works.
Repeating my question: "What do you think about my question regarding our ability to discern meaning from photons?"
Here it is again in a previous form: "How do we discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are constantly crashing into us in mixes that are never repeated?"
And in a still earlier form: "How do you explain the fact that you can discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are crashing into you right now? When you answer that question, then you will understand the meaning of intelligence."
You said: "You keep insisting that there is some meaning beyond what theoretical physics describes (in a quite precise manner, in fact); this is a hollow and meaningless claim. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a priori meaning ("intelligence"); however, as I told you before, there is no logic nor science in assuming what one is trying to prove."
You explain nothing here. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a prior mechanical type causes so long as you choose to believe in theoretical physics. Physics theory is for those who do not know but wish to proceed with developing mechanically useful equations anyway.
T H Ray replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:03 GMT
James, you wrote, regarding my response to your endless permutations of your ceaseless question, of how one derives meaning from information transmitted by photons:
"You explain nothing here. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a prior mechanical type causes so long as you choose to believe in theoretical physics. Physics theory is for those who do not know but wish to proceed with developing mechanically useful equations anyway."
You have demonstrated zero understanding of scientific method, James. One does not assumne "mechanical like causes." There is no such thing, and that makes no sense. One assigns no a priori meaning to data _at all_. It is _theory_ by which we interpret data, and assign meaning. Theory is, in fact, the highest truth standard science can bestow, and personal belief has nothing to do with it. Now if you think you have some special knowledge beyond scientific theory -- fine. DON'T call it science, however. That is disingenuous.
Thank you for this reply. It is seriously informative.
You said: "The only thing I can offer, though very informally, is the prospect that at the Planck scale the universe may be a self-referential tangle of states. The emergence of structure at larger scales then means the self-referential aspects of this still persist. It persists in the existence of internal observers who come to some understanding of the universe. So consciousness might then be a manifestation of this. This is not a theory in a proper sense of the word, for there is as yet no handle from which to make such as conjecture work. This further may require that consciousness itself be some aspect of Godelian self-reference.
As yet we are so far removed from being able to address these issues that it is not worth devoting much time on them. I know, I spent quite some time on this matter in the early 1990s, and frankly we just don't know enough to say much about this. There is also considerable resistance to such an idea as well, for in a sense this might mean not the salvation of physics and cosmology, but rather their end."
Repeating this except: "As yet we are so far removed from being able to address these issues that it is not worth devoting much time on them."
My question, repeated in my last message to Tom, goes right to the heart of this problem. I am certain the answer is far removed from a possible explanation by theoretical physics in its current form. However, logically it is approachable through my question. Either we must already have the answers available to us from some source other than the photon storm or the photon storm carries and communicates the meaning to us. It appears that there is no means by which the photon storm can carry its own meanings with it. Here is the question again:
A photon storm of extremely truncated pieces of data about changes of velocity originating from multitudinous sources of particles of matter, mixed up and scrambled together, arriving at the speed of light, in arrangements that are never repeated, and the only means by which we have ever received data, is worthwhile for immediate logical inquiry into the nature of intelligence.
You said: "You have demonstrated zero understanding of scientific method, James. One does not assumne "mechanical like causes." There is no such thing, and that makes no sense. One assigns no a priori meaning to data _at all_. It is _theory_ by which we interpret data, and assign meaning. Theory is, in fact, the highest truth standard science can bestow, and personal belief has nothing to do with it."
You statement is surprisingly misrepresentative of the nature of theory. Your belief in theory is very, very strong.
Good grief, James. Whatever you think "the nature of theory" is, there is no scientist in the world who disagrees that we interpret data by _other_ than theory. This is not controversial.
Correcting myself, I of course meant "agrees" rather than "disagrees."
"Good grief, James. Whatever you think "the nature of theory" is, there is no scientist in the world who disagrees that we interpret data by _other_ than theory. ..."
You are the artful dodger. Here is a quote from your previous message:
"...Theory is, in fact, the highest truth standard science can bestow, and personal belief has nothing to do with it."
Theory is never the highest truth standard science can bestow. It is the best guess that a scientist can make about the possible meaning of data within his' or her's belief system.
I think some people confounds the sciences method with the maths method ....but who hihihihi
The crazzy spheric man
James, you wrote, "Theory is never the highest truth standard science can bestow. It is the best guess that a scientist can make about the possible meaning of data within his' or her's belief system."
As I noted, zero understanding of scientific method.
"As I noted, zero understanding of scientific method."
We are talking about theory. We are addressing the value of theory. We are contesting the nature of theory. You are not sticking to the subject.
The need for theory is lack of understanding about the nature of cause. Theory, for physics, is the practice of inventing cause. The causes of theoretical physics are made up. The lack of unity starting early with the fundamentals is evidence of erroneous guesses about the nature of cause. No one know what cause is.
Scientists make their best guess or guesses about the nature of cause, give them names and units of measurement, substitute them into their otherwise empirical equations, and proceed to make use of those equations to successfully make predictions about new points in the patterns of changes of velocity observed in empricial evidence. The empirical forms of the equations are the most correct forms.
However, the theoretical forms are helpful for keeping the scientists thoughts straight. It can be confusing to talk about or represent ideas using mathmatics when the patterns are very different looking. It is necessary to treat them as if they are not united because we cannot see how they might be united. When they are treated as not being united, then it is very convenient to give them names and units so that communication about the discrepancies in the patterns can be addressed without confusion.
James, I don't know anyone who is confused about the nature and value of theory, except you. Theory is our _only_ means of interpreting data objectively.
"James, I don't know anyone who is confused about the nature and value of theory, except you. Theory is our _only_ means of interpreting data objectively."
Well you are certainly confused about the nature and value of theory. You belief it represents truth in science. I assume that you mean that it represents reality. You cannot support that belief, in fact, you don't give answers or explanations. You just make brash statements and repetitive claims about something which you have clearly bought into as a belief system, but, do not understand its real relationship to science. It is what you make up out of necessity when you do not know real answers.
Yeah, okay, James, whatever. You apparently can't be swayed by logic, facts or references from the literature. Be well.
Ok, thanks for the conversation.
I was pretty busy trying to stay current with the many messages in this debate. I appreciated very much your kind words:
"I think dear James, your are a real searcher of truth, and simply I like read your posts."
"Thus James sees clear the rule of intelligence and the rule of the informations by the flow of photons, the informations of complementarity and of evolution are an evidence."
I think that the role of intelligence has to be a consistent part of any search for the truth. It is the key property to follow in order to understand the evolution of the universe. I think that it will be easier to trace it backwards rather than speculate about its origin. Speculating about its origin and then trying to imagine how it evolved probably has little chance of giving a correct understanding.
I think that we should start with our own intelligence. The greatest achievement of our intelligence is human free will. That is where I think the scientific search for understanding should begin. My question about human interpretations of photon data was meant to bring human intelligence and particularly human free will to the forefront of the discussion. Hopefully other readers understood that. Thank you again for your kind messages.
You are welcome, the intelligence and the potential of thougth are so importants.
The encoding of rational informations by the biological system is incredible in its sortings.
The tori of adn and the electromagnetism more all these captors of rationality in the gravitational stability permits to see the evolution of the intelligence.
The gravity and the gravities in fact are superimposed and the light is fractalized really in fact....Thus we can imagine the number of possible syncronizations between the mass and this light.The informations are so numerous and so specifics , we can imagine the decimals of the light , fractalized by the encoded gravity.
The encoding becomes a very complex system in 3D of evolutive polarization...where the informations are polarized in different localities of the entangled biological system.
The encoding is everywhere, in adn, brain.....and the adaptation takes all its sense.
Dr. Edwin Klingman,
A few messages ago I wrote to Steve my thoughts that:
"I think that the role of intelligence has to be a consistent part of any search for the truth. It is the key property to follow in order to understand the evolution of the universe. I think that it will be easier to trace it backwards rather than speculate about its origin. Speculating about its origin and then trying to imagine how it evolved probably has little chance of giving a correct understanding."
I was thinking through my own thoughts developed over years and the conclusions I reached that may be either for good reason or due to my own limitations. When I wrote those words above I had slipped back into my own thoughts and forgotten to give you credit for doing that which I said "probably has little chance of giving a correct understanding". You have devloped a new kind of theoretical physics that does included fundamental properties that are capable of evolving into human intelligence. I hope some day soon that rigid mechanical type ideology will give way to open mindedness so that professionally developed or approved ideas that may even be diametrically opposed can be freely discussed without unreasonable resistance.
Don Limuti wrote on May. 1, 2010 @ 08:33 GMT
Thanks Jason,
I agree quantum mechanics is an advanced guessing game. The latest entry into the guessing game is Entropic gravity as you mention. With this theory the more mixed up things are the more gravity we have. Using this criteria the next FQXi essay contest will cause a measurable jump in gravity. An alert should be issued to all cosmologists.
Please allow me to toss a guess into the ring (it will increase gravity only a little). I present a theory of dark matter and dark energy which I think you will find interesting because it is so simple. This theory will not upset GR but it has an interesting twist on conservation of matter.
Take a look at:
http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/11f__A_Look_at_the_Univers
e.html
If you like what you see on this plot take a look around the site.
I glanced at your website. It sounds like you're saying that any idea of concrete objects, such as electrons, should be abandoned, replaced with digital waves. Now, digital signals are made up from waves. I think your idea is correct. Keep at it.
James Putnam wrote on May. 5, 2010 @ 00:47 GMT
My opinion, separate from anyone else's is that:
"...the possibility of an "information boson". Basically, it's the equivalent of many thousands of bits of information. ..."
does not address my concerns. It does not matter what the cause is called. The name is of no importance. The explanation is the whole concern. Where does meaning originate and how does it evolve? Any mechanical substitute offerred to serve as an intermediary for the origin or evolution of intelligence is not useful in my opinion. For example, if electric charge were to be credited with the ability to cause the evolution of intelligent life, I would quickly ask how does it do that?
I would be expecting an answer that was capable of making the process clear every step of the way. However, I do not think that either the boson that you suggest or electric charge would be useful in explaining even the beginning of the process. In other words, how does anyone explain the origin of meaning and the cause of its evolution by any means other than an existing intelligence?
In my opinion, mechanical type theories have nothing at all to say in regard to answering this question. Mechanical type theories address mechanical type problems. Instead of suggesting an 'information boson', you might as well suggest there was and still is an original intelligence that controls the universe. That is what I think.
