This is from an article from NewScientist;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.
100-why-nature-is-not-the-sum-of-its-parts.html

Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws

ONE of the grand aims of science is to explain every aspect of nature in terms of simple, fundamental laws - but is this possible? A team of physicists claims to have found a hint that...

view entire post

This is from an article from NewScientist;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.
100-why-nature-is-not-the-sum-of-its-parts.html

Why nature can't be reduced to mathematical laws

ONE of the grand aims of science is to explain every aspect of nature in terms of simple, fundamental laws - but is this possible? A team of physicists claims to have found a hint that some things simply cannot be computed, and that nature could be more than the sum of its parts.

The idea of reductionism, a key tool in science for centuries, holds that everything in nature can ultimately be understood by gaining knowledge of its constituent parts. The laws of fluid flows, for example, can be derived from the deeper laws of atomic and molecular motion, which in turn follow from quantum physics.

In 1972, physicist Philip Anderson pointed out that there could be a problem with this approach. Anderson suggested that some systems may be more than the sum of their parts. He championed "emergence" - the notion that important kinds of organisation might emerge in systems of many interacting parts, but not follow in any way from the properties of those parts. If so, then even perfect knowledge of the physics at one level would be inadequate for understanding organisation at higher levels. This conjecture has been debated ever since.

Now Mile Gu at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues, claim that it may be possible to prove Anderson's idea. They studied a basic mathematical model called the Ising model, which is often used to study how magnetism arises in iron and other materials from the collective organisation of their atoms.

To picture the Ising model, imagine a 3D lattice of atoms. Each atom acts like a tiny magnet to those around it, and adopts a particular orientation depending on the forces between atoms. This mirrors what happens in real-world materials, where the atoms adopt different patterns of orientation depending on the atomic forces. In iron, for instance, the atoms will sometimes point in a similar direction - making the material magnetic overall - whereas in alloys the pattern is more complex.

Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, the system is considered "formally undecidable".

"We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental interactions," says Gu. Even some really simple properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one direction, cannot be computed.

This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many levels, rather than working from just one. "A 'theory of everything' might not explain all natural phenomena," says Gu. "Real understanding may require further experiments and intuition at every level."

Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results "really interesting", but thinks one element of the proof needs further study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most natural systems. "So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for actual finite systems," says Barrow.

Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to describe the world often refer to infinite systems. "Our results suggest that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles," he says.

From issue 2676 of New Scientist magazine, 06 October 2008, page 12

I post this to make a point that science projects outward in seeking a finite whole with which to define reality, but that method of reductionistic projection could well have inherent finite limits. Both our monotheistic belief systems and our scientific models assume there is some first cause, singularity, initial condition, etc. which if known, could lead to theoretically calculating everything, but what if there isn't? What if these processes have been going on for infinity? For one thing, there would be unimaginable levels of complexity that would have been mostly lost, but seeded the next cycle with enough evolved structure to make unraveling the puzzle infinitely impossible. Even establishment cosmologists who think the universe is based on a singularity have been forced to consider multiple universes to explain the arbitrary, yet functioning nature of our own. As I point out in my theory of time, what if time isn't a specific dimension leading from a specified beginning to a determined end, but is itself is simply a consequence of motion? Then it would be meaningless to discuss time as having a beginning and end. This perpetual motion could be due to equilibrium being unstable and resulting in continuous cycles of collapse and expansion.

Information and energy are two sides of the same coin, as information defines the energy which manifests it, so it would be impossible to have one without the other. This precludes the existence of laws of nature which are not manifest, as that would be information without energy. The reason such definition is frequently repetitive and thus seemingly independent of circumstance is that identical cause yields identical effect, as the expanding energy and collapsing structure of this energy/information relationship interacts. Therefore laws are only a description of complex interactions as they expand, before they become unstable and collapse to a more stable level, with some of that complexity still imbedded. Energy is the hand of the clock, while structure is the face of the clock. We are intellectual complexity imbedded in that elemental energy. It carries us forward while we live, then deposits us in the past when we die.

view post as summary

Buck,

Mostly copied from your thread;

"True, but I’d like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion…are they meaningless?"

