CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
The Case for Strong Emergence by Sabine Hossenfelder
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Sabine Hossenfelder wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:31 GMT
Essay AbstractAs everyone knows, physicists have proved that free will doesn't exist. That's because we are made of tiny particles which follow strict laws, and human behavior is really just a consequence of these particles' laws. At least that's what I used to think. But some years ago I stumbled over a gap in this argument. In this essay I want to tell you what made me rethink and why you should rethink, too.
Author BioSabine is a theoretical physicist and Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Germany. Her research is focused on the foundations of physics. She partly works as freelance science writer and is author of the blog BackRe(action).
Download Essay PDF File
Member Sylvia Wenmackers wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Sabine,
I enjoyed reading your essay. The essential part of your contribution seems to be the middle part of p. 9, so it is on this part that I want to comment. It is curious to note that the type of loophole you notice here is of a similar kind as one that has been discussed previously in the context of non-Lipschitz classical mechanics. To be clear, I don't want to suggest that your observation isn't novel, but merely to draw attention to an analogous historical case, which you or other readers of this forum might find interesting.
It was observed, by Poisson and others, that for certain forces and initial conditions, the Newtonian equation of motion has multiple solutions. This was discussed in the 19th century as a possible loophole for reconciling classical mechanics with human free will. The debate has been described very clearly in a paper by van Strien: "
Vital Instability: Life and Free Will in Physics and Physiology, 1860-1880".
The analogy I notice between the 19th century singular points in mechanical problems that lack Lipschitz continuity and your "non-divergent function that can’t be continued" is based on two elements. (1) They are both closely tailored to the mathematical framework at hand. (2) Neither is restricted by probabilities governing the multiple solutions. So, the usual argument for strong incompatibilism, which says that free will is not compatible with determinism nor with fixed probabilities or randomness, doesn't seem to apply.
Best wishes,
Sylvia
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 06:24 GMT
Dear Sylvia,
Indeed, it was a discussion of Norton's Dome that reminded me of writing this essay :) Note though, that I've made sure to pick a function that'll be differentiable to all orders, so there's no discontinuity in any derivative. I'd guess that it must be possible to construct a similar example for a potential in Newtonian mechanics, but haven't seen one.
Having said this, the arguments based on Newtonian mechanics are easy to dismiss not only because one of the derivatives will eventually diverge but more importantly because we know the potential is an approximation already, so you expect some information goes lost there. It's an objection that my suggestion circumvents. (Sorry for not adding the references to the Newtonian case, I simply forgot about it because it didn't come up in the text.) Best,
Sabine
Flavio Del Santo wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Dr. Hossenfelder,
thank you for this essay, which I found interesting indeed.
In particular I liked that you point out that although reductionism ddoes work, or actually did work, it ain't necessarily so (if yo have the occasion to read my essay as well, you will find some common points about this).
Also, I totally agree on your definition of "physical theory" that encapsulates both the formalism AND the operational laws that connect the symbols to the observables. A concept that is not clear even among many professional theoreticians.
However, I found a bit misleading your definition of fundamental (even if you maintain: "This definition I think captures how the word is used in the foundations of physics today" and not your own thought). In fact, what you propose here is a different form of reductionism, known as "theoretical reductionsm" (whereas when you refer to reductionism it seems you refer to the so-called "ontological reductionism"). IN general throughout your whole essay I think is not always clear the ontological status of your statemens. It seems that sometimes you refer interchangeably between the supposed "true state of affair" (e.g. when you say that bigger things are made of smaller thing) and theoretical abstractions (like in your notion of fundamentality and emergence).
Despite this, I enjoyed reading the essay and I will rate it high
I wish you success,
Flavio
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 06:27 GMT
Dear Flavio,
When I say "bigger things are made of small things" I mean (as I laid out at the very beginning) that it's a hypothesis that has worked very well. Not more and not less. Does that mean it's "true"? No. But I don't think science is about finding out what's true. It's about finding out what works to describe our observations.
Thanks for drawing my attention to your essay, which I will read with interest.
Best,
Sabine
Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Sabine,
it was a pleasure to read your essay. You propose an original, interesting idea and your writing style is very enjoyable – it's definitively between the best I've read here so far.
I've a question about your strong emergence hypothesis, since I've not the mathematical tools to judge your example at §6 (my formation is as a philosopher).
Are the phenomenal, subjective sensations (i.e, how the color "red" looks like) a possible example of strong emergence (like the theory 9 in your fig.2)? It's the old stuff of the hard problem of consciousness: we can describe sensations with many good theories, but none will successfully explain "how/why they feel", that seems an irreducible trait.
Or maybe they are just irreducible systems? If I express “red” in terms of electromagnetism, I am not talking about the sensation of the colour red, while if I express the sensation of the colour red, (for example through metaphors, synesthesia, neuronal stimulations, memories or fantasies) I am not explaining its electromagnetic qualities.
Best regards,
Francesco D'Isa
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 07:02 GMT
Hi Francesco,
The issue of qualia is more a problem of finding the circuits that encode self-reference than one of emergence. It think it's a question of terminology: just what does it mean to "experience" something? It is therefore, I think, a same-level problem not one of emergence because you are trying to disentangle the sensory response (this is red) from the knowledge that it is you who is seeing red (I see red).
Having said that, you could ask the question whether electrodynamics and atomic physics allow you to compute the response of the human brain to red light, and it is here where the question of strong vs weak emergence becomes relevant. If a case like the one I suggest in my essay was realized in nature, the answer might be: no, you can't compute it. Best,
Sabine
Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 08:40 GMT
Hi Sabine,
thank you for your kind reply.
I've another doubt: you say that is should be a same-level problem because I was trying to disentangle the sensory response (this is red) from the knowledge of it (I see red).
But aren't they already disentangled? Electrodynamics and atomic physics doesn't need any qualia to work and to give their explanation of the relation between colors and (human) observers. For sure qualia and physics are related (no brain, no mind), but the first are entities that physics doesn't need – and if we agree that they exists, they looks like an emergent propriety.
Moreover, just out of curiosity, there are other examples of strong emergence that you can imagine, a part of the one of §6?
(Anyway, maybe I've misunderstood, I know that my limits in front of the core of your argument are a serious obstacle).
Best,
Francesco
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Francesco,
I meant "disentangle" in a practical way. I take an fMRI image of your brain, now which one of the parts that lights up is the part that makes the "experience"? I don't think anyone knows (and identifying parts by locality rather than functionality might not be the right thing to do). It's interesting that there are studies of people with certain brain malfunctions (strokes, accidents, etc) who can actually see things without experiencing them. But I think it's not yet well understood. Be that as it may, I have no reason to think that experience requires anything but normal (weakly emergent) physics. Best,
Sabine
Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Sabine,
yes, as far as I know the positional/functional neurological studies are still a matter of debate. Recently, The New York Review is publishing an interesting
cycle of interviews with Riccardo Manzotti about it, which I quoted in my essay as well.
Anyway, I agree that it is reasonable to think that there are no reason to think that experience requires anything but normal (weakly emergent) physics, but it is also reasonable to suppose that this explanation can't talk about the qualia, as they are stated (also) by the famous essay by Thomas Nagel. It's possible that physics can explain brain states, but not qualia – there's a famous and funny mental experiment about it, the "philosophical zombies".
Thank you for your time, all the best,
Francesco
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 00:55 GMT
Great essay! What you point out is what happens at a singularity in RG flow, and the inability to continue beyond it means the solution on the other half could be something entirely different.
I have pondered the idea the Landau in gravity and QCD. Suppose SU(3) is really a reduction on SU(4) which as an STU type duality with SU(2,2). This is the isometry group of the AdS_5 and this set up is a form of gauge-gravity duality
Given a group G and a subgroup of it K to which it is spontaneously broken, the broken generators ("axials" in the chiral symmetry breaking paradigm of low energy QCD, SU(2)×SU(2)/SU(2)_isospin is the coset space H=G/K. The generators of G than break up into the unbroken ones, k, (isospin), and the broken ones, hh, parameterized by the goldstone/pions serving as projective coordinates of that manifold (In QCD this is just S_3):
[h, h] ⊂ k,[h, k] ⊂ h,[k, k] ⊂ k.