Uh, er? Are you familiar with how the endocrine system works? Molecules are released into the blood stream and they trigger multiple effects across several organ systems. The effect is very similar to the kinds of psychic experiences I have during meditation, in which a thought is received in my consciousness.
I don't like to resort to words like "psychic" in this forum because intellectuals tend to poo poo the whole subject. But if you're looking for some origin of intelligence, then I honestly don't know how you avoid the subject.
I can tell you that it is so much easier to be some bubbling primordial ooze. The expectations are very low. You don't have to really do anything except just sit there and bubble. You are completely at the mercy of whatever your environment is. If your environment is gentle, you can continue your blissful slumber as a bubbling ooze. But when has any physical environment ever been peaceful? So you get jostled and struck by lightning. You find that there are forces inside of you, warring with each other, trying to fight for control. Evolution is driven by lack of comfort. Unhappiness and misery. Within your primordial ooziness, you are vaguely aware of the beauty and perfection from where you came. You get that feeling from the quantum universe of wavefronts, quantum entanglement, streams of light and energy that move through your molecular goopiness. The quantum universe is so serene and perfected. But you know that you are nothing like that perfection, but you want to be. And so, for billions of years, the goopiness has evolved, stiven to find a way to manifest perfection in such a harsh environment.
But what is behind this seeming quantum perfection? It is below the Planck threshold of what is physically real. It is here that you transition from the classical world of physical experience, through the quantum universe, back to an existence that is bound not by energy, but by the degree of orderliness within the entropic chaos. Consciousness and experience begin as quantumly entangled feelers. Those feelers begin to network into larger and larger groups and clusters. But they are far below the Planck threshold. But there is let something that flows through the quantum entangled networks; it flows through everything, organic and inorganic alike. But I don't know what this flow really is. It might be a flow of information. It could also be a flow or a stream of consciousness. I am not definite about what it is...
I do not pursue nor entertain possible powers for hidden sources, whether dimensions or thresholds, that are convienently out of our reach. I see this practice as a way to ascribe meaning, even intelligence, to otherwise purely mechanical theories. Yes, there is some cause for this universe and that cause will never be known by mechanical means.
There is no question that the universe contains a constant flow of information. From particles to ourselves we rely upon this flow of information. This information doesn't have a hidden source. If an electron changes its velocity, it lets everyone else, eventually, know about that fact.
Rather than chase after the sources of information looking for the origin of meaning, I think the real first step in understanding the role of intelligence is to recognize that that information has no meaning unless the receptor already knows how to interpret it. An electron knows how to respond to another electron. That is the low level of recognizing information and acting in an orderly manner in response to it.
On our level, that flow or storm of information coming at us in multitudinous numbers, mixedup, from a multitudinous number of sources and arriving in tiny pieces traveling at the speed of light, represents the place at which we should first be looking. The greatest challenge we face in understanding the operation of the universe is not at the horizon of black hole or some other theoretical mechanical idea.
It is learning how it is possible for us to make sense from that storm of information. The only way in which it can be explained is to recognize that we already know what to look for. We already know the kinds of patterns we must pick out of the hodgepodege of information. We already know what meanings can be usefully attached to patterns in information. We already know how to decipher the information for everything that we can ever possibly learn from it.
Don't you see it? We are hurling ideas at each other, back and forth. The collide and explode into a thousand shards of shrapnel. We are free to pick up those pieces we find useful, those ideas that we like, and weave new balls of energy, of thought. It is from these explosion of ideas that we learn from each other. It is from the violent impacts of two diametrically opposed thought streams that the truth is illuminated.
"Don't you see it? We are hurling ideas at each other, back and forth. The collide and explode into a thousand shards of shrapnel. We are free to pick up those pieces we find useful, those ideas that we like, and weave new balls of energy, of thought."
Energy is a theoretical physics concept of something that fits into the mechanical perspective. It is not real until someone produces a thimble full of it. It certainly has nothing to do with explaining thought. If you wish to believe in the mechanical, unintelligent, imaginary, guessed at, theoretical properties put forward by theoretical physics, that is your choice. I do not.
The question remains: Whether it is a storm of photons or thousands of shards of shrapnel, how is it that we have the personal means in existence before the storm of photons or the shrapnel of ideas arrives to extract meaning from them? From my perspective, no one gets to claim meaning for free. It must be explained more than any other supposed property of the universe.
If you want to know how we derive meaning from experience, that comes from feelings (hormones) that were floating around in our blood stream when we were babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, etc. You should research neural associate conditioning (NAC).
Don't misunderstand me. I do believe in things like a soul, etc., but there are layers upon layers between the soul and the bio-mechanical physical body. Feelings and thoughts are partly associated with hormones and other neural chemicals. From there, the pathway leads into the quantum realm, and then into existences that we do not understand.
You said: "If you want to know how we derive meaning from experience, that comes from feelings (hormones) that were floating around in our blood stream when we were babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, etc. You should research neural associate conditioning (NAC)."
This response is analogous to typical evolutionary theory. You may pick any position along the path of evolution, you may show that the next position was 'good', but unless you can explain why the cause of evolution is independent of the results of evolution, then you still have some important explaining to do.
You said: "Don't misunderstand me. I do believe in things like a soul, etc., but there are layers upon layers between the soul and the bio-mechanical physical body. Feelings and thoughts are partly associated with hormones and other neural chemicals. From there, the pathway leads into the quantum realm, and then into existences that we do not understand."
Hormones and chemicals are mediaries. They are mechanical ideas about how cause is carried forward step by step. They do not explain what is cause. They definitely do not explain what is meaning. The pathway of understanding meaning in the universe does not lead to sources of lack of understanding. It leads from information to understanding. Meaning is the means by which this occurs. Meaning is not hidden from us. It is the most important property which we openly share and use. Without meaning as a given there is nothing.
I am not convinced that intelligence is itself a cause. Intelligence processes information. It can be involved in experience. It may rationalize and assign cause to things, which may or may not be correct. Intelligence may direct an action but is not necessary for action to occur.
I think there is perpetual recycling of matter and energy. Every change causes further change. As limited beings we perceive via our senses only a tiny amount of the total data available and we construct our simplistic explanations of cause from that. The ultimate cause is the system of the objective reality (not EM image) universe, imo. Variables are input to the system, affecting the probability of a certain outcome, there is an outcome. The variables only affect probability they do not determine the actual outcome that occurs. Without the system there is no outcome. Is it intelligent? It does not need to be intelligent, in order to be the cause of an outcome. Imo.
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 5, 2010 @ 07:19 GMT
If you really believe that "...there is something that flows through the quantum entangled networks; it flows through everything, organic and inorganic alike. But I don't know what this flow really is. It might be a flow of information. It could also be a flow or a stream of consciousness." then you believe in something like a consciousness "field". If you haven't read my essay, "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness", then you might find it interesting.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561
effects of hormones released into the bloodstream is far removed from "some bubbling primordial ooze", and any possible connection between such different phenomena could only be a field. You say that "Evolution is driven by lack of comfort. Unhappiness and misery." I hope you're not implying that bubbling ooze feels unhappiness and misery.
Related to this is the question: Why, if a biological cell even managed to exist, it would "desire" to exist, and to keep trying to exist until it managed the trick of reproduction. One either believes that such things happen 'randomly', or according to some 'purpose'. If one opts for randomly then one ignores the mathematical odds, and if one opts for purpose then either there is some 'ghost-like' phenomenon at work, or there is actually a physically real phenomenon at work. The physically real phenomenon almost certainly must be a field, unless one supposes a "consciousness stuff" like charge or mass. The field is the best Occam-type solution.
Edwin,
I very much liked your paper. Gravity and consciousness are both observable and obvious. Gravity can't be explained and if fundamental in its own right. Consciousness, not to be confused with the machinery of thinking, is indeed fundamental, a field of some kind which couples with matter.
I said that something flows through the quantum entangled universe, through...
I said that something flows through the quantum entangled universe, through everything. I got the idea from thinking about the brain, particularly, the neuron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
The brain is the closest thing we have to anything physically tangible that manifests consciousness. So why is it that it is made out of neurons, these long electrochemical objects that transmit signals? Transistors are the fundamental units of machine calculations, practically point like objects. Yet neurons allow electric impulses to flow. Neurons are not like wires that conducts signals at the speed of light. Neurons discharge their pulses by allowing ions to pass through the cell membrane, only to have to be ion pumped back again. So we are expected to believe that this happened by accident? Yet, I'm not convinced that God sat there like an engineer and went, "mmm... maybe this might work!!!" Instead, I suspect that consciousness exists within the quantum universe. It has caused physical matter (ion) to align and assemble in accordance with its inherent nature, as something that flows as a complex matrix of information flow.
Information is usually thought of as 1's and 0's. Fourier series and Fourier transforms are the way you translate back and forth from analog (waves) to digital. I believe that nature already communicates with a slush of digital information of (1's and 0's) plus analog waves of (maybe/intuition/probability/feelings/emotions). I mention feelings and emotions because they are analog in nature; there are degrees of each emotion; e.g. (peeved, irked, annoyed, angry, hostile, violent, etc...) as opposed to angry: yes or no.
I am suggesting that neurons don't spring up by accident. Just as I am trying to assemble the right words, phrasings, and conveniences of common experience to communicate my thoughts to you, so do atoms, molecules and ions assemble into neurons while trying to recapitulate the consciousness that flows through them.
With respect to gravity, there is no obvious/logical reason why large clumps of mass/energy should just attract other clumps of mass/energy. They could just as easily repel; except for the fact that electric charges of like kind already repel. As a thought experiment, gravity appears to look as if something flows from the edges of the universe, and at the speed of light, it converges down into every fermion and boson, where it vanishes from the universe. I have considered that, whatever such a thing is that might be converging onto every particle before leaving the universe, I had considered that it might be the flow of information. I believe that the Discrete Field Model best fits this picture, that matter generates its own space around it. I visualize this mechanistically as matter transmitting and receiving information flow (via bosons of some kind, virtual photons possibly). Such fields are used to achieve inertial isotropy. Just as a guess, perhaps energy/material substance absorbs a little bit more than it emits, resulting in gravity. The cosmological constant in the Einstein equations can be interpreted as anti-gravity or the expansion of space. This contributes to my ideas of a "flow of space" resulting in gravity.