How far down into the system do you freeze those snapshots. A nice Nikon can produce an amazingly clear...

view entire post

Buck,

Mostly copied from your thread;

"True, but I’d like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion…are they meaningless?"

How far down into the system do you freeze those snapshots. A nice Nikon can produce an amazingly clear picture of a person in motion, but what if you go to the sub-atomic level, where everything is mostly empty space, with various energetic fields and point particles that seem composed of further layers of motion? How do you measure it, other than stopping or slowing the momentum? In that case, you've measured its energy content in relation to the measuring device. It's not that they are meaningless, but they are relational. If all the motion ceased and positive and negative energies matched up, there would be nothing. Non-fluctuating vacuum. (The problem with the concept of "meaning" is that it is inherently static and reductionistic. What is left when you distilled away all that is "meaningless." Reality, on the other hand, is dynamic and wholistic. Everything is tied together and in motion.)

"although highly speculative since the underlying mechanisms for our perception of a given volume, distance, and time is unknown. Could it be that for us to perceive “volume” requires a particular energy level, frequency, and movement (via that energy fluctuation) combination? I don’t think this has been answered."

All these concepts are relative. They make no sense, except as to how they relate to one another. What would the vacuum be, without fluctuation? What would fluctuation be without a vacuum? How could you have volume without distance? Dimensions without volume? Units of motion(time), without average motion(temperature)?

"In my essay, I argue (plead?) that we avoid investing piles of money and lifetimes of effort in repairing broken paradigms, and therfore it is absolutely critical to acknowledge observations for what they are, distinguish them from rules, relationships and/or transformations, and document our assumptions. This stuff is of primary concern to managers, policymakers, and administrators, but it is vitally important for researchers and experimentalists to gain understanding basic assessment criteria, which comes from unambiguous definition and communication of a shared, (preferably practical), goal."

For that matter, what is money? It's a medium of exchange, currently based on the tax potential of the issuing governments, but historically based on a supply of a given commodity. Which makes it an article of faith in the larger economy that can only be saved by lending to someone else. Since we desire to save more than can be prudently loaned, we either create credit bubbles, or spend it on things of nominal value, large houses, fancy cars, bloated militaries, surplus academia, etc. It is mostly a bubble in the first place, so a little waste in scientific theorizing isn't such a big deal. Of course we could spend it wisely and intelligently, but that's just wishful thinking. The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't exist. The God's eye view of objective perspective is an oxymoron. From the outside, we can see the whole, but not all the connections. From the inside, we can see the complexity of particular detail, but not the whole.

"For that reason, until there’s sufficient justification to consider currently "fundamental units" real, I consider my best contribution will be developing model assessment systems to improve the quality of information available within the research enterprise, focusing on controllable attributes of proposed models and approaches based on criteria for revolutionary models."

That is why I like your essay. It does apply lessons learned to the current context. The problem is that the field is dominated by experts, to the exclusion of generalists, so there is little ability and less incentive to really stand back and put the situation in that broader context to which you appeal. As I pointed out, much complex thinking is being put into understanding how to explain a dimension of time that goes from past to future, whether it's Newton's absolute dimension, or Einstein's relative dimension. Those of us on the outside can look at the situation and see classic examples of bubble type thinking, where assumptions are taken to be correct and then projected to absurdity, with little to no effort to step back and see if the initial assumptions are correct. When your paycheck is dependent on running with the bulls, stopping only gets you run over. So everyone runs off the cliff. If I was to graph this against the recent economic bubble, I'd say it's about late 2006, early 2007. The real momentum is past, but only those at the top recognize the system is starting to spin its wheels, while the late comers trying to pile on are keeping it going, to the advantage of those at the top, thus creating a feedback loop. Of course one of the main reasons Ptolomy's epi-cycles lasted 1500 years was because scientific progress went into hibernation for 1000 of them. With all the economic, political, environmental, resource and population issues piling up, I don't think anyone really knows how far down before we bottom out and start back up, so the current physics model might survive out of a lack of critical examination, rather then genuine progress.

