Kevin

“Knowledge about any property that does not affect how an electron exerts influence is inaccessible to us”

This focuses on the issue of what constitutes physical existence, although it is not affected by the subsequent processing (eg observation). Put the other way round, the physical circumstance exists whether or not it is sensed, sensing just invokes a perception of...

view entire post

Kevin

“Knowledge about any property that does not affect how an electron exerts influence is inaccessible to us”

This focuses on the issue of what constitutes physical existence, although it is not affected by the subsequent processing (eg observation). Put the other way round, the physical circumstance exists whether or not it is sensed, sensing just invokes a perception of it.

So, in respect of any aspect of existence, the differentiation between existent and not-existent, for us, is knowability, which is the function of a physical process. That is, we (and all sentient organisms) receive physical input and are thereby enabled to be aware of it. Thus what constitutes physical existence for us is limited by what we could be aware of. Which may or may not encompass ‘everything’, but we can never know that, so that is irrelevant. That is, physical existence is all that which is potentially knowable (ie available to be sensed). The extent to which we can capture any of this, and then process it comprehensively and accurately, is another issue. The key point is potentiality. Now, this does not have to be substantiated by confirmed (ie not individualistic) direct experience. Operating within the rules of sensing and on the basis of validated direct experience, it is possible to hypothesise. In effect then, hypothesis is virtual sensing, ie it is not belief creation. It discerns what could have been sensed had certain identifiable issues not prevented that.

So, if an electron is pink, or more generally, if a physical characteristic ‘actually’ exists, but it is not manifest, ie has no physical effect AND is not detectable of itself, then that characteristic is non-existent. Although an unlikely circumstance, one has to include the possibility that whilst a physical characteristic might not exert any influence it may react in a way which enables its manifestation. Which is an influence, but not in the context of the existential sequence (ie where it is inert), but in the physical interactions which enable the creation of a physically existent representation of it. A statement of the blindingly obvious, ie we can see it bit it doesn’t do anything!

“Since we cannot know what an electron is, perhaps it is best to simply focus on what an electron does”.

This is also an important differentiation, ie between physical substance and the physically existent state thereof. Any reality is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. In other words, a reality is the function of the state, which is caused to alter. So focussing on what is happening, rather than ‘things’ as such, is the correct approach.

Paul

view post as summary

Dear Kevin,

Yours is a commendable striving to discern fundamental particle behavior. However, since you talk of 'influence others', 'network' I presume you imply interactions in space. Can the true nature of such be well described without first deciphering the nature of space?

I commend the following for your contemplation,

The Pythagoreans say: Space is a composite of monads...

view entire post

Dear Kevin,

Yours is a commendable striving to discern fundamental particle behavior. However, since you talk of 'influence others', 'network' I presume you imply interactions in space. Can the true nature of such be well described without first deciphering the nature of space?

I commend the following for your contemplation,

The Pythagoreans say: Space is a composite of monads and geometry is the study and science of space.

Leibniz says: monads are the true atoms of Nature - the elements out of which everything is made. He also says I think there is no empty space—the extended world is entirely full, a plenum.

Newton opines:…And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between between a body and a region of space. The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature, and differ only in how God created them. (By this he meant that the only difference is that while body was created by God, the other, space was eternal and not created).

Wheeler asks: What else is there out of which to build a particle except geometry itself?

Then going further,

Leibniz says: Within a monad there’s nothing to re-arrange, and there is no conceivable internal motion in it that could be started, steered, sped up, or slowed down, as can happen in a composite thing that has parts that can change in relation to one another.

So we can say that the only way for monads to begin or end—to come into existence or go out of existence – is instantaneously, being created or annihilated all at once. Composite things, in contrast with that, can begin or end gradually, through the assembling or scattering of their parts.

So from the foregoing, coming to the two alternate states available to the monad, the fundamental 'it', what states that can be designated 0 and 1… which will be the binary states (the bit)?

Paul Reed in his first post above talks of existent/non-existent although I am not sure he buys the ideas I put forward in my essay.

Best regards and good luck,

Akinbo

view post as summary

Dear Kevin,

You say:

1. We can only know about something if it influences us (directly or indirectly).

2. Therefore, if an entity has properties that do not affect how it influences others, there is no way for anyone to obtain information about those properties etc.