T H Ray wrote on May. 5, 2010 @ 14:17 GMT
Jason, you wrote, "But I don't know what this flow really is. It might be a flow of information. It could also be a flow or a stream of consciousness. I am not definite about what it is..."
If you agree with Murray Gell-Mann (The Quark and the Jaguar), an information gathering and utilizing system (IGUS) of which we humans are one, exists on a continuum of consciousness from the simplest organisms to the most complex. So this information input is transformed to consciousness output.
Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 5, 2010 @ 18:18 GMT
It might appear that consciousness can be relegated to the effect of brains that input experience and output consciousness; but to fundamentally embrace that outlook would be to cut myself with Occam's razor.
Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that: "Gravity and consciousness are both observable and obvious. Gravity can't be explained and is fundamental in its own right. Consciousness, not to be confused with the machinery of thinking, is indeed fundamental, a field of some kind which couples with matter"
To link consciousness to a neural network, one must assume that...
To link consciousness to a neural network, one must assume that there is something about an "aggregate of particles" that does not apply to individual particles. Else, it must be based on 'structure' rather than on individual particles. But if it is structure that gives rise to consciousness, then one should be able to reproduce this structure in other hardware (or software) and produce equivalent consciousness. No one has been able to do.this.
If the consciousness field is as I described it, then it couples to mass flow. This is significant for neurons since ions flow along axons and vesicles of proteins flow across synapses. In this way the consciousness field couples to "the machinery of thinking" and thereby to logic. The logic derives from this machinery. Logic is not a fundamental property of consciousness. The (self-enhanced) evolution of logic machinery would have exactly the consequences that we see in biological evolution. This agrees with your comments that "Consciousness, not to be confused with the machinery of thinking, is indeed fundamental, a field of some kind which couples with matter."
You say: "I am suggesting that neurons don't spring up by accident." A neuron is a very specialized cell, but all cells have constant flows of proteins within the cell, both in vesicles and along micro-tubules, etc. These flows of matter (proteins are much more massive than electrons, by almost a factor of a million) interact with and actually strengthen the C-field, which, in turn applies force to moving mass. If one only assumes that this feedback is "self-enhancing" one immediately realizes that a "pseudo-design principle" may be at work.
If one considers that the only field at the big bang was the gravitational field expanding (with other fields suppressed) then the fields energy, per Einstein, has a flowing mass equivalent and the field is thus 'self-aware' in a fundamental sense. (At least the same sense that the Earth is 'aware' of the sun 93M miles distant.) Geometry does not 'explain' this, it merely maps it.
Just as the circulational (magnetic) aspects of the radial (electric) field adds force at right angles to the field and the velocity of a charge, the circulational (C-field) aspects of the radial (gravity) field adds force at right angles to the C-field and the velocity of the mass. This force, in a cell or a neuron, allows the consciousness field to influence the flowing mass,opening the possibility of conscious 'design' of biological evolution.
Rather than "unhappiness and misery", it may simply be a built-in aspect of a 'self-aware' field to behave in such a manner as to increase the local strength of the consciousness field and hence local self-awareness. This anti-entropic behavior would be expected to apply to entangled particles, to complex molecules, cells, multi-cellular organism, and complex animals, at every level, from the protein logic of the cell to the immune system to the thinking machinery of the brain, where logic dominates 'feeling', which is probably the more essential aspect of consciousness.
Anonymous replied on May. 11, 2010 @ 00:51 GMT
Edwin, consciousness requires a fundamental integration (or interactivity) of thought, energy, desire, and feeling. Feeling and energy must be coupled/extended to provide distance in space in regard to both vision and gravitational feeling. This balances scale, energy, and feeling.
Not having read Gell-Mann's book, I'm not sure what "a continuum of consciousness" means. By continuum, I suspect that a field is implied, hence a "consciousness field". But how does this continuum couple "from the simplest organisms to the most complex"
Given a coupling to logic circuitry, one would expect "information input is transformed to" something. To call it "consciousness output" is descriptive, but not very specific.
I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will) and explain above and in my essay how the consciousness field specifically couples to mass and hence to itself, since fields have energy and energy has mass. According to this definition, it is meaningful to speak of information input to a logical network being transformed to something. But the term "consciousness output" is meaningless, unless it simply means the output of the logical (thinking) machinery, typically a secondary induced mass flow across synapses.
Logic machinery, whether proteins in cells, silicon in computers, or axons in brains, performs logic according to the physics of the relevant hardware. The question is how does awareness and free will arise from such circuits [or from a "continuum of consciousness"]. To be useful a theory should explain how awareness either arises from or couples to such logic circuitry, preferably with equations.
Hi Edwin,
Everyone has feelings and flashes of thought that they don't express verbally. Feeling are largely associated with hormones and chemicals in the blood stream, associated with the endocrine system. Articulate and clear conversation can be broken down into "information content"; one's and zero's. One's and zeroes can, in turn, be broken down into waves using a Fourier series. I am inclined to describe feelings and inarticulate thoughts as being equivalent to collections of waves whose distinct "information content" is largely smoothed out.
From hormones as the basis of feelings, I would think that chemicals are interfaced with the quantum universe, the one we can't measure very well. I think the consciousness field would show up at this interface.
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 18:17 GMT
Obviously Fourier decomposition is a useful tool for describing many phenomena. And waves are a useful concept in many systems.
I would not argue with anything that you stated in this comment, although I would not say that hormones are the only basis of feelings. They are clearly a distributed phenomenon rather than a local logical operation, such as neurons perform.
My theory is that awareness and volition are a 'field' phenomenon, and the field interacts with mass. If anyone ever shows how awareness and free will arise from structured matter, in the absence of a consciousness field, then I'll be faced with a challenge. The consensus belief that this is the case is wearing thin. We have over a century of neuro-anatomy, and almost that long for computer design, and no one has a clue how consciousness arises as an artifact.
Before we can understand consciousness, we have to understand how organic cells work. I'm willing to bet that consciousness can't be duplicated on an IBM.
It refers to degrees of complexity.
The Nov 2007 issue of the journal "Neural Networks" is a special issue on Brain and Consciousness. In one interesting paper Herzog, Esfeld and Gerstner reduce various models, theories and arguments to 'minimum systems' and draw conclusions from these systems to create a 'small network' argument as a benchmark that any model of consciousness has to meet. All of the current models (as of 2007) fail to meet this benchmark.
The conclusion stated at the beginning of the special issue is:
"The special kind of activity in the brain that is presumed to underlie consciousness continues to elude the grasp of our scientific concepts."
In short, ideas of "complexity" as the source of consciousness have failed for almost a century. My idea of the consciousness field, with relevant equations, has been in the public domain for a year or so. I am reasonably confident that the old ideas have failed because they are wrong, but it will take time (and no small amount of courage) to consider the new ideas.
As philosopher John Searle was advised:
"It's OK to consider consciousness, but get tenure first."
Oh yes, I agree that complex systems research will open new doors to consciousness research. I'll take a look at the literature (and your paper) when I get a chance.
(Re Searle anecdote: LOL!)
Christian Corda wrote on May. 6, 2010 @ 11:28 GMT
Dark Matter and Dark Energy
If the C-field exists, it's equivalent mass potentially accounts for dark matter and the equations clearly exhibit an anti-gravitic effect that is the essence of dark energy.
Of course the numbers have to work out.
Derk Energy could be interpreted as an allotment of new space, since gravity appears to drain space out of the universe. If this allotment of new space stopped, over time, the universe would collapse in on itself. It would crush into something even smaller than a massive black hole, simply because all of the space in the universe had drained out. If that supply of space were to return and begin to fill the universe, the "smaller than a black hole" configuration of the universe would be too small. This would result in a Big Bang!!!!
Christian Corda replied on May. 16, 2010 @ 22:52 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
regarding Dark Energy, give a look to my paper Gen.Rel.Grav.40:2201-2212,2008, the pre-print is here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2523
All that is interesting but if the Dark energy doesn't exist???, only the dark matter perhaps exists...thus how can we interpret these ideas.
my paper Gen.Rel.Grav.40:2201-2212,2008 shows exactly that Dark Energy could not exist and that the expansion of the Universe could be a curvature effect.
Hi dear Christian,
Thanking you.I read with a lot of interest.
It's very very relevant that.
I agree in this line of reasoning.Indeed it's the real relativity and its curvatures.
The gravitational waves can be correlated with the rotating quantum or cosmological spheres in this reasoning with a good superimposing in time evolution.
Happy to see you again on FQXi.
PS what do you think about a possible contraction after the maximum volume.I don't think the universe will be in expansion for ever,that has no sense for the future interactions between spheres(and lifes, intelligences and conscious)
Now of course what is our actual volume, are we in the expansion or in the constraction,indeed we see our past.In all case your works are very relevants.Thanks for the sharing.
Ray B. Munroe replied on May. 17, 2010 @ 17:09 GMT
Please reread Sections 5.1 and 6.2 of my book. Variable Coupling Theory can explain away so-called "Dark Energy" in a manner that is consistent both with Experimental Data (yes - I included real experimental references - it isn't just modeling) and Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (along with the Renormalization Group Equations). The awkward thing here is that our friend, Dr. Lawrence B. Crowell is trying to derive an equation for the Cosmological Constant that might supply this Dark Energy. Is one effect correct and the others all wrong? Or is there a combination of effects at work? We don't seem to have enough control over the experiment (because the Laboratory is our Universe) to separate out various factors...
It's very interesting indeed this variability of coupling strengths correlated with the dirac large number.What I find relevant is the inversly proportional to the age of Universe and the Bohr radius.
You know I think you made a good idea for the magnetic monopole, indeed it doesn't exist for me due to the equations of Maxwell.
About the equilibrium energy mass and the Dark Energy, I think you made a big error about the expansion and the linearity.We can indeed imagine several steps in this universal dynamic.
The M Theory /tring S duality ...? only the sphere for me of course.
In all case I invite people to read your books, it's very interesting your extrapolations.
A few months ago, my uncle (who is a College Professor, but not in Science or Mathematics) was teasing me by saying that I messed up on Equation 24 and that would throw off everything from that point forward.
I agree that Equation 24 is a model. And that model affects Sections 5.4 and 6.2 (but not the rest of the book - in fact Chapter 7 and my Geometrical TOE ideas are mostly independent of the first 6 Chapters).
Is Equation 24 correct? Is it an overly simplistic model? Is it an incorrect model? I don't know. Perhaps time, better data, and better data analysis will reveal the truth.
