CATEGORY:
Ultimate Reality
[back]
TOPIC:
The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
FQXi Administrator Joe Schindler wrote on Sep. 7, 2021 @ 22:31 GMT
This forum will be an appropriate place to discuss the present state of physics, mathematics, and science, as well as for general discussion tangential to these issues.
While the topic of allowed discussion is broad, please make sure all posts adhere to
community guidelines. Posts and Threads containing disrespectful, combative, or rude language may be removed at discretion of the moderators.
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 8, 2021 @ 23:41 GMT
Joe, interesting that you separate topics by physics, mathematics and science--when both physics and math are disciplines of science. Demoting science to a level equal to its subdisciplines suggests that there is no one scientific method by which all its fields operate, no one guiding principle.
Nevertheless, there is a context by which I agree with your topic choice. Mathematics can be strictly classified as art, apart from its applications to science and physics. (I belong to this camp.)
So while math is intimately joined to physics, it has no connection to science at all, absent a guiding principle by which one can objectively make a closed logical judgment. I satisfied myself years ago that Jacob Bronowski had the right prescription: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."
So as to the state of physics, mathematics and science today--I would opine that far more attention is paid to self-promotion, than to unity of method.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 30, 2021 @ 04:24 GMT
"No connection to science at all" Tom-? Statistics was a compulsory part of my biological sciences degree, I also took 1 lecture of binomial genetics to decide it wasn't my cup of tea, and wouldn't sit the full class but swap for another.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2021 @ 18:49 GMT
I don't understand, Georgina. Are you suggesting statistics as the guiding principle of science?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 30, 2021 @ 22:23 GMT
No, but the statistics that will be used to analyze the results can be part of the experimental design process. Replication of outcomes with statistical significance is better evidence for something being a true effect than just a result or unanalyzed number of results. I think this especially used in some areas of science eg. pharmacology. That was not my point though. It was just that maths is a part of sciences apart from physics.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 11, 2021 @ 23:09 GMT
The reality is that people, and other living things, are assigning the numbers for their own position variables. People are moving their legs and arms and vocal chords, walking and talking, and driving cars and dropping plastic in the ocean. PEOPLE are assigning the numbers for their own position variables. But physics says that the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, assign the numbers for the position variables.
So what an absolute disgrace is the 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting and all such meetings, 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 championing a view of the world where people can 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 (and all such meetings, and physics, mathematics and philosophy in general) is all about a group of people imagining and modelling a type of world where people could have no effect on the world.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 14, 2021 @ 00:43 GMT
People flew planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. People moved their arms and legs and vocal chords, and took over and controlled planes. In other words, people assigned the numbers to their own position variables.
But physics, mathematics and philosophy can’t face the reality that we live in a type of world where people and living things, and other suitably integrated matter, can change the numbers for their own variables.
Physics is still holding onto the idea that we live in a type of world where the laws of nature are the only entities assigning the numbers to the position and other variables. Physics is still holding onto the idea that the laws of nature are the only entities that caused the planes to fly into the twin towers, and that people are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature.
When will physics, mathematics and philosophy catch up with the REAL world, a world where people have a genuine effect on the world?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 14, 2021 @ 19:33 GMT
Lorraine, please forgive me if you have already answered this question:
What is an example of a 'law of nature'?
Followup:
How does one know?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 15, 2021 @ 00:41 GMT
Tom,
I HAVEN’T given any examples of the “laws of nature”; I’m assuming that you are already familiar with the equations that physicists use to represent the “laws of nature”.
But I’m not considering the laws of nature. Instead, I’m considering the NATURE of the laws of nature.
I’m describing the fact that the laws of nature are relationships between categories like position, mass, charge. Categories/ relationships are foundational mathematical entities; and clearly, some foundational aspects of the world are relationships between categories, which people symbolically represent by equations and variables.
My point is that not every foundational aspect of the world should be seen as relationships between categories (which people symbolically represent by equations and variables). Quantum mechanics tries to turn behaviours into relationships between categories. Complexity theory tries to turn epiphenomena into categories. But I would say that it is invalid to try to turn behaviours or epiphenomena into categories. Instead, you need Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent some foundational aspects of the world, including the aspect of the world whereby one discerns difference.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 16, 2021 @ 00:35 GMT
Tom,
At its foundations, the world does not have an overview of itself; the world is not a computer system with someone (or even nothing) programming it; there are no mathematical calculations/ computational steps underlying the law of nature relationships.
So, I disagree with (what seems to be) your outlook on the world.
In fact, PEOPLE have overviews of the world; PEOPLE created and program computer systems; PEOPLE need to do mathematical calculations/ computational steps when they manipulate the symbols that represent the laws of nature.
I am merely saying that the ideas of physics are such that people could have no effect on the world.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 14, 2021 @ 22:56 GMT
Physics says that no matter what you do, whether you rape, pillage and murder, or you set a ghost net adrift in the ocean, no matter what you do, you couldn’t have done otherwise because the laws of nature are causing your outcomes, you are not causing your outcomes.
No matter what the law courts might say, physics says that you couldn’t have done otherwise. Physics says that you can’t try to do something different, because that too would only be what the laws of nature cause you to do.
In other words, physics says that people have no effect on the world, because it’s the laws of nature that change every number for every variable; it’s the laws of nature that have an effect on the world. Physics says that you personally have no effect on the world because physics says that you yourself can’t assign the numbers for your own variables.
Who would have the temerity to suggest that physics could have got something very, very wrong? Well, the QBist physicists seem to have a different view of the world [1], not that physics takes much notice of them.
The point being that, contrary to what physics says, the world is such that people and other living things are assigning the numbers (e.g.) for their own position variables.
1. “…the world is so wired that our actions as active agents actually matter. Our actions and their consequences are not eliminable epiphenomena.”, A Subjective Way to Take Ontic Indeterminism Seriously, Christopher Fuchs, https://cast.itunes.uni-muenchen.de/vod/playlists/p7KZK1hh0R
.html .
report post as inappropriate
Paul Topping wrote on Sep. 14, 2021 @ 23:25 GMT
Most physicists believe that what we do in the world still matters even if determinism is accepted. In other words, determinism doesn't negate the concept of free will. This is known as Compatibilism. The best description of this position known to me is Sean Carroll's
Free Will Is as Real as Baseball.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 15, 2021 @ 01:28 GMT
Yes,
There is a disconnect between what physicists SAY they believe, and what the ideas and equations of physics actually say about the nature of the world. Clearly, most physicists are experts in the dark art of doublethink.
The concept of "free will" is spurious idea.
The RIGHT question is: do people have any effect on the world, OR do the laws of nature assign every number for every variable? The answer is that physics says that the laws of nature change every number for every variable: physics says that people have no effect on the world.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 15, 2021 @ 01:35 GMT
The above should read: The concept of "free will" is a spurious idea.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 15, 2021 @ 11:07 GMT
Hi Lorraine, Paul, ¨
Dear Paul, The link that you have given is very interesting, I work myself about all this having a theory , the theory of spherisation, so the philosophy is important too in my humble model. I agree about this free will being real , we have assumptions inside this community but the free will indeed is real. It becomes complex considering the physics, the maths and the...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine, Paul, ¨
Dear Paul, The link that you have given is very interesting, I work myself about all this having a theory , the theory of spherisation, so the philosophy is important too in my humble model. I agree about this free will being real , we have assumptions inside this community but the free will indeed is real. It becomes complex considering the physics, the maths and the evolution like these cognitive sciences correlated with the consciousness and this philosophy.
I like and respect the intepretattions of Julian Barbour but I don t agree about how he considers this time, this time is real too and is essential correlated with the motions and so the changes, variables.Why we make choices and why we have favorite things ? there is a logic and rational physical , mathematical and biological cause and this cause can be compute, but unfortunally it lacks pieces to add. Probably that the consciousness is correlated but even in understanding the physics of particles a little bit and the microtubules or others, we have limitations.
And it is there probably that we must better understand the foundamentaöl objects and the philosophical origin of this universe and for me we must consider the 3D spheres and the DE and DM encoded too in our standard model.
We have the same limitations about the general complete laws of nature and so the reality , we just analyse the emergent propertieas but not the main causes. I am not a religious , I have searched answers when I was younger in reading the religious books but they have not given me concrete answers. I have searched in the philosophies, I like kant and spinoza, but it is in ranking the sciences, animals, vegetals, minerals , maths, physics, evolution when I was at university in geology that I have better understood all this and so I have created the theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quant and cosmol 3D spheres. I consider personally an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D creating this physicality.
But of course we cannot prove it. It is there that I can understand the interpretation of Barbour about the time when we correlate in meditation with this eternity where the space , dimension,time, matter don t exist, but at my humble opinion we are inside a closed evolutive system where these parameters exist. There is an uncompleteness appearing generally about this general philosophy and the main cause and foundamental objects.
I have remarked personally having worked the strings before to find my theory that these strings, fields and the GR alone have enormous philosophical problems considering this infinite eternal consciousness. I conclude so that the fields and the strings cannot be the main philosophical cause. But it is just my opinion of course.
The duality maybe is not really important, just the reality seems essential when we consider the proved axioms, laws, equantions. If the philosophy general of the origin is better understood, so we can better understand this consciousness and free will and this free will can be even harmonised considering the foundamentals of this universe created by this infinite eternal consciousness, like if some evidences appear and so like if some choices are correlated respecting this infinity and eternity. We are in fact for me inside a project of evolution simply and the consciousness is a tool , it is the meaning too of my theory of spherisation.
Who has the best theories general and philosophy ? we don t know, we just interpret in function of informations that we encode and after we choose to create and we try to converge with determinism after all simply.
Thanks for the link, it is very interesting and relevant,
Best Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 16, 2021 @ 01:05 GMT
Re Paul Topping wrote on Sep. 14, 2021 @ 23:25 GMT:
The idea of “free will” is a load of rubbish.
“Free will” is an obfuscatory idea; no one can even define or agree what the term means.
So let those that believe in “free will” define what they are talking about; let them define “free will” in clear unambiguous terms; and let them define “free will” in terms of known, actually existing entities.
It is a waste of time talking about “free will”. The only relevant issue is: do people have an effect on the world, i.e. do people change the numbers for the variables?
Physics says that the laws of nature change every number for every variable. i.e. people have NO EFFECT on the world.
In other words, physics is wrong about the fundamental nature of the world, because people DO have an effect on the world, i.e. people are changing some of the numbers for the variables.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 16, 2021 @ 09:16 GMT
Hi Paul and all,
wow, I think there are much, much more aspects to consider regarding the issue of “free will” than were mentioned or examined in the article by Sean Carroll. I like to mention some of these aspects here.
First of all, there are fundamental, “primitive” needs for any living human subject, at least until that subject is more or less an adult. For example these...
view entire post
Hi Paul and all,
wow, I think there are much, much more aspects to consider regarding the issue of “free will” than were mentioned or examined in the article by Sean Carroll. I like to mention some of these aspects here.
First of all, there are fundamental, “primitive” needs for any living human subject, at least until that subject is more or less an adult. For example these are food, water, a shelter against rough environments, care from other humans. These are the “hard physical” needs that increase the chances of survival even – and especially - for newborn babies, but also for adults.
Then there are other needs, such as security, love, care, being accepted, being recognized and valued. Additional needs may be our striving for “happiness”, “fun” and “playing”, or in other words to be creative, to create something – even if it is just creating food for some animals out of what one had planted on the field or to create something just for the purpose of fun (the rules of a chess game, baseball game etc.).
Now, for each and every of these mentioned needs there can be specified some exceptions:
The homeless person who doesn't want to live again in a conventional home / shelter. The subject who committed a hunger strike. The other subject who deliberately committed suicide (maybe by a hunger strike, but surely also via other measures). And there may be persons who do not need, for whatever reasons, “things” like love and being valued, for example some psychopaths ore else.
When talking about “normal” people, we take it for guaranteed that they regularly have the “will” to eat during their living. That they do not kill themselves. That they like to be happy as much as possible (in opposition to being grumpy as much as possible). That they want to achieve something in their lives. For these people we cannot talk about them such that they deliberately choose to eat everyday by free will, since they are not free to choose whether they are hungry or not. Same is also valid for most of the needs I just mentioned above that are already there when a subject is just a baby.
Now, some kind of free will comes into play when some of these (baby) needs suddenly are in conflict, in opposition with some other needs. To understand this, we have to admit that the more primitive needs can be overwritten, replaced by some more sophisticated needs. For example there are cases where people in the 9/11 disaster choose to “waste” some precious time in the towers to help other people to escape that inferno. Cases where the helpers were aware of the contradiction between their intuitive feeling to instantly leave the building due to high danger of death and their intuitive feeling that it is likewise or more valid trying to help others getting out.
The main aspect to consider here is what people judge to be worth doing or not doing (even worth thinking through or not thinking through!). So an element of judgement, a real element of belief in what worthiness things have or don't have comes into play. The terrorist may not have at all orchestrated their plans if they didn't thought that their goals are of a personal high worth. The same is true for all the helpers that died or have survived that day. In fact, such beliefs in a “higher” worthiness apart from the “primitive” needs of food, water and shelter can be observed on many occasions. As already mentioned there are suicides and hunger strikes in the world as well as wars to enforce “worthiness”. But on the other side there are also kind acts of humanity all over the world that meet other definitions of “worthiness”.
Since Osama Bin Laden was obviously very happy with the results of 9/11, it may have been the case that this satisfied his need for some “happiness” in his life. If true or not for that special person, most people obviously have very different beliefs of how to best satisfy their needs for happiness. And not only regarding their need for happiness, but also regarding their need for love, care and attention.
For me, the main point here is not the plethora of different “beliefs” in “worthiness” of different people that are often mutually conflicting each other. It is the fact that most human beings, during their lives, repeatedly come across two or more internally conflicting beliefs of “worthiness” already within their own hearts / souls / minds and have to make a decision. Whereas the more “primitive” needs like hunger are usually not conflicting with some other needs, belief-based needs can often do so.
Independent of what one thinks about the “worthiness” (or reliability concerning the truth of these beliefs) other people's various beliefs, these beliefs surely often lead to effective and irreversible results in physical reality. Moreover, weighing up two conflicting needs happens in the human mind and whether or not such a weighing up happens in a human's mind depends on another belief of that person, namely whether or not it is worth at all thinking more deeply about these two conflicting needs / beliefs / emotions.
Of course one can always “decide” that every decision the human mind makes is predetermined by the physics of the brain – even that very decision! That is another belief and, if true, the minds of all the people are populated with a plethora of beliefs that never can be proven / disproven constructively to be true or false – unless there would exist a method to explain how the brain can reliably differentiate true from false beliefs in all cases.
So we are left with a plethora of beliefs and don't even know whether or not they can be examined and analysed such that we are guaranteed to know whether or not there is any reality, any “worthiness” at their basis. We can't know that because we even cannot know what such a “basis” should look like, since a deterministic production of beliefs in the brain mustn't in any way coincide with the true ontology of ultimate reality, whatever it is. Nonetheless many scientist seem to believe that one day every truth about ultimate (physical) reality will be revealed to some human brains by means of deterministic processes in those brains such that these brains have complete knowledge about all that constituents of ultimate reality.
At this point it is a good guess that the plethora of conflicting beliefs in the world are all more or less trials to satisfy the variety of human needs enumerated above. It would be interesting to answer the question which of these beliefs is best suited for permanently satisfying these human needs. But as history, philosophy and a plethora of discussions at least since the age of enlightenment has shown, no overall consensus can be expected to arise for humanity concerning this question. Why? Because for analysing the whole issue, almost all steps of that analysis are themselves steps of belief in this or that.
So, if it is true that each and every human's life is driven by a set of more or less “primitive” internal needs / emotions, then every human is at first driven to satisfy its own internal primitive needs / emotions by its own internal “primitive” beliefs (for example “it is good to eat”, “it is good to drink water”, “it is good to have a shelter”, “it is good to receive recognition” etc.). On the other hand, the resources to satisfy these needs may decrease from time to time – or steadily – via known and / or unknown causes.
We can surely state that there are many people who's needs are not served in this world. One now can react to this by ignoring these people or by at least being aware of them in one's own environment and trying to help them from time to time, even if some acts of little help require some acts of little sacrifice / relinquishment of one's own needs. Unless there would exist a method to explain how the brain can reliably differentiate true from false beliefs in all cases and therefore also figure out whether or not human decisions are indeed fully predetermined by the physics in the human brain, I would say that helping or not helping somebody, thinking or not thinking about one's own and others needs and how oneself handles these needs is in any case a personal decision that has indeed some kind of “free” will (in a binary sense) in it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 16, 2021 @ 10:35 GMT
Hi Stefan,
you have well generalised this free , there are indeed many parameters to take into account, you begin in describing the primitive ones, correlated with the locomotion, reproduction , nutrition. And it is function of our environments and its interactions. The survival being an essential point, we are a little bit in the darwinism and this competition to survive. Lamarck and the...
view entire post
Hi Stefan,
you have well generalised this free , there are indeed many parameters to take into account, you begin in describing the primitive ones, correlated with the locomotion, reproduction , nutrition. And it is function of our environments and its interactions. The survival being an essential point, we are a little bit in the darwinism and this competition to survive. Lamarck and the will too can be considered for the encodings of informations and the changes in the dna.
You speak about the feelings like the love , the recognising....it is also essential points building our personalities and it is still correlated with many parameters with these environments more the education, the genetic, ..... You speak too about the pleasure and the game, it seems too an important point because when we are children, I have remarked that we are full of energy and we can play with innocence with all , maybe it is this imagination, creativity, innocence the secret, maybe we loose unfortunally this in becoming adults.
You analyse after an important point about the lost of something implying rebellions or depressions, it is because the environments deceive us I believe or the personal problems, personally I have suffered a lot since I am young, my father drunk and was violent with my mother, we have had the police at home many times, I was obliged at the age of 16 to stop him, he is dead I was 19 years old and I was at university in geology. I have stopped in 3 due to a coma, due to epilepsy, but I cannot stop to study maths and physics. My mother after was in depression and in psychiatry. I have lost my mother 6 years ago , a cancer, she has begun too to drink , I have no sister and brother, I have lost my god father 4 years ago and my grandmother 3 years ago, they were my only familly. I have known during the funerals of my mom that I was adopted. It was difficult, I have had many depressions. I have had a heart failure 10 months ago and an operation in emergency.I have had sexual abuses too when I was a child. And other problem, in fact I have never been able to breath . But This consciousness and survival has helped me , I was near a suicide I must say but This universe has helped me. Maybe without my theory and this faith in this universe, I d be not here .
It was so my choice to live , and accept this past , the free will is not predeterminated , maybe generally yes bot not in the details.
You spoke about the 11 september, we arrive at the philosophies and the psychology, why these kind of evil comportments ? it is complex , it is still about the education, the cognitive sciences, the environments, the choices, and even the spirituality in this case, the ideologies extremist are simply sick comportments in a sense that the consciousness lacks of universal altruism and moderation.
This free will is so complex and is function of so many parameters that we cannot really compute it , it is about the uniqueness of things too.
You speak about the global problems, it is a general free will to choose to solve these problems because if the leaders were more consciousn universally, we could solve but the humans and our past imply that we have bad habits simply and that a kind of normality is accepted. But when we analyse the whole of sciences and this universal philosophy, we have the choices in hands to harmonise because simply it does not lack nor of potential, nor space,nor energy, nor matter. It is just a choice general altruistic global. The planet generally is sick Stefan due to a lack of universalism at all levels of this society. The needs are not really the problem, the choices yes permitting to harmonise these said needs.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 16, 2021 @ 11:31 GMT
Steve,
thanks for reading my comment and for replying.
Steve,
thanks for reading my comment and for replying.
You can be proud of what you have achieved, since you had many resistances to overcome in your life. Others may had become violent, you decided to think about the fundamental things in physics and other disciplines. The issues we discuss are very complex and the possible answers are no less ambiguous. For example, there are many opposing interests involved that had to be settled / balanced for mankind to be on the same page. It begins with the question for whom should I vote for in the next elections in my country to improve / not worsen things...? I think every human being is left with trying to make some little steps in the right direction by questioning from time to time her / his own beliefs and its impacts on other people. At the current state of affairs, I see no other easy way out of the complexity of the problems humankind continuously produces / is confronted with. I think you are a step ahead since you at least believe that there could be something greater than yourself, namely what you call “the universe”. Since you know that I believe in a creator that means well with every person but also demands a certain attitude to obey his commandments, I like to mention that such a belief isn't any more considered useful today by more and more people. My take on that is that without believing in some kind of such a creator, people will continue to act more and more anti-altruistic (since the primitive functioning of their reptile brains more and more take over the more sophisticated parts of the human mind). And of course with my remarks on a creator i do not subscribe to any god that allows or demands the killing of people.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 16, 2021 @ 12:10 GMT
You are welcome, thanks too for your words. I have never lost the faith fortunally in this universe. I have searched the answers younger in reading the religious books , after the philosophes , I like kant and spinoza, and after I have ranked the sciences, animals, minerals, vegetals, physics, maths, evolution and it is like this that I found my theory in seeing the evolution of brains, the...
view entire post
You are welcome, thanks too for your words. I have never lost the faith fortunally in this universe. I have searched the answers younger in reading the religious books , after the philosophes , I like kant and spinoza, and after I have ranked the sciences, animals, minerals, vegetals, physics, maths, evolution and it is like this that I found my theory in seeing the evolution of brains, the hominids mainly since the selacians, we see a relative spherisation. I elive in god, but a little bit like einstein , a god of nature in respecting the pure determinism. I am persuaded that we cannot come from a mathematical accident, it seems odd. I have remarked too that the fields like origin of our topologies, geometries, matters have enormous problems when we consider the oscillations and fields. Because if an eternal infinite consciousness has been able to create a so incredible universe with oscillations, why this thing has not created quickly a more perfect universe and why a murderer or others are not stopped with an oscillation. For me it is a proof that we are inside a system in evolution in a superfluidity with particles and mainly 3 ethers , the photons, the cold dark matter, and the dark energy possessing the main codes. I see god like an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D , without time space matter dimension beyond the physicality and everywhere paradoxally, that is why I believe that we have a central cosmological sphere, a kind of super matter energy able to send all informations. Why this thing has decided to create this ? maybe simply this infinity was alone and has taken an eternity to create this central sphere and now we create a system in evolution where the consciousness too evolves, maybe we create it this paradise and the future in this logic is fadscinating. It d be odd to come from a mathematical accident from an infinite heat not conscious I must say. It seems no sense. The persons thinking in this , I respect their choices , I am tolerant, we cannot prove our interpretations in fact, it is sure but something seems to appear .
I have created this forum Global collaboration to unite the thinkers, systems, institutes, scientists and to create a book of concrete adapted solutions to convice the UN and the WB, I beleive strongly that we can success with this consciousness but I have remarked that it is difficult to convice and unite, maybe due to our psychology and the normality and the sad common past. But I have hope, in all case, these solutions exist where all wins, we don t lack of space, matter, energy, potential, consciousness, the win win for all lifes of this earth can be a reality. I will not stop to try to unify but I need help I believe , this vanity and ego and this normality are parameters to take into account, the humans have difficulties to follow and work in team, they are always interested with the notoriety or the money or power unfortunally. Take care stefan , be the force with you jedi of the Sphere :)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 17, 2021 @ 15:15 GMT
Hi Steve,
take also care Steve, and may the force of the three spheres be always with you!!!
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 18, 2021 @ 22:43 GMT
Take care Steve,
Best wishes from Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 19, 2021 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Lorraine, :) thanks a lot, I am touched by these words from you, take care too , friendly
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 16, 2021 @ 23:21 GMT
So what exactly is WRONG with physics, apart from the fact that physics says that it was the laws of nature, not people, that flew planes into the twin towers? (Because according to physics, the laws of nature cause all outcomes; and everything, including people and their actions, are merely epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature.)
One thing wrong with physics is that it has a system with bottom-up causation, but no top-down causation. Physics believes that, when you look at it closely, top-down causation is nothing but bottom-up causation. I.e. physics believes that top-down causation is unnecessary, and that it doesn’t actually exist.
To put it another way, physics believes that a situation symbolically representable as:
“variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND … AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE”
is identical to the following separate situations:
“variable1=number1 IS TRUE” ; “variable2=number2 IS TRUE” ; … “variableN=numberN IS TRUE”.
I.e. physics believes that an aspect of the world, symbolically representable as “AND”, doesn’t exist.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 17, 2021 @ 01:20 GMT
So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above, I’d say that:
1. To understand how the world operates, one needs to symbolically represent the world as a system, with equations, variables and number symbols, and other special symbols.
2. While there might be laws/ rules (symbolically representable by equations) that handle simple individual situations symbolically representable as:
“variable1=number1 IS TRUE” ; “variable2=number2 IS TRUE” ; … “variableN=numberN IS TRUE”,
it is not possible to have laws/ rules that handle the myriads of complicated situations symbolically representable as:
“variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND … AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE” . I.e. in order to handle complicated situations, something describable as “free will” is a NECESSARY part of a complicated system. “Free will” can’t exist unless it is a NECESSARY part of a system.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 17, 2021 @ 02:33 GMT
P.S.
Clearly, a situation symbolically representable as:
“variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND … AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE”,
and any further analysis of the situation, could only exist from the point of view of some sort of information-integrated entity: it couldn’t exist from the point of view of e.g. a pile of sand.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 17, 2021 @ 15:17 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
in the case of the crashing twin-towers, the term “top-down causation” becomes a striking new twist to the crumbling down of them. I agree that this was caused by a deliberate act of human beings, of course with the help of physics.
Concerning what's wrong with physics I would say that we even don't know what the difference between a physical “thing”and a “non-physical” thing is – because we neither do know what's the complete essence of “physical” entails nor do we know what's the complete essence of “non-physical”entails. And I see no reasons why both cannot interact, only because they are thought of as being of somewhat different “essences”. This does not mean that consciousness is produced by matter, it only means that there are two different “essences” with two different sets of rules that may built a certain intersection that is neither mathematical nor chaotic.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 18, 2021 @ 22:44 GMT
Hi Stefan,
I have replied below.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 18, 2021 @ 22:33 GMT
A living thing is not a like set of individual isolated ingredients, or a set of individual isolated characteristics:
“variable1=number1 IS TRUE” ; “variable2=number2 IS TRUE” ; … ; “variableN=numberN IS TRUE”.
A living thing or a molecule is like a whole, an information-integrated entity, representable as something like:
“variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND … AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE”, but with further collating and summarising logical order imposed on it, something like:
“IF variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 THEN newvariable1= newnumber1”.
This information-integration, with collating and summarising logical order, does not “emerge” from the epiphenomena of so-called “complexity” (the shapes of clouds are epiphenomena) because the world does not have an overview of itself whereby it discerns the shapes of the clouds. The only entities that discern the shapes of clouds are entities like human beings, that are already information-integrated entities.
And the information-integration, with collating and summarising logical order (represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols), does not derive from, and can’t be derived from, the laws of nature (represented by equations). The aspect of the world represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols is a separate, foundational, “top-down” aspect of the world.
The situation represented by:
“variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND … AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE”, with further collating and summarising logical order, can’t be handled by the law of nature rules (represented by equations): at least some individual on-the-spot rules (“free will” assigning numbers to variables) is a necessary aspect of this system.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 19, 2021 @ 08:25 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
if I understood you correctly, you say that physics - its mathematical laws - are only dealing with quantities, numbers. Although there are some symbols involved for which we have a qualitative subjective feeling about (for example “wavelength”), the causal power of all these symbols is determined by their quantities, hence numbers. I would agree on that, we only have...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
if I understood you correctly, you say that physics - its mathematical laws - are only dealing with quantities, numbers. Although there are some symbols involved for which we have a qualitative subjective feeling about (for example “wavelength”), the causal power of all these symbols is determined by their quantities, hence numbers. I would agree on that, we only have access to quantities, we can only evaluate quantitative relationships. The quest for the real nature of the entities that we observe by our quantitative measures cannot be answered by the laws of nature, by our quantitative measures.
“A living thing or a molecule is like a whole, an information-integrated entity”
Yes, I do agree. I also do agree that in standard physics, death matter does not use boolean logic to output its results over time. You made that clearer by pointing to the formation of clouds, where the atoms and molecules do not use boolean logic to produce a certain shape / result. I think nobody would think that these atoms and molecules “use” the laws of nature to accomplish a certain shape. But nonetheless some do interpret that shape such that it was the common effort of all the atoms and molecules “together” to form that shape – thereby bringing a certain element of “goal” into the issue. Surely, in a deterministic world, no atoms and molecules do “work together” to accomplish a certain goal and in a deterministic world there will nowhere be found a “plan” to form a cloud. In a deterministic world there are only the laws of physics and these laws have not incorporated any “plans”. Especially they have no plans to use “other” laws of nature to accomplish a certain goal.
On the other hand, this happened when the twin-towers were attacked. The terrorists used some laws of nature (flying planes to reach the top of some buildings), high momentum of huge masses of matter etc. So you are right, they combined certain different sets of laws of nature in a boolean fashion to accomplish their goals. Of course, those people that believe in a strict deterministic world would say that all of this is due to some initial conditions of myriads of atoms that have acted exactly according to the known laws of physics for billions of years to produce that terrorist attack.
Now, for this line of reasoning to work, one would need either some very distinct initial conditions (among a myriad of “possible” conditions) or an unimaginably huge set of boolean combinations. Clearly, most determinists would say that it was the special initial conditions that made all of this happen. But that would leave the question open why there does at all exist boolean logic in the world (or logics at all). The determinists may answer that boolean logics is built into the foundations of the world by the existence of the laws of physics, since for example the gravitational laws either do exist or do not exist, either have the form they have or do not have the form we think they have. This would be a boolean “either-or”. And since the terrorists decided to accept the gravitational laws, they had to somehow overcome them by using planes.
Now let's look at what is wrong with physics today. Many (theoretical) physicists believe that somehow it is itself a law of nature that human beings are able in principle to find out all the answers to the quests of physical existence by the workings of their brains. This would mean that all the laws of physics couldn't be other than they are. If true, there is no more a boolean element that could be attached to these laws – one couldn't any more say “either-or”. Moreover, for the complete set of laws (theory of everything), there wouldn't even be the chance for this set to be composed of some slightly different ingredients. So we not even could say that the set of laws (theory of everything) is composed of “law1 AND law2 AND law3” etc. as if there would be any alternative (for example law3 is not element of that set). In such a theory of everything, boolean logic with its AND, OR etc. would have no place, since in that set there is nothing to choose or to combine, there do not exist any alternatives. Every trial of decomposing that theory would be truly magical and here is why:
For the case of finding such a theory of everything, boolean logics becomes superfluous – but still exists, and that is a contradiction. Remember, if such a theory for everything should be found in the future, it can only be found with the help of boolean logics. In other words: boolean logics would then disprove its own existence, what is deeply contradictory and therefore I do not subscribe to the idea of a theory of everything.
So, where does boolean logics come from? Of course, many would say now that boolean logics stems from mathematics. But wait a minute: if everything is determined, even human thoughts and their mathematical conclusions, how can we know that the mathematics that is responsible for this determinism always leads human brains exclusively only to truths about the world, the physics and the mathematics? The answer is that determinism does not guarantee this and we have plenty of examples where human thinking fails to determine some physical or mathematical truths. In other words, there are plenty of wrong results out there in science (otherwise it wouldn't be science, but magic!). Nonetheless many physicists think that there not only exists a theory of everything, but moreover that this theory is such that it must be representable in a human brain.
So we have a boolean element of “either-or” (theory of everything does exist or does not exist) and a boolean AND (AND it must be representable in a human brain). Even if boolean logics has its roots in mathematics, I see no reason how mathematics should encode the necessity for itself to deliver one and just one identifiable set of laws (theory of everything) and at the same time reveal to some human brains that this set not only exists but also is representable in principle by some human brains in the future. Clearly, this kind of belief in a theory of everything obviously has some kind of “goal” built into it, the goal of finding out the ultimate truth about existence. According to this kind of reasoning we end up with a deterministic process that at some stage not only will reveal itself as deterministic but also will reveal to the human brain the ultimate truth about existence. This then would be the ultimate case of “emergence”, made possible by the ultimate “complexity” of mathematics itself: mathematics becomes self-conscious!
So far, so fantastic. But the last question that a mathematical universe then must answer is why it is at all destined to become self-conscious? Can mathematics answer this last question WITHOUT also answering why it exists at all? And if this question is mathematically invalid because it indicates a boolean yes-no possibility (existence vs. non-existence) that is not existent at the most fundamental level, why then does boolean logics stem at all from mathematics – if there are no alternatives at all (neither in the deterministic world, nor in deterministic maths)? If mathematics can't answer that last question it wouldn't be more fundamental than the cloud in the sky you mentioned that has no plan to form a certain shape – and with that result a mathematical universe would be superfluous right from the start since it wouldn't have more information to offer than that cloud in the sky.
So I agree that determinism isn't sufficient to completely describe the phenomenal world and I agree that there has to be something that – due to lack of better words – could be termed “top-down” influences.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 19, 2021 @ 09:36 GMT
To shortly resume my main points here for a better understanding:
I wrote
“we have plenty of examples where human thinking fails to determine some physical or mathematical truths.”
If the universe is exclusively mathematical, then mathematics can produce false statements / thoughts about itself.
And if it can, every musing / conviction about a purely mathematical universe could be such a false statement / thought. But that in turn couldn't be the case, since we presupposed right from the start that the universe is exclusively mathematical. So either the universe isn't exclusively mathematical or it is, in the sense that this is a mathematical result, “calculated” and represented in one's brain, and that result says about itself that it is mandatory to be true – and not false.
