Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 2/18/18 at 10:30am UTC, wrote Hello dear thinkers, beautiful discussion, take care :) jedis of the...

John Cox: on 1/23/16 at 17:34pm UTC, wrote Coincidentally, on Dec. 30, 2015 the IUPAC's working group had reached...

Thomas Ray: on 1/18/16 at 12:45pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, " ... physical reality is not necessarily a purely mathematical...

Thomas Ray: on 1/18/16 at 12:42pm UTC, wrote Right. Quantifying it.

Lorraine Ford: on 1/18/16 at 0:24am UTC, wrote Tom, You had better take the matter up with Max Tegmark. His hypothesis is...

Lorraine Ford: on 1/18/16 at 0:18am UTC, wrote Tom, You are mixing up mathematics with physics. Physics USES mathematics...

Thomas Ray: on 1/17/16 at 14:00pm UTC, wrote "the example was referring to the fact that physical scientists/physicists...

Thomas Ray: on 1/17/16 at 13:56pm UTC, wrote (reposted in correct thread) I guess you' ll have to take that up with...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Angels Vedas: "Chrysotile used in this bracelet is indigenous to United States, India,..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Stefan Weckbach: "Robert, you wrote „But it would be a mistake to think that these..." in Grants awarded for...

Eckard Blumschein: "Rob, While it depends on the chosen reference whether a sinusoidal..." in Dissolving Quantum...

SEO Services: "We get the information about technology. Keep sharing ..." in Agency in the Physical...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "I just doubt that arbitrarily chosen phase reference... reflect..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Robert McEachern: "Stefan, "This would mean that a certain particle has some knowledge, some..." in Grants awarded for...

Lokesh Bisht: "Junk DNA is an unfortunate choice of name, since it immediately devalues..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Angels Vedas: "Beautifully designed Rose Quartz earrings drawn in sterling silver to bring..." in Constructing a Theory of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.


FQXi BLOGS
December 19, 2018

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: 2015 in Review: New Podcast on Planets, Particles and Perceptions of Reality [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 28, 2015 @ 15:14 GMT
We’re taking our annual look back at the physics highlights of the past 12 months — as chosen by FQXi member Ian Durham, a quantum physicist at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. Ian will be counting down his top 5 picks in a special podcast series.

Free Podcast

Our review of the year in physics, with quantum physicist Ian Durham, begins.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

Here’s part 1, in which Ian talks about what didn’t quite make his list this year (and why), and reveals the physics breakthrough takes the 5th spot in his countdown.

The rest of Ian’s list will follow over the next few days. But how would you rank this year’s physics achievements? What makes the top of your list?

And, of course, from all of us at FQXi: Best wishes for the coming New Year!

Free Podcast

Our countdown of the biggest physics breakthroughs of 2015 continues, with Ian Durham.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

Updated on 29 December 2015 to say: Part 2 has now been added, revealing pick 4 and 3.

Updated on 30 December 2015 to say that I've tweaked the second podcast since first posting it yesterday. We had a slight mistake in the first version. I'll avoid telling you what it was because if I do, it will spoil you on what's on the list. Corrected now though.

Updated on 31 December 2015 to say that the third and final part of Ian's list is now up.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Dec. 29, 2015 @ 18:06 GMT
I do hope Ian and others whom follow such developments will keep fqxi advised on the analysis of the possible extra-heavy particle indicated by admittedly very few results at CERN, which is outside the current standard model. It was also nice to hear someone familiar enough with the standard model to matter of factly state that the standard model is not the complete story of nature. There seems to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Dec. 29, 2015 @ 19:47 GMT
Thanks John. We'll keep a watch on the heavy boson story. I think you're right, a lot of people agree that the Standard Model can't provide the complete picture.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 23, 2016 @ 17:34 GMT
Coincidentally, on Dec. 30, 2015 the IUPAC's working group had reached consensus on verification of the discovery of four new isotopes that fill out the seventh row of the periodic table. All those isotopes are found to be highly unstable and a new three letter identifier is being assigned designating Unstable Isotopes. Might be good to follow for big discoveries of 2016, as the announcement was made after the turn of the year. jrc

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 30, 2015 @ 14:58 GMT
Particle physicist Tommaso Dorigo blogs amusingly about what the "new particle" cannot be -- and why the signal is likely to go away.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Dec. 30, 2015 @ 16:18 GMT
I wouldn't rule out Mickey Mouse. Perhaps the bump is not Gaussian -- rather the remaining point of a combed hairy ball.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Dec. 30, 2015 @ 18:37 GMT
Excellent point, Tom.