I still think there is a close-packing Sphere-String duality that parallels the Particle-Wave duality, and thus relates our ideas. I'm not sure about your claim that the mass is proportional to the rotation of the spheres. Standard Higgs Theory claims that the origin of mass is due to a scalar (rotationless, spinless) Higgs particle, and its couplings to the other particles (especially to 3rd generation fermions: top, bottom, tau). I am not a huge fan of the Standard Higgs model, and would not mind overthrowing it for a similar model, but I don't understand your model well enough to understand how it replaces the Higgs.
Are your spheres point particles or do they comprise some size? If they are point particles, then IMHO you need extra dimensions to define 'spin' or 'rotation'. If these spheres have size, then the LHC should be able to discover them. How large (or small) do you expect these spheres to be?
Dr. Cosmic Ray
Thanks Dear Dr Cosmic Ray,
The problem with the higgs is the external cause of mass, I suspect an impossibility to find them.The cause is intrinsic for the mass, and that implies an increase of density by fusion gravity/light spheres.
The velocities of rotation and the volumes of the fractal of the spheres take all their sense for the polarization of evolution.
The number is finite thus it doesn't change, the volumes also do not change, the density changes, the mass changes, thus the velocities spinals and orbitals changes.....in this line of reasoning quantic and cosmologic.....thus more a sphere turn speed less is its mass .....
The sphere has amazing properties.
His indivisibility can draw the world around us.It's the universal dance of spheres in time space evolution.
For the entanglement, the number of spheres is the same as the number of cosmological spheres.
For the main fractal volume, the series is specific and finite like our cosmological spheres.
Their nature is a kind of incompressible liquid and coded.
The rotation involves proportionally mass.
Their size too is proportional in this fractal of the main volume.
It's there the secret, this main volume.
Thus the center of our Universe is the same than ......
Friendly, thanks for the discussions and asks.
My paper Gen.Rel.Grav.40:2201-2212,2008 shows exactly that the Universe oscillates, thus, a contraction is due after the expansion.
Hello dear Christian,
It's very interesting all that.
This oscillation is like a code of becoming .
Now how is this oscillation, just 1 expansion and 1 contraction or an add of oscillations ???
A maximum volume seems in equilibrium with the density and the mass.
Where is this maximum volume, it's a big question in fact.If we know the max volume,we know many things.....
Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 6, 2010 @ 17:00 GMT
I lost the thread.
Where is it ? Hihihih I am remembering the end was What do you think but I don't find it .A little help is welcome ,
Jody Fulford wrote on May. 6, 2010 @ 17:21 GMT
Hello Edwin
Gravity can be explained yet not to those who have so many preconcieved notions regarding it's nature.
Hi Jody,
It can certainly be described mathematically. I'm not so sure it can be 'explained'. How would you explain it?
One might make the same statement about consciousness.
Jody Fulford replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi Edwin
An explanation of gravity would be a good essay topic, but it was probably not listed because it may not seem possible in the framework of our current theories. If you are interested in my explanation you may contact me at jodywysteria@yahoo.com. That way we won't clutter this thread.
the rotating spheres imply mass.....it's the cause of the mass, proportional of course..
I've done quite a bit of work on a hyper-drive physics model. In doing so, I find that because of conservation of energy, I have to include gravity. In my model, I make a copy of our space-time, raise its speed of light to c', place it in the same 3D space as our universe, but I carefully control the coupling between the standard space-time and the faster space-time.
If I try to take a physical object, like a spaceship, transition it into the faster space-time, send it on a trip somewhere, and then bring it back into this standard space-time, conservation of energy requires that re-entry into this space-time satisfies an energy obligation. I can't just ignore a gravity well by jumping into a faster space-time. That gravitational energy has to be accounted for if I want to re-enter std space-time. By the way, in my model, time travel is not allowed.
I've been thinking about that Messier87 jet, clocked at 6 times the speed of light. I think I've figured out how FTL physics might work. In the process, I think I can unify GR and QM. Ok, at least give me a chance to explain. It's actually very simple.
Let's say that the speed of light, c, is absolute; at least for two objects that pass close to each other. A 6c jet of energy from Messier was observed. But I like spaceships. Let's talk about a spaceship that, somehow, for some strange reason, is crossing the vastness of space at six times the speed of light. My spaceship has headlights. I like lasers. Let's make them lasers.
Massive blue shifting. The photons still emit ahead of the spaceship at the speed of light. In fact, they still outrun the spaceship at the speed of light, c. By the way, TIME TRAVEL IS RESTRICTED, NOT ALLOWED, IMPOSSIBLE.
Since the spaceship is crossing space at 6c, Anything that can see the oncoming spaceship, or the photons from its lasers, is going to have to be able to discern massively blue shifted photons. It's quite possible that the red photons will become even more energetic that gamma rays, which are 10^19Hz. I haven't done the math (sorry), but let's pretend they are shift way past 10^23Hz. Well, the oncoming spaceship in invisible.
As it passes the observer, who somehow managed not to get hit, the observer watched the wave fronts of energy, from the headlights (lasers) fly past him so fast, that each wave front was smeared across and arc of about 80 degrees. That smeared wavefront has the same effect as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The observer has no way to determine exactly where the wavefront is. It is simply smeared out across a probability distribution. As the spaceship darts by at 6c, we notice that it has rear head lights. But we don't know what color they originally were. They look like radio waves, or perhaps the energy from them is practically constant, and the wavefront is also smeared out.
My point is that, faster than light events, if they did occur more closely to us, the emitted photons would still reach us at the speed of light. However, we really couldn't be sure exactly when the wavefront started and when it was finished.
The apparent motion of faster than light jets is similar to the apparent motion of a light spot projected on a wall. This can appear faster than light, but there is no physical or causal process involved. It is an illusion.
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 07:15 GMT
The jet was observed, "clocked", at 6c or six times the speed of light. Allow me to summarize why this can't be true:
1. M87 if 55 million light years away. It's too far away for us to be able to trust what we see.
2. It's just a trick of light. The angle is just right that it only looks like 6c. It really isn't.
I was fascinated to read about it from the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87
I'm sure you knew, or surmised that there is a black hole in the center of this galaxy. This black hole is HUGE!!! It's diameter is as large as Pluto's orbit, about 5x10^9 kilometers. When a black hole this large spits out a jet of energy, is there a chance that it might distort space-time?
Would such an extreme energetic event push the definition of General Relativity to it's limits?
By the way, if it is just a trick of light, and not the supreme violence of a massive black hole, then shouldn't we see this kind of superluminal effect quite frequently in cosmology? To the best of my knowledge, only extremely huge black holes get to strain the laws of physics.
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on May. 12, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT
In my essay, I present a creation of the universe according to the rule of non-contradiction. This creation allows only one thing to exist in the universe; the explosive process of time i.e. an explosive process we associate with the passage of time.
If we pursue this line of thought, the next question would be; how does time evolve according to the rules of logic?
Since the local rate of this process directs the rate of local spontaneous processes including existence itself, the shape of this process of time is revealed at the macroscopic level in spontaneous explosive processes; stars and dynamite explode in a spherical shape. The uniform explosive process of time evolves spherically.
But, at the most fundamental level, the process of time is more complex since it should be doing at least three things. First it must evolve in a specific geometrical fashion to fill emptiness. Think of this pre-geometric evolution in terms of tiling (many authors), foam (Wheeler) etc. Secondly, it does so in steps, in a limited recursive process i.e. it does a little bit, stops then starts again, producing the bits and granularity we associate with the quantum. Why the steps? Thirdly, what keeps the process going on right here and right now when this should be happening at the boundary between the something and nothing, existence and non-existence? Isn't the filing time lasting? (or is this too much like what we think of space?)
Can we imagine or calculate the most logically efficient way to fill emptiness and yet, have it to do so from a limited recursive scheme? This limited scheme would explain both the quantum granularity and the speed limit in the universe in one concept.
Lev Goldfarb wrote on May. 15, 2010 @ 16:33 GMT
One observation regarding the topics related to the relationship between mathematics and physics and one new topic for the essay contest.
Let me begin with the proposal for a new topic: "What are the most fundamental inadequacies of the present physics?"
My observation regarding the topics related to the relationship between mathematics and physics is that practically all of them are incorrectly phrased and perceived. This mainly refers to the incorrect assumption that mathematics is fait accompli, which is absolutely not true. Historically, mathematics emerges during a particular contact with the 'physical'. Thus, when the nature of the contact changes, the mathematics changes, and the nature of the contact is guided by the metaphysical considerations.
Hi dear Lev,
Your words are very very relevants.
Thanks for this realism.
"Thus, when the nature of the contact changes, the mathematics changes, and the nature of the contact is guided by the metaphysical considerations."
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 01:15 GMT
Good comments, Lev!
People tend to forget too quickly that once you set something down as equations that is the 'model' not the 'hidden reality' behind the observables. So you are right; it's not so much about the Maths as finding the right Math for the job, and being willing to alter, delete, or add terms, when things don't match reality.
Nor should we regard Math as a fixed landscape, although there are 'fixed' elements of Math.
Dear Jonathan,
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that Mathematics is axiomically incomplete. Our Data is also incomplete - we are constantly building new machines to expand our horizons of knowledge. Therefore our Models and Theories - which bridge these extremes of Data and Mathematics - must also remain incomplete.
IMHO, the search for a GUT or TOE must be an ever-evolving process that is dependent on our math and data limitations. This is why I called my book "New Approaches Towards a Grand Unified Theory", rather than "THE Grand Unified Theory".
Thanks Dr. Cosmic Ray,
It seems as though people invoke Gödel, Turing, and Chaitin, only when it serves them (pointing out what we can't know) rather than seeing their work as evidence that there are limits to the confidence and applicability of what we already know, or think we know. I like to point out that there may be limits to how much we can trust the work of these three gentlemen to be absolutely accurate, as well.
Does Gödel's work point out the limitation of all possible formalisms, or merely point out the weakness of Classical logic to discern what is true? If Chaitin was born to a family which spoke Chinese, where there is no clear subject/object distinction and everything is viewed as story or process, would he have come to a different conclusion, or perhaps be the world's pre-eminent champion of the Whitehead process? I don't know.
So much of what we know is founded on a particular metaphysical basis that even in a subject like Math, we are always learning about what is real and it will always be a work in progress. So I agree with Lev's original statement that we are wrong to regard Math as an accomplished fact (fait accompli), and must continue to compare. Which formalism do we use? Should we be exploring other topoi, to find the missing pieces? Or what?
