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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

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

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 1/21/10 at 0:53am UTC, wrote Dr Klingman, I have read your essay. Maybe its me, but there is like too...

Edwin Klingman: on 1/12/10 at 1:05am UTC, wrote Dear Marcel, No problem with time to answer, we're all busy, but thanks...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 1/12/10 at 0:35am UTC, wrote Dear Mr Klingman, Sorry for taken so long to answer. As you have noticed,...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/6/10 at 19:39pm UTC, wrote Hi dear Mr Klingman and dear Marcel , I d like insist on the fact what I...

Edwin Klingman: on 1/6/10 at 1:07am UTC, wrote Dear Marcel, I somehow missed reading your essay during the contest...

steve Dufourny: on 1/5/10 at 18:41pm UTC, wrote Hello dear Mr LeBel, Nice to know you . you say ... the "disunity" in...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 12/28/09 at 17:48pm UTC, wrote Frank, You say, "The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/09 at 16:55pm UTC, wrote Hi Marcel. How would your essay account for the following, as the below is...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Professor Bob Coecke Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking..." in Our Place in the...

tasik store: "PENYEBAB DARAH TINGGI Penyebab Darah Tinggi Naik Beserta Pengertiannya ..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Anonymous: "Hello Everyone, I have discussed the limits of mathematics on my previous..." in The limits of mathematics

Denature Indonesia: "its very good, thanks http://bit.ly/2yg8POS http://bit.ly/tentang-kutil ..." in Schrödinger’s Cat...

Denature Indonesia: "thanks for your information.. Obat Kutil Kelamin Di Bali Pengertian dan..." in Schrödinger’s Cat...

Alvina Amanda: "That's a very good concept of technology i think it's help for Write My..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

Ajay Pokhrel: "Hello Everyone, I had posted a draft on "Exceeding the..." in Alternative Models of...

Eduardo Morris: "Raise public awareness and interest in theoretical physics and cosmology! ..." in Multiversal Journeys —...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.


FQXi FORUM
October 21, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Physics Stops where Natural Metaphysics Starts by Marcel-Marie LeBel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 12:42 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract: We may understand the possibilities of physics by attempting somehow to define it. To define it is to make it finite, to expose its boundaries and its limitations. We could say that physics is about experiences and theories described & tested in our physical reality. This essentially means that physics requires from the start, that whatever it discovers about the universe must be formulated in terms of space and time for the purpose of testing. This pre-requisite is at the same time a prejudice that prevents physics from asking and answering questions pertaining to the actual existence of those very elements it requires. Therefore, physics cannot ask the questions of whether or not space or time really exists in the universe. This is the limit of physics. The questions of the actual existence of space or time in the universe are metaphysical questions, questions that natural metaphysics could ask and answer. To believe otherwise would be to pretend that our physical relationship with the universe is so special that it is in fact a true and ultimate representation. This is the present situation and we do not have the choice but to use a metaphysical approach to answer these final questions about what really exist out there. This essay will make an overview of essentials like truths and truth systems, the working of philosophy and science and the importance of logic, not just for our mathematics and sciences but also, for this universe. As required, we will build a proper natural metaphysics. This exploration will give indications as to the possibilities of physics, once it acquires a metaphysical and logical understanding of the universe. If we consider everything physics has accomplished without knowing what the universe is really made of, just think of what it could do if it did.

Author Bio

BSc Biology 1979, Three years in environment, 24 years in a forensic laboratory in counterfeits.

Download Essay PDF File




James Putnam wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Your words: "If these two contrary statements or states were to be separated by time i.e. making them to be 'not at the same time', they would be individually acceptable while remaining as a whole, a global contradiction."

My words: You point out that the universe did not exist and then later it did exist. Your point is that not being and being can be separated in time. There can be a before and after, but those conditions are not the act of creation itself. How do you propose that a separation in time can exist in an act of creation?

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 18:24 GMT
Hi! Hello the public! I am the author of the essay above. Don't let the word "Metaphysics" bother you.

This essay is for the public. The goal here is to give the universe back to the public. Wouldn't it be a shame if nearly 3,000 years of research were to produce some equation that would be understood only by a handful of people? The universe is simple and there is an equally simple logical explanation that is "sidewalk level". For anyone! You included!

I actually ask simple but fundamental questions like "if something really exists" what are the game rules? What are the requirements and consequences? And in order to answer these questions, I use simple logic and a type of structure used in science to produce something that is "true". This Natural "Metaphysics" is no longer part of Philosophy... Give it a try!

Thanks,

Marcel,

Disclaimer: No harm was done to any goldfish in any way in relation to this essay.




Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 19:56 GMT
REPLY TO PUTNAM

Dear James, thanks for the question.

LeBel: "If these two contrary statements or states were to be separated by time i.e. making them to be 'not at the same time', they would be individually acceptable while remaining as a whole, a global contradiction."

Putnam: You point out that the universe did not exist and then later it did exist. Your point is that not being and being can be separated in time.

LeBel: Yes. But it also show that only the time process can effect both the "being part" and the "separation part".



Putnam: There can be a before and after, but those conditions are not the act of creation itself.

LeBel: There is no "before", except as a concept in mind, since time is created at that moment. The creation act itself could be spontaneous. A Better question is who made the rules for this creation to be logical? Or is it that, one of Smolin's successful baby universes has to be logical?

Putnam: How do you propose that a separation in time can exist in an act of creation?



LeBel: Because the process of time is what is created.... only the time process can effect both the "being part" and the "separation part" without risking contradiction. It may sound just like made-up rules... But they are actual conditions preventing the existence of anything else but the process of time.



----------

LeBel: I liked your essay. You touch the same fundamental questions and search for a unique cause. But as you can read in my essay, the "disunity" in physics is not a problem as you think it is, if you understand that they are just different truth systems.




James Putnam wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 21:10 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Thank you for your reply. My question was intended to give you a reason to expound on your ideas. Thank you for your remarks about my essay. I will try to avoid interjecting my own ideas into your forum. I thought your essay was very good from a metaphysical point of view up to the point where I submitted my question. I think your contribution here is valuable because I think that theoretical physicists could profit greatly from prizing metaphysics as much as they do their theories.

I chose to question you at the point where I thought you moved from metaphysics into theoretical physics. My intent is still to give you an opportunity to explain how you make this transition. Thank you for your previous answers. I do ask now: How do you know that time began at the beginning of the universe? Are you assuming the correctness of relativity theory for your taking that position. I am not taking a position myself while discussing this with you. I am interested in your justifications for your ideas. I need to get passed this point before knowing what to ask further.

James

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 01:08 GMT
REPLY II TO PUTNAM

PUTNAM: I do ask now: How do you know that time began at the beginning of the universe? Are you assuming the correctness of relativity theory for your taking that position.

LEBEL: The exercise of the logical creation of the universe was meant to show that it could happen from rules of logic, and to find out what substance was allowed to exist in such a universe. For "Something from nothing" this is the only logical solution. Maybe someone can find another one. But I doubt it be so simple. Now, the word "time" has dozens of meanings and if one is not specified then none is meant i.e it means nothing. The "time" I speak of is a substance-process of a continual explosive type that makes everything in the universe and which variations and structures work by rules of logic. This explosive process directs both the rate and direction at which spontaneous event happen. In a locally uniformed rate of the time process the clock beat at a certain rate. In a locally non uniform rate of the time process, the clock still beats, but now it also move, because the clock existence itself is an event that is now more probable in a specific direction i.e gravitation. Since the rate of the time process varies here and there in the universe, there is no absolute uniform "age of the universe"; just a general approximation. A bunch of clocks dispersed everywhere in the universe would not show the same age at the same time and this is only a mental exercise since there is no such thing as "at the same time" in the universe.

So, I am not sure of which "time" you speak of.

I have been influenced by general relativity in the metaphysical conclusions I could draw from it. I have nothing against the physics of SR or GR as long as they do not make any metaphysical claims. Pseudo-metaphysics as metric models is o.k. and even necessary for the physics of GR.

Marcel,




James Putnam wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 01:39 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Thank you for your answer. I believe I understand your position about time. As for myself, I definitely did not mean clock time, assuming that any activity in the universe that is repetitive can be used as a clock. Relativity theory is, for me, not a basis for defining time. However, that is not important here. Your definition is what is important here.

I do have another question. You speak of time as the "Cause". I assume that you are saying that there is a continuous relationship between time and all effects and that this exclusivity, not seen by other theoretical causes, indicates that time is the reason, the cause, for the effects? You use the common appearance of time in physics equations to support this view. Is this a correct understanding?

Also, your said ... [The "time" I speak of is a substance-process of a continual explosive type that makes everything in the universe and which variations and structures work by rules of logic.] Where did the rules of logic come from? Are they properties of time? I do not mean to sound confrontational. I am interested in your reasoning. Whatever answer you give is the one I am asking for because it is your answer.

James

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 01:34 GMT
REPLY III TO PUTNAM

PUTNAM: You speak of time as the "Cause". I assume that you are saying that there is a continuous relationship between time and all effects and that this exclusivity, not seen by other theoretical causes, indicates that time is the reason, the cause, for the effects?

LEBEL: The system universe is ruled by logic and allows only one cause. A cause is identified by logic in the example of gravitation. It is the only cause.

PUTNAM: You use the common appearance of time in physics equations to support this view. Is this a correct understanding?

LEBEL: Yes. As explained, since time makes everything, we already have some knowledge of it, in a form or another, by way of our own metaphysical appreciation (consciousness+memory). This knowledge from our perception of time is not entirely wrong. The time of physics is perfect for physics.

PUTNAM: Also, your said ... [The "time" I speak of is a substance-process of a continual explosive type that makes everything in the universe and which variations and structures work by rules of logic.] Where did the rules of logic come from? Are they properties of time?

LEBEL: The rule of non-contradiction is shown, in the essay, to be a requirement of accepting that something really exist... and this rule is the basis of logic...

..James, is it me or you are taking an awful long time in getting to the point?

All my answers from I to III are taken straight from the essay. How about you say what`s on your mind?

thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Anton W. M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 02:21 GMT
Hi Marcel,

The question “whether or not space or time really exists in the universe” refers to a higher realm from which the eventual existence of spacetime can be determined: if to non-believers there is no such realm so the universe has to create itself out of nothing, then spacetime is among the things it creates (see ‘Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe’), so it certainly is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Marcel,

I have enjoyed very much reading your essay. I started skeptical, saw that it is surprisingly well thought out and liked the first half very much. As the essay progressed however, things got progressively muddied up into fuzzy philosophy and unsubstantiated speculations. However, the basic original ideas are in my opinion very good and they present a very interesting point of view. I have struggled with those issues myself for quite some time and I had discovered some time ago the link between logic and time. I also discovered it is not enough to fully understand our world. Please see my essay: “Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization”. It is mostly on the mathematical side, but the philosophical implications resonate very much with your first part of the essay. Your ideas capture the standard understanding of physics and philosophy, but I am trying to push the envelope and extend math’s reach into a formerly philosophical domain. I would very much appreciate your thoughts regarding my essay. Thank you.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 04:30 GMT
Dear Marcel,

You write an essay where you propose a solution to the nature of the universe. I write you three messages in less than two days and you say this to me:

..James, is it me or you are taking an awful long time in getting to the point?

No more questions.

Jamesw

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Marcel,

i read your essay with great interest.

Especially your rule of non-contradiction is interesting to me for reasons i layed down in my own essay here in the current contest.

My main question in my own essay - and also in comparison to yours -, is, how are choices *possible* at all in a logical universe (including our minds) that is governed exclusively by that rule of non-contradiction? Why are there not only facts and truths, but also assumptions and choices?

"If we assume that nothing existed at the start, we could face a contradiction

by suddenly making something to exist."

Yes, but what, if this assumption is simply not a truth? For example, in cosmology this "start" is assumed as a quantum fluctuation and therefore, the rules of quantum mechanics had to be in some very precise sense "pre-existent" to manage this start. Even if the explanation of this "start" via quantum mechanics isn't true at the end, one thing seems to remain true for me: For the aim of deducing time as the mysterious substance that makes it possible to link existence and non-existence, time has to be pre-existent according to your rule of non-contradiction. If it wouldn't be pre-existent, we would arrive at the same problem of something coming out of nothing (namely time). So it seems to me that your explanation of the problem that something came out of nothing is a problem constructed by a "truth" that mustn't be - logically speaking - a truth, but also could simply be a choice by assumption (namely a possibility).

It seems to me that every explanation of "everything" via mutually exclusive contraries like "to be" or "not to be" cannot squeeze more information out of these contraries as are put in right from the start (means by constructing a "truth" that needs an opposite to be "true").

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 18:59 GMT
REPLY I TO WECKBACH

WECKBACH: My main question in my own essay - and also in comparison to yours -, is, how are choices *possible* at all in a logical universe (including our minds) that is governed exclusively by that rule of non-contradiction? Why are there not only facts and truths, but also assumptions and choices?

LEBEL: We make assumptions and guesses simply because we don’t...

view entire post





Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear James,

Sorry about that. Your questions were mostly asking for verbatim answers

from my essay.. I got frustrated from not learning anything new in my answers

to your questions.

I downloaded from your website the 147 pages full theory ... lots of maths!

My philosophy here is the following. If there is something new to be found

in physics ... there are already thousands of physicists way better than I

working at it. So, I address that important part of the question that they dare not address; the actual metaphysical (actually ontology) dimension of it.

In the last 200 years we have written down tons of equations. With a metaphysical rule of correspondence, we could now READ them for what they really mean, not for our reality but for the underlying reality.

What is on your mind?

p.s. See answer to Weckbach - May answer a few of your other questions.

Marcel,




Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 01:17 GMT
REPLY I TO BIERMANS

BIERMANS: The question “whether or not space or time really exists in the universe” refers to a higher realm from which the eventual existence of spacetime can be determined: if to non-believers there is no such realm so the universe has to create itself out of nothing, then spacetime is among the things it creates ...

LEBEL: My take on "spacetime" is that it is a conceptual bridge between our physical reality and the underlying reality (only made of the time process). A speed limit in the universe spelled, 100 years ago, the end of space. So, in order to keep doing physics we quickly devised this conceptual tool, which is all it is. It is not a true metaphysical entity and, to me, has no significance other than reflect a dimension of our need to know. I am interested in metaphysical claims made from physics if coming from someone who knows he is actually doing metaphysics. If one doesn't know he is doing metaphysics, chances are he is doing it wrong. (Now I will read your essay and compare with your post)

Thanks,

Marcel,




Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 02:24 GMT
REPLY I TO MOLDOVEANU

LEBEL: I honestly tried to read your essay but it is calling for principles, rules and concepts with which I am not familiar. this said, I ahve a few comments:

- A good start for a new physical theory is an impossibility, either factual or postulated (see truth systems)

- My conclusion is that no physical TOE is logically possible. Mathematical connection/description is still possible.

- I am not sure of your: physical reality vs real world vs Platonic world ...

- I like you addressing the concept of truth: "The universal truth property can be shown to create a constraint on the event manifold that manifest itself

as global hyperbolicity [13], typically called time." I would like your short explanation without having to dig into ref (13).

- You mention a metaphysical questions like the "Nature of time". I don't think that mathematical precision will answer that one.

- You say: "Instead on trying to solve the nature of reality, a much

more useful approach is not to seek the similarities, but the di®erences. And this is the main idea of this essay." My approach is exactly about "trying to solve the nature of reality" or the underlying reality.

- "but I am trying to push the envelope and extend math’s reach into a formerly philosophical domain" . Maths are based on logic and somehow they are most welcome in the truth system metaphysics. Simple logic only give me the initial "why"; after that I am pretty much lost; maths of explosive process evolution, maths explosive structure, etc.

LEBEL: Now, would you do me a favor and tell me where the second half of my essay start and list the fuzzy philosophy and speculation. I may have lost you there along with everyone else. This feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Marcel,




Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 04:29 GMT
REPLY I TO LEBEL

> A good start for a new physical theory is an impossibility, either factual or postulated (see truth systems)

F: Yes, but is but no means the unique way.

>My conclusion is that no physical TOE is logically possible. Mathematical connection/description is still possible.

F: Wrong: Nature seems to have no problem combining relativity with quantum...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 01:40 GMT
REPLY II TO MOLDOVEANU

(I skip past where I offer no more reply; to be taken as partial agreement)

LEBEL: Thanks for the hyperbolicity

>LEBEL: Now, would you do me a favor and tell me where the second half of my essay start and list the fuzzy

philosophy and speculation. I may have lost you there along with everyone else. This feedback would be appreciated.

LEBEL: Thanks for the feedback! It's appreciated! I will investigate this

"composability"...