So there is a “mathematical” result, originated in a brain that says that itself is true – since there is no possibility of “false” in that case. The question then is why the brain should be capable of producing scientific results that are sometimes false, but shouldn't fail when it comes to the question what the fundamental nature of these thought processes should be (namely exclusively mathematics). In the case of some false scientific results, one has falsely combined some boolean elements to come to a false conclusion (or simply has presupposed something that doesn't exist). The question now is why should the mathematical universe hypothesis be excluded from that kind of falsity? The answer is simply because it is only a hypothesis, not a scientifically proven fact (and with that we regain the option of the boolean either / or – either the hypothesis is true or it is false).
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 19, 2021 @ 23:08 GMT
1. Physics can’t tell you why the world ever moves, i.e. physics assumes that number jumps just happen. And in any case, physics can’t tell you what numbers are, and physics can’t tell you what a system is.
A basic issue for any system is: how are you going to move the system i.e. how are you going to move the numbers for the variables? And clearly, the law of nature relationships can’t explain what is jumping the numbers, they can merely explain the relationships between categories IF some of the numbers for the variables are jumped to a new value for some reason. In other words when it comes to the numbers, the system i.e. the world is inherently free (but structured by the relationships); and matter is the only candidate for what is jumping the numbers for some of the variables.
But if you ask them, physicists can’t tell you what a number is, and physicists can’t tell you what a system is. So physics has assumed that the world must be inherently UNfree, because all they’ve got is the law of nature relationships.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 19, 2021 @ 23:13 GMT
(continued)
2. Physics has assumed that bottom-up causation IS top-down causation. So physics says that the laws of nature caused the planes to fly into the twin towers.
The issue seems to be information. Physics can’t explain the basic difference between: 1) the low-level information such as might apply to a single particle; and 2) the interconnected, collated and logically analysed information necessary for a living thing or a molecule to respond to its situation.
It might be thought that the unprocessed information, that comes from light or sound waves interacting with the eyes or other senses, can be represented as variables and numbers. But from the point of view of a living thing or large molecule, the unprocessed information needs to be represented as:
“variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND … AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE”.
I.e. there exists an aspect of the world that can only be represented by the Boolean symbol “AND”. Similarly, you can’t use equations to represent the collation and analysis of information: you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent this aspect of the world.
Boolean and algorithmic symbols represent a logical aspect of the world that can only be inferred, not measured; similarly, the equations that represent the laws of nature represent a relationship aspect of the world that can only be inferred, not measured; you can only measure the variables and numbers aspect of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 20, 2021 @ 08:00 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
I think you are on to something.
Let's make a Gedankenexperiment:
1) Assume that everything that happens is determined by what happened just before and so on. So things can only happen as they happen and have no possibility to happen otherwise. In other words, let's assume strict determinism is true.
2) Assume that also our feelings, thoughts, our complete...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
I think you are on to something.
Let's make a Gedankenexperiment:
1) Assume that everything that happens is determined by what happened just before and so on. So things can only happen as they happen and have no possibility to happen otherwise. In other words, let's assume strict determinism is true.
2) Assume that also our feelings, thoughts, our complete conscious experience at any time is determined in the same way as described under 1).
3) The consequences of 1) and 2) then would result into a kind of cosmic movie (film) that unfolds picture by picture.
Now we ask where there could be some extra room for boolean logics in human thoughts? Since every thought is determined (by what happened just before in the brain/the world), every result of any “inference” obtained by conscious beings via boolean logics is also determined. And so are the results of all “collating” and “logical analysis” by human beings.
This means that boolean logics has no effective power in the world, it only SEEMS that it has this effective power. The only effective power is determinism (however it may have come about in the distant past). It also means that neither consciousness has any effective power in the world, it only seems to us that it has.
If we assume that the points 1)-3) are TRUE, then – magically –, a predetermined process in MY brain that hasn't followed some boolean logics, but only followed a mathematical calculation (remember, 1)-3) considers my brain to be merely a bunch of atoms, a complex mathematical pattern) OUTPUTS a profound result that has to be considered TRUE. And it would be TRUE not because I handled some boolean combinations in the appropriate way, but only because the past was what it was and the future is what it is (namely both deterministic).
Hence, boolean logics would have no place at the fundamental level of reality and I wonder why it is possible that boolean logics nonetheless brought me to that analytical result. If we assume that 1)-3) are facts about the world, then we must also admit that boolean logics is NOT the entity that leads people to some insights about reality – it only SEEMS that boolean logics can do this, but according to 1)-3), it can do nothing.
This is astonishing since nonetheless there is an analytical result. Moreover that result speaks about how it came about, and how it didn't came about. Consequently, if we assume that 1)-3) are facts about the world, we also have to admit that determinism is somewhat magically able to explain itself, whenever we FALSELY THINK (or believe) that we used boolean logics to analyse it. According to 1)-3) we haven't analysed anything, but determinism merely played out its next couples of pictures of the cosmic movie.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 21, 2021 @ 00:29 GMT
Hi Stefan,
Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would put it:
The symbols of physics and mathematics, that people use to represent the world, shouldn’t be confused with the actual underlying reality of the world. But the symbols are important because, unlike words, they can clearly show the structure of the world. E.g. the symbols (together with experimental...
view entire post
Hi Stefan,
Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would put it:
The symbols of physics and mathematics, that people use to represent the world, shouldn’t be confused with the actual underlying reality of the world. But the symbols are important because, unlike words, they can clearly show the structure of the world. E.g. the symbols (together with experimental evidence) have shown that there ARE underlying relationships and associated numbers structuring the world.
Regarding people flying planes into the twin towers, there seems to be 2 issues:
1. If you model the world as a system, why is it moving, why are the numbers moving? Physics basically says either that the laws of nature are the entities that move/jump the numbers for the variables, or physics says that the numbers move/jump because that’s just the way it is. But I would say that information-integrated matter, at all scales, are the entities that jump the numbers for their own variables; i.e. they create new numbers for their own variables; and that its only when these numbers jump that other numbers change, due to passive law of nature relationships.
The world doesn’t just automatically move; and the laws of nature are just passive relationships (represented by equations) that don’t move the world. Matter moves the world; people change the world: you can call that “free will” because something entirely new has been created, and there are absolutely no rules of any type constraining it. But you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to symbolically represent matter jumping the numbers for their own variables.
2. What is the difference (if any) between the information available to a particle and the information available to an integrated living thing? The only explanatory tool physics has in its toolbox is equations, variables and numbers, or something equivalent. But I think that information points to a type of dualism, a different aspect of the world that requires different types of symbols to represent it. I’d say that, in order to operate, a differentiated system needs to differentiate (discern difference in) its own equations, variables and numbers. I.e. this particular type of dualism, whereby a system differentiates its own equations, variables and numbers, is a NECESSARY aspect of a system.
I’d say that the information available to a single particle can be symbolically represented as something like: “variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 IS TRUE”; and the basic information available to a living thing can be symbolically represented as something like: “variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND … AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE”.
So there is no essential difference between the basic information available to a particle and the basic information available to a living thing: information is ALWAYS a combined whole, from the point of view of matter. But, unlike the particle, the living thing can further collate and analyse this basic information (where collation and analysis can also only be represented using Boolean and algorithmic symbols). This collated and analysed information is the rationale that urges the living thing to move itself (change the numbers for its own variables) with respect to the world: this is top-down causation.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 21, 2021 @ 07:25 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your explanations.
I think I now better understand what you mean with your posts about Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
Concerning information, I would agree that it plays a vital role in human behaviour (and also may play a vital role in the behaviour of matter). Nonetheless many actions of human beings are also motivated by what I in my earlier posts...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your explanations.
I think I now better understand what you mean with your posts about Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
Concerning information, I would agree that it plays a vital role in human behaviour (and also may play a vital role in the behaviour of matter). Nonetheless many actions of human beings are also motivated by what I in my earlier posts termed “beliefs”.
In my Gedankenexperiment above, the contradiction of Boolean logics leading one to some reliable truth values and the logical fact that a completely deterministic world doesn't leave any room for human inferencing shows (at least to me) that this contradiction came about because a BELIEF in determinism is confused with thinking that this determinism is an established FACT. So, we have facts (information) and beliefs.
When continuing my above mentioned Gedankenexperiment by assuming that the points 1)-3) are facts (instead of beliefs, whether they are well-founded or not), I even arrive at the conclusion that whatever Artificial Intelligence will be able to “do” in the future, it will not be intelligent – because in a deterministic world AI simply comes about by an unavoidable deterministic chain, not by intelligence.
I surely would be interested what Max Tegmark and other people that subscribe to determinism and AI had to say about this logical result. Nonetheless, in a deterministic world envisioned by these people, boolean logics has no power to come to any result.
Even if we think that physical law number X governed particle Y such that result Z is a fact, we cannot speak of “IF physical law number X governed particle X such that result Z is a fact” - because in a deterministic world with eternal physical laws there is no logical alternative for the resulting facts. Hence, in a deterministic world, there is no IF, AND, OR.
So it seems to me we both are on the same footing here: there is something missing in a deterministic world, and the missing thing is boolean logics with its freedom to choose in certain situations.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 23, 2021 @ 22:23 GMT
Hi Stefan,
The equations and variables, that represent the laws of nature, can only represent mathematical relationships. What one can represent with Boolean and algorithmic symbols, that one CAN’T represent with equations is: 1) the logical organisation and global interconnection of information in a living thing; and 2) the free assignment of new numbers to variables in response to situations (if new numbers have been assigned, then other numbers for other variables are changed due to passive law of nature relationships).
E.g. IF a tiger is approaching THEN move to a position behind a tree. To break this situation down into its elements, but without too much detail:
1) Large numbers of light and sound waves interact with the eyes and ears of the person.
2) The situation the person faces can be represented by the characteristics of these light and sound waves, something like “Variable1=Number1 AND Variable2=Number2 AND … AND VariableN=NumberN IS TRUE” .
3) This basic information is then logically organised (collated and analysed) by the person’s brain, resulting in the higher-level information that a tiger is approaching.
4) The person decides to move behind a tree in response to the situation, which can be represented as something like “IF tiger is approaching, THEN assign PositionNumber1 to PositionVariable1”.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 22, 2021 @ 21:19 GMT
Physics and mathematics are full of bad ideas. Like the idea that a mathematical system could exist that grows and develops and eventually turns into people, and other living things.
Funny about that, because the only known mathematical systems only exist in the minds of people: people conjure them up in their minds; people represent them with special symbols; people differentiate the special symbols; people manipulate the symbols.
Mathematics only exists because people create symbols, and differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and move the symbols. People are the main component of mathematics.
Undeterred, physics and mathematics have come up with the bad idea that a mathematical system could exist that grows and develops, a mathematical system without the element provided by people. I.e. WITHOUT the element that differentiates the system and WITHOUT the element that moves the system.
This is the current state of physics and mathematics: physicists and mathematicians have never noticed that it is PEOPLE doing physics and mathematics. Physicists and mathematicians need to extricate themselves from their symbolic systems. And the way to extricate themselves is to add an element that differentiates their systems, and an element that moves their systems. This element can only be symbolically represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 23, 2021 @ 11:49 GMT
I wonder what in a strictly deterministic world could at all be defined as truly “intelligent”. Although in a strictly deterministic world every thought and every inference a human being makes is predetermined, nonetheless there are scientific results that SEEM to be intelligent. I infer from this that in such a strictly deterministic world (merely a counterfactual world in our minds?) some intelligence must have set up the whole deterministic chain such that at least the impression of intelligence is created. But is the inference that there must be some real intelligence involved in existence (and be it only at the beginning of the Big Bang) justified? And is the mere creation of some false “impressions” within a human intelligence by a real intelligence (at the point of the Big Bang) really an intelligent move? And if the answer to this last question is “no”, does this mean that there is no intelligence at all existent but only “correlations” (another world for “randomness”). And if everything is built up merely by some correlations, where does the intelligence come from to realize that “it's merely correlations”?
I would prefer to choose my own thoughts intelligently instead of being predetermined to inference something about I do not know whether or not it is really based on some reliable logic. And I would infer that a real intelligence at the beginning of the Big Bang would prefer this also. So if we skip intelligence all together (at the beginning of the Big Bang as well as in the thought processes of human beings) in favour of a mysterious determinism, what would be left over from our beloved sciences?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 23, 2021 @ 22:50 GMT
Hi Stefan,
The equations and variables, that represent the laws of nature, can only represent mathematical relationships. What one can represent with Boolean and algorithmic symbols, that one CAN’T represent with equations is: 1) the logical organisation and global interconnection of information in a living thing; and 2) the free assignment of new numbers to variables in response to situations (if these new numbers have been assigned, then other numbers for other variables are changed due to passive law of nature relationships).
What this means is that there exists necessary, logical, interconnecting, free aspects of the world that we can only represent via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols. No matter what mathematicians do, it is impossible to derive this aspect of the world from the equations that represent the laws of nature.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 23, 2021 @ 23:03 GMT
P.S.
No matter what mathematicians do (and no matter what complexity theorists do, with their ideas of "emergence"), it is impossible to derive this aspect of the world from the equations that represent the laws of nature: this aspect was there all along, it is a foundational aspect of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 24, 2021 @ 08:57 GMT
Unfortunately there is not much participation here on this site.
So it would be interesting (at least to me) to see an essay contest about the quest what the term “intelligence” does imply and what it doesn't imply.
Moreover, I asked myself (in my posts above) whether or not it is “intelligent” to take a (super-) deterministic world for guaranteed where every thought and...
view entire post
Unfortunately there is not much participation here on this site.
So it would be interesting (at least to me) to see an essay contest about the quest what the term “intelligence” does imply and what it doesn't imply.
Moreover, I asked myself (in my posts above) whether or not it is “intelligent” to take a (super-) deterministic world for guaranteed where every thought and every inference a living thing makes (for example a human or an animal) is predetermined. If we take such a (super-) deterministic world for guaranteed, then, whatever the “logical” reasons for this belief (or true “insight”?) may be, consistently and consequently these beliefs or insights then came about deterministically and unavoidably in such a (super-) deterministic world.
This then leads to a picture of living and thinking entities which are merely conscious “Zombies”.
I assume that I am not such a Zombie and assume that I arrived at the conclusions and inferences mentioned above by intelligently using some Boolean Logics. Surely, if (super-) determinism is correct, then the assumption that I am not such a Zombie is merely an unavoidable result of determinism. Many followers of such a (super-) determinism would then say that thinking “I am not a Zombie” is proof enough that (super-) determinism is correct.
But for the case that it is correct, what about the statement “using Boolean Logics”? In a strictly deterministic world, no entity is able to use something to accomplish a certain goal – since every result is predetermined.
On the other hand human beings do sciences successfully in many cases. Their goals for doing sciences may be merely some gain in knowledge or even some inventions that make life better. Some scientist even may believe that there is a theory of everything existent that can – and WILL be discovered - by human beings at some point in time. How does this belief relate to the belief that everything (without exception) is predetermined? What one at least can answer to this question is that if the belief about determinism AND the belief of a theory of everything that will be discovered by the human mind at some point in time are both correct – then ultimate reality is doomed to become conscious about itself at some point in time.
By taking both above mentioned beliefs as realities, have we therefore foreshadowed the answer to the question where consciousness does come from and what it is? I think the answer is no, since we merely would have found a strong correlation between consciousness and the fundamental level of a deterministic world. Even more surprising in that case is that a deterministic world is destined to at some point in time deterministically producing some profound thoughts in the minds of the scientists that will be realized as the “theory of everything” (instead of writing “realized” we should better write “thought of as” since these thoughts of “realizing” something are also predetermined to be thought for these minds).
So do the terms “intelligence”, “goals” and “consciousness” make at all sense in a deterministic world? If we take it for guaranteed that a deterministic world is doomed to become conscious about itself without any goal-oriented intelligence behind it that is much bigger than human intelligence, then it seems to me that the hypothetical scenario of a deterministic world that enforces the conscious “realization” of its deterministic character at some point in time without no reason other than taking it for guaranteed does not prove the existence of any intelligence but merely the lack of it.
Surely these thoughts of mine are predetermined in a deterministic world and therefore have no informative value. The main question therefore is what should count at all as some informative value in such a deterministic world - other than this world has to be considered deterministic? And how do we then discriminate the informative from the non-informative? If that discrimination is at all possible in such a deterministic world – does this discrimination necessarily needing some intelligence? But how can such a discrimination be possible at all when in such a deterministic world every thought is predetermined - independently of whether or not that thought contains some truth or not?
The determinists may answer that these truths are intricately correlated with each other (maybe via mathematics) such that their consistent and full formation in ones mind is unavoidable at some point in time. Hence we have another term, namely “truth”, which enters the deterministic equation. But when asked “truth about what?” it becomes clear that “truth” must – deterministically – be considered as everything that supports that kind of deterministic world view and “falseness” must deterministically be everything that does not support this deterministic world view. From a logical point of view then the premise of a deterministic world does prove the result to be true and the result does prove the premise to be true. So the next question would be to ask if internal consistency of a scientific theory is enough to really inform us about the nature of ultimate reality and about how “intelligence” should be defined (and can it at all be defined in a deterministic world)?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 25, 2021 @ 01:08 GMT
Stefan,
First, one has to try to define the essential features of “intelligence”. Otherwise, how would anyone know, or agree with, what one was talking about?
If one is claiming to describe the real world, then one needs to describe intelligence in terms of the symbolic language of physics and mathematics and, I would claim, in terms of the symbolic language and steps of computing (i.e. Boolean and algorithmic symbols). So Stefan, what terms are you going to use to describe “intelligence”? You need to use terms that connect “intelligence” to the real world.
I would claim that the essential features of intelligence are the ability to discern difference in the world, and the ability to analyse these differences, leading to “higher-level” information about the world. I.e. any significant level of intelligence is pretty much the same thing as consciousness in living things; but, a basic level of intelligence is necessary and inherent in the world.
If one wants to claim that a significant level of “higher-level” information about the world existed at the beginning of the world, then that is a much more difficult thing to do; that is an impossible claim to make.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 25, 2021 @ 06:27 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply.
You are correct, that's what I was after – what the term “intelligence” means, what intelligence is.
Assuming that there is a certain degree of “free will” in the real world, I am forced to conclude that one essential feature of intelligence is that whoever uses this intelligence, she/he has goals that it wishes to realize. Your...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply.
You are correct, that's what I was after – what the term “intelligence” means, what intelligence is.
Assuming that there is a certain degree of “free will” in the real world, I am forced to conclude that one essential feature of intelligence is that whoever uses this intelligence, she/he has goals that it wishes to realize. Your goal was to answer me and tell me your point of view and where I may be wrong with my question and my conclusions.
I do not think that any significant level of intelligence is pretty much the same thing as consciousness in living things. Living things do not use their intelligence all the time, and when not using it, they are still conscious ( for example laying in a deck chair and enjoying the sun). Moreover, an essential ingredient of intelligence is that there is some logic (Boolean logic!) in the world that hasn't been created by the human mind, but obviously is independent of it.
I indeed believe that a significant level of higher-level information about the world existed at the beginning of the world. Your surely are correct to deny this when one assumes that the world is governed by some eternally valid physical laws. That assumption is the reason why so many people feel forced to subscribe to materialism, because mathematical laws imply complete determinism and the lack of goals. The lack of goals then is aimed to be explained away by some “compatibilism” and other highly confusing terms.
My take on the whole issue of a complete determinism is that it only SEEMS that the “laws of physics” are “laws” that have the power to enforce some physical behaviour. This enforcement in my opinion is just a man-made invention of causes and effects, a man-made correlation.
One can solve the puzzle of correlations by assuming the existence of a more intelligent entity than humans are and say that not only this entity has created the regularities we see in nature, but this entity does sustain or interrupt these regularities simply by its will to realize a certain goal. This also implies that violations of these “laws of physics” are not impossible. One can imagine all this by thinking of that superior intelligence as permanently pressing a button (what then means “physical laws in region X behave according to our known equations”). It does not matter how such a “magical” commandment of this superior intelligence then factually translates into the material matter obeying such a command – since obviously it doesn't also matter how an abstract mathematical law should translate into the material matter obeying it. And if this does not matter, it also does not matter how the stopping of that button-pressing is then translated into the material matter (it may well be a “restart” of some chunks of matter according to some goal-orientation of that superior intelligence I spoke of to enable some new initial conditions for that chunk of matter).
I assume that you don't like the idea of a Christian“God”. But anyway I think that this idea could solve some logical problems (meta-) physics has to deal with, especially the problem of determinism, intelligence, freedom of thought and the fact that living things are goal-oriented (at least most of the time). Last but not least, it also could answer the quest about the existence of consciousness within a sea of inanimate, “deterministically” behaving matter (or alternatively spoken within a sea of inanimate mathematical equations and symbols).
Believing in God (especially in the Christian God) is surely considered by many people not only as old-fashioned, but also as stupid – and highly unattractive. There are two components which people do not like about that belief:
Firstly, for believing in something, one needs some good reasons. I would agree. The barrier for these people in my opinion is nonetheless that they do not search for such good reasons since they think these aren't existent. They only search for good reasons against such beliefs. But there are plenty of resources out there that sum up the main prophecies in the bible and their fulfilment during the course of history. The best resource I know is from Roger Liebi who studied not only all the ancient languages, the archaeological findings and their impact on all the familiar arguments against what is described in the bible, but also uses all non-Christian, Jewish-Hebrew-writings (Talmud and others) to put the propositions of the bible into the historical context. So anyone who wants to get a deeper insight into these issues can read his books.
Secondly, believing in a Christian God surely necessitates that one has to review one's self-conception. I think that is the hardest part, since only few people are willing to honestly do that.
But that's it for now since I know that this website is not for discussing the contents, details and subtleties of Christianity. I just wanted to mention that it needs reasons to believe in Christianity the same way it needs reasons to believe in any other package of assumptions. And for understanding a package of assumptions, one needs to examine the whole thing.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 25, 2021 @ 23:56 GMT
Stefan,
I would say that we individual human beings, and the rest of the (temporary) individuals in the living and non-living world, are the intelligence, the consciousness, of the world. And also, we (temporary) individuals are what moves the world.
If you will forgive me for saying so, the situation is more piteous, more heart-rending than religion with its virtuous obedient people, and hopes of salvation, would allow. What exists is the world; you can only love what exists; you can only love the world. But what is love? Despite what some might say, we don’t yet have the intellectual infrastructure to understand such a thing. As opposed to a religion, I think that panpsychism is a more reasonable view of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Sep. 26, 2021 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
“If you will forgive me for saying so, the situation is more piteous, more heart-rending than religion with its virtuous obedient people, and hopes of salvation, would allow.”
Yes, I agree. No Christian is a sin-free person, no Christian stops to commit sins in his/her life just because he/she believes in what Christianity says. I would also agree that the existence of love and the meaning of its existence is not fully graspable by our intellectual infrastructure. Nonetheless it exists. What is piteous and heart-rending in my opinion is that the same is true for evil.
Moreover, it seems to me that panpsychism on the one hand suggests an evolutive component of intelligence and consciousness (and perhaps a deeper understanding of “love”), but on the other hand I see a downtrend of intelligence and consciousness at work since the two world wars. Today, we have to deal with economical warfare, ideological warfare, religious warfare, political warfare, warfare in families and so on. I think the apostle Paul described it correctly with his words in 2 Timotheus 3,1 – 3,6.
If you read 3,1 you will read "in the last days". That is always the term for end time. It began 1882 when the first Jews returned from Russia to their land from their worldwide dispersion. That time of return was always defined in the bible with the end time. It was a guy named Hitler with its evil plans that enabled these Jews to now have their land again, just as promised in the bible. You may want to think about that coincidence.
Today is election day in Germany. For what party should I vote? And will it have an impact on climate change? I don't know since before and after an election are two different stories. I try to vote wisely.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 27, 2021 @ 01:42 GMT
Hi Stefan,
I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is elected. The world lurches from crisis to crisis, but I don’t think that there is any such thing as “last days”. What is more the worry is that we “destroy the goose that laid the golden egg”, i.e. we destroy the environment that sustains us.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 27, 2021 @ 01:19 GMT
We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy, and their woolly-headed followers, are almost completely systems-illiterate.
1. Let's recap what a systems-illiterate physics gets so very wrong about the nature of the world:
Physics says that no matter what you do, whether you rape, pillage and murder, or you fly planes into the twin towers, no matter what you do, you couldn’t have done otherwise because the laws of nature are causing your outcomes, you are not causing your outcomes.
No matter what the law courts might say, physics says that you couldn’t have done otherwise. Physics says that you can’t try to do something different, because that too would only be what the laws of nature cause you to do.
Physics says that it’s the laws of nature that change every number for every variable; it’s the laws of nature that have an effect on the world. Physics says that you personally have no effect on the world because physics says that you yourself can’t assign the numbers for your own variables.
2. A systems-illiterate physics gets the nature of the world so very wrong because they’ve only got their equations. But there are ABSOLUTELY NO EQUATIONS that can, in any way, account for top-down causation by people or other living things.
Genuine top-down causation is the assignment of numbers to variables by people and other living things in response to situations. But you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to symbolically represent this type of system.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 1, 2021 @ 07:59 GMT
Science and physics is about finding logical connections, via deductions and experiment.
For example, if our the initial assumptions about something are true and we choose the proper logical connections, the logical deductions that follow should be unambiguous and true. It is a bit like what Sherlock Holmes did so successfully. In this respect, a logical deduction of a truth leaves no room...
view entire post
Science and physics is about finding logical connections, via deductions and experiment.
For example, if our the initial assumptions about something are true and we choose the proper logical connections, the logical deductions that follow should be unambiguous and true. It is a bit like what Sherlock Holmes did so successfully. In this respect, a logical deduction of a truth leaves no room for alternatives, since (ultimate) reality – whatever it is – is true under all circumstances.
In other words, (ultimate) reality – whatever it is – cannot be true and false at the same time. If we accept this logical necessity, then all logical deductions that lead to some insights about (ultimate) reality are predetermined by the truth of that reality. In this respect, finding a certain truth about reality seems to be just like mathematics where 1+1 unambiguously equals 2.
At first sight, this seems to be good news for people that believe in a strict determinism of all of reality. However, we often do not know whether or not our initial assumptions are true nor do we know whether or not ultimate reality does allow the brains / minds of human beings figure out all “secrets” about ultimate reality Nor do we know whether or not ultimate reality allows some feasible experiments to decide certain questions. So we have at least three unknowns.
But if we assume that ultimate reality allows human beings to figure out what it is (and how it “works”) we are left with the problem of how reliable our initial assumptions are that we used to start our deductions (and experiments) in the first place. If we additionally accept that all true deductions about ultimate reality are predetermined, we may be tempted to conclude that they all are “out there” and are within one's grasp. Some people that believe in a strict determinism then even may be tempted to think that they themselves are predetermined to find out some fundamental truths about ultimate reality, equalizing themselves with a deterministic process that is doomed to “calculate” these fundamental truths.
But if that strict determinism is indeed true, then all of our emotions, thoughts, deductions and conclusions are also strictly predetermined. Whether we nourish some stupid thoughts and conclusions about that reality or whether we nourish some highly intelligent thoughts doesn't matter in the framework of strict determinism, since every thought is predetermined. In this framework we then must state that the only difference between a stupid thought and an intelligent thought is that the latter has deterministically captured a truth about reality whereas the former hasn't.
But the crucial point here is that all these thoughts are not under our control, we have no power over them. A fortiori it is at the utmost remarkable to me that human beings can at all have logical thoughts within that deterministic framework. For example, according to a strict determinism, Alva Edison's conceptualisation of the carbon filament light bulb as well as the subsequent installations of all the electrical energy supplies around the world were simply predetermined by mindless physically deterministic acting processes.
The logical ambiguity that I identify with that strict determinism is that the latter is so suited for not only deterministically bringing about the countless huge scientific successes we see everywhere. Moreover, this strict determinism also let's us falsely conclude that we humans decided to start the adventure of science in the first place!
Within the framework of a strict determinism there is no entity to which one could ascribe a certain intelligence (because all thoughts, intelligent or stupid are predetermined). But IF we want to maintain that the world is logical – THEN we are forced to ascribe a certain intelligence to these mindless processes that brought about our huge scientific successes in the first place, since according to strict determinism these successes are at least partial truths about ultimate reality. MOREOVER, these mindless processes then (if the initial assumption of mindless deterministic processes is correct!) have enabled that we found out that they are mindless in the first place!
So are these strictly deterministic processes mindless or intelligent?
I hope that the ambiguity of taking that strict determinism for a fact now becomes clearer: a mindless ultimate reality at some point in time realizes with the help of logics and some human mind that it has to be considered as mindless – despite or even due to the huge “successes” of science (“successes” in quotation marks since that term has no meaning in a deterministic world where there are no goals to choose from)!
The ultimate last step of such a mindless process then may be that some scientists at some point in time may also conclude that what we call “consciousness” isn't really existent, but is just an illusion a mindless ultimate reality has about itself. Unfortunately for these scientist it can be predicted in my opinion that such a “logical” conclusion is incoherent - since illusions necessarily need some conscious subject to maintain them.
So my suspicion is that it could be really intelligent to accept that intelligence has some real power over the course of events in this world – as stupidity surely also has. Moreover, it seems to me that there must be an objective difference between intelligence and stupidity out there in the world – and not just in our minds like a strict determinism suggests! Remember, ultimate reality (whatever it is) cannot be considered to be true and false at the same time.
So my conclusion is that whatever ultimate reality is – it cannot be considered to be mindless at its very bottom, since otherwise we loose the distinction between intelligence (whatever it is) and stupidity (whatever it is) and the whole assumption of a strict determinism then looses its logical foundation right from the start.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 1, 2021 @ 12:18 GMT
In addition to what I wrote above:
intelligence is the ability to anticipate the consequences of some truths. Intelligence cannot “happen” or “not happen” merely due to the grace of exclusively mindless physical processes. This is a truth that is dictated upon us by logics and it has consequences – if we believe that logics is at all able to lead one to reliable truths!
If you walk through the African wilderness and suddenly see a tiger (that also sees you), it is intelligent to run to the next tree and climb it or to the next car and jump in. Nonetheless, for a strictly deterministic world view, the “intelligent” behaviour of escape has no more value than the behaviour of walking towards the tiger, because a mindless deterministic world does not value animate and inanimate matter differently – it doesn't value anything (except surprisingly its own logic with which it came to its conclusions).
A mindless deterministic world cannot even explain a living thing's curiosity about what is true and what is false – until it would introduce some values that suggest that truth is better than falseness. But that introduction would necessitate that the mentioned world view had to incorporate that it is better to be alive than to be lacerated by a tiger, so had to introduce a value statement. Obviously human intelligence incorporates such a value statement, whereas a mindless deterministic world cannot grasp why truth should be better than falseness – it cannot grasp that intelligence, values and truth come as a package.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer wrote on Oct. 1, 2021 @ 18:32 GMT
“Statistics does not lie, but liars use statistics”. We all know the adage. We should not conflate science with scientists. Science is the set of honest, singular truths of the reality we share with all living things. It has no agenda, it does not equivocate. To wit, you are not a science denier if you do not buy in to what even a group of “scientists” claim. Like the liar insisting correlation is causation after knowingly leaving out significant statistical dependencies that would weaken the desired conclusion, some pseudo scientists are more than simply over enamored with their simplistic models of complicated phenomenon, they want a particular conclusion more than the truth.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 16:07 GMT
Rick Lockyer wrote on Oct. 1, 2021 @ 19:16 GMT
Antropocene or Chumpocene? Are we approaching critical mass on the number of people trained in universities to think emotionally instead of with intellectually honest critical rational thought? Why is this outcome so prevalent? No coincidence here. Emotional people are easily manipulated, rational people are more likely to push back when promoted ideas do not fully pass scrutiny. If there is a new epoch, will it be marked by the death of the scientific method?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 11:48 GMT
Hi Rick, you want to understand the human psychology you lol? good luck. We cannot generalise in fact simply, the emotions or feelings or thoughts are personal. The humans are complex and our sad common global past is a reality and so the adaptation is correlated like the education. Furthermore the vanity and the ego are also realities , all persuaded the humans about their philosophies, ideologies or others, and even they are persuaded to be the center of the universe and when you contredict them , they are for the majority angry and want to show their smart minds like a conpetition instead of a cooperation and give a lesson to satisfy this said ego. You understand this you ? me frankly I have difficulties , all wwe foollow a system general not universal, all we try to find our place and some have more chance than the others and this and that. Now it is the clothes and the wallet wich are prefered instead of this universal altruistic intelligence and consciousness. Andf the majority prefer to be followed instead to follow, have we a problem in the DNA, maybe and probably due to these interactions with our environments since many years of adaptations, so the encodings are correlated. Can we change, yes , is it difficult to change ? yes , can we imply choatical exponentials if we don t change? yes , can we harmonise all this and be more universal ? yes. The scientific method is on the road of death ? no . Regards
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 15:46 GMT
Steve, I think I have a good handle on the variability of human psychology through many years of observation. The dumbing down of our (at least, or perhaps most notable in the U.S.) young in the university systems is demonstrably real. The goal was once to teach kids how to reason, to think critically, to prepare them for solving difficult problems they will face later in life. By in large today, they are taught to put emotions first, and whatever logical/rational skills they brought with them are actively repressed and left to atrophy. They are conditioned to think they have been victimized if what they want does not come to them with minimal effort instead of instilling the need for personal responsibility and continuous personal improvement required to holistically improve the human condition. This is not limited to liberal arts majors, it is put forth in classes required for all students.
All of this is counter to the scientific method, so yes, it’s future is in doubt. Nowhere is it more evident than in climate “science” and the touted “anthropocene”.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 01:45 GMT
Rick,
Re “All of this is counter to the scientific method, so yes, it’s future is in doubt. Nowhere is it more evident than in climate “science” and the touted “anthropocene”” [1]:
So are you saying that, despite the platitudes and PR of some equivocating physicists, what the hard-line ideas and equations of physics actually say is: that there is no Anthropocene; and that human beings have no influence on the climate, because the laws of nature are the cause of all outcomes?