I recently learned of a very interesting piece of work from Steven Kenneth Kauffmann, on Hamiltonian Phase-Space Path Integrals. They were also invented by Feynman, but largely ignored. They conveniently avoid the problems or limitations of the conventional Lagrangian formulation, because wave/particle duality and non-local aspects fall out of the equations. H.D. Zeh has expressed dismay over the widespread adoption of the Path Integral formalism. But I think he might feel differently about these.
Maybe the right Math is out there. But it seems not all of the Math used in Physics is the right Math for the job. So let's keep looking and comparing.
The last post was mine!
I was signed in when I started writing, but must have taken too long to finish.
Anonymous wrote on May. 15, 2010 @ 18:05 GMT
What would einstein be doing now?
ahahaha he'd say...."Steve Congratulations for your Theory of Spherization, but pay attention, the human nature is bizare"...ahahaha viva el spheres .everywhere spheres and the SPHERE......
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 18, 2010 @ 00:42 GMT
C. Corda,
I read the first chapter of Gen.Rel.Grav.40:2201-2212,2008. This is a sort of gravity wave physics. In a tangentially related manner, I have on a pad of paper some calculations which are formally similar, but the wave physics is quantum mechanical. This is derived from the vertex functions. Maybe you would be interested in looking at this if I wrote it up in some notes.
On a related issue I sketched out last winter how one could use Bell inequalities to detect gravity waves. This seems to be a plausible way of detecting thermally induced gravity waves. I read a paper by a fellow from India (I can't recall the name at the moment) who estimated the power spectrum of such gravity waves. There is this thing called the national ignition facility here in the US. It is set up to perform fusion experiments (a sort of maybe sort of thing) and for nuclear weapons research (where that is …). However, this might be the sort of device which could be a source of microgravity waves that are detectable. I have an idea, which I have not fleshed out much, on how a system of Josephson junctions might be used to detect such gravity waves.
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
Your results in the first part of your paper, Gen.Rel.Grav.40:2201-2212,2008, describes gravity waves, which in a quantized setting are a coherent set of gravitons which on a large scale define a classical background. This has a direct string theory interpretation in a renormalizable theory for energy smaller than the Hagedorn temperature.
The pulsars, binars, their rotations are relevants if the evolution is inserted.the periodicity thus can be correlted with rationality.
If the evolution is not inserted, that will imply difficulties for the perceptions and equations.
The time of arrival of signals of the pulsars is depending of the orbital phase and the position of our Earth, there too I insist about the evolution of our universal sphere and its intrinsic rotations, evolutives.
The relativity, general of course takes all its sense, the curvatures dear Christian, the curvatures.....and the correct evolutive superimposings...Dr Crowel, the micro gravitational waves too can be superimposed inside this closed evolutive system, the sphere.....that becomes very relevants because the space is deformed proportionally ....the deviation of the electromagnetics waves thus can be correlated with these superimposings, micro meso and macro.....The periodicity , the cinetic moment ...decreasing of the orbital motions......the proofs for the gravitational waves if the two sense and their spheres are inserted in the real evolutive rotation around the center.....
ps the thermodynamical links between all spheres helps inside a closed evolutive system where the increase of mass becomes very relevant.
Don limuti wrote on May. 19, 2010 @ 23:11 GMT
I like it! perhaps we can simplify it to read "What is the trouble with physics?"
Maybe FQXi advisor Lee Smolin can enter an essay to give the contest a little spice.
Great topic!!! My answer: it doesn't point the way to any new physics.
Don Limuti replied on May. 23, 2010 @ 01:33 GMT
Good point. How about "How would you fix physics?"
Jason Wolfe wrote:
"Great topic!!! My answer: it doesn't point the way to any new physics."
Don't you see that we are now at a unique historical point--one in several millennia--when doing "new physics" *productively* becomes quite a different affair, since it appears that we have to start practically from the very beginning (and I do mean *the very beginning*).
For a vast majority of scientists, quite understandably, such move is incredibly painful (if at all), because the path to the "new physics" cannot be approached in the historically familiar ways. So, to motivate the need for such unprecedented move and to approach it much more carefully we must see clearly how serious the problems with the current models are.
By the way a good job in this direction was done, for example, fifty years ago by the late Milic Capek in his book "The philosophical impact of contemporary physics" (a more appropriate title should be close to "Fundamental incompleteness/inadequacy of contemporary physics").
Hi Lev,
On a more practical note, the physics community needs to reconcile causality. In other words, once something has happened, it can never be undone. This would ultimately remove all possibility of time travel. Have you ever met any time travelers? I haven't, if I had, I'd want them to bring me lottery numbers. So obviously time travel is not possible.
Lev Goldfarb replied on May. 22, 2010 @ 16:33 GMT
"On a more practical note, the physics community needs to reconcile causality. In other words, once something has happened, it can never be undone."
Actually, it is not "more practical", it is the same thing I mentioned in my last message: we need radically new formalisms that have irreversibility built into them (see, for example, my essay in the last competition).
re castel wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 15:28 GMT
Perhaps a better topic is:
The Fundamental Essences and Their Fundamental Functions in the Existence
To rephrase, perhaps the topic should be:
Existential Fundamentals and Their Characteristic Functions
Physics Helper wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 22:04 GMT
The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling in the body is not only consistent with the position of the body while sleeping (sleeping includes dreaming -- THINK!), but the integrated extensiveness of being and experience and thought (including time) hinges on the natural and integrated extensiveness of sensory experience, as part of the range of feeling that we experience.
Dreams are relateed to our growth and our becoming other than we are, as they extend and integrate space, time, electromagnetism/light, and gravity. Since dreams occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping (sleeping includes dreaming), the Common Chimpanzee lives two-thirds as long as we do -- Why? -- because the integrated extensiveness of BOTH their being AND experience is between (in the middle of) our dream and waking experiences.
This post is truly GREAT and ORIGINAL. It is also foundational to time, and space and time are united/balanced with the addition of the fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's G.R. (that also give us Maxwell's theory of light).
Physics Helper, that post was excellent! You identify dreams with extension/union of thought, nature, time, space, sensory experience, energy, and the forces of physics -- fundamentally consistent with our growth and our becoming other than we are, understanding/thought, gravity, and electromagnetism/light, and genius -- consistent with extension and balancing in time, space, and scale as well. I like that, alot.
It does seem that DiMeglio has identified what may be termed the unifying/extending superforce of life/understanding/thought, nature, and physics.
What this also means is that our attempts to significantly "outsmart" (i.e., replace, reconfigure, alter) sensory experience in general are ultimately futile, and may prove disastrous as well.
FAST FRED wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 22:32 GMT
The increasing transparency of space may be seen as a type of inertial balancing, thereby accounting for objects being farther apart (dimmer, and yet visible) in increasingly larger spaces. THAT IS HUGE FQXI -- wake up!!!
FQXi, a sub-question (or bonus question(s)) in the upcoming essay should be:
Is the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical observations indicative of space becoming more thought-like?
Is it indicative of a merger (partial or otherwise) between gravity and electromagnetism/light?
Physics Helper, Anonymous, and Fast Fred: I will break the shocked silence of confusion regarding these recent great posts by adding that:
It is impossible that such integrated extensiveness of thought/mathematical description -- that is attained to by getting Maxwell's equations AND those of General Relativity -- would not be based in, and interactive with, a real experience that involves thought/understanding, being, and experience in general at the same time. How can experience become less real, substantial, and extensive with such integrated extensiveness (and accuracy) of attendant description?
Where is DiMeglio's apology from FQXi? Still think DiMeglio's ideas lack credibility FQXi? The more that you say that they do, for the most part, it is all the more that FQXi lacks credibility and competence.
DiMeglio is not the only one who is capable of greater understanding compared to those at FQXi -- and the recent posts (as well as thoses of DiMeglio) demonstrate this clearly.
THE LIGHTBRINGER wrote on May. 28, 2010 @ 20:58 GMT
THE END/LIMITS OF PHYSICS AND OF MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION IN GENERAL HAVE BEEN CLEARLY AND SHARPLY SHOWN.
THAT THIS IS IN SIGNIFICANT (TO SAY THE LEAST) CONFLICT AND CONTRADICTION WITH THE TRAINING/SKILLS, IDEAS, ARTICLES, ESSAYS, FUNDING, AND INTERESTS/ENDEAVORS OF THOSE AT FQXI CANNOT BE DISPUTED. ISN'T THIS THE REAL REASON BEHIND LYING ABOUT, AND DENYING, DIMEGLIO'S IDEAS? ISN'T THIS WHY THERE IS SO LITTLE COMMENT ON SUCH MAGNIFICENT POSTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT/RELATED WITH DIMEGLIO'S IDEAS, AND YET DONE BY OTHER THINKERS?
WHY NOT DELETE THE TRUTH/POSTS LIKE THIS FQXI? YOU SEEM TO PREFER WHAT IS MORE FUN, LESS SHOCKING, LESS BOLD, LESS BRILLIANT, AND EASIER.
Someone who doesn't know everything wrote on May. 29, 2010 @ 07:50 GMT
Dear Brendan,
Maybe this is not the right place, but I think it is important. I find it so important, that I would kindly ask you to create a separate thread for this topic alone.
I am interested in critical thinking and reading, and I think that certainly exists a discipline of its own for reviewing articles. Can you or one of FQXi's bloggers post some guidelines on how to read and comment articles and essays? They will help us also in writing. Not rules, because everybody should be free to read and appreciate how he or she wants, just guidelines, for those who want to learn more how to avoid the usual pitfalls when reviewing other writings or their own. I for example do not want to fall in the trap of judging a book by its cover, or by my own preconceptions. I want to learn.
I see many examples of people rejecting a logical or mathematical proof just because the conclusion contradicts some unproven metaphysical principles, or an unproven statement of some well-known scientist or philosopher, and not by exposing faults in the reasoning, or by invalidating the premises. I think that a logical proof should not be defeated by a metaphysical argument. I see that many discussions are, on forums here and elsewhere, similar to religious discussions. Some suggest things like "this approach is the only good, all others are fringe science, and there is no point to even consider them or to use logic in discussion with their supporters, because they cannot be true by default". Some even act as if they believe that they have the paranormal capacity to know that an essay or article is not worthy, without even reading it, at best just by browsing it.