The unbroken generators (isospin) close to a subalgebra, and the broken ones (axials) transform by the k as isomultiplets. In this way in the IR limit QCD recovers the isospin theory of nucleons.
So the idea would be that gravitation has a dual RG flow that hits a pole at the Planck or string scale. This would then lead to the emergence of new QFT-like physics or maybe forms of partons associated with gravitation. This might be one way the singular problems could be managed; we transform conformal gravity into a form of QCD where the IR limit there corresponds to the UV limit in gravity.
BTW I like you blog, though I have never commented there. I have been more of a lurker. If you have time you might be interested in my essay.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 07:06 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
I guess you'd need it the other way 'round to find strong emergence. In your example, I wouldn't really be sure it's just a case of UV incompleteness, but maybe I misunderstood this? I'll check out your essay :) Best,
Sabine
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 11:46 GMT
Hi Bee,
This is an idea I have been kicking around in my mind. It seems to fit with the idea of strong emergence. If this happens with QCD in the IR limit, which is a bit of a problem, then by STU type of duality with gravity it might carry over to quantum gravity.
It could happen either within string/M-theory or with the constructions from the WDW equation such as LQG. I am not picky. I figure either if LQG is false this might form some sort of constraint in string theory that rules out some set of states, or if LQG is true then again it might form such a constraint or provide tools to show how some set of solutions there are not physical.
At any rate it could in the end be false. You have to propose in order for something to be disposed.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Aditya Dwarkesh wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 14:49 GMT
Hi Sabine,
Your expository skills have made the essay quite enjoyable to read. You have illustrated your points very well, and your definitions are extremely astute.
You have also been very prescient in mentioning the Halting problem, which is certainly quite relevant to your article. My first thought when I read your definitions was of the issues brought up by the Halting problem.
In fact, I did not quite understand how you eliminated said issues in the context of weak emergence. It seems to me that it would follow from the Problem that one can never be certain about whether or not a theory B can be derived from A. How do you propose to eliminate this blip?
My own ideas are surprisingly similar to yours on theories and reductionism. However, I chose to take a different path in order to avoid this seemingly insurmountable issue. I think you would quite like the parallels made!
Regards,
Aditya
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 05:41 GMT
Dear Aditya,
I do not "eliminate" the problem, I merely note that the examples which have been suggested so far need a system in an unrealistic limit, in which either the number of constituents goes to infinity or the spacing between them goes to zero. So, to the extent that it is a problem, it doesn't exist for real systems. Best,
Sabine
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:09 GMT
Sabine,
I enjoyed your thorough examination of the cogs and wheels of what makes fundamental theories. But, in my opinion, you started on the upper floor, way above the fundamental part of the universe. What is fundamental is what the universe is and does before we look or even think about it. All the rest is knowledge which is not a dimension of the universe.
The fundamental is what makes up the universe (substance) and what is behind its spontaneous evolution (cause). Alas, FQXI is drumming up the science/physics aspect that we create by perception (senses – mind) and denies the right of the universe to exist and happen on its own outside the scope of our experience. We are not missing much, but that little part that is what exists when we are not around... is fundamental. From it, we may build real emergence.
All the bests,
Marcel,
post approved
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:42 GMT
Sabine,
"A physical theory is strongly emergent if it is fundamental, but there exists at least one other fundamental theory at higher resolution."
I am puzzled by something. Why isn't GR considered to be strongly emergent? Doesn't it play the role of theory 9 in your figures? What am I missing in your definition? Is GR not fundamental?
BTW, this is a very good essay and easy to read. I was able to follow the text easily despite having no special education in Physics.
Also, allow me to thank you for your website. I have lurked there quite a bit. I find your explanations to be very helpful.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 05:45 GMT
Hi Gary,
What do you think GR emerges from? We certainly have candidates for more fundamental theories, but last time I looked none of them had observational evidence speaking from it.
I didn't say much about GR just because for the issue of how the brain works and so on it's pretty irrelevant.
I am glad you enjoy my writing :)
Sabine
Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 13:22 GMT
Sabine,
I think GR is fundamental for now but I hope it will become emergent when (if) a TOE is developed. QM is also fundamental for now and it is at a higher resolution than GR (at least away from BH's).
So, does your definition require that a strongly emergent theory must make the same predictions as the higher resolution theory?
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Heinrich Luediger wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Sabine,
Nothing is basically wrong with reductionism and free will, provided we take to heart some provisions. I think all science begins with natural language (L), because he who does not know what distances, stones, rivers, weights, birds, stars, colors, seasons, etc. are cannot be a scientist. Scientists are people making claims (construct theories) beyond L, e.g. about H2O. In order not to remain castles in the air their theories must be grounded somewhere and the only place to ground them is in L. But L (to stay in the picture) is ignorant of atomic bonds, valences, molecular weights, joint electron orbits, etc. Great! Something has been ADDED to L Absolutely not contained in it – hence it cannot possibly be false. The problem begins only – as unfortunately is the rule – when scientists elevate H2O over L (known as epistemological inversion). What, however, shares no common measure can neither be represented by one of its parts nor can they be equated.
Et voilà! The problem of free will vanishes, because it is no point physics has anything to say about.
Heinrich
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 05:51 GMT
Dear Heinrich,
To do science it is entirely irrelevant that you assign words to objects with common properties like, say, birds. AIs now do such pattern recognition on a daily basis. Science is merely a way of quantifying such patterns. They "add" to what they observe by extrapolating from there, that is what gives science its power. But once you have observed a pattern and established that it holds you can't just throw it out when it seems inconvenient. That's where the conflict between the fundamental laws and free will comes from. Best,
Sabine
Heinrich Luediger replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 09:31 GMT
Dear Sabine,
birds do have patterns, but what is the pattern of a pattern? Isn't that the plight of theoretical physics and pattern generators like LHC, LIGO, etc.pp.
Don't bother to answer this post...
Heinrich
post approved
Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:55 GMT
It is an interesting essay, and a good essay.
I am thinking, reading your essay, that if there are two fundamental theory, what is the most fundamental? If the results are the same, and there is a complete equivalence like the matrix mechanics and the Schrodinger wave formulation, then it could be the simplicity in use (the mathematical description and the calculations) that sorting the theories.
I am thinking that all the theories that have infinitesimal variation of the free parameters, or using additional infinitesimal terms, could be fundamental because of they are all equivalent in the experimental observations (with sufficiently small variations): the additional parameters are infinite, and the theories are infinite.
Regards
Domenico
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Dr Sabine Hossenfelder,
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 17:01 GMT
Dear Sabine,
I am happy that you still decided to particpate.
Your approach of “weak emergent” and “strong emergent” is refreshing so is the “resolution” of experiments and theories and useful for my own thinking.
Reductionist elementary particles do NOT influence your behaviour is a perception that I can underwrite a good example to underwrite this perception is...
view entire post
Dear Sabine,
I am happy that you still decided to particpate.
Your approach of “weak emergent” and “strong emergent” is refreshing so is the “resolution” of experiments and theories and useful for my own thinking.
Reductionist elementary particles do NOT influence your behaviour is a perception that I can underwrite a good example to underwrite this perception is the essay from Erik P. Hoel from last year about “Causal Emergence”
link.
You are right when you say that many physicists don’t accept strong emergence because it is incompatible with their ideas. I think mankind need an open mind and even has to accept to say “I don’t know” (if you can then you start thinking and searching...)
“Stuff is made of smaller stuff”. Indeed but it is possible to start at the bottom then we can conclude that this ultimate bottom is unknown, it is no longer “stuff”. so Unknown-Quarks-Atoms-Chemicals-Cells-Organs-Agents. At each step there is a larger choice of possibilities. Each step is a threshold where new entities are emerging.
A correct candidate for a fundamental theory might not reveal itself at “first sight”. That is the problem with science. It is like we thought for a long time that the sun turned around the earth, difficult mathematical structures were found to prove it because at first sight it “seemed” as if. Maybe the same for theoretical science in our era.....
Your example of the Chief of CERN is a nice one. My perception is that the agent (chief) is at a specific MOMENT in time where the whole block universe that he is part of (his emergent reality) takes his decision. At that very moment ALL emergent phenomena (including the bottom ones) are simultaneous “existing” and interacting.
(so all are shaking hands).