That hadn't occurred to me but it makes sense of what I hadn't understood. Funny but really sad too, that topology does not immediately come to mind as the go-to measurement space. No matter how you comb the hair on a coconut, you will always end up with at least one cowlick.

Dorigo might prove correct, though, in the possible virtual particle being simply dropped as spurious without tracing down the origin of spurious cuurrency due to the small number of results against the (hilarious) length of the Guess List he presents. It has become so accepted to deal in large numbers that we forget that the most time consuming frustration comes in trying to track down a discrepancy of a few odd cents in balancing a checkbook in justification to the bank statement. A large discrepancy is easy to spot.

Happy New Year! jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Dec. 30, 2015 @ 20:24 GMT
Happy New Year, John. :-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Dec. 31, 2015 @ 17:53 GMT
The final part of the countdown is now up!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2016 @ 06:06 GMT
Zeeya, thank you for this series of podcasts. It was good to hear Ian Durham talking so enthusiastically about the various breakthroughs. Pluto has surprised everyone after its demotion for being a 'small rock'. It will be interesting to see what new ideas are developed in coming years to explain it's not being a boring 'small rock' after all. I have already read some interesting speculation that the ice mountains could be formed by tectonics due to there being liquid water inside because of the activity of some radio active elements.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 13:06 GMT
Very interesting podcast, but I must correct Ian Durham about one thing. He said: “If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound?” His answer was “yeah, it makes a sound, of course it makes a sound”.

The correct answer is that the tree produces sound WAVES when it falls. Sound is the subjective EXPERIENCE of sound waves, by a creature with functioning ears/hearing organs, due to interaction between the sound waves and molecules and cells in the hearing organ, and maybe further processing in the brain.

Even insects have hearing organs, so they too must have an individual subjective experience of sound information. But if there are no creatures with hearing organs present when the tree falls, then we know that there will be sound waves, but no sound, because we understand sound to be an individual subjective experience.

While physicists continue to ignore the reality of subjective experience, their conclusions about reality will continue to be just plain wrong.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 14:17 GMT
So to a tree, there is no reality. Go figure.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 14:53 GMT
That's a bit of a non sequitur Tom. Please explain yourself.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 16:30 GMT
I'm not surprised.

There are measurable effects outside of sensory experience. These are what physics is concerned with.

The rest is elaboration, narrative. Einstein said that one could describe a symphony in terms of variations in sound wave pressure -- though that doesn't explain what a symphony is, it gives a universally objective basis to describe what interacting elements cause a symphony.

Subjective impressions are irrelevant to physics.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 00:06 GMT
Hi all,

There are 2 main points that I would like to make:

Firstly, what we human beings call “sound” is high-level/executive-level information [1] derived from lower-level cellular and molecular information interaction events with “sound waves”.

Secondly, this is the PRIMARY structure of reality: subjective information (at all “levels”) is the primary structure of reality. Both the physics’ high-level model of reality and our personal/subjective high-level models of reality agree that when a tree falls it will produce sound waves. But despite the power of our high-level synthesized models which portray an “objectively true” model of reality, it is not the case that there actually IS a more fundamental objectively true reality underlying our subjective experience. Subjective experience of information, at all levels from particles to atoms and molecules and single and multi-cell living things, is the primary reality.

Reality does not have a flat, objectively-true structure, it has a more complicated subjective structure.

