CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Final Theory and the Language of Physics by Frederico Pfrimer
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 11:32 GMT
Essay AbstractWhich of our basic physical assumptions are wrong? The precise meaning of this question, and so its answer, depends on several other questions creating a dependency chain: Which are our basic physical assumptions? What is a wrong physical assumption? What is a physical assumption? What is each of our physical theories? What is a physical theory? None of these questions has a precise answer, the reason is that, the concept of physical theory, and our main physical theories, are like open concepts: you cannot give them a precise definition. Our theories are still open theories. Most, if not all, of our fundamental concepts are open and imprecise concepts. We discuss how these and other aspects of language impose limits on science, and how can physics overcome it. But foundational physics has been guided by the wrong principles. The interpretation of a physical theory should provide the precise and clear language to talk about the theory, not a philosophical discussion relying over imprecise concepts. Foundational physical theories should provide a precise meaning to our fundamental concepts and the worldview that makes our theories understandable. We argue that these questions have a precise answer only for closed theories, and then we discuss on the nature of, and how these questions can be answered for a closed theory. We clarify the notion of a final theory of physics, the fundamental closed theory that serves as the foundation for all physics. We show how to use this notion to clarify and also distinguish the concepts of postulate and physical assumption. We claim that the main wrong assumption of physics is actually a logical assumption: the principle of excluded middle.
Author BioI received my B.S. in Physics from UFG, a Brazilian university, in 2010. Now I’m a M.Sc. student working on a new axiomatic formulation of the formalism of quantum mechanics and the FTP. My interests have always been about foundations, and I just proposed a new interpretation and formulation for the foundations of quantum theory.
Download Essay PDF File
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:13 GMT
Hi Frederico,
Thank you for your contribution, your essay is a timely reminder of what a physics theory is.
What I am missing in your essay is a discussion on "are our fundamental theories cast in stone?". The reason for saying this is, should a fundamental assumption be wrong then everything that follows is wrong too. A scenario not particularly appealing, resulting in the over protection of the fundamental assumptions.
This cast in stone philosophy I challenge in my essay by showing that a model (or theory) of an alternate reality is possible.
Regards
Anton
@ ( ../topic/1458 )
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Dear Anton,
Thanks for your comments. I believe when we have a consistent physical theory, and so a consistent mathematical formalism, a wrong assumption does not destroy all the results and application of the theory. Actually, when you find that an assumption you were using is wrong, the only thing that changes is the domain of validity of you theory. All the results are still valid, but with a smaller domain.
This is precisely what happened with classical mechanics when relativity appeared. Classical mechanics is still valid, and the proof is that engineering works! All our buildings are based in this theory, and we can’t say that it is completely wrong, but only that it is not valid when objects are moving close to the speed of light.
In a sense, I think our fundamental theories are somehow permanent, well the most established ones. But only in a sense. The interpretation we give to our theories will change in the future, and the way they are formulated, but their essence will remain the same.
The reason of that is the core of my essay. Closed theories are precisely the ones that are a permanent achievement. They cannot be modified. Any modification will probably give rise to a whole new theory. However, I argue that our theories are not yet closed theories. That’s the point. Once they get to a point where there formulation is just like the formulation of what is ring in mathematics, then they are permanent and cast in stone.
The examples of mathematics are perfect. If you change a single axiom from the definition o a ring, then it is not a ring anymore and deserves a new name. The same holds for closed theories
Best Regards,
Frederico
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear Frederico
Very nice to see a fellow brazilian in the FQXI contest (I´m from Fortaleza). Your essay is impressive, clearly written and I think it touches on points frequently overlooked by physicists.
You have emphasized the relation between physics and language which is often tacitly understood . This is something I see with interest as well. There a paragraphs that are true...
view entire post
Dear Frederico
Very nice to see a fellow brazilian in the FQXI contest (I´m from Fortaleza). Your essay is impressive, clearly written and I think it touches on points frequently overlooked by physicists.
You have emphasized the relation between physics and language which is often tacitly understood . This is something I see with interest as well. There a paragraphs that are true gems.
''Our communication is limited by the degree of precision of our language and our concepts. Science is limited by the degree of precision of our words.''
Assuming this, what should we do? Should we insist on trying to understand the world using natural language? You might have heard about the idea of
quantum logic, which tries to explain QM by proposing a new logic from the start.
Max Tegmark has adressed the problem you expose by stating that the universe is not merely described by mathematics, it IS mathematics.
Tegmark´s proposal.
I have also thought for some time on your statement:
''It is the theory which should provide us the conceptual framework in which it
can be understood, not the existing worldview. The interpretation of quantum theory should provide us a new worldview, the worldview that makes quantum theory understandable, and where all paradoxes are dissolved.''
We cannot develop a theory without a a priori conceptual background. So suppose we have a theory suitable for the everday empirical experience which relies on easily-grasped and imagined concepts (like time, motion, objects). Then we find unexplainable empirical data that suggest a new theory (like QM). Now we may change the whole language we began with to make this theory more natural. And the process begins again. I wonder if an iterative proces could be possible. Language->physical theory->language->...
I believe however that we should not take our classic worldview as useless (our a priori conceptual background, or language we are confortable with) for one reason: it should be the classical limit of a more fundamental theory. If we play with ''the concepts'' we use at the classical level to describe the universe (objects, time, space) and find new conceptual ways to do physics, we may end up with a completely new theory (including its mathematical formulation). There is one very interesting fact which I´m sure you will find interesting. You might have heard of Mach´s philosophy and relational physics. Mach have tried to find the meaning of statements such as: ''the position of an object is (x,y,z)'' (make our worldview more closed). He has also attacked the concept of time. If everything in the universe had its speed doubled, including clocks, the flow of an invisible time parameter seems meaningless and useless. Time should be a concept defined from motion. Julian Barbour has implemented Mach´s philosophy and the result is impressive:
Genreal Relativity is recovered!So by making the classical worldview more semantically satisfactory, the whole gravitational physics pops out in a sense.
In my essay I propose the following question: what would we find if we tried to make the classical worldview COMPLETELY SEMANTICALLY SATISFACTORY? I propose that the concepts of time, motion and objcets could be defined upon each other, but these circular definition would not be a problem. I propose a category-theory approach to this. It had a very positive feedback from Julian Barbour himself and I think we can share many ideas. Here´s my essay
Absolute or Relative Motion...or Something Else?Boa sorte!
Daniel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Daniel,
I thought I was the only Brazilian here; it is good to know I’m not alone! I wish you “boa sorte”! And thanks for your comments. We have very similar ideas, and your comments really got into the point.
Natural language is our first tool, and it is necessary in every beginning of a whole new theory. First you have to do something handmade, just then you can build a...
view entire post
Dear Daniel,
I thought I was the only Brazilian here; it is good to know I’m not alone! I wish you “boa sorte”! And thanks for your comments. We have very similar ideas, and your comments really got into the point.
Natural language is our first tool, and it is necessary in every beginning of a whole new theory. First you have to do something handmade, just then you can build a machine to do the same. The same holds for using natural language.
In mathematics you can see it clearly. A new mathematical theory begins using a lot of natural language. At this point you say it is not formal. But then it becomes more and more formal and rigorous until the point it is completely formulated in formal language. Now, natural language is no longer necessary and we say that the theory is completely formal.
A similar idea holds for physics. But now, we are not interested in removing natural language, but giving a formal meaning to it. But the meaning of natural language statement is the corresponding mathematical statement. So, a language with formal meaning is equivalent to mathematical language!
How to do that? Simply using my concept of interpretation: the interpretation of a physical theory is what allow us “reading” its mathematical formalism. Therefore, the interpretation allows the translation from mathematical language to natural language, and vice versa. Then you can say the meaning of a sentence in natural language is the corresponding mathematical statement. Note that, doing this we also give a precise meaning to the used concepts.
The set of statements in natural language we can unambiguously translate into mathematical statements are the ones that have complete precision. They define a subset of natural language with complete precision! What I claim is that, every physical theory can define a subset of natural language which has absolute precision.
Once we find the closed formulation of our theories, all these problems are solved. For quantum mechanics, it will not only provide the right quantum logic, but also the right natural language, and concepts to talk about the theory! This will propose a new logic, and also a new conceptual framework. But then, the theory is proposing the conceptual framework in which it can be understood!
I’ve been working on these questions, and I’ve proposed a new formulation and interpretation of QM that follows these guidelines. My approach provides anew logic for QM, but it is different from the original quantum logic school. In my manuscript, each result of the theory is formulated in mathematical language and in natural language, and one is simply the translation of the other!