I am very happy with your conclusion Sabine, because it means that we can think FREE. I hope that you will find time to read and rate
my essay where I am also trying to find a strong emergent model.
Best regards and good luck
Wilhelmus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thanks for the feedback. I will be happy to look at your essay. Best,
Sabine
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 15:51 GMT
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 18:36 GMT
Sabine,
Nicely argued. But do you feel a little like an accountant shuffling last years books into order while there's no CEO to advance the company? You may agree that many times in the past physicists have said
"It's all sorted bar a bit of tidying up". Doesn't p.1 repeat that? Sure we need accountants but who if not you steers the ship (and where if not here) into the vast unknowns? Thanks for the free will, but I worry! Hasn't getting to locked into current theory always been the bane of advancing understanding?
So;
"A physical theory is fundamental (without qualifier) if it is to best current knowledge". But we know most all are flawed or incomplete at best! Do you really assert we must settle for that as 'What is fundamental' in the universe? Who is who should then search the data and logic for that common solution to the hundreds of fundamental problems, anomalous findings & paradoxes? (and that's just in my own field!) Or, most importantly, who at very least glances at the work of those who do? certainly not fearful editors!
You argue well in your chosen domain, but if we need to advance understanding do you really believe that's that not really just a sideshow? ...Yes, I felt a bit disappointed, and worried. Can you convince me I shouldn't be?
But I have hope!! ..I hope you'll give your view (breaking stony silence) on large scale physical modelling of detection in QM, seeming to yield a classical solution (see also Declan Trail's essay for the code and plot).
Nicely written Sabine. I love your style and you met the scoring criteria well, but was it
truly fundamental? Hmmm.
Very best.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 05:56 GMT
Hi Peter,
Yes, the introduction repeats the standard argument. I'm setting the stage there, you got that right.
In case you mean to say that we shouldn't try to actually derive all of science from physics, I totally agree. It doesn't seem very practical. Of course theoretical physics is a "sideshow" in the daily news. The reason I work in the field is not because I think it's...
view entire post
Hi Peter,
Yes, the introduction repeats the standard argument. I'm setting the stage there, you got that right.
In case you mean to say that we shouldn't try to actually derive all of science from physics, I totally agree. It doesn't seem very practical. Of course theoretical physics is a "sideshow" in the daily news. The reason I work in the field is not because I think it's important to cure cancer, but that I believe it advances our understanding of the universe like no other discipline. But I am certainly glad that not everyone has the same interests as I ;) Best,
Sabine
view post as summary
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 06:00 GMT
Sorry, I phrased that badly when I wrote
"The reason I work in the field is not because I think it's important to cure cancer..."
I'd better have written
"The reason I work in the field is not because I think the foundations of physics are important to cure cancer..."
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 10:35 GMT
Sabine,
Yes. Knew what you meant. But you missed my question(s) (accidentally?); I think Physics IS important (I include my observational cosmology work, etc.) But are you really happy eschewing real 'advancement' to just shuffle past theories?
I escaped academia, earned more but do MORE research. Yet editors & arXiv increasingly don't like even logging my papers! Is that right when our big hopes to escape this theoretical wilderness (that's YOU Bee!) seem to have dismissed the need and given up! Not long ago ALL our eminent physicists insisted new approaches & breakthroughs were needed. Chatting with Milton Freeman recently almost NONE now came to mind. Have you now given up to?
I know there's a million weird ideas out there, but can you give advice for this scenario;; Say someone just beyond access to journals made a falsifiable theoretical discovery apparently unifying QM (a classical derivation) and Relativity, also resolving a tranche of other including astrophysical anomalous findings. When editors slam the door in fear without even looking.. WHO IS IT in the academic community that would deign to even look, and if correct, help develop it to publication.
Is there anybody left who might? That's an important question!
So is there still any sense of responsibility in academia to help advance mankinds understanding rather than just careers when only academics can publish papers in accredited journals?
Do you not agree physics really
could help with cures for cancer etc if we really try?
best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 11:18 GMT
You are being unfair to Sabine and physicists in general, Peter. The system is far from being perfect, and our knowledge is limited, but it is completely not true that physicists are accountants "shuffling last years books into order", "eschewing real 'advancement' to just shuffle past theories". We know very well what we know and what we don't know. I can understand your frustration, and why it...
view entire post
You are being unfair to Sabine and physicists in general, Peter. The system is far from being perfect, and our knowledge is limited, but it is completely not true that physicists are accountants "shuffling last years books into order", "eschewing real 'advancement' to just shuffle past theories". We know very well what we know and what we don't know. I can understand your frustration, and why it would resonate to other "outsiders", but it is just not true that the doors are locked for them.
I know because it happened to me. My first PhD advisor was very happy to have me, but he got angry when I showed him my papers, and he didn't even read them because I didn't work at his problems. I understand him, he wanted me to follow the "safe" path, but I didn't care, so I left and stayed without advisor for 2 years. Without any support, without mentioning the affiliation in some cases, I continued. I put my articles online, and got favorable emails from a few experts in the field, and invitations to some great conferences. I got my first job invitation at a great institute before my first paper was accepted, even if they thought that I was unaffiliated. With publications and the thesis written, I could find a new advisor and get my PhD. Before getting my PhD I already had 10 publications in peer reviewed ISI journals, single author, and without any support. This simply shows that the system is open to the outsiders, you can publish even without PhD. And none of my articles is in mainstream approaches, if you think that this is why they accepted them. I work at my own projects, even if this means more difficulties and less financial support. I am aware that only a few experts see me as more than a minor league player, but I play by my own rules. And I am not a unique case, many articles are published by people who left academia. The system may be imperfect, but if you have viable ideas, you work very hard to formulate them well, both mathematically and physically, and obtain relevant results, then the doors are open. I hope you'll take this as good news :)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 13:28 GMT
Cristi,
I know you're right, again. Nothing's impossible. A string of rejections from editors at first glance is wearing but I can improve quality and am tenacious. I recall one great advancement followed ~40 rejections.
My 'shuffling' comment was about Bee's essay specifically. I admire Bee's blog entries and approach but was very disappointed she seemed to have abandoned that incisive 'abandon' in this essay to descend into old embedded mire.
Yes, It's
"far from being perfect", but it could improve in the right direction with a little effort. I think those with established authority also have a heavy responsibility which most don't recognise. Maybe Bee feels she doesn't have such authority, but she quickly would with more effort to properly analyse and help promote replacement theories. (I recognise 'quickly' in physics is subject to relativistic adjustments dilating and quadrupling the normal passage of time)!!
I recognise the issue that there are hundreds of flawed theories out there so the easiest option is to study none!
Do argue or defend your position on advancement please Bee, I apologise if I just seemed to have suggested it's in a mud bath!
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 00:28 GMT
Sabine,
What is will supposed to be free of? Don't most people, willfully and consciously, use their powers of concentration, from prayer in church, to learning in school, to re-enforce, extend and strengthen their prior beliefs and assumptions?
Now if you were to argue our actions are pre-determined, by deterministic laws of nature, then you would be wrong. While effect is determined by cause, the input into any event is only calculated by its occurrence. Time is not a set dimension along which we deterministically travel from past to future, but change turning future to past. As in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.
Time is an effect, similar to temperature. We only naively equate it with space because our thought process functions as flashes of cognition, so we think of it as linear sequence.
Events have to occur, in order to be determined. The past is an effect of the present. As Alan Watts pointed out, the boat creates the wake. The wake doesn't steer the boat.
Time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.
Different clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. A faster clock will use energy quicker, like an animal with faster metabolism will age quicker than one with a slower rate.
report post as inappropriate
a l replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 10:47 GMT
"Time Really Passes, Science Can't Deny That" is a recent essay by Nicolas Gisin (a household name perhaps) published in 2017 and posted on the arxiv [1602.01497]. The title is somehow misleading as he mostly deals with free will. A good deal of ingenuity appears to have been invested in avoiding to mention "Time and Free Will". This is actually the English title of once a famous book by Henri Bergson, the philosopher who dared to contradict Einstein. Of course he is largely forgotten and now people are rediscovering his ideas by their own means.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 02:31 GMT
Hi Sabine I think you have written a strong, clearly written essay that is aligned with the programme of which the competition is a part. It's nice that, after further analysis of the problem, you end on an optimistic note rather than the opposite conclusion mid way.
