Dear Markus,

I'm happy to see you've found the time to enter an essay into this year's competition. Like last year's, it's a highly intriguing and insightful piece, and I'll spend some quality time studying it further. I like the way you frame the discussion: undecidability and related phenomena need not fuel defeatist stances, you enlist them in an optimist message about our ability of...

view entire post

Dear Markus,

I'm happy to see you've found the time to enter an essay into this year's competition. Like last year's, it's a highly intriguing and insightful piece, and I'll spend some quality time studying it further. I like the way you frame the discussion: undecidability and related phenomena need not fuel defeatist stances, you enlist them in an optimist message about our ability of getting to know what's there to know at all.

This bears some similarity to what Karl Svozil has called the 'third path' in dealing with these notions: most of the time, the issue is either neglected as an artifact, an esoteric mathematical rumination not more relevant to the (physical) world than the precise number of angels on the head of a pin, or on the other extreme, enlisted into grim pronouncements of our doomed quest for knowledge. Trying to find a third (or perhaps 'middle') way of taking it seriously, even as the starting point of some constructive challenge to outdated ideas that force us to engage with some core assumptions is a welcome change of pace.

Before I go into deeper discussion, however, I'd like to ask a question, if I may. The sort of structural realism you champion derives from a venerable tradition, stretching back at least to William James, Bertrand Russell, and Arthur Eddington. But it seems to me that a challenge raised against such views by the mathematician Max Newman (known these days generally simply as 'Newman's objection') hasn't really found a good answer. That challenge essentially consists in pointing out that if everything you know about some domain is the relational structure it fulfills, then really, all you can answer are questions of cardinality---for if there's the right number of elements, any structure will fit, so to speak.

Do you think that's a problem for your view? If not, how do you propose it is overcome, or why doesn't it apply?

Best of luck in the contest!

Cheers

Jochen

view post as summary

show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Markus Mueller:

I very much enjoyed your essay. It closely parallels ideas in my essay, in which I distinguish between empirical models and conceptual models. An empirical model, like your description of theory, describes objects of observations and their empirical relationships. A conceptual model, like your structure, describes what the theory is talking about, i.e. it tries to...

view entire post

Dear Markus Mueller:

I very much enjoyed your essay. It closely parallels ideas in my essay, in which I distinguish between empirical models and conceptual models. An empirical model, like your description of theory, describes objects of observations and their empirical relationships. A conceptual model, like your structure, describes what the theory is talking about, i.e. it tries to define physical reality.

You note that Special Relativity tells us that we cannot answer whether two events are simultaneous. Is this the end of the story? Or should we, as the Theorem and final paragraph in Section II suggest, take this unanswerable question as a deep insight into the possible existence of distinct differentiations?

Special Relativity assumes that all inertial reference frames are equally valid. This is empirically consistent with SR, but it is an added assumption about the nature of physical reality. It leads to 4D spacetime and no definition of simultaneity. Klingman’s essay describes an alternative reality, based on a contrarian assumption that physical reality is contextually defined with respect to a particular inertial reference frame. This structure/conceptual model is also empirically consistent with special relativity, including time dilation, but it describes a 3D space with a single time frame, and it embraces simultaneity.

In my essay, I describe the Copenhagen Interpretation as an empirical model of QM. It is focused on predicting measurement results and explicitly avoids questions of underlying reality. As such it is an undifferentiated theory, in which the question “Is randomness fundamental?” is unanswerable.

I consider more-differentiated structures to describe contrasting conceptual models of quantum reality. One conceptual model (I call HCM) adds an assumption that denies fundamental randomness. This assumption equates the wavefunction with physical reality, and both are fundamentally deterministic. I also describe an alternative model, which I refer to as DDCM. It recognizes that absolute zero can be approached but never attained, and it assumes that physical reality is contextually defined with respect to a positive ambient temperature. It describes physical reality as fundamentally random and irreversible. Both structures are empirically consistent with QM, but they yield contrasting answers to the questions of fundamental randomness and irreversibility. (DDCM also resolves the measurement problem and other conceptual difficulties of QM.)

I suggest that the metaphysics of “things” corresponds to a context-free physical reality. Things have independent existence. The metaphysics of structure, which “manifests itself by, and weaves together, ‘real patterns’” corresponds to a contextual physical reality, in which elements of reality are defined by their relationship to their objective physical context. Contextual reality with respect to a positive ambient temperature provides a firm foundation for your final hypothesis of a fundamentally probabilistic quantum reality.

I hope you will take a look at my essay and provide your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Harrison Crecraft

view post as summary

Dear Markus,

I really enjoyed reading your essay, and I sympathize with a lot of your ideas.

Especially, the fact that letting go of the concept of "things" and acknowledging that some questions have no answer, "dissolve" the paradoxes and avoid the invocation of weird ontological phenomena. Indeed, quantum theory invites to consider the notion of "entities" (as they were defined...

view entire post

Dear Markus,

I really enjoyed reading your essay, and I sympathize with a lot of your ideas.

Especially, the fact that letting go of the concept of "things" and acknowledging that some questions have no answer, "dissolve" the paradoxes and avoid the invocation of weird ontological phenomena. Indeed, quantum theory invites to consider the notion of "entities" (as they were defined since Aristotle, individual objects with determinable intrinsic properties) as an "epistomological obstacle" as philosopher Gaston Bachelard might say. A metaphysical distancing from the notion of “things”. While I was preparing my essay, I came across this quote from Rothstein, which I think might be in line with your “dissolution of questions” : an `` operational meaning can be assigned to question with respect to a system of interest which does not include the observer. Applied to the universe as a whole, these question lose their operational significance and become physically undecidable, they become metaphysical questions.''

I really enjoyed your defense of an “optimistic” view. It is true that interpretations acknowledging this analysis are very often mistaken with “incomplete” knowledge (epistemic restrictions) about ontic things ; or they are straightforwardly labelled as anti-realistic, without specifying “anti-realistic towards what”. Not towards the existence of an external word, but towards the notion of “things”.

I guess there might an ambiguity in your essay (or a misunderstanding from me), because I don’t see QBism as “an epistemic restriction” which can be compared with Spekkens’s view. I rather see it as something that might get along with your view, an optimistic position based on acknowledging that some “questions don’t have answers” not because of a lack of human ability, but based on a fundamental, logical argument.

Instead of taking a metaphysical stance as you do, arguing for an ontological realism of structures ; I tend to be sceptical towards sentences such as “the world is” (which are often related to a naïve realism (based on “things”)). So I am not sure that I completely rely on your view that “the world is about structure”. The word “structure” seems quite vague and ambiguous… and I prefer (for now) to strive for an “epistemological modesty” rather than designating what is ontological or not. However, you solution is way more appealing than naïve realism, since it is proposed after a careful analysis about the (un)decidability of questions. So I rather prefer your conclusion : “We can know what there is to know.” Which resonate with Bohr-like sentences : “There is no quantum world. Physics is about what we can say about nature”.



If you ever find the time to read my essay, I would be glad to have your feedbacks on it. You go further than my analysis, proposing an ontological path to follow (structuralism) while I stopped at the dissolution step (for now). However, your notion of “Structural differentiation” seems rather close to my concept of “meta-contextuality”, and I am very curious to have your thoughts on this.

I hope that your essay will do great in the contest.

Best,

Hippolyte

view post as summary

Hi Markus,

your essay is definitely my top pick for this contest, thank you for contributing! You state in your concluding hypothesis:

“The quantum world is probabilistic structure. In other words, it is not a “thing” or a collection of things, but it is the multitude of statistical patterns and their structural relations that any observer encounters in their data.”

So...

view entire post

Hi Markus,

your essay is definitely my top pick for this contest, thank you for contributing! You state in your concluding hypothesis:

“The quantum world is probabilistic structure. In other words, it is not a “thing” or a collection of things, but it is the multitude of statistical patterns and their structural relations that any observer encounters in their data.”

So is the question here then how our discrete observational experience of a 3D world emerges from the probabilistic structure of our observations? And for you might this ontic structural – quantum – realism also be a form of wave function realism where the quantum side of that realism equates to a pure potentiality for experience rather than a thing-like external quantum world? A sort of QBist realism meets radical empiricism for which there is only the real patterns of our observational experience?

I’ve long been a fan of Dennett’s take on phenomenal experience (the manifest image) and its ‘real patterns’, or the persistent regularities of our sensory perception (cf. Husserl). Our species has evolved to perceive complex patterns in the phenomenal flux of visual, auditory, chemical, and somatic sensory experience, and where those patterns are predictive they can be considered ‘real’, with the natural (phenomenal) numbers being a case in point. I take it Peano’s axioms would then be an account of the modern structural relations evident in the real patterns of our natural/phenomenal counting experiences, along with whatever ontological assumptions that might motivate those axioms? Such as, for some, a rather quaint (and in this case a posteriori) belief in Platonic realism for numbers.

The ontic/conceptual structure then consists of identifying the dynamic relations between factical/real patterns—with structure defined by ontological and mathematical concepts that can explicate those patterns in terms of formalized predictions—and the history of science becomes the history of technological advances in our real pattern finding (from Kepler’s telescope to the Michelson-Morley experiment and on to Aspects’ entangled photons) leading to whatever necessary paradigmatic updates might be needed on the structural relations side with their subsequent technological innovations and so on… Which brings us to the contemporary conceptual mess of 21st C quantum foundations!

In this way the structural ‘laws of physics’ and the ontology that informs them emerge from the real patterns observed in scientific/empirical experience. So your ontic structural realism is then an observer dependent realism? I assume this is where your 'law without law' research project begins, with a first person perspective using algorithmic probability to assign structure to sense data patterns? What is real are the patterns (the information) … where an observer might be defined as nothing more or less than the flux of its observations situated, by simple definition, at the centre of its observable universe of real patterns and their probabilistic structural relations.

And finally, is it this first person ontology of the observer that might provide a structural differentiation from the early modern (delusional) godlike third person perspective that reduces the observer to a simple automaton located in an unobservable classical container world of the Ding an sich?

Apologies for crowding your thread but I find these questions fascinating and closely aligned with my own philosophical prejudices!

All the best,

Malcolm

Je suis, nous sommes Wigner!

view post as summary

Dear Professor Markus

I got a very nice introduction to you from Prof. Malcolm Riddoch, this post is about furthering that discussion...

This will give me a fundamental approach to the quantum mechanics. I will go thro' your essay soon of them and contact back to you ASAP.

I mainly worked in cosmology , I am yet to enter into the world of Quantum Physics, i will do that in...

view entire post

Dear Professor Markus

I got a very nice introduction to you from Prof. Malcolm Riddoch, this post is about furthering that discussion...

This will give me a fundamental approach to the quantum mechanics. I will go thro' your essay soon of them and contact back to you ASAP.

I mainly worked in cosmology , I am yet to enter into the world of Quantum Physics, i will do that in discussion with you and your friends...

Meanwhile he asked me about my possible fundamental concepts??

These are the Fundamental concepts of Dynamic Universe Model taken from my essay, Have a look at my essay for further details....

C.1. Logical and Physical 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

C.2. Main ETHICAL foundational principles of Dynamic Universe Model:

-Human Accrued knowledge should be free to all

-Concept should come out from the depth of truth;

-Authors / Scientists thinking should go towards perfection;

-Logic should be simple

-Theory’s predictions should be verifiable experimentally, by anyone and anywhere with the same conditions

-Computations / computer programs should be simple

-ontological realism of senses produced information

-New theory lead us forward into ever-widening thought and action experiments

-Let the new theory lead us into that heaven of freedom.

C.3. Main PHYSICAL and COSMOLOGICAL foundational principles of “N-Body problem solution: Dynamic Universe Model”:

-Natural universe regularly undergoes change in shape due to mutual Dynamical

Gravitational forces.

-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.

Best wishes to your essay

=snp

view post as summary

Dear Mueller:

Excellent scholarly article.

I basically agree with your views:

“I argue to replace this perspective by a worldview in which a structural notion of ‘real patterns’, not ‘things’ are regarded as fundamental. Instead of a limitation of what we can know, undecidability and unpredictability then become mere statements of undifferentiation of...

view entire post

Dear Mueller:

Excellent scholarly article.

I basically agree with your views:

“I argue to replace this perspective by a worldview in which a structural notion of ‘real patterns’, not ‘things’ are regarded as fundamental. Instead of a limitation of what we can know, undecidability and unpredictability then become mere statements of undifferentiation of structure.”

….. but only partly, because “undifferentiation of structure” acknowledges our persistence ignorance. In fact, that is point of my essay.

Please, make time to read my essay and grade it.

“Complete Information Retrieval: A Fundamental Challenge”

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3565

The universe is fundamentally stochastic because the observable radiations and particles are emergent oscillations/vibrations of the universal cosmic space, which is, at the same time, full of random “background” fluctuations. These fluctuations, however weak they may be, nonetheless are perturbing any and all other interactions going on in the universe. Since, human initiated measurements are also interactions between our chosen interactants in our apparatus, stochastical changes will be inevitable in every measurements, classical or quantum.

I am an experimentalist. Aprreciating persistent & continued incompleteness in our knowledge does not require complex philosophical arguments. Our measurements will always be imprecise. That we had been, we now are, and we will always be, information limited, emerges naturally when we enumerate the basic steps in any measurement:

(i) Data are some physical transformation taking place inside the apparatus.

(ii) The physical transformation in a detectable material always require some energy exchange between the interactants, the “unknown” and the “known”, where the “known” is the reference interactant.

(iii) The energy exchange must be guided by some force of interaction operating between the chosen interactants.

(iv) Since we have started with an unknown universe, from the standpoint of building physics theories, the “known” entities are known only partially, never completely. This also creates information bottleneck for the “unknown” entity. Note that in spite of innumerable experiments, we still do not know what electrons and photons really are.

(v) All forces of interactions are distance dependent. Hence, the interactants must be placed within the range of each other’s mutual influence (force-field). Force-field creates the necessary physical “entanglement” between interacting entities for the energy transfer to proceed. In other words, interactants must be “locally or regional” within their physical sphere of influence. They must be “entangled” by a perceptible physical force. Our equations are built on such hard causality.

(vi) The final data in all instruments suffer from the lack of 100% fidelity. This is another permanent problem of imprecision. We can keep on reducing the error margin as our technology enhances; but we do not know how to completely eliminate this error.

Many of my earlier papers have also articulated this position. They can be downloaded from:

http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

You can also download the paper: “Next Frontier in Physics—Space as a Complex Tension Field”; Journal of Modern Physics, 2012, 3, 1357-1368 , http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/However, mp.2012.310173

Sincerely,

Chandra.

Prof. ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri

view post as summary

Dear Markus,

I very much enjoyed your thoughtful, masterfully written essay. It was so refreshing with its message of hope in comparison to all the usual discussions that want to turn back the clock of quantum mechanics to something more akin to classical physics or, metaphorically, Hilbert’s program.

Years ago (22 or so!), I wrote a job application which I’ve just looked up. ...

view entire post

Dear Markus,

I very much enjoyed your thoughtful, masterfully written essay. It was so refreshing with its message of hope in comparison to all the usual discussions that want to turn back the clock of quantum mechanics to something more akin to classical physics or, metaphorically, Hilbert’s program.

Years ago (22 or so!), I wrote a job application which I’ve just looked up. It started with these words, “The world we live in is well-described by quantum mechanics. What should we make of that? In a way, the answer to this question was once less positive than it is today. For although quantum theory is a tool of unprecedented accuracy … the intellectual lesson we have come to

derive from it has been one … of limitations. The best place to see this attitude is in a standard presentation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. It is almost as if the world were holding something back that we really had every right to possess: The task of physics, or so it was believed, is simply to sober up to this and make the best of it. … In contrast to this … the last ten years have seen the start of a significantly more positive, almost intoxicating, attitude about the basic role of quantum mechanics. This is evidenced no more clearly than [with quantum information and computing]. The point of departure in these disciplines is not to ask what limits quantum mechanics places upon us, but instead what novel, productive things we can do in the quantum world that we could not have done otherwise. In what ways can we say that the quantum world is fantastically better than the classical world?” Your paper brought back to me the romance of those lost days, but you did it so much better!

I had never previously thought about Goedel’s incompleteness theorem in the positive way that you do, even though some other writers should have led me close to it. When I read your words on that point, I immediately thought, that’s got to be right! “It is not a fundamental limit to what we can know, but a precious piece of knowledge about a non-property of the structure that we have discovered”—Beautiful!

Incidentally, in this paper of mine,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360.pdf

I transcribed an entry from one of John Wheeler’s notebooks that blew me away when I first ran across it. I don’t think it’s exactly what you have in mind, but here’s the little story I wrote when introducing it: “Despite the dubious connection to anything firmly a part of QBism, I report Wheeler's idea because it seems to me that it conveys some imaginative sense of how the notion of ‘birth’ described here carries a very different flavor from the ‘intrinsic randomness’ that [Adan Cabello] and others seem to be talking about. … Imagine along with Wheeler that the universe can somehow be identified with a formal mathematical system, with the universe's life somehow captured by all the decidable propositions within the system. Wheeler's ‘crazy’ idea seems to be this. Every time an act of observer-participancy occurs (every time a quantum measurement occurs), one of the undecidable propositions consistent with the system is upgraded to the status of a new axiom with truth value either TRUE or FALSE. In this way, the life of the universe as a whole takes on a deeply new character with the outcome of each quantum measurement. The ‘intrinsic randomness’ dictated by quantum theory is not so much like the flicker of a firefly in the fabric of night, but a rearrangement of the whole meaning of the universe.”

You caused other thoughts in me as well. In the paper linked to above, I emphasized in a small piece of it that QBism shares *some* of its elements with a structural realism. But most philosophers of science I’ve told this to have been (predictably) dismissive. It’s hard to say what stands in their way, except possibly that if an idea is associated with QBism, it’s got to be bad! Upon reading you, however, I got a vision on how I might break the impasse: Make up a new name, a new distinction! Thus, from here out I will dub QBism’s distinctive flavor “normative structural realism.” But I will discuss this with you offline sometime.

In any case, I write all of this to let you know, in my eyes your essay has everything that should be expected of a winner of this contest. I learned a number of things from you, but mostly your essay caused me to think over and over about its contents all week. It hasn’t left my mind, and that’s a mark of distinction in an old doddering mind like mine!

All the best,

Chris Fuchs

view post as summary

Hi Markus,

I really liked your explanation of the philosophical significance of the incompleteness theorem, namely, that incompleteness of a theory signals that there are statements that cannot be proven nor disproven simply because the axioms that would allow one to generate such proofs are not present (or, equivalently, the theory can be differentiated and the status of the statement is...

view entire post

Hi Markus,

I really liked your explanation of the philosophical significance of the incompleteness theorem, namely, that incompleteness of a theory signals that there are statements that cannot be proven nor disproven simply because the axioms that would allow one to generate such proofs are not present (or, equivalently, the theory can be differentiated and the status of the statement is different in the different subtheories). That certainly sounds right to me! How prevalent is this way of thinking about the incompleteness theorem? I haven’t studied the literature on incompleteness, so I have no sense of whether or not this is “conventional wisdom” in some circles. Hofstadter, at least, does characterize the theorem in this manner in Godel, Escher, Bach (among the many ways that he characterizes it). Similarly, it seems to me that Chaitin does so as well. Did Godel think of it in this way?

In any case, very nice essay! I enjoyed it a lot.

A minor point. When you get to the analysis of quantum theory, you contrast your own view with the view that quantum states are states of knowledge about some kind of hidden variables. You call the latter “Spekkens-like interpretations”. Presumably, that’s because I’ve written many papers about subtheories of quantum theory and foils to quantum theory (such as my toy theory) that admit of such an interpretation. But the terminology makes me uneasy insofar as it may suggest to some that I endorse the view that such an interpretation might be possible *for the whole of quantum theory*, which I certainly do not. A better name for this type of interpretation of quantum theory would be “psi-epistemic hidden variable models”. There are certainly some researchers who have made proposals of this type, but I am not enthusiastic about the research program because all such proposals have the same deficiencies as psi-ontic hidden variable models insofar as they necessarily fail to offer satisfactory causal explanations of quantum correlations. To grant that there are hidden variables to be discovered is to buy into the framework of ontological models, and I’m of the opinion that the correct interpretation of quantum theory must reject that framework. It seems to me that we need to pursue a rather different sort of realism, which is more “structural”, exactly in the sense in which you use the term in your article (i.e., in the sense of “ontic structural realism”). In particular, I’m fond of the idea that the structure of causal relations might somehow capture everything about reality, without there being causal relata in the form of classical hidden variables (this idea was described in an FQXI essay I wrote a few years back). It seems to me that a denial of this kind of causal relata might in fact constitute a denial of the possibility of answering a question such as “what is the actual configuration of the world?” If so, then our views are not so different, at least in terms of the status of this sort of question.

I am reminded of my favourite quote by the pragmatist John Dewey: "The conviction persists, though history shows it be a hallucination, that all the questions that the human mind has asked are questions that can be answered in terms of the alternatives that the questions themselves present. But in fact, intellectual progress usually occurs through sheer abandonment of questions together with both of the alternatives they assume, an abandonment that results from their decreasing vitalism and a change of urgent interest. We do not solve them, we get over them."

view post as summary

Congratulations Markus...

In that your essay focuses attention on the necessity for one's choice of a Space-Time Energy "theoretical structure" to be associated with Space, as a precisely defined and specified "Geometric Structure", it is pivotal, and I can concur with FQXi's acknowledgement of its significance.

"Geometric Structures" as 3D CAD environments, in which geometry...

view entire post

Congratulations Markus...

In that your essay focuses attention on the necessity for one's choice of a Space-Time Energy "theoretical structure" to be associated with Space, as a precisely defined and specified "Geometric Structure", it is pivotal, and I can concur with FQXi's acknowledgement of its significance.

"Geometric Structures" as 3D CAD environments, in which geometry specific fundamental Q-mechanical functions... e.g. emission and distribution mechanix... can be digitally simulated (CAD SIMs), augment visual verification of fundamental foundations, to facilitate precise definitions of semantic terminologies that become embedded in subsequent "theoretical structures".

REF: Directionally Unbiased Point Source Emission Mechanix www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Is a minimum/indivisible quantum of Potential for Motion a "thing"?

A quantum Point Source Emission "theoretical structure", which is inclusive of Physics and Meta-Physics, is potentially viable, but one must first make a distinction between the term Physical and the term Meta-Physical.

To make a distinction between Physical and Meta-Physical, requires a precise definition of Physical that facilitates its identity as a subset within a larger set that is inclusive of other than Physical.

PHYSICAL entities are uniquely defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy??

If one defines PHYSICAL "things" as discrete entities having spatial occupancy, one will need to define Space as a "Geometric Structure"... i.e. preferably as a 3D quantized CAD spatial environment... that facilitates an emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution of Physical entities, which is consistent with observation... i.e. recognizable "patterns" of spatially quantized Potential for Motion emerge.

A minimum/indivisible pulse duration... i.e. a Q-Tick...is required to facilitate a Timeless Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) in which to repeatedly resolve spontaneous, harmonious, directionally unbiased emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution, of all pulsed Single Point Sourced discrete minimum/indivisible units of spatially addressable Potential for Motion... i.e. emission and subsequent spatial distribution of pulsed, spatially discrete Energy quanta (QE)... within the entire field.

To digitally SIMulate emission pulse sourced motion, as CAD environment, x,y,z discrete Physical entity location incrimination, in a theoretical, temporally minimum/indivisible duration, one needs to define the SIM frame rate as the emergent Physical entity emission pulse count... i.e. pulse count as the minimum/indivisible quanta of discrete Time (QT)... and doing so, implies that a perception of time is spatially dependent.

If Meta-Physical is differentiated from Physical by means of a spatial occupancy criteria, then Meta-Physical operatives require a Spaceless Logic Structure.

Does a feeling of spatial occupancy, occupy Space?

To define META-PHYSICAL as other than that which occupies Space-Time, a dimensionless logic environment in which Spaceless-Timeless operatives/mechanix... e.g. a feeling.... are consistent with observation, is required to coherently integrate Physics and Meta-Physics in a quantum "theoretical structure".

From a Space-Time Geometry Singularity... i.e.. a 3D "geometric structure" which encapsulates a single dimensionless point... the root architecture for an intelligent network... i.e. Cosmic Consciousness... emerges as the logic codec between the Spaceless-Timeless Logic framework and the Space-Time Logic framework, and given a logic codec integration of these two discrete logic evaluation frameworks, the ability for Meta-Physical operatives to resolve Physical entity emission mechanix, and for Physical entities to influence Meta-Physical operatives, are potential fundamental mechanisms, and justify investigation.

In which logic framework is Space-Time Energy quanta (QE) distribution resolved by Laplace's demon?

If from a Spaceless-Timeless logic framework, Laplace's demon could "feel" the QE occupancy of each individual minimum/indivisible unit of discrete Space (QI), within the entire field... i.e. "know" Space-Time as a Spaceless feeling of Timeless now... and utilize the Spaceless-Timeless/Space-Time codec... i.e. cosmic intelligence,.. to spontaneously, harmoniously resolve the QE/QI re-configuration for the entire field, within each pulse interval of one timeless Q-tick.

If a CAD modeled "geometric structure" in which QE emission and distribution SIMs verify a fundamental PROCESS that resolves spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI occupancy for the entire field, on each Q-Tick, and facilitates a codec for Space-Time entities to query cosmic intelligence at any Time "now", is installed as an upgrade to prior concepts of Demon, and/or God ENTITIES, a structural change in human consciousness is facilitated.

Can one "know" the QE occupancy configuration of the entire QI space-Time Energy field on any Q-Tick?

If the analysis structure constrains one's query, a "question without an answer" does NOT dissolve the question, and although Physical limits on current CAD SIM computability restrict the field frame, the "geometric structure" and initial state emission mechanix are verifiable within those constraints... i.e. available QI address path dictates and valid mechanix to facilitate unprecedented solution reduction in Quantum Energy (QE) analysis within any subsequent purturbative... i.e. without verifiable unbroken kinematic logic chain to the Point Source Singularity... frame of the QE/QI field, can be inferred.

One can not dismiss the possibility to "know" the individual QE/QI occupancy configuration for the entire field, on any QT, without first eliminating any possibility of resolving a CAD "geometric structure" in which QE emission and subsequent distribution SIMs verify spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI resolve on each QT, and the impossibility of knowing whether that is possible, can only be dissolved by doing so.

Geometry analysis of fundamental motion mechanix, without resolve of a Geometry Singularity... i.e. point source encapsulation... is inherently purturbative.

Fundamental PROCESS resolved QE/QI choreographies/patterns, as logic circuits which are infinitely scalable within the field... e.g. humans... that purturbatively monitor and data process Space-Time Energy observations are unable to verify a cosmic intelligence, and with regard to a fundamental PROCESS, are tolerating "Undecideablity, Unpredictability, and Uncomputability".

Given a causality model that is neither deterministic nor random... i.e. one in which on every pulse, the QE/QI configuration of the entire system must be resolved on the basis of internal agent/circuit monitoring... if the functionality of the monitoring circuit is inhibited by "Undecideablity, Unpredictability, and Uncomputability", the agent/circuit will experience confusion, and may induce local disharmony.

"Can one "know" if event A and event B are simultaneous?"

Not if one's analysis is constrained to a rubber sheet "geometric structure" in which Space and Time are continuous, and Energy is a numerical representation of a qualitative physical property measurement... e.g. heat... associated with an observable event in which neither Space nor Time is discrete... i.e. Energy is NOT a spatially defined entity.

As inferred by E=mc^2, PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) as an accelerated Mass observation quantifier, does NOT facilitate an analysis of an "event" as motion, in terms of CAD environment x,y,z location incrimination of a minimum/indivisible spatially defined entity, within a theoretical minimum/indivisible temporal duration... i.e. PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) must be differentiated from spatially discrete Energy (QE) in a quantum model.

A visual comparative of two temporally sequential snapshots, of discrete QE occupancy within discrete QI, is required to verify motion A and motion B are simultaneous... i.e. both occur within 1 Q-Tick.

If one utilizes a "geometric structure" in which static Space is quantized by QI, Time is measured in Q-Ticks (QT), and Potential for Motion is spontaneously, harmoniously distributed as continuously pulse sourced QE... i.e. Space, Time, and Energy are discrete elements of the model... simultaneous QE motion events are inherent.

To "know" that a motion event experienced by spatial entity A, and a motion event experienced by spatial entity B, are simultaneous, is facilitated by a visual comparison of two sequential freeze frames... i.e. 1 Q-Tick... of the emission SIM.

Utilization of "statistical patterns" as a semantic unifier to achieve "integration of both views"... i.e. probabilistic entanglement and discrete functionality... evades the necessity to acknowledge observations of Meta-Physical operatives influencing Physical entities, and vice versa.

As currently practiced... i.e. without verification of an unbroken kinematic logic chain to the Point Source Singularity... FUNDAMENTAL investigation by means of statistical analysis, escalate "Undecideablity, Unpredictability, and Uncomputability", inducing a credibility barrier, and inhibit utilization of observable Meta-Physical operatives to resolve inability to "know".

I have repeatedly recorded an experiment that verifies the outcome of a flip of a coin is influenced by a sufficiently enhanced QE choreographed logic agent's/circuit's... e.g. human's... binary query of the cosmic intelligence, which suggest that the root architecture of the cosmic intelligence, as the network element of the PROCESS, allows Physical entities and Meta-Physical operatives to interact, and a valid FUNDAMENTAL PROCSES model must facilitate this exchange functionality.

In that a demonstrable CAD SIM resolve of spontaneous, harmonious, directionally unbiased emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution, of pulsed Single Point Sourced discrete minimum/indivisible units of spatially addressable Potential for Motion, promotes creditability for Physical and Meta-Physical integration, and visually resolves fundamental mechanix which enable statistical analysis of FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES as required to enhance human Physical and Meta-Physical design and functionality, thereby accelerating technological developments and applications, an upgrade from prior reliance on statistical purturbative analysis as a means to explore FUNDAMENTAL territory, is justifiable.

In that the dynamics and functionality of QE choreographies... i.e. Physical "patterns"... which emerge as a result of spontaneous, harmonious resolve of a pulsed emission and subsequent distribution of Potential for Motion, within addressable,... i.e. uniformly defined, static and discrete... minimum/indivisible spatial units (QI) of a quantized "geometric structure", are inherited from a FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS.. i.e. the initial state emission mechanix as dictated by the QI address path potential of the Point Source Singularity quantization... all dynamics and functionality of subsequent QE choreographies, postulated by "theoretical structures" must map to the quantization of the associated "geometric structure".

Given that "correct" implies Physical and Meta-Physical integration, "to discover the correct geometric structure", requires resolve of a Geometry Singularity quantization which as the root architecture of a networked intelligence, facilitates a codec... i.e. logic unification... between the Spaceless-Timeless and Space-Time logic structures, and resolves continuous emergence of dynamic "patterns"... i.e. QE choreographies... which are consistent with observations both Physical and Meta-Physical.

"3D physical bounded spaces in motion render 'space-time' and 'wire frame' Cartesian systems inadequate modeling tools. Yet we agree Minkowski; "Everywhere there is substance". (1906)." ~ 2019 FQXi Essay REF:TOPIC: Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson

Consensus with regard to a "hole" in a "theoretical structure" is difficult to obtain, and a "hole" in a "theoretical structure" does not necessarily imply a "hole" in an associated "geometric structure".

As a means to validate theoretically postulated immeasurable Physical elements, as elements within the "geometric structure", the ability to see broken kinematic logic chains as discontinuities in SIMulatied PROCESSES within the CAD "geometric structure", is pivotal.

The question "What are the properties of aether?", if analyzed within the constraints of a "geometric structure" in which Space is continuous, may have no answers, but if aether is the quantization geometry of the "geometric structure"... i.e. the intelligence element of all FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES... aether properties can be associated with the uniform minimum/indivisible discrete quanta (QI) of fixed addressable spatial QE containment.

In that digital CAD SIMs analysis facilitate virtual visual verification of theoretically postulated immeasurable Physical elements, if as above, Physical is differentiated from Meta-Physical by a spatial occupancy criteria, ambiguities emerging from Meta-Physical entities and operative as indistinguishable from immeasurable Physical entities and operatives, is resolved.

"We can know what there is to be known.", but Physical limits do not infer a limit on what can be extracted as knowledge from an integration of Physical and Meta-Physical functions of "knowing", and therefor I can not agree that questions not yet solved, dissolve.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

view post as summary