1. Information is physical is subjective experience. Information always has the following structure: categories and their contextual relationship with other existing categories (low-level information is representable as law-of-nature equations), and “quantity”/”intensity”/etc. of the information categories (representable with number symbols).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 00:46 GMT
Points made. Are you expecting agreement?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 00:58 GMT
Not from you Tom! :)

However you might consider the proposition that reality having a flat objectively-true structure is a mere belief. ;)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 01:05 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

Following your initial post there has been some discussion here about the word 'sound'. It has a different meaning in physics than physiology and psychology. Perhaps 'sound waves' has been simplified to 'sound' in physics but in the process has caused ambiguity.It would be useful to distinguish sound (wave )input from sound (heard) output, rather than have just one word for both.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 18:42 GMT
Ian Durham's 1st choice for the 2015 breakthroughs is the Hensen Group's experiment at Delft, and Ian honestly admits his personal bias and should be commended for doing so. He also gives a bit of the background in the development of the Spin co-ordinate system which is based on the conundrum of the behavior of an electron in a magnetic field which predictably follows the right-hand rule but does...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 19:56 GMT
Lie and Clifford speak about how to parralelize the octonions in the respect of geometrical algebras.The correspondences and the équivalences seem to be in a rotative spherisation of sphères in 3D.And if the volumes of the serie of uniqueness is a finite serie with a central sphere and a pure serie of volumes decreasing,hello the primes.So we can see the steps of encodings and the gradients.....And they turn so they are , they dance, they evolve they sing these sphères Inside the sphere, turning aroundthe central sphere........

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 20:09 GMT
Thank you, John, for your kind references to my work on Bell's so-called theorem, which is now comprehensively debunked by me (as well as by others). As you know, I have a large numbers of papers and a book on the subject, but if I were to recommend just one paper to the ardent fans of the Delft experiment, then it would be this one.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2016 @ 04:03 GMT
John,

Use of quaternions is not as exotic as you make out. There are many practical applications of them including computer game modelling. Quote" Quaternions have found their way into applications in computer graphics, computer vision, robotics, navigation, molecular dynamics, flight dynamics,[1] orbital mechanics of satellites[2] and crystallographic texture analysis[3]. "Wikipedia

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 00:45 GMT
Tom,

Bar-Yam's principle and Ashby's law are NOT “computational physics”: the referenced documents NEVER mention particles or atoms! They only mention people and “controllers”!

Clearly Bar-Yam's principle and Ashby's law are “are too unrigorous to lend themselves to a computational model” that relates to the formation of particles into atoms, atoms into molecules, and the resultant occurrence of new information/properties that are representable by NEW EQUATIONS. Which of their “Computable algorithms mimic” this physical phenomena??

Re “There is nowhere, however, that a subjectivist program can go in the field of physics”:

Too bad if reality is ACTUALLY subjective, and physics never noticed, because then physics will never attempt to model ACTUAL reality. And perhaps this is one of the problems with physics.

“If you have a scientific bone in your body” then you Tom would have noticed that the purist mathematical complexity model just doesn’t add up.

The person that requires “more insight” might be you yourself, Tom!!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 01:25 GMT
Might be. However, if reality -- whatever it is -- is subjective, it is lonely world for all of us.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 04:09 GMT
I can't see why the idea that information is apprehended from multiple viewpoints within the system, rather than from a single viewpoint outside the system, would make the world any MORE lonely. I think that this idea certainly might lead to the further idea that much of the rest of reality are fellow subjects. I.e. the idea might actually lead to a more "connected to the rest of reality" type of philosophy.

In any case, I'm sure that these subjective viewpoints that I’m arguing for, cannot be entirely disconnected and standalone, because you'd wonder how the universe held together if reality was 100% that way.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 17:03 GMT
Lorraine,

"In any case, I'm sure that these subjective viewpoints that I’m arguing for, cannot be entirely disconnected and standalone, because you'd wonder how the universe held together if reality was 100% that way. "

No I wouldn't. Since you wouldn't trust me to explain covariance to you, let's see how Robert P. Crease expertly explains it:

"Real things, we might say are supposed to look different from different perspectives. Reality therefore necessarily involves a difference between how something appears to us, and it really is. We can put this point another way, in terms of the difference between local effects and global properties. When I see an object I see only one profile of it -- one that changes if I move, if the light changes, and so forth. As I change my position, so does this 'local' effect. Yet all the time I am seeing this same object. Invariance therefore involves understanding unity as it shows itself in changing positions. Philosophers call this the noetic-noematic correlation; physicists call it invariance under transformation, or covariance. Covariance is simply a part of the definition of objectivity; to say that something is a real part of the world is to say that it looks different from different perspectives, though the descriptions flow together in an orderly way when described by the same set of transformations." (Crease, The Great Equations pp. 158-159)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 06:13 GMT
Georgina, Tom, Steve,