LEBEL: Science and especially physics are empirical. This means that we can, and effectively have done wonderful things without ever having a clue about what we are really doing. If we are stuck right now it is because the empirical

approach as run out of its capabilities. It has fulfilled it promises and is now complete. To go further, we have to stop and try to figure it out, understand from all the clues we have gathered.

In the last 200 years we have written down a host of empirical yet successful equations describing our reality. I would not dream of re-writing QM or GR as they are perfect for what they were meant to do. All that is left to do now

is to understand what these equations really mean with respect to the universe. And that is all I have to offer, with a metaphysical approach; to understand what it is that we are really doing. Once we do, the possibilities are practically limitless..



Thanks,

Marcel,




Narendra Nath wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 03:20 GMT
The disciplinary boundaries have been created in science by we humans. In fact, all sciences, including Mathematics, initially had only a philosophical curiousity. Thus human mind is the source of everything we have, as our resource of knowledge.Let us not restrict ourselves in our quest for better truth about our physical universe by introducing limiting boundaries for our professional spheres. i for one have strongly sensed that we need a far closer colloboration with life sciences today than ever before. Physics is getting a stop over in new discoveries, partly confirmed by the award of Nobel prizes in past several years for mainly lifetime studies to the awardees! Interdisciplinary approach is very much the need in order to expand our minds, the main source of concepts/precepts. Keen observation coupled with a self-discriminatory critical analysis is the only way to freshness in acquired knowledge. It already exists in the universe since its birth but we need to widen our approach, instead of narrowing it through what we call specialities.

i wish the author best of luck with his remarkable attempt to pen down an essay. He is correct to suggest that space and time are intrinsic concepts. The homogeneity or linearity in them today may not be true from the start of the universe. As indicated in my essay, the distortions/ inhomogeneitirs in space and time are the souces for production of mass and energy in the universe.However, the theories we have propounded over the years may not provide sufficient confidence, as we are complex in our thinking process and even some simplicities in nature gets converted into complexities due to our own bias and restrictions imposed by what we consider as knowledge that has been proved as successful mostly.

report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 08:15 GMT
‘ … “spacetime” is … a conceptual bridge between our physical reality and the underlying reality …’

‘ … A speed limit in the universe spelled, 100 years ago, the end of space…’

Spacetime is as physical an object as a chair as it is populated with virtual particles which are real enough as long as they interact, exist, particles which in turn keep spacetime going, one being a manifestation of the other. Unless you believe in some outside creator, there is no underlying reality either: all things in the universe are only real, that is, exist to each other as far as they interact, exchange energy, space being an aspect of mass like energy is of time, one defining, creating the other. Though in a universe created by some creator, a caused and causal universe there is a speed limit, in a self-creating universe the speed of light is no velocity but just a number which says how many meters correspond to how many seconds. Though an observer measures a transmission time proportional to the distance, to the photon its transmission is instantaneous. As you can never cross a spacedistance larger than corresponds to the associated timedistance, nothing goes faster than instantaneous, which is obvious. So there is no end to spacetime either.

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 19:08 GMT
REPLY II TO BIERMANS

Anton,

My essay just points to the following facts.

Science (and physics) is an empirical method of testing our physical theories. This system considers our reality as a black box, the content of which is of no consequence. We poke the box and we get in return some reaction. These “poke and reaction” constitute our experience of reality. The information-relation between the “pokes and reactions” constitutes behaviors that we regroup to form laws. With these laws we can make wonderful things without ever having to wonder what is really in the box, i.e. what it is the we are really doing. This is, and always was, the limit of physics.

The essay presents the idea that we now know enough to be able to deduce what the content of the box is. (Which is what I do in the essay)It also says that the content of the box is real by opposition to everything else we can touch and feel that is an experience. Hence, the metaphysical approach. The cool thing is that the rules inside the box are also the same outside the box, even if at first glance they appear more complex because they carry the dimensions of our reality and senses.

If you understand this, the rest is easy…

Marcel,




Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 02:18 GMT
Just a look at your Abstract and your Biodata, i got awareness about your simplicity and straightforwardness. yes,the nature is simple. Then what complicates Physics that started as a branch of pure philosophy. We may call that now metaphysics that is ' hypothetical physics'. All these contradictions arise because the human mind is very complex, unstable and basically wandering in its substantial nature. It makes some of our theoreticians trigger happy with their mathematical expertise. They tend to dominate Physics with their mathematical expertise, without much caring if their presumptions, concepts and precepts are relevant and valid to the problem at hand. Then there are experimentalists too who may have preconceived ideas and tend to project their results to justify their false notions. It is all done by the dirty mind.

The question to tackle therefor lies with cleaning and quieting our minds with freshness, unbiased attitudes and at the same time attune to the simplicity of nature as it is. There lies the solution to our problems in sciences, humanities and social sciences and whatever the branch of knowledge we feel attracted to work in.

Being a forensic scientist you may have had several illustrations of the crooked mind which make people do things taht they may themselves not like. But once having done so, they have the need to protect themselves. That is when they expose themselves to be caught by the science you do.

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 18:47 GMT
Comment to Nath

There is nothing wrong with science being empirical. As long as we recognize its limitations, we may draw very important information from it. The problem appears when we think we may pull more from it than it can deliver. By not recognizing the limits of the empirical method, we did not realize that we were not asking a very important group of questions, starting by “what are we really doing”?

The year 2000 was not supposed to look like this. Those who painted our future long ago guessed that we would by then do more and know more. The thing is that we do more things but we don’t know more about what we are really doing. So, we are not wrong. We are just very late. We should have figured that out 50 years ago. The result is that we all go around very proud of our ipod nano plugged into our ears but we still strap our astronauts to tons of explosives to send them into space. This was o.k. for the daredevils of the hay days of space exploration, hardly the basis of a space exploration program.

Playing with things only require an empirical approach. To master those same things requires the deepest of understanding.

Marcel,




TR wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 23:56 GMT
Hi Marcel, thanks for your presentation. I agree that foundational questions regarding the nature of the universe import not only the physics - matters of 'mechanics', but necessarily the metaphysics as well - the matters of the mind. Our understanding will always be limited by the context of our existence, a function of the way the human neural cortex processes the information admitted and filtered by our senses, finally interpreted by the discriminate assay of the collective intellect circa 2009. In other words, when you get right down to it, it's really mind moving flag isn't it. Having said that, it appears as though mathematical science and logic may very well be providing us the means to perhaps one day apprehend a comprehensive 'objective' understanding.

I also agree with your conclusion that time is for real and space is the concept having no correspondence with reality. I arrived at that conclusion, however, in an entirely different manner: singularityshuttle.com.

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 03:20 GMT
TR,

Thank you for the appreciation. On the subject of metaphysics, I can only repeat one of my explanation above which is clearer than anything in my essay..

Science (and physics) is an empirical method of testing our physical theories. This system considers our reality as a black box, the content of which is of no consequence. We poke the box and we get in return some reaction. These “poke and reaction” constitute our experience of reality. The information-relation between the “pokes and reactions” constitutes behaviors that we regroup to form laws. With these laws we can make wonderful things without ever having to wonder what is really in the box, i.e. what it is the we are really doing. This is, and always was, the limit of physics.

The essay presents the idea that we now know enough to be able to deduce what the content of the box is. (Which is what I do in the essay)It also says that the content of the box is real by opposition to everything else we can touch and feel that is an experience i.e something that requires our presence and that is dictated by our limitations. Hence, the metaphysical approach....

p.s. I could not get the shuttle to work ..????

Thanks,

Marcel,




TR wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 21:26 GMT
I agree, the contents of the box doesn't really matter to physics, that's more a question for metaphysics - ontology and epistemology. Nonetheless, most physicists describe their theories using terms which clearly implicate context and content (spacetime curvature, vibrating strings) because ultimately science is about trying to visualize in some sense in order to understand. Sorry the Singularity Shuttle won't run for you, it's just a flash movie but does require high-speed download to run. Some browsers make it so the buttons have to be hit twice, but this is the first I've heard of anyone having a problem. It talks about physics and metaphysics, space and time, content and nothingness; thought you might find it interesting.

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 03:39 GMT
REPLY II TO TR

TR: I agree, the contents of the box doesn't really matter to physics, that's more a question for metaphysics - ontology and epistemology. Nonetheless, most physicists describe their theories using terms which clearly implicate context and content (spacetime curvature, vibrating strings) because ultimately science is about trying to visualize in some sense in order to understand.

Marcel: This is the point exactly. “Understanding” is not really about knowing the laws that govern our observations and descriptions of the universe. Understanding is about knowing the logic behind the existence and evolution of the universe.