Our classical worldview is not useless; it is just not good enough for some things. That is, the concepts of our worldview are open concepts, and most of them are not very clear. For example, what is reality? what is truth? And I believe that physics has the potential for giving these fundamental concepts a precise meaning! And this is exactly making our worldview more closed!
I don’t know much about Mach’s philosophy, but this is exactly my view. For me, the meaning of the statement ''the position of an object is (x,y,z)'' would be the corresponding mathematical equation in the formalism of some physical theory.
That’s great; you can see how making our worldview semantically satisfactory can be important for physics. I’m doing the same with quantum mechanics, but actually I’m working on a theory that is the basis for both quantum and classical mechanics. And you are right, in a sense; our classical worldview appears in a particular case of this theory.
I’m not sure I’ve answered all your points, so fell free to ask anything again…
Best regards,
Frederico
view post as summary
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
Frederico asked: "What is a wrong physical assumption?"
Here is one:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"...
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body,...
view entire post
Frederico asked: "What is a wrong physical assumption?"
Here is one:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"...
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM: If the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body, then an arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container, and the bug from the bug-rivet paradox can be both dead (according to one observer) and alive (according to another):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR
/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."
http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol35_no1/vol35_no1_2.pdf
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.
html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT
Well, this is really a great paradox. I was not aware of this, and so is great to know another idea that blows our mind. However, I'm not an specialist on relativity so I cannot really discuss this paradox.
Thanks for your reply!
report post as inappropriate
Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 10:40 GMT
Dear Frederico,
I read your paper with great interest. I think you are right with respect to your final conclusion, that the principle of excluded middle is - in a way - the main wrong assumption of physics.
I am working on a Modern Metaphysics - in the belief, that it is the key to a final theory, because it is based on a truly foundational ground like the ONE.
In introducing the ONE as a physical entity I have defined it explicitly of being INVISIBLE (= NON-VISIBILITY), whereas the UNIVERSE is explicitly defined of being VISIBLE.
I found, that in a reality, that follows this dual conception, the ONE represents with respect to the UNIVERSE logically the Excluded Middle. But this logical status of the ONE does not disturb the universe in any way because the ONE being INVISIBLE is physically excluded from the VISIBLE universe!
The ontological meaning of this self-referential conception of reality is actually astonishing: By the physical exclusion of the logical Principle of the Excluded Middle as it is represented by the ONE, the visible universe can make an unrestricted use of ALL possibilities that logic allows. It can indeed go to the outmost limits of logic - to a point, where a violation of logic cannot be avoided any longer, because its boundary conditions (at infinity) are becoming contradictory.
I was quite surprised when I read Wittgenstein's tractus logico-philosophicus, in which he also described contradiction as the outer limit of propositions (5.143)
In a previous contest I've sketched this Modern Metaphysics.
see:The Taming of the ONE
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/502
Good Luck for your Paper.
Kind Regards
Helmut
P.S. I've seen you are also inspired by the work of C.F.v.Weizsäcker. His works were (and still are) a great source of inspiration for me.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Helmut
Thanks for your reply. We might not agree in every aspects, but our deep motivations and inspirations are the same. Weizsäcker is someone who deeply inspired me, and there are times I feel like I was trying to continue his work. Wittgenstein also inspires me, I’ve read his Tracttatu several times, and the sentence you cite made me think for a while.
I’ve also been...
view entire post
Dear Helmut
Thanks for your reply. We might not agree in every aspects, but our deep motivations and inspirations are the same. Weizsäcker is someone who deeply inspired me, and there are times I feel like I was trying to continue his work. Wittgenstein also inspires me, I’ve read his Tracttatu several times, and the sentence you cite made me think for a while.
I’ve also been working toward a final theory, and I really believe it is related to metaphysics, the true metaphysics. Actually, the definition I give to the final theory in this essay says that the final theory of physics is actually meta-physics! Follow my thought: what is in common to all logics but contains no logic at all? Meta-logic!
What is in common to all mathematics but is not an ordinary mathematical theory? Meta-mathematics.
What is in common to all physical theories but contains no physical theory at all? Meta-physics! The theory that goes beyond physics, and serves as foundation for it; in the same way meta-logic is the basis for many logics! The final theory is a metaphysical theory if not metaphysics itself! But metaphysics has too many enemies, that’s why I avoid mentioning this relation. But this metaphysics is completely different from the old metaphysics is the sense it is just as rigorous and mathematical as physics.
It is good to know I’m not alone. I’ve not yet finished reading your essay, but our ideas require a radically new worldview. I’ll try to read it soon, but keep me updated. If you could, please rate me!
And I suggest you reading my arXiv paper “On the Nature of Reality”. There I propose some aspects of the final theory and also some metaphysical ideas. You may not agree with everything but It can give us nice discussions.
“metaphysics could be the most challenging and revolutionary discipline of 21st century. It could change our view of the physical universe as well as our view of GOD.”
That is a belief I shall prove right. Or I’ll die trying…
Best Regards
Frederico
view post as summary
Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 06:01 GMT
Dear Frederico,
I agree mathematics is necessary to give a physical concept a precise meaning, but I am not sure whether it is an ultimate guide to a fundamental theory of reality, because mathematics itself is intrinsically limited. It has its own blind spots.
Gödel's incompleteness theorem is certainly the most important one. It has shown that mathematics cannot be both consistent and complete. There are always some basic propositions that may be true but that are intrinsically not provable.
You do not relate to this inner limitations of mathematics neither in your current paper nor in your paper "The Nature of Reality".
Referring to this incompleteness theorem the physicist Roger Penrose has claimed, that there could be certain aspects of reality (i.e. consciousness) for which no mathematical resp. computational algorithm can be created.
I am convinced that a modern metaphycis can meet this mathematical incompleteness by being a self-referential system of thought.
Kind Regards
Helmut
P.S. I like to point to my current paper: Is the Speed of Light of Dual Nature? which might be an important piece of a complete quantummechanical description of reality you are looking for.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Helmut,
I also wouldn’t say that math is the ultimate guide for a fundamental theory of reality, but only that it is the language we should use. And I do agree that math has its own blind spots and most of them are precisely on the foundations of mathematics. A also believe math must be improved for being used in such a fundamental theory.
About Gödel's incompleteness theorem, I think the point is about completeness. I do not want to make a theory that is complete in this sense, but consistent, useful and insightful. And this theorem may also affect any other formal language, every language has some limitations.
A theory is complete when every formula in its language either is provable or its negation is provable. In other words “if it is consistent, and none of its proper extensions is consistent.” But, a fundamental theory of reality must have proper extensions because every theory that describes an aspect of reality is an extension of it.
Self-referential system can be very powerful, but they are also very dangerous. Well, you may find a consistent one, but most of the paradoxes of logic and mathematics were found in self-referential systems. So we need extra care when dealing with these systems. But I believe Gödel's incompleteness theorem represents no danger for metaphysics because of what I mentioned before. I think you don’t need to worry about this theorem. Make your theory and if someone says it is impossible then simply show you have already done it!
P.S. I’m taking a look on your paper. I’ll rate it as an author; please rate mine.
Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 08:50 GMT
Dear Frederico,
I am not quite sure whether we agree with respect to the role that mathematics is playing in physics.
To discuss the case of metaphysics: In my view of a modern metaphysics all formulas without any exception have to fail, otherwise the metaphysical concept of TRANSCENDENCE does not have any physical meaning. This demand implies that we have to extend our theories to infinite values, f.e. to an infinite velocity, but just these values are usually regarded as a sign that the underlying concept is physically meaningless.
What do you think about this? Are there infinite values involved in a truly fundamental theory of the universe?
Kind Regards
Helmut
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 19:53 GMT
Dear Helmut
My point is that math is a precise language, and any theory, when it gets enough precise and clear, it can be formulated in a mathematical language. Therefore, even a metaphysical theory can at some moment be, in principle, formulated in mathematical language. Can you already talk about transcendence using math? That’s the question. However, not everything that can be described by a mathematical equation is a physical observable. In the theory I propose in “On the Nature of Reality”, everything is described mathematically but there are many elements that are not physical observables. But can you explain what you think of transcendence?
Well, I see no problem of infinities on physics. The problem is only with math which cannot hand infinities very well. Once our math could handle them properly and elegantly they will begin to appear on our physical theories.
Best Regards
Frederico
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regard !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:20 GMT
Dear Hải.Caohoàng,
Thanks for your encouraging comments. Definitely, to find a clearly defined basis for foundations physics is the greatest of all intellectual challenges; and we should work together to accomplish it.
However I have to admit that I don’t have much knowledge about the standard model and Higg’s bosons. I have yet no opinion about these things and so I cannot answer your questions. I hope we could find something else to discuss. I’m reading and I will rate you essay as an author. Please rate mine.