The existence of different viewpoints in reality cannot be explained away by merely claiming that that is the way reality objectively is, and saying that “covariance” can model it. I.e. Crease’s “explanation” is a fudge that seems to imply that he has explained something, but he hasn’t. I would hope that, contributing to the FQXi Community pages, you are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 10:21 GMT
Lorraine,

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion in your final paragraph. You state that the existence of viewpoints implies a duality. I think Tom would argue that that is not so. His words to me were "this unitary reality requires no additional assumptions." Which I take to be his way of saying 'do not infer that the quote implies an underlying reality'. Though it could also mean 'do not infer any other physical instantiation'. It makes sense to me that the sensory data obtained by all of the different observers (of something) and formed into their own image reality outputs can pertain to the same unitary entity. However I am not satisfied with that entity being considered only in relation to the viewpoints seen. It seems to me there must be a source of the information obtained by the different observers, and also there must be a place in the world for substantial matter made of atoms, ions, molecules. Not just light information and outputs from processing of it. Using this definition of abstraction " the process of taking away or removing characteristics from something in order to reduce it to a set of essential characteristics.(from What Is.com)"then I suppose abstraction might be considered a part of the process of producing the observer's viewpoint but it does also involve modification and addition, so the output is a new fabrication ( thinking about sight). That output seen, image/s, doesn't feedback to the underlying reality. It doesn't become a substantial object because it has been seen. The limited, fixed state, manifestation comes into being when it is produced, and thus seen, but the source of the information from which it was generated had independent existence. The one way relationship is not really mysterious but easily attributed to known physics (and biology, if we are talking about organic observers.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 14:56 GMT
Lorraine,

"2 – The objective IS the subjective, where 'the subjective' is different perspectives and viewpoints; this can be mathematically modelled, and no further explanation is required (seemingly Tom’s and Crease’s view)."

Exactly. The context for the subjective is objective. Mathematical language is itself objective, and so lends itself to stripping away the illusion of dualism.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 15:01 GMT
Georgina,

"Though it could also mean 'do not infer any other physical instantiation'."

Right. It means what Newton meant by hypotheses non fingo. Make no superfluous hypothesis.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 21:11 GMT
Quantum Mechanics works, it was designed for that purpose, but cannot be assumed to do so infallibly.

Ian's 1st Choice of corroborative results by Hensen et.al. of a loophole-free experimental test of J.S. Bell's inequalities , likely conceals the same loop-hole inherent to the theorem itself.

In R3, both Left Hand Rule and Right Hand Rule are employed in the orthogonal intersection of complex planes and is strictly a spatial co-ordinate system. However, the time parameter of R4 is latent in R3 as axial torsion, just like the cabledrum that spools up both ends of a cable in unison which pulls a set of sliding doors apart. That latent torsion on a RHR axis rotates CW from knuckle to finger tip (all thumbs are fingers), and CCW on a LHR axis. A psuedovector can be either but not both, and in the Bell Theorem that goes to the choice function in R4. Bell's argument effectively, multiplies the Dot Product in a LHR vector set with the Cross Product of a RHR topological set and treats that as a conjugate, because a psuedovector in R4 can be made to return an identical set of groups of terms which zero out confirming orthogonality. But a conjugate by definition is among three groups in a set, not between two sets. The arguments which follow from that, are moot. And to obtain identical results from multiplying scalar products from one set with vector products of an opposite sign set, imposes counter-rotating torsion on a vector in S2 corresponding with a vector of R3. That's not conjugation, that's just plain wrong. That's the loop-hole, not the rainbow. jrc :-|

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 22:24 GMT
John, that's just excellent. :-) I would substitute S^3 for the first mention of R^4. That effectively ends the Bell argument, and starts Joy's argument with the correct topology.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 11, 2016 @ 01:33 GMT
Good point, Tom, Bell's own argument puts the onus on the topological space so any deconstruction has to begin in S^3. Coming from the direction of Bell's argument where the measure space is pre-existent misses what would have to be, to be in step with the topologic construct of measure space independent of R3 then R4. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 11, 2016 @ 22:22 GMT
Georgina, Tom,

Here are my updated summaries of how you and I see the “viewpoints” that seem to be an important characteristic of reality. If you disagree with what I have written, please summarize your account of “viewpoints” in less than 500 characters including spaces. Perhaps others could also summarize their accounts of "viewpoints" (in less than 500 characters including spaces) so that they can all be compared.

Georgina’s view: Viewpoints don’t actually exist, they only seem to exist. A higher-level rationalization originating in the human brain is required to explain why viewpoints SEEM to exist: it’s all about changes in the information pertaining to a physical object due to information interaction events with other physical objects like photons. (326 characters including spaces)

Tom’s view: Disembodied viewpoints exist, “disembodied” because the viewpoints are not from the point of view OF a physical object, instead they are viewpoints ON a physical object. Every possible perspective and viewpoint ON a physical object exists as a disembodied viewpoint, and the physical object IS the totality of all these viewpoints. (331 characters including spaces)

Lorraine’s view: The universe knows itself and creates itself from subjective experiential viewpoints, where the base-level viewpoint is a particle. What is created and experienced is physical reality, where base-level physical reality is representable as law-of-nature information relationships and numbers. Physical reality is an information relationship experience. (352 characters including spaces)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 12, 2016 @ 02:42 GMT
(reposted in correct thread)

Lorraine,

Nah. That's nothing like my view. Not even a caricature of my view.

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 12, 2016 @ 02:44 GMT
(reposted in correct thread)

Lorraine,

Nah. That's nothing like my view. Not even a caricature of my view.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 12, 2016 @ 05:55 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

your description of how you regard viewpoints has helped me understand 'where you are coming from' and the source of my own confusion regarding what you are trying to convey. The word 'viewpoint' can have different meanings. It can be where a view is seen from, like vantage-point OR what the view is seen to be, the relative output from that particular perspective. Re. 'Viewpoint" ( as vantage-point)the relative positions of observers are a part of the ever changing configuration of the foundational reality. I have tended to concentrate more on the output from received and processed light from different relative perspectives. A human observer need not be involved in that. Your summary of my view is not what I would have written.The introductory sentence is ambiguous due to the ambiguity of the word viewpoint. What follows seems to express the kind of ideas I talk about, but I feel could still be misinterpreted. There has been a great deal of discussion over many years and I don't want to commit that to a short paragraph. Hopefully this post has helped show 'where I am coming from'.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 12, 2016 @ 22:05 GMT
Tom,

Correlation is merely a mathematical method. It doesn’t mean this is what nature is doing i.e. correlation does NOT represent laws-of-nature. You SHOULD know that.

Almost anything can be represented mathematically i.e. via symbols for a category and symbols representing a relationship between these categories.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 13, 2016 @ 00:12 GMT
Lorraine,

Here are two identical permanent magnets, commonly available to the public. I'll spec them to have 1/2 inch cross-section and 2.5 inches long, polarized along the length. Conventional meaning in language should suffice.

Place one flat on a surface and bring the other close to the other at right angle so that the near ends are of the same polar orientation, N & N, or S & S. You will quickly see that when the mid point of the end of one is located off the side of the other so that the mid-point of the first is past the plane of the end of the other, that; if neither magnet is allowed to pivot, the first mentioned magnet will seek the opposite end of the other. That is what is meant as *a physical law*. Sometimes in some applications called, 'the right hand rule'.

"Philosophy could turn within, seeking an understanding of human behavior, of ethics and morality, of motivations and responses. Or it might turn outside to an investigation of the universe beyond the intangible wall of the mind - an investigation, in short, of nature."

p.1, paragraph 2, Chapter 1 'The Search for Knowledge, Section 1 'From Philosophy to Physics', Volume 1 (248 pages), 'Motion, Sound and Heat' of "Understanding Physics" by Isaac Asimov, ISBN 0-88029-251-2, copyright 1966, Dorset Press, division of Marboro Books Corporation by arrangement with Walker and Company, 1988 edition. (all three volumes in one book) and the best 'start' wiki you can find :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 01:04 GMT
John,

Magnet behaviour in itself is not representable as a law-of-nature. Magnet behaviour is the CONSEQUENCE of more fundamental, underlying law-of-nature relationships.

Covariance equations do not have the status of laws-of-nature. But Tom HYPOTHESIZED that covariance represents the underlying existence of actual viewpoint ENTITIES.