There are a couple of places where I disagree with what is written.
1. "If a strongly emergent theory existed, it...
view entire post
Hi Sabine I think you have written a strong, clearly written essay that is aligned with the programme of which the competition is a part. It's nice that, after further analysis of the problem, you end on an optimistic note rather than the opposite conclusion mid way.
There are a couple of places where I disagree with what is written.
1. "If a strongly emergent theory existed, it would imply that “more is different” as Anderson put it [4]. Your behavior, then, would not just be a consequence of the motion of the elementary particles that you are made of. It would mean that believing in free will would be compatible with particle physics. It would mean that reductionism is wrong." The last sentence is not a logical consequence of the earlier statements. Reductionism is looking at what something is and from that how it functions. That is the limit of its inquiry. It does not provide information about how it came to be if that is not via self assembly. Disassembling a clock and working out the function of the mechanism is not a failure because it does not explain how the parts came to be manufactured and how they came to be assembled. We know for the latter occurrences machines or people are needed. Human behaviour is not solely a function of the individual but the environment, and others. External and larger than the executive functioning of the brain alone. Emergence is looking at the how does this come to be not the detail of what is it and how it functions. I like the example of a bird's egg shell. yes the porous structure of calcium carbonate explains what it is and how it can allow case exchange , while keeping contamination out. It does not explain how it comes to be which requires the functioning reproductive anatomy of a bird. Termite mounds and nests of the Edible-nest swiftlet are other good examples of mom self assembling structures. The existence and form of which can not be explained from their constituents alone.
Reductionism and emergence have different explanatory power related to different kinds of inquiry and can not be said to fail when they do not do the job of the other.
2. "The argument – which I have made myself many times – goes like this. We know stuff is made of smaller stuff. We know this simply because it describes what we see. It’s extremely well-established empirical knowledge and rather idiotic to deny. No one has managed to cut open a frog and not find atoms" S.H. No one has ever cut open a frog and found atoms unless this is a new meaning of found , where someone can be completely unaware of something and be said to have found it.The inside of the frog that is found is the same scale of resolution as the external surface of the frog that was seen. That the material aspect of the universe is packed inside itself not just at a singular scale or small range of resolution ( as our unaided eyes provide) is an important difference between products of signal processing and independently existing material things.
Kind regards Georgina
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 02:57 GMT
I should have said 'Reductionism is looking at what something is and from that how it functions. That is the limit of its inquiry. It does not provide information about how it came to be if that is not via self assembly or comes to be via influence of a cause or causes external to the system under consideration, (as for behaviour).'
Georgina
report post as inappropriate
ENRICO FERMI wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 07:45 GMT
It is strange for a paper to claim free will can or does exist without defining exactly what free will is. If free will does not need a formal definition because it is self-evident, then its existence must also be self-evident. But I propose that free will is best defined in the context of psychology and neurology rather than physics and mathematics. I will give a practical example to show what...
view entire post
It is strange for a paper to claim free will can or does exist without defining exactly what free will is. If free will does not need a formal definition because it is self-evident, then its existence must also be self-evident. But I propose that free will is best defined in the context of psychology and neurology rather than physics and mathematics. I will give a practical example to show what free will is as commonly understood by the general population.
A person killed a victim. Is it murder or homicide? Since the latter carries a less severe punishment, the defense lawyer will try to prove it is homicide. One way is to prove that the person is insane. This will require many psychiatric tests and records of past tests that show the same result. What do these tests mean? The person cannot exercise free will because of mental disability.
From this example I give an operational definition of free will - human actions borne out of conscious and rational mental processes. Physicists immediately see a problem here. Molecules in the human brain cannot distinguish between conscious vs. subconscious, rational vs. irrational mental processes. (What color is bitter? It’s a wrong question.) This is the futility of trying to explain free will in terms of elementary particles, reductionism and determinism. Despite this glaring contradiction, physicists nonetheless talk about free will without regard of how psychologists define it. It only proves that when physicists say free will, they must mean something else.
Physicists cannot explain how rational thoughts and consciousness can arise. This does not nullify the observations of rational thinking and consciousness by psychologists and neurologists. A chimp looking at the moon is perpetually puzzled what it is and how it came to be. Not knowing the answer to these deep questions, the chimp concluded the moon does not exist. How free will can arise in the human brain is a deep question. A not so deep question is why some physicists insist free will does not exist. My answer to the first is unknown. My answer to the second is chimp brain.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Maurice Carid wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 14:15 GMT
Dear Sabine,
1. Why is the argument against free will you sketch
in the abstract invalidated by strong emergence?
You just do not tell in the essay. This does not
make sense. Perhaps it would be best if you just
remove the remarks about free will (they appear anyway
only in the abstract and two very short sentence in the text),
and tell the reader what the essay is really about in the
abstract ;-).
2. Who else thought that "effective field theory is
a fool proof argument against strong emergence"?
You do not quote anybody... Is the essay in the
end characterized as:
"(only) I long believed in a mistaken argument
and here I tell you why I was wrong"?
sincerely
Maurice
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 08:14 GMT
Dear Maurice,
1) I have written elsewhere extensively about how free will isn't compatible with weak emergence - not in any sensible definition of the word "free will" - but there was no space in this essay to lay out the details.
2) Sean Carroll's book "The Big Picture" is a good starting point. Best,
Sabine
Maurice Carid replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 17:29 GMT
Hi Sabine,
1) You do not even give a reference to your earlier writings
in the essay! "No space for details" is no excuse: surely there
was space to briefly present the argument.
2) You did not quote Sean's book in the essay and I just checked: he does not
make the point. Thus my characterization of what you did in the essay
seems to be correct.
maurice
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear Sabine,
I consider your essay a piece of jewelry, both by elegance, and by having sharp arguments which cut like the diamond to the essence. You give crystal clear definitions of weak and strong emergence, and simple but clear and rigorous explanations and examples. You made the best arguments against strong emergence that I saw, yet this allows you to avoid the usual misconceptions and find a loophole. In addition, among the example you gave en passing, I should say some of them are really important and yet sometimes ignored. For example, in just a couple of words you said it well about the AdS/CFT correspondence, clearing some confusion in the literature, where too often people take it literally that the duality is a mathematical isomorphism, while being a sort of physical equivalence between some particular cases. Another part I liked was the double hierarchization of theories by weak and strong emergence, and the interplay between the two kinds of emergence that you exemplified. Also the argument from the Landau pole. So while I would like to help with some criticism, I don't have any, at least for the moment. I just have a question. You wrote "nature does not allow mathematical inconsistencies", and I strongly agree. Assuming that there is a mathematical theory which describes the physical universe exactly at all levels (which maybe we will find someday, maybe not, and doesn't have to allow exact derivation of everything, effective is enough) do you believe that this would forbid strong emergence, and in particular the possibility of free will? (for example I believe such a theory is compatible with strong emergence)
Congratulations for the essay and success in the contest!
Best wishes,
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Jochen Szangolies wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Sabine,
a very interesting essay. The connections between theories reminded me of Sebastian de Haro's contribution to this contest---I think his framework could have a valuable application to your argument.
But I do have a couple of questions, if I may. First, can we not simply 'add' theories? Think of classical Newtonian gravity, and electromagnetism. Both have the same domain...
view entire post
Dear Sabine,
a very interesting essay. The connections between theories reminded me of Sebastian de Haro's contribution to this contest---I think his framework could have a valuable application to your argument.
But I do have a couple of questions, if I may. First, can we not simply 'add' theories? Think of classical Newtonian gravity, and electromagnetism. Both have the same domain of applicability, but either could exist without the other, and they're not equivalent. So you could have a mass moving in a gravitational field, a charge moving in an electromagnetic field, and a massive charge moving in a combination of both fields. In the latter case, the predictions made using Newtonian gravitation would not suffice to calculate the object's motion, and similar with electromagnetism.
So it seems to me that to get an instance of 'strong' emergence, one would simply have to add a theory that postulates a 'charge' (in the general sense) which is linked to resolution, or size, or something like that; so the theory claimed fundamental no longer suffices to describe objects at a certain level, but no logical contradictions obtain---the fundamental theory simply isn't the complete description, just as Newtonian gravity isn't the complete description of the previous case.