I believe no theory is simply correct or incorrect. Its correctness depends on where it is being applied, that is, if its assumptions holds in a specific domain, then the theory is correct on that domain, if the assumptions does not holds on that domain, then it is incorrect in that domain.
Best Regards!
Frederico
Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 03:46 GMT
Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 09:12 GMT
Dear Frederico,
transcendence is, of course, an epistemological term indicating that the most fundamental branch of reality (i.e. the ONE) cannot be described and observed in any way. Transcendence is the common feature of all religious systems.
But to fill this purely epistemological term with a physical resp. metaphysical content you have to choose an ontological one. The most...
view entire post
Dear Frederico,
transcendence is, of course, an epistemological term indicating that the most fundamental branch of reality (i.e. the ONE) cannot be described and observed in any way. Transcendence is the common feature of all religious systems.
But to fill this purely epistemological term with a physical resp. metaphysical content you have to choose an ontological one. The most appropriate term in this regard is the term of INVISIBILITY, because something to which this property is ascribed, cannot be described or observed in any way. It is epistemologically a property of transcendent nature.
Though the ONE itself being invisible cannot be described or observed -- the visible resp. observable Universe, of cource, can be described and observed.
Now at this point I asked myself: How must the visible Universe be organized if it shall base on something invisible?
Answer: It must have unavoidably a sort of radical non-dual conception.
Argument: As the property of visibility (of the universe) depends on the existence of specific differences, something, that shall be invisible, must have solved all differences into ONENESS. Otherwise it would be visible.
And just this general philosophical idea of ONENESS that is as old as Platon can physically be precised. I am calling this precised idea the --- radical non-dual conception of the universe ---. This metaphysical conception implies physical consequences that are provable from an empirical point of view.
It implies f.e. the prediction, that at the outermost edge at the universe there must be a coincidence, otherwise the invisiblility of the ONE would not be secured.
Such an empircial coincidence can actually be found at the edge of our universe. In modern physics it is known as Mach0. You can google this; choose the key word - Mach Principle -; there have been listed 10 versions of this principle. Mach0 is the first one: It is indeed the only one, that is explicitly expressed as a purely observational fact.
Surprisingly this observational fact represents an ANOMALY within modern physics that cannot yet be explained convincingly. To my opinion it is - to make use of an Einsteinian metaphor - a Signature of GOD inside our universe.
Kind Regards
Helmut
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Frederico
your essay and associated paper are thought provoking and deep. It will take time to assimilate it. My main comment for the present refers to this statement of yours:
"I have means to say that the main wrong assumption of physics is not
a physical assumption, but a millenary logical assumption: the principle of excluded middle .. This principle says that a proposition is either true or false, in other words, either the proposition or its negation is true" I think that you might be saying that the truth or falsity of a proposition may depend on its context. That is very close to the concept of contextual effects that I discuss in my essay.
George Ellis
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 05:23 GMT
Dear George,
Thanks for your comments and sorry for the late reply. Actually, what I mean by the violation of the principle of excluded middle can be understood when we think of a system in a superposed state. For example, when a cat is not in a superposed state, we can say that it is dead when the state is
or it is alive when the state is
. But then, when it is in a superposition
, it is not dead but it is also not alive! It is in a superposition of dead and alive! But according to that principle, if it is not dead, then it is alive. Therefore, superposition means precisely violation of the principle of excluded middle! In the classical world there is no superposition, therefore the principle holds in a particular case. I hope it could make the idea clearer.
Best Regards,
Frederico
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 03:58 GMT
Dear Frederico Pfrimer
Your inference about the "final theory" is very interesting.
Suggest you look at and comment on my introduction for the "absolute theory" (topic 1417- out side of my essay)
Regards.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,
Thanks for your comments. The final topic is a topic I think is really interesting. I’ll take a look on your essay and leave a comment. And please rate my essay please…
Best Regards
Frederico
Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Frederico Pfrimer
Always be "10" for allies.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Frederico,
i read your essay and you did a good job in examining the suspicious premises that are widly held high. Especially what you write about Commensurability is of interest for me, but i have to think about it some more time and also read your arxiv-paper. Nonetheless you struck me with your statement
"There, reality becomes a closed and completely precise notion. Therefore, I have means to say that the main wrong assumption of physics is not a physical assumption, but a millenary logical assumption: the principle of excluded middle. It is the source of most of the paradoxes and misunderstandings about quantum theory and is precisely the assumption that gives rise to the classical world."
For this statement alone you deserved - in my humble opinion - a positive score, nonetheless that my own usage of some exceptions to the principle of the excluded middle are more than epistemological in nature. My own interpretation is that there are ontological states that aren't anymore driven by this principle and i tried to explain this in my own essay. Especially i explain why the "collapse of the wave function" occurs, namely because at the point this does "happen", the causal structure of the system has consistently changed and the mathematical description of the former - unmeasured dynamics - isn't valid anymore. Indeed - as i believe - the schroedinger equation is just an illusion that mimics causality. It is no more than a mathematical tool, misinterpreted as an ontological dynamic process! I call that whole process of quantum mechanical mimics "physical retrodiction". If you like, i would be happy you could have the time to visit my essay and leave a comment.
Its very easy to read, informative as well as entertaining (i guess) and you don't have to dive into some complex mathematics.
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Stefan,
Thanks for your encouraging comments. My arXic paper might be very interesting because it shows how the ideas proposed in the essay can be implemented. Well the principle of excluded middle is a hidden assumption that is part of the language we use. It is almost impossible to understand how it can be violated using only ordinary language, specially English. Try to say something...
view entire post
Dear Stefan,
Thanks for your encouraging comments. My arXic paper might be very interesting because it shows how the ideas proposed in the essay can be implemented. Well the principle of excluded middle is a hidden assumption that is part of the language we use. It is almost impossible to understand how it can be violated using only ordinary language, specially English. Try to say something like the cat is not (not dead)...
I’ve explained this idea on a reply to George Ellis some topics before. Take a look and then ask me any questions. It’ll be a pleasure to make this idea clearer. I’ve started reading your essay; I’ll rate it as an author, please rate mine!
The principle of excluded middle is deeply connected to the wave function collapse. The point is that, after the collapse, the principle of excluded middle becomes valid for the set of projectors you used for measuring! Think about it, as I said, most of the paradoxes are related to this principle, and the classical world is precisely where this principle holds.
Best regards!
Frederico
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Frederico,
thanks for replying to my comment.
I read George Ellis' comment and yours and i agree with both comments.
George states that classical information depends on the context. He uses the term "proposition" to indicate the premises we have built in to come to a certain conclusion about truth/false values. From the reference frame of a classical observer the opposite...
view entire post
Dear Frederico,
thanks for replying to my comment.
I read George Ellis' comment and yours and i agree with both comments.
George states that classical information depends on the context. He uses the term "proposition" to indicate the premises we have built in to come to a certain conclusion about truth/false values. From the reference frame of a classical observer the opposite of the principle of the excluded middle (for convenience i will call it "non-ex") is the opposite of the principle itself (for convenience i will call it "ex"). So, "ex" and "non-ex" are opposites, and due to the logics and due to "ex", - both the governing-laws of the classical world ("ex" and its illusion of time, causal order and forces) and "non-ex" for us are contextual. Contextual in the sense that both principles are relative, they refer to each other and can be differenciated from each other only by referring to the othe principle. I think this is a hint that beyond the classical world there must be indeed a non-classical world - only due to logical considerations. QM is an indirect proof of this assumption, especially the feature of superposition.
In my essay i assume the "cat" to be neither dead nor alive, rather than being dead and alive at the same time. I think this is a difference to common thinking about superposed states. I also avoid the conclusion of many worlds which could be constructed (by assuming an extended pure state for every mixed state by assuming the mixed state) is just an illusion due to our kind of thinking in a classical reference frame that assumes causality to be more fundamental than consistency. I think the latter is more fundamental and we should accept incompleteness of information in the classical world. Extrapolating the Schroedingers' wave function to be universally valid only leads to many-worlds; they may be complete in a certain sense and consistent, but the measurement problem for me seems to be not solved (the problem why the mathematical description of Schroedinger does "collapse" at the "moment" of measurement).
At the weekend i will read your arxiv paper with great interest. I already gave your essay here a positive vote.
After reading your arxiv-paper, i will give you another feedback on that and maybe you can profit from my points of view (i would hope so).
Best wishes,
Stefan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Minor corrections to my latest post:
instead
"by assuming an extended pure state for every mixed state by assuming the mixed state"
please read
"by assuming an extended pure state for every mixed state"
i wrote
"Extrapolating the Schroedingers' wave function to be universally valid only leads to many-worlds; they may be complete in a certain sense and...
view entire post
Minor corrections to my latest post:
instead
"by assuming an extended pure state for every mixed state by assuming the mixed state"
please read
"by assuming an extended pure state for every mixed state"
i wrote
"Extrapolating the Schroedingers' wave function to be universally valid only leads to many-worlds; they may be complete in a certain sense and consistent, but the measurement problem for me seems to be not solved (the problem why the mathematical description of Schroedinger does "collapse" at the "moment" of measurement)."
i would add
It's not only the moment of a "collapse" that is problematic (in many worlds the "collapse" does not exist and therefore is not a problem), but also the fact that for every binary decision i make, another "me" realizes the other alternative. The question here is if this alternative "me" existed before *i* made my binary decision or is it somewhat "cloned" by the Schroedinger equation? I assume that the two branches arising out of *my* decision aren't symmetrical in the sense that the other branch (the alternative "me") is forced to decide between *my* binary decision and gains exactly the "opposite" of *my* decision. Here the question arises why there should be multiple quantum experimentalists within a Schroedinger equation that branches those experimentalists in a non-deterministic manner. Not enough, where is the borderline between a classical decision and a quantum decision? A quantum decision surely seems to be random, but the Schroedinger equation says it is deterministic. So even *my* own decisions (for example my decision to write this post) should seem to be as random as single quantum events seem. An interpretation of QM as strictly deterministic does not alter the mystery why *i* got entangled such that i had to write down this comment. It further does not elucidate that human behaviour in most cases is consistent and makes some sense. Although this could be due to past entanglements, but nothing in the whole QM theory and the Schroedinger equations neccessitates that human behaviour should make sense and shouldn't be non-sensical when averaged over the whole human population.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear Frederico,
i now read your arXiv-paper. Although i must confess that i did not check every part of your statements to be reasonable or not, my main interest was to look at what you have to say in your plain text.
You wrote
"The importance of the distinction between pure and mixed states, and the fact that only pure states can be associated with a vector (ket) is...
view entire post
Dear Frederico,
i now read your arXiv-paper. Although i must confess that i did not check every part of your statements to be reasonable or not, my main interest was to look at what you have to say in your plain text.
You wrote
"The importance of the distinction between pure and mixed states, and the fact that only pure states can be associated with a vector (ket) is dismissed. The distinction show totally different mathematical properties and meaning of each of them. We say that the pure state [ψ] is something objective, actually that it represents reality itself. And the mixed states ρ represents something
epistemic, that they are the state of knowledge of some observers. This two elements are not, however, completely independent, there is a condition for a density operator to be considered a possible state of knowledge. However, the state of knowledge is not totally defined by reality, and that’s why we say that it is subjective. We can say that this theory is a theory of knowledge and truth, and this the explanation of why there are elements of this two natures: epistemic and ontic."
As i understand this, it is not possible to unambigiously assign some reality to the "time" between two measurements?
I think this would be difficult, because in the case of Schroedingers Cat (if one leaves decoherence processes out of the discussion) you write
"Note that we have propositions that are neither true, neither false; and that is something new, because according to classical logic, a proposition is either true or false."
In the time in between the measurement of the Cat's state, there must be some "time" elapsing, i guess. In my own interpretation, with the help of some ideas of decoherence, i tried to interpret what's the meaning of the "time" between those two measurements.
It is true that classical logic leads to either true or false values, but if we consider the opposite of the classical logics to return neither true or false values, we cut out a huge part of reality, if we take this new logics to be a passive negation of the classical logic. We can interpret that as the subjective lack of knowledge (the epistemologic part), but this interpretation in my opinion is not sufficient to understand why QM is the way it is, this interpretation is only sufficient to illustrate why QM *itself* cannot give the answer why it is how it is. That's an important difference.
My own interpretation assumes a meta-physical (meta-physical in the sense that classical logic is only a special case of a logic that isn't anymore bound to causal thinking - but nonetheless to reasons - and to physical time) level of reality where the *reasons* for the non-classical logic reside. In my opinion this level has no classical timeframe, but only conistent interdependencies. Therefore no assumption are needed in this realm and all answers to questions are rendered senseless because questions in a timless, interconnected realm don't make anymore sense.
Maybe we are not so far apart from each others point of views, except that i speculate about what's beyond the classical logic and epistemological knowledge, and you seem to not do this.
Thanks again for an exciting essay and an interesting arxiv-paper!
Best wishes,
Stefan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Stefan
In my paper I do not give much emphasis to the measurement problem, not because it is not important, but because I do not propose any solution for it; at least for now. So I don’t have answer to your questions about it. Try to think this way: what can we say before any measurement is performed? That is what I try to answer. In the future I’ll try to explain the process but...
view entire post
Dear Stefan
In my paper I do not give much emphasis to the measurement problem, not because it is not important, but because I do not propose any solution for it; at least for now. So I don’t have answer to your questions about it. Try to think this way: what can we say before any measurement is performed? That is what I try to answer. In the future I’ll try to explain the process but for now I can’t.
I do not negate classical logic, but I say that it holds only in a particular case, so I’m not cutting any part of reality. The point is that, in my approach you can describe truth and falsity (objective) and also epistemological knowledge (subjective)! You can even talk about necessity and possibility! It is much richer than classical propositional logic. And well, lets talk about the simpler things. That is a challenge, and so I'm challenging you. My theory is before the notion of time. The notion of time and dynamics will be introduced in the future as an extension to it. I don't know how it will be. After we introduce time, then we can talk about causality and measurement process, but each one is a new step, and I hope i won't be alone building them. My theory introduces a new level of precision in physics, it is a closed theory. So you must pay attention to its form and precision, that is where it differs from anything before. It is the first closed theory!
Take a look on chapter 4. it has a lot of math, but is where you can get the essence of my work. Every STATEMENT section contains a theorem and a reading of it in natural language. DEFINITION defines a new concept. Concepts like truth and falsity are defined mathematically and the basis for logic are established.
I added new elements to quantum theory, and then you have to see how the new theory is for you to understand it. It is more than simply a different interpretation.
My next paper will be on the nature of logic. I’ll show all the logic that arises from this previous one.
“except that i speculate about what's beyond the classical logic and epistemological knowledge, and you seem to not do this.” That is something should not remain true, because I’m trying to go beyond them both, so help me understanding what is missing.
Thanks for reading and discussing my paper. That is really important for me, and is good to know there are others interested in my work. Take the time you, but please, take a look on the mathematical part, that is the essence of my work; the rest are discussions and motivations, the real content is on this part.
Best wishes
Frederico
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 04:09 GMT
Dear Frederico,
o.k., now i understand your approach better. I will take a closer look at the mathematical part and if i can say anything helpfull, i will post it here. Unfortunately i am not a mathematician, so i first must research the meaning of some expressions like idempotent and a few others.
Thanks again for explaining your work.
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear Stefan,
Every opinion is important for me. I found that there are two different things that we must try to make them equal: what I say and what you understand. Clarity is what makes them equal. All them mathematical concepts are defined within the paper, but most of them are not necessary for understanding what matters. I am not a mathematician too, that’s why I try to keep the math as simple and elegant as possible. This is my email and google+: pfrimer.physics@gmail.com. do you have goolge +? Let’s keep talking and I’ll try to explain you all my work.
Well, an idempotent element is element such that x^2 = x, for example: 0 and 1.
Best Wishes
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 05:26 GMT
Dear Frederico,
i am interested in your explanation. I don't have google+ (i even don't know what that is), but i will send you an email after the community rating has finished, so we can have further discussions about our topics.
For now, i try to read and vote the essays i have promised to do.
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 11:45 GMT
Frederico,
I think it's a rather bold conjecture that "The quest for giving a precise meaning to our fundamental concepts cannot be accomplished using natural language" ... without giving an example of a mathematical statement that cannot in principle be translated to natural language.
So I'm in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with your conclusions while disagreeing with the...
view entire post
Frederico,
I think it's a rather bold conjecture that "The quest for giving a precise meaning to our fundamental concepts cannot be accomplished using natural language" ... without giving an example of a mathematical statement that cannot in principle be translated to natural language.
So I'm in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with your conclusions while disagreeing with the way that you got there. It is surprising to me that you venture into meta-mathematics in your commentary without mentioning Chaitin's leading-edge research (particularly since he is a Brazilian Professor). For example, Chaitin's Omega gives a clear example of an algorithmic compression of a number that is uncompressible (the halting probability of a Turing machine). This example would seem to stand your conjecture on its head: an example of a meta-mathematical result whose natural language translation is straightforward: The number is algorithmically compressible IFF the halting probability of a universal Turing machine asymptotically approaches zero, regardless of the machine language by which such probability is calculated. With this extreme example, I am doubtful that your conjecture is true.