Tom has failed to explain what these entities are.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 12:52 GMT
"But Tom HYPOTHESIZED that covariance represents the underlying existence of actual viewpoint ENTITIES."

What? What does that even MEAN?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 12, 2016 @ 23:36 GMT
Georgina,

Re “I have found it is difficult to be succinct without ambiguity “:

Welcome to the problems INHERENT in communication and representation! Paragraphs, sentences and words are ambiguous in the sense that they cannot necessarily entirely represent what it is you are attempting to communicate (which is your subjective experience). And even given an ideal representation, the receiver of your communication will never understand words, sentences and paragraphs in the same sense that you intended. I.e. their subjective experience will not be the same as your subjective experience.

This is because words/representations don’t have an objectively true meaning – they only have a subjective meaning. This is why so called “information” (objective information) is not information.

Re “serious category error in physics”:

You seem to be talking about the subject/object issue. I agree that this is a serious, fundamental issue.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 13, 2016 @ 14:21 GMT
Lorraine,

Have you studied Wittgenstein? Your thoughts seem to be rooted in language analysis.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 13, 2016 @ 15:31 GMT
Lorraine,

"This is why so called “information” (objective information) is not information." Shannon's definition of information, renders information a measurable, objective phenomenon. There is no way to objectively measure meaning, since, as you are aware, it is purely subjective.

I remain puzzled as to why you seem to believe that there is no place for objective descriptions of things, simply because it may be difficult to separate a sensor/instrument's response to something, from the something that is being responded to. They are two different concepts, even though they cannot be separately observed. But they can often be separately deduced. Thus, one may often be able to deduce that the cause for a person not understanding a message sent to them, is not because they failed to correctly receive Shannon's "information", encoded into the message, but that they simply attached a different meaning to the correctly received message, after it was correctly received, compared to the meaning attached by the message's sender. In order to correct such problems, it is frequently necessary to understand where the problem lies.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 13, 2016 @ 16:29 GMT
Nicely put, Rob.

I also appreciate your keen view (articulated elsewhere) on positive and negative feedback phenomena as boundary-keepers for objective criteria.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 00:01 GMT
Rob,

Obviously, there are no problems with the transmission of REPRESENTATIONS of subjective information: they can be sent round the world without error.

As you know, the issue is in the beginning and the end of a message. The problem is that a physical representation (written or spoken words or sentences, or physical binary digits, or even a drawing on a piece of paper) cannot fully model the ORIGINAL source of what it attempts to represent.

Whether representing physical reality via equations, or representing subjective experience and thoughts via words and sentences and binary digits, or representing a person via a drawing, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the source of a representation and the representation.

So any representation is essentially a creation with rules. (The conversion of written word symbols into binary digits is merely a translation from one form of representation into another form of representation.)

A binary digital representation or a word representation, is a second hand thing. To say that a mere representation is information is like saying that a mere paste diamond is a real diamond, and the real diamond just doesn’t count.

I’m saying that information is subjective experience, and your “information” is a mere representation of information.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 00:46 GMT
Lorraine.

" ... there is no one-to-one correspondence between the source of a representation and the representation."

Would you care to prove that?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 01:14 GMT
Tom,

Would you care to prove that it is NOT so?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 03:01 GMT
Lorraine,

it does depend what you mean by source and representation. A bijective function, or one to one correspondence, works for something like the batters for a cricket team, real men, represented on a list or chart in batting order. Every man in the set of real players is represented by a name on the set of names representing those players. It doesn't work for something like a living dog and a photo-realistic drawing of the dog. As the dog is not just the view seen and represented by the artist.There are element belonging to the set of real parts of the real dog that are missing in the set of features of that dog on the 2D paper. This shows that your statement is too imprecise to be verified.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 14, 2016 @ 00:45 GMT
WHY THE FALLING MAN FEELS NO GRAVITY:

We want to balance being and experience. Gravity pertains to visibility and distance in/of space (seen, felt, AND touched). The falling man feels no gravity because the gravity cancels or balances at HALF (with/as the MIDDLE DISTANCE). SO, THE FALLING MAN FEELS NO GRAVITY CONSISTENT WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL AND GREAT TRUTH/FACT IN PHYSICS: Invisible AND...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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