Contrary to what you seem to be saying, I’m saying that there is SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE PHYSICS; there is nothing wrong with the people who say that there is an Anthropocene [2], and that humans are increasingly influencing the climate [3]. I’m saying that the world is such that human beings have literally changed the numbers for the variables, as opposed to the laws of nature changing all the numbers for all the variables.
1. Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 15:46 GMT
2. “The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth's history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet's climate and ecosystems.” https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/anthropocene
/
3.“Humans are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth's temperature by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock. This adds enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.” https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 19:14 GMT
Lorraine, you put forward a false binary choice. If one does not buy into the “anthropocene”, it does not mean they subscribe to the position physics and mathematics says everything is deterministic through their application, that free will does not exist. My personal opinion is that every sentient being has the ability to make spot good or bad choices, and free will has no place in a physics...
view entire post
Lorraine, you put forward a false binary choice. If one does not buy into the “anthropocene”, it does not mean they subscribe to the position physics and mathematics says everything is deterministic through their application, that free will does not exist. My personal opinion is that every sentient being has the ability to make spot good or bad choices, and free will has no place in a physics discussion.
As for the “anthropocene”, first some personal background. I spent nearly 20 years of my engineering career designing microprocessor based meteorological monitoring systems and sensors. Serious stuff, not hobbyist. Our customers were U.S. and international government agencies. I have visited the NOAA/NWS Test and Evaluation Center in Sterling VA more times than I can remember, proving my designs met their requirements and talking to everyone from climate scientists to field technicians in my capacity of VP of Engineering. During this time period from the 1980’s through the turn of the century, I developed a very good understanding of the metrology of meteorological monitoring, and relevant history since I lived it and was part of it. This time period coincides with the knee and sharp increase of the hockey stick response in what is called “global air temperature” used to scare people with impending doom.
Prior to the 1980’s, governments paid human observers to make synoptic (hourly on the hour) measurements of various meteorological phenomena. This was becoming a budget issue. The 1970’s brought on the microprocessor, and in the early 1980’s this technology advanced to the point where it became possible to replace the costly human observations with data collection by automated microprocessor based systems. Unlike the human who would not dare leave his thermometer outside in the elements, for cost reasons the automated systems were located full time out in the open so they could measure wind speed and direction without adverse impact from nearby structures. This means all sensors were subject to the worst conditions Mother Nature could dish out, a non-trivial design challenge I will let you know from experience. For air temperature sensors, there was a daily issue of solar radiation heating of the sensor body. This was thought about early on, and to mitigate it, sensing elements were well insulated from the warm up of the structure, and air was drawn in to the element with a fan, a so called “aspirated” sensor. The rub with this is the lack of reliability of the fan over time and weather extremes, leading to high maintenance costs from replacement, and lack of potentially critical data when the sensor was flagged as “missing” since accuracy could not be assured when the fan was inoperable. So once again for budgetary reasons, weather services transitioned to a no moving parts air temperature sensor. I wanted a piece of that action badly, but was told by NWS insiders they wanted a larger company that could logistically handle the field replacement requirements of the solicitation. From reliable inside information I can tell you the skew in the measurements as compared to the “golden” aspirated standard sensor for the vendor fly off was very comparable to the scare “global air temperature” increase to the point we cannot reverse so called human-caused climate change. Now these measurements were from colocated sensors making readings at exactly the same time. Let that sink in if you will before I give you my feelings about the concept of a “global air temperature”. Also understand the solar radiation measurement bias is one sided, to the higher temperature side.
There are not enough ground based meteorological monitoring systems providing “ground truth” to come up with any more than a qualitative wet finger in the air approximation of something you could call “global air temperature”. Satellites have coverage but measure radiation that has escaped the atmosphere, thus not the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. You might be able to wave your hands and back into some “space truth” (inside joke) indirect “global air temperature” and ignore the fact that indirect measurements dilute accuracy and are endangered by the correlation is not causation dilemma due to missing/ignored/unappreciated facts. Through hubris and arrogance, climate scientists could anoint something as some doable algorithm with available data today, and say that is what they will go with to measure human influence, but how could they possibly put real error bands on the estimate? And what of them talking out of the other side of their mouth with exaggerated certainty about “global air temperature” prior to the better data being available, or any data for that matter going back further in time? Error analysis is important if your goal is the truth, and is inconvenient if the goal is influencing behavior you believe, but can’t scientifically prove, is more than perhaps sub-optimal but is actually harmful.
I do not think there has been a scientific endeavor more politicized than climate science. Global climate is a very complex problem, and is addressed currently with relatively simplistic models with conclusions that lack rigor. The “ends justify the means” lack of candor, honesty if you will, overstating the certainty about conclusions put forth to scare the emotional and uninformed into change is shameful and distant from the doctrines of the scientific method.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 19:35 GMT
Hi Lorraine and rick,
Dear Rick, I understand what you tell about the educational system and others, regards.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 21:43 GMT
Rick,
“Free will has no place in a physics discussion” ONLY IF free will has no effect on the world.
You are seemingly saying that people and other living things can have no genuine effect on the world.
In other words, you are seemingly saying that:
-- The physics of the world is such that people could have no influence on the climate, because people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature;
-- The laws of nature are the only entities that have any effect on the world.
It seems that, even BEFORE you get to discussing the details of climate change and the Anthropocene, you have totally dismissed the possibility that people could have any genuine influence on the climate.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 22:56 GMT
Lorraine, you should read other’s posts with a more open mind. You would do less mischaracterizations. Your conclusions about what I think have no basis in anything I have written. Free will has no innate connection to physics or mathematics, it would be (wrongly) inserted by hand as a matter of opinion. Free will can certainly impact the world. If someone shoots you dead, it will clearly change the world as your living self was part of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 23:55 GMT
(By the way Rick, I think the information about sensor accuracy, that you shared with Lorraine, is very interesting.)
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 4, 2021 @ 22:46 GMT
Rick,
There's no need to take umbrage.
Forget about climate change and the Anthropocene for a minute. The real question is: can people EVER have ANY effect on the world, i.e. can people ever change the world?
The alternative scenario is that people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature; the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that ever have any effect on the world; i.e. the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that change every number for every variable.
The concept of people having an effect on the world can be reframed as the concept of people assigning at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables.
I’m saying that physics is very mistaken about the nature of the world. I’m saying that the world is such that people and other living things assign at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables (whereby other numbers for other variables are changed, due to law of nature relationships).
E.g., people continually assign new numbers to some of their own position variables for their own hands, feet and vocal cords. This is the means by which people have a genuine effect on the world; this is the means by which people literally change the world.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 1, 2021 @ 23:40 GMT
Rick,
Isn’t there something very wrong with the idea that a brainless mathematical system at the foundations of the universe can do all the things that only a human mathematician can do?
The fact is that people/ mathematicians are the MAIN COMPONENT of mathematics: people use special symbols; people differentiate (discern difference in) the special symbols; people manipulate the special symbols.
Clearly, if you want to have a STANDALONE system at the foundations of the universe, that can be represented by the symbols of mathematics and physics, then from the start, you also need symbols representing the system differentiating itself (discerning difference in its own equations, variables and numbers), and you also need symbols representing the system moving itself (assigning new numbers to the variables). The additional symbols are necessary if you want to extricate human beings from the system.
But it’s not just the symbols, it’s the recognition that there are additional, separate, but necessary, aspects of ANY system: 1) the aspect that differentiates (discerns difference); and 2) the aspect that moves the system.
We need additional symbols (Boolean and algorithmic symbols) in order to faithfully represent the world.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 15:14 GMT
You seem to conflate reality and mathematics. The “system” is reality. The methodology by which we try to better understand this system is prescribed by mathematics and physics. The latter are secondary, not primary. There are no puppet masters “assigning new numbers” to the variables. From the physics we find that we can prescribe mathematical expressions that model dynamic situations, where we can predict progress say, over time, by continuously varying the variable representing time. I presume you took at least one mechanics class in the education you repetitively bring up, so this should not be foreign to you. Now I imagine you could find some people that self identify as physicists that would say math/physics is primary. Their view does not define physics, but they are welcome to their beliefs.
Rather than stating your opinion on the need for Boolean and algorithmic symbols repetitively, you could bring it home by describing one specific physical situation that can’t be covered without them.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 23:34 GMT
Rick,
In order to represent the physics of the world, people created and use special symbols (like equations, variables and number symbols); people differentiate (discern difference in) the special symbols; and people manipulate the special symbols.
In other words, PEOPLE are a major part of the system that attempts to symbolically represent the physics of the world. Despite physics experiments, the symbols used are only successful in representing the physics of the world because people discern difference in the symbols and people move the symbols.
I.e. these special symbols (e.g. the equations, variables and number symbols) do not represent a standalone system that is independent of people. If you want to represent a STANDALONE system, then you need to attempt to disentangle people from the system of representation. You can only do this by symbolically representing people’s contribution to the system of representation.
So, in addition to the equations, variables and number symbols, you also need symbols representing the system differentiating itself (discerning difference in its own equations, variables and numbers), and you also need symbols representing the system moving itself (e.g. assigning new numbers to the variables).
We live in an age of computing. Computer programs have highlighted the need to use additional types of symbols (Boolean and algorithmic symbols) in order to symbolically represent a standalone system that discerns difference in itself and moves itself.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 20:43 GMT
Numbers are the exact issue that physics refuses to face:
1. What is a real-world number? Physics can’t tell you, though an awful lot of physicists seem to believe in abstract Platonic entities. Yes, that’s correct: hard-line, hard-nosed physicists believe in abstract Platonic entities, NOT real-world explanations for numbers.
2. Why do the real-world numbers change? Physics can’t tell you what a system is; physics can’t tell you why a system moves; physics can’t tell you who or what is assigning new numbers to the variables/ “jumping” the numbers.
All physics has got is a set of fixed relationships between categories, known as the laws of nature, but physics is pretty hazy about the details of how the laws are supposed to work. Nevertheless, physics is adamant that it’s NOT people or other living things changing any of the numbers for the variables; i.e. physics is adamant that people don’t have any genuine effect on the world; physics is adamant that people don’t have genuine agency.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 4, 2021 @ 08:57 GMT
I asked myself a couple of additional questions, anwers are welcome:
1. The issue of counterfactuals
If we take it at face value that ultimate reality operates strictly deterministic, then the whole machinery leaves no room for errors. Literally everything plays out just as the laws of physics demand it – without any exceptions. If we imagine that world to be free of any living and...
view entire post
I asked myself a couple of additional questions, anwers are welcome:
1. The issue of counterfactuals
If we take it at face value that ultimate reality operates strictly deterministic, then the whole machinery leaves no room for errors. Literally everything plays out just as the laws of physics demand it – without any exceptions. If we imagine that world to be free of any living and thinking entities, everything happens just the way it should, without errors.
But if we now include human thinking and deduction into that reality, the picture suddenly changes, since people make errors, they can take counterfactuals as facts and vice versa. This means that the human mind – deterministically produced by the laws of physics – often produces ontologies that are nowhere to be found in a strictly deterministic world: the human mind can produce all sorts of things for those we can say that they do not exist.
Consequently, if that strictly deterministic world view is true, parts of the deterministic machinery (the brains) are able to produce false statements about the whole machinery (or about parts of it). This seems to be no wonder, since these parts are not the whole and therefore these parts lack some information to produce the correct statements that reflect the whole reality correctly instead of filling the gaps with some imagination. Nonetheless we have to state that a strictly deterministic world obviously is able to produce counterfactual, non-existent things by acts of imagination and thoughts. What is non-existent are not the thoughts themselves, but their thought-to-be-ontological contents.
So, physical laws in a strictly deterministic world obviously can and do produce thoughts that often are in contradiction with these laws themselves. This can be easily seen when evaluating the huge amount of scientific papers on the “market” whose conclusions contradict each other. From a logical point of view, they cannot all state the truth about (ultimate) reality.
So, the strictly deterministic world that has been defined by us as working error-free is nonetheless able to produce errors. It does not produce these errors on the fundamental level (particles, trajectories, interactions etc.), but on a more complex level (brains). The term “errors” surely is a human term, relative to the human desire to know and value truth more than falsity. Nonetheless we can ask whether it is possible to minimize these errors down to zero in the future?
If the reason for these errors is that parts of ultimate reality (brains) cannot represent the whole thing (due to lack of the whole information, the whole truth), then only the whole thing may be error-free - as is expected within the framework of strict determinism. Now, the whole thing is considered to be inanimate and does not know everything about itself (but only what human brains know about it). The more astonishing it would be if parts of that whole thing (brains) nonetheless at some point in time should be able to know everything about that whole thing (theory of everything). Notice that without animate matter (consciousness), the whole ultimate reality wouldn't know anything, not even that it exists! But with brains, so the story goes, ultimate reality will sooner or later know everything about itself (at least everything foundational, what would be a lot!).
Therefore let's look closer at what inanimate matter doesn't know – but human brains know (in the sense that these brains know what they [still] do not know): if there was a big bang, are the initial conditions that led to the present world have been a necessary consequence of some other deterministic processes – or have they merely been a realized possibility amongst other possibilities? How can one ever solve the problem of a “beginning” other than to assume that there was no beginning, but ultimate reality literally did exist forever (maybe in a timeless realm, maybe only in a realm where time was, is and will be “present” forever)?
If we can't trace infinitely back into the past, how substantiated is the assumption of a strict determinism? Moreover, if we assume ultimate reality with a certain set of physical laws to be eternal (without a Big Bang), how would that leap of imagination be different from assuming a Creator for our present world? The fact that the laws of physics were what they were (and not other) and are what they are then is equally mysterious than believing in a Creator.
2. Quantum fluctuations
Are Quantum fluctuations real? And if yes, do they act deterministically or do they counteract the course of events dictated by the known laws of physics?
3. Non-measurable parts of ultimate reality
Are there in-principle non-measurable, non-deterministic influences in ultimate reality that we never can detect in a repeatable fashion? Are there even aspects of ultimate reality that never can fully be imagined by human brains?
4. What place has “intelligence” within the world view of a strict determinism? How can – and should - “intelligence” be defined within this world view?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 4, 2021 @ 22:52 GMT
Rick,
Re Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 19:14 GMT and Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 22:56 GMT:
Forget about climate change and the Anthropocene for a minute. The real question is: can people EVER have ANY effect on the world, i.e. can people ever change the world?
The alternative scenario is that people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature; the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that ever have any effect on the world; i.e. the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that change every number for every variable.
The concept of people having an effect on the world can be reframed as the concept of people assigning at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables.
I’m saying that physics is very mistaken about the nature of the world. I’m saying that the world is such that people and other living things assign at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables (whereby other numbers for other variables are changed, due to law of nature relationships).
E.g., people continually assign new numbers to some of their own position variables for their own hands, feet and vocal cords. This is the means by which people have a genuine effect on the world; this is the means by which people literally change the world.
post approved
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 5, 2021 @ 02:17 GMT
Rick,
No honest physicist believes what climate and other scientists say about people having an impact on the planet's climate and ecosystems.
But physics has a different reason for not believing what these scientists say. Physics says that people can have no effect on the climate, and people can have no effect on the planet, because it’s the laws of nature (not people) that change every number for every variable.
YOU agree that people have no effect on the climate, or that such a thing hasn’t been or can’t be proved. But you seem to be ambivalent about whether or not people could ever have any genuine effect on the world.
But, if people have any genuine effect on the world, then this must necessarily be modelled as people changing at least some of the numbers for their own variables.
I agree with the climate scientists and the other scientists, and I disagree with the physicists: I say that people DO have a genuine effect on the world, i.e. people are changing at least some of the numbers for their own variables.
You seem to be ambivalent about whether or not people could ever have any genuine effect on the world. But how would YOU model people having a GENUINE effect on the world?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 5, 2021 @ 21:52 GMT
Re Rick Lockyer’s assertions that “free will has no place in a physics discussion” and that “free will has no innate connection to physics or mathematics”:
Physics says that the law of nature relationships are the explanation for all physical outcomes. But if “free will” were a SEPARATE AND DISTINCT cause of physical outcomes, then “free will” would necessarily be of interest to physics.
But physics doesn’t see “free will” as a separate and distinct cause of physical outcomes: physics’ “free will” is merely a rebranding or re-naming of particular aspects of what the laws of nature are already doing. In other words, physics’ (and philosophy’s) concept of “free will” is just a bit of PR spin.
So, can people and other living things have an effect on the world that is SEPARATE AND DISTINCT to the effect that the law of nature relationships have on the world? I.e. can people have an influence on the climate that is separate and distinct to the effect that the law of nature relationships have on the climate?
According to physics, the answer is: No. According to physics, people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature; and these laws of nature are the only things that have any effect on the world, the only things that have any effect on the climate.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 5, 2021 @ 23:05 GMT
(continued)
In other words, physics says “que sera sera”, “what will be, will be”: physics has a fatalistic view that events are completely outside of the control of people, because there is nothing anyone can do about the laws of nature, and people have NO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ABILITY to effect events.
In other words, despite their PR, 99% of physicists are anthropogenic climate change deniers because of their beliefs about the nature of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 5, 2021 @ 23:41 GMT
Oops. The above “effect” should be “affect”!
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 6, 2021 @ 00:58 GMT
(continued)
But, unlike 99% of physicists, I’m not a fatalist. I’m saying that people DO have an ability to affect the world, an ability that is separate and distinct from the laws of nature.
This is why people’s ability to have an effect on the world can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
Similarly, the ability to differentiate/discern difference (i.e. consciousness) is a FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT aspect of the world to the law of nature aspect of the world. This fundamentally different and distinct aspect of the world can’t be derived from the law of nature relationships: it too can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 6, 2021 @ 06:17 GMT
The concept of a strictly deterministic working world can be reframed as the concept of a computer simulation.
Ultimate reality as a computer simulation obviously can – and does – some sub-simulations, brought by us via our modern computers. Even human brains could be termed as such “sub-simulators”.
However, within the concept of a strictly deterministic world, no such...
view entire post
The concept of a strictly deterministic working world can be reframed as the concept of a computer simulation.
Ultimate reality as a computer simulation obviously can – and does – some sub-simulations, brought by us via our modern computers. Even human brains could be termed as such “sub-simulators”.
However, within the concept of a strictly deterministic world, no such sub-simulation is independent from the simulation ultimate reality does as a whole. Because the existence of such sub-simulations correlate to a 100 % with what ultimate reality simulated at other places and other times (even in the future). That's why some physicists speak of a space-time block universe that is independent of time.
Although that concept of a block-universe has no conscious goal what to simulate, the simulation itself and its results are nonetheless predetermined if we believe in the concept of a strict determinism.
The substrate on which this gigantic simulation is performed is considered by some to be of secondary interest, since all what counts are the fundamental concepts of computation. In a certain sense, that gigantic simulation can be thought of as being simulated on itself – namely on the fundamental concepts of computation. And how could it be other, since a strictly deterministic world cannot have been come into existence by some non-deterministic events. Even if there was a big bang, if we want to hang on to the world view of strict determinism, then that big bang had to be caused by some deterministic causes – and they themselves also – and so on infinitely.
Thus, a strictly deterministic world must be thought of as as an eternal simulation. It has and will simulate everything that is possible to simulate, infinitely often. Of course, such a strictly deterministic world is thought to also being able to simulate consciousness (otherwise consciousness wouldn't be existent, so the argument goes). Consequently that eternal simulation also does simulate you and me infinitely often during its infinite, eternal course of events.
What we call “particles” and their behaviour then are merely computational steps in that giant simulation. Our best physical theories have already figured out to what computational steps these “particles” belong to. Of course, this seems to imply that parts of this gigantic simulation (human brains) are able to figure out what smaller parts of that simulation do – so that this gigantic simulation at least knows a little bit about due to what principles it comes about in the first place.
Although this may be true (if we assume strict determinism to be true), the above mentioned human knowledge about the principles behind that simulation is predetermined by the whole simulation. Here the question arises whether or not it is (logically) possible for a mindless simulation to not only become aware of itself as being a simulation, but moreover to also figure out the principles on which the whole simulation is based on. Many scientist would say that both questions can be answered with “yes”:
every simulation at some point becomes partly aware of itself as a simulation. It then figures out a little bit about due to what principles the whole simulation comes about – and the result is that these principles must be considered as fundamental, since they are eternal. To now “solve” the riddle of how some abstract, eternal and timeless principles (like mathematics) are able to produce a time-dependent computation on just the substrate science has found in our world, it is tempting to say that an eternal simulation does not need any substrate to run itself.
Why? Because the world we observe must – according to an eternal simulation – be a repeated version of an infinite series of identical computational histories in the past. And the fundamental principles of simulation (computation) are logically not changeable whereas the substrate could logically be replaced by some other substrate. One now could argue that the latter is not a logical conclusion and the whole universal simulation we speak of here can exclusively only run on a substrate we call “matter”. The point here is that we have no chance to answer this question – since we have no chance to answer the question why there does exist such an eternal simulation at all.
That would be the end-point – if there wouldn't be a subtle detail in the whole chain of reasoning: If we even have no chance to answer the two questions about why only a substrate we call “matter” can do such a simulation and why there should at all exist such an eternal simulation, we could reframe these two questions into the one question whether or not an eternal deterministic world is at all a reasonable concept.
It seems that I have reached the end of reasoning here. My intention was to examine the reasonability of a deterministic world view. Without doubt, there is some determinism in this world. And whether or not the world is exclusively deterministic or not, in either case there is an unambiguous answer out there, there is an unambiguous truth out there that already has answered this question – independent of me asking.
I can only say that it seems to me that truth somehow must be a fundamental and universal measure for all of that. And if true – then it is astonishing for me that this benchmark also realized itself in the endeavour of all scientific reasoning. Moreover, that endeavour is characterized by the ever same goal, finding out what is true and what is false. This is goal-oriented behaviour and I conclude from its existence that for answering all the questions that couldn't be answered here in this post, goal-oriented behaviour must somehow come into the equation. In this sense I agree with Lorraine about her arguments concerning human will and goals.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 6, 2021 @ 23:54 GMT
Stefan,
From my point of view, I never had any “arguments concerning human will and goals.”
I don’t have an anthropocentric view of the world: no new physics emerged when birds started to fly; no new physics emerged when human beings appeared.
I think that human beings and other living things are just forms of matter: the difference between living things and primitive matter is a question of degree, but not a question of superiority.
The physics is the same, though in addition to the equations, variables and number symbols of physics, I contend that it is necessary to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols in order to represent the world differentiating (discerning difference in) itself (i.e. consciousness) and the world moving itself (i.e. agency).
There is no program controlling the world; the world is free, but structured by the laws of nature; the Boolean and algorithmic symbols merely represent necessary aspects of the world that can’t be represented by equations, variables and number symbols.
And the world is not like a computer:
A computer is a human artefact whereby existing symbols (Boolean, algorithmic, word, sentence, equation, variable, number) are re-represented via ingenious arrangements of electrical circuits, voltages and transistors.
The electrical circuits, voltages and transistors are human-created symbols of other human-created symbols: you can’t liken the natural world to a computer, and you can’t liken the human brain to a computer. For starters, think of the difference between a real-world number, and how a number is represented in a computer.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 7, 2021 @ 08:53 GMT
Lorraine,
if I understood you correctly, your lines of reasoning are based on the assumptions Panpsychism makes? No problem with that, I just want to reassure that I didn't miss the point you want to make with your comment.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 8, 2021 @ 00:47 GMT
Hi Stefan,
I think that panpsychism as a philosophical theory is a pretty vague way of looking at the world. Panpsychism as a philosophical theory seemingly has no real details, no real mechanisms, and no real rationale apart from the fact that it would be convenient if high-level consciousness were built out of low-level consciousness.
I would say instead that the world is a system, and the necessary elements of a system include: 1) an aspect that differentiates (discerns difference in) the lawful relationships, categories and numbers; and 2) an aspect that moves/changes the system. These 2 necessary aspects of a system can’t be represented by equations: they can only be symbolically represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
The world being a system implies a type of panpsychism. So this would be my religious(?) view of the type of world we live in.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 8, 2021 @ 06:36 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your honest answer.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with "religious" thoughts about the world. Many scientific a priori assumptions are similarly based on deep beliefs about how the world must be.
Take for example the “electron”. Apart from its main features (spin, mass etc.) it is believed to be no more reducible. So a certain irreducibility necessarily appears when defining some atomic blocks of reality. Fair enough, the same would hold true for a panpsychism view of that electron. Its panpsychistic property couldn't be reduced to something other.
At some point of analysis, irreducibility necessarily comes into “the equation”. Some theoretical physicists try to work around this by introducing mathematical infinities into their theories. For example an electron as a kind of infinite fractal structure, the latter “explaining” the electron's behaviour and interactions. But there are problems about considering such an electron to be existent in space-time, since such a structure had to have ever more smaller sub-structures all the way “down” to the infinitely small. No mechanical cause could ever reach the top of that fractal tower (means our microcosm) from “down there” in finite time, since that cause would have to traverse infinitely many steps from “all the way down” to the top in merely a finite time. Even if assuming that every such step needs “no time at all” would not result in a classical mechanistic explanation, but would re-introduce some “spooky action at a very large distance” (aka instantaneous, infinitely fast influences). By the way, the same problem of infinitely many steps appears if one considers that the present state of the universe has been caused by what happened infinitely far away back in time – by assuming the universe is infinite in the past.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 8, 2021 @ 23:37 GMT
Stefan,
My view IS a religious view. It’s just that there is no (human! male!) God up there requiring certain behaviours, so that one can be “saved” and have eternal life. The “God” is down here, a part of the world: the world is continually being created/ updated by the individual elements of the world.
But to understand the structure of the world, and how the world works, it is necessary to represent the world with symbols. But the living reality of the world is different to the set of symbols that people/ physicists use to represent the world. Even written and spoken words are mere symbols.
Fractals are just a way of symbolically representing non-fundamental aspects of the world. I wouldn’t take man-made symbols of the world too seriously: it’s the REAL word that one needs to take seriously. If you take mere symbols of the world too seriously, you will make mistakes about the nature of the world.
However, people are so entangled with the symbols that they use, they rarely notice that they are using symbols.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Rick Lockyer wrote on Oct. 6, 2021 @ 21:49 GMT
Lorraine, it is pointless for you and me to have a meaningful conversation here, we do not agree on rather fundamental issues like what physics is, how physicists are and what they believe. You have a narrow view and too much tendency to stereotype. While I have strong views (educated opinions) on human influence on global climate, I fully believe there are very smart and dedicated physicists working on climate science with the goal of determining the truth, and sadly some people I can’t call physicists that have an agenda to kill the use of fossil fuels, and have no issue with turning their back on honesty, science and the scientific method.
Climate change is not the greatest existential threat to humanity, not even close. My top three are dishonesty, hate, and emotionalism.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 7, 2021 @ 02:15 GMT
Rick,
I presume that there would be a better chance of moderating dishonesty, hate and emotionalism in countries with the rule of law, decent healthcare and education for all, and ways for all people to earn a decent living. What’s happening with Facebook and Twitter might lead to people caring enough about the issue to do something about it.
I don’t appreciate being repeatedly lectured to about, what you perceive as, my personal failings. Instead, it is up to you to provide an argument which proves me wrong.
But I never was talking about climate change as such. I was talking about whether the nature of the world is such that people and living things COULD influence the climate, as opposed to the physics’ view that the laws of nature are responsible for every number outcome for every variable. I’m saying that people DO have an effect on the world (not necessarily a climate effect), and that this can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols, as well as variables and number symbols.
I have also noted the fact that people and the mathematical symbols they use are so entangled that the mathematical symbols are not standalone entities.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 8, 2021 @ 22:06 GMT
Rick,
It is up to you to provide an argument which proves me wrong. I’m saying that:
1) Contrary to the ideas of physics and philosophy, people and other living things DO have an effect on the world, i.e. living things change some of the numbers for their own variables, in response to situations they face. This is necessarily an entirely separate aspect of the world to the effect that the law of nature relationships have on the numbers for the variables.
2) Contrary to the ideas of physics and mathematics, a mathematical system can’t exist without: aspects that differentiate (discern difference in) the relationships, categories and numbers; and aspects that move the system. These aspects can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 10, 2021 @ 05:24 GMT
Lorraine, your “being repeatedly lectured”, by me or anyone else, do not think I have. I remind you FQXi opened this blog because of your repetitive and numerous inappropriate posts on an other. If you do not want the blowback, you can make that happen all by yourself. Stop making inappropriate posts.
As for it being my responsibility to prove you wrong, sorry but no. Since I find your positions on “change their own variables” (what variables?? What equations??), “the ideas of physics and philosophy” that people do not have an effect on the world (physics and philosophy generally??) nonsensical, I would not know where to begin. While I certainly think there is a place for Boolean algebra (it is mathematics after all), I fail to see where your if….then logical expressions fit in mathematical physics. Computers and associated software are tools, they are not the system, what you generally refer to as the world, what I presume you mean as reality, oddly since reality exists independently from us and our lives on this planet.
I asked you here to provide a real world example of some physics problem that is not adequately addressed by mathematical equations, that needs if…then logic. Instead of doing so, you just repeat the same gibberish over, and over, and over, and….. A concrete example would go a long way towards communicating what you are getting at. Your present efforts are not getting it done.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 11, 2021 @ 02:31 GMT
Lorraine, my posts were deleted when the entire thread was dumped. My comments were directed to the inappropriate things you posted, FQXi agreed. Same thing happened to Georgina with her interactions with you.
You make my case on my characterization of your posts with your last here. I have never thought, nor written anywhere that physics should, let alone could explain choices people make. Not the role nor goal of mathematical physics. I have made it abundantly clear that free will is disjoint from physics. Indeed, you have even commented about it in a response post. Yet you comment here with certainty and condemnation that I believe but can’t prove your false assumption. Strawman argument Lorraine?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 11, 2021 @ 22:13 GMT
Rick,
I’ve got a copy of seemingly almost every post that was removed. I never posted inappropriate comments as such. At various times, I merely strongly criticised what is clearly a male view of the world, held by male physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers; and my criticism is based on the proportion and numbers of male persons that hold certain TYPES of views about the world. And re Georgina: I’m guessing that she is so mixed up about physics and mathematics because she never studied physics or mathematics; however, she has apparently written a book on the subject of time. English is her native language, so I must admit that I got a bit upset about her lack of attention to the detail of spelling and grammar.
I never mentioned “free will” or “choices”. I only mentioned “free will” as a way of replying to you and Stefan.
I have replied to your other issues below.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 8, 2021 @ 00:01 GMT
1. According to physics, every numeric outcome for every variable is determined by the laws of nature. People and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are the only things that have any effect on the world. So, people can’t have a genuine effect on the world.
2. If people WERE to have a genuine effect on the world in response to situations, then you’d need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent this.
Without going into details of the musculature and nerves, this is essentially about people assigning some new numbers to (e.g.) the position variables for their own vocal cords in response to a situation they are facing (whereby other numbers for other variables would be changed, due to law of nature relationships).
In a way that is analogous to what a computer program does, the situation a person faces can be represented as the result of a high-level Boolean-algorithmic collation and analysis of a set of numbers that apply to a set of variables. In turn, this set of numbers that applies to the set of variables represents the outcome of light and sound waves interacting with the person’s eyes and ears.
3. Would physics implode if people assigned new numbers to their own position variables? Well, physics currently copes with the assignment of new numbers to variables that is described as “quantum mechanics”. Maybe it’s the same type of thing.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 8, 2021 @ 00:04 GMT
(continued)
4. But apart from the above conjecture, do people IN FACT have a genuine effect on the world? I’m saying that they do, but you probably couldn’t tell the difference between people having a genuine effect on the world and quantum mechanics.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 8, 2021 @ 07:08 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
"but you probably couldn’t tell the difference between people having a genuine effect on the world and quantum mechanics."
There could be at least a kind of consistency argument delivered by quantum mechanical experiments in favour of the argument that people have a genuine effect on the world.
If the experiment by Genovese, Marletto and Vedral (to be found on fqxi here: https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/251 ) and its main statement of having found some irreversible action at the quantum level turns out to show us something fundamental about the quantum level, then this irreversibility would be at least inconsistent with a strict deterministic world view that assumes that all actions can be traced back arbitrarily in time unambiguously only by using the known time-reversible laws (and the initial conditions). And if you can't trace it back, you may also not be able to trace it strictly deterministically forward into the future.
Notice that if the experiment of Genovese, Marletto and Vedral turns out to have indeed found a fact about nature that was not implicit in our hitherto known physical laws, this does not automatically mean that Constructor Theory has it all right - only because it predicts the outcome of that experiment. it only would mean that concerning that prediction, Constructor Theory is not at odds with the experimental result.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 9, 2021 @ 01:54 GMT
Stefan,
These people (Genovese, Marletto and Vedral etc.) are essentially saying that mathematical symbols and (so-called) “Boolean” symbols [1] can be used to represent the world and explain how the world works. The blurb even says that these symbols can be used to explain or define “purpose” and “agency” and life and consciousness etc. etc. It’s more of the same old physics hype, just dressed in slightly different clothes.
But I would contend that contrary to the ideas of physics and mathematics, a mathematical system can’t exist without: 1) consciousness i.e. aspects that differentiate (discern difference in) the relationships, categories and numbers; and 2) agency i.e. aspects that move the system. These aspects can only be represented via the use of (genuine!) Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
1. The symbols are not actually Boolean symbols. These people are trying to redefine Boolean symbols: redefinition, i.e. defining a thing out of existence, is a commonly used tactic. The philosopher Daniel Dennett used redefinition in an attempt to define genuine “free will” out of existence: a lot of people were convinced; but basically, he just redefined “free will”.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 9, 2021 @ 04:02 GMT
Re what’s wrong with physics and mathematics:
I want to repeat that physicists and mathematicians (e.g. Marletto and Vedral, that Stefan mentioned) are part of the system of representation. They discern difference in their symbols, they move their symbols; i.e. a set of symbols cannot represent a standalone system, independent of people.