Chaitin has extended his meta-mathematical program to life itself, with the recent publication of *Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical.*
Nevertheless, as a separate subject, I have to agree that what you call a closed theory (and which I would characterize as a closed logical judgment of a mathematically complete theory) is sine qua non -- not only to a final theory -- but to any scientific theory. Closed logical judgements, such as those in relativity, correspond to physical results that make the theory mathematically complete. I like your discussion of quantum theory interpretation, because it clearly exposes why anti-systematic analyses cannot impose a logically objective meaning. Quantum theory is mathematically incomplete. (I don't understand how you reconcile Wittgenstein's anti-systematic philosophy to your philosophy of science, though I would be interested to know.)
Anyway, thanks for a great read and all best wishes in the contest. If you would like to see an information-theoretic take on the Schrodinger's cat problem, and which explicitly uses the excluded middle, please visit my essay ("The Perfect First Question.")
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Thomas
Thanks for your comments. Well, the problem is that we need to translate math to natural language and natural language to math, we need both, and what I call an interpretation is what allows it. Try to read the equation F=ma. In the context of classical mechanics you would say the total force equals to the product of the mass and the acceleration. But out of context, or better,...
view entire post
Dear Thomas
Thanks for your comments. Well, the problem is that we need to translate math to natural language and natural language to math, we need both, and what I call an interpretation is what allows it. Try to read the equation F=ma. In the context of classical mechanics you would say the total force equals to the product of the mass and the acceleration. But out of context, or better, without any interpretation, you cannot say it.
The problem of natural language is that it is not as precise as math, and there are too undefined concepts or open concepts. For example, define reality? Define proposition? Define truth? These concepts are very hard if not impossible to define in natural language. I cannot prove you it is impossible to define these concepts in natural language, but if you look to a dictionary you will see that some definitions are at most circular and you cannot remove the circularity.
Really, I was not aware of Chaitin's work. I liked the way you characterized a closed theory, although we need to take with the meaning of mathematically complete, because if it is understood in the sense Godel then we have a problem with his incompleteness theorem. I’ve read his book but I’m not a specialist on Wittgenstein philosophy, and so I cannot really answer how my ideas are in relation to his philosophy. If you have something more specific…
There is no problem on agreeing with my conclusions without agreeing with the initial discussion simply because it is only a motivation for studying the notion of closed theory. And I agree this notion applies to all scientific theories.
I’ll visit you essay. Thanks for visiting mine, and pleas rate me if you haven’t! I wish you all the best in this contest, and that we could keep our talks beyond this scope.
Best Regards
Frederico
view post as summary
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Thomas,
Just to make sure, I understood that your view on a complete theory is not the one that can leat to a contradiction with Godel's theorem. I just wanted to say that other people may understand it the wrong way and criticize because of the incompletness theorem.
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:13 GMT
Hi Frederico,
You write, "Try to read the equation F=ma. In the context of classical mechanics you would say the total force equals to the product of the mass and the acceleration. But out of context, or better, without any interpretation, you cannot say it."
If you mean only that I have to expand the shorthand symbols to natural language, such that I should write, "Force equals mass...
view entire post
Hi Frederico,
You write, "Try to read the equation F=ma. In the context of classical mechanics you would say the total force equals to the product of the mass and the acceleration. But out of context, or better, without any interpretation, you cannot say it."
If you mean only that I have to expand the shorthand symbols to natural language, such that I should write, "Force equals mass times acceleration," then I don't really think that constitutes either context or interpretation. The symbols, after all, mean the same things whether one's native language is Portuguese or English, or any other. Mathematical symbols are universal; we learn this "alphabet" of symbols in learning the artificial language of math, yet the symbols are themselves derived from natural language.
Suppose you mean, though, that to understand how to interpret the way in which these symbols correspond to personal experience, such that we are assured the symbols are indeed universal -- we resort to comparing the symbols to objects, exactly the way one learns natural language. "Mass" one can understand as identical to weight, by balance measurement. "Acceleration" is exactly why Newton invented the calculus, to explain acceleration as the rate of change of the rate of change -- can this be explained by direct comparison to an object? -- yes, if one sees the difference between uniform motion described by a straight line, and acceleration described by a curved line, which is the visual basis of the calculus. Then corresponding experience informs one that a hammer head "weighs" more when accelerated toward the nail head, than when resting on it uniformly. We call that increase of mass-energy by the name "force."
"The problem of natural language is that it is not as precise as math, and there are too undefined concepts or open concepts. For example, define reality? Define proposition? Define truth? These concepts are very hard if not impossible to define in natural language. I cannot prove you it is impossible to define these concepts in natural language, but if you look to a dictionary you will see that some definitions are at most circular and you cannot remove the circularity.'
Sure. However, I *can* prove that it is possible to express every mathematical statement in natural language, even though it is impractical, unnecessary and exceedingly tedious. Formal proofs rely on logical judgments derived from a given set of axioms -- they do not necessarily tell us what is true; in fact, the common way of conveying the meaning of Godel's theorem is in the statement: "Truth is stronger than proof." In other words, there exist true statements derived from any set of axioms that cannot be proven from that set, no matter how many or how few axioms the set comprises.
A dictionary is no help here, and in fact we can prove it! Your set of questions above asking to define terms can be reduced to "Define definition." The answer: "Definition is defined by the set of all definitions in the dictionary." Is that useful? -- it is, if one is a mathematical realist (Platonist) as Godel was. Roger Penrose is another example of a modern Platonist. To such a mathematician, there exists a universal "dictionary" -- pure perfect mathematics, in fact, is only a set of self consistent statements. In fact, Godel used to refer to proofs he found particularly elegant as having come straight "from the Book."
Science as a whole, though, conventionally follows the logic of Tarski (correspondence theory of truth) adapted by Popper to correspondence between logically closed mathematical judgments (theory) and experimental results. That's an even longer discussion.
"Really, I was not aware of Chaitin's work." Try
his site . I know you'll be interested.
"I liked the way you characterized a closed theory, although we need to take with the meaning of mathematically complete, because if it is understood in the sense Godel then we have a problem with his incompleteness theorem."
I hope I covered that sufficiently above. "Mathematically complete" I take from the EPR definition: every element of the mathematical theory corresponds to every element of the physical reality.
"I've read his book but I'm not a specialist on Wittgenstein philosophy, and so I cannot really answer how my ideas are in relation to his philosophy. If you have something more specific ..."
This is a longer discussion still. Maybe later.
"I'll visit you essay. Thanks for visiting mine, and pleas rate me if you haven't! I wish you all the best in this contest, and that we could keep our talks beyond this scope."
I'd be delighted to engage further ... and of course will award your essay a deservedly high rating.
All best,
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
Hi Tom,
You wrote:
"Hi Frederico,
You write, "Try to read the equation F=ma. In the context of classical mechanics you would say the total force equals to the product of the mass and the acceleration. But out of context, or better, without any interpretation, you cannot say it."
If you mean only that I have to expand the shorthand symbols to natural language, such that...
view entire post
Hi Tom,
You wrote:
"Hi Frederico,
You write, "Try to read the equation F=ma. In the context of classical mechanics you would say the total force equals to the product of the mass and the acceleration. But out of context, or better, without any interpretation, you cannot say it."
If you mean only that I have to expand the shorthand symbols to natural language, such that I should write, "Force equals mass times acceleration," then I don't really think that constitutes either context or interpretation. The symbols, after all, mean the same things whether one's native language is Portuguese or English, or any other. Mathematical symbols are universal; we learn this "alphabet" of symbols in learning the artificial language of math, yet the symbols are themselves derived from natural language.
Suppose you mean, though, that to understand how to interpret the way in which these symbols correspond to personal experience, such that we are assured the symbols are indeed universal -- we resort to comparing the symbols to objects, exactly the way one learns natural language. "Mass" one can understand as identical to weight, by balance measurement. "Acceleration" is exactly why Newton invented the calculus, to explain acceleration as the rate of change of the rate of change -- can this be explained by direct comparison to an object? -- yes, if one sees the difference between uniform motion described by a straight line, and acceleration described by a curved line, which is the visual basis of the calculus. Then corresponding experience informs one that a hammer head "weighs" more when accelerated toward the nail head, than when resting on it uniformly. We call that increase of mass-energy by the name "force." "
Tom, quoting you: "If you mean only that I have to expand the shorthand symbols to natural language, such that I should write, "Force equals mass times acceleration," then I don't really think that constitutes either context or interpretation."
Your statement appears to me to be dependent upon interpretation. The equation f=ma before interpretation says only that 'something' equals 'what' times acceleration.