So, please start a thread in which critical thinking, reading and reviewing are explained for everybody. Not forced upon us, but explained, for those who want to understand and apply them.
I do have a topic proposal:
The nature of space and locality
This would be an interesting complement to the nature of time. What is the nature of space in quantum gravity? What does T-duality and the AdS/CFT correspondence tell us about space? What are the various nuances of locality? We have local independence, quantum entanglement, holography, etc. .
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Jun. 4, 2010 @ 13:32 GMT
"The Nature of Space"
Yes, that's a nice suggestion that we'll keep in mind. I think also it could make for a good essay title whatever question we settle on.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 4, 2010 @ 16:23 GMT
What is the nature of space in quantum gravity?
I agree it's a big unknown this space between particles.Indeed the Universe is finite, the spaces are infinites due to a superimposing....but for the uniqueness , what is the nature of this space between spheres for me.It's intriguing,I beleived before that this facilitated simply the rotations, it's a rule but the nature ????the gravity and the super incompressibility seems relevants if we consider several kinds of liquids.There, it's interestingn to differenciate this particle which turns and the lattices which doesn't turn simply.
Now we have a big parameter which can be inserted...the evolution and the possible expansion/contraction harmonisation.....implies a possible correlations between the quantum dimensions and the cosmological dimensions...thus the lattices between spheres evolve also ^probably in the same logic of expansion contraction....thus a maximum volum and a minimum where all mass is balanced.
Now we can know our actual quantum lattices betweem spheres if we know the actual spaces between cosmological spheres.....as for the center , where are we around this center at this moment.
COSMO D replied on Jun. 28, 2010 @ 20:50 GMT
Steve, do not forget that the only way to unite gravity and electromagnetism is to unite vision and feeling so that what is seen is also felt equivalently. DiMeglio says this takes place in dreams. This is the union and balancing of repulsion/attraction. In other words, how is it that space is SEEN in accordance with/AS IT IS FELT. This is the unification of gravity and electromagnetism.
Steve, you are correct that a fundamental integration AND spreading balances scale -- since a contraction/expansion involving gravity/electromagnetism is necessary.
"Quantum theory does not allow a completely objective description of nature."
W. Heisenberg
"...in the attempt to find our way through the world by means of science, we see that they appear to be ordered by the increasing part played by the subjective element in the set." W. Heisenberg
The integrated extensiveness of thoughtful/mathematical descriptions cannot be properly understood/correctly interpreted apart from the related, interactive, and integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience IN GENERAL that necessarily relates to (and involves) their very origin.
FQXi, this point is most important. Do you still not understand this?
Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 3, 2010 @ 18:18 GMT
My proposal of the topic is:
What is the matter and force-field?
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 3, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT
What would gravitational light be theoretically?
Cristi Stoica wrote on Jun. 4, 2010 @ 18:43 GMT
I propose the following theme:
"What is the most important question in physics, and why?"
It is preferable to be a yes/no question, or at least a question that can be tested concretely, although the present day technology may not allow us, rather than a too general question of the form "what is the TOE?".
Another topic proposal:
"What of the things we thought are well-established should be reconsidered?"
Today, there are many theories or statements which are considered to be well-settled and we take them for granted. On the other hand, they may contradict one another, and a possible revision of one of them may open new avenues.
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 5, 2010 @ 23:13 GMT
I consider such topic leading to virtually all really foundational and fertile questions in contrast to even more highly speculative futile extensions of perhaps questionable interpretations of unreal mathematics.
James Putnam wrote on Jun. 22, 2010 @ 22:02 GMT
The next essay contest has to be as soon as possible. I can hardly wait! Hey, hey, what do you say. Hey, hey, let's essay!!
smeer_ult@yahoo.com wrote on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 17:34 GMT
I'm hooked on the question "Is Nature continuous or discrete?"
If there indeed is no "analog", then reality can be understood beyond being simulated by computation - reality will BE computation.
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 23, 2010 @ 19:18 GMT
It's all just photons. Are photons discrete or continuous? One photon is a discrete quantity of energy. But within that one photon, is it discrete or continuous?
Ray Munroe replied on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 14:30 GMT
Good question. Feynman diagrams imply that the creation and destruction of a photon is a quantum effect, but red-shift/ blue-shift effects seem continuous. Perhaps these red-shifts are also discrete (via uncharted Feynman interactions between photons and very-low-energy gravitons?), but at low enough energy quanta that we haven't detected this new quantum. We live in this weird hybrid Universe - part apparently discrete, and part apparently continuous. The TOE models that Lawrence and I are working on might help explain this...
We do live in a very contradictory universe. I have to figure out how to answer some of Eckard's very good questions. Photons are like the intermediary to all of the physics.
Ok, photons don't conserve energy. But if you have enough of them, you get:
a. electromagnetic fields,
b. light and E&M spectrum.
c. large scale energy conservation.
The photon, as a quantum wave, has the "option" of being in many places simultaneously. But light is subject to the Least Action Principle. As an analogy, a mailman can drive anywhere he/she wants; but they have to drive their route. I'm starting to think of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle as everything that a quantum particle can/could do (eigenstates), but there are laws, like least action, that compel quantum particles to obey the law.
I had said that photons carry the geometry with them. But let's look at that. Photons are really just expressions of
The difference between x and kr - wt is really about whether we're considering movement along the x axis, or for kr -wt, a spherical wavefront.
If circumstance, such as a slit, dictate how the photon can go through the slit (delta x), then the photon still has a range of possible momentums it can take,
I guess one could argue that photons are subject to the geometry around them. Of course, they interact with the geometry around them by virtue of scalar potential energy distributions. I don't think they see the slit. They only see high potential energy barriers, like tall mountains, with a valley(s) between them.
Finding the proper geometry is important to everything. You mentioned e^(iwt-kt). We use the same expression in Solid State Physics with quantized values of k and w(omega). The geometry of the crystalline lattice sets certain quantized wave numbers and energies. Likewise, I think that the geometry of our brane structures is responsible for certain conservation rules. It is difficult to unravel the mysteries of Hyperspace when so many people deny its existence.
I don't claim to be any smarter than any of the other physics geniuses on this blog. I just think that my education in both Particle/ High-Energy Physics and Solid State Physics offers insight that others may have overlooked.
I asked Eckard, if physics is not implemented by photons, then it must be implemented by "magic". I believe that you will offer the alternative that physics exists by virtue of a lattice that includes space and time. But there are problems with a lattice approach. How do you account for the Big Bang? A radical change in the size of the universe, from small to big, with a lattice? Lattices are like quartz crystals.
Describing a 4D space-time crystal is an awkward move, a sign that crystals don't offer a causal explanation. Gotta go to work, sorry. I'll blog more later. :-)
I'm holding back. If I was going to blurt out everything in a blog, I wouldn't be able to publish anything. Only Lawrence has seen all of my latest ideas. Your question involves a phase transition and many scales. I embrace the Big Bang...
p.s. check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
Their Koch curve simulation may be enlightening.
The lattice approach has benefits and can lead to new insights. A photon approach also has benefits and can lead to new insights. I personally think that photons are what implement physics. If you ask what implements the photon, some people might imagine there is a lattice behind it all. There are models that can fit that. Personally, I think that whatever is behind it all is truly beyond our understanding at this time.
But if lattices are behind it all, then what new technologies and approaches can we take from that insight?
We should expect the physics of different branes to be different. Photons are extremely important in Spacetime. Gravitons might be extremely important in Hyperspace. Too much is still unknown...
If the experiment of generating shift-photons is performed (correctly) and nothing happens, no acceleration field is generated, then maybe gravitons would have to exist, by default. But then, what are gravitons, that they can redshift/blue shift a photon? I think there is a lot of benefit to trying the experiment. If it works, we get artficial gravity drives and some cool technology. If it doesn't work, then we're one step closer to understanding how gravity works.
By the way, if it does work, then the next question becomes: can we build an Alcubierre hyper-drive? I'm afraid to even ask what kind of power consumption would be involved. Could we generate that kind of power from a fusion reactor? I think so...
It is exactly these types of experiments - whether they are a success or a failure - that separates Physics from Philosophy. Without data, we can dream up new ideas every day, but what good is that?
Personally, I am dis-satisfied with the lack of advancement in Fusion Physics over the past generation. I studied Experimental Fusion Physics in grad school on the TEXT tokamak at Texas. I was a young and immature punk-rocker, and didn't get along with my boss's boss, so I'm not in that field today. We still don't have a commercially-viable Fusion reactor, whether it is based on magnets or lasers. Here in Tallahassee, the High-Magnetic Field Lab is working with a French company to develop an experimental Fusion device. Based on what little I have heard, I doubt it will work. But maybe it will get us one step closer to where we need to be.
Ok, there are 3 types of experiments: (a) experiments that work, (b) experiments that don't work; and (c)cold fusion experiments that only work when you goof up the calculation.
Punk rocker? Hehehehehe. Did you spike your hair? Did you carry around a boom box and blast the Sex Pistols? That reminds me of a music band I used to listen to, called Nuclear Assault. I played it loud just to annoy my room mate.
So fusion requires a "magnetic bottle"; certainly some kind of bottle to keep the hydrogen/helium from escaping. If acceleration field generation works, how many g's do you think would be enough to prevent leakage? 10g's maybe?
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 28, 2010 @ 14:29 GMT
Hello Jason and Dr Cosmic Ray,
it's interesting the fusion research.....the parameters are difficult ....how can we generate a fractal of stars....the answer seems in the code of activation dear Dr Cosmic Ray, ....a time activation, a pression acticvation, temperature etc etc....the fusion is universal.....it will be easier if we have particles from our sun for example and with their intrinsic codes, we can find the moment of fusion....it's always a question of rotations of these spheres and synchro of course.....it's purely impossible to fuse particles with particles without this code of fusion inside several particles from stars and others.
The P and the T are not the main parameters.....but the intrinsic code in the gravitational system is important to know when they can fuse in fact.
It's probaly the same logic for a reversible energy from the fields for the fission....this proportioonality seems interesting and relevant....the codes dear friends the codes in the main spheres......
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jun. 28, 2010 @ 15:09 GMT
The core of our Sun represents a balance of gravitational pressure inwards, and thermodynamic pressure outwards. Thus, a large sphere of Hydrogen gas (a proto-star) collapses until the core is dense and hot enough for fusion to begin, and prevent the gravitaional collapse of the star.