In order to attempt to represent a standalone system, independent of people, you need to add symbols representing the system differentiating (discerning difference in) itself, and symbols representing the system moving itself. You can only do this with Boolean and algorithmic symbols. These symbols represent the aspects of a system that can't be represented by equations: there are aspects of a system that can't be represented by equations.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 9, 2021 @ 07:54 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
I differentiate between an experiment (like that of Marletto et al.) and the explanation for why the outcomes are as they are. There is nothing wrong with doing experiments and I think you would agree. The question is of course what the outcomes can say or can't say about the world we live in. If human beings have a genuine effect on the course of events in the world (what I...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
I differentiate between an experiment (like that of Marletto et al.) and the explanation for why the outcomes are as they are. There is nothing wrong with doing experiments and I think you would agree. The question is of course what the outcomes can say or can't say about the world we live in. If human beings have a genuine effect on the course of events in the world (what I have been arguing for on this forum), then logically no experiment can disprove that.
As I wrote earlier, I find it interesting that (human) consciousness can at all construct counterfactuals (in the sense “IF this and that would be true, THEN...”). Galileo's famous thought experiment is based on counterfactual thinking – although he didn't knew at the beginning of his thought experiment which of his assumptions had to be considered counterfactual. He envisioned a stone coupled by a rope with another – smaller – stone and asked how that combined system would change the speed of the bigger stone falling down the tower of Pisa. Therefore he assumed that the bigger stone alone always would need the same time to arrive at the bottom of the tower as well as the smaller stone – but the smaller one would need more time than the bigger one because the bigger one is heavier than the smaller one.
Then he asked whether or not the coupled system of the two stones would fall faster or slower then the bigger stone alone would. He came to the – correct – conclusion that his initial assumption of smaller stones falling slower than bigger stones must have been false. Because the smaller stone would decelerate the bigger stone by tightening the rope. But IF we couple both stones by a rigid bar (with negligible mass), then the two-stone system is heavier than each stone alone – and therefore should accelerate the fall. Since the bigger stone cannot be accelerated and decelerated at the same time by the smaller stone when considering such a two-stone system, the logical conclusion was that both stones need the same time to arrive at the bottom of the tower – independent of being coupled together or not!
The nice thing here is that one doesn't need any theory about WHY stones fall the way they do (equivalence of inert mass with bulk mass) to arrive at that conclusion. It not even needs an actual experiment to confirm the result – IF one thinks that the world acts logically (if the world doesn't act logically then it seems at first glance that one would “need” an experiment to confirm what Galileo concluded, but with an illogical acting world we couldn't hardly do any science and even such an experiment couldn't say something reliable about the behaviour of falling stones).
This thought experiment of Galileo is a counterexample to David Deutsch's credo of explanations being the guiding theme for all of (theoretical) science, since it predicts an experimental outcome without subscribing to any theoretical framework other than the validity of logic. Hence, via logic one surely can determine something as being non-existent (for example “different falling times” for different weights of stones to arrive at the bottom of a tower). That is surely different from just defining something as non-existent only because one believes it should not have any place in the world.
Now, Galileo came to his conclusions by applying some boolean and algorithmic operations: IF (heavier objects fall faster), AND (both stones), OR (decelerated or accelerated), NOT (no difference in the time falling for objects with different weights), THEN (falling time independent of coupling or not coupling some stones). He didn't use Newton's equations and Einstein's general relativity equations – but nonetheless determined a truth. The question for me now is: what can this result reliably say or not say about the assumed truth of a strictly deterministic world where all human thoughts are thought to be predetermined with mathematical precision and therefore the minds of humans are considered to not be stand-alone systems?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 10, 2021 @ 00:01 GMT
Hi Stefan,
Re “I differentiate between an experiment … and the explanation for why the outcomes are as they are”:
Rightly so. But before you do your experiment, you need to model your theoretical expected outcomes; it’s not about doing a fit-up job after the experiment. I.e. upfront, for all to see, BEFORE they do their experiments, theorists and experimentalists need to clearly define the agency/ “free will”, consciousness and life that they are expecting to see emerging.
But to physics, agency/ “free will” can be defined as an equation, or defined as the epiphenomena resulting from equations. And it’s the same when it comes to life and consciousness: physics will be looking for epiphenomena. In other words, physics has no real way of differentiating a rock and a living thing.
Re constructing counterfactuals:
Yes, you can’t construct counterfactuals with equations. The ability to construct counterfactuals indicates that something exists that that can only be represented via the symbols: IF, AND, OR, THEN etc. But I think that physics tries to claim that IF, AND, OR, THEN can emerge from equations, or they are the epiphenomena resulting from equations: which is absolute nonsense.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 10, 2021 @ 10:06 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
yes, i agree with what you wrote.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 9, 2021 @ 19:25 GMT
Concerning my last posts about Constructor Theory and Galileo Galilei's famous thought experiment, I would like to elaborate a bit more on both:
Constructor Theory aims to capture what is fundamentally possible and fundamentally impossible. Since this theory is strictly deterministic, the term “possible” must be redefined as “necessary”, means everything that is not impossible will...
view entire post
Concerning my last posts about Constructor Theory and Galileo Galilei's famous thought experiment, I would like to elaborate a bit more on both:
Constructor Theory aims to capture what is fundamentally possible and fundamentally impossible. Since this theory is strictly deterministic, the term “possible” must be redefined as “necessary”, means everything that is not impossible will happen at some time somewhere (in a multiverse).
Since Constructor Theory is anxious about the physicality of any information (defined as the ability to perfectly copy a physical state) but also anxious about some abstract meta-laws that are defined for the purpose of “defining” what the physical laws are capable of (possible tasks) or not (impossible tasks), it cannot answer the ontological status of what is called a “Constructor”.
It seems to me that such a “Constructor” is merely a thing that has been constructed by the authors of Constructor Theory. Indeed, they write that
“As I shall explain, the idea is that the fundamental questions of physics can all be expressed in terms of those issues, and that the answers do not depend on what the constructor is, so it can be abstracted away, leaving transformations (2) as the basic subject matter of the theory.”
This is relieving since otherwise there had to exist all kinds of different meta-laws (constructors) for almost each and every physical situation in addition to the already found usual physical laws (that also cannot answer some fundamental questions unambiguously). Let's take for example Galileo's thought experiment (described one post above by me):
According to Constructor Theory, there is a constructor that at least allowed Galileo to built a counterfactual idea in his mind. This idea was that objects with different weights need different times in a free fall of the same distance to arrive at the bottom of the earth. Now, according to Constructor Theory, there is another constructor that at least allowed the person named Galileo to make a thought experiment (another counterfactual thing!) with two stones, a rope and a rigid bar.
Galileo's result (the output of a computation?) was that both stones MUST fall in free fall with the same acceleration rate. So it seems that a couple of “constructors” indeed can tell us what must happen and what is impossible to happen – without having to do the experiment.
But isn't the talk about various Constructors, even the talk about a set of constructors (that enabled Galileo to come to his final conclusion) being able to be re-defined as a single Constructor that is responsible for Galileo's final conclusion, isn't this talk merely a nice circumlocution for ordinary logic at work (together with some human experience about how nature behaves)? Why does one need additional "Constructors" when one already has Boolean logic - which is equally abstract than a "Constructor" (but cannot be abstracted away)?
And why does it need at all Constructors that can be partitioned and de-partitioned according to a specific situation (for example Galileo's), if the universe (the multiverse) obeys per definition a strictly deterministic evolution - where everything that happens and happened is correlated to a 100% with happened at other times and places? Surely, we "nonetheless" want to “know” what is possible and impossible in such a multiverse, but on the other hand, whatever we are able to know in the future is determined by “constructors / laws of physics”.
I suspect that Constructor Theory tries to circumvent another impossibility, namely that it is logically impossible to reconstruct the needed initial conditions for such a strictly deterministic multiverse (universe) as well as to reconstruct all the past interactions that led to our present world – including intelligence and consciousness. Since without these reconstructions the world view of a strict determinism is shaky at least in the sense that there are enough people that do not buy into it, therefore a new meta-theory is needed to blur the remaining non-provability and all the open questions.
Be it constructors or laws of nature, in constructor theory both have no inherent intelligence, no consciousness, they aren't even aware of what is possible and impossible by themselves, aren't even aware of their own meta-physical existence (if they at all do exist in an ontological sense). Same is true for death matter. Nonetheless Constructor Theory aims to gain knowledge about what is possible and what is impossible in principle by crowning death matter and abstract, death principles on a throne.
So, in my opinion, the remarkable thing is that Constructor Theory not only takes knowledge as an effective force in the world, built from dull matter and dull laws of physics / Constructors. It also is eager to “explain” that only dull matter and dull laws of physics can make effective knowledge possible – and that everything that is more intelligent than dull matter (and more intelligent than human beings!) is impossible to have created the whole machinery purposefully.
I really do not want to bash the authors of Constructor Theory, I just want to say that I am not convinced on which logical basis this theory excludes an intelligent “Constructor” (Creator) by implicitly defining it impossible. In my opinion the gap between dull matter and human intelligence is equally large than the gap between human intelligence and something that is in-principle able to find out once and for all times what is possible and what is impossible. This does not mean that the world is lawless at its foundations, to the contrary. It only means that this "something" that should in-principle be able to "find out" once and for all times what is possible and what is impossible (as Constructor Theory would like it to have) can possibly only be that "thing" which created the whole "machinery" purposefully in the first place. due to the lack of an adequate term for this "thing" let's simply name it "God".
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 9, 2021 @ 22:08 GMT
Apart from the experimentally verified law of nature relationships, physics/ mathematical theories of how the world works are a dime a dozen. In number, these physics/ mathematical theories are already close to uncountable, and increasing every day.
But the theories all have one thing in common: they are all about attempting to straitjacket a world that in reality can’t be straitjacketed. Because the one sacred religious belief that all these theorists have is the belief that the world is in fact 100% straitjacketed by laws/ rules.
Hence the sacred religious belief of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers that people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. people have no effect on the world, people have no effect on the climate, and people were not responsible for flying planes into the twin towers. Because the laws of nature are the only things that have any effect on the world, i.e. the laws of nature are responsible for every number outcome for every variable.
However, these completely impractical physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers can’t tell you what a real-world number is; they can’t tell you how the real-world numbers that apply to the real-world variables work in the real world; and despite their grand theories, they can’t tell you the details of how a system works.
But the fact is, in order to represent a system, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols: IF, AND, OR, TRUE, THEN, ELSE, and so on. In other words, there exist necessary aspects of the world that can only be represented by these symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 10, 2021 @ 16:54 GMT
Some people believe in a strict determinism, some people believe that all of reality must completely be describable mathematically, some people believe in Panpsychism, some people believe in God.
What is common to all these beliefs is that there are no constructive methods to prove or disprove these beliefs, no methods that – if executed – could convince everybody from the truth /...
view entire post
Some people believe in a strict determinism, some people believe that all of reality must completely be describable mathematically, some people believe in Panpsychism, some people believe in God.
What is common to all these beliefs is that there are no constructive methods to prove or disprove these beliefs, no methods that – if executed – could convince everybody from the truth / falsity of the above mentioned beliefs. When i say “there are no constructive methods” i do not merely mean that there could be methods, but these methods are practically impossible to execute. No, what i mean is that these “methods” do not exist in our universe, not even theoretically.
So we are talking about things that are undecidable in principle (at least in our known universe). Moreover we are talking about things about we do not know for sure whether or not they are counterfactuals: we only believe that we know whether or not they are counterfactuals. There may be good or less good reasons for believing in one thing and not in the other. In all cases nonetheless we can communicate what our reasons are.
My reasons for believing in some intelligence that created the universe are that there are things in the universe, distinct from death matter, that are able to confabulate about a lot of things (inclusively theology of course), especially about what death matter should be and whether or not death things are able to come alive if they are specifically orchestrated with the help of another death “thing” called mathematics.
Many of us ascribe some “intelligence” to mathematics since it “always knows the right answers” - independent of whether or not we humans also know these answers. If it where true that mathematics always knows the right answers, then it should also be able to answer the question whether or not the above mentioned beliefs are true or false.
I do not know in which sense mathematics could ever “know” the right answers to the question which of the above mentioned beliefs are true and which are false. Even by assuming an infinite landscape of mathematics, “knowing” something should need a consciousness that knows AND UNDERSTANDS all of the infinitely many mathematical interconnections that could determine whether the above mentioned beliefs are true or not. So, here we again are talking about something that does not exist, not even theoretically, namely that mathematics “knows” something.
For all these reasons i would consider it as intelligent to assume the existence of some higher intelligence that created our universe. A subset of such an intelligence could well be what we today call “the landscape of mathematics”. But if you will, you can also consider the whole potential of that intelligence as equal with an infinite mathematical landscape. If such a conscious landscape would be infinitely complex, it reasonably wouldn’t be anymore possible to reduce it to an infinite collection of its ingredients – since where should one even start and where should one end trying to do this? Therefore, decomposing an infinite landscape of mathematics is another fundamental impossibility and what we today call “mathematics” eventually is just a tiny lap of a much higher intelligence.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 11, 2021 @ 00:03 GMT
Hi Stefan,
I just want to say that I think that believing in a God is not illogical. But believing in a God that interferes in the world, and keeps tabs on people, and rewards “good” people with eternal life is the bit that is illogical: that particular version of God was clearly created by people, because it is difficult to face our own mortality and the terrible things that happen in the world, and because we love and empathise with the world.
People and other living things have genuine abilities, and they have a genuine impact on the world. But the world is not mathematical in the exact sense of the word. Instead, clever people in the past created mathematical symbols, and other symbols like words and sentences, to represent and describe the nature of the world. Using mathematical symbols, and using word and sentence symbols, is a human activity, where the symbols should not be confused with the actual parts of the world that the symbols are supposed to represent. I contend that the knowledge/ consciousness aspect of the world, i.e. the aspect of the world that discerns difference, can only be symbolically represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols, NOT equations.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 11, 2021 @ 07:25 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply. I do not want to convert anybody here to certain theological positions. My example with the infinite landscape of mathematics was intended for the purpose to open up the reader’s mind to the possibility of a higher intelligence than we little humans have, an intelligence that is conscious (in a way that cannot be compared to human consciousness) and...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply. I do not want to convert anybody here to certain theological positions. My example with the infinite landscape of mathematics was intended for the purpose to open up the reader’s mind to the possibility of a higher intelligence than we little humans have, an intelligence that is conscious (in a way that cannot be compared to human consciousness) and that can create things for a certain purpose, not because it is forced by some meta-law to create it.
Therefore I want to say something more about my example with the infinite landscape of mathematics. Max Tegmark once said
“My guess is that the subjective experience that we call consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways, and I feel I'm kind of forced into guessing this from the starting point that I think it's all physics.”
Apart from the dichotomy whether it’s all physics or all mathematics, if we believe in Tegmark’s infinite mathematical landscape and consciousness approach, then that landscape is able to discriminate between it’s parts such that some parts cannot be physical, and other parts can. Moreover, some subset of the latter can become conscious, other subsets can’t.
But that would be not all to it. Furthermore these conscious subsets are able to believe that they are such subsets (without being able to know this for sure!). Moreover, they also are able to not believe what Tegmark believes. They are even able to tell lies about each and everything they like to lie. They have emotions of love, passion, hate, fear, happiness and so on and they have different high held values that lead them to define various specific goals during their lifes.
Now notice that Tegmark believes that subjective experience is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways. Thus, he thinks that this infinite mathematical landscape is somewhat informative about a certain fact. About what “fact”?
The answer is about
“consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways”
and one can say with confidence that what Tegmark here calls “information” isn’t information in the usual mathematical sense, since that would mean that Tegmark would KNOW with certainty that
“consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways”
But Tegmark only believes this (guesses it) and no Turing test can ever confirm that complex information processing does indeed lead to what we call consciousness. No Turing test can ever confirm that an AI machine made some conscious decicions based on some subjective values followed by some subjective goals and actions.
If “complex information processing” leads to consciousness, then this processing informs itself about the fact that “complex information processing leads to consciousness” – merely by the very fact that consciousness exists! But wait a minute, does it really inform us of what Tegmark has stated above? If it where so, Tegmark hadn’t to guess it, but he would know it – and all the other people too: hence, there is nothing within human conscious experience that makes a true statement that says about this conscious experience that it is "complex information processing".
So what “complex information processing” obviously isn’t capable of doing in-principle is to logically inform us that it truly leads to consciousness. The whole issue of
“consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways”
only comes about when one couples an infinite mathematical landscape (an unknown!) in one’s subjective mind with the very fact that consciousness exists (a known thing!). The fact that “i think and therefore i am” is indeed a kind of information, but it really does not contain nor imply what Tegmark searches for, namely that “complex information processing leads to consciousness”.
It is true that at the very moment, i am thinking about these things and this could be termed as a kind of information processing. It is also true that at the very moment i am conscious. But my thinking evolves around unknowns, about believes, and therefore does not process information, but unknowns. Moreover i am also conscious when i am NOT thinking about something (logically or illogically) and when i am not processing some “information” but merely enjoy some nice moments, for example lying in a deck chair and enjoying the sun.
If some mathematical patterns are able to produce consciousness, then nowhere within that pattern we could find something that would alone be responsible for such a production. Only the entire “pattern” could inform us – if at all - of such a responsibility, since only the entire pattern would be different from what we usually think about an unconscious mathematical pattern. Every piece of that pattern would be needed to make up consciousness.
The same would be true for an infinite mathematical landscape that provisionally could be partly equated with what we call “God”. Only the whole landscape would be able to reveal the deeper truth about this landscape. Since we can never grasp an infinite mathematical landscape, we are not in the position to know what this landscape really is (and is capable of). If parts of it are capable of producing consciousness, the whole landscape may be capable of many more surprises. Maybe the whole infinite landscape can be subsumed by that God to merely one single huge statement about the potential of that God (God as the word), similar to the possibility that the unknown mathematical pattern Tegmark assumes to be existent then would simply state “i think and therefore i am conscious”.
I am not advocating for a God that can purely be equated with mathematics (whatever the latter may be), even not with some infinite mathematics. But i think the mathematics of infinity can nicely illustrate some things that are impossible by humans, but not by God. That’s the whole point i wanted to make with my lengthy post. I rather believe that God transcends infinite mathematics and all kinds of available logics like boolean, paraconsistent, modal logic and even non-consistent logics and harmonizes them in ways we cannot grasp with only human logic at hand. And i think that it is not at all unreasonable since from time to time i ask myself who are we to believe that we can know everything in that vast cosmos? And who am i to decide whether or not we can some day? I can only believe some things, not know all things.
If someone is such eager to know all the answers to all these meta-physical questions, i think there is no other way than believing in some God and an afterlife where there could be a fair chance to obtain all desired truths. Due to the in-principle impossibilities i mentioned in my earlier post i really do not believe that all these interesting questions can be answered within the system we live in. It would necessitate a view from outside the system to do this and the only possibility that this could be feasible is when our world isn’t a causally closed system, but also equipped with some causa finalis that reflects that this world has been created according to some purpose. Self-evidently this would then raise some theological questions that should not be discussed here. The main point is merely that if you want to have a chance to know all the answers, you really need to believe in an afterlife and also think about the purpose of life (“theological questions”) and why we have the palette of emotions we have (instead of simply being emotionless conscious computers).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 00:48 GMT
Stefan,
I think that we are not really in a position to speculate about a “God”. This is not to deny the possibility that something that could potentially be described as a God exists. But I don’t think that there is a higher meaning to things, higher than the meaning (or lack of meaning) that living things already experience in their lives; there is just the reality of the world; the tragedy and the beauty of life is unavoidable; we, and other living things, individually experience it. The important thing is to try to stop being so self-centred, so worried about self, and so human-centred: its unbalanced.
But religion is one of the problems: there is the very worrying view that people should be attempting to religiously follow words written by people, seemingly living in dirt huts, that lived hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. Sorry, but I think we will not be in a position to seriously speculate about a “God” until we sort out fact from fiction when it comes to the physics of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 00:55 GMT
(continued)
Re the physics of the world:
As you mention, the ability to “discriminate between it’s parts” is an issue. You can’t symbolically represent “discriminat[ion] between it’s parts” with equations, you can only use equations to represent relationships.
This “discriminat[ion] between it’s parts” aspect is the consciousness/ knowledge/ logical/ information aspect of the world that is experienced by agents: it can’t be represented by equations.
Re “But my thinking evolves around unknowns, about believes, and therefore does not process information, but unknowns.”:
Clearly, “unknowns” are the result of a more advanced form of information processing, undertaken by agents that have the appropriate structures (brains). But the physical aspect of the brain (representable by equations, variables and numbers) is clearly not the same as the consciousness/ knowledge/ logical/ information/ creative aspect (representable by Boolean and algorithmic symbols, variables and numbers). It’s clearly not the same because you need to use different types of symbols to represent it. But you will notice that physics tries to claim that equations, variables and numbers are sufficient to represent everything.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 10, 2021 @ 21:43 GMT
How long before the penny drops for physics, mathematics and philosophy, that you need to symbolically represent the information situation for entities (from particles to atoms to molecules to living things) as something like “Variable1=Number1 AND Variable2=Number2 AND … AND VariableN=NumberN IS TRUE”? I.e., you need to use the AND symbol and the TRUE symbol, as well as the symbols representing variables and numbers, in order to represent a basic information situation.
Instead, these people religiously cling to their equations, and try to represent information via equations and similar symbols. These people religiously hold onto the lunatic idea that a brainless mathematical system at the foundations of the universe is doing all the things that only a human mathematician or physicist can do.
These people religiously hold onto lunatic ideas because the idea that you need to use AND and TRUE symbols and other Boolean and algorithmic symbols, to represent the world, means that the world is a very different type of world to the type of world that physics, mathematics and philosophy claim we live in.
These people claim that we live in the type of world where people were not responsible for flying planes into the twin towers: these people claim that it was the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, that were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 11, 2021 @ 21:17 GMT
Rick,
Re: “I asked you here to provide a real world example of some physics problem that is not adequately addressed by mathematical equations, that needs if…then logic. Instead of doing so, you just repeat the same gibberish over, and over, and over, and….. A concrete example would go a long way towards communicating what you are getting at. Your present efforts are not getting it done.”:
Physics says that we live in a type of world where:
(1) The laws of nature, and sometimes “quantum randomness”, are responsible for changing all the numbers for all the variables for matter; and (2) This is somehow a type of perpetual movement machine.
But I’m saying that we live in a type of world where:
(1) Matter assigns new numbers to some of its own variables, whereby other numbers are passively changed due to the laws of nature; “passively” changed because both the laws of nature and numbers are mere relationships; numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out; and (2) Matter actively assigning a few numbers is the only movement in the whole system.
In other words, physics says that the laws of nature were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers, but I am saying that:
(1) People were genuinely responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers; and
(2) Matter/ living things assigning new numbers to variables in response to situations can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 01:14 GMT
First (1) BS. Pure. Logical analysis tells us everything after a logical disconnect is suspect. You need to back up to before this point and choose a different path.
Second (1) “matter” is incapable of assigning anything to anything. “Variables” are constructs of mathematical equations, and physicists are free to “assign” values to independent variables only to determine outcomes (the dependent variables) of mathematical models they create to attempt a better understanding. In the natural flow over time of reality, NOT the mathematical model of reality, there are no “variables”, no equations, so NOTHING is assigning numbers to variables. Your fundamental logical error is conflating reality and the physicist’s model of reality..
Third (1), this is so obvious I can’t imagine why you thought it was worth the time to post.
(2) Again, numbers are assigned to independent variables in models.
If you do not think your historical posts were inappropriate, or your comments about men were stereotypical, you suffer, as many today on the left do, from Acute Lack Of Self-awareness. ALOS. This is a syndrome of emotionalism.
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 01:17 GMT
What happened to the edit? NOT stereotypical.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 20:45 GMT
Like followers drawn into a cult, little do those young people who love physics know that they are buying into a view of the world in which it was the laws of nature that were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers, NOT people that were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers.
As Rick Lockyer has made clear, an arrogant male dominated physics proclaims to the world that it was the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, that flew the planes into the twin towers.
Oh yes, the physics PR b**llsh**t is that people did it.
But the actual physics, that these arrogant men religiously believe in, says that the laws of nature are responsible for every number outcome for every variable.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 21:58 GMT
Rick,
I didn’t make clear in the above post [1], but I have repeatedly said ad nauseam, that in the real world there are relationships, categories and numbers which we symbolically represent by equations, variables and number symbols. But I often just say equations, variables and numbers as a shorthand, because otherwise the whole thing just gets a bit unwieldy.
I’m saying that:
(1) The necessary, fundamental aspect of the world that discerns difference in the equations, variables and numbers; and
(2) The necessary, fundamental aspect of the world that assigns new numbers to variables in response to situations that are discerned (e.g. a higher-level situation might be that a tiger is approaching, and there are trees and cars nearby),
can only be symbolically represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
…………………
1. Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 11, 2021 @ 21:17 GMT
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 09:36 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply. Indeed, it is important trying to sort out facts from fiction. I totally agree.
But I would like to apply that also to what you call “physics”. All we have in physics are patterns. Mathematical patterns and patterns of behaviour. And we have explanations that use terms (symbols) which point to things that we not really understand, for example...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply. Indeed, it is important trying to sort out facts from fiction. I totally agree.
But I would like to apply that also to what you call “physics”. All we have in physics are patterns. Mathematical patterns and patterns of behaviour. And we have explanations that use terms (symbols) which point to things that we not really understand, for example “particle”, “energy”, “time”, “space”, “information”, “number”. In this sense we permanently handle partial unknowns – and thanks to the fact that these terms relate to the external world via patterns that everybody can see and prove to be existent – we are in the situation to calculate with them and get reliable results, although we are calculating with partial unknowns.
This calculating with partial unknowns surely can and does also happen when the brain processes internal information, means when it examines beliefs, hence unknowns, to find out their truth values. It is surely true that these “unknowns” are not the same as “nothing”, they are not placeholders but surely can be understood as codifications, as high level symbols. It is also true that in my example with Galileo Galilei, for coming to his result he had to use some physical terms (symbols) like for example force and weight that had not been internal confabulations of his brain, but did come to him from the external world. But force and weight are mainly quantitative measures of something he at his time couldn't further specify, and in this sense they had been unknowns for him. Nonetheless he arrived at the correct result.
Leaving aside scriptures about God, we can surely think about what the possible consequences could be if such a God did exist. We can do this in the same way as for example thinking about what the consequences would be if the universe would be infinitely old (as some people believe).
If we for example scribble a time-line on a paper with a point somewhere on it that symbolizes our present (here and now), then for a universe that is infinitely old (always existed) this time-line is infinite in the left direction (in the past direction). We now can ask if such a belief in an infinite linear time does make sense or not. If we would like to trace this line from our present back to the left, we logically couldn't come to any starting point of that time-line since it continues infinitely long to the left.
If we now additionally think that this universe and everything in it evolves according to strictly deterministic laws and causes, then – as a matter of fact – at the point on our scribble (our present) parts of the matter in that universe deterministically formed our known patterns (humans, planets, suns). But how can that be, since a strictly deterministic chain of events necessarily had to have needed an infinite amount of time to arrive at our present moment – and therefore we and our world logically could never exist? The only answer I know to this is that in such an infinite universe there would be surely no single distinguished point where our present had to happen on that infinite time line, but there had to be infinitely many such points: in other words there had to have happened infinitely many exact copies or our known universe in such an infinite past. Including the exact copies of you and me with the exact same conversations.
One now can believe that this is the scenario that really describes the course of events in our universe – or one can decide to drop one of its assumptions, either that strict determinism is all there is to explain all events or that time is something that did exist always in the past. Surely, when doing such a line of reasoning, I have to operate also with “knowns” and not only with unknowns. For example I must assume that what mathematics says about infinities is true, complete and reliable. And I must interpret the term “time” such that causes are always prior to their effects.
IF I now would additionally bring in what your main point is – on which I agree with you -
namely that
“This “discriminat[ion] between it’s parts” aspect is the consciousness/ knowledge/ logical/ information aspect of the world that is experienced by agents: it can’t be represented by equations.“
THEN I would conclude that I at least had to drop the assumption that strict determinism is all there is to explain all events in the world.
But there will be people that do not agree with you for several reasons. Let's only focus on those people that do not agree because they believe in the above mentioned strict determinism. For me it is logical that they then had to drop the assumption that time is something that did exist always in the past – IF they do not agree that a universe that is infinite in time has already produced infinitely many copies of our universe and will proceed to do so (no escape here for people that believe in a “Big Freeze” of our universe in the future, since in an infinitely old deterministic universe that already must have happened and that would be in contradiction with our present facts).
There are quite a lot of IF...THENs in my considerations. So here is another one:
IF human thinking and consciousness is exclusively only the result of deterministic physical processes, THEN only some complex “information” processing (brains) can use IF....THEN logics to determine the consequences of some unknowns. But wait a minute, according to that strict determinism, already all mechanical parts of what you have called the “perpetual movement machine” act according to that IF...THEN logics, since they are thought of as permanently determining the consequences of some unknowns. The unknowns are the “numbers”, or likewise the positions and momenta etc. Neither these mechanical parts know these values, nor do humans know these values. Hence, what these mechanical parts do does not depend on any knowledge. But nonetheless, IF position and momentum of X is such and position and momentum of Y is such, THEN A and B happens if both meet.
Now the strict determinist would say, wait another moment: for all the mechanical parts there isn't really such an IF...THEN in our world, since whatever these mechanical parts have done in the past and will do in the future, all this is completely determined – and consequently also all my lines of reasoning and the accompanying emotions I have.
I say IF that would be so, THEN the assumption that
“only some complex “information” processing (brains) can use IF....THEN logics to determine the consequences of some unknowns”
must be false since there wouldn't be any “IF....THEN logics” anywhere, not even in the human brain. The contradiction here is that one can come to that conclusion by directly using that “IF... THEN logics.
Notice that the reason for that contradiction is that we can handle counterfactuals as if they where facts. Galileo did this and we can too. Now, a counterfactual in my brain is not only a counterfactual, but also a fact – since it is in my brain. So we can simulate something as if it where real, whereby the simulation is indeed real. So a strictly deterministic world then is able to simulate some things AS IF they would be parts of that world – but aren't. In fact, that's what brains do strikingly often.
The crucial point now is in my opinion that this behaviour of brains obviously is goal oriented – by using counterfactual simulations brains try to determine some facts, they try to sort fictions from facts. Therefore the big question is why a strictly deterministic world at some point in time aims to know what are facts about itself and what are fictions. If one assumes a strict determinism to be true, then brains are part of that. Why should these brains trying to sort out fictions from facts, something that must be considered as goal-oriented? All this happens in an assumed-to-be deterministic world where it is believed that there cannot exist any goals at all in it.
Dear strict determinists, please do not confuse natural selection (survival etc.) with your strictly deterministic world to explain why brains try to sort out facts from fictions, since within the framework of strict determinism, natural selection (survival etc.) with all its effects that have happened in the past was strictly determined: it can only be furthermore interpreted as a selection process if one would bring in some (goal-oriented) conspiratorial elements that aimed to make that selection process happening at the very beginning – and hence would necessitate such a beginning (initial conditions etc.). Or one is forced to believe in the above mentioned universe that is infinite in time and therefore has enough time to assemble anything that is physically possible in principle – infinitely often.
So the next questions are: is there any evidence for or against such an infinite deterministic time-line? If the world is strictly deterministic, then neither particles nor human beings need any knowledge to be what they are and to act like they do.
Why is there nonetheless some knowledge existent and what does it mean that it nonetheless exists? If it's existence only means that it exists, then also the existence of a strict determinism only means that it exists, what amounts to the conclusion that everything really means nothing - what would be another astonishing piece of knowledge possible in our universe.
If everything means nothing then there are no reasons to stick to any kind of world view. Nonetheless people don't stop to stick to world views, not even strict determinists. So obviously these world views mean something to them such that they can't skip them: they stick to counterfactual meanings and at the same time affirm that counterfactuals have no place in the world!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 15:50 GMT
(continued)
I am in the mood to make a tiny continuation of my previous post.
For everybody who has read that previous post an thinks that the people who believe in a strict determinism and find that world view meaningful - albeit at the same time affirming that the term “meaning” has no fundamental place in a deterministic world (only a relative one, if at all) – are simply...
view entire post
(continued)
I am in the mood to make a tiny continuation of my previous post.
For everybody who has read that previous post an thinks that the people who believe in a strict determinism and find that world view meaningful - albeit at the same time affirming that the term “meaning” has no fundamental place in a deterministic world (only a relative one, if at all) – are simply forced by the deterministic courses of events to think so, I would reply the following:
Wouldn't your objection MEAN that your deterministic world view is a consistently closed system? Wouldn't your objection MEAN that this consistently closed system is somewhat self-explanatory?
I would answer both questions with YES.
BUT I nonetheless would object the world view of a strict determinism for the following reasons:
Firstly, we know that there can be constructed many systems that are logically consistent, but this does not mean that each and every such system must be non-counterfactual. Not every consistent system can be automatically considered as being able to describe all of reality.
Secondly, isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that a strict deterministic world, populated with some conscious computers (humans), plays out its deterministic movie AS IF there would indeed be some deeper meaning behind that movie? Isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that every detail of that movie is logically ordered such that there are different levels of description that are switched from time to time when the movie for example shows natural selection at work, or chemical reactions, or encodings of symbols and complex data processing?
Thirdly, isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that some conscious computers (humans) within that movie begin to think about that movie and like to understand what they see?
Fourthly, isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that points 1-4 are POSSIBLE at all? Even a universe that is infinite in time is not forced by anything to make points 1-4 POSSIBLE, so the hard-core deterministic story goes.
So, if a multiverse, or a single infinite universe is nonetheless forced to make points 1-4 possible, what could these forces then be? And if it is not forced to make points 1-4 possible, how then can one explain points 1-4 being FACTS?
A strict determinism can only answer that these FACTS cannot be explained, since there are no reasons at all existent for that to happen. Strict determinism only can shrug it's shoulders to that question or declare it as being meaningless.
Effectively that declaration amounts in declaring everything as being meaningless: consequently everything means NOTHING. But nothing can only come from nothing, whereas something can only come from something.
So where did our world came from – and does that world exist at all? Of course it exists and it didn't came from nothing. But strict determinism nonetheless argues AS IF it came from nothing, in the same sense that a strict determinist believes he came from nothing and will end up in nothing. If true, his world view also means NOTHING. Because in the absence of any consciousness, although there may be everything (except consciousness), no one would know this and hence there also could be absolutely nothing.
BUT: there is not nothing and there is not everything, there is "only" something. I consider that as a mystery.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 23:10 GMT
Stefan,
Sorry, but I don’t think that there is any greater meaning than the meaning (i.e. subjective experience, and philosophy of life) that individual living things experience. I mean that there is no greater purpose to the world, there are no greater lessons for people to learn than what they are already learning. I give credence to the lives of people, and other living things, in that they experience genuine tragedy, and beauty, in their lives. Nothing, no afterlife, no God, can compensate for tragedy and wrongdoing. I give credence to the lives of individual people and individual living things: if you will excuse me for saying so, we are not pawns in the game of a higher being. Instead, if there is a God, then we (particles, atoms, molecules and living things) are all a part of this thing.
But I’m agreeing with you that there are aspects of the world that physics can’t represent with equations, variables and numbers.
I’m saying that these aspects of the world are 100% necessary in order for the world to function as a system; and that these aspects of the world can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
Obviously, this type of world is a VERY, VERY different type of world to the type of world that physics, mathematics and philosophy claim we live in.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 23:23 GMT
P.S.
But I agree that: "there is not nothing and there is not everything, there is "only" something. I consider that as a mystery.". However, I would say that we (particles, atoms, molecules and living things) are all a PART of this mysterious thing: we are not a PRODUCT of this mysterious thing.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 13, 2021 @ 12:52 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply.
I am happy that you agree with me on that mystery that I mentioned.
In my opinion it is worth to examine this mystery a little bit more, what I will do here.
As I already mentioned, a strictly deterministic view of the world can be considered as being “self-explanatory”. Everything in such a world follows necessarily from...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply.
I am happy that you agree with me on that mystery that I mentioned.
In my opinion it is worth to examine this mystery a little bit more, what I will do here.
As I already mentioned, a strictly deterministic view of the world can be considered as being “self-explanatory”. Everything in such a world follows necessarily from something other.
But such a strictly deterministic world cannot explain why it exists at all. Its mere existence does not (at least not obviously!) follow necessarily from something other. Therefore it cannot explain why itself is at all possible to exist.
So, although some consistent systems like strict determinism are “self-explanatory” by virtue of their internal consistency, their explanatory power must break down at a certain limit (just like General Relativity).
Consequently, no self-consistent system, defined as strictly deterministic, can determine the answer to the question why such a system is possible in the first place. Notice that strictly deterministic systems can only handle necessities, but not possibilities. Logics is at the border of being able to somewhat handle both.
Consequently, if we do NOT assume something to be existent that is responsible for the existence of such a deterministic world, then asking what's the reason for the existence of this world is surely an illogical question.
But the assumption that our world exists for no reason at all is equal to assuming that this world either came out of literally nothing – or factually existed eternally in the past.
However, it must be noticed that both assumptions are somewhat illogical: Whenever something can come from nothing, then everything can come from nothing, even the contrary. And whenever something existed forever for no reason, then it cannot be excluded by some logical arguments that it is impossible for it to vanish into literally nothing in a blink of an eye for no reason at all.
Thus, the intermediate result so far is that logics breaks down when we do not consider logic as something that is superior to all the existing rest, but consider it as being just a mysterious part of all the rest. Now let's proceed.
Let's assume that logics IS NOT superior to all the rest but simply a part of our world and nothing more – a contingency amongst other contingencies.
Then consequently the “self-explanatory” system of strict determinism wasn't determined to exist by anything at all. This in turn amounts to saying that literally its existence was determined by NOTHING. So it can also vanish into literally NOTHING at every point in time.
The logical problem here is that with denying any reasons for a self-consistent system to be existent, one introduces a severe logical inconsistency, because logics as we know it is such a system.
Furthermore, since in a world that is not logical, everything as well as nothing can come from literally nothing and also can vanish into literally nothing, this is EQUAL to an inconsistency. Since we know that from inconsistencies everything can follow, there is no real reason to believe that everything should follow from some logical deductions necessarily all the time without exceptions (means, it could then also only possibly follow from such deductions, but must not do so).
The next intermediate result therefore is, that if we do not consider logics as superior to the mantra of “deterministic information processing”, then we can put a lot of our “knowledge” about the world into question – because inconsistent systems can disprove a lot of what we at this point in time derived by virtue of science with the help of “logics”.
This tells me that denying any existent reason for why there is “something” instead of literally nothing OR why there is “something” instead of literally everything (everything one can imagine for example) is simply illogical.
Now, I arrived at these conclusions via logics. The conclusion is that the question about the reason for the existence of our world can be defined as being illogical. Because logics simply breaks down at this limit. But it is assumed to hold when we do not touch this limit, means within the boundaries of known science.
Sentence 1): So, logics within the boundary of science is logical for no reason, whereas logics beyond the boundary of science is illogical for no reasons.
Wow – could this be the whole story? Unfortunately, I don't think so. Because assuming what I wrote in sentence 1) is just an AD HOC ASSUMPTION, not a proven fact.
What are the consequences of all of that?
Either existence is illogical and senseless at its very foundations (means it has NO “foundations”), or it is logical at its very foundations (means it has some logical foundations).
Sentence 2): Obviously, something can either be (considered as) logical or (considered as) be illogical depending on what one assumes!
But wait a minute! Has sentence 2) been drawn by the power of logic or by the power of illogics? Or is the answer to that question simply “that depends on you only!”? I would say yes to that question, as illogical as it sounds at first glance. For me it could indicate that humans obviously have a degree of “free will” that enables them to even define logics as illogical and vice versa.
With that we are approaching the limits of human logics. At least we can say that human logics is possibly not what it seems to be. It possibly can transcend the deterministic system of ordinary logics and touch a realm about I would say that it cannot any more be precisely determined within a deterministic system, but only outside of it.
I further would say that our best physical theory today, quantum mechanics with its somewhat weird consequences may not be such weird when having touched the limits of logics as I did so far.
Please notice Lorraine, that the main point you always wanted to make, namely that there is a striking inconsistency between a physical description of a reality of deterministically evolving “numbers” and the dichotomy of a certain degree of “free will” in conscious agents only proves your conclusion (according to the standards of human logics) that
“this type of world is a VERY, VERY different type of world to the type of world that physics, mathematics and philosophy claim we live in”
to be LOGICAL - WHEN you ASSUME that logics is logically reliable independent of being applied within the boundaries of science or beyond the boundaries of science.
IF you do not assume that logics is somewhat superior to the existence of all the rest, THEN it is NOT logically guaranteed that the point you want to make tells us some TRUTH about the world. Because when logics isn't universally reliable, then it may well be that humans use IF....THEN logics all the time – BUT for no LOGICALLY explainable reason at all and therefore your arguments do not prove anything!
In other words, you can only deduce with logical certainty what you want to deduce if you accept that some kind of deeper logics is superior to all the physical equations, all the maths and all the IF....THEN conditionality. But this can not be guaranteed by only the AD HOC assumption that logics is reliable within the boundaries of science whereas it does not need to be reliable beyond the boundaries of science.
Surely, nonetheless this could be the case. But in my opinion it would be an AD HOC argument, equivalent to the ad hoc argument that asking for a deeper explanation of existence is illogical.
Hence, you can only deduce with logical certainty what you want to deduce if you accept something that has been termed as LOGOS - even if we humans cannot understand this logos completely.
It is known that when a system reaches its limits of applicability, the results become somewhat ambiguous at first glance, since these results cannot be captured by the old framework unambiguously. I would say that quantum theory is such an application at the limit of a strictly deterministic framework and it points to something beyond it that at first glance may seem equally fuzzy than a precise distinction between logics and illogics. Both ambiguities in my opinion point to something not yet fully known and understood.
Of course, it may also point to an abyss whose borders say that beyond these borders, there is no more knowledge existent, because beyond these borders there isn't any more anything existent. NOTHING. But as I tried to explain, the consequences would be that there would be no logos, no guarantees that our “deductions” really can and do deduce some truth.
What I further tried to do with this in turn lengthy post is to examine what consequences an illogical world would have, compared to a logical one. Here we have to stick and to work with what we have, namely human logics, even if stressed to its limits.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 13, 2021 @ 17:25 GMT
(continued)
I like to make one point from my previous post clearer.
When I say that there are no guarantees that your deduction really can and does deduce what you believe it deduces – and when I say that
“it may well be that humans use IF....THEN logics all the time – BUT for no LOGICALLY explainable reason at all and therefore your arguments do not prove...
view entire post
(continued)
I like to make one point from my previous post clearer.
When I say that there are no guarantees that your deduction really can and does deduce what you believe it deduces – and when I say that
“it may well be that humans use IF....THEN logics all the time – BUT for no LOGICALLY explainable reason at all and therefore your arguments do not prove anything!”
it has to be understood as follows:
Your correct observation that there is IF....THEN procedures existent, that these procedures can nowhere be found in our scientific theories – although these theories claim to be complete and consistent – only leads to the deduction that these theories aren't really complete and consistent when you stick to all necessary logical steps to be able to obtain that result.
If you do not stick to all these steps, your result will be non-conclusive.
Non-conclusiveness – for example by having used a false assumption – in your case means the following:
The equations of our current theories do not use IF....THEN procedures, whereas such procedures are nonetheless part of the real world (human thinking and behaviour, “free will”). This indicates that the real world is in opposition to what physics and its equations say about the real world – therefore there is something wrong with what physics says about the real world.
So far so good. But if you assume that the logics you used to come to your result must be considered as something that exists – for no reason at all, in the same sense that the existence of our universe, its beauty, our emotions and imaginations would have no reason at all – then there may be nothing wrong with what physics says about the world and there may be nothing wrong with what you say about “free will”.
The only thing that is then wrong – for the case that logics isn't universally applicable due to the (assumed!) lack of a deeper meaning of its existence – is that it cannot be any more excluded that two mutually exclusive things can simply be possible to exist in such an illogical world: namely that what you say (we have “free will”) and what physics says (we have no “free will”) are both TRUE.
I hope I made it clearer with that post where I see the weakness in your arguments and where I would see the power in your arguments.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 13, 2021 @ 23:04 GMT
Stefan,
There are seemingly 2 aspects of logic: the general mechanism of logic (which can be symbolically represented), and the concept of logic (which is like a single word that summarises the mechanism).
(1) The general mechanism of logic:
People can’t avoid using logic. But if one wants to discuss the topic of logic itself, the best that one can do is to try to be logical about logic.
And the best way to do this is to use symbols to represent a standalone system, and then one can examine the standalone system and how it works.
This standalone system is nothing but a whole lot of symbols, including symbols representing the law of nature relationships (symbolised by equations), and symbols representing logic and agency (symbolised by Boolean and algorithmic symbols).
Clearly, logic is not really separable from differentiation (discerning difference), knowledge, consciousness, and information.
The essence of what one can do with logic (symbolised by Boolean and algorithmic symbols) is to collate, analyse and summarise a lower-level information situation (which might be symbolically represented as numbers that apply to variables). It’s only via the collation and analysis of this lower-level information that one can derive higher-level concepts/ categories of information like “tiger” and “tree”.
(2) The concept of logic:
“Logic” is itself a higher-level concept, just like “tiger” and “tree”. But the word “logic” is not the reality of logic, just like the word “tiger” is not the reality of the tiger. When communicating, people represent these higher-level concepts with written and spoken words.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 14, 2021 @ 10:25 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply. I agree with all of what you wrote, although my example with the word as the Logos wasn't meant to be understood literally, but as a summation of an (yet) unknown but nonetheless existent principle of intelligence. But I like to add something else.
Ultimate reality (whatever it is) is the biggest existing stand-alone system – the totality. So i...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply. I agree with all of what you wrote, although my example with the word as the Logos wasn't meant to be understood literally, but as a summation of an (yet) unknown but nonetheless existent principle of intelligence. But I like to add something else.
Ultimate reality (whatever it is) is the biggest existing stand-alone system – the totality. So i am concerned with asking what's the – logical – reason for the existence of that totality, about which the prevailing conception of physics assumes to know everything (in the future?). The answer is that there is no precise, logical, generally applicable answer existent to that question.
Since a precise, logical, generally applicable answer to that question is neither existent within that totality and surely also not beyond it (per definition), the fact that it exists must be at least considered as non-rational in the traditional sense.
The question then arises whether non-rational things can also occur within that totality. I see no logical reason to assume that this is impossible, no logical reason other than it would defy our logics. The fact that it would defy our logic can only be a logical in-principle reason against the existence of non-rational things when we assume logics to reign over all of that totality (in the same sense in which a human being reigns over its mental concepts, theories, ideas and symbols, but more intelligent and without errors, without inconsistencies).
That logics should reign over all of totality is merely an assumption, not a proven fact. It is an assumption that cannot be proven to be true or false due to in-principle reasons. These in-principle reasons are the same why one cannot prove or disprove that reality indeed follows the equations of physics in each and every case, equations which are believed to be capable of for example predicting (or describing) precisely the movement of a water-vortex (in my bath tube when I pull the peg).
Of course, many physicists will say that the mere idea that this water-vortex could not (completely) follow the equations of physics is a deeply irrational idea. If true, it nonetheless would show that deeply irrational things are at least at some level existent within the mentioned totality, namely in my imagination.
The connection with the contradiction you found is that in a totality that has no rational means at hand to watertightly prohibit that illogical things can happen qua the power of inconsistency, one cannot draw an unambiguous conclusion form a contradiction, since from a contradiction within an inconsistent system can follow everything, including the contrary.
Only if one assumes that no such inconsistencies are possible within that totality, I would consider the contradiction you found as meaningful in the sense that it is a strong logical argument for the existence of free will. Of course, I do not believe in non-rational things to happen, since I think all things happen for certain reasons, although not always being equal to deterministic causes. So I consider your argument as a strong argument.
On the other hand it could well be that we live in a world that allows some irrationality such that it exactly follows the known laws of physics, even in the brain, but nonetheless there would be genuine free will for human beings (and animals).
THIS would indeed be genuinely unexplainable but nonetheless true in the same sense that the existence of the totality itself is unexplainable but nonetheless true, since it exists. The mentioned irrationality would mean that there is genuine free will for human beings (and animals), and at the same time there is NO free will for human beings (and animals) – for no logically reasons, because there wouldn't exist such reasons at all – in the same sense that the mentioned totality is assumed to exist for no reasons at all.
That scenario of contradictory existences couldn't be proven to be true or false due to the in-principle impossibilities I mentioned above and therefore most of us would consider such contradictory existences as nonsense. Most of us do believe that it is nonsense (as I do) and they have faith, but due to what I so far wrote they (and I) do not really have logics at their sides – as long as they don't make certain additional assumptions about the ontological status of logics itself.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 14, 2021 @ 23:12 GMT
Stefan,
I think that we collectively (particles, atoms, molecules, living things) are the thing that exists; and we are the thing that knows; and we are the thing that acts. I.e. the thing that exists, exists in a particulate form. We can't really say why this is so. And we can't really say whether the parts once existed as a whole.
But I think that we are not a product of a separately existing external thing. Physics says that separately existing external Platonic laws of nature caused the product; religion says that a separately existing external God caused the product.
But I would say that it is an inside job: we internally existing things (particles, atoms, molecules, living things) collectively caused the product.
This is a different worldview to the highfalutin ideas of religion and physics. This is more like an indigenous religious worldview where human beings are not the special chosen ones that (e.g.) Christianity or Islam seem to think human beings are. This is a totally different attitude to the world to the attitude of (e.g.) Christianity or Islam, where the world is merely the means to an end; the desired end being individual human beings “saving” themselves, and being rewarded with eternal life. The attitude of (e.g.) Christianity or Islam is that human beings are special, different, and apart from the rest of the world.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 15, 2021 @ 06:17 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply and your honest words. I enjoy that kind of honest conversation very much.
As you maybe know I do not like to read plain assertions without any justification of why someone who claims something does claim it and without writing her/his lines of reasoning about how they arrived at all at their conclusions. Otherwise we could simply wrote a one-liner...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply and your honest words. I enjoy that kind of honest conversation very much.
As you maybe know I do not like to read plain assertions without any justification of why someone who claims something does claim it and without writing her/his lines of reasoning about how they arrived at all at their conclusions. Otherwise we could simply wrote a one-liner with an assumption or a claim and that would be it.
Therefore, because it was me who introduced the issue of God and the issue of Christianity, I like to tell you and the reader a bit more about how I see the several issues I mentioned so far. Not because I want to convert anyone to Christianity, but simply because my mentioning of it can cause irritations about how and why I arrived at it and how it could relate to science.
As you already know, I believe that we are responsible for our actions as well as our thoughts, since actions – at least actions with certain consequences – follow from thoughts.
Your are honest in your replies, what I see in that you confess that we really can't say with certainty why the world is like it is and whether or not our detectable universe with all that is in it once was in a state of non-separation from a higher “thing”. And you are intelligent enough to not advertise what you believe as facts, but instead label it as thoughts, as a world view. I appreciate this honesty.
For me, if the world wouldn't really be a kind of remnant of what once had been a much better, non-separated state within a higher intelligence (God), then I think I had to consider, at the end of the day, everything what happened and happens within this mysterious totality as well as the existence of that totality itself must be totally senseless and meaningless. That totality may be stable and it may work perfectly, but for no reasons and hence, the fact that it works perfectly and is stable is meaningless when considered from the point of view that we all have to die at some not so far away point in time, many of us after having suffered severe pain and injustice.
Now, I think that I am not alone with this kind of feeling. To the contrary, almost every human being at least once or twice in its lifetime is faced with that kind of feeling. And if one then further thinks about all of it (and has the time to do so), it may get much worse. So I think that for example the people who committed 9/11 where people that thought Islam solves that existential problem for them. Anyway, I think this was not all what lead to 9/11. There also must have been a severe kind of subliminal aggression against how the world and the people in it are have been present in these persons (compared to how they would like it to be) to commit the actions they did.
In fact, I think a part of all human-made tragedy can be ascribed to the fact that the people who cause these kind of tragedy haven't coped with living in an assumed-to-be meaningless world. Another version of that is the “devil-may-care” attitude of people. Of course, all these tragedy raises severe pain and questions for the victims of these human-made tragedy (inclusive murdering and other bad things) about the meaning and appreciation of their existences and those of their loved ones. In fact, there are things that happen to people about one can say with confidence that these people didn't deserve them in any way – be it man-made tragedy or natural, contingent desaster.
Hence, naturally the question arises of how all of this can be reconciled with the idea of God in Christianity that is supposed to be good and loving. As a first answer, in my opinion this should not depend on whether God considers (some) human beings as special chosen ones (maybe amongst other created beings, aliens etc.). If you have more than one child, I think most of us would love each and every one of them AS IF it would be the only child. And I think that must be also true for God's view. I do not know whether or not God also created other lifeforms at other locations than earth.
Nonetheless all of this does not answer why there are so much bad and painful things in OUR world and how one can reconcile that fact with the idea of such a God.
I would suspect that this has something to do with free will. If one indeed assumes that there has been a state of non-separation from a good an loving God, then there must be a reason why that isn't any more so.
If one accepts free will to be existent, it then could also have existed for every single living entity during that state of non-separation from God. The only way I can reasonably imagine how our world with its huge amounts of bad and painful things in it came about is to assume that certain beings equipped with a soul and free will within that non-separated state from God asked themselves “how would it be like to be separated from God?”. This then would be a counterfactual question at this point of affairs.
That question then is equivalent to asking “How would things be when there would be no God?”.
Obviously, in our world we live, we can see how it is to be separated from God and how it would be when there would be no God.
Furthermore I think it is important to notice that the assumptions I made so far and further will make for explaining evil, pain and senselessness in this world should not be interpreted as a kind of funny game these souls started to play. Because in my opinion this would not be a game (for example like hide and seek), but rather in many individual cases unfortunately a very real bad choice. This implies that nonetheless, God allowed its beings to make choices, even the choice of separating oneself from God and I have to accept this free will in the same way that I had to accept free will when there indeed would be no such God existent.
Furthermore I have to accept that choices have consequences.
Several posts above you wrote that
“Nothing, no afterlife, no God, can compensate for tragedy and wrongdoing”.
Yes, as beautiful as this world may be (and is), I agree with that. But if you believe in an afterlife and at least in parts of the bible, then God will dry the tears of those who had to live through severe pain, despair and injustice. Afterlife then means the realm where all of that tragedy began in the first place. I believe that this realm really exists, since in our world there are many different non-common sense phenomena that hint in exactly that direction. But here is not the place to discuss them.
What about evil?
According to what I wrote so far, evil at least is the absence of God, the separation, its at least the absence of a certain amount of love and goodwill events. I do not exclude that there are some real evil entities existent that made its way also into our known world. But I do not want to focus to much on that kind of evil here. Fact is that some people commit crimes and all kinds of other things for the exclusive reason of torturing other people because the former really like torturing others.
My explanation scheme does also not exclude the possibility that some entities that decided to experience what is is like to be separated from God will not find their ways back to non-separation with God. At least not in the next couple of aeons, since I think (not know!) that people who lived a life of passion for evil which cannot be any more compensated for themselves (unless these people deeply pray for forgiveness and deeply ask their victims for forgiveness) and others cannot enter any kind of heaven again due to free will: they will experience what they freely decided to experience, namely
what it is like to be separated from God.
And honestly I think this will be a rather hellish experience.
Therefore I do not think that we are pawns in the game of a higher being, as you wrote in a reply somewhere above. Rather I would say what anyway is obvious in this world, namely that some people blame their bad decisions on God, thereby using God as a pawn in their responsibility games. Surely, with that I do not refer to those people that suffer(ed) from desaster and tragedy they themselves have neither caused nor wished to happen to them. These cases are clearly existent.
And clearly, it is really difficult to explain all that kind of suffering in front of the background-assumption of an existing God. At least I have no other explanation for this suffering than what I presented here. In the revelation of John – if one takes it seriously – God promised to dry at least all the tears of those that suffered (horrible) injustice.
Nonetheless, please notice that I do not judge nor know who will make it into heaven and not (except for the cases I above mentioned I do judge), since I know that I really do not know everything. I think the answer to that last question is really a matter between God and every person personally, in the sense that it matters what one has done or/and hasn't done during one's lifetime and with which motivations and intentions that came about and/or did not came about. But again, this is only my subjective explanation since I do not know everything. I am neither in the position to finally judge all people nor to finally know everything. And I think each and everyone of us is also not in that position.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 16, 2021 @ 22:39 GMT
Stefan,
I’m sorry, but I’m sick of the puffed-up self-importance of human beings: they are specialists just like fish and birds are specialists; they are not special. People are exactly the same stuff as the rest of the world, the same stuff as particles, atoms, molecules and other living things, and even the same stuff as rocks.
Living things have advanced information about their situation in the world, and they have an advanced ability to have a genuine effect on the world, only because these information and agency aspects of the world already existed in primitive form from the start. And these information and agency aspects only ever existed in primitive form because they were necessary in order to have a working system.
While people might think “heaven”, “evil”, “good”, or “tiger”, only the tiger really exists. However, the idea of “heaven”, “evil”, “good” and “tiger” are all similarly arrived at: via the collation, analysis and summarising of information coming from people’s eyes and ears, due to the situations they found themselves in. An ability to convert masses of low-level information, coming from the eyes and ears, into useful higher-level information (“tiger”) has been extended further into: “heaven”, “no heaven”, “evil”, “good”. This type of higher-level information is all a bit debatable: while it can be useful to people, it can also lead to strange ideas.
I think people should be thoughtful about other living things and the environment, but people should stop worrying about themselves so much.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 17, 2021 @ 01:49 GMT
P.S.
While people might think “heaven”, “evil”, “good”, or “tiger”, only the tiger really exists as a genuine entity outside of the subjective experience/ thoughts of individual people.
So how do the ideas of “heaven”, “evil”, “good” and “tiger” exist? They don’t exist as measurable bits of the brain: you can’t measure “heaven”, “evil”, “good” or “tiger”. The ideas of “heaven”, “evil” and “good”, just like the idea of a “tiger”, only exist as the logical organisation and logical interconnections in the brain: these logical aspects of the world can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
The following necessary aspects of the world:
differentiation (the discerning of difference), consciousness, information, knowledge, ideas, logic
can only be represented and understood via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 17, 2021 @ 07:23 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply and your honest answer.
I agree with the sentence of your next-to-last reply and I am sorry that certain concepts, ideas and beliefs make you such sick. But I can only write what I think and what my lines of reasoning are.
Although I think that your last sentence indicates that you consider the attitude therein as “good” or even...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply and your honest answer.
I agree with the sentence of your next-to-last reply and I am sorry that certain concepts, ideas and beliefs make you such sick. But I can only write what I think and what my lines of reasoning are.
Although I think that your last sentence indicates that you consider the attitude therein as “good” or even “better” as permanently worrying about oneself, I nonetheless think that there are cases where people have to strongly worry about themselves. For example, during Corona, many existences have been destroyed. The people that are affected by that at least temporarily will have very much worries about themselves (and their loved ones). Or as a more extreme example, take people with severe illnesses or the ones who live in areas where there is permanently war and destruction and they have no chances to escape these areas. I think for those people, although they nonetheless might obey “love thy neighbor as thyself”, they presumably will not worry too much about for example climate change. And how could or should they when one presupposes some Darwinian Evolution that in the first place is thought to have come about only because survival is logically favoured over distinction due to the fact that distinct beings cannot anymore change the course of events in the world, whereas living beings are most of their times occuppied with survival tasks of all kinds?
Anyway, i would at least say that for cases where certain fears of surival are the daily norm, one cannot expect too much higher-level attention from these people to the issue of how one could make the whole world a better place. In this respect, we commentators here do argue from a rather privileged special position, compared to the poor people i mentioned.
I do not think that for example animals are less loved by God than people are. That would be a strange idea to me and many denominations seem to purport this strange idea. I do not. Anyway, i do not think that there is only valid information available via creature's eyes, ears and brains. I believe that near-death experiences do disprove that idea, even for animals – since deceised pets have also been met in those realms, and not only deceised people.
Maybe the mentioning of near-death experiences will make you sick again, but fact is that they exist, with some very strange properties. In all cases they change the experiencer in such a way that after that event they really do not anymore worry that much about themselves than they did before, but are more thoughtful about other living things and the environment. I consider that as astonishing and meaningful. And I think that (Darwinian) evolution of higher level information from lower level information is not the whole story. But be it as it may be, i consider it as natural that the fact that these experiences exist leads at least some people to examine them closer and try to make some sense out of them. Wouldn't it be nice if all people could have such transforming experiences, one could for example ask and then ask why that is not the case. At least examining those experiences and taking them serious in my opinion is one example of being thoughtful about other living things and their experiences.
Concerning rocks, particles, atoms and molecules, i see no reason why God should not love that stuff with the same intensity she/he/it would love us, since per definition she/he/it created it (and/or to a certain extent also IS that stuff). The apostle Paul whom i honor very much for having converted from a persecutor of Christians to a supporter of Christians (due to a near-death experience?) wrote in Romans 8:22 that
“For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” Interestingly he mentions that the whole creation is able to suffer, not only human beings. Although i do not exactly know how he received that knowledge, nonetheless it seems to me that what he wrote is true even today, although it may not have been that evident to people in the past as it seems to be evident at least for me today.
Further i think that people need reasons to consider the last sentence you wrote in your next-to-last reply to me as being “good” or even “better” than what they may currently believe. New beliefs and beliefs in general do not emerge out of thin air. They usually emerge due to past experiences of people, together with a strong aim to surive as long as possible and together with what people consider to be valuable to experience in the future (free will), with what they fabricated in their minds according to logical or illogical thinking and of course according to the presence / absence of further information about the evidences for their beliefs. The absence of such information that could further evaluate the evidence for their beliefs may be due to the fact that such information does not exist or due to the fact that such information exists but people hadn't recognized that information, hence do not know that it exists.
I will stop here since i think that there is nothing additionally that i could meaningfully say about how free will came about and why it is possible at all.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 17, 2021 @ 11:31 GMT
Oops,
"survival is logically favoured over distinction"
should read
"survival is logically favoured over extinction"
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 18, 2021 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Stefan,
Yes, people need to worry, and act, in order to ensure their own, and their loved ones, survival. But I guess I was talking about a type of personal angst about the status of one’s own existence in the whole scheme of things. I guess I don’t question my own, temporary, existence as being a normal part of the whole scheme of things.
Our views of the world, everything we know and think, has been built out of analysing the “inputs” from our senses, mainly light and sound waves. We don’t directly see or hear anything; instead, we collate and analyse primitive light and sound waves in order to see and hear, and via this analysis we discern trees and cars, and letters, words and sentences. And we further analyse words and sentences, and other aspects of what we see and hear and sense, and we build up a picture of history and politics and religion etc. Our whole view of the world has pretty much been built out of collating, analysing and summarising primitive, base-level, light and sound waves.
I think the sheer complexity of the above mental/ logical structures that individual human beings have built for themselves, and too much information continually coming in from the senses, and the logical juggling that is required in order to operate in a complex human world, will inevitably lead to various forms of human angst.
But I think the interesting questions relate to the type of world we live in:
1) Physics can’t explain how the world could be such that people could have been genuinely responsible for flying planes into the twin towers.
2) Forget about high-level consciousness, physics can’t even explain low-level consciousness i.e. the ability of the world to differentiate (discern difference in) its own relationships, categories and numbers.
I think you and I agree that physics can’t explain the existence of genuine agency and consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 19, 2021 @ 06:25 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply.
Concerning “normal”, some physicists would say that “normal” is everything that can be captured mathematically, hence “normal” for physicists is “stable patterns” (aka “laws”). Additionally these physicists would say that there are no “not normal” things existent, because they can't exist – per definition. Consequently...
view entire post
Hi Lorraine,
thanks for your reply.
Concerning “normal”, some physicists would say that “normal” is everything that can be captured mathematically, hence “normal” for physicists is “stable patterns” (aka “laws”). Additionally these physicists would say that there are no “not normal” things existent, because they can't exist – per definition. Consequently they say that everything can be captured mathematically, in principle.
Sabine Hossenfelder for example in her video about free will argues that there isn't that free will, since in a strictly deterministic world “will” can't be free, whereas in a random world free will couldn't be “will” (and also couldn't be free in the sense humans think they have free will).
Sabine Hossenfelder says claiming that humanly experienced free will is real and not an illusion is against established science and hence is a false assumption. She claims that scientists KNOW that they can derive from the physical laws of the many constituents the brain is made of (and reality is made of as a whole) what the whole object does.
But this is unproven and in my opinion also an unprovable claim, since no one at present really knows that human beings really CAN derive from the physical laws of the many constituents the brain is made of what the whole object does. That claim has for starters to be proven true by comparing a (unimaginably complex) mathematical prediction to an (impossible) experiment.
Sabine Hossenfelder nonetheless arrives at her conclusions by using an unknown, or better termed an impossibility, for redefining that in-principle unknown as a known – thereby circumventing that impossibility. She assumes that everything that exists is “normal” and that “not normal” things do not exist. But this is only a belief, founded in the assumption that “causes” in no way can be “causa finalis”. For deciding what is “normal” one had to have something to compare it with. Hossenfelder seems to define the fact that there at all exists this world as being “normal”. But how could one do that convincingly without comparing our world at least with some other counterfactual, “not normal” worlds?
The fact that somebody put a turkey in the oven that now is deliciously brown and crispy must, according to Hossenfelder, be considered as being caused by the strictly deterministic interplay of an unimaginably huge amount of single particles and their interactions and by nothing other. The counterfactual element of such physicist lines of reasoning come in by belief and by definition. They say that we KNOW whereas they merely believe to know, for example they believe that a deterministic world – maybe together with some interplay of quantum mechanical uncertainty of particle behaviour – is all that exists and all that can exist in principle. Again, to make such a huge claim one had to have something to compare our world against – and that something can always only be a counterfactual thing in our minds when it comes to compare a totality to some other “totality”.
Hence, although I agree with you that
“physics can’t explain the existence of genuine agency and consciousness.”
or more elaborated physics can't explain the existence of Boolean logics these physicists use every day, I would not agree with you that world views only come about by analysing input from our senses. These world views often also have to come about at least partly by beliefs, since otherwise we just had to have one world view, namely the one that consistently and completely answers all questions that can be meaningfully posed about our world and about existence in general.
There is undoubtedly much fear in the world, presumably in part because humans are able to believe certain things that in reality are no facts. I am unable to sort out all these facts from fictions, since I am a person that itself only believes in something and does not believe other things. Again, for deciding whether my beliefs are reasonable one had to sort out facts from fictions, one somehow had to prove all beliefs to be wrong other than the one that then remains!
So, deciding which beliefs are true and which are false amounts to being a matter of provability, whereas I have argued in several posts and replies that I think that provability has its in-principle limits. For example how could one ever prove that a certain line of reasoning of a human being was unambiguously caused deterministically exclusively only by an exactly definable precursor particle configuration in the brain? Or how could one ever prove that Boolean logics (your IF...THEN connections for example) can emerge exclusively only out of particle configurations? For being able to do this I think one at the same time had to answer the question why there are these deterministic laws at all – and one had to do this with using Boolean logics! – what then simply would amount in the statement that Boolean logics cannot explain its own existence other than by circular reasoning.
Nonetheless it is this kind of circular reasoning that is adopted by the deterministic world view in that it presupposes what it wants to prove. I tried to make this clear with the example of how Sabine Hossenfelder handles the possibility of human free will – it is defined as impossible due to the “self-explanatory” power of strict determinism. However, when asking whether or not that strict determinism really can explain itself, then one must confess that it cannot be “self-explanatory” as long as it does not explain the existence of Boolean logics as something that meaningfully emerges from the underlying mathematical laws of that strict determinism. Thereby I do not mean from the discipline of mathematics as such, but from the distinct physical laws that so far had been discovered.
It may be that due to in-principle unprovability of certain things we are forced to believe in certain things to control human angst (fear). The question then would be why there are people that are more or less free from that human angst. I think that one answer could be that they may not think too much about what we discuss here. Or in other words that they rarely do ponder about profound “if...then” questions because they consider them as relatively useless – for themselves.
That's another rather lengthy post from me, but I think my lines of reasoning have to be considered when thinking about free will and whether or not one should define it as an illusion or defining it as really being existent in this world (to a certain degree of course).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 19, 2021 @ 22:54 GMT
Stefan,
There is no point minutely analysing and discussing the details of what physicists like Sabine Hossenfelder, and others of that ilk, say. Because none of those people can explain how the world could be such that people were GENUINELY responsible for flying planes into the twin towers.
Genuine responsibility means that people have a genuine effect on the world, something that can only be symbolically represented as people assigning numbers to their own variables, for the variables that represent their own bodies. Physics does NOT allow people to assign numbers to their own variables, i.e. physics does not allow genuine responsibility.
Let Hossenfelder, and others of that ilk, FIRST define the physics of genuine responsibility; let them FIRST say what genuine responsibility looks like.
Instead, Hossenfelder and others of that ilk, are doing a PR job on a physics that clearly can’t explain how the world could be such that people were GENUINELY responsible for flying planes into the twin towers.
Similarly, Hossenfelder and others of that ilk, can’t explain how a differentiated system could differentiate (discern difference in) it’s own relationships, categories and numbers.
But I wouldn’t bother with the concept of “free will”: the concept of “free will” is a dog’s breakfast.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 20, 2021 @ 14:00 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
I agree and I also agree about the PR that comes along as enlightenment (at least in the case of that free will video).
I agree that explaining consciousness and the non-existence of free will exclusively only by the mathematical laws of physics (hence without somehow introducing a natural law of Boolean logics into these physics equations and some a priori property of awareness) looks really like a hard problem. I have no clue how one ever could do this convincingly, so I am curious about how people that claim free will to be a deterministically happening illusion like to do that.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 13, 2021 @ 21:26 GMT
Rick,
You CLAIM that people were genuinely responsible for flying planes into the twin towers.
But in order to be GENUINELY responsible, people have to assign numbers to their own position variables [1] for their own hands, arms, legs, and vocal cords etc. etc.
But you can’t seem to explain how the world could be such that people could assign numbers to their own position variables.
I.e. you can’t seem to explain how the world could be such that people could be GENUINELY responsible for flying planes into the twin towers.
1. More correctly, equations, variables and number symbols are just symbols that are used to represent the actual reality. These symbols are the way physicists would symbolically represent the following fundamental aspects of the world: lawful relationships, categories of information (like position or energy), and numbers respectively.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 13, 2021 @ 23:39 GMT
Lorraine,
isn't it a bit of a stretch to assert that for for anyone to be truly responsible for their actions, they must assign numbers to variables (and etc.) when the simple reality is that human beings are not very smart and we do a lot of really stupid things. Those people on 9/11 acted as they did because they decided somewhere along the way that they had discovered something that everybody else just absolutely had to know and accept to save society from itself, you can find the same thing in all walks of life including the sciences. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 14, 2021 @ 23:29 GMT
John,
I am NOT talking about whether human beings are smart or dumb, or good or bad. I am talking about what is requited for human beings to be GENUINELY RESPONSIBLE for their actions, and how one would symbolically represent this.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 14, 2021 @ 23:34 GMT
Oops. "Required", not "requited".
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 14, 2021 @ 22:01 GMT
Why can’t physics explain how the world could be such that people could be GENUINELY responsible for flying planes into the twin towers?
Why would physics refuse to countenance the only possible GENUINE explanation of responsibility, i.e. the view that matter/ living things/ people are actually assigning some new numbers to the position variables for their own bodies [1]?
Answer:
(1) Because that view of the world would be against physicists’ deepest religious beliefs about the fundamental nature of the world.
(2) Because physicists have never thought that it was necessary to understand real-world numbers (the numbers that apply to the variables) and how a number system might work.
(3) Because there can be no equations to explain people assigning the numbers to their own variables; you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent people assigning the numbers to their own variables in response to situations people face.
……………………
1. More correctly, equations, variables and number symbols are just a way of symbolically representing the underlying reality of the world: lawful relationships, categories of information (like position or energy), and numbers respectively.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 21, 2021 @ 23:50 GMT
From time to time I stumble across certain inconsistency pearls that may at least partly reflect the present state of physical thinking.
When asked about her thoughts on the possible emergence of consciousness, Sabine Hossenfelder says during this interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walaNM7KiYA) that
“I don't think that consciousness is all that...
view entire post
From time to time I stumble across certain inconsistency pearls that may at least partly reflect the present state of physical thinking.
When asked about her thoughts on the possible emergence of consciousness, Sabine Hossenfelder says during this interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walaNM7KiYA) that
“I don't think that consciousness is all that mysterious”
and
“it comes from the way that complex systems process information I would say and at some level it becomes beneficial for the system in terms of natural selection to have a self-monitoring process”
What? A self-monitoring process? In a reductionistic and strictly deterministic world? Really?
Hossenfelder believes in a world view that says that strictly deterministic processes exclusively govern everything that happens. Each tiny particle has, does and will execute one and only one precisely defined (predetermined) reaction whenever it interacts with some other precisely defined particle. These other particle (or particles) themselves are predetermined to act on other particles in the same sense - all this is, according to that strictly deterministic world view, predetermined.
Hence, in a strictly deterministic world nothing can be monitored or controlled by any “self-monitoring” process per definition, it only seems so for us since we cannot calculate in advance what we will do. What we will do is, according to the world view of strict determinism, already completely predetermined and really needs no “monitoring” at all, and least of all some “self-monitoring” - and the same then must also be true for “natural selection”!
Therefore, there is also no “benefit” for anything to be gained by certain behaviours – compared to some other behaviours, not even for a thing to self-monitor itself with the help of some “consciousness”. In a strictly deterministic world one cannot compare one behaviour with an alternative behaviour, since in that world there cannot be any alternatives per definition. The best example for that is the comment you just read, since the production of that comment is then also predetermined (at the time of the Big Bang).
So, consequently, in a strictly deterministic world, if you don't like my comment, you couldn't really compare my comment with what you would like better and then criticize it on that basis, since there hadn't been alternatives for me to write something other. But eventually you will do exactly that – criticising my comment because due to strict determinism your behaviour is also completely determined.
The same then must also be true for the answers of Sabine Hossenfelder in that interview. Consequently, by answering the questions during that interview, Hossenfelder is predetermined to give certain answers – and no others. But what sense does it make to inconsistently answer the question about consciousness by introducing some non-existent and nonsensical “benefit” other than that answer had to be considered as having been predetermined since the Big Bang?
The answer to that question is that it makes no sense, since in an assumed-to-be predetermined universe, consciousness cannot have any “beneficial” function. This shows me (by the “grace” of determinism?) that the whole interview cannot really say something reliable about consciousness other than it cannot have any beneficial function.
As regards to at least the answer of Sabine Hossenfelder to the question about consciousness, her answer seems to prove that, namely that there are only mysterious correlations out there since the Big Bang that no “consciousness” can control and which do not guarantee that every predetermined information processing (called “consciousness”) is guaranteed to come to an overall logically consistent result (output).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 22, 2021 @ 20:01 GMT
Stefan and Lorraine,
I don't know if Sabine Hossenfelder's world view is 'strictly' deterministic, I'll let anyone defend their own thinking. I do however agree that the concise argumemnt Stefan has just presented holds in that a strictly deterministic universe (which has long been abandoned even by local realists) would naturally follow to a condition of 'non-freewill' and any monitoring in a self referential system would be akin to nothing more than viewing home movies after the fact.
So the question then becomes something like; To what extent do determinants operate effectively (as in cause and effect) and what happens when they don't for no reason at all? Why must we religiously adhere to an expectation that the universe always works perfectly? If not, then, what?jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 23, 2021 @ 05:45 GMT
Hi John,
I think that your question about perfection / imperfection does only make some sense in a world where people's thoughts and behaviours are not predetermined, but arise to a certain degree from free will.
Nonetheless, perfection / imperfection are clearly relative terms, are human value statements. We have no universal ruler that defines perfection so that we can deduce from...
view entire post
Hi John,
I think that your question about perfection / imperfection does only make some sense in a world where people's thoughts and behaviours are not predetermined, but arise to a certain degree from free will.
Nonetheless, perfection / imperfection are clearly relative terms, are human value statements. We have no universal ruler that defines perfection so that we can deduce from that what imperfection should look like.
So I would skip these two terms and ask what other universal values could there exist in a world where there is a certain degree of free will available for everyone. I think one such value could be truth. Whatever that universe is and whatever makes it possible for it to have a certain degree of free will available within it would be considered by me to be a truth.
I think the question then is whether or not truth is something that must be extrapolated to be even valid beyond space and time, beyond physicality. But I also think that already within physicality, especially within human society, truth seems to me to play a crucial role. People usually don't like lies, for example lies that come from the government, lies that come from friends and loved ones, lies that come from statements that the one making them labels them as “scientific” whereas they clearly are merely beliefs.
Anyway, most people I think would prefer truth over lies when it comes to evaluate what OTHERS say. Nonetheless I think it is undeniable that most people also regularly lie to themselves at certain occasions and at such occasions lying is considered by them better than truth, what surely is another value statement made by them.
Although I think it really sometimes is a matter of personal judgement whether or not one “should” at all bother about what is true and what is a lie, or alternatively what is true and what is false, I also think that to make at all distinctions that could be destined to be objectively true, one had to presuppose or to refuse at least that logics is somewhat mandatory, independent of the fact that we can make logical errors in our thinking. Since this is a personal decision, it seems to me to be a matter of belief whether or not one thinks the status of logics should be somewhat mandatory. Hence, it seems to me to be a matter of subjective choice and taste whether or not one wants objective truth (to the extend that one at all can determine its objectivity) to play a mandatory role in one's life. Science seems to me to have subscribed to that idea of objective truth, at least to a certain degree.
As it also is with religious beliefs in God, some people also may be agnostic about the status of logics and objective truth and some surely never thought about it because one cannot objectively determine that status. Therefore, for these people the whole quest about perfection, God and transcendental truth are meaningless academic questions due to the fact that their existence / non-existence never can be proven.
At the other hand, these people nonetheless came to the truth about that unprovability by using logics as if it would be a somewhat mandatory thing. So, obviously when asking questions and expecting some valid answers to “exist somewhere”, we naturally have to assume that logics has some mandatory powers. Hence, I think that for the case that you expected a meaningful answer to your “what?” question about the consequences of an “imperfect” world, it seems to me you had to presuppose that logics has some mandatory powers. If you haven't had such expectations, then it may be possible that you merely wanted to know what answers come in, independent of whether or not they are logical. Moreover, it is impossible for me to really know why and with what assumptions in mind (if at all) you asked the “what?” question. But I would consider it an interesting question concerning the ontological status of truth and logics.
So i would say, although the answer to the question "why bothering about certain things being true or false" may be a purely subjective one, the truth about these things may itself not be subjective, but only the "bothering or not bothering" aspect, means our subjective values, evaluations about certain things. It is clear to me that Sabine Hossenfelder's statement can be perfectly understood when she says that consciousness
"comes from the way that complex systems process information I would say and at some level it becomes beneficial for the system in terms of natural selection to have a self-monitoring process"
as such a subjective value statement, since she uses the terminology "I would say". It is clear to me that this statement makes no sense other than being predetermined at the time of the Big Bang - when Sabine's video about "free will" has indeed captured the truth, namely that we live in a strictly deterministic world. So with my comments about her video statements i merely try to make some sense out of what she says there (and surely out of what you wrote) and i think that is perfectly legitimate to do.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 24, 2021 @ 18:54 GMT
Stefan,
The Present State of Physics does not address the philosophic questions that have been perennial since antiquity, a Truth in mathematics is about the form of argument about the axiomatic relationships employed. Perfection may well be subjective in the relentless efforts to excuse the inequities and tragic natural disasters great or small which harass humankind in a universe believed to be the creation of an omnipotent all-knowing supernatural force. Science confines itself to only questions about the natural world, and admittedly gets down into the weeds of conjecture beyond what can be reasonably projected from what has become the conventionally accepted experimentally supported theoretical truisms. In context to the stated question in my previous post, perfection was clearly meant as a measurable observation that would be expected to always operate within the set parameters of predictive observation. The threshold frequency of the photoelectric effect, for instance; do we really know that any frequency specific to a pure sample of target substance will and does ALWAYS unerringly cause the ejection of an electron? That is a causal relationship, but what if sometimes an atom that could, should, and would react to the frequency quantum in a photoelectric interaction, simply doesn't.
Quantum Mechanics doesn't address that possibility, QM works in aggregate statistical probabilities and explains anomalies as attributable to a range of variability in the frequency source and or sample purity. That methodology IS assuming that everything always operates unerringly, that the universe itself is absolutely perfect. That was my point. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 24, 2021 @ 20:54 GMT
Hi John,
yes, the universe may work in an imperfect manner, I would and could not exclude that possibility. The question that I then would ask is whether that would have any impact on human logical thinking – if consciousness and logic are produced according to how materialism tells us. Clearly, an answer would presuppose to somehow know how logics comes about in the first place – and if logics is not impacted by imperfectly acting microscopic causes and effects in the brain, then these imperfections may themselves be the “causes” why logics works reliable in the first place – and with its help we can ask the question whether or not microscopic causes and effects work like we think they work. All a bit weird, but you are right, epistemologically there are no guarantees that could exclude any imperfections a priori, especially when they occur without any reasons at all – since then there are no reasons existent to exclude such imperfections.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 25, 2021 @ 17:43 GMT
Lorraine and Stefan,
You are quite right, physics cannot explain human consciousness at any level. And yes it calls into question if there is any way that we might know if what we think is at all correct to any case under consideration. But then that was precisely the question that spawned the Socratic Dialogues in the first place. Onward! through the fog!
Did you ever wonder how...
view entire post
Lorraine and Stefan,
You are quite right, physics cannot explain human consciousness at any level. And yes it calls into question if there is any way that we might know if what we think is at all correct to any case under consideration. But then that was precisely the question that spawned the Socratic Dialogues in the first place. Onward! through the fog!
Did you ever wonder how those cheap electric toothbrushes work? You know, the circular brush rotates a little one direction and then back the other way. I'm about to the point of breaking out a replacement, it was on special for $4.99 and has a second replacement head. So when my current one gives up the ghost I'm going to crack it open and look. Reason? Not simply idle curiosity. I got to thinking about the superposition of spin angular momentum that we are confronted with in Stern-Gerlach experiments (remember - electrically neutral silver atoms with an unpaired electron in the outer shell, not lone electrons) and the pseudo-vector that is created between the atom and the fields when the atom encounters the effective margin of the magnetic field arrangement. We find ourselves in the bewildering mess of both spin and orbital angular momentums and the observable behaviors of rotational fields both electric and magnetic. But even if we shrug and accept that QM can't concisely say what a particle is, but will accept that there are electron shells in the atomic structure, then how does the uni-directional rotation of the impeller shaft from the motor in the handle to the brush head couple with the cylindrical drum of the brush to make it rotate back and forth ?!
Neat eh! I'm thinking that one quick and easy (cheap to manufacture) way would be to cam the end of the impeller shaft in a slot in the drums circumference so that it turns one direction during one half rotation of the impeller and the other direction during the other half of the impeller's rotation. And we would have the classic rotational chirality that so stupefies description when we try to describe the interaction of fields in rotation. I have to refresh with illustrations of field direction of rotating charged particles and the whole routine every time I attempt to visualize S-G. But superposition resulting would be time dependent and the toothbrush mechanical example may well apply to the spread of the plots, with a possibility of some atoms not behaving well. I think its kind of evocative. :-) jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 05:27 GMT
Hi John,
I did not quite get it what your idea / proposal / question with the example of the toothbrush and the link with quantum mechanics should evoke. Can you state that idea more explicitly?
When thinking about all kinds of possible imperfections that may happen for no reasons at all, these possibilities are surely a challenge for reasoning itself. Since logics is about linking...
view entire post
Hi John,
I did not quite get it what your idea / proposal / question with the example of the toothbrush and the link with quantum mechanics should evoke. Can you state that idea more explicitly?
When thinking about all kinds of possible imperfections that may happen for no reasons at all, these possibilities are surely a challenge for reasoning itself. Since logics is about linking reasons to come to results, I think the end of logical deduction is reached when thinking about things that exist / happen without reasons. In this respect, interestingly logics itself is able to capture its own limits: if the input (the initial assumption) is “no reasons existent” then everything could follow (but surely mustn't) from that. At least what surely follows is that whatever output (conclusion) that kind of reasoning will generate, it must be considered true without any reasons (if true and false do not somehow coexist in a kind of "superposition"). In other words, operating logically with “no reasons existent” generates a similarly closed “self-explanatory” world view as for example the deterministic world view does.
But this is exactly what we anyway intuitively have experienced long ago intellectually: an existing God without any reasons to exist, a deterministic universe without any reasons to exist, physical laws and logics without any reasons to exist, an eternally existing universe of any kind without any reasons to exist and so on. When thinking about (scientifically inspired) claims, we cannot other than use reasoning. Because if there are no reasons for a certain claim – or the only “reason” is that what is claimed should be true for no reasons at all – then any meaningful thinking about the assumed truth of that claim is doomed to be unreasonable in the first place (although that claim may indeed be true – for no reasons!).
Obviously logics has its limits and it can determine them quite well (if we do not introduce some conspiratorial bugs in the brain / mind due to imperfections in the fabric of reality). Nonetheless it also has some power to handle the situation, since the fact that there are things whose reasons cannot be captured by human logics (for example the above mentioned claims about God, the universe and all the rest) does not automatically mean that these things exist without reasons. Maybe human logics is not equipped in any way to figure out certain fundamental truths about existence. I know that many scientists would deny this and think (maybe due to the huge efforts in the sciences) that the human mind is generally able to somehow penetrate all of these fundamentals. But I would consider this a rather anthropocentric point of view in that it defines human logics as a kind of universal ruler: there may be reasonable things that lie beyond the light cone of human logics to ever truly grasp them only with the help of human logics. This could mean that there could exist a kind of logics that is not human or more than human or in other words something that is more intelligent than our human logics.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 10:36 GMT
Hi all, it is a beautiful philosophical discussion. You tell things very interesting Stefan about this kind of infinite eternal consciousness intelligent creating this physicality. The actual logic indeed has its limits , probably due to these limitations in knowledges . That is why probably too we cannot really reach this consciousness. I have thought a lot about all this, why we are , why we evolve, why we exist and from What ? It seems odd for me and it is just my opinion of course to be a mathematical accident from a kind of energy that we cannot define.
Now the real big question if this energy transforming and coding it is how is really this transformation of E and what is really this infinite eternal energy. I don t consider that it is an infinite heat personally, but an infinite eternal energy of consciousness and this thing so needs a center physical to send the codes, informations in the particles. WWe arrive so at an enormous difference with the photons alone and the fields and strings oscillating, vibrating.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 10:45 GMT
We have so several different possible interpretations about this universe.
1 is it a mathematical accident from a kind of infinite heat
2 is it a mathematical accident from an other kind of infinite or not energy
3 is it a physicality from a kind of heat utilising the photons and so the strings in oscillating them to create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields. There we can too consider a god or not.
4 is it like in my model made of spheres 3d and 3 ethers sent from the central cosmological sphere , a kind of super matter energy and so it is there that the energy of infinite eternal consciousness in 0D transforms and codes
5 is it a geometrodynamical system with points replacing the strings and so we have the same kind of reasoning than qwith the strings.
6 is it a kind of pure mathematical universe and so we have multiverses, and so we are inside one of them, how to consider the infinities and the infinity so ?
7 is it a thing still different than all these ideas ?
7
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 12:00 GMT
In all the cases , we must find the real origin philosophical and the real origin of geometries, topologies, matters, fields and properties of matters.
The actual crisis inside our theoretical sciences community at my humble opinion is to only focus on photons, strings or points and this GR. So they consider god or not these photons like primoridal essence and after with the geometrical...
view entire post
In all the cases , we must find the real origin philosophical and the real origin of geometries, topologies, matters, fields and properties of matters.
The actual crisis inside our theoretical sciences community at my humble opinion is to only focus on photons, strings or points and this GR. So they consider god or not these photons like primoridal essence and after with the geometrical algebras and the fields , they play with the partitions in maths and numbers and also with extradimensions begining in 1D at this planck scale. But all this is an assumption, they consider the spacetime of this GR, the minkoski works or others and after they try to unify G c and h , the QFT and the GR. But if all this is not the truth philosophically and ontologically speaking, so they are in a kind of prison.
The utilise the flows like the ricci flow to explain these geometries or topologies but the 3D spheres too can be deformed in preserving the volumes if the qutrits and main codes are in this space vacuum made of sphere too of this DE. All can be too explained when the 3 main series of spheres merge together.
So all seems really a question of philosophy and primordial essence after all . The real question so about these Spheres is , are they primoridal these 3D spheres like a choice of this universe, mathematical accident or god, or are they emergent from these geometrical algebras in resume. Personally I believe that the 3D and the Spheres are the choice of this infinite eternal consciousness . The extradimensions so are not really necessary , we can rank the fields in considering the motions, rotations, oscillations vibrations of these Spheres , we can respect the 3D at all scales and we can consider this time simply like correlated with the motions of these spheres.
About the consciousness, that becomes relevant considering the main energy of this infinity in 0D creating this physicality. We have so deeper logics to add to this strabdard limited model , the quantum BHs farer than these protons and the fact that this space vacuum encoding these photons and this cold dark matter to create the ordinary baryonic matter can be relevant even for the consciousness. I have reached the quantum gravitation like this and the antimatter is better understood. It is simply due to fact that these photons and these cold dark matter are two opposite suystems considering the matter energy, the photons have more energy than mass and the cold dark matter have more mass than energy ,and the DE is the main codes.
That implies even a fith force that we cannot still reach and it seems maybe antigravitational. The quantum gravitation is simply a newtonian mechanics but it is not the force between protons and electrons, but between quantum BHs of the DE and positrons.....
I beleive that the theoretical sciences community can a little bit think beyond the box and this prison of photons, strings and GR. They can return at this old schools. The GR seems correct for observations but it is just a tool , nothing tells us that this GR and photons alone are the only one truth.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 19:58 GMT
Stefan,
Not to worry, the notion just took me, I haven't any idea of fleshing it out. It just struck me that since Faraday and the orthogonal relationship discovered in electromagnetism, there has never been an observation where it doesn't hold and we have no idea why it exists. So where do oscillations come from ? It is like there is physically a symbiotic relationship between a cubical space and a round space. So here's a simple macroscopic two part system, a cheap toothbrush, that can translate uniform rotational motion into an oscillation of reciprocating motion at right angles. If it can be mechanically done, why wouldn't there be some foundational relationship that connects the orthogonal to the non-linear which supports the macro array of solenoids, mass spectrographs, scanning electron microscopes and television screens and etc. Our understanding of electromagnetism is deduced from macro observations and the present state of physics really doesn't yet have a comprehensive plan to explain how a material particle can exhibit differentiated fields. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 27, 2021 @ 05:39 GMT
Hi Steve,
good questions about one can be curious to know the answers. Needless to say that i really have no clue how to finally answer them, but that does not mean that there are no answers. We can only see what the future brings and continue to think about every facet of them.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 27, 2021 @ 05:47 GMT
Hi John,
ah, now i got it.
I like your idea of a symbiosis between cubical space and round space, because cubes so nicely could illustrate Boolean logic with its adverse values whereas round things seem (to me) to more represent the consistency aspects of logics with its starting and endpoint that can be put anywhere on a circle.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 27, 2021 @ 17:56 GMT
Stefan,
thanks for the nod, it can go a lot of ways. But then for me, physics and especially theory in any field is not a search for an absolute answer, but more a quest for the right questions. best for now - jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 28, 2021 @ 05:29 GMT
Hi John,
I agree that what physics says about the microscopic realms is often not comprehensive if one compares it to the macroscopic realm. For achieving a more comprehensive picture (if possible) one either had to question our intuitive explanations that we think hold for the macro realm (for example forces, cause and effect) or question the current descriptions of the micro realm (or both). The relation between particles vs. differentiated fields is perhaps the most prominent example of an appearing antagonism that one wants to have explained. I do not exclude that there is a proper explanation that could solve what we currently perceive as an antagonism. So I do not say that your thoughts and questions about the nature and workings of electromagnetism are ill-defined. I consider these questions themselves to be absolutely legitimate. It is only that I cannot contribute much to come nearer to an answer for them. There are many attempts to explain what goes on at the micro level more realistically. Maybe one of them will succeed or at least already has convinced you. My attempt was to somehow figure out how such attempts would relate to our macroscopic feeling of free will and the fact that there is consciousness (and presumably some intelligence – whatever it is) in the world that can cause some differences in the course of events for the non-conscious parts of the world, compared to the counterfact that there wouldn't be any consciousness in the world.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 01:31 GMT
31 logical fallacies in 8 minutes
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 02:40 GMT
SR, category error and duck test. 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.1.measurement of a material train. 2.measurement of the seen image of a train. These are not equivalent methods. Like should be compared with like. Duck Test (not a valid test) 'If it looks like a material train and sounds like a material train, it is material train', NO. The seen colours and heard sounds are qualia. Products of observation, generated by the observer. Being distant from the train the seen image is also smaller than the material object. The 'train' appearing in the generated virtual spacetime observation product.it does not have the chemical composition of the material train, being generated from processing of nerve impulses-that have resulted from sensory inputs. Assuming the seen train to be equivalent to a material train is a kind of category error. I have called it categorization error, as the different categories have not been differentiated.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 03:08 GMT
The trains are illustration of the methods and issue with it,
Actual method set out-
" (a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of the rod[//i].” Einstein. That there is the error. My emphasis in italics.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 03:11 GMT
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest,
is also a length which may be designated “the length of the rod.” Einstein.
That there is the error. My emphasis in italics.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 03:16 GMT
"Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these two
operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid body at
the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same
body at rest in a definite position" Einstein. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
The assumption is incorrect though.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 20:12 GMT
The point of that last post is unclear. I'm not trying to say the lengths can be found to be unequal, which is Einstein's revelation. But it is not a correct comparison:
a) Object reality, material actualization
b) Image realty, observation product, manifestation from sensory inputs
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 27, 2021 @ 20:17 GMT
"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
as follows:— 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies-- However, because of the prescription of method a) This experiment is not comparison of two different EMr informed observations a) and b) for which 1. is relevant. Method a) puts material measuring rod directly upon the measured material rod. The length of this rod depends upon the atomic structure and properties of the material of the rods. b) the seen image of the rod depends also upon how the reflected EMr is received ( and anything affecting it before receipt.) In this experiment it is not just the co-ordinate system being changed. (A no no.)
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 27, 2021 @ 20:35 GMT
Maybe I should have previewed, and said that better. Yes of course observer a) sees the marks on the rod -
but the rod isn't
measuring a seen observation product.) b)'s rod is doing that.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 28, 2021 @ 19:13 GMT
In a) It is material juxtaposition of ends of the measured rod and marks on the material measuring rod that makes the measurement.
Important for understanding the nature of the paradoxes of Relativity. Different observers see
different 'manifestations' according to how the EMr is received and amalgamated; (Individually produced products). Seen 'manifestations' are categorically different from material objects, There should not be the expectation they will necessarily appear like the corresponding material objects in form.
[ The material object does not have a time dimension, the observation product does-which can lead to a deformed appearance when inputs to the observer at different times are amalgamated into the product.]
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2021 @ 00:18 GMT
Maybe it should be said that some material objects do have a 'time dimension' to their form (While Still being wholly existent at one time.) E.g. The cut trunk of a tree showing growth rings, Spatial position on the surface relates to a particular period of growth. Similarly other objects showing simple periodic growth such as a dipped candle or Gobstopper, un-contorted or otherwise disturbed sedimentary rock layers. These are exceptional. Development is often not spread evenly in a simple temporal-geometric relation. Material form also does not depend on relation to an observer.
For observation products temporal/spatial-material origin of received signal and relation to the observer is (ignoring possible perturbation of signal) resulting in the geometric form of the product (seen wholly in the Present).
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2021 @ 19:34 GMT
Being seen wholly in the Present isn't a particularly helpful thing to say.-Observer generated spacetime images with semblance of objects are experienced in observer generated spacetime environment. The observer being a material object is not smeared out over time but is and has all parts existing (present tense) at the same time; Uni-temporal Now. This gives an unusual set structure that has all observer generated Virtual spacetime within Uni-temporal Object (material) reality space. The apparent higher dimensional spacetimes are within a singular lower dimensional space. I think this is strange and interesting.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2021 @ 20:50 GMT
Here's some questions. Sets contain objects, Can the entirety of a seen Present qualify as an object or just individual experienced space-time (images of) objects? Likewise the object reality: instead of its entirety should just a single element such as one person be considered?
This still puts higher dimensional experienced objects within the lower dimensional person set. If this is not allowed mathematically it makes experienced (images of) objects a special class of objects that can't be put into sets OR we have to pay attention to category and not combine or use together sets of observation product and set/sets of material objects. This will prevent the mathematical nonsense that the philosophical or metaphysical structure presents. Does there need to be a new mathematical rule for this situation, do existing rules have it covered or do we just allow and enjoy the paradox.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2021 @ 23:07 GMT
I see where I'm going wrong here. The structure I'm thinking of is not a Venn diagram. If it was the set of experienced objects and the set of material objects would not intersect. Unless we specify members of the set of material objects or experienced images of objects sharing a name with members of the other set (than its own.)In which case the two sets overlap. Showing an issue for clear thinking.
The structure with higher dimensional space inside lower dimensional space is more like a map, showing a relation between a 4 dimensional virtual space-time to (assumed to be) 3 dimensional or no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned) space...shown in 2 dimensions.
I think" no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned)' could be important for understanding some quantum superpositions. Where the found state depends upon imposing an observer's relative perspective.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 30, 2021 @ 23:53 GMT
This structure can be likened to a simulated game 'world' of a computer or games console and monitor, generated in response to a players controlling actions. The complete simulated world does not exist (as decoded product) inside the computer/games console and monitor but it is generated partly and is a semblance of a material reality. --------------------The observation product of a person is partial semblance of the external environment. Rather than providing inputs to a games controller or key board -inputs to the brain are provided by the senses. The experienced Image reality is not 'ground floor' reality. The sources of the inputs and the inputs themselves are plausibly 'ground floor'. Except when the sources of inputs are technology or its product such as; TV, cinema film, photograph, computer game, telephone screen image. Consciousness is fundamental to us as functional humans but not fundamental to existence.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 31, 2021 @ 00:35 GMT
A singular consciousness has a point of view, it is informed by its unique sensory inputs. Now try to imagine an asymmetric, variously patterned object seen from all positions surrounding it at once. Or imagine the superimposed images of 100 cameras surrounding it. It will likely just seem a source of 'noise'; not a discernable form or pattern.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2021 @ 00:07 GMT
Scenario one; there will be an overload of input, That is the intensity of photons will be far greater than for a singular view.. I'm guessing the appearance will be that of a nondescript light source. Whereas for scenario two, it is addition of many observation products. I think in this case the appearance will be of a dark amorphous object. Darker, with less unique form or patterning where there is a lot of addition . 100 images may be enough to obscure any identifiable structure. This is easily done by adding each image as a new layer using translucent film or a computer program.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2021 @ 01:38 GMT
"Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” He coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) from the Greek “anthropos”, or human. He went further to suggest that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.”"
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/07/a-smoky-dragon-the-cosmos-is
-a-participatory-universe-weekend-feature/
The observed phenomena are products being manifest. I'd add not only the far away and long ago are manifest but configurations that did not exist together but have been amalgamated from signals arriving together from different times (Object universe configurations).
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 3, 2021 @ 13:33 GMT
For Wheeler, the word "observer" has little to do with humans or conscious beings. What he actually said was
"what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe."In other words, reality (causes and their effects) is entirely "determined" by how all things
behave, after they have
detected the individual bits of information, that "trigger" their subsequent behavior.
In this view of reality, humans and conscious beings, are merely one type of "equipment" capable of "evoked responses"; but there are many others ("all things physical") that are far older and far more fundamental.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 3, 2021 @ 19:40 GMT
Hi Robert, I also gave a quote. Re. the one you provided: "All things physical are information -theoretic in origin..." Wheeler. That is so if by all things physical, the manifest products are being considered and the foundational source of the products is not considered as part of that 'All'. It is so whether the observer is a device and the process is automated or the observer is human. Either way humans are directly or indirectly involved in the acquisition of the products of the experiment. The idea of consciousness causes collapse comes from the double slit experiment. A detector providing 'which way' information seems to prevent an interference pattern result, as if the experiment knows it is being watched. Significantly,
Only if the detector is switched on.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 3, 2021 @ 20:00 GMT
My hypothesis is an electric or magnetic field produced by the detector disrupts an environmental interference pattern that guides the particles travel. The premise is that there is an environment, even in a vacuum. Various non observer sources of fields can be tested. The aim to show it is not the act of observation itself causing the altered outcome. Another/ other experiments are needed to show it is due to an effect on the environment rather than a distributed particle. More doable is to show a distributed particle is unnecessary for the results usually obtained.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 4, 2021 @ 17:39 GMT
Robert and Georgina,
Your exchange illuminates an aspect of the Present State of Physics that continues to treat the physical form of any frequency of EMR as a binary choice of the (observer) theorist. Either its a particle or a wave, mutually exclusive. So a bit of information then becomes subject to being a binary choice as well, between detection of either a ballistic response...
view entire post
Robert and Georgina,
Your exchange illuminates an aspect of the Present State of Physics that continues to treat the physical form of any frequency of EMR as a binary choice of the (observer) theorist. Either its a particle or a wave, mutually exclusive. So a bit of information then becomes subject to being a binary choice as well, between detection of either a ballistic response (mathematically; a parabolic function) or sinusoidal response (mathematically; a hyperbolic function). The conundrum of Wave/Particle duality, superposition writ large.