You have put such points as finitely. Mostly you are right but there is another way that the science...

view entire post

Dear Kevin,

You say:

1. We can only know about something if it influences us (directly or indirectly).

2. Therefore, if an entity has properties that do not affect how it influences others, there is no way for anyone to obtain information about those properties etc.

You have put such points as finitely. Mostly you are right but there is another way that the science does not recognize now as a method! It however works in life more often and successfully! A talk is about of guesswork.

We may to predict at the beginning that we will face with impossibility to make new experiments/measurements when we will reach to base elements of substance. (We will just annihilate it or deeply damage it if we try to influence with that! Here I think no need big explanatory). That we have faced actually!

So what we can do in this situation? We know there exist something actually (for example photon or electron) that we cannot touch or seen, because restriction of influence with those?

I suggest to build the imaginary model of primarily objects, on the base of known natural laws, by condition of correspondence of our model with the all known properties/attributes of real objects. (I mean on the base of model and basic laws must be possible the derivation of its all known properties!)

You can immodestly ask - how we can be convinced that our model is right?

The answer is – no direct way as before, but we just must believe to our model up on the mentioned same criterions, i.e. – 1) it is constructed on the base of well-tested laws and 2) It corresponds to all properties of investigated object without exception. Third and next confirmations of our model will came from successes of its future development ...

Please find time (after of FQXi battle!) and check on my works (references in essay) I very hope that a lot of questions will be solved for you (because you are scientist who are inclined to analytical judgement) If there will be big questions I am ready to discuss and will thankfull for your remarks.

Thank you for good score of my essay!

Best wishes,

George

view post as summary

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. Can we produce material just by thinking about it?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main...

view entire post

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. Can we produce material just by thinking about it?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

view post as summary

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?

The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.

The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.

B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?

It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .

C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?

Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.

D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?

The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.

E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?

To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:

2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :

“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”

That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.

I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.

Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.

To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com

Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.

Hải.Caohoàng

Add another problem, which is:

USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY

There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?

The reason is:

1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.

2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.

I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.

view post as summary

Hi Kevin -

This is a very fine essay, and I found a lot to agree with in your approach. I appreciate it that you make your assumptions so clear as you go through your argument, acknowledging that other routes might also be possible. And it's impressive how much you can derive from a very simple model of interaction.

I think your basic argument is important - that is, since...

view entire post

Hi Kevin -

This is a very fine essay, and I found a lot to agree with in your approach. I appreciate it that you make your assumptions so clear as you go through your argument, acknowledging that other routes might also be possible. And it's impressive how much you can derive from a very simple model of interaction.

I think your basic argument is important - that is, since everything that can be observed consists of "influences", we lose no empirical information if we describe only the structure of influences themselves, without assuming this structure is due to any definite underlying properties of things.

Of course it's vastly more efficient to describe what a thing is in itself, with all its properties, than to describe all the different ways it influences other things, in different contexts. But since at the quantum level, the "thing in itself" is so problematic, it's important that we can in principle do without that notion. But then we're faced with the difficulty of conceptualizing the structure of influences in some way.

Your approach to this is essentially the opposite of the one I take in my essay. You want to abstract from all the many kinds of influences that constitute the observable world, to see what kind of structure can be derived from basic postulates about "influence" in general. And while some of your assumptions seem questionable, I think you've demonstrated that a lot of basic physics is already implicit in a radically simplified structure of things observing other things.

My approach may be complementary to yours. You say, "we do not need to know how a particle influences others - just that it does - to obtain these relevant physical variables with their expected relations." But in fact, we know a vast amount about how different kinds of things affect each other. In fact, per your basic argument above, that's really all we know, in physics - this structure of influences. But for reasons I explain in my essay, we haven't yet learned how to describe this type of structure effectively. So by default, our theories are still cast in the language of things (particles, fields, spacetime) that posses intrinsic properties.

I argue that the reason it's been so hard to conceptualize the structure of observable information is because things "influence" each other in so many different ways, and because every way things interact only results in observable information in an appropriate context set up by other kinds of interactions. Rather than trying to reduce this complex contextual structure to something simple and abstract, I'm suggesting that its complexity can be explained as the result of an evolutionary process.

Taking a line of thought similar to your basic argument, I note that all observable information is definable in terms of other observable information, whether or not there's any underlying reality of things-in-themselves. But this implies that the structure of "influences" as a whole constitutes a very special kind of self-defining system, which I argue could be subject to a form of natural selection.

Since this idea suggests that our current physics may have evolved from much simpler structures of influence, the sort of construction you undertake in your essay seems quite relevant and interesting.