An argument often made against such a case of strong emergence is related to Leibniz' 'principle of sufficient reason': there's no reason for additional charges such as the one I describe to suddenly emerge. But there's actually no difference to reductionism here: the fundamental facts that fix everything in a reductionist universe similarly lack further justification.
Of course, one could then turn the question around and ask what 'strong' emergence actually adds. And here, I'm afraid, there is no progress on the question of free will: whether my actions are determined by microscopic facts, or whether some macroscopic facts play into them, as well, doesn't change the deterministic nature of my actions. I would not be any more free if my behavior is determined by a law that cannot be smoothly extrapolated from a microscopic law---the question simply doesn't have any relevance to my freedom.
Indeed, the whole idea that it's physics that poses the greatest threat to free will is, in my opinion, already misguided. The problem is with the concept itself. As Schopenhauer has pointed out, "man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills". What he alludes to here is that there'd be an infinite regress in arguing that the will could, in some way, be self-determined: in order to be free in my action, the cause of my action---my will, my desire to act---must be free; if not, if I am forced to desire something, and hence, act accordingly, then my action obviously wasn't free. But then, likewise, the cause of my will must be free---or else, see above. So the problem with the idea of free will really is that all my behaviors are governed by my desires; but I can't freely choose my desires (without collapsing into infinite regress).
That said, I do think there is a sensible notion of free will that can be salvaged; but that would take us entirely too far afield.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Donald G Palmer wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 10:55 GMT
Thank you for a clear and incisive essay, Sabine
As a response to another post, you state that "In case you mean to say that we shouldn't try to actually derive all of science from physics, I totally agree. It doesn't seem very practical." This suggests that the weak emergence between theories of different resolutions you discuss does not provide practical knowledge, especially in terms of providing measurements and predictions at the lower resolution.
Considering your levels of resolution (a great image), what if we find that we really need the theories at each level of resolution - that they cannot be practically reduced to the 'most fundamental' level? If we are unable to practically reduce all lower resolution theories to the highest resolution theory, where is the fundamental character of this highest resolution theory? More importantly, why are the other theories not also 'practically fundamental'?
I think this is were the reductionist philosophy fails - on the practical applied level. And if it cannot break this practical level, what good is the theoretical reasoning about reducing all lower resolution levels to any higher one (is it then philosophy and not science)?
This situation, of the practical uselessness of attempting to define all levels of reality via the 'fundamental' reductionist level, could be a limitation of our current (mathematical) tools. This could be a limitation via mathematical theory (which you seem to introduce), but it could also be a limitation in the mathematical tools used to measure reality (eg. our inability to provide a single numeric value for a complex number as we are able for 'real' numbers). If the latter, then changing the limitations of the tools (one never eliminates such a limitation) would them impact any theories built upon those tools.
Thank you for your essay,
Don
report post as inappropriate
Janko Kokosar wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 11:38 GMT
Dear Sabine
You assumed that consciousness is a low resolution phenomenon, thus it causes only down causation. But there are the model connected with pansichism, One of them is my model:
quantum consciousness .
Do you accept any bet about existence of quantum consciousness? But, argumentation would be still better.
Yet another argument that seems different at first sight but is wrong for the same reason as the example with the chain is that entanglement realizes top-down causation [12]. The argument here is that entanglement is a non-local property of a system. Hence, if you have information only about a small part of a system, you have no way of knowing whether the system will begin to show novel effects due to entanglement if you look at the full system. Again, though, it is clearly possible to derive the behavior of the whole system if you have information about its entire microscopic constituents which, of course, includes entanglement between them.I do not understand this. “
if you have information only about a small part of a system,” Why it is necessary to have only information about a small part of a system?
But it is interesting that Stoica agrees with you. What Zeilinger or Brukner think?
But independently what you think about free-will, I like what you think about top-down and down-top causation. It is so simple, I hope that it is true.
Please visit the
My essay .
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 08:09 GMT
Dear Janko,
I don't bet. I think you misunderstood that sentence. It is summarizing the argument in the reference that I quote. Best,
Sabine
Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 21:33 GMT
Hello Sabine,
Thanks for the opportunity to read your mind.
Let us start with a few words about what we don’t know.
Insofar as ‘free will’ is simply the ability to make decisions in the context of multiple choices, we have to admit that free will exists, but it comes at the high price of uncertainty.
Concerning ‘strict laws’ we are moving towards a collective...
view entire post
Hello Sabine,
Thanks for the opportunity to read your mind.
Let us start with a few words about what we don’t know.
Insofar as ‘free will’ is simply the ability to make decisions in the context of multiple choices, we have to admit that free will exists, but it comes at the high price of uncertainty.
Concerning ‘strict laws’ we are moving towards a collective understanding that what we have called strict laws in science in the past are better represented as ‘principles’. Strict laws demand compliance whereas principles are more liberal in the sense that they accommodate deviations within limits. Nature accommodates deviations either side of its statistical norms which deviations conjure up extraordinary variety, which variety enables a few of many variables to persist in an environment undergoing constant change.
Your claim that ‘Large things are made of smaller things, and if you know what the small things do, you can tell what the large things do’ – requires re-thinking. There is an adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you put the parts of an aircraft together in their intended relations, you still have no idea what an aircraft can do! Reductionism only works well when it works well – i.e. to one’s advantage.
Picking up on your statement that ‘no one understands how gravity works’ rings a bell.
In 1916 Einstein declared gravity a misconception, an effect rather than a cause. While he elaborated to state that the cause was brought about by the uneven distribution of mass in the universe, his ‘cause’ is open to question as to whether the dominant constituent of the cosmos, vacuum, is the direct cause of what we call ‘gravity’.
In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum, the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum (unfilled void or space) abhors nature, and flows to fill its absence.
Regarding the question of ‘curved space’, if space is unlimited in its extent, how can it be ‘curved’? Where space describes a discrete volume, then yes, the space within a banana skin is curved.
On to your subject of the moment: ‘Emergence’. I hope that I am alone in your readership in saying that I don’t understand your concept of emergence. Perhaps my limited skills in mathematics accounts for my difficulties, but if this is so, reliance upon mathematical linguistics may be stretching the evaluation criterion stipulating that essays should be ‘non-specialist’. Suffice to say, I don’t know what I don’t know!
I think that we all, upon occasion, make mistaken assumptions that each question only has a single correct answer. This error often arises due to the temptation to reduce all issues to mathematics for resolution.
Circumstances are constantly changing, which changes enable other acceptable answers to surface. Truth is thus revealed as being conditional rather than absolute.
It is important for all specialists to communicate with the public in non-specialist languages because we need the support of the public to further advance each specialty.
Thanks again Sabine for the present of your presence of mind.
Gary.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 08:08 GMT
Dear Gary,
The very point of my essay is to explain why the claim that "Large things are made of smaller things, and if you know what the small things do, you can tell what the large things do" requires rethinking. Best,
Sabine
Member Paul Knott wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Sabine,
Fantastic essay – well-written, clear, entertaining, and I think genuinely profound! You do indeed put a strong case forward for strong emergence.
Before reading your essay, the only reasonable example I knew of a theory that might require strong emergence was that of consciousness: effective field theories cannot even in principle tell me how the collection of particles in my brain makes me, for example,
experience the colour red in the way that I do. This is of course no proof that strong emergence is playing a role, but it is certainly a case where weak emergence is far from providing the answer. I wonder if you have an opinion on this?
I will honour the tradition of shamelessly advertising one's own essay in
a comment. Mine is almost completely unrelated to yours, but you might enjoy it nonetheless! https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3091
Best of luck,
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 15:38 GMT
I don't take a reductionist view but I still have trouble accepting the argument for strong emergence. If I have some theory I can run a simulation, and given enough computer power I can observe the implications of the theory in the simulation. If I do the experiment and see something else emerge then either the theory is wrong or there is some other influence I did not account for in the simulation. If the theory has a non-deterimninstic element different things will happen but the statistical behaivior in many trials will be the same in a simulation as it is in the real world. I don't see any room for strong emergence.
