Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 1/2/16 at 17:24pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr Valev, In fact it is an interesting point of vue.Here is my...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/2/16 at 16:57pm UTC, wrote Einstein's Empirical "Theory": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVGAKbRdKcY...

Pentcho Valev: on 1/1/16 at 20:22pm UTC, wrote Theoretical Physics' Method: Deduction (Nothing Else) ...

Pentcho Valev: on 6/15/15 at 9:59am UTC, wrote Answering George Ellis about Einstein's General Relativity GENERAL...

Author Frank DiMeglio: on 12/1/13 at 1:19am UTC, wrote The [linked and separate] fundamental experience of our growth and becoming...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 10/6/13 at 21:53pm UTC, wrote The sun makes everything happen. It makes molecules jiggle, assemble,...

Anonymous: on 7/14/13 at 17:41pm UTC, wrote Our being conscious/alive in conjunction with the FUNDAMENTAL (and...

Darrell Burgan: on 6/16/13 at 6:47am UTC, wrote I am fascinated by causality and have long wondered why modern science...



FQXi FORUM
April 23, 2017

ARTICLE: A View From the Top [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Roger wrote on Apr. 9, 2013 @ 03:30 GMT
My very brief and relatively uninformed comments are:

1. A lot depends on what you define as top and what you define as bottom. When society affects individuals, are individuals the bottom just because they're components of the larger? What if the society came first and then affected individuals born within it?

2. It seems like a lot of causation in complex systems can go both ways and sideways: bottom-top, top-bottom, top-top, bottom-bottom, etc.

3. Even in emergent systems like societies and living organisms, I think you could still define everything in a bottom-up way, but you'd have to have know exact starting positions, shapes, movements of all the things involved and would then need such a large computer to model all this so as to make this a near impossibility at least for the foreseeable future.

Those are my beginning thoughts. I'm sure some of you will be wanting to rip this to shreds, so have at it! Thanks!

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 08:23 GMT
"But to Ellis, this view of reality falls short. As he began reflecting on social policy in the 1970s, he saw a society that was profoundly influencing the individuals within it, and not the other way around. If societies influence brains - and, thanks to the new science of neural plasticity, modern neuroscientists can see this in action - then societies can also influence neurons, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles, taking us all the way down to the bottom of the physical hierarchy. Causation, Ellis saw, is not a one-way street: It goes from the top down just as easily as from the bottom up. Now, Ellis has distilled this idea in an essay for FQXI's 2012 "Questioning the Foundations" essay competition. Ellis' work, "Recognising Top-Down Causation," received second-prize honors."

Just truism disguised as science. How Ellis got second prize in a contest named "Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?" is a grand secret between FQXi judges.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 11:10 GMT
Not that Robert Spekkens' essay on causal structure wasn't deserving of its first place prize -- I was personally convinced right up until the winners were announced that Ellis' would be first.

I can imagine that the judges had a fine time making up their minds between these starkly contrasting points of view. In retrospect, though, I think FQXi has shown a bias toward structural explanations for causality, from Garrett Lisi's E8 model onwards.

A framework that abandons a structured "first cause" for a complex network of causes where a system's top-down critical feedback influences bottom-up organization, appears to be closer to the way nature actually works. As Sara Walker notes, this is easily observed in the processes of living organisms.

There are two major things with which I disagree in George's and Sara's results. I don't think the wave function collapses, and I don't think there is any non-arbitrary distinction between organic and inorganic life. However, in what counts -- as a leading principle of causality -- that no specific structure underlies organization, we heartily agree. And I'm afraid I have to take Paul (*The Matter Myth*) Davies side on the question of mathematical rigor -- these complex dynamics have to be reduced to their abstract essentials before we can claim to understand them at the foundation. In the introduction to *The Matter Myth* Davies and co-author John Gribbin note, "It has been discovered that so called nonlinear effects can cause matter to behave in seemingly miraculous ways, such as becoming 'self-organizing' and developing patterns and structures spontaneously." Since the book was published in 1992, there has been a flowering of research in complex systems science that make the "miracles" tractable to rigorous models.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 11:11 GMT
Got logged out somewhow.

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
A subsequent physically existent occurrence cannot physically affect a previously physically existent occurrence.

A physically existent occurrence cannot physically affect a subsequent physically existent occurrence, because that cannot be in existence if the previous one is.

In other words, the notion that the future can be affected is incorrect, because there is no future in existence to be affected, nor to have an effect. This false notion is based on the concept that existences which occurred at different times co-exist, which they do not. The idea of changing the future/the future can have a feedback, is based on the misconception that it is already existent, and hence potentially alterable, and/or capable of having some form of influence, which it is not.

This concept is properly expressed, ie in accord with how physical existence occurs, as the circumstance where a physically existent state (ie effect) occurred which is different to what would otherwise have done so, had the causal factors been different. Which is meaningless, as by definition, that is what cause and effect is. What prevailed and became the cause of the next step in the sequence, was just different from any alternative which could have prevailed, but did not, and was therefore not the cause.

The other important point to note is that the processing of physical input received, which results in a perception, has no effect on the physical circumstance. Physical existence is independent of the means whereby it is detected, and is not affected by that detection, or resultant perception, because it is independent and occurred previously. By definition, something must have occurred in order for it to then be received, and this processing is not a physical process anyway, since it des not involve alteration in physical form.

report post as inappropriate


Tony DiCarlo wrote on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
George,

The top/down bottom/up view of our existence (life) and the mathematics that govern these two very real physical information paths, possibly already exists. Surely the mathematicians have stepped further up the unification trail, albeit a bit blinded to what may actually physically be described when steering through their mathematic rigor. This implies that the mathematics to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 04:54 GMT
Tony

How can “interact back with a single source” occur? What existed does not now do so, something different exists. It might appear to be the same as previously, but that is from the perspective of superficial physical attributes, not what constitutes its physical existence. Neither will any such action influence the future, because the future is non-existent. All it will do is influence what happens next, ie something will occur which is different from what otherwise might have occurred. But then so is every occurrence different from what might have been, because it is what occurred, rather than what might have done. In other words, what occurs is a function of whatever caused it, not all the possible alternatives which did not exist and were therefore could not be a cause.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Tony DiCarlo replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 13:05 GMT
Paul,

That above just establishes "the physical paths" that information takes. Information can come from a single entity and spread to the whole, or, encoded in the whole is an "encoded response - reverse time - path" in where the whole can transfer information to a single point in space - at some given future time. Causality was not mentioned, just the physical mechanisms used to transfer...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Tony

"That above just establishes "the physical paths" that information takes"

It does not actually, it describes how cause and effect must occur. However, the simple response to this is: so what, physically, is this "information" you refer to?

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Tony DiCarlo wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Paul,

Everything you measure! This is the simplest answer to your question. Information derives itself from measures (ratioed measures to be more precise - like an illumination contrast measure .. on/off light intensities). In these experiments, maybe the measured reductionist physics does not behave properly when the whole transfers the ultimate in consise information to the single entity. Only the listening dipole hears - no other listening dipole (in VERY close proxmity) hears a smidgen of what was sent by the whole. Maybe we have a physically measurable holistic affect at work .... implying, coherent, coded, returned information emanating from the whole and arriving in a very NON reductionist, non dispersive fashion at an infintessimal point in space.

All we ever really do is correlate ....

Regards,

Tony

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 06:34 GMT
Tony

Fine, but that is not physically existent, is it? It is a representaion thereof.