Quoting you: " "Mass" one can understand as identical to weight, by balance measurement. "Acceleration" is exactly why Newton invented the calculus, to explain acceleration as the rate of change of the rate of change -- can this be explained by direct comparison to an object? -- yes, if one sees the difference between uniform motion described by a straight line, and acceleration described by a curved line, which is the visual basis of the calculus. Then corresponding experience informs one that a hammer head "weighs" more when accelerated toward the nail head, than when resting on it uniformly. We call that increase of mass-energy by the name "force." "
In other words the 'what' from my statement above is identical to a different 'what'? What is either 'what' without interpretation?
Acceleration has no need for interpretation.
Quoting you: "We call that increase of mass-energy by the name "force." "
In other words: We call that increase in 'what_1' dash 'what_2' by the name 'something'. Or perhaps you are saying that the results of interpretation can be used to explain a 'something' without needing to interpret that 'something'? :)
Can you please say more about your view of the meanings of 'not interpreting' and 'interpreting'?
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 12:08 GMT
Hi James.
I thought I was clear that it is correspondence between the symbol and the object that obviates interpretation, and begs the primacy of theory.
The physical reality of acceleration is identical to Newton's explanation of identity between a falling apple and the falling moon. This in turn generalizes Galileo's earlier principle, that objects falling in a straight line (the apple) fall at the same rate as those in a curved trajectory (the moon). Because the moon has to maintain a trajectory constantly changing in time, however, to avoid colliding with the Earth, we have to calculate the difference between that curved path of the accelerating object (curvilinear acceleration), and a uniformly straight path of unaccelerated motion. All these insights are necessary to arrive at relativity.
(Your questions give me a lot of understanding of the difficulty in communication we were having in Vesselin Petkov's forum.)
To the question of "force," and its measurement, when you write " ... perhaps you are saying that the results of interpretation can be used to explain a 'something' without needing to interpret that 'something'? :)..." you imply that interpretation imparts meaning. I am not saying that at all -- I am saying that "force" derives its meaning by correspondence between the theoretical prediction and the measured result.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 14:23 GMT
Tom,
I arrived in the middle of your conversation. I have read the essay and the comments now. I see no weakness in your statement:
"Sure. However, I *can* prove that it is possible to express every mathematical statement in natural language, even though it is impractical, unnecessary and exceedingly tedious."
In my view, I would say that every mathematical statement is formed from natural language. The shorthand use of simple symbols to substitute for the more complex symbols of formal language does not change this. The form of any mathematical statement is purely symbolic and derives all meaning from the same source to which natural language is also only symbolically pointing us toward.
I find your conversation with Frederico very interesting and intellectually stimulating.
James
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 17:12 GMT
Dear James, Frederico, Tom,
i too think maths that refers to our classical world can be expressed by our classical language. But what about the maths of QM? Here it depends on the interpretation if one does say "the particle is in a superposition of positions" or "the particle does take all the paths at the same time" or "the particle isn't a particle but a wave that interferes with its parts".
As i understood it, this is the issue Frederico was referring to in his essay.
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 10:28 GMT
Stefan,
You write, "But what about the maths of QM? Here it depends on the interpretation if one does say 'the particle is in a superposition of positions' or 'the particle does take all the paths at the same time' or the particle isn't a particle but a wave that interferes with its parts'."
This is the baggage that comes with a probabilistic description of reality. For most all cases of probability -- i.e., excepting those cases where we have perfect knowledge of the outcomes (such as the six sides of a die) -- very little is really known of probability theoretically.
(James -- thanks.)
Tom
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT
Frederico Pfrimer wrote:
"I have means to say that the main wrong assumption of physics is not
a physical assumption, but a millenary logical assumption: the principle of excluded middle1."
Niels Bohr talking about it
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html#
u2LwwTk8pFUyOzeb.99
Few peoples understand it unfortunately.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Yuri,
Great point. It fits perfectly at this situation. Also it shows something very deep: it is very simple to know what the opposite of a trivial truth represents, but to know what the opposite of a great truth represents is a great challenge. In this case, for example, we could say that quantum logic is non-classical or maybe non-boolean, but then what it really means? To answer it we must perfectly understand how is the logic of the quantum world…
Best Regards,
Frederico
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
I do not understand why my cоmmunity rating becomes lower....
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Amanda Gefter wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 08:29 GMT
Hi Frederico,
I enjoyed reading your interesting essay. I agree that the non-Boolean logic inherent to quantum mechanics is precisely what gives rise to all the weirdness that conflicts with our classical intuitions. Personally, however, I'm not sure it's enough to say that quantum logic is non-Boolean and leave it at that - that's merely a description, not an explanation. I think it remains important to ask, in Wheeler's famous phrase, why the quantum? Why non-Boolean logic?
I take a speculative stab at that question in my
essay, suggesting that non-Boolean quantum logic expresses a radical frame-dependence in the nature of reality, one most strongly argued for by holography and Lenny Susskind's notion of "horizon complementarity".
Great work.
Regards,
Amanda
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Amanda,
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I also think to say that the logic is non-Boolean is not enough. I have an arXiv paper, “On the Nature of Reality” where I develop a new interpretation and formulation of QT. Most of it is related to the logic of quantum world. There I think it is clear why the logic is non-Boolean and how it actually is. There, I extend QT for having a logic about truth, knowledge, necessity and possibility, what is much more that pure propositional logic. This is how quantum logic becomes no classical: it becomes a kind of modal logic where truth is a modality, that is, a proposition can be true, false, known to be true, known to be false, necessarily true, necessarily false, possibly true… I suggest you reading it but outside the scope of this contest. I’ll read your essay and rate it without judging from my own viewpoints. Please rate mine too!
Well, I try to answer why the quantum and why non Boolean logic from the following approach: it is the simplest closed theory possible for describing reality. In my paper what I develop is a closed theory in the sense of this essay, and you will see how simple all the axioms and the definitions are. It is almost impossible to make them simpler.
Best Regards,
Frederico
Author Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Readers,
While I’m trying to answer your posts, a propose a challenge: try to read unambiguously the following equation:
This exercise shows some limitations of natural language. It is very hard if not impossible to read this equation unambiguously.
However, the real focus is not translating mathematical language to natural language, but the opposite, translating natural language to math. This can only be done when you have a theory and an interpretation. For example, everybody can talk about money and finances in natural language, but you can only say the same thing in mathematical language when there is a theory that allows you modeling the situation. This the great challenge of all sciences. At the time of Aristotle they could talk about the movement of particles, interactions and other physical notions, but they couldn’t say the same things in math; classical mechanics was what allowed us to do so.
The great challenges are for example what it means mathematically to say that QM is realist? What are the equations that must be satisfied for this to happen? What it means mathematically to say that QM violates classical logic? What it means mathematically to say that QM is complete or incomplete?
One we can find a consensual answer to all these question, the philosophical problems vanish. Then all you have to do is to prove that QM satisfies or not an equation. The philosophical problem is finding the equation, the rest is simply theorem proving.
Best Regards
Frederico
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 11:13 GMT
Hi Frederico,
Okay, I understand better what you're saying now. Really, though, what does "ambiguous" mean in terms of mathematics? After all, by the fundamental theorem of algebra, a polynomial equation has as many solutions as the equation has degrees. Does that mean the solutions are ambiguous? -- to say so would imply that there is one "real," or true, solution to the equation, yet such is not the case. All solutions are true for the given degree.
Your approach may shed light on something very important, however, about the form of mathematics we use to model physical reality. If the fundamentally algebraic rules of quantum mechanics leave us with the questions you ask: -- ... what it means mathematically to say that QM is realist? ... equations that must be satisfied for this to happen? ... QM violates classical logic? ... QM is complete or incomplete? -- then just maybe algebra (i.e., the mathematics of discrete functions) can't tell us what lies at the foundation of reality.
Problem is, that our thinking equipment *is* designed for discrete decisions, not continuous functions. How the quantum-mechanical brain connects with the stately motion of the cosmos will be as science-changing a model as Newton's explanation of why the moon falls toward the Earth without hitting it.
You might be interested in this powerpoint I did for
ICCS 2007 that takes advantage of Gregory Chaitin's research into the uncertainty of arithmetic that we talked about earlier.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Tom,
It is is very hard to find ambiguities in mathematics because good mathematics is always unambiguous. But I found some examples in
Ambiguities in Mathematics. A simple example extracted from there:
“Certain functions, particularly trigonometric functions like sin and cos, are often written without parentheses: “sin x” instead of “sin(x)”. So what does the expression “sin ab” mean? It can mean either “sin(ab)” or “(sin a)b”. Generally, it’ll mean the former. However, it can sometimes mean the latter! For example, I’m looking at some lecture notes right now which uses implicit differentiation to find the derivative of arcsine: you let y=arcsin x, which means that sin y=x, then you differentiate both sides and get: “cos y dy/dx = 1″. In this context, “cos y dy/dx” means “(cos y)dy/dx”!”