As for free will, the answer depends on the exact definition of the terms in the question. If those are clearly given then people will only answer differently depending on whether or not they hold a pluralist belief for mind and matter or not.
report post as inappropriate
Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 17:01 GMT
Dear Sabine,
Because you are by far my favorite author on the curious state of current physics, and because I would love to have your comments on my essay, I’m a little at a loss how to respond to this beautifully-written piece. Though I don’t disagree with you at any point, what was in my mind throughout was your blog-post from a couple years ago on “The Unbearable Lightness of...
view entire post
Dear Sabine,
Because you are by far my favorite author on the curious state of current physics, and because I would love to have your comments on my essay, I’m a little at a loss how to respond to this beautifully-written piece. Though I don’t disagree with you at any point, what was in my mind throughout was your blog-post from a couple years ago on “The Unbearable Lightness of Philosophy.” Actually (as a philosopher) I’m very pleased that you take philosophical arguments seriously. But really – free will?
Surely the conscious decisions we make are the result of neurons firing in our brains, or more generally, the result of things going on beneath the level of our self-awareness. That seems like a very good thing to know about ourselves, if it makes us a little more humble. And if there were any meaningful issue about our choices being “free” – which I doubt – you’d think this is where it would arise.
But I can’t see why it makes any difference to anything whether the behavior of neurons is predictable from physical principles. It’s hard to see how it could be, if it’s not even possible to predict when an atom will emit a photon. But what does it matter whether or not what happens in my brain is computable?
I have no problem with reductionism – except for the “ism” part. That seems to imply that this is the only kind explanation science needs, which is obviously wrong. Take biology, for example. I see no reason to doubt that everything that happens in a living cell is done by the laws of physics. On the other hand, none of these very complex molecules and patterns of interaction would exist if it weren’t for the ability of cells to replicate themselves and so evolve. Nothing like this happens in physics or chemistry, so it’s clearly “emergent.” But that’s not because it’s independent of the laws of atomic physics. On the contrary, if those laws weren’t so precisely uniform and reliable, self-replication would be inconceivable.
So my question is, how does distinguishing between “weak” and “strong” emergence contribute to our understanding of situations like this? I wouldn’t call self-replication a “truly new fundamental law,” but it is a truly fundamental functionality, on which a whole new world of possibilities is founded. It’s completely new, and also completely dependent on lower-level functions.
In
my current essay I try to imagine the foundations of physics in a similar light, asking about the functionality of a universe that’s able to define, measure and communicate all its own information. It would mean a lot to me to know if the argument of my first three pages makes sense to you.
Conrad
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Sabine – I have to apologize, rather embarrassed, because I hadn’t realized that you’ve devoted quite a bit of time to this debate over free will. Having looked now at several of your posts and papers, I think I understand why you care about this issue – because many other people do, and they also feel the need to defend themselves against science. I agree that’s very...
view entire post
Dear Sabine – I have to apologize, rather embarrassed, because I hadn’t realized that you’ve devoted quite a bit of time to this debate over free will. Having looked now at several of your posts and papers, I think I understand why you care about this issue – because many other people do, and they also feel the need to defend themselves against science. I agree that’s very bad.
Still, this debate perpetuates several misconceptions about, for example, reduction and emergence. Karen Crowther has an excellent essay in this contest, and has another
paper on “decoupling” these concepts, which are often treated as mutually exclusive. But I question whether they’re really useful concepts at all, since probably every case in which one layer of natural order is built on another has unique features. A notion like “phase transition” makes sense – different cases can be usefully compared. What useful comparison can we make between the emergence of chemistry and the emergence of life, or of literature?
If “strong emergence” means that the emergent properties of large systems do not derive from the nature of lower-level systems, there’s no good reason to believe in it, and whether or not we can prove it’s false, there’s plenty of reason to assume it’s true. That doesn’t mean the behavior of a neural net has to be predictable, even in principle.
But the real question is – what could “free will” possibly mean, that’s “undermined” by its dependence on many, many layers of physical and biological systems, not to mention our own language and culture? Clearly I’m the one making choices about what I do, for the most part. Certainly these choices aren’t independent of my past, or of the situation in the world around me. Some of these dependencies I’m aware of, others not. Does that mean I’m
not the one who’s choosing? What does “I” mean, in that case? If it turned out that my consciousness runs on spirit-magic instead of neurons, would that make it more “free”?
So my sense is that the prevalence of a “free will” debate reveals something unsound in our collective mental state, but doesn’t help cure it. If only philosophy – which was once such a grand intellectual adventure – could find something helpful to do in the modern world!
May I humbly thank you for your insightful contributions to every other topic you pick up, in your blog.
Conrad
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 15:17 GMT
Sorry, I meant to say -- whether or not we can prove strong emergence is false, there’s plenty of reason to assume it is.
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Sabine,
I looked for your paper because I read and enjoy your backreaction blog, so I felt your astute science writing would be insightful.
Although you acknowledge that modern theoretical physics "is almost certainly incomplete" you avoid venturing into "what" it is that is more fundamental than the well-known 25 fundamental SM particles.
The discussion of how...
view entire post
Dear Sabine,
I looked for your paper because I read and enjoy your backreaction blog, so I felt your astute science writing would be insightful.
Although you acknowledge that modern theoretical physics "is almost certainly incomplete" you avoid venturing into "what" it is that is more fundamental than the well-known 25 fundamental SM particles.
The discussion of how "emergence" is defined in this context was enlightening, and the examples in condensed matter 'verrry interesting (but not fundamental)'.
Here I think that the examples of strong emergence should consider cosmology, i.e. General Relativity. This is a relevant issue for insight into the research topic. I am certain that causality is a fundamental property of particles, as Seiberg has found. So I began my essay by considering the well-founded causal formulation of particles as given by the No-Boundary Wave Function.
I also discussed the fundamental requirements to establish consistency between GR and (causal) particle theory. But in your essay you suggest (without evidence) that non-renormalizable theories are "sick". But the only reason that renormalization is used is that L'Hopital's Rule doesn't work- the mathematical singularity assumed forces an infinity/infinity situation. Of course, the singularity also compels one to arbitrarily assign quanta and scalar metrics (mass and energy).
In short, the current theory violates mathematical 'laws' which there is thus strong motivation to correct... a very good starting 'point' is to not assume a particles representation geometry is a point.
It turns out that all of these criteria can be met at once, but yes, you have to let go of renormalization. The traditional approaches that keep it and seek unification via new particles just don't work out.
That said I invite you to read and comment on my essay: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092 and hope that its insights spark an interest.
Best,
Wayne Lundberg
p.s. as a footnote, I am sure that a person's perception of free will is best discussed in the context of particle theory by considering the scale of space-time averaging. Clearly weak-scale particle theory has little bearing since the quantum algebraic states average out at micro-condensed matter scales, long before a human scale. Consider again, if you will, to be fair, just how much free will really means when you use a space-time average of say, 2 Earth orbital diameters and 10000 years. That yields a rather different result, no?
The analogy to particle theory works pretty well when you compare a human's decision tree at, say, an intersection. Compare that to a particle interaction's "channels".
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 20:17 GMT
Dear Sabine,
This is a well-written essay that uses examples and a sense of humor to let the reader “in”.
First a small technical point, when you say “energy” you really mean “energy density”. The person who says, “go” and the person who pushes the bottom use more energy than the collision between two protons at CERN, but energy density is far higher with the protons.
Now the major problems: Radioactive decay is independent of atomic interactions (except for cases like electron capture). There is a disconnect between the first two energy density or resolution levels, namely: nuclear and atomic. There is a difference between sound, wind and thermal vibrations, which cannot be seen at the atomic scale, collisions due to sound and thermal vibrations would be the same without information of a collective mode. Any sound or electromagnetic wave that is orders of magnitude larger wavelength than the atomic scale would have the same problem. The conservation of linear and angular momentum seen in fluids would have a similar problem. At the atomic level all is reversible, a hydrogen atom at the ground state returns to a hydrogen atom in the ground state with no record of the thermal dynamic state of the collective.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schmitz
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:57 GMT
Hi Dr Sabine Hossenfelder
Wonderful start... "As everyone knows, physicists have proved that free will doesn't exist. That's because we are made of tiny particles which follow strict laws, and human behavior is really just a consequence of these particles' laws. ..... nice flow and good logic.... Best wishes to your essay
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is...
view entire post
Hi Dr Sabine Hossenfelder
Wonderful start... "As everyone knows, physicists have proved that free will doesn't exist. That's because we are made of tiny particles which follow strict laws, and human behavior is really just a consequence of these particles' laws. ..... nice flow and good logic.... Best wishes to your essay
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-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 GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
post approved
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear Sabine Hossenfelder
Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.