Thanks - Conrad

view post as summary

You know, I like your "Cox-Knuth Method" largely because it's very straight forward, elegant, revealing, and because it has such a broad utility; I believe its utility is constrained only by the breadth and depth of one's imagination. So naturally I enjoyed your paper but I was a bit let down; I was hoping to gain a little insight into your metaphysics! Your imagination is readily apparent in a...

view entire post

You know, I like your "Cox-Knuth Method" largely because it's very straight forward, elegant, revealing, and because it has such a broad utility; I believe its utility is constrained only by the breadth and depth of one's imagination. So naturally I enjoyed your paper but I was a bit let down; I was hoping to gain a little insight into your metaphysics! Your imagination is readily apparent in a number of your papers but your analysis is always conservative and careful, as it should be. I can't help but wonder if you even allow yourself the luxury of a metaphysics.

To me, with this essay contest, the Foundational Questions Institute is asking, certainly an ontological question and perhaps a metaphysical question: does reality EMERGE from a more fundamental underlying information or is information DERIVED from a more fundamental underlying reality? In my opinion, you constrain yourself to the epistemological. You take the approach of analyzing the best perspective for building inferential models, which is to say, for conducting theoretical science and in that endeavor I feel you present a rather formidable argument. But just out of curiosity, what is your ontological view? Do embedded observers create physical laws with the order they IMPOSE on reality or do they investigate increasingly more accurate approximations of an order existent independent of their existence?

And while I'm on the subject, in the first paragraph of your paper you state:

"My entire sensorium is excited by all that surrounds me. These experiences are all I have ever known, and for this reason, they comprise my reality."

What aspect of reality do you think is accessed during, say, a deep meditative state? For example, a state such as that obviously obtained by Bo Tat Thich Quang Duc (Thich Quang Duc self-immolated during the Vietnam War and as reported by David Halberstam of The New York Times, "As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him."). Or what aspect of reality do you think is accessed when one is isolated in a sensory deprivation chamber. Do you think this aspect of reality transcends the embedded observer or is it constrained to the observer's cognitive apparatus? If you think this aspect of reality transcends the embedded observer, is it susceptible to scientific analysis or is it part of the "not completely knowable underlying reality?" And if you think it is constrained to the observer's cognitive apparatus where, exactly, are the boundaries? Considerable scientific studies have demonstrated that embedded observers are capable of responding to stimuli prior to the manifestation of said stimuli, it would seem, in the "light-cone," suggesting observers are somehow capable of responding to what you call "influences" sometimes seconds before they happen; is it possible that said observer's cognitive apparatus extends to include the entirety of the environment he/she is embedded in – thou art that, say? This is not to undermine your poset picture or the associated Susan Sontag quote but, rather, to suggest that perhaps there exists a relative perspective and an absolute perspective both of which are somehow accessible to the embedded observer; Buddhists refer to this as the theory of two truths. Your thoughts, if any?

Best regards,

Wes Hansen

• Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis - abstract: This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect. The reports we examined used one of two paradigms: (1) randomly ordered presentations of arousing vs. neutral stimuli, or (2) guessing tasks with feedback (correct vs. incorrect). Dependent variables included: electrodermal activity, heart rate, blood volume, pupil dilation, electroencephalographic activity, and blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) activity. To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size [fixed effect: overall ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.15-0.27, z = 6.9, p < 2.7 × 10-12; random effects: overall (weighted) ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.13-0.29, z = 5.3, p < 5.7 × 10-8]. Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. We explore alternative explanations and examine the potential linkage between this unexplained anticipatory activity and other results demonstrating meaningful pre-stimulus activity preceding behaviorally relevant events. We conclude that to further examine this currently unexplained anticipatory activity, multiple replications arising from different laboratories using the same methods are necessary. The cause of this anticipatory activity, which undoubtedly lies within the realm of natural physical processes (as opposed to supernatural or paranormal ones), remains to be determined.