Well, the solutions of a polynomial are not ambiguous, they are a set of number. For example, a more rigorous way of expressing the solutions of x^2-3 is
.
Now you can see that there is no ambiguity.
Well, but that’s it. In the end we depend heavily on mathematics. I’m not sure that the mathematics of today is already capable of providing us with all the tools. The problems are foundations of math itself are not really established. Math is the best language we have, but we are always limited by our language. Math allow us advancing further than natural language, but it still have limitations.
About the continuous, a large part of quantum theory (i.e. information and computation theory) is done with discrete quantities. I think we should first solve the foundational problems for the discrete, then we extend it to the continuous. But I agree with what you said, but we must find ways to overcome it.
Best regards
Frederico
P.S.: I’m taking a look on your presentation.
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 10:21 GMT
Hi Frederico,
I make a distinction between abuse of notation and ambiguous results. Bad notation, as your examples show, can lead to misinterpretation. The same is true of bad grammar in natural language, as well as ambiguities of syntax and semantics and other linguistic failings (such as Chomsky's well known example, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously").
Unlike natural language, though, mathematics gets its meaning from logical judgments which are never purposely ambiguous -- if they are, one charges the result with an error. Internal consistency of the language is independent of the correspondent meaning.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana" shows the dependence of natural language on context, where concrete terms (flies) and abstract terms (time) relate in entirely different ways to an object corresponding to the meaning.
Mathematical symbols are limited in the same way. The Greek letter pi can stand for the transcendental number that describes the relation between the radius and circumference of a circle; pi can also represent a discrete prime integer. Results from use of these terms, however, cannot be confused by one who speaks the language -- just as in the natural language above.
You write, " ... a large part of quantum theory (i.e. information and computation theory) is done with discrete quantities."
Actually, all of it is done with discrete quantities. That's where "quantum" gets its meaning.
"I think we should first solve the foundational problems for the discrete, then we extend it to the continuous. But I agree with what you said, but we must find ways to overcome it."
We have, actually. Topological quantum field theory -- among other topological methods -- incorporates the global meaning of quantum events. We can't get a non-arbitrary continuum from discrete quantities; we can, however, derive discrete events from the continuum.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 00:27 GMT
Dear Frederico,
I greatly admire your essay. You ambitiously tackle issues that some of history’s greatest scientists, from Liebniz to the founders of quantum theory, have wrestled with. Your general approach is relevant to the whole practice of science. For mathematical reasons (principally Godel’s incompleteness theorem), I think that the achievement of a “perfectly closed...
view entire post
Dear Frederico,
I greatly admire your essay. You ambitiously tackle issues that some of history’s greatest scientists, from Liebniz to the founders of quantum theory, have wrestled with. Your general approach is relevant to the whole practice of science. For mathematical reasons (principally Godel’s incompleteness theorem), I think that the achievement of a “perfectly closed theory” may not be possible, but I see from your comment thread that you have already considered this, and presumably the intent of your program is to achieve a theory as "closed as mathematically possible." In any case, I think that the approach you suggest should be followed as far as mathematics will allow.
Hence, you may have already thought about many of the following considerations. Please don’t interpret them as criticism; rest assured that I rate your contribution very highly!
1. I am not quite sure how far one can go in the requirement that a theory be “closed.” For example, general relativity invokes a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold interpreted as “spacetime.” But what is a manifold? Well, first of all, it is a set. What is a set? Well, one might use the Zermelo-Frankel axioms. However, this immediately leads to Godel-type issues. Is the question of what statements are “true” in the theory included in its “meaning?” If so, then there is immediate trouble because of Godel’s incompleteness theorem.
2. To some extent, I agree with those among the quantum theorists who believe something along the lines of the statement that “quantum theory should provide us with a new worldview.” However, it seems that this line of reasoning can also be dangerous, because it can lead one to dismiss as meaningless issues of “interpretation” which are actually significant after all. For instance, the Hilbert space/operator algebra version of quantum field theory and Feynman’s sum-over-histories version are indeed equivalent for ordinary flat spacetime, but these versions generalize in very different ways and apply to different physical models, for instance, in quantum gravity. If a model corresponding to one version turns out to “work,” while all models involving the other version fail, then it really does matter what interpretation one takes. Of course, this does not disagree with anything you are saying, since it would merely narrow the choices of “interpretation” (i.e. “worldview”), and move one towards a more “closed” theory.
3. Regarding Heisenberg’s definition of a closed theory, the ghost of Godel rises again to frown on the phrase “non-contradictory fashion,” and the sentence “The mathematical image of the system ensures that contradictions cannot occur in the system." Heisenberg may not have known this at the time, but mathematical formalism is no refuge from contradiction. In general, it is not possible to prove such a system noncontradictory. Leibniz’s dream of a “characteristica universalis,” is what Bertrand Russell and company were trying to do with their Principia Mathematica when they ran into Russell’s paradox. Later Godel wrecked the whole program with his undecidability theorem.
However, regardless of whether mathematical perfection of this sort is possible, there is a vast gulf between our current physical theories and the “best that could be done” in developing a closed theory. Hence, I feel the idea and the program are well-worth pursuing.
I congratulate you for a deep and insightful contribution, and wish you the best of luck in the contest. Take care,
Ben Dribus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 12:25 GMT
:) in all humility of course,This theory has been found by a young belgian of 37 years old.
Of course it is irritating for a lot of scientists. Just due to the potential of this theory of spherization. Indeed I have found dear sciences community. Of course there are a lot of jealousy and envy. Just due I am repeating to this potential at shot middle and long term. Of course several...
view entire post
:) in all humility of course,This theory has been found by a young belgian of 37 years old.
Of course it is irritating for a lot of scientists. Just due to the potential of this theory of spherization. Indeed I have found dear sciences community. Of course there are a lot of jealousy and envy. Just due I am repeating to this potential at shot middle and long term. Of course several academicians are going to try just for the funds. But in fact.These persons are not really academicians but simply false scientists.Indeed they do not imrpove, they just decrease the real evolution. Their hates in general are proportional with their frustrations. Of course their credibility is on a sad road if I am recognized. So of course probably that they are obliged to be very bad in their strategies. The irony at its paroxysm above the cries of desesperated frustrated. I suggest that they learn real searchers and real generalsits. But of course their vanity and their taste of opulences imply that they have no times for the real learning , general and foundamental.Me I am a real generalist. Them, no !
ps the incompleteness is rational and the serie is finite and precise. We are just far of our walls separating this light without motion and the light with motions, so the physical universal sphere in 3D and its 3D quantum spheres and cosmological spheres. If the systems of informations is encoded , it rests rational.Not need of extradimensionalities and multiverses where we have different laws. I beleive that a lot of scientists become very irrational there !!! The problem is that we cannot utilize monney without wisdom and universal consciousness. The hour is serious, we have real global probelms and we are near several chaotical exponentials.We must harmonize this earth with a pure harmony. The rest is vain. If the scientists are not able to solve the problems, so they are not scientists. If they loose their time with pseudos extrapolations, so it is very bizare.We return about a simple evidence, this money and the vanity and the frontiers. It desreases the speed of evolution spherization. Each governments must take its responsabilities. The china must take its responsabilities, the USA also, the Russia and europa and the others. The scientists , rational must have responsabilities in their countries. The solutions exist in respecting the sciences and the road of optimization.We have the tools, so what is the problem? the monney, the unconsciousness, what? the stupidity? what ? it is time to create a global earthian commission of quick optimization. the governments of big countries must act quickly together !!! China: take the 2500 best scientists, general and universal of your country and give them powers of acting. USA make the same, take your 1000 best scientists with solutions and act also.Europa :make the same, africa also ....it is essential for our earth , it is now or never you know dear responsibles of governments. We are in a very bad global situation. The solutions exist.
Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Ben
You see the common point between my essay and Frederico´s? A ''closed theory'' for Frederico is something very close to what I called semantically complete in our discussions. And just to remember, by trying to produce a closed classical theory, the outcome is Machian philosophy which gives rise to GR almost uniquely via Barbour´s arguments. But the classical theory is not yet completely closed. I feel this could be made rigourous.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Benjamin
Thanks for your comments. For sure mathematics is our upper bound. We can go just as far as math allow us, and there will be times we’ll need to first extend math; but that’s not new in physics.