My essay is titled
“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.
Thank you & kind regards
Steven Andresen
post approved
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 14:35 GMT
Dear Sabine Hossenfelder,
i am glad and amused that you came to the conclusion that it mustn’t be the case that the behaviour of particles completely reigns over your thoughts.
It is funny what people are able to believe when extrapolating some knowledge about nature. And your introductory sentence from your abstract is funny too, in my humble opinion.
Reminds me of a kind of self-conversation like this
“Once I thought my thoughts about particle physics were completely determined by particle physics… but then I realized that my toughts about mathematics were completely determined by mathematics, because I realized that mathematics and particle physics are one and the same”.
“So, now I know that my toughts about mathematics are completely determined by particle physics and vice versa, since I realized that my toughts about rules are completely determined by rules.. but then I realized that my thoughts about thoughts are completely determined by my toughts … and now I conclude that particle physics is completely determined by my thoughts and that solipsism is true.”
report post as inappropriate
Heinrich Päs wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 18:57 GMT
Hi Sabine,
very interesting essay.
I have two comments though:
First I disagree that reductionism means that "Large things are made of smaller things", I would argue that more fundamental things can actually be bigger than less fundamental things, see my essay.
More important, though, your essay got me started to rethink what really is meant by „strong emergence“. So while I initially agreed with your definition of strong emergence meaning physical laws that can not be derived from a more fundamental theory I‘m now wondering how this corresponds to the extreme case of strong emergence I‘m dismissing in my own essay, namely that the emergent theory could allow for phenomena that are strictly forbidden in the more fundamental theory, as, for example, the occurence of a biological organism being able to run faster than the speed of light. Could such a case of strong emergence be justified by the example you are providing? Am I misunderstanding „strong emergence“? Are there different kinds of strong emergence? Or is your example actually a subtle case of weak emergence? One may argue for this conclusion by objecting that your argumentation is purely mathematical, for example there might exist a physically (albeit not mathematically) equivalent theory which would allow for the continuation from higher to lower resolution missing in the original model.
Best regards! Heinrich
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 05:35 GMT
Hi Heinrich,
That's an interesting question, whether a strongly emergent system could violate the speed of light limit. At first, I see no reason why it should not be so, but I will have to think about this more. I'll have a look at your essay! Best,
Sabine
Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 02:58 GMT
quote
Effective field theories work with quantum field theories, that is the type of theory that we
presently use to describe nature at the highest resolution probed so far. The key equations of the
framework (the “renormalization group equations”) connect a theory at high resolution with a
theory at low resolution. That is, the theory at low resolution is always weakly emergent. It can
be derived – at least in principle – from the theory at high resolution.
In practice the derivation of the low-resolution theory can only be done for simple systems,
but from a philosophical standpoint this isn’t relevant. Relevant is merely that physicists do
have equations that define the theory on low resolution from the theory at high resolution.
Effective field theories can fail [9] in the sense of methods becoming inapplicable, and there
are certain theorems that can fail (such as the decoupling of scales), and there are some approximations
that might become invalid (such as weak coupling), and so on. These are practical
problems for sure. But in principle, none of this matters. Because even if we don’t know how
to do a single calculation, the theory is still there. It doesn’t go away
end of quote
Please describe how you would apply these criteria to the early universe, i.e. the pre Planckian to Plackian regime
I did an essay due to these considerations, too
You can review it, and I welcome your comments. I put it in December 21st
thanks for your essay. it was a good read
Andrew
report post as inappropriate
Member Ken Wharton wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 03:56 GMT
Hi Sabine,
Nice essay! I'm a bit skeptical that anything we tend to call "free will" has anything to do with any of this, but you still make many interesting points about strong emergence and reductionism. (For a nice modern take on Free Will, I highly recommend Jenann Ismael's new book, "How Physics Makes us Free". )
Two questions for you:
1) The only vague overlap between...
view entire post
Hi Sabine,
Nice essay! I'm a bit skeptical that anything we tend to call "free will" has anything to do with any of this, but you still make many interesting points about strong emergence and reductionism. (For a nice modern take on Free Will, I highly recommend Jenann Ismael's new book, "How Physics Makes us Free". )
Two questions for you:
1) The only vague overlap between our essays is the paragraph where you argue that boundary constraints aren't a counter-example, because in the case of a conducting plate you can replace the boundary constraint with the microscopic details of the plate. But you seemed to imply that the same argument would go through for *cosmological* boundaries. To me, this seems like a very different issue. It's not at all clear that one could talk about the microscopic details of the cosmological boundary in the same way. What would you say to a claim that the cosmological boundary is both fundamental and an example of top-down causation?
2) You finesse the question about the "size" of a quantum system by talking about center of mass energies, which I suppose is fine from an operational perspective. But near the end, when you try to dispute that entanglement is an example of top-down causation, you imply that there is such a thing as the "microscopic constituents" of two entangled particles. What do you have in mind here? We've recently had a conversation about this, and how there's often no way to come up with a spacetime representation of the pieces of an entangled state, so there's really no way to assess whether it's "microscopic" or not, living in a higher dimensional configuration space as it does. For example, for a two-qubit state, there are additional parameters (such as the "concurrence", a measure of entanglement) that don't seem to live anywhere at all, or have any size associated with them. So you might need to sharpen up this argument, using your operational language from before, if you don't want to have to defend and define the two "microscopic constituents" of an entangled state. (Or else help me figure out what those constituents might actually be! :-)
Cheers! -Ken
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Sabine Hossenfelder replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 05:31 GMT
(I accidentally posted my reply as a separate post, see below.)
Author Sabine Hossenfelder wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 05:30 GMT
Hi Ken,
1) What do you mean by cosmological boundary? Do you mean the cosmological horizon? That's an observer-dependent notion. Do you mean a non-trivial topology? That's encoded in the combination of all (!) local maps.
2) Doesn't matter if you do that in space-time or configuration space as long as you have a notion of resolution assigned to it. The point is merely to say that of course if you don't know how the parts of a system are entangled, you don't have full information, but that's hardly surprising.
Best,
Sabine
Member Ken Wharton replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 19:20 GMT
For 1), I meant something like a constraint at the Big Bang, but you'll probably have to slog through my essay to really understand what I'm getting at.
For 2), I don't see how configuration space helps you figure out what the "parts" even are. If there's no basis in which the entangled state separates out into parts, then I don't see how one can talk about parts at all, let alone assign a resolution to them. There is simply no standard answer to the question "how are the parts are entangled?" that doesn't simply list the entire nonlocal entangled state. It gets worse after 2 particles; in principle, if you take QM seriously, there are no "parts" whatsoever -- just a giant entangled structure, and that way lies Many Worlds. Really, one could make the case that GR talks about "smaller structures" than QM and QFT, because GR has a description that separates out into small parts, while QM and QFT don't.
Cheers! -Ken
report post as inappropriate
Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT
I have a query that concerns randomness and order in Nature. We find lot of logic in the design of universe we happen to belong. How come that all physical processes are governed by randomness rather than any order when one works the probabilty of occurence of the event in our sensors. We tried an experimnet where we mixed in smaller and smaller proportions of regular or ordered events to the normal random events. Our analysis showed that even when moxed regular pulses to a rather miniscular level, chi square test clearly indicated that we have done something not natural or purely random in nature. All this goes to show that we can not affect the Nature and its processes that we try to understand and explain using Physics or sciences in general. Also, i worry if the so-called constants we have designated like strenghts of four force fields/ velocity of light, etc.have changed in magnitude ever since the creation of the Universe billions of years back. Can we design an experiment where we look for an event in the far receeded universe and see if it follows a variation in the value of a physical constant?
report post as inappropriate
Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 13:34 GMT
May i make a request you and your friends on this site, to kindly visit our essay in the contest and critically examine our contention regarding the role of Consciousness in sciences! Can one talk about human consciousness as well as consciousness of the Universe itself too?
report post as inappropriate
William C. McHarris wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 21:17 GMT
Dear Sabine,
I thoroughly enjoyed your eloquent essay and agree with much of it. I also look forward to getting and studying your book when it comes out this summer. I wrote a fairly extensive reply to your comments on my essay, arguing that nonlinear dynamics, while in principle not incompatible with reductionism, for all practical purposes obviates it as a fundamental tool. My reply is too lengthy (and not all that relevant) for inclusion here, but you might like to read it.