• Electrophysiological Evidence of Intuition, Part 2A: A System-Wide Process? – abstract: Objectives: This study aims to contribute to a scientific understanding of intuition, a process by which information normally outside the range of conscious awareness is perceived by the body's psychophysiological systems. The first objective, presented in two empirical reports (Part 1 and Part 2), was to replicate and extend the results of previous experiments demonstrating that the body can respond to an emotionally arousing stimulus seconds before it is actually experienced. The second objective, to be presented in a forthcoming publication (Part 3), is to develop a theory that explains how the body receives and processes information involved in intuitive perception. Design: The study used a counterbalanced crossover design, in which 30 calm and 15 emotionally arousing pictures were presented to 26 participants under two experimental conditions: a baseline condition of "normal" psychophysiologic function and a condition of physiological coherence. Primary measures included: skin conductance; the electroencephalogram (EEG), from which cortical event-related potentials (ERP) and heartbeatevoked potentials (HBEP) were derived; and the electrocardiogram (ECG), from which cardiac decelerations/ accelerations were derived. These measures were used to investigate where and when in the brain and body intuitive information is processed. Results: The main findings presented here are: (1) surprisingly, both the heart and brain appear to receive and respond to intuitive information; (2) even more surprisingly, there is compelling evidence that the heart appears to receive intuitive information before the brain; (3) there were significant differences in prestimulus ERPs for calm versus emotional stimuli; (4) the frontal cortex, temporal, occipital, and parietal areas appear to be involved in the processing of prestimulus information; (5) there were significant differences in prestimulus calm/emotional HBEPs, primarily in the coherent mode; (6) there were significant gender differences in the processing of prestimulus information. Especially noteworthy is the apparent interaction between the HBEPs and ERPs in the females, which suggests that the heart modulates the ERP and that females are more attuned to intuitive information from the heart. Conclusions: Overall, our data suggest that the heart and brain, together, are involved in receiving, processing, and decoding intuitive information. On the basis of these results and those of other research, it would thus appear that intuitive perception is a system-wide process in which both the heart and brain (and possibly other bodily systems) play a critical role. To account for the study's results, Part 3 will develop a theory based on holographic principles explaining how intuitive perception accesses a field of energy into which information about "future" events is spectrally enfolded.

view post as summary

Hi, Kevin,

Ever since I saw Sorkin's presentation with his take of how partially ordered sets may lead to emergent spacetime, ever since 2002, it haunted me what should those point events be, so that we get the quantum side of physics. I guess, this is what Ken Wharton asked you about.

Last year Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote essay, in which he stated an obvious fact that we have...

view entire post

Hi, Kevin,

Ever since I saw Sorkin's presentation with his take of how partially ordered sets may lead to emergent spacetime, ever since 2002, it haunted me what should those point events be, so that we get the quantum side of physics. I guess, this is what Ken Wharton asked you about.

Last year Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote essay, in which he stated an obvious fact that we have never (highlight never) detected an empty point of space(time). All we have ever detected are particle events, which are collected in experiments like LHC into statistics.

If we take this seriously, then particle events (now vertices in Feynman diagrams) are elements of the set. Partial temporal order is dictated by particle creation happening before its annihilation. Spacial order, specifically its 3D nature, might be related to spin relations (SU2 connection with O3 groups), and/or there may be something which you mentioned in Q&A part of your talk at Perimeter. Types of vertices, places where incoming particles are annihilated and outgoing ones are created, as well as types of fundamental particles are given by Standard Model. So, there are already lots of known-to-work on experiment elements here, i.e. the is a starting ground to recreate a spacetime, which should approximate to Minkowski thing. Let's not forget that with higgs all fundamental particles are simpler, i.e. none has mass.

When there is an event (in QFT), involving an electron, one cannot say for certain in how many self-energy loops were in its past. This incompletness of information at a fundamental level (QFTs) nicely implies relational nature of information at QM level, expressed in Rovelli's current essay.

I put the physical part of above arrangement in http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1597 with clear mention of where poset-like math should be applied. By the way, when we say (as is done in QFT class) that electrons are effective particles, and are maid up of many events involving fundamental particles of Standard Model, then, composition of effective particles makes them indistinguishable. This is shorter, than Philip Goyal's arguments in his recent piece.

Please, let me know, what you think about this.

Cheers,

Mikalai.

view post as summary

Dr. Knuth

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

Dr. Knuth

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

With regards,

Than Tin

view post as summary

Dear Kevin,

In continuation to above comment on having fundamental particle events as points (dated Jul. 16, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT).

Influence, or, analogously, force in a framework of Newtonian mechanics, is a useful concept for an abstract level of bigger systems that are maid of some smaller things. And probably, like Newtonian force, which already has a problem with simultaneity in...

view entire post

Dear Kevin,

In continuation to above comment on having fundamental particle events as points (dated Jul. 16, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT).