Well, you talked about the incompleteness theorem. Some days ago I found something very interesting about it, and I was willing to discuss about it. A theory is complete in...
view entire post
Dear Benjamin
Thanks for your comments. For sure mathematics is our upper bound. We can go just as far as math allow us, and there will be times we’ll need to first extend math; but that’s not new in physics.
Well, you talked about the incompleteness theorem. Some days ago I found something very interesting about it, and I was willing to discuss about it. A theory is complete in the sense of this theorem when
“if it is consistent, and none of its proper extensions is consistent.” [Wikipedia on Complete Theory]
A closed theory must be consistent, but ideally, a closed theory should allow extensions! Every time you create a new theory that extends another one or uses the framework of another theory you are creating a proper extension! Therefore, a closed theory that is complete in this sense is useless! You cannot extend it, you cannot apply it! Every model of a theory is a proper extension because a model adds new assumptions and so allows new results! If a theory is complete, then you cannot add a new assumption to it! Because either the assumption or its negation is already part of the theory!!! Complete theories are useless for physics!!!
About item 1
You have shown a great point: if a physical theory is based on mathematical elements that are not clear and “closed” enough then all the theory runs in trouble and cannot be really closed. Set theory is really problematic when you analyze it in depth; however, there are parts of physics that only requires results of set theory which are really established. This parts I would say they are safe…
About item 2
Well, for me when interpretation mathematically works in on situation while another on doesn’t work, then they are not just different interpretations. In this case the formalism or something else is different, and we need other criterions to choose which one is the best.
About item 3
Well, it is not impossible for a mathematical system to be contradictory, but it is very hard, or at least much harder than if the system as not described mathematically. But, when you system is very simple and clear, it is very different for it to have a contradiction, and if you have applied it successfully, than is even harder. But, even so you may never prove mathematically that it is consistent. But math evolved too much after Russell. Many of his viewpoints are not followed anymore, and, his approach is not good enough for physics. In fundamental physics everything is becoming more simple, unified and elegant, but Russell did the opposite with math! he took thousand pages to define the simplest mathematical notions! If physics started using his theory, one would have to understand his thousands pages before understanding the simplest closed theory!
For sure there is a gap to be filled between our current theories and the best we can do. And I’ve been working at this program. In my arXiv paper I’ve tried to provide a closed formulation of part of a large part of quantum theory. It is a new interpretation and formulation, but also a closed theory. That’s what I think. I hope others would point me what are the missing points for it being a completely closed theory, it is not perfect yet. However, the purpose of finding a closed theory is exactly what gives value to my work, if not, it is just another interpretation of QM. Well, I saw that you are interested in modern algebra, so you will like my new formulation: numbers, bras, kets and operators are all included in the same mathematical structure. I’ll take the time to read and rate you essay, please rate mine too!
Best Regards
Frederico
P.S.: what do you think about this view on godel’s theorem?
view post as summary
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear Frederico,
I am interested to see your "closed formulation" of part of quantum theory. I take it that is your reference 1?
Regarding Godel, I'm not an expert on undecidability, but I think that Godel's result applied to systems like the natural numbers is rather clear intuitively. The following isn't a proof, but it shows intuitively what an absolute miracle it would be if...
view entire post
Dear Frederico,
I am interested to see your "closed formulation" of part of quantum theory. I take it that is your reference 1?
Regarding Godel, I'm not an expert on undecidability, but I think that Godel's result applied to systems like the natural numbers is rather clear intuitively. The following isn't a proof, but it shows intuitively what an absolute miracle it would be if Godel's theorem were wrong. Take the natural numbers. You have a system which is defined by means of a finite set of postulates, yet it has an infinite number of elements, and you can make an infinite number of different statements about it, each of which may be true or false. (I am assuming, for the sake of the theorem, that it is consistent.)
Now suppose you have a statement that IS true, meaning that whenever you substitute natural numbers into it, you will get an identity. How could you PROVE this? Well, you could test it number by number, but you would never finish because there are an infinite number of numbers. So you have to fall back on the axioms. A certain chain of reasoning using the axioms might prove the result true for a certain infinite subset of natural numbers (for instance, multiples of 3), but might not work for others. So you could use a different chain of reasoning for another subset, but there might still be numbers left out. Once again, you might never arrive at a proof.
You can see that to prove this true statement, you would have to be very lucky: a finite number of finite chains of reasoning would have to suffice to prove a statement about an infinite number of numbers. This statement might be true for some numbers for entirely different reasons than for others. "Most" true statements about the natural numbers are undecidable in this sense. Intuitively, this is similar to the fact that "most" real numbers are not rational; to be rational, the decimal expansion must terminate or repeat in a finite number of steps. You have to be very lucky for this to occur.
I agree with what you said about item 2; that's why I prefer to call these "versions" rather than "interpretations." They do generalize differently.
I haven't rated most of the essays yet because I have not finished reading them all. But I won't forget to rate yours! Take care,
Ben
P.S. For the view of Godel's theorem you mentioned; it's a good way to think about it, but one must be sure that the word "extension" means the same thing you intend it to mean in the context of physics!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Frederico
A brilliant theory of theory, and a helpful eye opener for me. I agree translation and interpretation between words and maths is crucial and that we're very short of 'words' to discern meanings. This seems equivalent to mathematical abstraction being very limited in 'bits' compared to nature. But do you agree the brain can work best and find important results without either, then...
view entire post
Frederico
A brilliant theory of theory, and a helpful eye opener for me. I agree translation and interpretation between words and maths is crucial and that we're very short of 'words' to discern meanings. This seems equivalent to mathematical abstraction being very limited in 'bits' compared to nature. But do you agree the brain can work best and find important results without either, then it's only communication with other brains that limits us!
I also consider Quantum Logic in my essay, and agree; "This is how quantum logic becomes classical: it becomes a kind of modal logic where truth is a modality," and; "...why the quantum and why non Boolean logic...: it is the simplest closed theory possible for describing reality." I'm really glad I found your essay, and think it should be much higher up. I also hope you'll now read mine, and hope you may be able to give me useful input on it.
I've conceived a new and apparently more consistent fundamental theory deriving Classical and CSL 'commensurably' from a quantum mechanism, identifying the issues. I found this had a pattern similar to Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL, or Quantum/Modal Logic) and the precise hierarchical structure of Truth Functional Logic TFL. If we consider an inertial frame as being the exact analogy of a proposition, we find a possibly infinite structure of compound propositions being part of compound propositions. In this case each can only be resolved LOCALLY.
The PDL analogy is the interleaved kinetic states, which are separate from and only relate to the next LOCAL state (or 'mode') up or down. The analogy may not be perfect but the actual theory, or rather ontological construction, also seems far more empirically consistent than current theory, being constructed from freshly reviewed and 'logicised' epistemological elements. All paradoxes 'evaporate'!
It is not 'The Final Theory', but appears to help us out of a 300yr deep rut, opening new doors as an open not closed theory. Perhaps you could comment on how I may better formulate the model as a theory. (I do have a whole string of postulates). I look forward to reading your 'On the Nature of Reality' as soon as I've recovered from the essays!
Best of luck
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Frederico Pfrimer replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 19:59 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your comments. It looks like you could understand a bit deeper the content of my essay. That’s really a theory of theory, and curiously the only possible theory of theory is a theory about closed theories, because you cannot be more explicit giving the form of an open theory. Almost anything can be an open theory.
As you like quantum and other logics you might like my arXiv paper. There you’ll see three logics unified and applied to quantum theory: propositional, modal, and epistemic. You can talk about truth, knowledge, necessity and possibility in quantum theory! I’ll read and rate your essay, and if you haven’t, please rate mine! I would like to keep discussing beyond the scope of this essay! We have close interests, and you might improve my ideas…
Wish you all the best!
Frederico
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:30 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 00:18 GMT
Frederico,
Great essay! Voted. I do agree very much with your essay. I just put up a
Powerpoint for my
essay, and am curious how you would use FTP to describe the Poisson equation. Specifically slide 18. (Let me know if you catch any goofs on my part, I put it together for hopefully before voting ends.)
Thanks
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Concerned Public wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
Sergey G Fedosin is bombing entrants' boards with the same "why your rating has dropped" message. They are all dated Oct. 4... same message.
WTH? I've seen one fine essay drop 89 (eighty-nine) positions, in "Community Rating" in the past 24 hours, and “Sergey’s note” came BEFORE it plummeted. Hmm.
The vote/scaling of this contest is quite nebulous.
"Hackers Rule!", I suppose!
Well??? What else is one to think? The General Public is... Watching…
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
Hi Frederico,
Please check
this link and find how five essays, including yours, were removed from the 35 finalists. I posted some messages with attachments containing the page and screenshots at 0:01.
Good luck,
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.