I know I sound presumptuous, but think about it; Does reality travel along a meta-dimension from past to future, or does the rotation of the earth turn tomorrow into yesterday? One is theory, the other is observation. Are these people with all the PhD's questioning my logic, or just ignoring it? You are a very logical person, what does that say to you?

Actually I think they are just not reading it. It doesn't make it past their subconscious spam blockers.

view post as summary

John,

I just posted this on Buck's thread:

Hi Buck (and John),

The best way I can convey how my view of time compares to other theories is to show you what I recently wrote to Carlo Rovelli on his thread:

-----------------

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather – emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any...

view entire post

John,

I just posted this on Buck's thread:

Hi Buck (and John),

The best way I can convey how my view of time compares to other theories is to show you what I recently wrote to Carlo Rovelli on his thread:

-----------------

You argue that the origin of time variable features are not mechanical, rather – emergent at the thermodynamical level. Do you have any thoughts as to how velocity or gravity affect the time dilation of these thermodynamical activities? It seems to me that despite all of the essays, with so many different opinions of time’s true nature – we have only two possible fundamental starting points:

1) That the thermodynamical activity, or motion (or what I refer to as fundamental behaviors in my essay) is used as a measurement of “time” but plays a more passive role because these behaviors exist “in” time and their behaviors are just a visible symptom of what “time” they existed in due to their local environment.

Or

2) What we perceive as time is a macro effect of the most fundamental behaviors among particles, forces and fields. These behaviors define time and in fact are time. Now, if the most fundamental behaviors can all be accurately described as motion, then – okay. But if some behaviors on the quantum level no longer make sense to be described as motion, then it is safer to refer to the fundamental activities as “behaviors.”

For those who commit to the first possible starting point, they would not appear to be in conflict with special relativity – namely Galileo’s principle. The existence of time would be part of the metric that particles and forces exist “in.” There would exist Einstein’s inseparable connection between time and light signal velocity. There would be no “mechanism” - instead, the relative nature of time would just be a co effect of velocity and/or changing gravitational position. Time would exist as a mysterious entity (or co entity) and more questions would certainly need to be asked as to how we could get closer to determining its true nature.

For those who commit to the 2nd possible starting point (which is the one I am committed to) that motions or behaviors define time and in fact are time: Let’s take a system with all of its fundamental behaviors and increase its velocity. These behaviors slow down. If the behaviors themselves “are” time and then become altered as a consequence of their increased velocity- then we need to revisit special relativity. Something is happening on the physical level that we currently don’t have a description for.

----------------

I know it is difficult for many people to imagine not having a "time" somewhere in the mysterious background that particles, forces and fields are expressing their behaviors "in." I am just the opposite. I say: imagine taking away all of the particles, forces and fields along with the behaviors they engage in and tell me what is left to be considered a flow of time. If there is absolutely nothing, then there is nothing to express time.

Also, I posed this question to Julian Barbour (who has written a great essay)in response to a statement he made in his essay:

--------------------

If the universe can tell perfect time and could be considered the perfect clock, how would that assumption be affected if it is determined that there is no absolute age of the universe? If I am living on a far away galaxy accelerating at a much faster velocity than ours - then (assuming I take enough vitamins to live through the whole process) how old do I think the universe is from my perspective? Or, how old is the universe to me if I am near a black hole or better yet - If a very long time ago I watched the big bang from a safe distance (where my gravity and velocity would be very different compared to being "inside" the universe) how old would I think the universe is right now? Who would be correct?

-----------------------

In my opinion, we should try to narrow to the most likely possibilitles that describe the nature of time and build from there.

CJ

view post as summary

John, I do not know if you have ever studied entropy but if you came up with this idea on your own I would be stunned. Your descriptions are unique, at times a little confusing, and that indicates you have not studied the subject in depth, simply amazing. Our back and forth discussions have helped me understand some of the laymen descriptions you use to describe physics. I believe our ideas are...

view entire post

John, I do not know if you have ever studied entropy but if you came up with this idea on your own I would be stunned. Your descriptions are unique, at times a little confusing, and that indicates you have not studied the subject in depth, simply amazing. Our back and forth discussions have helped me understand some of the laymen descriptions you use to describe physics. I believe our ideas are close and the overall philosophy is identical. I started studying physics with a passion because I wanted to prove a layman idea similar to yours. I started to drop the laymen descriptions as I learned the quantitative physics descriptions. In fact, when I was 17 I wrote a paper for my high school physics class that speculated on absolute zero and time. Thermodynamics says absolute zero will never be reached if it was time would not make sense. I call it change now, but back then I called it motion. This is why I’m interested in low temperature physics like Bose-Einstein condensates. I’ll save you the years of trouble I had searching for the right physics ideas and fundamental mathematics.

Our overall idea is the properties of entropy:

Entropy increases: S = Kln(omega) omega never decreases for the universe

Microstates are small scale events: n!

Macrostates are large scale effects caused by smaller scale events: m = n+1

Omega is the microstates relation to the macrostate called the multiplicity: C(n,m)

1) Try to reword this sentence and still capture the big idea:

“If two atoms collide, it creates an event in time. While the atoms proceed

through this event and on to others, the event goes the other way.”

The atoms are too large and do not necessarily need to collide for there to be an event in time. I know you were reaching for a small type of matter but I think you need to dig much deeper. The increasing entropy of an ideal gas depends on the motion of atoms but if two atoms do not collide there is still time. For instance, NIST uses atomic clocks that measure the atom’s vibration. An electron in an excited state can “jump” to a lower atomic orbital and when it does this it emits a photon. I would describe emitting a photon as an event too as well as some other physical phenomena.

2) You broadly mention entropy in the following sentence:

“Just as temperature is a consequence of energy and when temperature changes, it is because energy is dissipated to, or consolidated from other areas.”

An increase in entropy changes energy from a useful form that could do work to a useless form that can not be recaptured. I have always liked a simple analogy that you may find interesting:

Money = Energy

Both are conserved

Happiness = Entropy

The key idea is increasing the total amount of happiness/entropy.

Generosity = Temperature

How willing someone/higher temperature matter is willing to dissipate money/energy to increase the happiness/entropy of the less fortunate/low temperature matter.

3) “This relationship between the matter/energy moving forward in time, as the events created move back in time applies to all scales.”

The sentence describes the importance of entropy from the ideal gas to black holes because it applies at all scales. The really hard part is showing it is identical to the wavefunction’s properties.

4) “The only absolute temperature is the cessation of all motion and the same would apply to time.”

This says absolute zero can never be reached and I have always wondered if there was a connection between temperature and time. Einstein’s time dilation comes from relative motion. So would a hot object (relative faster motion) experience time at a different rate than the cold object (relative slower motion)? I think so and I believe there is a deep connection between time and temperature because time and temperature are related to entropy. To prove or disprove it would be a fun and important exercise.

5) “If energy is perfectly conserved, there is no time function for energy, because it simply is”... “temperature is a consequence of energy and when temperature changes, it is because energy is dissipated to, or consolidated from other areas.”

I agree, the properties of time = the properties of entropy.

6) “when one potential direction of events prevails, others are reduced or dissipated, so the energy consolidates to the events that happen, not alternatives.”

You understand that the many worlds interpretation is flawed.

7) “The energy doesn’t collapse, but the information does, as it goes from future potential to past circumstance.”

The wavefunction represents all the probability (future potential) information in quantum mechanics. A collapse, an increase in entropy, results in certain outcomes (future potential to past circumstance).

8) “the medium against which any point is being judged is the overall context, which once created, is displaced by the next, as all these individual points move around, so the events go from future potential to past circumstance.”

The microstates are the points being judged and the macrostates are the medium represented by probability space. The multiplicity, the number of microstates in a macrostate, gives the probability of obtaining that macrostate (the overall context). The increasing multiplicity causes the wavefunction to collapse and the collapse is the arrow of time.

Good Job,

B^2

view post as summary