In trying to counter what I said about the physical sequence of cause/effect you are asserting that 'information' has something to do with it. Which it cannot, because it is not physically existent.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Tony DiCarlo replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
Paul,

If I can measure (with information supplied by my 5 senses & with all the different, high precision metrology extentions to my senses that are at my disposal - then I am (am a measurer of course). These measures build my reality of physical information, as does yours and the information we agree apon we called science. The agreement comes from an accurate physical measure to prove a particular line of physical thought. The proof is in "measuring" someones pudding!! Therefore, we must get out the correct model to apply our physical measures and it is always derived from the "degrees of freedom" given for us to move from within, literally. This is Casmir's space on steroids and having physical boundaries that define the quantum mexchanics that is physically restricted to exist within the measurement space - whether a probablistic space or not! The information degrees of freedom rules for measuring are physically set at the boundary - these are the rules set by the quantum playing field! ...... to which we are all coupled to .... this is the information space from where our measured correlations are derived. Rules set at the boundary, and, encoded returns sent by the whole (line of experiments to infintessimally focus information) sounded correlated

Science is all about correlated measures and we are the measure-ers. Time to pull out the meter stick and stop watch!

Tony

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 14:53 GMT
Tony

As much as matters I agree with all that, and indeed as proof this is in my essay. In respect of knowledge/information and its relationship with reality, you are not telling me anything I do not already know.

But none of that addresses my original point, which was:

“How can “interact back with a single source” occur? What existed does not now do so, something different exists. It might appear to be the same as previously, but that is from the perspective of superficial physical attributes, not what constitutes its physical existence. Neither will any such action influence the future, because the future is non-existent. All it will do is influence what happens next, ie something will occur which is different from what otherwise might have occurred. But then so is every occurrence different from what might have been, because it is what occurred, rather than what might have done. In other words, what occurs is a function of whatever caused it, not all the possible alternatives which did not exist and were therefore could not be a cause” Or my post above that of 13/4 07.07.

Information cannot ‘override’ the fundamental way in which reality occurs.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Tony DiCarlo wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Paul,

I had not intended to indicate anything about past and future, cause and effect ... I only speak of that information we physically measure - in the NOW. This is all we got to work with, and, we may have alternative, physical ways to represent it, ways in where holostic and reductionist information superimpose to produce the physical, measurable actions life performs to sustain itself in being a physical measurer - in the NOW. If "life" behaves like the dipole antenna/transmitter in these experiments, it may then be possible to consider alternative ways to represent information that life utilizes (through mathematical modeling). If each of our individual gene codes represents the encoding required to unlock the code that the universe utilizes to feed us individually with specific information (like the novel coding in the transmitters to target a single dipole with information).... maybe this can unlock the details of our individual immune systems responses .... provide Sara answers as to why biological physical measures show that reductionist biology is not an accurate representation of what is actually occuring .... etc.

Mach was a proponent of holistic thought that also influenced Einstein. Maybe this is going on the same path (information path). Entanglement gives us tools to consider outragous possibilities on how the universe is connected up - and - life may just be the key here coupled through genetic coding?

Best regards,

Tony

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 05:00 GMT
Tony

“I only speak of that information we physically measure”

We do not measure information, we measure something, which renders information. And yes one can only be, at least trying, to measure/discern the current existent state at the time that this activity was effected. And the representational devices used (narrative, graphic, math) are irrelevant so long as they correspond with what occurred.

Everything thing effectively is a source of information, but if one does not limit the concept to ‘representational of’, then it becomes pointless.

Entanglement gives you a basis for getting it wrong. The start point must be what constitutes the form of existence we can know and how does that occur, not what alternatives we can believe in. Have a look in Jochen essay blog & Mikalai blog, at my posts in order to save me repeating it & indeed I must now get off to do a day’s building work

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Tony DiCarlo replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 13:53 GMT
Paul,

You say "Entanglement gives you a basis for getting it wrong?" Wow, that's a pretty doomed outlook from someone attempting to gain knowledge. The Feynman-inan would now have to say that you should give much thanks to the basis that shares - for without it - we have NO molecular states and everything would be confined to atomic form ... a very local place to hang out rather that molecularily expanding! You may be discarding holistic (George's top/down) by discounting entanglement, and, when life is eventually recognized as that what is "entangled," you place yourself in an un-shared world when I assure you that you physically share it with ~ 7 Billion folks living rather locally.

Anyway - this is George's forum and not mine - I'll end my responses here.

Best regards,

Tony

report post as inappropriate


Author DIMeglio wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 22:27 GMT
The problem with this approach is that dreams fundamentally, ultimately, naturally, and theoretically unify gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism consistent with our experience as it is seen, felt, and touched.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 16:27 GMT
I demand and expect honesty and truth from FQXi.org in physics.

report post as inappropriate


Darrell Burgan wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 06:47 GMT
I am fascinated by causality and have long wondered why modern science gives it such little attention. Ellis's ideas may or may not prove compelling, but I love the fact that someone is finally talking about it.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 17:41 GMT
Our being conscious/alive in conjunction with the FUNDAMENTAL (and ultimate) experience of our growth and becoming other than we are would naturally, theoretically, generally, and fundamentally unify physics and physical experience (seen, felt, AND touched). Dreams do this.

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Oct. 6, 2013 @ 21:53 GMT
The sun makes everything happen. It makes molecules jiggle, assemble, membranes grow etc. When the sun sets, everything dies, and the story starts again the next morning. The first challenge for life to be was to make it through the night, to still be there the next morning. Stick to a hot place and pack up some supplies for the night. Then, life becomes this extended reaction through time, days.



The second challenge of life is to continue beyond the lifetime/expiry date of its components. Transfer the recipe into a new structure, with new components. These structures are still created at random. (micelles)

The third challenge of life is to include into the recipe the making of the required structure; no waiting for chance to create the structure.

That’s how I see it. The short story of life.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 1, 2013 @ 01:19 GMT
The [linked and separate] fundamental experience of our growth and becoming other than we are fundamentally, naturally, AND theoretically unifies physics. I already proved this.

George F. R. Ellis and FQXi.org must admit to this foundational, extremely important, and fundamental fact.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 15, 2015 @ 09:59 GMT
Answering George Ellis about Einstein's General Relativity

GENERAL RELATIVITY: A CELEBRATION OF THE 100th ANNIVERSARY – Paris, November 16 to 20, 2015. George Ellis (Cape Town): "Einstein's General Theory: What Makes It Different From The Rest Of Physics? Why Does This Make It Difficult To Deal With?"

Unlike the rest of physics which is deductive (based on mechanistic models in the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 20:22 GMT
Theoretical Physics' Method: Deduction (Nothing Else)

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/ph
ilosophy/rationality%20of%20science.pdf

W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 199: "By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of a set of theoretical postulates together with an appropriate set of auxiliary hypotheses; that is, everything that can be deduced from this set."

If the theory is not deductive, then it is an "empirical enterprise", that is, no physical theory at all:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/work
s/1910s/relative/ap03.htm

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Einstein's special relativity was deductive (although using a false axiom and invalid arguments) but his general relativity was an "empirical enterprise".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 16:57 GMT
Einstein's Empirical "Theory":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVGAKbRdKcY

Steven Weinberg: "People suspect that if you have a known fact, the theorist will be able to jiggle his theory to get it into agreement. If you know anything about the way Einstein developed General Relativity, that's not true. He did not design his theory to explain that extra little motion of Mercury."

On the contrary, Einstein and his mathematical friends had to change and fudge the equations countless times until agreement with known in advance results and pet assumptions was reached (a typical empirical approach):

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf

Michel Janssen, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard"

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/04/23/einstein-be
sso-duo-pour-un-eureka_1341703_3244.html

Stéphane Foucart, "Einstein-Besso, duo pour un eurêka !"

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/index.h
tml

"L'erreur d'Einstein (la deuxieme)"

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 17:24 GMT
Hello Mr Valev,

In fact it is an interesting point of vue.Here is my opinion.The special relativity is correct and in the same time not correct considering the gravitation.Here is why.Let's assume our standard model like correct about fermions and bosons.So we have the different forces.There is a problem indeed about gravitation.It implies a necedssity to insert this quantum gravitation.If...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'O' and 'Q':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.