If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
peter jackson: on 3/6/21 at 22:05pm UTC, wrote I agree with Jason. Natures processes are simple. 'Physics' is complex...
Jason Wolfe: on 8/22/20 at 4:08am UTC, wrote One of the problems with physics is that you have made it unnecessarily...
Jason Wolfe: on 8/17/20 at 9:27am UTC, wrote The physics community went out of its way to insist that UFO's don't exist...
Jason Wolfe: on 7/19/20 at 2:51am UTC, wrote I'm really surprised that nobody in the physics community has wondered if...
Jason Wolfe: on 7/8/20 at 17:41pm UTC, wrote I think an event happens at a point, and the causal consequences travel...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/29/19 at 8:37am UTC, wrote The reality about how spacetime and gravity works is much more interesting...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/20/19 at 21:02pm UTC, wrote Most of reality is invisible.
Jason Wolfe: on 12/20/19 at 8:45am UTC, wrote I always thought that metaphysics was a much more reasonable source for the...
peter jackson: on 3/6/21 at 22:05pm UTC, wrote I agree with Jason. Natures processes are simple. 'Physics' is complex...
Jason Wolfe: on 8/22/20 at 4:08am UTC, wrote One of the problems with physics is that you have made it unnecessarily...
Jason Wolfe: on 8/17/20 at 9:27am UTC, wrote The physics community went out of its way to insist that UFO's don't exist...
Jason Wolfe: on 7/19/20 at 2:51am UTC, wrote I'm really surprised that nobody in the physics community has wondered if...
Jason Wolfe: on 7/8/20 at 17:41pm UTC, wrote I think an event happens at a point, and the causal consequences travel...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/29/19 at 8:37am UTC, wrote The reality about how spacetime and gravity works is much more interesting...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/20/19 at 21:02pm UTC, wrote Most of reality is invisible.
Jason Wolfe: on 12/20/19 at 8:45am UTC, wrote I always thought that metaphysics was a much more reasonable source for the...
FQXi FORUM
August 3, 2021
Despite what physicists might say, the actual physics’ view is that the universe is like a perfect machine that is fuelled by number change: i.e. the equations of physics would indicate that an initial number change is the fuel that perfectly drives the universe forever afterwards. In this view, quantum mechanics might be seen, by some, as an anomaly that will be brought into line just as soon as the right equations are found.
The physics’ view is that initial number change is the perfect fuel that runs the universe ever after, and no number-change (i.e. fuel) top-ups are ever required. But what if top-ups are required in the form of quantum jumps of number? It seems more likely that the number jumps of quantum mechanics are the essential sources of change in the universe [1].
But what is causing quantum number jumps? Seemingly the only candidate is matter itself. So instead of the view of physicists and philosophers, including physicists Anthony Aguirre [2], Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli [3], of a numb, dumb matter that is ruled by laws, and where genuine free will [4] is an impossible anomaly, we come to the view that matter itself has the free will to “jump the numbers”, i.e. matter itself is driving change in the universe.
report post as inappropriate
The physics’ view is that initial number change is the perfect fuel that runs the universe ever after, and no number-change (i.e. fuel) top-ups are ever required. But what if top-ups are required in the form of quantum jumps of number? It seems more likely that the number jumps of quantum mechanics are the essential sources of change in the universe [1].
But what is causing quantum number jumps? Seemingly the only candidate is matter itself. So instead of the view of physicists and philosophers, including physicists Anthony Aguirre [2], Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli [3], of a numb, dumb matter that is ruled by laws, and where genuine free will [4] is an impossible anomaly, we come to the view that matter itself has the free will to “jump the numbers”, i.e. matter itself is driving change in the universe.
The above post was from me, Lorraine Ford.
Above post continued:
1. Note that time, energy, mass, and position etc, are in effect merely categories that can be represented by numbers; time, energy, mass, and position can’t themselves cause number change: a lot of people get confused by this issue. Similarly, law of nature relationships are merely relationships: they can’t cause number change.
2. Cosmological Koans, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3261
3. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236
4. Free will: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free_will (Oxford dictionary)
report post as inappropriate
Above post continued:
1. Note that time, energy, mass, and position etc, are in effect merely categories that can be represented by numbers; time, energy, mass, and position can’t themselves cause number change: a lot of people get confused by this issue. Similarly, law of nature relationships are merely relationships: they can’t cause number change.
2. Cosmological Koans, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3261
3. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236
4. Free will: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free_will (Oxford dictionary)
Hi Loraine,
I think free will is one of those paradoxes. You can either have free will, or you can control the consequences of your actions. You can't have both. As an example, you can commit the crime that would satisfy your desires, or you can control the consequences of your actions by controlling yourself, which feels like lack of freedom or lack of free will.
Jason
report post as inappropriate
I think free will is one of those paradoxes. You can either have free will, or you can control the consequences of your actions. You can't have both. As an example, you can commit the crime that would satisfy your desires, or you can control the consequences of your actions by controlling yourself, which feels like lack of freedom or lack of free will.