We do not have access to such great gravitational fields, so we try to find other methods to contain the hot plasma. I worked on a tokamak, which contains hot hydrogen plasma within toroidal electro-magnetic fields. Part of the problem is that the plasma also carries and creates electro-magnetic fields that interact with the machine em fields, and thus lead to a variety of possible instabilities.
My question to the Fusion researchers is: "Are we simply documenting instabilities, or are we learning how to control them?" NOW is the time to reduce our habitual dependence on fossil fuels. We need energy and we always will, but this BP oil spill is practically in my backyard... My brother went to the family beach house this past weekend, and watched the workers put up a boom - I know its precautionary, but the oil may eventually get this far east.
all experiments are a lost of time if the codes in the gravitational stability aren't considered and known furthermore.
If two systems fuse thus they have codes of activation.....thus all toroidal or others magnetic boosters are a lost of time because you can give all the enrgy you want, never that will fuse.
It's time to say us, stop in this road dear friends.....
ps the biological captors can help
Owen Cunningham wrote on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear FQXi,
Regardless of what the question ends up being, is there an ETA for when the contest will open? I'm surprised how late it's getting.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Jun. 28, 2010 @ 16:38 GMT
Here's an Update---we have pushed back the date now to look into organizing this next edition of the contest as a joint effort between ourselves and another institution. I can't say more than that, except it will still be the 2010 edition...
Christian Corda replied on Jun. 29, 2010 @ 09:47 GMT
thanks for updating.
dom wrote on Jun. 24, 2010 @ 14:42 GMT
How about "Scientific minds or tools: Has the Use of the Atom Bomb Changed Scientists Approach to Physics?" Ever try to imagine the potential evil behind the new equations? Who is checking? Any idea what to do about it?
Christian Corda wrote on Jun. 30, 2010 @ 07:34 GMT
In my opinion the best topic is "Physics, Mathematics, and Reality".
It's relevant indeed, all is there about the sorting and the synchro....I will say in order....Reality,physics and finally maths....we observe, we correlate, we shut up, we reobserve, we calculate and we make the objective conclusion.
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 03:54 GMT
If we are looking for other planets that have life on them, shouldn't we be looking for planets with a magnetic field around them that is generated by a molten iron core? Such planets would be easier to find. They would also be protected from cosmic radiation.
Planets with rotating molten iron cores generate magnetic fields that protect that planet from cosmic rays. Such magnetic fields should also be easy to detect. Perhaps we should look for them in other solar systems. Such planets might provide a safe environment for life to exist.
Does anyone disagree that volcanic activity is necessary to support extraterrestrial life?
1. Rotating molten iron cores produce magnetic fields that protect the planet from cosmic rays.
2. Volcanic activity produces a rich chemistry that is necessary to support life.
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 23:12 GMT
Jason ,
Interesting. I am only going to disagree with the word necessary. It used to be thought that life could not endure extreme temperatures but since then a whole host of thermophile organisms have been discovered. There are life forms on earth that have adapted to all kinds of extreme environmental conditions. Although cosmic radiation does cause damage to DNA and can lead to cell damage and genetic mutation, organisms have also developed repair systems that can deal with different degrees of cellular and genetic damage. Ranging from careful continuous scrutiny and maintenance to the emergency SOS patch up job.If regular damage was far greater presumably repair would be more efficient to deal with it. Such alien lifeforms might have a tougher chemical structure that is more resistant to damage and have behavioral traits that keep exposure to a minimum. Such as burrowing. They might be chemoautotrophs that never come to the surface.
Volcanic activity does provide fresh sources of minerals. However I am not sure whether it is absolutely necessary. Efficient uptake and recycling of available minerals may be sufficient. Organisms on earth have adapted to environments with particular deficiencies or excesses of certain minerals. Mineral deficiencies can sometimes be due to agricultural soil erosion, blown away as dust on the wind, runoff into rivers and removal with agricultural crops. These may not be factors on the alien world.
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 00:12 GMT
OK, I'll withdraw "necessary". But I think that volcanically active planets like the earth provide those two advantages listed above. I would think that we can detect the existence of a Van Allen belt of some kind on planets in other solar systems. Those planets would be good bets for containing life. I don't think that volcanically active planets have to glow red from continuous molten activity across the whole surface. I do think that volcanic activity speaks to whether or not the planet itself is alive and active, the way ours is.
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 22:23 GMT
Dear Brendan Foster,
Any news that you can report on the next essay contest?
Also, while all of the topics are great, the current vote winner seems to be:
"Is Nature continuous or discrete?"
I would be very happy with that one.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 10:57 GMT
Hi Dear Brendan and dear Edwin Eugene,
Indeed the duality waves particles is relevant.....the discreteness and the continuity seems different just at some steps.
The consciousness can be inserted for the tranfert of informations of complementarity, evolutive ...the increase of mass seems very relevant also.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 16:31 GMT
We're still discussing. Meanwhile, I noticed the poll disappeared. That's probably because it was hosted at another site, and the time ran out. So that means your message is very convenient, as it is the final record of the poll results.
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 18:31 GMT
The sphere is in effect very important.
Time evolves and expands by continual microscopic explosions, outward in a spherical way. This exclusive outward direction is the arrow of time. When matter, another form of time, replaces local time by logical substitution, this explosive deficit is also spherical, a deficit resulting in what we call gravity. Matter has a higher probability of existence (to be) where time is slower. (Baffling logic: things exist more where they reside the longest. Differential time of residence is readily presented by a gradient in the rate of passage of time (gravity), and, the wave function essentially describes time rate distribution in the wave and the corresponding probability of finding the QM object). All matter replaces time and therefore attracts each other i.e. universal gravity.
Since time tells matter where to be and how quickly to get there … time evolves at c max. Interestingly, the scale of speed is from zero to c, and zero does not really exist but as a speed relative to the observer. On the other hand, c is the same limit for everyone/ all observers! Let's turn the speed scale upside down and indicate speed with respect to c. Then, you may kick a ball and experience relativity in everyday life.
Since the underlying structure of everything is based on evolving time, the sphere if hidden everywhere. Pi in QM equations and 1/r2 rule of dispersion are examples. ..
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 22:33 GMT
Marcel-Marie,
?! Matter another form of time?
OK you are saying time moving out, whereas I would think absolute space, because I do not accept that there is time in objective reality. If the matter is moving in through absolute space to next 3D space then I suppose one might consider the space is moving out and the matter is stationary. That would mean though that the earth is stationary and all of space is moving around it instead. It is easier the other way around.
You said "Since time tells matter where to be and how quickly to get there" ??! Surely it is just the duration of the transmission and interpretation of photon information giving -observed- position rather than instructions on where to exist as a material or sub atomic entity.
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 21:15 GMT
Hi dear Marcel, georgina,
Thanks, indeed they are everywhere.
You know dear Marcel I see the relativity of spacetime with its intrinsic constants and irreversibilities.And I think the evolution is very important.
You say a very important thing in my humble opinion."Pi in QM equations and 1/r2 rule of dispersion are examples. .."
The primes and the rotations and the spherization .....seem showing the road in 3 dimensions of physicality.
I do not really disagree with 3D space. There are 3 vector dimensions that give us directions from within that space. However from within 3D space we only have a limited viewpoint. Other things are happening besides movement within 3D space.
The 3D space appears to be static. A cup on the desk appears stationary. However if the earth is rotating and orbiting etc, the cup can not be stationary. It is definitely moving, even if you can not see it doing so. That is why another spatial dimension is needed. To account for those other spatial changes.
The 3D vector defined space is still 3D space but now more can be explained. There is further freedom for spatial changes, even though the changes are not obvious.
Hi dear Georgina,
Interesting but I think you know my point of vue.
We don't need others dimensions dear Georgina, it's a pure joke to imply confusions...don't forget Georgina,really.
The objectivity is the objectivity.
Never the time will be a dimension reversible,it's unthinkable.
I agree time can not be reversed. Steve, you say the objectivity is the objectivity but we live with the experience of space-time that is not objective. The objects I experience around me are distributed in both time and space not just spatially. When I move their separation from me in both space and time alters.
If I walk towards the door, the time left till I arrive at it is getting less and the time it takes for light to reflect from it and to my eyes is getting less. So I am getting closer to it in time. If you walk away from the door you are getting further away from it in time. It doesn't have a fixed position either in space or time. It just depends on from where the measuring is done.
Using the imagination one can step out of that space-time of personal experience and accept the concept of space where no one is observing and everything is where it is. Not where it seems to be from a position in 3D space receiving time delayed information from which to construct experienced reality.
That observer-less space is objective. To model that space requires another dimension instead of time. Not a dimension of vector distance but non linear spatial change. It does not matter that it has no time because this is not human experience. There are no observers to directly experience this timeless objective reality.
Stever Dufourny replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 10:21 GMT
ooops sorry I forgot to answer you.
In all case thanks for your beautiful answer.
What I describe is "what is", not what appears to be. This is ontology and the observer is not present. You can't have both, the point of view of the observer (physics) and the underlying reality (ontology).
Imagine that the universe is just a huge explosion. Everything in it is just various possible forms of this explosion. Waves can travel in this explosive media, but only as fast as the explosion itself ( c ). Some very short wave can loop on themselves as standing waves and appear as matter. And, wherever matter is, there is less explosion happening there because in one place time cannot be both the simple explosive type and the complex derivatives conjugate as matter. This is a simple logical substitution as per the rule of non-contradiction. A universe that is operational and spontaneous requires that it be made of only one substance providing a set that can undergo all logical operations; addition, subtraction, substitution etc..
Now, lets say we want to create a universe out of nothing. First, it has to be logical and the most important rule of logic is the rule of non-contradiction. In this instance, this rule would say that there can't be something and nothing at the same time. The key word here is "at the same time". The only thing that can exist in a logically created universe is time itself. Only passing/exploding time can fit the bill. So, our whole universe is made of this exploding time, acceptable locally but as whole as contradiction, with a zero sum. Luckily, this sum can't happen because the moment required to make it does not exist. There is no such thing in the universe as a moment. Every point is at a different moment from each other and time is running ..