Again, thanks for your comments and for a very thought-provoking essay.
Best,
Bill
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 01:00 GMT
Sabine,
I like your style. Your approach is clear and objective, showing what I consider real modesty about your approach, a healthy attitude that recognizes the need for objectivity in science. Your self-mocking statement concerning free will sets a playful tone that keeps readers interested to the end. Certainly we need to admit the failings of current theory, the inconsistency of dark matter, for example, and your recognition that fundamental depends on current knowledge something I mention about discoveries leading to evolution of that which we consider fundamental. My definition of fundamental is more general, that which is necessary for existence, yours applies to physical theories. And right away you recognize there are other approaches. You use QCD as an underpinning theory; I use ToE, recognizing tools and the coming together of forces to uncover the fundamental – LIGO thinking sensitivities can be enhanced to record the BB and LHC for less than a second after the BB. Hope you can check out my essay, Sabine.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
A thought provoking essay, Sabine.
On the issue of free will, I'm reminded that Quine said, "To be is to be the value of a (bound) variable." So I guess Hamlet was right about that fundamental question. :-)
Highest marks.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Sabine
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...
view entire post
Dear Sabine
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 21:37 GMT
Hi Sabine,
I enjoyed your essay and the dialogs that followed. As per:
"First I disagree that reductionism means that "Large things are made of smaller things", I would argue that more fundamental things can actually be bigger than less fundamental things, see my essay."
You may find my entry interesting in terms of your comment. Do take a look. Also see Enrico Prati's entry on deep learning.
So many essays, so little time...glad I got to yours,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
peter cameron wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:21 GMT
Hi Sabine,
Many thanks for the time and thought you put into your blog. More than a few jewels have come to light in my eyes from there.
Like that you number your essay. This is something several of the imo 'better' authors are doing in this forum, very helpful in the discussion threads.
1. Reductionism Works - really? how does emergence fit into reductionism?
2. What...
view entire post
Hi Sabine,
Many thanks for the time and thought you put into your blog. More than a few jewels have come to light in my eyes from there.
Like that you number your essay. This is something several of the imo 'better' authors are doing in this forum, very helpful in the discussion threads.
1. Reductionism Works - really? how does emergence fit into reductionism?
2. What is Fundamental? - happy to see we (Michaele and I) define fundamental in what appears to be the same way as you, as that which cannot be taken to be emergent. As far as i know we and you are the only authors to do so. Do you know of any others? You elaborate on this with four points and some discussion, all pretty much well taken. No point to "...quibble about the use of words" here.
3. Weak vs Strong Emergence - The geometric wavefunction interaction (GWI) model we are working with appears to be fundamental without qualifier. It takes the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction and wavefunction interactions to be fundamental, and the lump-of-energy that emerges from wavefunction collapse, the amplitude, to be ummm... emergent.
GWI model is very simple. The vacuum wavefunction is taken to be comprised of fundamental geometric objects of the orientable eight component Pauli algebra - one scalar, three vectors, three bivector pseudovectors, and one trivector pseudoscalar. Point, line, plane, and volume elements of 3D space.
Five fundamental constants - speed of light, permittivity of space, electric charge quantum, Planck's constant, and electron mass (to define scale of space at the Compton wavelength) - are input by hand, needed to assign topologically appropriate quantized electric and magnetic fields to the eight wavefunction elements. There are no adjustable parameters.
Interactions are modeled by grade/dimension-changing geometric products of Clifford algebra, generate a 4D Dirac algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime, the particle physicist's S-matrix. Time (relative phase) emerges from the interactions.
As far as we know, such a model is not emergent from any existing theory, as it requires synthesis of the geometric wavefunction model with quantized impedance networks. Not easy to find that in the literature (except in vixra, bless Phil Gibbs), in folk's blogs,... radically new ideas, the paradigm shifters, are heavily filtered. Orthodoxy is a very stable system.
4. Strong Emergence Doesn't Work - Here we arrive where the essay has been heading for a while, at effective field theories. All well and good. But also well and good to keep in mind that the GWI approach is naturally finite, confined, and gauge invariant. Applies from IR boundary to UV Planck length, and beyond to the singularity. With that gonna jump to
5. Top Down Causation Doesn't Help - Agreed, with the caveat that in GWI approach the problem needing help does not exist.
6. The Loophole - No loophole in an electromagnetic model that is naturally finite, confined, and gauge invariant, a model that is 'effective' at all length/energy scales. And only one coupling constant.
Agree that the ball is back in court of physicists.
Hope you take a look, get some sense of what we're doing. Several of our fellow contributors have picked up on it.
Best regards,
Pete
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Luis F Patino wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:28 GMT
Hi Sabine,
Thanks for letting me believe in free will!
Seriously, I never doubted it — just like I did doubt strong emergence. Thanks for poking a hole into it — it has been overused to say the least, ignoring that forests need to be made of trees to really be forests.
Ironically I did write exactly the type of essay you explicitly avoided: an essay directly answering this contest's question "what is fundamental?" Boring, maybe, but necessary, I think. It's super short, though, so it may not bore you too much to read it!
Best,
Luis Felipe Patino Cuadrado
report post as inappropriate
Scott S Gordon wrote on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 04:19 GMT
Hi Sabine,
Your essay shows that you know where the problems are, but just like in the Star Trek movies, you're like Khan trying to kill Kirk... You keep missing the mark.
You say that reductionism worked in the past (and it did) but it has not worked recently - that is absolutely correct but the question is WHY has reductionism come to a screeching halt in advancing physics? The...
view entire post
Hi Sabine,
Your essay shows that you know where the problems are, but just like in the Star Trek movies, you're like Khan trying to kill Kirk... You keep missing the mark.
You say that reductionism worked in the past (and it did) but it has not worked recently - that is absolutely correct but the question is WHY has reductionism come to a screeching halt in advancing physics? The reason is because the scientific method is no longer useful in finding anything more fundamental. It is not possible because to do so would break the laws of physics (specifically the law of conservation of energy) to find the primordial building block entity that created everything. So smashing particles will not be fruitful.
https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New
_Math_
The other way the scientific method is used to advance theory is to derive a new theory from the already known base knowledge (advancing current math) and then prove it through experimentation. That cannot work to find "something" more fundamental because the moment you write a known mathematical equation, you are already passed the point of finding anything more fundamental in physics. Our math contains parameters such as distance, time dimensions, direction, charge...etc... These are all taken for granted - a fundamental theory must account for how each of these parameter came into existence.
In addition deriving "new math" from current math cannot work because all our current theories and math pertain to only 5% of the energy in the universe... While experiments suggest there is much more energy in our universe, there is NO mathematical representation of that energy nor can a mathematical representation of this energy be derived from our current math that does not include it.
Please consider reading my essay for this contest and these two papers also...
https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New
_Math_
https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..
._Not_So_Hidden_After_All
All the best to you as you seek knowledge and reality...
The secret lies with the hierarchy of energy... I'll be waiting for when it is finally realized.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 14, 2018 @ 04:03 GMT
These kind of essays are very useful because the expose the flaws of spacetime in a manner that mainstream science accepts. As usual, the author uses words that require further definition like naturalness and weak versus strong emergence.
Invoking new words to describe very old notions is a classic way to avoid addressing key notions like free will. Whenever there is trouble, simple invoke the notion of Landau poles and that will ease the pain of conflict. Does this make any sense at all?
"The argument that effective field theory proves reductionism even though no one is able to at least derive the properties of an atomic nucleus from QCD undeniably has an air of physicists’ hubris to it."
The author is very smart and makes many good points...the points made in this essay are not really very good...
report post as inappropriate
Don C Foster wrote on Jul. 6, 2018 @ 04:26 GMT
"I herewith grant you permission to believe in free will again"
I am enormously relieved. Perhaps a quarter-page announcement in a major news paper is called for.
However, I remain somewhat anxious at the length and complexity of the argument required to reach this conclusion. It's like having charges dropped on a technicality and not knowing if they will be revisited.
In any case, good read and congratulations.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.