Jason
My view is that physicists are making this idea of time way harder than it needs to be. Specifically, my comments are:
1. I may not be understanding this correctly, but do physicists think that the equations of physics work fine when time runs backward and forward because they can put negative numbers in their equations and still get some result? To me, it seems like just because a person...
view entire post
1. I may not be understanding this correctly, but do physicists think that the equations of physics work fine when time runs backward and forward because they can put negative numbers in their equations and still get some result? To me, it seems like just because a person...
view entire post
I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that Sean Carroll prefers as a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.
To illustrate the problem, let's do a gedankenexperiment:
Suppose that tomorrow i will go to the quantum laboratory and make a superposition experiment with two distinct possible outcomes. No matter what measurement outcome i will see tomorrow, my "clone" will the the complementary outcome.
My question now is: does this clone already exist today? If yes, in what sense does it exist already today?
If not, i must take the usual narrative of a branching universe seriously (for the sake of the argument) and infere that a whole universe is generated at the moment the wave function collapses.
The puzzle now is twofould, namely who was the original person in the lab and who is the clone. If i am the clone then i merely have a false memory about my past - i did not live that past but the original did live it. The clone therefore lives in a virtual reality equal to a boltzmann brain that believes its full blown memory about the past indicates that it lived it in the past.
If an infinitude of "original me's" has lived my life from birth to tomorrow (when i go into the lab and perform my experiment) and after the experiment one of those "original me's" is differentiated from me (by seeing the complementary measurement result), I have to ask in what sense it was *not" me before the measurement outcome took place. Are there an infinitude of identical universes stacked upon each other at every point in time? And last but not least - does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?
I would be thankful for some enlightening answers.
report post as inappropriate
To illustrate the problem, let's do a gedankenexperiment:
Suppose that tomorrow i will go to the quantum laboratory and make a superposition experiment with two distinct possible outcomes. No matter what measurement outcome i will see tomorrow, my "clone" will the the complementary outcome.
My question now is: does this clone already exist today? If yes, in what sense does it exist already today?
If not, i must take the usual narrative of a branching universe seriously (for the sake of the argument) and infere that a whole universe is generated at the moment the wave function collapses.
The puzzle now is twofould, namely who was the original person in the lab and who is the clone. If i am the clone then i merely have a false memory about my past - i did not live that past but the original did live it. The clone therefore lives in a virtual reality equal to a boltzmann brain that believes its full blown memory about the past indicates that it lived it in the past.
If an infinitude of "original me's" has lived my life from birth to tomorrow (when i go into the lab and perform my experiment) and after the experiment one of those "original me's" is differentiated from me (by seeing the complementary measurement result), I have to ask in what sense it was *not" me before the measurement outcome took place. Are there an infinitude of identical universes stacked upon each other at every point in time? And last but not least - does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?
I would be thankful for some enlightening answers.
"does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?"
No. See my comments here
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
No. See my comments here
Rob McEachern
Robert,
You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that *Suggests There’s No Such Thing As Objective Reality*”.
Academia and Quora Digest are bombarding me with offers that are also not welcome to me.
Well, I read the paper "‘Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind’".
However, should I also read "The influence of Spinoza’s concept of infinity on Cantor’s set theory", Achtner's "Perspectives on Infinity from History", "Spinoza's Metaphysics of Substancet", WITTGENSTEIN AND THE LABYRINTH OF ‘ACTUAL INFINITY’: THE CRITIQUE OF TRANSFINITE SET THEORY,"A Substance Consisting of an Infinity of Attributes: Spinoza on the Infinity of Attributes", a related Descartes, René paper "A Mathematical Interpretation of Spinoza's Ethics: Short preliminary remarks", "Perspectives - The Nature Of The Definiteness Of The Set-Theoretical Universe", "On Some Philosophical Aspects of the Background to Georg Cantor’s theory of sets", "Review of Pauline Phemister's Leibniz and the Natural World", "Leibnizian Continuity", "Monads Facing the Labyrinth of the Continuum", etc.?
No, having thoroughly studied what I see as irrelevant ideas of monism, I don't need Wittgenstein as to feel sympathy with Georg Cantor who might have understood being wrong with his AC and therefore ended up in a mad house.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that *Suggests There’s No Such Thing As Objective Reality*”.
Academia and Quora Digest are bombarding me with offers that are also not welcome to me.
Well, I read the paper "‘Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind’".
However, should I also read "The influence of Spinoza’s concept of infinity on Cantor’s set theory", Achtner's "Perspectives on Infinity from History", "Spinoza's Metaphysics of Substancet", WITTGENSTEIN AND THE LABYRINTH OF ‘ACTUAL INFINITY’: THE CRITIQUE OF TRANSFINITE SET THEORY,"A Substance Consisting of an Infinity of Attributes: Spinoza on the Infinity of Attributes", a related Descartes, René paper "A Mathematical Interpretation of Spinoza's Ethics: Short preliminary remarks", "Perspectives - The Nature Of The Definiteness Of The Set-Theoretical Universe", "On Some Philosophical Aspects of the Background to Georg Cantor’s theory of sets", "Review of Pauline Phemister's Leibniz and the Natural World", "Leibnizian Continuity", "Monads Facing the Labyrinth of the Continuum", etc.?
No, having thoroughly studied what I see as irrelevant ideas of monism, I don't need Wittgenstein as to feel sympathy with Georg Cantor who might have understood being wrong with his AC and therefore ended up in a mad house.
Eckard Blumschein
Eckard,
"You referred to..."
I was referring only to my final comments (in my browser, my link goes directly to my final comments, rather than the top of the web-page) in which I stated “the Fourier analysis will simply and automatically change the model-of-reality it creates, to perfectly match the ever changing observations” and the light that statement may shed on the correct interpretation of Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM or the existence of an actual Multiverse.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
"You referred to..."
I was referring only to my final comments (in my browser, my link goes directly to my final comments, rather than the top of the web-page) in which I stated “the Fourier analysis will simply and automatically change the model-of-reality it creates, to perfectly match the ever changing observations” and the light that statement may shed on the correct interpretation of Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM or the existence of an actual Multiverse.
Rob McEachern
"it gave him a way to define "meaningful information"—and that even slipperier idea, "meaning" itself."
But his definitions leave something to be desired. Here are some better ones
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
But his definitions leave something to be desired. Here are some better ones
Rob McEachern
These interviews of Carroll and Rovelli are both quite interesting since they show two very smart people with many related but very different narratives about the nature of reality. Narratives with measurement are what guide science and without measurements, there really is no role for science. However, narratives without measurement are what guide philosophy and there are philosophy is a perpetual discourse among many very smart people about the nature of physical reality.
“Every philosopher believes they are correct in disagreeing with every other philosopher and so only one philosopher could ever actually be correct.” Paul Skokowski.
Neither Carroll nor Rovelli acknowledge the unknowable precursors that result from quantum phase correlation and superposition, but both accept the notion that the universe changes and that outcomes all have precursors, i.e., cause and effect. However, they do not discuss the two very different kinds of changes that make up things that happen: First there is the very slow change of the universe due to gravity; Second, there are the very fast changes of atoms due to charge.
Black holes are endpoints of time and space, but black holes are still subject to the slow changes of universe matter and action. In mattertime, the universe pulse destiny is a single black hole and that destiny births the next antiverse/universe pulse. An antiverse expansion is the first half pulse that grows with antimatter precursors then a universe matter pulse decay is the
second half pulse.
report post as inappropriate
“Every philosopher believes they are correct in disagreeing with every other philosopher and so only one philosopher could ever actually be correct.” Paul Skokowski.
Neither Carroll nor Rovelli acknowledge the unknowable precursors that result from quantum phase correlation and superposition, but both accept the notion that the universe changes and that outcomes all have precursors, i.e., cause and effect. However, they do not discuss the two very different kinds of changes that make up things that happen: First there is the very slow change of the universe due to gravity; Second, there are the very fast changes of atoms due to charge.
Black holes are endpoints of time and space, but black holes are still subject to the slow changes of universe matter and action. In mattertime, the universe pulse destiny is a single black hole and that destiny births the next antiverse/universe pulse. An antiverse expansion is the first half pulse that grows with antimatter precursors then a universe matter pulse decay is the
second half pulse.
But the philosophers belief in the correctness of their disagreement could be wrong. E.g. Sometimes people are talking about the same things in different words. And so there need not be just one correct philosopher. I think the statement by Paul Skokowski is just a put down regarding philosophy; as if the explanation of things is unimportant. Is agreement without understanding, or the attempt to understand, better? I think not.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical
proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think,
therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que,
comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the
planet does.” All philosophers and theoretical physicists would come closer to telling
the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term:
“I guess.” Professor Markus Mueller of the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics
and Quantum Information has confirmed to me by email that all philosophers and theoretical physicists have always guessed about the real structure of the Universe. But he insists that he only makes “good” guesses, not arbitrary ones.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical
proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think,
therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que,
comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the
planet does.” All philosophers and theoretical physicists would come closer to telling
the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term:
“I guess.” Professor Markus Mueller of the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics
and Quantum Information has confirmed to me by email that all philosophers and theoretical physicists have always guessed about the real structure of the Universe. But he insists that he only makes “good” guesses, not arbitrary ones.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Does this mean all of your statements about reality will be prefaced with "I guess" from now on?
report post as inappropriate
Hi Kate, BTW re. your "Does drinking a glass of red wine with dinner make you live longer? Does it make cancer cells less likely to grow?". "In its Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services lists consumption of alcoholic beverages as a known human carcinogen." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a
lcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet
Worth knowing I think. However it may reduce likelihood of other stress related illnesses.
report post as inappropriate
lcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet
Worth knowing I think. However it may reduce likelihood of other stress related illnesses.
The 2019 FQXi conference [1] has pinned this article [2] to the top of its twitter page. The speakers and attendees have spent a lot of time trying to decide what life, agency and free will are, and whether they are compatible with current physics, or whether new physics is required.
But the topology of life, agency and free will is completely different to the topology of determinism:
…..Determinism means that laws of nature determine all outcomes for matter.
…..Agency/ free will means that matter itself determines some of its own outcomes. This is new physics only in the sense that it is a different view of matter.
The other issue is that the nature of life, agency and free will is only representable as (but not determined by) algorithms; the nature of life, agency and free will is not representable as equations and numbers alone. Yet there is no way that equations and numbers can transmogrify into algorithms. This is new physics only in the sense that the behaviour of matter needs to be represented by algorithms.
1. Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World, 20-25 July 2019.
2. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236 .
report post as inappropriate
But the topology of life, agency and free will is completely different to the topology of determinism:
…..Determinism means that laws of nature determine all outcomes for matter.
…..Agency/ free will means that matter itself determines some of its own outcomes. This is new physics only in the sense that it is a different view of matter.
The other issue is that the nature of life, agency and free will is only representable as (but not determined by) algorithms; the nature of life, agency and free will is not representable as equations and numbers alone. Yet there is no way that equations and numbers can transmogrify into algorithms. This is new physics only in the sense that the behaviour of matter needs to be represented by algorithms.
1. Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World, 20-25 July 2019.
2. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236 .
...however, it is not possible to know all of the precursors for agency/free will...otherwise, agency free will would also be determinate.
This is why quantum uncertainty plays a key role in agency/free will...
report post as inappropriate
This is why quantum uncertainty plays a key role in agency/free will...
I read Sean Carroll's piece in the New York Times. Very insightful. I would say we'll probably never have a complete theory of quantum mechanics because there is always more to know about different dimensions, or degrees of freedom. Quantum mechanics happens at 10 ^-35, but there are other degrees of freedom above and below this dimension. Sometimes when these dimensions interact, we have interesting things, like reverse causality in the transactional interpretation of QM. When the pilot wave or DeBroglie wave extends to infinity, QM kind of can't be complete. Descriptions of other dimensions are not static. Neither are relations between degrees of freedom.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Joe,
I agree somewhat. I question some of the specific terms you use, like unnatural. I think what Von Neumann and the non-Copenhagen schools taught was that there was a natural, real aspect to QM wave functions. For Von Neumann, it was geometrical. We're beginning to see the confluence between physical properties and numerical properties, such as the interesting research out of Princeton last year about prime numbers being encoded in special crystals.
report post as inappropriate
I agree somewhat. I question some of the specific terms you use, like unnatural. I think what Von Neumann and the non-Copenhagen schools taught was that there was a natural, real aspect to QM wave functions. For Von Neumann, it was geometrical. We're beginning to see the confluence between physical properties and numerical properties, such as the interesting research out of Princeton last year about prime numbers being encoded in special crystals.
I have an idea for quantum gravity that would also be the physics of causality. I can also explain the physics constants: c, h and G. I was inspired by the idea by looking at several facets of physics that include: big bang cosmology, the derivation of special relativity, the spacetime interval, the spacetime continuum, quantum mechanics, and the Casimir effect. There can only be one...
view entire post
view entire post
Incidentally, causality is transmitted outward at the speed of light because these spacetime geometry wavefronts travel outward at the speed of light.
report post as inappropriate
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Dr Kuhn, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.
Please stay on topic.)
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Please stay on topic.)
report post as inappropriate
You do believe the large Hadron collider has been slamming protons into each other, and measuring their byproducts, right?
report post as inappropriate
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Nima Arkani Hamed, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.
Please stay on topic.)
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Please stay on topic.)
report post as inappropriate
Without subjectivity research, physics will become a new religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJIzBX5uAY
report post as inappropriate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJIzBX5uAY
Housewife intelligence is much more alive than the intelligence of the Ph.D. physicist. The development of science will happen by layman people. They still have a common sense which theoretical physics has lost long ago. Today science is lost in its own mental labyrinths. Today 5 years of Ph.D. is needed for things which my grandma knew it just by walking in the fields. Science has become a new religion. If you think differently, you are out, you are disbeliever, a dissident. Only alive housewife intelligence can push science forward.
attachments: Einsteins_Relativity_for_Housewives.pdf
report post as inappropriate
attachments: Einsteins_Relativity_for_Housewives.pdf
While cause and effect belong to reality as I understand it, systems, choice entropy, God, and all that seem rather to be something manmade.
Is there actually at all an immediately complete reality of elementary particles? My conjecture of reality as the most reasonable open framework is emancipating from creationism.
If determinism requires the unrealistic view of the world as limited system, may we then hope for "understanding" rather than accepting elapsing time of reality?
I go on criticizing non-causalities and generalized arbitrarily chosen references.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Is there actually at all an immediately complete reality of elementary particles? My conjecture of reality as the most reasonable open framework is emancipating from creationism.
If determinism requires the unrealistic view of the world as limited system, may we then hope for "understanding" rather than accepting elapsing time of reality?
I go on criticizing non-causalities and generalized arbitrarily chosen references.
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Eckard,
Recently published humanly contrived information concerning invisible cause and effect has absolutely nothing to do with naturally provided VISIBLE reality.
Joe Fisher, Natural Realist
report post as inappropriate
Recently published humanly contrived information concerning invisible cause and effect has absolutely nothing to do with naturally provided VISIBLE reality.
Joe Fisher, Natural Realist
Dear Joe,
Imagine a sponge with six visible surfaces each of 1 x 1 cm^2. Its inner surface is much larger than 1 cm^3. For several reasons, visibility is definitely not the only criterion of reality. Material things tend also to be audible, tangible, etc. real
Even a plan may come true as a real cause of a real effect.I mentioned Morgenthau's one as a horrible example. Conjectured existence of something we are calling reality is just the most reasonable logical opposite of a perhaps wrong attribution, in particular a belief or another premature explanation.
We both might hopefully agree on that it is often premature to accept a theory and its putative consequences as facts for good. Some physicists imagine a deterministic world ruled by generalized laws that are symmetrical in time. This is obviously unreal because these laws do certainly not completely correspond to the conjectured reality.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Imagine a sponge with six visible surfaces each of 1 x 1 cm^2. Its inner surface is much larger than 1 cm^3. For several reasons, visibility is definitely not the only criterion of reality. Material things tend also to be audible, tangible, etc. real
Even a plan may come true as a real cause of a real effect.I mentioned Morgenthau's one as a horrible example. Conjectured existence of something we are calling reality is just the most reasonable logical opposite of a perhaps wrong attribution, in particular a belief or another premature explanation.
We both might hopefully agree on that it is often premature to accept a theory and its putative consequences as facts for good. Some physicists imagine a deterministic world ruled by generalized laws that are symmetrical in time. This is obviously unreal because these laws do certainly not completely correspond to the conjectured reality.
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Eckard,
VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi Eckard,Joe,
Well Joe you continue in telling us the same ironical conclusion. Please explain your conclusion because we understand Nothing. With your visible surface and am and this and that.What is the origin of your concclusion,philosophical,mathematical,physical.Please stop your non sense and explain because it's Simply stupid there ,really.It's for you that I say this me,you are odd Joe really and Don't answer,steve visible reality am the only fact,explain….
report post as inappropriate
Well Joe you continue in telling us the same ironical conclusion. Please explain your conclusion because we understand Nothing. With your visible surface and am and this and that.What is the origin of your concclusion,philosophical,mathematical,physical.Please stop your non sense and explain because it's Simply stupid there ,really.It's for you that I say this me,you are odd Joe really and Don't answer,steve visible reality am the only fact,explain….
LOL imagine Joe is I repeat Always am sphere an infinite spherical am reality ? you Don't find this odd you? am sphere visible spherical reality the only fact insn't it? lol me I want well but it's irritating and frustrating there
report post as inappropriate
Hi Joe,
Thanks,you develop a little bit,it's better but you can still make better in inserting physics and maths.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Thanks,you develop a little bit,it's better but you can still make better in inserting physics and maths.
Regards
Incidentally, In Sean Caroll's excellent speech, I stumbled about "a part of infinity".
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein
Hi Eckard,
I am curious,what is your philosophical idea about this infinity and infinities.Do you consider a main cause to our reality,like an Eternal infinite consciousness sending,creating codes informations,to build this universe? You can explain me with maths,numbers,physics .What is in resume the origin of our physicality.Regards
report post as inappropriate
I am curious,what is your philosophical idea about this infinity and infinities.Do you consider a main cause to our reality,like an Eternal infinite consciousness sending,creating codes informations,to build this universe? You can explain me with maths,numbers,physics .What is in resume the origin of our physicality.Regards
Dear Steve and Eckard,
When the finite word “infinity” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 818,000,000 results (0.74 seconds)” NATURE must have provided only ONE reality. The only true fact every physicist who has ever lived has been able to conclusively prove about the real physical universe was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE men ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing 818,000,000 finite results for the finite word “infinity.” There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by One form of non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
When the finite word “infinity” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 818,000,000 results (0.74 seconds)” NATURE must have provided only ONE reality. The only true fact every physicist who has ever lived has been able to conclusively prove about the real physical universe was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE men ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing 818,000,000 finite results for the finite word “infinity.” There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by One form of non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi Steve,
While I appreciate to some degree discussions about superfinitism by mathematicians like Katz, cf.
https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2017-November/020691.html ,
and I hesitated to completely swallow the superfinitist view of Mückenheim who argues against the infinitum absolutum, I got aware of confusion due to two quite different meanings: being infinite as a property, and Leibniz' relative infinity. With respect to physics, I rather perfer Salviati (Galileo).
Regards,
Rckard
report post as inappropriate
While I appreciate to some degree discussions about superfinitism by mathematicians like Katz, cf.
https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2017-November/020691.html ,
and I hesitated to completely swallow the superfinitist view of Mückenheim who argues against the infinitum absolutum, I got aware of confusion due to two quite different meanings: being infinite as a property, and Leibniz' relative infinity. With respect to physics, I rather perfer Salviati (Galileo).
Regards,
Rckard
CAUSALITY :) I am going to create a group to convice this UN with Concrete global solutions,mainly the liberation of funds of this World Bank and the industiralisation with determinism of our solar system and a harmonisation on Earth of ecosystems and their interactions.We must give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to the majority and our actual global system cannot reach the points of equilibrium.The persons in this team must be totally univeral and altruist and skilling in sciences without Vanity.We can do it with the good persons and the good solutions,we cannot accept this globality and for the next generations this stupid global system forgetting the universal foundamentals.
report post as inappropriate
lol Joe,you are a phenomen in fact and the Word is weak.Can you please tell us more about your philosophical point of vue? please,please,PLEASE Joe my friend human of this Sphere :)
post approved
silahkan kunjungi blog saya di http://bandarcasinoresmi.com/ serta
http://bandarcasinoresmi.com/daftar-casino-online-terbaru/
post approved
http://bandarcasinoresmi.com/daftar-casino-online-terbaru/
Re."To explain why time only flows in one direction, physicists often invoke the one law without a rewind button: the second law of thermodynamics."(from the article.) The problem within classical mechanics of time reversibility is use of Newtonian time;"stretching from eternity to eternity" Sir Issac Newton. Not only does it permit time reversibility but temporal paradoxes. The problem within Relativity of time reversibility and temporal paradoxes is using space-time, the space of seen things as if it is enduring space-time of existing beable things. Instead existence, independent of observation, should be considered uni-temporal, the same and only time everywhere. Parts of existence are not at different times. There is no time reversibility as to go in reverse the entire change of configuration of existence would have to be stopped and put in reverse.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“How do you know what you know about divine beings? How do you know God exists? How do you know God doesn't exist? Nancey Murphy, philosopher and theologian at Fuller Theological Seminary, provides a Christian and academic perspective on theological epistemology.” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: How do you know (an invisible) God exists?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 120,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.55 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “How do you know (an invisible) God doesn't exist?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 138,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.80 (finite) seconds)” But Nature could have provided only one INFINITE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Fearless Realist
post approved
“How do you know what you know about divine beings? How do you know God exists? How do you know God doesn't exist? Nancey Murphy, philosopher and theologian at Fuller Theological Seminary, provides a Christian and academic perspective on theological epistemology.” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: How do you know (an invisible) God exists?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 120,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.55 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “How do you know (an invisible) God doesn't exist?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 138,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.80 (finite) seconds)” But Nature could have provided only one INFINITE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Fearless Realist
BY "seen things" I mean observation products ( with the appearance of material things) generated by the observer. Which could be an organism or a device or technological system or sensitive material.
Existence being uni-temporal, the pattern remains simultaneous whether the entropy of its constituent parts is increasing or decreasing. It is only the spatial arrangement of the configuration of existence that is altering. Erosion and deposition of silt can be happening simultaneously in different parts of the same river The engine cylinder of one car on a road can be compressing while another cylinder in another car is simultaneously being driven to expand because of the explosive combustion of the petrol within. Only what is, is materially real. Former material configurations different to the pattern at uni-temporal now have been superseded, so don't exist.
report post as inappropriate
Existence being uni-temporal, the pattern remains simultaneous whether the entropy of its constituent parts is increasing or decreasing. It is only the spatial arrangement of the configuration of existence that is altering. Erosion and deposition of silt can be happening simultaneously in different parts of the same river The engine cylinder of one car on a road can be compressing while another cylinder in another car is simultaneously being driven to expand because of the explosive combustion of the petrol within. Only what is, is materially real. Former material configurations different to the pattern at uni-temporal now have been superseded, so don't exist.
Uni-temporal configuration of the entirety of existence, continually changing provides 'uni-directional' sequential foundational time. Each different configuration of the entirety of existence is a different time. There being no material past prevents Grandfather type paradox. EMr emitted or reflected from material objects, received by an observer, provides information used to form new and unique observation products. Signal transmission delay due to the non infinite speed of light allows the phenomenon of non simultaneity of observed events as seen by different observers at different locations and uni-temporal Nows. Cause and effect is happening to material reality across the sequence of uni-temporal Nows (the configurations of the entirety of material reality). However, the seen order of events depends upon the order of EMr signal receipt.
report post as inappropriate
Does anybody here think that the big bang is scientific proof that an anti-entropy force exists?
report post as inappropriate
The physics community has enough evidence to announce that the universe and life, are intelligently designed. Does anyone disagree?
report post as inappropriate
Steven Wolfram has shown, with his cellular automata, that highly complex patterns can sometimes develop from simple reiterative processes.
report post as inappropriate
I don't think Steven Wolfram knows the difference between a pattern, and a process.
Look at ice crystals. All you have to do is remove heat from water or molten rock, and the atoms/molecules slow down into a lattice arrangement. That's easy.
But creating life is a process. It's more like a self assembly factory. Step 1: you need materials. You need about 120 elements called the periodic table. If your outcome if a periodic table of elements, then you need to get protons to fuse together (fusion). So you need a strong force to overcome the repulsion between two protons. It has to be stronger than the coulomb force, or the protons won't fuse into a nucleus. How are you going to make nuclei? You're going to use a nuclear furnace. If the strong force is too strong, then all the energy that is released during fusion will be given off during the big bang. You need these nuclear furnaces (called stars) to burn for billions of years. This is engineering!
Do atheists think that factories are accidents?
report post as inappropriate
Look at ice crystals. All you have to do is remove heat from water or molten rock, and the atoms/molecules slow down into a lattice arrangement. That's easy.
But creating life is a process. It's more like a self assembly factory. Step 1: you need materials. You need about 120 elements called the periodic table. If your outcome if a periodic table of elements, then you need to get protons to fuse together (fusion). So you need a strong force to overcome the repulsion between two protons. It has to be stronger than the coulomb force, or the protons won't fuse into a nucleus. How are you going to make nuclei? You're going to use a nuclear furnace. If the strong force is too strong, then all the energy that is released during fusion will be given off during the big bang. You need these nuclear furnaces (called stars) to burn for billions of years. This is engineering!
Do atheists think that factories are accidents?
Theorists are obsessed with superstrings and blackholes. But reality offers quantum entanglement with no explanation of gravity. It's as if nature is telling us: Hey, why worry about strings when you have me to experiment on?
Physicists are skeptical of gravity manipulation. But consider a system of two quantum entangled photons. Newtonian gravity says that the force between two masses separated by distance r is given by F = GMm/r^2. How many steps would you have to glean to go from Newtonian gravity to gravity manipulation? I count 3 leaps of intuition.
1. The effective mass of a photon is m = hf/c^2. So two entangled photons do have mass, therefore, there is a tiny acceleration field between them.
2. Space does what mass tells it to according to the Einstein equations. However, that doesn't mean we can't manipulate the entanglement between two photons to get back something that looks like a gravity field.
3. We control the entangled photons p1 and p2. Photons can travel along a fiber optic cable. In theory, we could align the optical fiber along the radii of a spinning disk. Then, we could centrifuge the p1 photon along the blueshift direction and centrifuge the p2 photon along the redshift direction. It would be similar to storing gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons.
Physicists are prepared to wait a thousand years for someone to prove this mathematically. But the experiment, while challenging and sophisticated, would be easier to perform.
report post as inappropriate
Physicists are skeptical of gravity manipulation. But consider a system of two quantum entangled photons. Newtonian gravity says that the force between two masses separated by distance r is given by F = GMm/r^2. How many steps would you have to glean to go from Newtonian gravity to gravity manipulation? I count 3 leaps of intuition.
1. The effective mass of a photon is m = hf/c^2. So two entangled photons do have mass, therefore, there is a tiny acceleration field between them.
2. Space does what mass tells it to according to the Einstein equations. However, that doesn't mean we can't manipulate the entanglement between two photons to get back something that looks like a gravity field.
3. We control the entangled photons p1 and p2. Photons can travel along a fiber optic cable. In theory, we could align the optical fiber along the radii of a spinning disk. Then, we could centrifuge the p1 photon along the blueshift direction and centrifuge the p2 photon along the redshift direction. It would be similar to storing gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons.
Physicists are prepared to wait a thousand years for someone to prove this mathematically. But the experiment, while challenging and sophisticated, would be easier to perform.
You're doing it all wrong. Not just you. The whole physics community is completely missing what's causing physics to work, and the nature of consciousness.
Best wishes,
Jason Wolfe
report post as inappropriate
Best wishes,
Jason Wolfe
The foundation of physics, the simplest mechanism available that could explain everything, QM, GR, standard model particles, it will really surprise you all, if you haven't already guessed it. Quantum gravity is at hand.
report post as inappropriate
it's been a long time.... Anyone about causality? The universe is a logical system. This means it can only be made of one type of stuff and logically accepts only one type of cause. Then, find only one example of each ... and you have your answer for the ID of the stuff and of the cause. To this end, I give you, once more, my favorite quote from physicist Bil Unruh;
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
So, the stuff is Time and the cause is time flowing unequably from place to place.
I am working on another demo involving EM induction ... so I don't have to quote Unruh all the time .. and will be quoting myself :-)
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
So, the stuff is Time and the cause is time flowing unequably from place to place.
I am working on another demo involving EM induction ... so I don't have to quote Unruh all the time .. and will be quoting myself :-)
Marcel,
I call them Planck action quanta because their first manifested physics constant is the Planck constant with units joule-seconds. Planck quantum expand at the speed of light, spherical-ly. I'm trying to explain the invariance of c, the nature of time, quantum states of position, momentum, spin, and the foundation of physics. Also causality.
report post as inappropriate
Jason; very interesting. documents. website ??
I have:
- stuff/substance: dynamic spontaneous process w spherical expansion
- the Planck is a range of rates within which the stuff will operate logically with each other. i.e. stuff with different Planck value belong to different universe.
- rate of time process is the variable.
So, dynamic stuff with one property h, one variable 1/t:
- spontaneous and generating process = explosive = spherical exp
Some of it in very short..
report post as inappropriate
I have:
- stuff/substance: dynamic spontaneous process w spherical expansion
- the Planck is a range of rates within which the stuff will operate logically with each other. i.e. stuff with different Planck value belong to different universe.
- rate of time process is the variable.
So, dynamic stuff with one property h, one variable 1/t:
- spontaneous and generating process = explosive = spherical exp
Some of it in very short..
Hi Marcel-Marie,
No website. But it's something to work on.
These Planck action quanta, with radius of R=ct, are an unlimited quantity, constantly expanding from a point everywhere in spacetime, since the big bang. They will replace the Copenhagen and many world interpretation of quantum mechanics because, as they expand, they collide with particulate matter and naturally become the...
view entire post
No website. But it's something to work on.
These Planck action quanta, with radius of R=ct, are an unlimited quantity, constantly expanding from a point everywhere in spacetime, since the big bang. They will replace the Copenhagen and many world interpretation of quantum mechanics because, as they expand, they collide with particulate matter and naturally become the...
view entire post
Jason, any idea how it all started?
report post as inappropriate
I always thought that metaphysics was a much more reasonable source for the big bang, then all the intellectual craziness of the physics community with their big bangs caused by black holes and universes from nothing. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Creator-God used a metaphysical-Astral realm to design this universe and set it up before "Letting their be light". Engineers design their products in a virtual environment. Why wouldn't God?
report post as inappropriate
The reality about how spacetime and gravity works is much more interesting than what you kind folks are working on.
report post as inappropriate
I think an event happens at a point, and the causal consequences travel outward, at the speed of light, like ripples on a pond.
report post as inappropriate
I'm really surprised that nobody in the physics community has wondered if the spacetime continuum is made of quanta of gravitons. It seems almost expected that they would expand at the speed of light into a spherical wavefront (similar to how the big bang expanded). How else would you explain the invariance of the speed of light? If expanding gravitons exist, then they are also the carriers of causality!
report post as inappropriate
The physics community went out of its way to insist that UFO's don't exist (even as Navy fighter pilots were chasing them) and fifty million witnesses. So a quantum gravity theory comes along that could explain the artificial gravity propulsion, but physicists don't even want to talk about that because the guy peddling the theory is a theist. So, we'll all have to wait around for a century or two while the physics community ignores people like me. You can peddle your bizarre theories about consciousness, when it was pretty simple to begin with. God/Creator creates the universe. Souls incarnate into this physical world, live for a while, then die and return to the Spirit World. But you guys want to make it as weird as possible with your Spinoza God, banging branes. Consciousness itself is "magic", so you want to diminish the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER as something that is not important at all. Imagine the atheist physics community trying to abuse its authority into making people believe that their consciousness is not important.
The simple fact is that Western civilization is at a stand still because of the atheist physics community. We are in danger of collapsing because of your crap ideas!!!
report post as inappropriate
The simple fact is that Western civilization is at a stand still because of the atheist physics community. We are in danger of collapsing because of your crap ideas!!!
One of the problems with physics is that you have made it unnecessarily complicated, but didn't actually permit any breakthroughs. Even special relativity was all done with algebra.
report post as inappropriate
I agree with Jason. Natures processes are simple. 'Physics' is complex because we're confused, clinging on the flawed ideas. Re; entropy. Our view is a parochial 'snapshot' in time. Consider; ALL those things which can only fall apart in out belief STARTED OFF 'apart', as the most fundamental particles! Time didn't 'reverse' for them to form, that's naïve. Consider nucleosynthesis. It's the polar opposite to the entropy we see now! Cyclic universe models are proving far more consistent that the old one most still cling to; The 'Big Bounce', Penrose, Turok etc, and most consistent of all the 'Discrete Field Model' (DFM) which reproduces all CMB peculiar anisotropies and seems able to unite SR,GR and QM in a simpler model. In that model w entropy and expansion are just PARTS of a coherent cycle, free of inconsistencies.
At ALL times in history 'doctrine' has proved wrong. it's still inconsistent now, why do we think it's suddenly right now and cling onto it?
report post as inappropriate
At ALL times in history 'doctrine' has proved wrong. it's still inconsistent now, why do we think it's suddenly right now and cling onto it?
Login or create account to post reply or comment.