Ransford

Thanks for commenting.

Look around. You are in a single universe. If you mean 1 and only 1 universe , then you have misinterpreted the phrase. If you mean to postulate miltivers, then you have it backward -there is no unique evidence that more than our universe exists. That would require evidence. (The multiverse is an interpretation of QM. Many interpretations of QM...

view entire post

Ransford

Thanks for commenting.

Look around. You are in a single universe. If you mean 1 and only 1 universe , then you have misinterpreted the phrase. If you mean to postulate miltivers, then you have it backward -there is no unique evidence that more than our universe exists. That would require evidence. (The multiverse is an interpretation of QM. Many interpretations of QM exist. To accept a multiverse requires observation evidence that rejects all the other interpretations and does not reject multiverse) .

I like a modified Bohm Interpretation (BI) with a partice light (photon) being directed by a pilot wave. The weakness of BI is it omits how and where the pilot wavw originates. Consider General Relativity. Matter warps space ( medium like an aether) ant the warp directs matter. So, the pilot wave in the BI is caused by matter. (Unity of GR and the small?)

The advantage of BI is that there is an experiment that rejects all QM interpretation except the modified BI.

The following papers present an experiment that is easily done that rejects a wave like nature of the light (photon) and by extention the electron.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwq
LJjpw

Then play the video titled Photon Diffraction

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603


"Diffraction experiment and its Stoe photon simulation program rejects wave models of light" click on mse42MY.pdf .

As you said more documentation than 10 pages allow except as a reference.

Science logic has to have some postulates. The paper postulated the emergence philosophy was a Emergence Principle of the universe. From that it follows the single TOE exists.

Another thing to note, the QM model as a probabilistic model is an indiator of a set of agents unknown but existing. I think they are my plenum (continous that supports wave action and hods matter). This was mentioned.

If you chose another assumption, find the data.

BTW. In the STOE model there has to be a Source (at the center of spiral galaxies) and a Sink (elliptical galaxies). These have to come and go from somewhere, perhaps another type of universe. But not a 3D+time.

There is considerably more evidence to support the Emercence Principle than the multiverse from QM.

I regard words/concepts such as intent, free will, conscious, mind as being without merit in science because they lack sufficient definition. Look at these papers, they use the same words and mean different things. For example, look at the phrasing of "Delayed Choice experiment". Especially "choice" as if that is what is being measued - Its not. Like the ancient Greeks the matter has no "Choice" or other human abstract quality. My papers above show there is a deterministic model to explain Young's and Hodge's experiments.

Hodge

view post as summary

Hi John,

I think you and I tend to think alike, but I would argue a few points. A theory is a model, and it's probably more correct to say that since a single universe exists, a single theory of everything should exist.

You suggest the universe is deterministic. This often interpreted to mean that free will is an illusion. Yet, as Stefan Weckbach points out, if an organism...

view entire post

Hi John,

I think you and I tend to think alike, but I would argue a few points. A theory is a model, and it's probably more correct to say that since a single universe exists, a single theory of everything should exist.

You suggest the universe is deterministic. This often interpreted to mean that free will is an illusion. Yet, as Stefan Weckbach points out, if an organism cannot act (of free will) then awareness of anything is irrelevant. It would have no Darwinian value and not be selected for. Thus if one thinks awareness arises in Darwinian fashion, one is almost forced to conclude that free will arises concurrently. But this complicates things considerably.

You seem to favor "a deterministic perspective to replace probability arguments". Again, I tend to agree, as far as a solution of systems behavior is concerned, but Planck's constant brings indeterminacy into interactions, hence probability. Also "if reductionism fails, it fails because the agents are modeled incorrectly." In this sense, a universal field that interacts with local 'motion' (momentum density) consciously, is an agent that is not yet modeled correctly.

I particularly like your section 4, focused on 'perception' and 'counting'. I hope you read my essay for my thoughts on this. But I disagree with your conclusion that, since mathematics is deterministic, this implies that the universe is deterministic. It does not. I try to show how mathematical structure is projected onto reality, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

In section 5 you note that Newton suggested "gravity rather than a rock's intentions" direct the rock's motion. "Or we might say that the rock sensed the gravity field and moved accordingly." Or you might say that the gravity field sensed the rock's motion and affected it. If the rock had dynamic inner structure, the field might sense this too, but rocks don't have inner structure like neural nets that process stimuli from outside the rock.

We know from general relativity (etc.) that the gravity field is effectively "aware of itself". Few think that the rock is aware of itself. I suggest that consideration of an appropriate universal field, applied to your general scheme would enlarge your model.

Thanks for your well-written, enjoyable essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

When you say: “The emergence principle is a general property of the universe”, it needs some clarification. What is emerging? Is it the laws of Nature or their revelation to us? In the present context, the obvious answer is the second. But the first cannot be ignored. We find a set of rules that remain invariant through space and time....

view entire post

Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

When you say: “The emergence principle is a general property of the universe”, it needs some clarification. What is emerging? Is it the laws of Nature or their revelation to us? In the present context, the obvious answer is the second. But the first cannot be ignored. We find a set of rules that remain invariant through space and time. The same with objects (matter) and forces (energy). But then, we are also finding hints about their unification. They must have emerged from some common source. Our goal is to find that common source by moving from diversity to unity – not emergence, but convergence, which you have also agreed.

You have rightly pointed the way out: applying a deterministic perspective to replace the probability arguments. Even probability is always within a band. It is never unlimited. Within the band, everything is deterministic. Thus, probability implies our inability to understand local dynamics beyond a scale. The reason is uncertainty inherent in Nature, which arise not chaotically, but from step by step changes due to other influencing factors in the environment. Like the butterfly effect, we are not capable enough to know these steps or measure it – bringing in uncertainty in our knowledge. But when mathematics enters the field, problems multiply by division. Position is not absolute, but is a fixed coordinate with reference to some origin. Similarly, momentum not absolute, but is a mobile coordinate with reference to some origin. If both these are assigned to the same object, if it has a fixed position, its momentum is zero. If it has momentum, it does have a fixed position – position is zero. If we multiply both, the result will not be h, but zero for all values of position and momentum. Yet, we are running after this wrong notion.

You have rightly pointed out that: “Generic atomism model’s failure is attributed to lack of knowledge or the predictions required are too complex”. The basic difference between micro and macro physics is the difference between the individual and the composite (apart from scale factor). When we deal with QM or QED or QFT, we deal with the energetic particles, such as quarks, leptons, etc. individually. The macro world is a collective of the same particles in large numbers, where the energy gets confined due to the regulated combination of opposites. This brings in new characteristics. The properties of water is not the same as that of hydrogen or oxygen or a combination of both. This non-linear behavior creates the disparities. Hence they are not different, but different manifestation of the same thing. We have to understand the non-linear dynamics – not treat both separately. Thus, you have rightly described it as a fractal system. Only we have to identify the similarities.

We have presented a paper here to physically explain 10 dimensions, where we have briefly discussed about mathematics. It is essentially the same as your view except your treatment of geometry as extended object. Geometry essentially deals with fields with volumes as an extension. While objects associated with numbers are discrete – quantized or digitized, fields are analog. While digital can form a part of analog (like our use of space, time, coordinates or a bucket of water from the ocean), the reverse is not always true. While our measure of space, time, etc. can be extended to the absolute and analog space and time, the bucket of water cannot be extended to imply ocean. Treating both as one has misled mathematicians and physicists alike. We can chart a length on a graph in two dimensions. But length of what? The object itself has three dimensions. Thus, the graph shows one dimension less than the object. Hence it is not a true representation. When we plot several points on a graph and assign numbers to them, we are extending those objects like we blow up a balloon. We are marking different lengths – equal or different in magnitude and direction. At the universal level, if the line is the locus of a point, then it has only two parts: closed or open ended. Closed represents all digitized structures. Open represents the analog nature of motion. Both are not the same like space/time and a bucket of water. You also seem to agree with this concept in later pages. Regarding mathematical transformation, we have discussed at length in our paper.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies