Ian,

Lovely essay, well presented and pertinent with some important truths but I have to suggest some key propositions are flawed.

Your use of 'probability mass' was novel if rather cumbersome. Correct of course (I asked Marylin!) but a better and clearer Cardano 'sample space' was long ago derived which you rather muddy in re-inventing. Indeed even Wikipedia is wrong on this stating...

view entire post

Ian,

Lovely essay, well presented and pertinent with some important truths but I have to suggest some key propositions are flawed.

Your use of 'probability mass' was novel if rather cumbersome. Correct of course (I asked Marylin!) but a better and clearer Cardano 'sample space' was long ago derived which you rather muddy in re-inventing. Indeed even Wikipedia is wrong on this stating origins from the 1800's (Google 'Monty Hall'). Cardano was born in 1501.

Applying sample space to 3-axis oscillations isn't so much an issue as wrongly assigning the outcome as "due to maths". Your; "almost entirely mathematical" is at least a small step back, and credit for; "After all, the mathematics refers to something physical." Which rightly contradicts the earlier error! I can see what you were getting at, but that thinking is what misled all the top maths PhD's to be embarrassed by Marylin dos Savant.

I suggest, in line with probability theory, that ALL 'chance' can stem simply from a 50:50 coin flip or particle x axis orientation with respect to an interaction (all fermions in space and particles from a splitter either present North OR South poles to a detector/observer (D/O); 50:50 (unless modulated to a common direction in a field at the D/O) with MAX UNCERTAINTY AT A SPIN EQUATOR!

We could then say your statement "the shifting of an energy unit from one oscillator to another. This microprocess is fundamentally random" is erroneous, but could also say it's correct IF the randomness is derived from the above at 50:50 (and think 'electron', or even; 'Majorana fermion'!). Which you should agree it can.(??)

Now something new I propose; In 'OAM' there are TWO distinct momenta states (as Maxwell) which may be transferred on 'contact' (or absorption/re-emission). One is the UP/DOWN at the equator. The other is the 'curl' at the poles. These are then then orthogonal and vary 0 to 1 non-linearly by the cosine of the 'latitude' on the interaction point on the sphere surface (a fact you'll find hidden away in geophysics).

I suggest your paper does get part of the way there, going rather off track, but then does give a pretty good overview of how QM can actually be derived deterministically (classically) down to a reducing fractal uncertainty.

Of course your model doesn't raise cognative dissonance where a more Classic QM does, so will doubtless remain dismissed!

I'd be interested in your views if you get a chance to study my essay better explaining the model and it's ('multi layer' space) derivation 'aims and intent'.

Very Best

Peter

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Nice essay Durham,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. What role does chance play in the universe? Quantum theory suggests that randomness is a fundamental part of how the universe works and yet we live mostly intentional, ordered lives.

2. For a two-outcome process whose outcomes have a 51% and 49% likelihood of occurrence respectively, one might be tempted to...

view entire post

Nice essay Durham,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. What role does chance play in the universe? Quantum theory suggests that randomness is a fundamental part of how the universe works and yet we live mostly intentional, ordered lives.

2. For a two-outcome process whose outcomes have a 51% and 49% likelihood of occurrence respectively, one might be tempted to refer to it as `nearly random.' On the other hand, if those same likelihoods were 99% and 1% respectively, one might be tempted to say the process was `nearly deterministic.' But what if they were 80% and 20% or 60% and 40%? At what point do we stop referring to a process as nearly deterministic' or `nearly random'?

3. In fact both Eddington and Compton argued that the randomness of quantum mechanics was a necessary condition for free will [3, 5]. On the other hand, Lloyd has argued that even deterministic systems can't predict the results of their decision-making process ahead of time [8]

…… Universe is working in deterministic way………………… At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at my essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Be
st wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please…………….

=snp. gupta

view post as summary

Hello Ian,

Thank you for such an enjoyable and interesting read. From the outset, you argue it is 'processes' that make the universe interesting - which maps quite nicely in agreement with what I argue with my coauthor in our essay that fundamental interactions/forces engender the rich structures in the universe. Indeed as you develop micro vs macro processes I agree is a good way to think...

view entire post

Hello Ian,

Thank you for such an enjoyable and interesting read. From the outset, you argue it is 'processes' that make the universe interesting - which maps quite nicely in agreement with what I argue with my coauthor in our essay that fundamental interactions/forces engender the rich structures in the universe. Indeed as you develop micro vs macro processes I agree is a good way to think about natural phenomena. This is in harmony with how we argued renormlisation essentially generates a hierarchy of processes of largely independent effective theories at different scales.

In my daily particle physics work, I remain astonished how well simulations based on quantum amplitudes predict collider data. These probabilities are pre-determinined (though non-trivial to calculate!), and indeed from your combinatoric/statistical mechanics perspective, can give rise to seemingly goal-directed macrostates. My electron seems to always recede from the collision point, never returning to it. Reading your essay where you discuss issues of randomness and determinism in wonderful detail and clarity, it got me thinking again about how even mathematically deterministic theories can lead to experimentally unpredictable phenomena notably chaotic dynamics. I wonder how this can be distinguished from the seeming randomness of quantum theory (which may conceal a similarly deterministic formalism)?

It seems like what information/knowledge we have about a system and even its scale has a deep impact as to whether we view the phenomenon as deterministic or stochastic. The weather is notoriously difficult to predict precisely because of chaotic dynamics, but at a smaller level, it is governed by deterministic Navier-Stokes. I suppose one of the workarounds you mention is long term aggregates such as climate modelling, or coarse-grained macrostate as extracting thermodynamics from Einstein solids would. Though it is interesting whether knowledge/information about the system affects how we assign what exactly constitutes a micro vs macrostate.

Thanks again for a though-provoking essay!

Best,

Jesse

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

Chance is a possibility of something happening. It depends upon the knowledge of all possible outcomes. Otherwise, whatever is happening will appear to be natural cause and effect relationship. Random is proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern, or, done or happening without method or conscious decision – or as you say: ‘unpredictable’. But is...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

Chance is a possibility of something happening. It depends upon the knowledge of all possible outcomes. Otherwise, whatever is happening will appear to be natural cause and effect relationship. Random is proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern, or, done or happening without method or conscious decision – or as you say: ‘unpredictable’. But is there any proof that the universe appears to be decidedly random? Can the randomness not be attributed to our inability to “know” the secrets or the subtleties of Nature? Or as you say: “something more fundamental and less ordered”? After all, everything is interconnected and interrelated at the fundamental level and there is order behind the seemingly chaos represented by the butterfly effect. Each step precedes the following step in a cause and effect relationship. If could somehow know the steps, it would be purely deterministic. However, the intermittent external effects bring in the uncertainties that make it appear random.

But are these uncertainties really unpredictable? If we focus only on the trajectory of one event, it appears unpredictable, as we do not know when something will interfere. But if we could somehow know ALL factors contributing to the uncertainties, it no longer looks uncertain or random. Think of a car accident happening in front of you, where you are standing at a vantage point to see everything clearly. We have seen many such cases. The persons involved in the accident did not foresee it. For them, it was random – a chance. But from our vintage position, we could see how one or the other deviated from the predicted path to meet with the accident. With a further query on their mental or physical condition, we could pin point the exact cause.

While one of the two may be aware of the likelihood of accident by watching the behavior of the other, we would be confident about the outcome, because we observing the behavior of both. Thus, each step in every action is precisely deterministic, but not always revealed to us. This makes the determinism to have two variants: fully deterministic as we see the totality from our vantage point, and partly (or as you say nearly) deterministic, as one of the participants who tries to avoid the accident immediately before it occurred sees. He could have avoided the accident had he seen it earlier or as you say: nearly random. You also describe this in a different language: “the actual occurrence of the process” and “outcomes of that process”.

Your part II is a brilliant analysis and needs no comment. But in part III, we wish you could have considered a more practical example like the three quarks inside a proton or neutron and the neutrino/anti-neutrino. At a certain level, even conscious actions are mechanical. We “feel” a “need” to “rectify some deficiency”. If we have the “knowledge” about the “mechanism for rectifying the needs”, then only we will have a “desire to act”. This is the goal. The determination to translate the goal to achievement in a specific way, is our freewill. The freewill determines the action to be executed. Only thereafter, the readiness potential is developed in the brain, which signals the different body parts to execute that command through the network of genes. In the quantum or inert macro world, a particle “feels” a “need” to “adjust to some energy”. If it had the “mechanism for rectifying the needs”, then only we will “desire to act” within permissible limits in permissible ways to achieve a new state.

Finally, the randomness of quantum mechanics are not necessary condition for freewill. But it offers choices to choose from – hence appears random. Also you have pointed out correctly that “even deterministic systems can’t predict the results of their decision-making process ahead of time”. Thus, time also is one of the causes for everything.

You have shown that the seeds of such an understanding might be found in simple combinatorics. This is absolutely essential. In our essay here, we have shown the 10 dimensions needed for string theory and M theory can be physically derived without entering into the complexities of abstract mathematics.

Regards

basudeba

view post as summary