Influence, or, analogously, force in a framework of Newtonian mechanics, is a useful concept for an abstract level of bigger systems that are maid of some smaller things. And probably, like Newtonian force, which already has a problem with simultaneity in Special Relativity, an abstract influence concept will leak in the similar fashion, either at SR or at quantum level, or in the intersection of the two.

All of known interactions (influences), except gravity, at a fundamental level are described by QFTs of Standard Model, which do not have a concept of force between particles. The force is an emergent thing on a sea of elementary particle events. Quoting Anderson, "more is different". And these QFTs of Standard Model, the concepts used in them, produce the best fit to experimental data, besides having done spectacular predictions, one which has been confirmed just recently. So, it might be humble to embrace QFT concepts, following Newton's own example: "I was able to see further only by standing on the shoulders of giants".

I agree that, for example, producing electromagnetic force out of particle events in Quantum Electrodynamics (QFT) sounds highly non-intuitive for our gut-feeling, that have evolved in classical mechanical world. My own experience, when studying QFTs, was having conversations with fellow students, where we had to say that a notion of "force", or "how does particle knows where to go" are not present at QFT level. These notions arise as interpretation of integral quantities, but are not present at QFT level. This is how mass arises, all of it, out of massless fundamental (naked) particles.

QFTs were introduced historically at intersection of Special Relativity and Classical Quantum Theory, as notion of one "long-lived" particle breaks already at SR level. And even today, when we have a problem with QM picture, we fall back to QFT description. This shows that QFT does contain concepts that serve as low-level description better, than anything else we have been using these last couple of centuries. I'll also quote your words that "This line of investigation {Feynman/Wheeler program with E&M interactions} was abandoned in favor of QED.", noting that QED is currently used as a textbook example of a good QFT.

Cheers,

Mikalai

view post as summary

Kevin,

This is a very fascinating approach that looks at what we know, rather than what we think. If I may, I would like to offer up the premise of my last year's entry and suggest ways it might bring together various of the points you raise; The dynamic reality we all inhabit, the vectors of influences it is usefully reduced to and the issue of the reality of time and space.

We...

view entire post

Kevin,

This is a very fascinating approach that looks at what we know, rather than what we think. If I may, I would like to offer up the premise of my last year's entry and suggest ways it might bring together various of the points you raise; The dynamic reality we all inhabit, the vectors of influences it is usefully reduced to and the issue of the reality of time and space.

We experience reality from the perspective of a theoretical point and so we model time as a sequence of events and space as a three dimensional coordinate system.

Given the temporal sequence is foundational to humanity, as the basis of narrative and linear logic, it is natural to assume it is foundational and physics incorporates this as measures of duration. The reality though is that it is the changing configuration of what is, that turns future potential into past circumstance. For example, the earth is not traveling some vector from yesterday to tomorrow, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. The faster clock doesn't travel into the future quicker, but it (thermodynamically) ages/burns quicker, so it recedes into the past more rapidly.

Spacetime is correlating measures of duration and distance, but duration doesn't transcend the present. It is simply what is happening between events, such as the wave cycling between peaks, or the earth rotating between sunrises. So there is no "fabric of spacetime," any more then there are giant cosmic gear wheels.

This leaves space without any physical properties to allow it to be bend/warped, or limited/bound, etc. Which does give it two attributes; Absolute and infinite. Absolute because it is inert, which we can measure as the cause of centrifugal force. Infinite because you can't limit nothing.

Now consider those two foundational human features arising from time; narrative and linear logic. Naturally we would consider them one and the same, so that temporal sequence is cause and effect, but that is not so. Yesterday doesn't cause today, anymore than one rung on a ladder causes the next. Exchange of energy is cause. As you develop in your theory of influences.

Now, as you well know, this is not a particularly linear process. While the laws of physics might determine the outcome of any situation, the cone of input is fundamentally incomplete prior to the occurrence of any event. Even if information could travel faster then light, then so would input and the problem persists. At best, time is a tapestry of interlocking threads, not any singular history and that gets to your description of there being no universal "it."

In fact, as I develop in this years entry, information defines energy and energy manifests information, so since energy is conserved, old information has to be erased, in order to create new information, thus giving rise to the "arrow of time." Therefore eventually the past becomes as unknowable as the future, so we cannot reconstruct any real history, thus making the concept of determinism even more problematic. Considering past and future do not physically/ontologically exist, even the concept of determinism(set past and future) is effectively epistemic.

I think this inherent subjectively of reality is where your essay is going, at least reading it from my particular set of references/influences!

Regards,

John Merryman

view post as summary

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements – which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

view post as summary

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented your essay in what follows.

Of the nearly two hundred essays submitted to the competition, there seems to be a preponderance of sentiment for the ‘Bit-from-It” standpoint, though many excellent essays argue against this stance or advocate for a wider perspective on the whole issue. Joseph Brenner provided an excellent analysis of the various positions that might be taken with the topic, which he subsumes under the categories of ‘It-from-Bit’, ‘Bit-from-It’, and ‘It-and-Bit’.

Brenner himself supports the ‘Bit-from-It’ position of Julian Barbour as stated in his 2011 essay that gave impetus to the present competition. Others such as James Beichler, Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Agung Budiyono, and Olaf Dreyer have presented well-stated arguments that generally align with a ‘Bit-from-It’ position.

Various renderings of the contrary position, ‘It-from-Bit’, have received well-reasoned support from Stephen Anastasi, Paul Borrill, Luigi Foschini, Akinbo Ojo, and Jochen Szangolies. An allied category that was not included in Brenner’s analysis is ‘It-from-Qubit’, and valuable explorations of this general position were undertaken by Giacomo D’Ariano, Philip Gibbs, Michel Planat and Armin Shirazi.

The category of ‘It-and-Bit’ displays a great diversity of approaches which can be seen in the works of Mikalai Birukou, Kevin Knuth, Willard Mittelman, Georgina Parry, and Cristinel Stoica,.

It seems useful to discriminate among the various approaches to ‘It-and-Bit’ a subcategory that perhaps could be identified as ‘meaning circuits’, in a sense loosely associated with the phrase by J.A. Wheeler. Essays that reveal aspects of ‘meaning circuits’ are those of Howard Barnum, Hugh Matlock, Georgina Parry, Armin Shirazi, and in especially that of Alexei Grinbaum.

Proceeding from a phenomenological stance as developed by Husserl, Grinbaum asserts that the choice to be made of either ‘It from Bit’ or ‘Bit from It’ can be supplemented by considering ‘It from Bit’ and ‘Bit from It’. To do this, he presents an ‘epistemic loop’ by which physics and information are cyclically connected, essentially the same ‘loop’ as that which Wheeler represented with his ‘meaning circuit’. Depending on where one ‘cuts’ the loop, antecedent and precedent conditions are obtained which support an ‘It from Bit’ interpretation, or a ‘Bit from It’ interpretation, or, though not mentioned by Grinbaum, even an ‘It from Qubit’ interpretation. I’ll also point out that depending on where the cut is made, it can be seen as a ‘Cartesian cut’ between res extensa and res cogitans or as a ‘Heisenberg cut’ between the quantum system and the observer. The implications of this perspective are enormous for the present It/Bit debate! To quote Grinbaum: “The key to understanding the opposition between IT and BIT is in choosing a vantage point from which OR looks as good as AND. Then this opposition becomes unnecessary: the loop view simply dissolves it.” Grinbaum then goes on to point out that this epistemologically circular structure “…is not a logical disaster, rather it is a well-documented property of all foundational studies.”

However, Grinbaum maintains that it is mandatory to cut the loop; he claims that it is “…a logical necessity: it is logically impossible to describe the loop as a whole within one theory.” I will argue that in fact it is vital to preserve the loop as a whole and to revise our expectations of what we wish to accomplish by making the cut. In fact, the ongoing It/Bit debate has been sustained for decades by our inability to recognize the consequences that result from making such a cut. As a result, we have been unable to take up the task of studying the properties inherent in the circularity of the loop. Helpful in this regard would be an examination of the role of relations between various elements and aspects of the loop. To a certain extent the importance of the role of relations has already been well stated in the essays of Kevin Knuth, Carlo Rovelli, Cristinel Stoica, and Jochen Szangolies although without application to aspects that clearly arise from ‘circularity’. Gary Miller’s discussion of the role of patterns, drawn from various historical precedents in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology, provides the clearest hints of all competition submissions on how the holistic analysis of this essential circular structure might be able to proceed.

In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey’s assertion that a ‘conceptual leap’ is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a ‘linearized’ perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is ‘circularized’ is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change.

view post as summary

Dear Kevin H Knuth:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

I am sending you a...

view entire post

Dear Kevin H Knuth:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary