Search FQXi


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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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

Lorraine Ford: on 9/12/21 at 22:15pm UTC, wrote Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/10/21 at 23:05pm UTC, wrote Rob, Re Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 14:24 GMT: You seem...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/10/21 at 1:54am UTC, wrote (continued) Rob, When people do calculations, with pen and paper or with...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/9/21 at 18:22pm UTC, wrote Hi All, Dear Jonathan, the humans in majority we are a little bit odd ....

Jonathan Dickau: on 9/9/21 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote This comment is mostly on target Lorraine... The strategy of 'divide and...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/9/21 at 1:08am UTC, wrote Joe, It is all so very convenient to compartmentalise things, to hide the...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/9/21 at 0:12am UTC, wrote Rob, I’d say that the world is not like a computer. In a computer,...

Joe Schindler: on 9/7/21 at 22:42pm UTC, wrote Please restrict this area to discussion of specific physics topics...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "The idea of a smooth mathematical evolution of “the wave function”, and..." in Consciousness and the...

Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Georgina Woodward: "Correction We can choose whether to say that replacement happens when the..." in Consciousness and the...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you John. What did you think about the questioning whether altitude..." in The Nature of Time

John Cox: "Sorry, Georgina, I have had a busy summer and am racing the change of..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.


FQXi BLOGS
September 28, 2021

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting by Various Speakers [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Joe Schindler wrote on Aug. 9, 2021 @ 22:25 GMT
Here we have a playlist of a plethora of talks from the virtual MG16 meeting, featuring numerous interesting talks and FQXi members!

Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLr5RLbSWSonsaOnZukBDs
0qsNIWM8AvRF


To filter by topic or find videos from particular speakers (with links to video of the appropriate session) visit: https://indico.icranet.org/event/1/contributions/

For more information on the conference, visit: http://www.icra.it/mg/mg16/

A list of plenary speakers is here: https://indico.icranet.org/event/1/page/3-plenary-invited-sp
eakers


Thanks to Jonathon Dickau for suggesting this post.

Enjoy!



Keywords: #gr #qg #relativity #quantumgravity #conference #playlist #MG16

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator



This forum thread is open to the public.


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 10, 2021 @ 15:48 GMT
It is a very relevant meeting and thanks to Jonathan indeed for suggesting it.

I have thought myself a lot about these Black Holes and after a general analysis, I told me that they could be stars of Dark energy , the space vacuum of this DE is important at my humble opinion and permits to explain many unknowns, the cold dark matter also added permits the ordinary matter and explain both the quantum gravitation and the antipartcules in being encoded in the space vacuum of this DE possessing the main codes with the photons being encoded also. At this cosmological scale, this DE permits also the balances and recyclings and the DM also is important to balance. The cold of this matter non baryonic for the DM and this antigravitation for the DE. Both balance at all scales.

The informations are better understood in this line of reasoning and also the constant cosmological problem is solved when we consider this DE. The time becomes absolute in considering the motions and the GR is just a part of the general problem.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 12, 2021 @ 10:18 GMT
Returning about this dark energy, this antigravitional push acceleratings intriguing, the constant cosmological problem is linked and we must probably consider this DE like a new road. The General relativity is just for observations at high velocities of our photonic spacetime but the photons are not the only one piece of puzzle even if the einstein field equation is important but it is just a part of the problem and we must relativate the generality of the universal mechanism. We can consider a superfluidity for this space time vacuum made of particles. This vacuum is a main energy coded at my humble opinion and is essential to explain our deepest unknowns , the ordinary baryonic matters is probably created due to fact that this space vacuum of the DE encodes the photons and the cold dark matter. That implies that both newton and einstein are correct for their interpretations of the gravitation, it is just that we must consider these intepretations in their scales of analysis and observations and measurements. This implies a new theory of the gravitation and even two new theories, the cold dark matter encoded in this space vacuum can explain the quantum gravitation and the antiparticles and also a fith force appears considering this superfluid of the DE and possessing the main codes. That implies even a fith force gravitational or maybe antigravitational. Now the aim is to find these particles and their properties in our standard model.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 12, 2021 @ 16:33 GMT
There are roads to find these interactions at the Large hadron Collider. If the spacevacuum of the DE possesses the main codes and if it encodes the photons anjd the cold dark matter to create the ordinary matter, so we have a specific mechanism about our standard model. The actual forces known and interactions consider these photons , and if my reasoning is correct, these fields bosonic actual and the momentum of particles of this SM are not sufficient , it is too weak like interactions probably, but in logic there is a mechanism. I search a road considering the antiparticles and the link with the cold dark matter, there is also the gravitons linked in logic with the DM encoded but we have not still found them at this LHC. Now maybe considering this DE possessing the main codes, so this energy is in our standard model also and probably a fith force appears but also this energy is everwhere considering this ordinary matter and the known particles , maybe it is an antigravitational reasoning , and if the momentuam of 3D spheres is the key, that becomes relevant to search the bridge between the photonic fields, the DM fields, and the DE fields.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 18, 2021 @ 12:47 GMT
This is really great stuff. I especially liked the gravity lensing and shadows plenary on PT1 jul06 as well as the sessions spread throughout. Then the pulsars sessions NS3+NS5 and I expect to harvest more from other sessions.

The Zoom format is a great innovation for these kinds of technical conferences, but further editing would help a lot. For example, there is no reason for plenaries separate from sessions and makes much more sense to simply keep all themed talks together in the vids. Also, talks without slides are not very useful.

Intros are really not necessary... just supply the hyperlinked bios.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 18, 2021 @ 20:43 GMT
Thanks Steve and Steve...

Getting up around midnight to hear almost 12 hours a day of talks was like drinking from a fire hose, especially with so much cutting-edge stuff. And trying to figure out which sessions to attend in real-time was often very difficult. I missed a lot.

I found myself having just missed a talk I wanted to see, but getting drawn in by the current speaker, on several occasions. It was especially nice to be a participant. I could have commented more often, but I was in awe of the speakers on most occasions I did have something to say.

Folks might find it interesting, the session where I was the last speaker of the day, which featured contributions by four FQXi members (if you include Barbara Drossel's work with George Ellis). I appear at around 1:33:30.

HR3 - Time and Philosophy in Physics - July 8

I would also recommend checking out this session talking about warp drives and wormholes, which I attended. There was another segment on this topic the previous day, which I have yet to see.

AT3 - Wormholes, Energy Conditions and Time Machines - July 7

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 22, 2021 @ 21:35 GMT
Re. Prof Dr. Dr. Norman Sieroka's talk. A couple of issues are mentioned The first is non simultaneity of 'The' Present. Each observer's Present is formed from the sensory input obtained at his, her, its location at the same configuration of material existence,-Now. What is input has different spatial origin. Due to the time taken for the sensory signals to reach the observer, we can say different temporal origin. Though meaning by that, pertaining to a previously existing configuration of existence. The second item in need of clarification is, What is an event? There is the material happening and there is the observer's perception or recording of the 'event'. These occurrences are categorically different, The material event produces potential sensory data that might be received. Perception or recording involve receipt of a sensory signal. Perhaps the word 'event' should have a prefix: Material, M ,or Foundational, F and Sensory S, or Observed, O.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 22, 2021 @ 21:41 GMT
To be clear the explanations given are not a part of the talk but my response to the issues pointed out during the talk.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 23, 2021 @ 00:58 GMT
I think O-event, observed or OP-event, Observation product, would be better than S-event which might be confused with a source event rater than pertaining to sensory input. M-event is better than F event as there may be disagreement/uncertainty about what is foundational; Less controversy about what 'material' means.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 21, 2021 @ 21:12 GMT
Jonathan Dickau's vid is on time and not very technical, and so I encourage people interested in time to watch his vid at 1:33 in HR3.

I have always liked time and Dickau even mentions Connes, but does not mention much about Connes entropy or thermal time. This is like a second cosmic time dimension and is very useful for my TOE...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 25, 2021 @ 01:28 GMT
Regarding entropy or thermal time...