I don't expect you to be able to wrap your brain around this one. I have explained it a hundred times to a hundred people in a hundred different ways and I haven't struck the right combination. I don't think you can.
thank you for further explaining your viewpoint. I was hopeful that there might be some common ground and that we were considering the same things in a different way, as I find is often the case when talking to other people. You say "You can't have both, the point of view of the observer (physics) and the underlying reality (ontology)". I beg to differ. I think it is essential that both are considered and used, though not within the same model simultaneously. Both models combined into one understanding give the greater reality comprising both experience and existence.
I think you have made some assumptions that I have not. One assumption is that the Universe has been created. I think that if time does not exist in objective reality, there is no need to assume that the universe was ever created or appeared out of nothing. The objective reality of the universe is atemporal imo and thus Eternal because time does not pass, or run out, there is only spatial change. Absolute space is Eternity. The Universe does not need to materialize initially from a singularity or from the word of God. It is just either gradually or episodically entirely recycled within absolute space, Eternity.
You said "The only thing that can exist in a logically created universe is time itself." I am really not sure about this. I don't think a creation event is logical. Surely God can be illogical and create whatever and if a whole universe can spring from a singularity then frankly anything can happen. I don't ascribe to the whole something out of nothing philosophy. I suppose if time is nothing and you start with nothing then you still have nothing. OK so far.... but which makes the whole universe?! It would be a leap of faith for me to accept that material substance is made of time. I could accept that a structure develops over time which is actually absolute spatial change of position. Though that is not what you are saying.
You say There is no such thing in the universe as a moment. Every point is at a different moment from each other and time is running ..Yes I can imagine it, and the creation scenario you have described. But how does it help? I have been down the route of imagining time expanding out at the big bang and waves of 3 dimensional time- it was a dead end. Being able to imagine it is not enough . It has to answer the questions and paradoxes and fit with space-time experience and everything that is observed and experienced and be self consistent. Otherwise it is just another belief.Imho.
Marcel -Marie,
Eternity comes from the root word eternal which means without beginning or end and lasting for ever. Eternity is eternal. It seems the most appropriate word in the English language for the meaning I wish to convey.I see no reason to invent a new word just because some people have a distaste for anything that may have a religious interpretation put upon it.
I did introduce God because you mentioned logical creation. I was just pointing out the creation of the Universe is not logical whether you choose a religious or scientific model. They are equally illogical to me.
You said "First of all, you don't know what time is." I think that is a pretty rude assumption. I have given it a lot of thought over many years and now reckon I have a far better understanding than most. With that statement you have just completely discounted everything I have been explaining about time on this site and elsewhere, without even any explanation as to why you think I am incorrect. Time in my opinion is not something that can be made into the material and sub atomic substance of the universe, so I do reject the equivalence you propose on the basis of my own -understanding- of time.
You said "Space is an objective truth in our reality, it is not in the underlying reality. We make up space ourselves. Take any pair of points anywhere on a ruler and realize that at a speed limit c they are all away in time from each other i.e. not at the same moment. The whole ruler does not fit within a single moment, therefore it is not all there at once and space it represents does not exist." I understand what you are saying here because you are talking about the inter-subjective reality of experience. It is I agree not an objective truth it is a perception.
I understand space -time and can separate the reality perceived due to time delay of transmission and interception and interpretation of of information, from the reality that must exist without information transfer superimposed.I have no problem accepting that we do not see things as they are. I am not looking out of windows in my head. My brain activity is processing sensory input to fabricate a simulation of external reality with the additional information that it exists externally. It is not the underlying reality at all. Nor is the temporal separation on which you are basing your model. The observed present position and arrangement of matter is not seen where it exists At Objective Now in external objective reality. I agree. It is continuously changing and due to the delay in information transfer is never seen exactly as it is. I do understand Marcel both my own model and your explanation. This stuff is not scary imo.
By the way I do like the idea that the -whole- Object Universe is made of different forms of one thing. However I would prefer to imagine it as some kind of medium other than time. Anything would be better than time, which I do not consider to have any Objective reality.
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 21:46 GMT
I understand that you have your concept of time, and you have thought about and discussed that concept with us at great length. You are a very thorough communicator, although I also like to mix in some mathematics as well.
Did you read Jonathan Dickau's essay at Topic # 541? He had some ideas on Energy-Time unification that may tie into Marcel's ideas.
I agree with Eternity. In my models, "eternity" is an infinite Cantor set of self-similar worlds.
forgive my thoroughness. If there are objections I would like them to be because I am in error, not just that the reader has misunderstood my meaning due to lack of clear and complete explanation.
No I don't think I have read the essay. Energy is change in spatial position, imo. If one chooses to regard the energy as a change in, or passage of, time instead then it would lead to the situation where time rather than space is seen as foundational.I think that is an error. With regard to the Universe being made of time, one can not make something out of change alone to nothing, imo. The something has to be preexisting and change or energy, whether one regards it as time or spatial change, acts upon it. Therefore it must be eternal. A vast something created from (next to) nothing just doesn't work for me however it is supposed to have got there. I do not believe in magic, only in deception due to lack of accurate and complete information.
I am glad you do not object to my use of the term Eternity. We are looking at things very differently, and I can not begin to understand your mathematical model- but at least since you too use the term "eternity" for your version of absolute space we can agree on something. PS If I happened to say that I would prefer your model written in Mandarin Chinese rather than mathematics would you translate it?
Marcel- Marie,
I think that we are both saying that it is change or energy that is foundational, only you regard that change as time and I have chosen to regard it as spatial. Neither the space -nor- the time in space-time observed really is concrete reality because it is a simulation from sensory input giving an "image" of reality. You are using the observed temporal spread within space time as the basis for your ontological viewpoint. Where as I consider it to be an artifact caused by the way in which information has to travel through space to reach an observer, giving delay and temporal distortion of the perceived reality.
I am using the verifiable continual non vector spatial changes within the universe as the basis for my view- that objective underlying change is spatial. It can also be regarded as energetic because change in spatial position (or potential for this) is energy, imo. You say that I should not muddle the physics (experienced reality) with the ontology. However I think it is you who are doing just that. You are taking the relativity of experienced space-time, an illusion, and building it into an ontological model. I am sorry to have to disagree with you. I do not wish to offend.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being thorough. I will be the first to admit that I don't really understand time, and am therefore, willing to consider various ideas and opinions.
I suppose that I could use Google Translate to translate my ideas into Mandarin Chinese, although they might become somewhat garbled in the translations. I think that Physics is naturally a bilingual form of communication. We present an idea in our native tongue (say English), build a mathematical model, crank the mathematics, then explain what we did in English. Those people who do not explain their mathematics thoroughly enough tend to lose their audiences. Do we purposely talk over people's heads to create an aura of intellectual snobbery, or are those speakers simply bad communicators? I have seen enough different presentation styles that I think the latter is more often true than the former. YOU don't HAVE to use mathematics because you are a good communicator. However, I think that properly used mathematics could complement your ideas and presentations.
Scale Invariance still requires a phase transition such as Inflation. I have an idea for that in my book. Otherwise, I think that Scale Invariance explains many important concepts and phenomena. Lawrence and I are working on a paper, so I don't want to disclose any more details yet.
Hi Ray ,
thank you. I don't think Google can translate from mathematical notation to a language constructed from ideograms or a phonetic alphabet. If it can I will be amazed and want to use it. (If it doesn't exist maybe someone should work on constructing it.)
I do agree that mathematics would be helpful. It would make the description concise and precise and those that can extract meaning directly from mathematical notation (I can not) could do so and not have to read the English descriptions. I do not posses the ability and skills to accurately translate my ideas into mathematics. Also I can't just say to someone I've got a good ideas now can you translate it all into mathematics for me. I think it would be considered rather rude and presumptuous, especially since I do not personally know anyone with the interest and skills to do so. I am not in that environment.
Rather than make a mess of it myself and then be criticized or merely disregarded for poor maths, I am presenting these ideas as they are in English. I hope other people will be able to find some worth and hopefully something useful in them, even though they are presented in English. If I loose a few bigots who can not see that physics is more than mathematics then so be it.
Good luck with your paper. Perhaps you will be able to explain it to me one day.
"Both models combined into one understanding give the greater reality comprising both experience and existence." I agree, but care must be taken that the ontological model be not tainted with elements of the observer view e.g. space, time etc.
Imho, there is more philosophy in the word "eternity" than in the word "creation" and you are the one who introduced God into the discussion…
"?! It would be a leap of faith for me to accept that material substance is made of time."
First of all, you don't know what time is. It is then premature to reject this equivalence. Secondly, in the process of pair creation, a gamma ray turns into a positron and electron, matter for you. You have no problem with that, right? And that equations of induction include time, electricity and magnetism in reciprocal fashion i.e T , E and B all derivatives of each other.. Recap: matter @ gamma (EM) @ induction @ T, E, B all the same stuff; matter = time . No leap of faith here! Bonus: all being made of the same nature can effectively operate in the background according to logic.
It is common to mix up everything and get confused. Know what a truth system is (read my essay). Space is an objective truth in our reality, it is not in the underlying reality. We make up space ourselves. Take any pair of points anywhere on a ruler and realize that at a speed limit c they are all away in time from each other i.e. not at the same moment. The whole ruler does not fit within a single moment, therefore it is not all there at once and space it represents does not exist. We are comfortable when we apply this to distant stars and yet, it is the same here. Now, this is all well known and, in order to keep doing physics, we have decided to combine what we perceive and what we know in a single concept called space-time. Of course, there is no such thing in the underlying reality.
Try to understand. When you do, you'll know. At first, you will be scared…
The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 20:25 GMT
Great job Fast Fred. Come on FQXi, admit the truth. The dream is generally incorporating quantum mechanical pheniomena as well. I said GENERALLY, AND in keeping with the union of gravity and electromagnetism/light.
As DiMeglio says: Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.
And, to quote Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: "Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)"
The dream represents the underlying and fundamental process/manifestation by which the totality of experience is attained to and known/understood at its deepest level.
FQXi -- When are you going to go in the direction of the central truth(s), never? When is the truth the truth FQXi? Answer: When money, friends, power, and funding are secondary to truth.
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 00:16 GMT
Please, let's not have the essay contest be on gravity, particles, and/or unification. Those are topics of the standard model, and there is no shortage of places to read such ideas. I believe there are more foundational questions that transcend the standard model, and that is where the FQXi contest should focus -- questions of time (already covered), space, the measurement problem, the Heisenberg cut. Ontology -- how ontic is the multiverse? How ontic is the observed universe? Is reality ultimately mathematical? Those are the things I want to read (and write) about.