The box contains everything physicists ever wanted to know about the universe. The content of the box is the only thing that will allow us to make sense of all the theories and equations (unification). But they can’t get it with the empirical approach. The empirical approach is about finding things by experience, trial and error. It is a choice we made long ago between knowing and doing. The empirical test is not just the proof of a theory. It is before all a practical demonstration of control over some segment of the universe and this control provides the illusion that we understand what we are doing. We don’t.

The metaphysical and logical understanding of the universe is accessible, understandable and necessary for us to progress beyond the limits of physics. It is certain that this metaphysics still has to be engineered back into physics in order to produce something new and practical in our reality.

Marcel,




TR wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 01:43 GMT
From one of my favorite people: "Mind can see that reality is evoluting into weightless metaphysics. The wellspring of reality is the family of weightless generalized principles." Buckminster Fuller - Synergetics, pg.xxxi

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Marcel. How would your essay account for the following, as the below is crucial to a proper understanding of the relationship/limits of physics in relation to thought and experience in general.

Since dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general, the idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is not only demonstrated in dreams (as I have shown), but this idea is then ALSO understood to be NECESSARILY central to an improved understanding of physics/experience in general.

According to Jonathan Dickau, my idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is "right on" as a central and valuable idea/concept in physics.

Also, how do you account for the following:

Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:

1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense.

3) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism).

Now, also consider the following:

These are the essential parameters/requirements regarding the demonstration/proof of what is ultimately possible in physics.

1) Making thought more like sensory experience in general.

2) Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

3) Balancing/uniting scale.

4) Exhibiting/demonstrating particle/wave.

5) Repulsive/attractive.

What is ultimately possible in physics cannot (and should not) be properly/fully understood apart from this great truth:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

FQXi -- Stop deleting my posts.

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 17:48 GMT
Frank,

You say,

"The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience."

- It is well known that our mind transforms heavily the signals from our senses to create the experience of reality. What you see is what you get, but not what you have.

- My essay shows that the universe is, at the metaphysical level, a monism; one substance and one cause. In this way, the processes of thinking are using the same substance and cause to operate i.e. the same principles as the universe does. But this is no surprise since we all understand that we are also part of the universe ...(This is probably why most people do not share your enthusiasm over these statements).

- In general I leave consciousness, dreams and thinking processes to psychologist and neurobiologists.... I leave the whole process as a black box for them to peak into. So, I separate all these activities from actual physics

and natural metaphysics.

MIND --- experience (Physics) ---- underlying reality (natural metaphysics).

I work on the two on the right leaving the mysteries of the mind to others...(for now :-)

Thanks,

Marcel,




steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 5, 2010 @ 18:41 GMT
Hello dear Mr LeBel,

Nice to know you .

you say ... the "disunity" in physics is not a problem as you think it is, if you understand that they are just different truth systems.

I think you confound the foundamentals with the sciences fiction .The quest of the truth is not a play where the imaginaries are always the driving forces .No an universality is an universality .I think what many confounds the 3D and its spirituality of universality and the unknew ,they try to encircle an imossible thing to encircle .They shall be more satisfied if they focus on the physicality and the sciences of the life .

You say ...The metaphysical and logical understanding of the universe is accessible

False too ,only the physicalitty gives a road to encircle the unknew ,only by this ,a contemplation of the creations,it doesn't exist a system in the physicality to encircle above our 3D .It is thus a lost of time ,a wind ,a joke ,perhaps even a business and that is all .Why scientists want to go so far ,I am persuaded they don't know even the name of a flower or an animal .The biological lifes show us the physicality and its aim .Our aim as humans as catalyzers of the harmony is to act in this equation .Not to loose their time ,in "not necessary extrapolations"

You say " Understanding is about knowing the logic behind the existence and evolution of the universe."

Sorry but that has no sense for me that .I repeat only 3D .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 01:07 GMT
Dear Marcel,

I somehow missed reading your essay during the contest period. I would have voted for you had I read it. I recently saw some of your comments on Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" thread, which caused me to come back to your essay.

Your paper naturally divides into two parts: natural philosophy and physics.

Your treatment of natural philosophy is masterful. I...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 19:39 GMT
Hi dear Mr Klingman and dear Marcel ,

I d like insist on the fact what I don't critic the universality of a person ,just the physics models .

I liked a lot reading your essay Mr Klingmann ,and yours too Mr Le Bel in a phylosophical point of vue .

That said ,I am frank ,I don't encircle the necessities to extrapolate extradimensions ,or hidden variables .....We can say all what we have our limits due to our young age at the universal scale .This reality must be inserted in all models ,it is that the relativity in fact .

We know all what we have our limits and walls .

About the gravito magnetism ,there it is very relevant if the referenatial is in 3D ,the velocity of rotations and the synchronizations more the volumes and the senses and directions .....thus can imply a specific rule .The evolution takes all its sense with these polarisations between gravity and light .

The quantum architecture is in 3D and a time constant ,it is essential in my opinion .This system is like that since the begining of the physicality it seems to me.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 00:35 GMT
Dear Mr Klingman,

Sorry for taken so long to answer. As you have noticed, I am strolling around in various blogs, forums etc. where you in fact have been in contact with my ideas.

- As shown by my logical creation of the universe, time was not a choice but rather a necessity.

- the monism is not by choice as well. This monism prevents anything but time to exist.

Your choice of gravitation is the physicality closest to my theory of time. But, as `Bill Unruh describes it, gravity is our own experience of time… so time is more fundamental than gravity..citation follows:

“A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is

that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from

the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not

that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity,

affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity

are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place.

Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics, W. G. Unruh

CIAR Cosmology Program, Dept. of Physics, University of B. C., Vancouver, Canada V6T 2A6”

- Other also told me of this “second” part which confusion, I am not sure, is either in my own writing or is in the rejection of the mind of the reader. Gravity is still physics while my second part remains metaphysical.

Your theory may be internally consistent and a new way to describe physics. My goal was specifically not to find a new (another) physical description but rather a logical understanding in the absence of an observer.

My path is about logic and metaphysics. I leave particles and inflation to others…

Me, it was some day in February 1998 at 5.00 am. I woke up realizing I could understand gravitation as a logical operation, logical as in “spontaneous”. It has been also a Cornucopia of discoveries… of the metaphysical kind.

((I don’t mix consciousness anywhere in my discourse. It is certain, in a monistic universe, that time plays a role in it. But it is not my concern right now.)) All this was possible simply by admitting that something has to exist somewhere, by itself outside our usual physical approach. Following the logical consequences lead to more details. I think you theory could be the closest to mine while remaining `physics`.

I will download and read your essay and comment later.

Thanks,

Marcel,




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 01:05 GMT
Dear Marcel,

No problem with time to answer, we're all busy, but thanks for answering. I am still in love with the first half of your essay, and wish to again express my appreciation for your clarity and coherence in your view of truth.

I will study your reply above and comment if I find anything to say. I also very much appreciate your comments on other threads, such as Tegmark's Mathematical Universe. If you care to point me to other places you are commenting, I'd be happy to study those as well. I still regret not finding your essay until after the contest closed. I kicked a number of people up to 4.0 and some of them stayed there.

I am glad you will read my essay. Although the ten pages barely represent the tip of the iceberg, it still gives you an idea of the theory. The consequences that fall out of the theory fill over a thousand pages. And, most importantly, make predictions and explain physical phenomena that are currently unexplained.

"My path is about logic and metaphysics. I leave particles and inflation to others..."

My concern too is logic and meta-physics, but I believe that logic implies the nature of the physical world, and therefore the particles and inflation must fall out of the logic. They can't be just added as an afterthought.

I've read your essay at least three or four times, and hope that you find time to absorb mine before you comment. I am very much interested in your comments.

Looking forward to your reply,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 00:53 GMT
Dr Klingman,

I have read your essay. Maybe its me, but there is like too much in it. One or two aspects driven and demonstrated could have been enough for now. I am not familiar with quite a few concepts in there, so it makes the reading difficult. I still think you have something good going here. You end by saying that we will never know gravity. Yes, this is the limit of physics, but it is also the beginning of metaphysics. Magnetic, electric and gravitation are all aspect of a single substance; the explosive passage of time. No matters how true my metaphysics is, we will have to use it to formulate some physics of equivalence if we want to make something useful out of it. Your theory/approach is possibly the closest thing to such a principle of equivalence.

Thanks,

Marcel,




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.