Excellent observation Steve Agnew. The intrinsic time evolution Connes talks about is indeed thermal in nature, and it evolves through KMS (Kubo, Martin, and Schwinger) equilibrium states which is like a Green's function in non-commutative spaces. I have a paper soon to publish that goes into more detail on that point.

It was a fortuitous meeting at a conference that brought this dynamism to light, because Haag and Tomita were both presenters, and they saw potential in comparing notes. This is also what inspired Connes to go into NCG, in order to complete the missing cases for type iii von Neumann algebras.

Best,

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 25, 2021 @ 01:45 GMT
You might like this blog post...

If you haven't seen it already Steve, this entry talks about defining the heart of non-commutative geometry. Connes gives some details of the intrinsic time evolution in NCG and its thermal aspect here.

Heart Bit #1

Enjoy,

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 25, 2021 @ 16:13 GMT
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 25, 2021 @ 01:28 GMT

Regarding entropy or thermal time...

It is too bad that the blog is being so diluted with off topic comments instead of focusing on the great work... by both genders. Thanks for your link to Connes blog, which actually has to do with using noncommutative geometries for a quantum gravity. This approach does not mention branes or spin foam and so seems like an alternative approach.

Especially noteworthy for time at this conference were all the pulsar papers testing gravity. I especially like the double pulsar papers since I never heard of double pulsars before. The Hu paper was very good and she happens to be a woman doing great science. Normally, gender is not really an issue with good science... but some few seem to want it to be...

My TOE does suppose there is free choice and that the world in not determinate. My quantum free choice is not predictable even though the universe is a quantum causal set of precursors for all outcomes. Although all outcomes do have precursors, it is not possible in a quantum universe to always know those precursors.

This means the future is not set and we do have free choice... for better or for worse...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 25, 2021 @ 17:07 GMT
Hi Steve, It is true to thank Jonathan for the blog of Connes, he is very relevant this thinker.

I like your ideas, that said we cannot utilise the words TOE, because we must recognise that we have too much limitations and that the general philosophy is not found, that many unknowns must be added and that the foundamental objects are not found too.

I discuss on the wall of richard Gill on facebook and he has put the last paper of Sabine Hossenfelder about the free will, the bell s theorem and the hidden variables, I have explained this ,

the paper of Sabine and friends tells that violating Statistical Independence does not require fine tuning and that the violations of Statistical Independence can instead come about by the geometry of the underlying state space. They consider also the free will in this paper and that violations of the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without any correlations between the measurement outcomes and the hidden variables appear but how is it possible without having known the main causes in the deeper logic of this space wich don t interact with our actual QM and so that we cannot observe and measure, there is a problem.

Let s take the wonderful ideas of Penrose and Hameroff with these microtubules, neurons, cognitive sciences.... it is the same , their model is very relevant generally but don t really explain this consciousness and free will because we retrun at the same problem, we lack of parameters and knowledges, we have too much limitations about the main codes, and we don t know nor the general philosophy of this universe and why we exist and from what and we don t know the foundamental objects. The QM is limited, and the GR is probably not the only one piece of puzzle.

So in conclusion we retrun about a main important fact, we have too much limitations to explain our deepest unknowns and if we consider our actual GR and others, it is not sufficient.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 25, 2021 @ 17:11 GMT
a thing important that said that you tell is about the non determinated things considering this free will..... that said we cannot compute nor the consciousness, n0or the free will actually.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 26, 2021 @ 22:50 GMT
I like Sabine, but she is just a scientist after all and no one in Science can measure free choice. Therefore, the proper Science answer is that free choice is not a measurement of Science but rather an opinion that many scientists hold.

However, quantum probabilities do limit all outcomes including free choice outcomes. A free choice is a quantum superposition of sensation and motor action potentials with either the outcome of action or of inaction. Since free choice is largely subconscious, memories and feelings and other precursors affect free choice.

However, it is not possible to measure the precursors of free choice, just the outcomes...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 27, 2021 @ 21:05 GMT
What should we tell Greta Thunberg and other young people?

A change of heart is needed. While it does some good to call out abuses and abusers of free will, it will never be enough to combat evil in the world, and it is a failed strategy historically. Instead; we must create the good. Only by making it plain that there are ways to do things better, and that it is possible to make and stick with better choices, can we hope to turn things around. A sense it's actually possible to do what is needed is essential.

So what people need is a message of hope, and a reason to change their ways, with the sense that if they DO change; it can or will actually do some good. If people in Physics are guilty of creating a view that time's course and our doom is inevitable, as in the movie "Tomorrowland," or as Lorraine imagines, I hope there is time to change that impression. But I think perhaps the fault is elsewhere.

There is a fair amount of support in the Life Sciences for a deterministic and reductionist view of the world. Their view of Physics features an understanding typical of 18th and 19th century views on our subject, however, with some disbelief and discontent regarding 20th and 21st century Physics. So there's the rub. The Pharmaceutical industry has invested billions to convince people it's all Chemistry. In that mindset; free will IS an illusion.

Nobody in Physics has been able to compete with that. Only if we can show that free-will arises from a non-deterministic Physics basis (such as QM) instead of by purely chemical means, will we be able to dispel the fog of the fearful grip the Pharma industry has on people's minds. There is no drug to fix Climate change. It is a Physics problem, not one that can be solved by Psychology or Psychiatry.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 27, 2021 @ 21:14 GMT
Apologies for the off-topic message above...

I am trying to address several of Lorraine's comments in one post, rather than piecemeal. I want to make it clear where I stand and then move on, or be able to refer back to this summary. If Physics folks have been guilty of not caring for the environment, or by espousing views that exclude our free choice propagate an air of hopeless determinism; I hope we can inspire some change. If the fault is in another sector of society; I hope we can inspire a change of heart among those people too.

I do not feel that taking down the wrongdoers is going to effect lasting change, because there are so many others waiting to take their place. Instead; we should foster a change to the social systems that avail wrongdoers of an unfair advantage. If we can reduce the unfair advantages the bad actors have; then we can have a working plan in place sooner, and get the planet back to health. But right now the world is on the brink.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 27, 2021 @ 23:49 GMT
Jonathan,

I have “defined” numbers, consciousness and free will [1]. These are NOT VAGUE, WOOLLY DEFINITIONS, I hope.

I am saying that:

1. Differentiation (discerning difference)/ information/ consciousness; and

2. Assigning new numbers to the variables/ agency/ control/ free will/ creativity

are an essential part of the physics of the world, the physics of a system.

...................

I am saying that equations are NOT SUFFICIENT to represent the world. I am saying that the Marcel Grossmann Meetings are a load of rubbish.

What do YOU actually mean by numbers, consciousness and free will?

1. Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 25, 2021 @ 05:37 GMT

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 28, 2021 @ 00:53 GMT
Jonathan,

I am saying that the Marcel Grossmann Meetings are a load of rubbish.

1. I’m saying that there is NO SUCH THING as a mathematical system without people: mathematics is a human artefact. PEOPLE differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and PEOPLE move the numbers and other symbols. A mathematical system at the foundations of the world requires the following elements: something that differentiates (discerns difference), and something that moves the numbers: this “something” can only be represented with Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

2. I’m saying that if you think that a system can be represented by equations alone, then you are saying to Greta Thunberg and the other young people: You can make no difference to the world because the laws of nature (represented by equations) determine every outcome, i.e. the laws of nature determine every number for every variable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 27, 2021 @ 23:13 GMT
Do people make a genuine difference to the world? If physicists thought that living things made a GENUINE difference to the world then the effects of living things (i.e. matter) on the world would already be a part of physics.

If living things/ matter make a GENUINE difference to the world, then living things/ matter are changing the numbers for the variables. But according to physics, the laws of nature are the only things changing the numbers for the variables.

The QBist physicists are the ONLY, the ONLY, physicists that say: “…the world is so wired that our actions as active agents actually matter. Our actions and their consequences are not eliminable epiphenomena.” [1]

But the overwhelming majority of physicists and philosophers (mainly men) don’t accept that people actually make a tangible difference to the world. And the enthusiastic and uncritical followers of physics are so woolly headed that they haven’t twigged what physics is really saying about the world.

1. A Subjective Way to Take Ontic Indeterminism Seriously, Christopher Fuchs, https://cast.itunes.uni-muenchen.de/vod/playlists/p7KZK1hh0R
.html .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 2, 2021 @ 18:47 GMT
I do not note the same correlation...

It is untrue to state that the Quantum Bayesian approach is the only interpretation of Physics in which choices matter, or the only way agency as an expression of free-will can exist. We can agree to disagree, if you like, but I can't give you any points for this. I have issues with the QBist approach because I think it is too probabilistic.

Like Rob; I think a signal-theoretic model can reveal most of the same reality that QM explains, but without introducing random probabilities. In my view, what is assumed to be a stochastic background is more likely a pseudo-random variation (from the early universe) which contains embedded information about its origins. But there is a piece of this story where you and I agree Lorraine.

To a degree, the QBist view rests on the assumption that variability exists and is irreducible. This is what allows for free will to happen, in the first place. If you take away this assumption, free will in Quantum Bayesianism collapses, or fails to have a robust basis. But if you review the content of my MG16 talk; I emphatically affirm that inherent variability exists.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 2, 2021 @ 19:02 GMT
For what it is worth...

Dieter Zeh strongly disliked and opposed probabilistic views of Quantum Mechanics, while strongly affirming that all we observed is Quantum Mechanical, or is fully explained by QM. However; his outlook was that the essence of QM is found in what he called the global wavefunction, which subsumes the individual wavefunction of all items in the universe as one entity.

This is sort of like seeing the ocean as a whole, with individual water molecules as components of a greater entity. This does not sit well with those who affirm that the greatest value of QM is seen in the utility of the probabilistic views. But it almost fits with what Rob McEachern and Peter Morgan are pitching - that a signal-theoretic view can show us how the global maps to the local framework just as well as probabilistic QM can do.

I think there is a kind of QM compass, where wavefunction collapses or does not collapse are the East and West, while wavefunction is real or is only a theoretical probability until observed become North and South. I have learned that EVERY way we can interpret QM has unique advantages. The trick is to find the interpretation applicable to extracting the kind of information you are looking for.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 2, 2021 @ 22:38 GMT
Jonathan,

Define what you actually mean by:

1) Numbers;

2) Consciousness; and

3) Free will.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 2, 2021 @ 21:33 GMT
Rob,

I never believed the Shannon view of information ever since way back when I studied Information Science, Mathematics and Physics at university. That type of “information” is not real-world information: the Shannon view only applies to computer systems. However, the world clearly IS a system.

I agree with mathematics and physics that, at its foundations, the world is differentiated into categories, relationships and numbers (represented by variables, equations and number symbols). But these are entirely static entities: they cannot constitute a system by themselves.

Clearly, information is one of the other necessary aspects of a system: information is what differentiates the differentiation. It is logically impossible for a differentiated system to exist without the system being able to differentiate (discern difference in) itself: to exist, a system needs to differentiate its own categories, relationships and numbers. To represent differentiation, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols, including TRUE and FALSE.

The other necessary aspect of the world is that a system needs to move and change itself: to exist, a system needs to change its own numbers. To represent the world changing its own numbers for its variables, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols. This number change has flow-on effects, due to the “law of nature” relationships.

(Real-world numbers are necessarily relationships, just like the laws of nature are relationships, but numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out; real-world numbers can’t be Platonic entities or strings of dots.)

We need to think of the world as a system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 3, 2021 @ 02:50 GMT
"I never believed the Shannon 'view of information'..."

That much is obvious...

And yet you nevertheless persist in believing that your cell phone and all other modern, wireless technologies, whose functionality is entirely dependent upon the validity of Shannon's "view of information", will actually function, in your "real-world", whenever you wish it to...

Like the physicists you are disparaging, you fail to see the irony in your perverse beliefs; Your present world of technology, could not possibly even exist, if Shannon's "view of information" was not believable.

As Arthur C. Clark once observed, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Shannon's "view of information" may seem to you to be unbelievable magic, at best, but it is actually just a technology that has advanced beyond your present understanding of such things. But it is not "rocket science" Lorraine, you are quite capable of understanding it, if you would just try; forget about all your numbers and variables and equations and all the other irrelevant things that you have been talking about and start thinking about exactly why those things really are irrelevant, to a system based upon the auto-correlation and cross-correlation properties, of entire, random sequences, rather than just the values of individual variables within a sequence. Stop staring at each individual tree, and look at the entire forest; it is the correlation properties of an entire sequence of observations, taken as a whole, not the properties of each individual observation or variable, that is the only thing that actually matters, in the recovery of information.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 4, 2021 @ 02:48 GMT
Rob,

After being a computer analyst and programmer for more than 20 years etc. etc., I can tell you that computers and communications use human-devised SYMBOLS of information. Due to human ingenuity, electrical circuits, voltages and transistors have been ingeniously arranged to re-represent our human symbols: equations, Boolean and algorithmic symbols, numbers, binary digits, words etc. The electrical circuits, voltages and transistors are used as symbols; the electrical circuits, voltages and transistors are used to represent equations, Boolean and algorithmic symbols, numbers, binary digits, words etc.

There are no such things as binary digits in a computer: circuit designers use various higher and lower voltages to REPRESENT binary digits. Depending on the requirements for the circuit, the higher voltage may be used to represent the binary digit one or TRUE, or the lower voltage maybe used to represent the binary digit one or TRUE.

So from the base up, from binary digits to equations, Boolean and algorithmic symbols, numbers, and words etc., what the electrical circuits, voltages and transistors represent depends on what human beings want them to represent.

As far as real-world information goes: the low-level physics of electrical circuits, voltages and transistors is where the REAL information is happening. The REAL information is low-level stuff. The electrical circuits, voltages and transistors don’t know anything about the high-level uses that human beings are using them for. As always, human beings, with their conscious perception and ability to move things, are an integral part of a computer system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 4, 2021 @ 08:12 GMT
Robert,

you believe that the origin of the double-slit interference pattern can be attributed to the geometry of the slits, a scattering process. You mentioned this many times (https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilo
t-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/) here and elsewhere.

Making the light source huge enough (bigger than the distance between the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Sep. 6, 2021 @ 21:41 GMT
Why have my conversations with Lorraine Ford been removed?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 6, 2021 @ 23:30 GMT
Why is it my conversations with Lorraine have all vanished but not her conversations on this page with other people? There are other off topic discussions here not removed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 00:26 GMT
I'm not happy about the way the threads I participated on have been selectively excised without any warning. When rudeness, not by me, and off topic posts have been occurring unaddressed for a long time on the blog and forum pages.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Joe Schindler wrote on Sep. 6, 2021 @ 21:52 GMT
Admin Note:

This forum topic is dedicated to discussion of the Marcel Grossmann 16 meeting. Off topic threads, repetitive threads, and threads violating our community expectation of a respectful dialogue, will be removed.

Several threads have been removed as off topic.

You may find appropriate forums for discussion of many topics at https://fqxi.org/community/forum.

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 6, 2021 @ 23:43 GMT
I don't think whole threads should be removed because of some sub standard posts, as if they never existed. When time has been given and effort has been made laying out polite and well reasoned arguments. what variables and numbers are is not off topic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 00:41 GMT
I agree with Georgina that the reality represented by equations, variables and numbers is not really off topic. Because, unless the Marcel Grossmann meetings and mathematics and physics in general, refers to the real world, the Marcel Grossmann meetings are talking fairy tales. This is a really serious issue: the Marcel Grossmann meetings are basically talking fairy tales.

Also, what equations say about the nature of the world is not off topic. Because, once again, unless the Marcel Grossmann meetings and mathematics and physics in general, refers to the real world, the Marcel Grossmann meetings are talking fairy tales.

However, I admit that I personally can get a bit disrespectful, but some of the men whose posts were removed were disrespectful too.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 01:25 GMT
The appropriate content rule states that: "Posts that do not contribute to constructive discussion will be removed." it does not say that whole threads containing such posts will be removed. I feel unfairly penalized and that my IP has been disrespected- thrown out as if worthless.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 21:03 GMT
What an absolute disgrace is the 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting, and physics, mathematics and philosophy in general.

Because the latest IPCC report was released a month ago, a “code red for humanity”, but these people are still vigorously championing a view of the world where people have no effect on the world.

Many prominent physicists openly admit that physics says that people can have no effect on the world:

1) The physics view says that people are mere epiphenomena, by-products of the laws of nature;

2) The physics view says that people don’t change the numbers for the variables, it’s the laws of nature and nothing but the laws of nature changing the numbers for the variables;

3) The physics view says that it’s the laws of nature that are 100% responsible for all outcomes.

The 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting is all about a group of people in la-la land; a group of people imagining and modelling a type of world where people have no effect on the world.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Joe Schindler replied on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 22:42 GMT
Please restrict this area to discussion of specific physics topics discussed at the MG16 meeting, relevant to the videos posted above and the topics discussed therein.

I have opened a new forum topic for discussion of the present state of physics, mathematics, and science, where you are welcome to continue this and other general discussions. You may find the new topic here: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3698.

Please direct further discussion of this issue to the new forum topic.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator


Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 9, 2021 @ 01:08 GMT
Joe,

It is all so very convenient to compartmentalise things, to hide the fact that 99% of physicists and mathematicians are imagining and modelling a type of world where people could have no effect on the world.

The latest IPCC report was released a month ago, a “code red for humanity”, but 99% of physicists and mathematicians are still imagining and modelling a type of world where people could have no effect on the world.

Clearly, physics wants to hide what it is doing. Compartmentalisation is how you do it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 9, 2021 @ 12:28 GMT
This comment is mostly on target Lorraine...

The strategy of 'divide and conquer' leaves important details unexamined. And if too many people say 'it's not MY job' because it falls outside their specialty; then taking action will fall through the cracks and climate change will continue to run away unabated.

At least in my community; it has become front page news at this point. So folks are finally admitting climate change is here. I think it's weird to blame scientists for the unmindfulness of all society, but I know some scientists are culpable too.

Best, Jonathan

p.s. - I can show using pure Math why using divide and conquer compartmentalization fails to capture the fine details. - jjd

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 10, 2021 @ 23:05 GMT
Rob,

Re Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 14:24 GMT:

You seem to be saying that there are entities, knowledge and procedures at the foundations of the world. I.e. you seem to be saying something like: there exist such entities as multiple possible outcomes; there exists knowledge that there are multiple possible outcomes; there are procedures to ensure that the actual outcome is correct, as opposed to the other possible outcomes.

But I’d say that there are 3 basic aspects to a system: categories/ relationships; an aspect that discerns difference in the system; and an aspect that moves the system.

So I’d say that, despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature only represent categories/ relationships. So you’ve got:

1) A relationship aspect of the world (represented by equations and variables);

2) An aspect of the world that discerns difference (represented by Boolean symbols); and

3) An aspect of the world that assigns a few new numbers to the variables, whereby other numbers are changed due to the relationship aspect of the world (the assignment of numbers to the variables aspect is represented by algorithmic symbols).

The delta symbols in the equations, that represent the law of nature relationships, hide the fact that there exist non-relationship aspects of the world (i.e. 2 and 3 above). But there is no procedure controlling 2 and 3; and 3 is the only step-like aspect of the world.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 12, 2021 @ 22:15 GMT
Rob,

As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the world is not like a computer, where everything is reduced to a series of steps. The laws of nature are relationships, i.e. they don’t imply steps. Basic differentiation (the discerning of difference) of the elements of the system does not involve steps. Assigning new numbers to the variables is the only aspect of the system that involves steps.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.