Suppose that we premise superposition to be time dependent? The duration of any frequency's wavelength being a cyclic variation of velocity effecting the density of the Quantum's physical form, such that at the lower limit of velocity the density exhibits inelastic properties and registers as a discrete mass while at the upper limit of velocity the density of the physical form exhibits elastic properties and registers as an energy field. The obvious objection would immediately present itself that this scenario would require that at peak periodic velocity, the physical form would have to be travelling in excess of the speed of light. A counter argument can be proposed that Light Velocity is a measurably universal constant precisely because that measurement is the consequence of a continuously changing rise and fall of velocity and as such Light Velocity would by definition be the Root Exponential Mean between nil and peak periodic velocity. Without getting into the math, that peak periodic velocity can be empirically derived as (c^1/e)c = 2.143^14 cm/sec.
This would satisfy both demands of information in detection, As a low velocity particulate form the photon would interact with the inherent fields of the atomic aggregate composing the material the slits are cut into, and statistically the results would be what could be expected if it were to be constrained to passing through or being deflected by only one slit. While at higher velocity which would be for appreciably greater periods of duration, the photon in the form of a physical 3 dimensional soliton wave packet with large enough cross-section could pass through both slits. The technical capability to actually make countable the real numbers of photons still limits what we might theorize, but this hypothesis would be doable in experimental protocols statistically. best jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 5, 2021 @ 02:53 GMT
Hi John, I think the variation of velocity idea is nice, providing both manifestations, but problematic. The photon is said to pass through both slits, wavelike but a screen just after the slits always finds a singular slit is being used. Assuming all the photons being alike rules out an undetectable sub population traversing two slits each. At low intensity a more distant screen has the interference caused pattern built up gradually by individual particle like photon collision. Taking that at face value, your varied velocity idea would need the photons to accelerate after the slits to become waves and interfere, then decelerate to collide with the screen as 'ballistic' particles.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 5, 2021 @ 03:26 GMT
How is there an interference pattern already there, to serve as a guide? Possibilities: a). maybe from previous photon's travel using both slits but individually only one each. It requires interference of the effect of different photons and persistence of the disturbance; long enough to affect another. b) It is an effect due to the apparatus structure. Maybe miniscule vibration is enough to create 'environmental waves from the slits. c) An environmental disturbance (undetectable except by consequences) travelling ahead of the detectable photon passes through both slits/interferes, followed by detectable photon passing through just one.
Non of these have a photon taking two paths but could result in an 'as if ' appearance.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 5, 2021 @ 03:31 GMT
I'm unclear about the effect of a switched off detector. I read somewhere that the interference pattern is only lost if on. Is that so, or pop misinterpretation? If the 'which way detector is a polarizer ( rather than detection chamber or tube with a voltage),used asymmetrically it is altering the proposed environmental interference pattern that affects what the detectable photon does.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 5, 2021 @ 18:15 GMT
Georgi,
Just an offering, there is no lack of explanatory ideas out here. I'm not clear about an interference pattern being produced by a single slit, I'll have to browse up on that. The hype for the build up of single dots would be explained by the detection element of the apparatus naturally slowing the soliton to relative rest by its encounter with the EM fields of the material screen; hence it would become inelastic and particulate in effect. The model gets involved and being a personal endeavor doesn't deserve my beating my own drum on this topic. It definitely is not a conventionally accepted approach in the Present State of Physics. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 5, 2021 @ 20:10 GMT
Thank you John, your idea makes more sense to me now. I like it.
An interference pattern affected result is not produced from a single slit. Yet a particle can not be detected taking two slits, always one.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 22:47 GMT
Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what’s really there | Donald Hoffman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 22:49 GMT
That is URL, https://youtu.be/1SL-j1XoDms
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2021 @ 00:57 GMT
I don't fully agree. While its true we construct similar observation product in the same environment, the product is not all there is. He is leaving out the mechanism of sight. In order to see, rather than just hallucinated product, reflected or emitted photons must be received and processed. A camera can stand in as the observer and will record a similar scene showing it is not hallucinations. The Moon really is there as source of EMR. That men can walk on it is pretty good evidence it is materially real. The observation product I generate using EMr input is neither there when I"M not looking nor materially real..
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 28, 2021 @ 00:41 GMT
This YouTube video is full of interesting ideas. Stephen Wolfram: Complexity and the Fabric of Reality | Lex Fridman Podcast #234 -- https://youtu.be/4-SGpEInX_c
Stephen Wolfram: Complexity and the Fabric of Reality | Lex Fridman Podcast #234
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 28, 2021 @ 12:59 GMT
Now for something totally different ...
attachments:
Gravity_as_a_4.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 28, 2021 @ 18:30 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2021 @ 01:48 GMT
Thank you Georgina. Maybe this will work, maybe not:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355169846_Gravi
ty_as_a_4
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 30, 2021 @ 04:44 GMT
Yes it does. What if ?- to be continued.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 28, 2021 @ 20:46 GMT
Re physics versus the upcoming COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow:
Let’s not forget that physics models of the world say that people can have no genuine effect on the world. Physics models say that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents every aspect of every outcome in the world.
According to physics, people are 100% a product of these laws of nature, i.e. people are mere epiphenomena that can only ever have the superficial appearance of responsibility for outcomes. Physics models say that the world is such that people can have no genuine responsibility for outcomes, and no genuine effect on the climate.
Physics says that the world is such that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents people’s own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords. Physics says that the world is such that people can’t assign any numbers to any of the variables that represent their own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords.
So how could people be responsible, how could people have any effect on outcomes, if people can’t assign numbers to their own variables? How could people have any effect on outcomes if it’s the laws of nature and nothing but the laws of nature that are responsible for every number for every variable?
I hope that there will be some straight-talking physicists at the conference, soothing and reassuring the participants, and telling them not to worry, because physics models of the world say that whatever happens is inevitable: the laws of nature are responsible for every outcome, and people are mere epiphenomena that have no ability to have any effect on outcomes.
(But clearly, physics models of how the world works are wrong: the world is such that people ARE assigning numbers to their own variables.)
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 29, 2021 @ 22:05 GMT
Who or what is responsible for outcomes in the world, i.e. what’s moving the world?
When it comes to the question of what’s moving the world (representable as what’s moving the numbers for variables like position or energy), I suppose that you’ve only got 3 choices. Keeping in mind that, at a foundational level, the numbers don’t smoothly change, they “jump”, the choices seem to be:
(1) No entity is jumping the numbers for the variables, the numbers just jump.
(2) The law of nature relationships are a type of entity that jumps the numbers for its own variables.
(3) Matter is an entity that assigns new numbers to some of its own variables.
But there’s a problem here: why do the numbers for the variables always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable. Once again, I suppose that you’ve got 3 choices:
(A) Nothing has any oversight, but miraculously the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.
(B) An entity has mathematical oversight, making sure that the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.
(C) No oversight is required: the numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out; when some of the numbers for the variables “jump”, i.e when new number relationships are created, other numbers for other variables are passively changed due to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.
(3C) describes a type of world where people and other living things are genuinely responsible for outcomes.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 4, 2021 @ 01:30 GMT
Hi Robert, I'll try to use an information theoretic approach. The results of the double slit experiment have to be participatory, in that the signal, channel and receiver are assembled and operated by human actions. The binary question, 'did it (the elements of the signal) go through one or both slits?' is a question emanating from the human mind. Participation is integral to the product 'reality'.
When a working 'which way' detector is included, I'm suggesting it is the kind of noise encountered by the signal in the channel that is changed. Which is not an effect of consciousness beyond placement of the detector and choosing on or off. The effect of the noise is independent of consciousness. Maybe the apparatus can be tested to see if the detector is the source of a field/fields. If undetectable that has no greater significance than the undetectability of superposition. This is contrary to the notion that the mind is creating
underlying reality.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 5, 2021 @ 20:23 GMT
Double slit experiment: Current physics-maths shows the 'particle superposition' taking both paths. That's okay if its only representing not knowing which path. However it is used to claim matter is wavelike (and all that follows from that.)
With the premises 1. there is a local environment (base existence) surrounding and in contact with actualized matter particles and waves even in a vacuum 2. The actualized entity has an effect on the base existence, that may be called a field. The field can pass through both slits undetected and interfere but the measurable particle itself always takes one slit. The field is easily divided but the particle stays together. The effect of encountering the field interference can happen for small matter particles because relative size of the field disturbance compared to size of particle. Allowing retention of classical notions of matter, while fitting with the experiments results.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 6, 2021 @ 00:46 GMT
A raw egg is the only analogy springing to mind. I can imagine pouring it over two slits in a baking tray, over a sink. The white is the runny, less gelatinous kind . It easily slips through both slits. The yolk unbroken takes just one of the, bit smaller than flattened yolk diameter, slits.
The yolk represents the detectable particle. The white represents the surrounding undetectable, base existence, environment that ha been affected by the presence of the particle...the particle's field.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 6, 2021 @ 01:06 GMT
This doesn't need 'Many worlds'. Doesn't need giving up on classical ideas of matter. Does need the previously assumed superposition to be a
not knowing if a path is taken by particle OR effect of particle in single particle double slit, and delayed choice experiments; And evaluation of when that kind of scenario is relevant in other circumstances.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 6, 2021 @ 02:09 GMT
Georgi,
The egg separator is a good illustration ! Actually, I have an early plastic one in my utensil drawer that was an ad gimme from a local family operated hatchery years ago (and a tip of the hat to Wade and Helen). But seriously, yes, the conventional QM interpretation holds that the field effects are 'associated' with a particle however ill defined, rather than the field view of the fields being inherent energy extending beyond the 'hard' particle horizon. Given the amalgam of quantum fields enveloping atomic structure in the slit or polarizer element material those local environmental interactions with the passing photon/soliton would produce the classic 'leap-frog' EM field generations and the yolk could slip through one slit along with some of the albumen and the rest morph throw in recombinant fashion through the other. Lots of scenarios possible which would take a lot of critical examination, but yes, I like that analogy. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 7, 2021 @ 03:21 GMT
John, thank you, I'm glad the analogy works.
My description of 'field' is of course very different from the 'particle field of QFT. That has the particle generated by the field, or rather what the existent field does. Whereas I have the particle as a particular type of concentration of existence, that acts upon base existence around it, forming a field (disturbance pattern); which can in turn affect what the particle does, as in the interference pattern guide scenario.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 10, 2021 @ 03:40 GMT
Getting interference from single photons in double slit expt. and from recombination of paths from half silvered mirrors seems to be showing that there is a source of interference that affects the paths the particle might take. It isn't necessary to assume the interference caused pattern of results is due to self interference. Rather it would seem to be another example of the effect of existent concentrations of existence, particles or bodies of matter, on base existence around them. Like the field effects of charged particles and gravity. They are not just disembodied numbers or vectors. These effects are showing something is affected even if not directly visible. Seen this way the double slit results are not strange; almost to be expected. They can be reconciled with classical physics. Single photon, half silvered mirrors recombination of paths results and singe particle double slit expt. results can be regarded as unextraordinary 'field effect' classical physics
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 10, 2021 @ 03:52 GMT
See Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2021 @ 20:03 GMT re Curved spacetime. I am not ignorant of it. it has a big problem [category differentiation error].
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2021 @ 19:10 GMT
Evidence of wave passing through both slits and guiding of particle that only passes through one.
https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ
Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like? VeritasiumThis provides a working macroscopic model. When photons, subatomic particles or miniscule bodies of matter are used, the wave is not in water. There has to be a 'something else' for then to be in. The similarity of the behavioral outcomes seems good evidence in favour of similar process involving a not directly knowable, not generally acknowledged, environment (actual). Assuming a good vacuum and very dim light so stray particles do not form significant, behavior affecting environmental components too
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2021 @ 19:29 GMT
Correction. I should have said, the wave is not in oil
More interesting behaviour: https://youtu.be/75Z8R921I-4
Superwalking droplets. APS Physics
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 7, 2021 @ 22:17 GMT
Physics has given us a fundamentally wrong view of the world, a male view of the world [1], a view of the world where every current aspect of climate change, and every future outcome of climate change was determined from the beginning of the world, and where people are just epiphenomena, i.e. people are not responsible for causing outcomes like flying planes into the twin towers.
Physics has looked at the experimental evidence and decided that it confirms its male biases about the nature of the world, if only they could get the mathematics just right. And all round the world millions of men are doggedly working on the mathematics of their special theories of the world, theories that all presuppose that every current aspect of climate change was determined from the beginning of the world, and that people are just epiphenomena, i.e. people are not responsible for causing outcomes like flying planes into the twin towers.
It’s not a matter of tweaking the edges of the male theories of the world, or making the theories equally androcentric and gynocentric: physics has given us a fundamentally wrong and heavily biased view of the world, a view of the world born and developed in the minds of men over a period of hundreds if not thousands of years.
This primitive, male view of the world is that consciousness and agency are so extremely unimportant that they can be regarded as superficial appearances, epiphenomena resulting from the operation of the laws of nature. This primitive, male view of the world is that consciousness and agency are not fundamental and necessary aspects of the world.
1. Physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men.
post approved
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 8, 2021 @ 02:30 GMT
Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 8, 2021 @ 03:45 GMT
Curvature if spacetime us not the cause of gravity. Despite the popularity of the idea and illustrations. Spacetime is a product not source reality. A curved mapping of results is not the cause of the curvature mapped. Relativity relates to what is observed. The spacetime visible universe is what is observed. EMr signals are curved, by the uni-temporal (Same time everywhere -Now) existent environment they travel through. That existent base existence environment getting more concentrated closer to the Earth or other massive body. From which cones the inverse square law. This way gravity can be understood as the result of thee effect of bodies of matter on base existence. And electric and magnetic forces the effect of charges or charged bodies on base existence.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 8, 2021 @ 04:39 GMT
. And electric and magnetic forces, are the effect of charges or charged bodies on base existence.
Unifying electromagnetic forces with curved spacetime won't work as that is trying to unite models ( inverse square law and vector field) reflecting the underlying Object reality with an Image reality product.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2021 @ 20:03 GMT
Curved Spacetime is given by Einstein as the underlying cause of gravity and the associated curvature of light. However he muddles existent things and observation products. An observer's reference frame is not actually a slice of the spacetime continuum but what is generated by the observer from EMr signals 'light 'that has been emitted or reflected from existing material objects. A Virtual spacetime product is generated. We know that from study of vision and visual systems and optics. Spacetime is not the underlying source reality. So curvature of spacetime can not be a cause. It can be a way of representing the product. ------Electromagnetic forces are due to effects actualized in the base existence. Representable as a vector field. There can not be a field hosted by nothingness. This
is about underlying source reality. Hopefully I have made clear why it is
categorically different from curved spacetime.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 10, 2021 @ 01:10 GMT
I wrote in my previous posts "Electromagnetic forces". That's incorrect use of terminology. Not what I intended to convey.
I should have " electric" ,electrostatic and "magnetic' effects on other particles or bodies' are due to effects actualized in the base existence. Each representable as a vector field.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 10, 2021 @ 01:14 GMT
Please excuse the weird punctuation. I should have checked before posting.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 8, 2021 @ 22:09 GMT
Are the foundations of the world doing high-level mathematics that only a human mathematician can do? Obviously not. But physicists, mathematicians and philosophers (approximately 80% men) believe that the foundations of the world ARE doing high-level mathematics!
What has been experimentally shown to exist at the foundations of the world are relationships, and “number jumping”, which people symbolically represent by equations and the assignment of new numbers to variables respectively.
But this doesn’t mean that the foundations of the world are doing high-level mathematics. What it DOES mean is that relationships between categories exist and that new number assignment relationships are continually being created (i.e. primitive agency). What it DOES mean is that the foundations of the world discern relationship (i.e. primitive consciousness).
Instead of the foundations of the world doing high-level mathematics, the foundations of the world discern relationship and create new relationships.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 9, 2021 @ 21:23 GMT
Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers visualise the people who flew planes onto the twin towers, and they see automata, epiphenomena of the laws of nature.
Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers look at their own children, laughing and playing in the sun, and they see automata, epiphenomena of the laws of nature.
Physics has absolutely no way of, and no possible pathway towards, crediting human beings and other living things as entities that have a genuine presence and a genuine effect on the world. Laughably, physics would only be looking for yet more equations and rules to box in and define the world as automata, epiphenomena of these rules.
But in fact the world is genuinely free: the children, adults and other living things are genuinely free entities; and the stale and stupid men [1] of physics, mathematics and philosophy are backing a losing horse.
What does it mean to be a free entity? It means that the entity (as opposed to the laws of nature) is genuinely assigning the numbers to its own variables, OBVIOUSLY in a non-lawful way, in response to the situations that the entity encounters. (More correctly, assigning numbers to variables is the way to SYMBOLICALLY REPRESENT the agency/ “free will” aspect of the world).
1. Physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men. It’s pretty much the same for mathematics and philosophy.
post approved
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2021 @ 23:22 GMT
More grandstanding and irrelevant sexism.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 10, 2021 @ 22:05 GMT
You haven’t got much choice when it comes to what’s causing outcomes in the world:
1) Nothing is causing the numbers for the variables to change, the numbers just miraculously change in accordance with the necessary law of nature relationships;
2) The laws of nature are causing the numbers for the variables to change, where the laws of nature are a type of entity that somehow has mathematical oversight, and makes sure that all number outcomes are in accordance with the law of nature relationships; or
3) Matter is assigning new numbers to the variables, independent of the laws of nature, whereby other numbers for other variables change, not due to mathematical calculations being performed or mathematical oversight being required, but due to the fact that both numbers and the laws of nature are relationships.
Physics baulks at something like option 3, because that would mean that people and other living things are NOT epiphenomena of the laws of nature; something like option 3 would mean that people and other living things are genuine entities that have agency.
But arrogant physicists don’t seem to care that their view of the world (options 1 or 2) requires extreme doublethink:
If physicists weren’t engaging in doublethink, they’d give accolades and Nobel Prizes to the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are the only responsible entities. If physicists weren’t engaging in doublethink, they’d give jail sentences to the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are the only responsible entities.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 10, 2021 @ 22:13 GMT
P.S.
I should add that physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2021 @ 02:17 GMT
The 5 of men in physics is irrelevant. Your continued insinuation is not welcome.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2021 @ 04:45 GMT
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 11, 2021 @ 22:11 GMT
Unlike Georgina, I actually studied physics, maths and computer science at university. Perhaps that’s why I don’t have blind faith in the holy purity of physics and physicists. Or mathematicians and philosophers for that matter.
I never criticise the work of experimental physicists: its only in the area of interpretation of the world that physics gets extremely, EXTREMELY, dodgy.
The (mainly) boy’s clubs of physics, mathematics and philosophy are willing to believe that their own mothers and their own children are automata. This is what the physics interpretation says about the nature of the world and its inhabitants.
Yet the (mainly) boy’s clubs of physics, mathematics and philosophy haven’t done their homework: they haven’t said what (what we would represent as) numbers are; they haven’t said why the fundamental-level numbers are moving/ jumping; and they haven’t explained how the fundamental-level world is able to differentiate itself.
Unfortunately, without ever analysing, articulating or explaining why, Georgina seems to believe that “energy” (something symbolically representable by an equation, a single letter symbol and a number) has a personality; “energy” is the miracle answer which can explain all the problems of how to interpret the nature of the world.
But the concept of “energy” does not explain what (what we would represent as) numbers are; it doesn’t explain why the fundamental-level numbers are moving/ jumping; and it doesn’t explain how the fundamental-level world is able to differentiate itself. THESE are the issues that are relevant to human agency and consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 12, 2021 @ 00:00 GMT
Lorraine,
kindly refrain from jumping to ridiculous conclusions about what other people think and then posting that rubbish (trash talk).
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 12, 2021 @ 02:31 GMT
Topically speaking;
the category of "energy" is rather ambiguous. Physics has traditionally treated energy as a potential product of some measurable observed action. The 'potential energy' of gravitation, for instance. Yet it is also implied in GR and various other field theoretical paradigms as existing as a physical property whether continuous or quantized. So despite the present state of anyone's physics holding forth here, in the current conventions of the profession "energy" is among that class of indefinite characterizations. "Inertia" and "mass" are other conspicuous examples, and let's not forget that there is no general definition of what physically constitutes "charge".
Plenty of opportunity, gender non-specific, for rational epistemological and metaphysical discussion towards a general consensus on the physical nature of these and other outstanding examples. - discuss - jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 12, 2021 @ 19:52 GMT
Energy is fundamental to the nature of material existence. Take away enough energy from atomic matter, making a Bose-Einstein condensate-and the individual atoms loose their identity and the subsistence behaves strangely. Cf. the walking oil droplets. Energy is required to prevent assimilation into the bath of oil. Energy is essential for matter as we know it; Thereby existence and the structure of the world 'as we know it.'( Stuff
happening at atomic and sub atomic scales)-------Energy is also the measurement value that denotes the ability to do work. It can be stored as potential energy. The many different forms of energy have in common the ability or potential to do work. The type of energy can be transformed when work is done.(Stuff happening again but usually being considered at larger scales).Existence is dynamic at all scales, Its energy is as much what it is as the material form. In my opinion.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 12, 2021 @ 20:52 GMT
Georgina,
and there-in lay the crux of the matter. Yes, take away enough energy and atomic structure not only ceases moving, it behaves as if each atom is identical to the others (theoretically). and etc., no quibble from me.
But that brings us back to the point of energy being associated with matter not the stuff matter is made of. And we are stuck with that if we adhere strictly with deductive reasoning because logically we cannot point to an observable proof.
That is the fall-back argument for the QM methodology, and realists have yet to come up with an experimental protocol that solves the naive problem that; If e=mc^2, and a proton at rest or at less than relativistic velocity behaves as a measurable mass but behaves as a measurable energy quantity at relativistic velocities, how do we get a square proportion of equivalence from one magnitude of light velocity acceleration? What's the matter? If it's made of energy, then how does the action of accelerating it to light velocity result in that square proportional increase?
I am personally of the persuasion that energy is the stuff of matter and electric, magnetic and gravitational fields are distinctive behavioral characteristics of density ranges each being a c magnitude of difference. A greater density magnitude will exhibit the characteristic of lesser densities but not vice-versa. But strictly speaking under pain of penalty of scientific discipline, I have no proof. It is and will likely remain, my preferred choice of paradigm. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 12, 2021 @ 21:09 GMT
Georgina,
The (mainly) boy’s clubs of physics, mathematics and philosophy are willing to believe that their own mothers and their own children are automata. This is what the physics interpretation says about the nature of the world and its inhabitants.
Physics DOES say that the world and its inhabitants are automata.
Prove me wrong. But actually, you can’t prove me wrong because it is true. But you are not interested in truth. So all you can say is that I’m making “ridiculous conclusions about what other people think” and “rubbish (trash talk)”.
It is up to you to argue that physics DOESN’T say that the world and its inhabitants are automata.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 04:30 GMT
Georgina,
The (mainly) boy’s clubs of physics, mathematics and philosophy are willing to believe that their own mothers and their own children are automata. This is what the physics interpretation says about the nature of the world and its inhabitants.
Are you going to argue that physics DOESN’T say that the world and its inhabitants are automata?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 12, 2021 @ 21:26 GMT
Re Energy:
In physics, energy, position, mass, charge etc are all symbolically represented in exactly the same type of way, i.e. they are all symbolically represented by equations, and letter symbols, and in addition they are all assigned number symbols. In other words, energy, position, mass, charge etc are all the same TYPE of thing.
If a person wants to claim that one of the above categories (e.g. energy or spatial position) is a special type of thing that has special behaviours or qualities that are not covered by the abovementioned symbols, then they will need additional symbols to represent these special behaviours or qualities.
So, it is up to that person to:
1) Describe these supposed special behaviours or qualities that are NOT covered by the abovementioned types of symbols (equations, variables and numbers); and
2) Recognise that they will then need additional symbols (NOT equations, variables and numbers) to represent these supposed special behaviours or qualities.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 13, 2021 @ 00:14 GMT
Re Energy (2):
The whole point of physics is that what, on the surface of reality, seems to be strange and amazing behaviours or characteristics, has been shown to be due to nothing but fixed relationships between fundamental-level categories (like energy or position), which physics symbolically represents by equations, variables and numbers.
The issue is: are there aspects of the world that are NOT representable by equations, variables and numbers, i.e. are there aspects of the world that require other symbols to represent the aspect? And clearly, there ARE.
I’m saying that the aspects of the world that are NOT representable by equations are:
1) The necessary aspect of the world that discerns difference in (what we would represent as) the equations, variables and numbers; and
2) The necessary aspect of the world that assigns (what we would represent as assigning) new numbers to the variables.
I repeat. The issue is: are there aspects of the world that are NOT representable by equations, variables and numbers?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 13, 2021 @ 15:09 GMT
Lorraine,
So what you are getting at is something like this (?) ... let's consider laminar flow, velocity difference and viscosity are principal determinants, but how does the medium itself physically differentiate that there is a non-zero boundary condition and why does it develop? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 13, 2021 @ 22:29 GMT
John, I’m saying that the following aspects of the world:
- The aspect of the world that discerns difference; and
- The aspect of the world that moves/ changes the world
can’t be viewed as relationships. I.e. these aspects of the world can’t be represented by equations.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 14, 2021 @ 02:50 GMT
Lorraine,
I think the connotation of the word "discerns" implies cognition, and I don't believe that is what you wish to convey. Perhaps "animism" is closer, apart from its historic religious significance common in primitive societies since long before the advent of monotheism. However, it does offer some insight in that animism generalizes existence as being animated by a universal...
view entire post
Lorraine,
I think the connotation of the word "discerns" implies cognition, and I don't believe that is what you wish to convey. Perhaps "animism" is closer, apart from its historic religious significance common in primitive societies since long before the advent of monotheism. However, it does offer some insight in that animism generalizes existence as being animated by a universal associative precondition which in spiritual belief is expressed as the whole of the world and each individual thing in it being alive. It is an attractive philosophy and has many modern day adherents, giving a sense of each thing being individual yet not isolate.
In a continuous field paradigm, given theoretical upper and lower bounds and a postulate for a universal proportional maximum density in an inertially bound unitary field (particle), it is possible to generate a distributive rationale mathematically which accounts for energy quantity across a gradiant range of density with interesting results. The properties of a sphere produce results that at the lower density range a much larger quantity of energy is required to account in distribution for that density range volume, and miniscule quantities of energy in the very tiny volume of upper density range. This suggests that the conventional mantra that gravity is the least powerful of primary forces is physically backwards! After all its the amount of energy in the interaction that manifests in action. So it naturally follows, that the distribution theorem applied to a larger atomic mass would have a larger volume and greater energy quantity in distribution across the respective radial range boundaries of the primary force effect volumes, than that of corresponding volumes in a smaller atomic mass. So we can easily envision a material interface between molecules of lager atomic structure and molecules of smaller atomic structure with that interface at a distance of separation of atomic centers consistent with observed measurable electrostatic repulsion. The electrostatic density in both molecular samples of the repulsivity would be equal but the energy quantities producing that density is vastly different in the respective substances. Density wise there should be no distinction so why don't the fields meld into one? And if its the energy quantity difference which prevents that, how could that be translated between the two samples? And it is that aspect of differentiation that you are arguing as being best related algorithmically. Look at the length of this paragraph to get that across. :-) jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 04:49 GMT
John,
First, define what YOU mean by "cognition" and "consciousness". Can you do it? What do you mean by "cognition" and "consciousness"?
I AM saying that differentiation (the discerning of difference) is basic consciousness.
I am saying that consciousness is a NECESSARY aspect of a system, because it is necessary that a differentiated system (differentiated into what we would represent as equations, variables and numbers) can differentiate (discern difference in) its own equations, variables and numbers (more correctly, what we would represent as its own equations, variables and numbers).
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 21:09 GMT
Lorraine,
People have been struggling to explain 'consciousness' since antiquity, but generally it is agreed to be a product of mental processes however limited our understanding of how those might develop. That doesn't limit it to humans, but certainly narrows it down. 'Cognition' as defined by Webster is the process of knowing, or the capacity to gain knowledge. A rose by any other name is still a rose, not a mentality. It may well be observed to open its petals toward the sun but that doesn't mean it has a capacity to know it.
It is actually quite difficult NOT to anthropomorphize word meanings in discussions of physical fundamentals and foundations, perhaps that is why the dry empirical artifice of mathematics (a product of mental processes) is preferred by most in the physics community as a means of removing oneself from the equation. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 22:01 GMT
John,
I am saying that differentiation (the discerning of difference) is basic consciousness.
I am saying that consciousness is a logically NECESSARY aspect of a system, because it is logically necessary that a differentiated system differentiates (discerns difference in) itself.
This logically necessary aspect of a system can only be represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 13, 2021 @ 22:11 GMT
Re Energy (3):
Georgina and John seem to believe that energy has a personality, that energy is an actor with a mind of its own, that energy has behaviours that are not fully covered by the laws of nature.
But any foundational aspect of the world that is not fully covered by, not fully representable by equations, variables and number symbols, must therefore be represented by other symbols.
These other symbols must represent the type of foundational procedures followed, and how they relate to the existing foundational situation that is represented by variables and numbers. In other words, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
But in fact, energy doesn’t have a personality, energy is not an actor. Energy, position, mass, charge etc are all symbolically represented in exactly the same type of way, i.e. they are all symbolically represented by equations, variables and number symbols. In other words, energy, position, mass, charge etc are all the same TYPE of thing.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 13, 2021 @ 23:24 GMT
Another ridiculous conclusion -this time what you think John and I am thinking.
Energy, mass, position, charge etc.
are all variables in the equations. Their quantified value can vary. That does not mean they are the same type of thing in nature. If you use a dictionary you will see each word name for each variable has a different, unique meaning.
An unmotorized trolley that has been pushed will travel some distance and then stop. The kinetic energy of the trolley is converted to heat due to friction and air resistance; as the Work of travelling is done. Velocity changes, position (distance) changes, as KE changes and heat changes. This happens without the necessity of consciousness (to discern: recognizing, finding out, distinguishing) of road and/or trolley. You are correct in saying "energy is not an actor" but it is what an actor (such as the trolley) requires in order to act.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 04:19 GMT
Re Energy:
Georgina,
You’ve got it all dreadfully mixed up again.
Energy (and position etc.) are FULLY COVERED by the law of nature relationships, i.e. they are fully representable by equations, i.e. there’s nothing more that can be said about them.
But you are claiming that energy is somehow MORE than a thing that can be represented by an equation.
If you want to claim that energy is MORE than a relationship, MORE than a thing that is represented by an equation, then you are implying that energy is a voodoo entity with a personality.
You’ve got your mathematics mixed up. You have mixed up categories (like energy and position) with numbers. Categories are represented by variables and equations; categories are not numbers; numbers are not categories.
The actual issues are:
1) It is NECESSARY that the world moves itself. What aspect of the world is assigning the numbers that apply to the categories? Examples of categories are position and energy, things that are represented by variables and equations.
2) What is a number? Mathematically, real-world numbers can only be relationships, just like the laws of nature are relationships, but numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving a thing that has no category.
3) It is NECESSARY that a differentiated world can differentiate (discern difference in) itself. What aspect of the world differentiates (discerns difference in) the aspects of the world that we would represent by equations, variables and number symbols?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 19:41 GMT
"Energy (and position etc.) are FULLY COVERED by the law of nature relationships, i.e. they are fully representable by equations, i.e. there’s nothing more that can be said about them." Lorraine ford |
FALSE"If you want to claim that energy is MORE than a relationship, MORE than a thing that is represented by an equation, then you are implying that energy is a voodoo entity with a personality." Lorraine ford |
NON SEQUITURNumbers are quantitative descriptors. They can be used to quantify. That is describe how much or how many of something, The various categories that are the variables used in equations can be represented by a symbol or can be quantified. When quantified the number represents an amount
of the variable. So the relations of the variables in the equation still applies.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 22:13 GMT
Georgina,
Energy doesn’t have a personality. Energy is the same type of thing as position, mass and charge etc., i.e. energy is a thing that is represented by an equation. Energy is a category, a relationship.
Energy is a category, NOT a quantity. Energy is not a number, but a number (e.g. n1) can be assigned to it, in which case information about energy can be represented as: “energy=n1 IS TRUE”.
The energy category/ relationship, and the numbers that are assigned to the energy category, do NOT explain why the numbers that apply to the energy category and other categories are jumping to new values. And they do not explain who or what is jumping the numbers.
To represent number movement/ jumping, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 22:21 GMT
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 18, 2021 @ 22:23 GMT
Georgina,
Energy doesn’t have a personality. Energy is the same type of thing as position, mass and charge etc., i.e. energy is a thing that is represented by an equation. Energy is a category, a relationship.
Energy is a category, NOT a quantity. Energy is not a number, but a number (e.g. n1) can be assigned to it, in which case information about energy can be represented as: “energy=n1 IS TRUE”.
The energy category/ relationship, and the numbers that are assigned to the energy category, do NOT explain why the numbers that apply to the energy category and other categories are jumping to new values. And they do not explain who or what is jumping the numbers.
To represent number movement/ jumping, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 19, 2021 @ 00:31 GMT
Georgina,
I should add that "quantity" is a high-level concept. "Quantity" is a word used by human beings.
But there are no "quantities" happening at a fundamental level; no "quantities" exist at a fundamental level.
What DOES exist is something that we would represent by number symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 19, 2021 @ 05:00 GMT
Symbol KE represents an unknown or unspecified amount of kinetic energy. KE is a variable, as opposed to a constant. That means its amount can vary. When quantified (by replacing the KE symbol with a number and keeping the energy units being used in mind for later application) it still represents an amount of energy; but now of known or specified amount.----Of course there are amounts of existence, and amounts of certain properties of that existence in material reality but just not given a number symbol to represent it -
Happening is as foundational as existence. There is no scale at which there is absolute stillness. Being, existence involves happening, and probably is necessary for it. At close to absolute zero test samples cease to behave as atomic matter.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 19, 2021 @ 21:58 GMT
Physicists symbolically represent the world by equations, variables and number symbols. To make these symbols represent a moving system, physicists differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and physicists move and change the symbols. In other words, physicists are part of the system of representation. The equations, variables and number symbols alone do not represent a standalone moving system.
Human beings can never fully extract themselves from their symbols. However, to symbolically represent a stand-alone moving system, you need to include Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the physicist. I.e. you need to include Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent the world differentiating itself (discerning difference in itself), and to represent the world moving itself, which includes, what we would represent as, the assignment of new numbers to the variables.
What we would represent as the assignment of new numbers to the variables is NOT what the law of nature relationships are doing: the symbols that represent the law of nature relationships merely represent passive relationships between categories.
Differentiating (discerning difference) corresponds to basic consciousness; assigning new numbers to the variables corresponds to basic agency.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 20, 2021 @ 01:12 GMT
Algorithms, by name, have been part in parcel of mathematics for 1200 years. In fact the word 'algorithm' originated as an honor to the Arab polymath al-Khuwarizmi in the Latin translation of his Arabic text ~825 A.D. introducing the Hindu place value system of 9 digits and 0, and specifically refers to the procedures and rules for computation of arithmetic calculations. That rule based...
view entire post
Algorithms, by name, have been part in parcel of mathematics for 1200 years. In fact the word 'algorithm' originated as an honor to the Arab polymath al-Khuwarizmi in the Latin translation of his Arabic text ~825 A.D. introducing the Hindu place value system of 9 digits and 0, and specifically refers to the procedures and rules for computation of arithmetic calculations. That rule based convention making it possible for mathematicians to communicate, collaborate and expand upon the works of each other, has continued to expand with the growth and revolutionary periods in mathematics with its application to all fields of science. Throughout, terminology, symbols and forms has evolved, changed and come in and out of favor. But always, those rules which have withstood axiomatic rigor have remained in use and have been the basis in teaching mathematics, whether they are identified by the word 'algorithm' or not. The Quantum revolution in mathematics was exponentially accelerated by the January 1939 paper by Lise Mitner, 8 months prior to the outbreak of WWII, revealing to the industrial powers of the world that an isotope of uranium could be made to fission and release nearly incomprehensible amounts of energy. Yet in the 1944 printing of the 1941 copyright 5th Edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gifted my Mother from her Father when she was in college in 1948, 'algorithm' is not listed. 'Algorism' is listed and simply defined as 1. The art of calculating by means of nine figures and zero. 2. The art of calculating with any species of notation; as, the algorisms of fractions, surds, etc.. Algorithm as a word was reinvigorated (ad nauseum) by the computer age, but physicists have been filing dry erase boards and blackboards before them with algorithmic operational symbols and notations all along. And discovery comes not from what symbols you employ, but from your mind. Choice of symbols is a fickle task master. And instructing a computer may get you the result you already know you want, but telling other people to do what you want, usually gets an opposite and equal to or greater than reaction. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 20, 2021 @ 02:05 GMT
"...To make these symbols represent a moving system, physicists differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and physicists move and change the symbols. "Lorraine ford|
Not necessarily. " However, to symbolically represent a stand-alone moving system, you need to include Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the physicist." Lorraine ford|
False v and a are representations of properties that are kinds of moving.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 20, 2021 @ 02:07 GMT
Correction.
False. v and a...etc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 20, 2021 @ 04:32 GMT
Georgi,
Agreed, The form of many of the algebraic results that are the standard fare of undergrad coursework, are by definition an algorithm of the earliest kind. F=ma has the same form as p=mv (momentum) and are the results of comparative analysis of differential calculus across a broad range of real measured value sample experimental observations. Where more modern criteria of algorithmic procedure can be helpful would be in such transformations as might be sought for the rate of change from a force translating into a transfer of momentum. (a) being a positive or negative changing speed, and (v) being a uniform speed. jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 23, 2021 @ 21:37 GMT
For the benefit of those that don’t know, I’ll explain what an algorithm is. An algorithm is a set of step by step instructions for performing a task or solving a problem, e.g. the detailed series of steps required to put rubbish in a bin, or the detailed series of steps required to solve a mathematical equation.
A mathematical equation, on the other hand, is a string of symbols that represents a static relationship.
The steps in an algorithm are represented by special symbols. Word symbols are OK, but to avoid ambiguity, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols. Precision and detail are also needed: no step can be omitted, and every step must be correctly expressed and in the correct order, if one wants to perform the task or solve the mathematical equation.
For example, an algorithm might represent a response to a situation: IF a symbolically-represented situation is TRUE, THEN take these symbolically-represented steps. These steps might involve a “loop”, where the same procedure is repeatedly followed. The steps might be the steps required to find the solution(s) to an equation.
So, are there foundational aspects of the world that can only be represented algorithmically (by Boolean and algorithmic symbols) as opposed to the aspect of the world that is represented by equations? Clearly, there ARE foundational aspects of the world that can only be represented algorithmically.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 24, 2021 @ 21:12 GMT
Equations, even equations that include delta symbols like the physics’ equations that represent the laws of nature, equations can only ever symbolically represent static relationships.
In contrast to equations, algorithms can symbolically represent awareness and movement.
Algorithms (strings of symbols including Boolean and algorithmic symbols) can represent the awareness of situation, the analysis of situation, and actions taken in response to situation.
Equations can never represent particular situations in time or space or whatever. Only algorithms can symbolically represent particular situations in time or space (or whatever).
Algorithms are a completely different thing to equations. Algorithms can’t be derived from equations, and algorithms are not implied by equations.
Algorithms represent a completely different aspect of the world to the aspect of the world represented by equations.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 24, 2021 @ 22:33 GMT
P.S.
Equations can never represent particular situations in time or space or whatever.
Only algorithms (strings of symbols including Boolean and algorithmic symbols) can symbolically represent particular situations in time or space (or whatever).
So, the following type of thing is an example of how one would symbolically represent a particular situation:
“(v1=n1 AND v2=n2 AND v3=n3) IS TRUE”
(where the symbols v1, v2 and v3 represent variables, and the symbols n1, n2 and n3 represent numbers).
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 25, 2021 @ 22:12 GMT
How to drive a car is fundamentally different to the car. How to handle an equation is fundamentally different to the equation. The algorithmic steps required to handle an equation are fundamentally different to the equation.
The equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent a moving world: it is the physicist and the equations together that represent a moving world. The physicist makes up for the deficiencies in the symbolic equations, which despite the delta symbols merely represent static relationships: the physicist makes the equations move.
To extricate the physicist from the symbolic representation of the world, one needs to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent what the physicist is doing: the physicist is discerning difference in the symbols in the equations, and the physicist is moving and changing the symbols in the equations.
The world is a differentiated system, differentiated into what we would represent by equations, variables and number symbols. It is logically necessary that a differentiated system must differentiate itself (i.e. discern difference in, what we would represent by, equations, variables and number symbols).
The world is a moving system. It is logically necessary that a moving system must move itself (i.e., what we would represent by, the assignment of new number symbols to variables).
The discerning of difference, and the assignment of numbers, can only be represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 26, 2021 @ 23:40 GMT
Lorraine -- where to begin?
You are suggesting that an equation is not objectively independent of the equation maker -- well, then, why write equations at all?
I think I'll just leave it there.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 27, 2021 @ 15:56 GMT
Tom,
Lorraine's post on the 24th with the truth statement assigning cardinal numbers to parametric variables is done for the purpose of condensing the information into shorter bit sequencing. As a physicist, you might abbreviate the value of light velocity in discussion to 3^10 cm/sec, but in actual calculation rigor requires a minimum of six decimal places after the whole number and decimal; that takes an entire 8 bytes in hypertext transport protocol which is shunted to the input pins of the processor which is typically engineered with a 64 bit chip architecture. Then it takes another 64 bit (8 byte) sequence of https for the parameter identifiers of centimeters per second. The assignment of a cardinal number to that real value allows two bytes to transport the variable through the sub routines from input pins to output pins to assemble the routing of quantum level EM pulses of potential difference through the maze of conductive channels to semi-conducting junctions, all engineered on 'time to junction' and 'accumulated level of charge' at junctions. Once the sub-routines, each taking different durations of time to course through the chip circuitry, is assembled by the Fourier Transform to sync as concise signals, the actual computation can be done by identifying the variable values with the truth statement. But instead of transporting the lengthy bit sequencing of the Machine Code https of the numerical values through the sorting process of the sub-routines, those cumbersome real components rest in the do-while loop until actually needed by the machine. Not that Lorraine doesn't temp people to put a penny on the track, LOL, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 27, 2021 @ 23:09 GMT
Tom, don’t ask a question: you need to go to the trouble of making a clear case that supports your point of view, whatever your point of view is; you need to provide an argument; for a start, you need to define what an equation is; and also, you need to say who creates, writes, discerns and manipulates equations.
John, you’ll have to do much better than a jumble of words: you need to make a clearly defined argument that supports a clearly defined case, if you can.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 27, 2021 @ 20:59 GMT
So, how do the laws of nature work?
Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent a perpetual motion machine whereby one number change at the beginning of the universe sets off a domino effect that explains the events at the end of the universe. The laws of nature are not a perpetual motion generator; the laws of nature are merely passive relationships. Knowledge of these relationships has been derived from physics experiments.
The equations that represent the law of nature relationships represent the fact that, IF some of the numbers that apply to some of the variables are actively changed for some reason, then the numbers that apply to other variables in the equations will change, due solely to passive relationship.
The numbers that apply to other variables in the equations will change, due solely to passive relationship, but not due to active mathematical calculations being performed at the foundations of the universe. Mathematical calculations are what people need to do because people are, unavoidably, using symbols to represent the world and the law of nature relationships.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Nov. 27, 2021 @ 21:10 GMT
(cont.)
The equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent anything active, i.e. the equations do not represent the act of changing the numbers that apply to some of the variables. You need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent the act of jumping the numbers i.e. assigning new numbers to variables.
And the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent who or what is acting, who or what is actively changing/ jumping the numbers. Who or what is actively assigning numbers to the variables is relevant in the question of who or what was GENUINELY responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers: was it the laws of nature jumping the numbers, or are people GENUINELY responsible for jumping the numbers? Clearly people are GENUINELY responsible for jumping their own numbers for their own variables.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 28, 2021 @ 21:29 GMT
Tom and John,
The physics’ equations that represent the law of nature relationships only work as a representation of the world BECAUSE physicists discern the symbols and physicists move and change the symbols. The equations only represent a moving system because of the consciousness and agency of physicists. Physicists are part of the system of representation. To symbolically represent a STANDALONE system, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the consciousness and agency of physicists. (Clearly these extra, but necessary, symbols represent the consciousness and agency aspects required in order for a standalone world to exist.)
Prove me wrong. Make a case, make an argument.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 29, 2021 @ 21:07 GMT
Serious problem with the SR explanation for the Lorentz force. In the case of a charged particle in proximity to current carrying wire, Two reference frames are considered A) AND B). A is considering the electrons in the wire to be moving and the free charge keeping up with same speed and direction. B) the electrons are considered to be at rest, as the current flows. As if the electron's point of view. In frame A) the electrons and particle are moving So magnetic fields occur and their interaction gives the Lorentz force. B) no moving electrons in wire. Charged particle at rest. There aren't the magnetic fields that occurred in A). The SR solution I have found on various videos is; As the electrons in the wire aren't moving there is less length contraction of them than when moving .There is also length contraction of the positive ions of the wire. Affecting charge density. The wire neutral in frame A) is charged in B). Electric fields provide Lorentz force.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 29, 2021 @ 22:43 GMT
The big problem, not to do with 'alternative' physics, is the speed of the electrons in the wire. Although current is close to light speed, when a circuit is complete ,the electrons themselves move slowly due to resistance. This is very much slower than the speed of light. For a dc circuit, electrons move at a fraction of a centimeter per second. Too slow for length contraction to be a significant factor.
Thought experiment: A row of very many electroscopes are placed along the wire. Frame A) electrons passing by the un-deflected gold leaves, as wire is neutral. According to the SR 'explanation': the electrons at rest pass by the electroscopes with deflected/ repelled from each other, gold leaves, as the wire is charged. This is different physics happening for the two different reference frames.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 29, 2021 @ 22:51 GMT
Correction (in bold): According to the SR 'explanation': the electrons at rest
are passed by the moving electroscopes with deflected/ repelled from each other, gold leaves, as the wire is charged. This is different physics happening for the two different reference frames.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 29, 2021 @ 23:28 GMT
I've read (various sources) that length contraction becomes important at 1/10 the speed of light. Approx. 30,000 km/s. Compare
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2021 @ 03:23 GMT
"The individual electron velocity in a metal wire is typically millions of kilometers per hour. In contrast, the drift velocity is typically only a few meters per hour while the signal velocity is a hundred million to a trillion kilometers per hour." via https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/02/19/what-is-t
he-speed-of-electricity/ ,Published: February 19, 2014 'What is the speed of electricity'
In reference frame B) the electrons are considered stationary. So individual speed between collisions or drift speed collectively doesn't matter. However, movement of the ions relative to the electrons has to be drift velocity as they are fixed in the wire and can not be taking 'zig zagging' paths like the individual electrons The electrons collectively are passed by the fixed in the wire ions at drift velocity.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2021 @ 19:28 GMT
" B) no moving electrons in wire. Charged particle at rest. There aren't the magnetic fields that occurred in A)." GW.
That could be clearer. In B) the electrons are considered stationary and the positive ions to pass by...As the ions seem to be moving. A magnetic field is attributable to them. The free charged particle is considered at rest, so has no magnetic field....Two magnetic fields, the wire's and the free particle's, need to interact for the Lorentz force to happen due to magnetism. Yet the Lorentz force does act. The reason behind the 'electric charge explanation'.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 1, 2021 @ 02:50 GMT
Re. the electroscopes thought experiment. It should not according Relativity be possible to conduct an experiment that would enable an 'observer' to be aware of which reference frame it is in. Leaving aside that electrons and other charged particles can't actually see or be aware of the electroscopes. Your Thoughts?
Modified statement from earlier. movement of the ions relative to the electrons has to be drift velocity as they are fixed in the wire, and moving counter to the electrons collectively. Your Thoughts' on the slow speed issue?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2021 @ 05:15 GMT
Without a free particle moving with the wire’s electron's, just to judge whether the wire is charged:
In the frame with the flowing electrons considered at rest, the electroscopes will seem to pass by. A tiny camera, without charge, could be made to travel along the wire to observe the electroscopes. At drift velocity of the electrons. (As the electrons of the wire are not capable of observing the electroscopes.) The camera could be pulled by attaching it to a distant motor. Another camera of the same type could serve as the lab bench frame.
The electroscopes must give the same charge/no charge indication for both reference frames. Or there would have to be an explanation of how a device can be seen to perform differently according to reference frame. Repulsion of gold leaves and no repulsion are different physics occurring in the same device.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 3, 2021 @ 16:57 GMT
Georgina,
Have you come across any references of drift velocity in arc lighting or arc welding? There seems to be an ambiguity as to whether drift is free electrons moving along the surface of the conductor, or that electrons get displaced in atomic structure towards the electrical ground side of the circuit. And this also applies in non-arcing systems such as 'house current' which is cyclic alternating direction of EMP, the line voltage conducted typically by a black insulation identification and the neutral return identified with white; ground fault safety is by code, green. Some time ago I found some info that worked out to about 10 meters per second for electrons going to ground (literally; earth) across an arc gap with a voltage of 110/220 load, but I was never confident it was an empirically derived value. I like Einstein's statement that is still relevant, "I would just like to know what an electron IS!" :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2021 @ 19:34 GMT
To get a clear view of the electroscope response, it's going to be better if it is pulled along the wire with the camera. A tiny one too. It will be in the electrons' and camera rest frame. Instead of the fixed row.
No John I haven't looked for arcing or lightning drift velocity. What's perplexing me at Present is, I can't find agreement online of whether or not there is an electric field alongside (lengthways) a current carrying wire. Lots of differing opinions and reasons. Confused by the lack of consensus
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2021 @ 23:03 GMT
Hi john, I've watched a video explaining that the 'pinball' idea of current is obsolete. No zig zagging then. It promotes a wave idea of an electron instead. Resistance stemming from disturbance of the regular wave pattern due to displaced or missing ions or impurities. Not from collision with correctly positioned lattice ions. I'd still rather have electron particles with associated wave-like those bouncing droplets.
It also goes on to describe layers of ions and electron flows. Which makes me think of surface charge density. The surface, by that description is either a layer of ions or a layer of electron flow. So shouldn't the surface be charged one way or the other? Because of the charge separation. Though for the whole cross section there are equal no.s of + and - charges?? Does the field of the non surface particles (and or waves) neutralize the, + or -, field of the surface?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 4, 2021 @ 00:45 GMT
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 29, 2021 @ 21:22 GMT
The big problem, not to do with 'alternative' physics, is the speed of the electrons in the wire. Although current is close to light speed, when a circuit is complete ,the electrons themselves move slowly due to resistance. This is very much slower than the speed of light. For a dc circuit, electrons move at a fraction of a centimeter per second. Too slow for length contraction to be a significant factor.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Nov. 29, 2021 @ 21:38 GMT
Physicists seem to imagine that they can look at the world as if the physicist were outside of the world looking in. The physics’ equations that represent the law of nature relationships are physics way of claiming that the physicist can externalise himself from the world. But these equations do not take account of the physicist.
What does “taking account of the physicist” actually mean? Taking account of the physicist actually means that physicists’ consciousness of the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, and physicists’ agency in manipulating the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, are part of the system, part of the world. You can’t externalise these aspects of the world.
Consciousness and agency can’t be externalised, as though they are not a part of the system. This is what “taking account of the physicist” actually means. And the only way to symbolically represent the steps that are part of both consciousness and agency is via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.
report post as inappropriate
Monika Součková wrote on Dec. 31, 2021 @ 13:00 GMT
Is there a pattern behind prime numbers?
report post as inappropriate
Kwan Chiang wrote on Jan. 7, 2022 @ 23:31 GMT
The ultimate UFT should be obtained from un-designed theories, which are not Standard Model or General Relativity
Regarding Ultimate Reality, it is most likely hidden in Einstein’s ultimate question, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible”.
1, My interpretation is that the great master wouldn’t believe the world is intellectual...
view entire post
The ultimate UFT should be obtained from un-designed theories, which are not Standard Model or General Relativity
Regarding Ultimate Reality, it is most likely hidden in Einstein’s ultimate question, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible”.
1, My interpretation is that the great master wouldn’t believe the world is intellectual designed, but he couldn’t explain why it looks as orderly designed and who designed it. While he didn’t give an answer, it’s an insightful direction and I don’t think it’s unanswerable.
2, In fact, Weinberg answered it half way in a prescription for the theory of everything, “... [it] has to be simple … equations that are based on a simple physical principle ... it has to give us the feeling that it could scarcely be different from what it is...” [1]. That is, it is based on one unified principle and is non-designed (no designer), but simply cannot be otherwise, e.g. EM.)
3, Therefore, the problem is not that Einstein’s question cannot be answered, but that, for non-EM forces, there DOES NOT YET EXIST non-designed theories. (Unfortunately, neither standard model nor GR is non-designed.) If non-designed theories for these forces are found, Einstein’s question would be answered.
4, In order to reach non-designed theories, it’s important that certain concepts must NOT be assumed, because assumptions are subjective and lead to intellectual (human-, not God-) designed theories.
5, Actually, two unnoticed assumptions exist in today’s physics, namely, 1. Pre-assumed plane angle scales (i.e. pre-assumed space flatness, axes perpendicularity and existence of symmetry) without physical definition, which leads to “designed” Standard Model. When we wonder why Standard Model looks like designed. The reason is simple: because it is in fact designed, not by God, but by ourselves. 2. Preselected inertial frames in special relativity leading to “designed” GR.
6, Let’s consider the first assumption, “pre-assumed plane angle scales”. Take 4d spacetime (and EM) as an example. Special Relativity used light speed to define the 4 linear scales. Not mentioned explicitly is the 6 circular magnetic and electric fields running among the 4 axes which define the “equivalencies” among the 4 axes. Without this definition, light would not be measured at equal speeds in different directions, rotational symmetry would not exist and photons cannot be generated.
7, Then, what are the fields running among the 6 “planes” to define the equivalencies among the 6 “angle scales”. Just like linear scales, these equivalencies cannot be assumed, but “must” be defined by real physical fields running among the 6 planes. These fields are conjectured to be the “classical” weak fields. We may say these fields are running in solid (3d-) angles among planes (2d-surfaces). When equivalencies among angle scales are thus defined, an SO(6)~SU(4) (or SO(10)~SU(5) for 5d spacetime) symmetry surfaces, which is just the observed particle spectrum (without quarks). The relation between weak fields and plane angle scales are exactly that between EM and linear scales, making weak fields as un-designed as EM.
8, Likewise, there are two more levels of sub-geometries: fields running in 4d-angles among 3d-surfaces (conjectured to be CP-violation fields) and fields running in 5d-angles among 4d-surfaces (conjectured to be strong fields). Rotations in 5d-angles are believed to be causing baryon and various lepton numbers. The relations “between CP-violation fields and 3d-angle scales” and “between strong fields and 4d-angle scales” are also the same as that “between EM and linear scales”, making CP-violation and strong fields as un-designed as EM. Details are in reference [2], “Theory of Fields of Unified Origin (TFUO)”. More discussions are also in FQXi forum topic Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers under category “High Energy Physics”.
9, If the 6 (or 10) angle scales are not defined to be equivalent to each other by weak fields, a full circle on xy-plane may be 360 degrees, while that on yz-plane may be 362 degrees, then the 4d-spacetime would be warped and perpendicularity of axes cannot exist and symmetry would not surface. More accurately, without TFUO (or 3 levels of sub-geometries), linear spacetime on top would be warped and perpendicularity of axes cannot exist and symmetry would not surface.
10, In TFUO, strong, weak, CP-violation and EM fields are all originated from the same principle as Weinberg prescribed (each defining a critical scale). EM would be as complicated as other forces if not for the change of geometry by Special Relativity. What sub-geometries do to other forces is exactly the same thing as what Special Relativity does to EM. At the same time, complete particle zoo is generated from all layers of geometries. This is a big achievement through removal of assumption of automatic equivalencies of plane angle scales (i.e. automatic space flatness, or axes perpendicularity, or symmetry presence). We see assumption often deprives us of otherwise present possibility to uncover real nature of physics.
11, It is important to emphasize that, whether 4d, 5d, 11d, or 26d, there cannot be automatic flatness of space, automatic perpendicularity of axes and automatic symmetry, unless sub-geometries exist to support them. (It may be possible in mathematics but not in physics, because two persons could define differently, but physics will only follow what is defined by Nature). Take 11d as an example, if the (11x10/2=) 55 plane angle scales are not defined equivalent to each other by physical fields running among them, then the space would be warped and perpendicularity of the 11 axes is lost and the 11d symmetry would not exist. Simply put, the wished-for 11d symmetry wouldn’t exist if sub-geometries don’t exist. But if sub-geometries exist, 11d micro dimensions are no longer needed, because the sub-geometries already offer all the symmetries needed for particle spectrum. In fact, the 11 micro dimensions are never observed. (Also, the sub-geometry of 55 planes should generate SO(55) spectrum, which is not observed either.)
12, Let’s consider the second assumption, “preselected inertial frames”. It’s well known inertial (uniform) frames are “preselected” before spacetime scales are defined to verify uniformity in SR. Removal of this assumption leads unambiguously to the “objective” 5d spacetime [3].
13, What is done here (and in sub-geometries/TFUO) is to restore the original Nature hidden behind assumptions. Without this restoration, it’s highly doubtful quantum gravity and ultimate UFT can be successful.
14, To be published is the ultimate 5d non-designed gravitation (NDG), which is “linear” and quantize-able. It meets all 3 tests of GR. Note that, the 3 tests (bending of light, perihelion motion of Mercury and gravitational red shift) did not test GR completely, as they are based on Schwarzschild solution with Einstein/stress-energy tensor set to 0. This means the exact “non-0 expression” of Einstein/stress-energy tensor has not been tested, since a different expression (e.g. this 5d linear gravitation) could work just as well, as long as it can be set to 0 in these situations. The 5d gravitation joins TFUO to form the ultimate theory, which answers Einstein’s question.
15, This should “not” be just another fancy idea, but is THE long-sought-for ultimate theory, as: 1. It meets Weinberg’s prescription above, as all forces originate from the same principle (i.e. each defining a critical scale). 2. It is able to answer Einstein’s ultimate question, as intellectual designer is eliminated in this non-designed theory of forces and particles, just as EM and photons. 3. While more verifications are needed, the symmetry, SU(4) or SU(5), already meets particle spectrum without quarks. 4. Linear gravity can be quantized. 5. The strongest evidence is that no micro dimensions are observed for any symmetry for standard model or string theory or whatsoever. On the other hand, sub-geometries are the most (or the only) plausible explanation for particle spectrum and forces.
With TFUO, we may be in a position to answer Einstein’s question and the Ultimate Reality. The triplet: spacetime (with sub-geometries), forces and particles, come together. There is no hard cored particles, they feel like hard cored only because they have half spin, otherwise they would overlap on each other just like photons. (There is no real material objects, all stem from spacetime conceptually.) There is no other creator in the universe. As long as we are in a 4d- or 5d-spacetime, the same particles and forces would surface automatically. The world is like standardized vehicles (particles) powered by standardized engines (forces) running on standardized highways (spacetime and sub-geometries).
Therefore, when I came across FQXi and found it was eager to uncover the ultimate theory, I contacted them, saying the ultimate theory already exists, all needed is just “dissemination” and verification. Thanks to Professor Schindler for setting up a forum topic under High Energy Physics on Sep 9, 2021. Since this is also the key step toward the Ultimate Reality, I take this chance to post this from the perspective of Ultimate Reality.
Since the paper attached seems not working, anyone can send an email to: qchiang2@yahoo.com , I will send a free copy from there.
References
[1] Steven Weinberg, “Will a theory of everything reign?”, TIME April 10, 2000, p. 86.
[2] Kwan C. Chiang, “Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers”, Physics Essays, Vol. 33, N.3 p342-347, 2020.
[3] K. C. Chiang: "A Unified Gravitation and Quantum Mechanical Space-Time Structure through a Unified Origin of Inertial and Gravitational Masses and a discussion of the Foundation of Special Relativity", Il Nuovo Cimento Vol. 68B, N.2 p322, 1982.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Kwan Chiang wrote on Jan. 7, 2022 @ 23:33 GMT
Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 13, 2022 @ 02:48 GMT
Giving up spacetime local realism. Re. the ERP argument that predicted variables are elements of reality:---
Finding the state or measurement of a variable is not like pulling a ‘magic’ existing rabbit from a hat. Such a rabbit must be in the hat prior to extraction. Instead it’s more like determining (or predicting) how long the rabbit remains calm or how long it struggles upon removal. The two determinations are mutually exclusive. Like position and momentum. Calm is not struggling. Struggling is not calm. The descriptions of the rabbits behaviour are new observation products. They are not the same as a material existing rabbit.
Experiments could be conducted using pairs of tame rabbits put into two hats and likewise pairs of untamed rabbits likely to struggle. (Ignoring the freeze response . This is analogy, not about real rabbit behaviour.)-------------In a uni-temporal existential reality there is no after extraction state prior to extraction happening. There is not a prior to extraction post extraction observation product in the universe. ( Unlike in the space time continuum model.) -----That does not mean there is no existing rabbit in Object reality. A prediction of what the result would be if measured is not an observation product. The prediction (A would if) depends upon there being an existing rabbit of a like pair. The observation product depends on the extraction and behaviour determination. The prediction is neither existential noumenal rabbit nor observation product phenomenon. It is a maybe, imagined. Not an element of either reality.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 13, 2022 @ 03:08 GMT
Calm/struggling analogy:
Position/location of a
moving object is an ideal instantaneous measure. Arguing against Einstein: An instantaneous stationary location is incompatible with simultaneous possession of momentum.
Momentum is a measurement that involves a sequence of time. If moving, the existing thing does not have a stationary position/location. If it has stationary position the existing thing does not have momentum. They are mutually exclusive; These can not be co determined. Which is not the same as denying underlying existence and motion of the noumenal particle.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 13, 2022 @ 18:19 GMT
To clarify " The ERP paper describes an ‘element of reality’ thusly- “IF an observable property of a system could be predicted with absolute certainty (100%) without disturbing that system, THEN it must correspond with an element of reality.” Bell's Theorem with Easy Math By David R. Schneider www.DrChinese.com
This statement does not define ‘reality. It tacitly assumes reality of the spacetime continuum idea. No speculation that elements of reality could exist elsewhere.
Using a spacetime continuum as model of the universe: A 100% certain prediction does correspond to an element of reality . As the future is as real as the present. Using a uni-temporal 'evolving' model there is no real future. So the prediction, However certain is only maybe. There could be unforeseen circumstances that prevent the measurement being made.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 13, 2022 @ 19:02 GMT
Unforeseen circumstances can apply to both models of the universe. The difference: 1. Spacetime continuum -most likely a corresponding element of reality is part of the continuum. 2. Uni-temporal 'evolving" universe -no correspondence to an element of reality until the necessary evolution has occurred. I,e. The predicted is manifest as present.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 13, 2022 @ 20:30 GMT
Demise of the counterfactual: Following location / momentum argument. This indicates the unreality of counterfactual measurement results. (Might have beens.) Firstly, considering phenomenal reality, the not measured/observed does not qualify as an observation product reality. Secondly, undertaking one kind of measurement prevents taking another different kind as well.. Noumenal reality can not support simultaneous existence of both conditions giving both results. There is just one configuration of all existence at any time. Like in the double slit experiment; a choice must be made. Detect individual particles at the slits, or have a screen. Choosing one noumenal reality prevents the other possibility. And with that exclusion, exclusion of the possibility of obtaining its corresponding observation product/measurement result.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 14, 2022 @ 19:08 GMT
A coin toss : For the observation product (H) to be generated (single sided, corresponding to just the EM radiation reflected from the coins exposed material surface, when the coin toss protocol is carried out) the configuration of the existing elements of noumenal Object reality must be such that material observer and exposed surface of the coin object (H) are in unimpeded alignment that allows Emr transfer.--
An alignment with surface (T) requires a different configuration of the uni-temporal universe. i.e. it can only be at a different configuration of the universe; a different time, if at all.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 14, 2022 @ 19:17 GMT
The possibility of a different outcome because of a second side is not enough for the counterfactual result to be considered real. (Requiring that not realized relation with the observer, that would result in manifestation of (T) observation product )
Prior to evolution of the universe into a configuration that provides a singular sided observation product, either is a possibility. In this scenario, due to the two sided material, noumenal double-sided template.
Different ‘quantum spin outcomes: Each requires a different evolution of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 14, 2022 @ 20:41 GMT
That is addressing-'Where are the results ( Observation products/ measurements)) not obtained, that could have/might have been?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 14, 2022 @ 20:53 GMT
About representation. Re. the measurement problem: when should the template potential (for alternative outcome products) due to existing, material, noumenal Object reality, be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?
Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the uni-temporal universe; A ‘black box’ happening.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 14, 2022 @ 23:20 GMT
Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. In a uni-temporal universe one state evolves as there is only one configuration of existing noumenal reality from which the observed/measured result (phenomenon) is produced. The 'picture' of a superposition of outcome states taking both branches of an apparatus, for example, should not be taken literally/exactly. It is representing a situation where there is or was potential for a system to evolve in different ways, that would produce different outcomes. Yet it is not known when exactly the system has moved such that one particular outcome becomes inevitable. It remains as an abstract place holder (for a representation of what is actually happening- that we don't have) until the observation/measurement is produced. State production (preceding observation) is enough to know the former duel potential is lost
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 15, 2022 @ 03:50 GMT
Re. the measurement problem What/when is the physical happening that corresponds to wavefunction collapse?
Reply: Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. This means a superposition can not be interacting with the existing environment, causing collapse to a singular state. Therefore perhaps a different question should be asked. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the universe ,A ‘black box’ happening. When should the template potential (existing, material, noumenal Object reality) be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 15, 2022 @ 18:27 GMT
Since I previously used the calm /struggling dichotomy to represent different properties, it would be better to consider behaviours that are a division of each one. Calm: 'Frozen' vs limp and Struggling: trying to burrow away in place vs trying to run away. These are mutually exclusive pairs of observations that could be analogy for superposition. I.e. Frozen/ Limp and Burrowing/ Running
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 15, 2022 @ 19:55 GMT
Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit. As the state has not yet been observed or measured it is not an observation product. So not a phenomenal reality either.
As the superposition is neither type of reality, it can not interact with the environment, leading to collapse.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 16, 2022 @ 02:39 GMT
Conclusion---Within the explanatory framework considered, encompassing both noumenal uni-temporal existence and phenomenal emergent observation products:
Predictions, counterfactual outcomes, superposition, wavefunction are /are about abstract ideas that can be imagined and represented but are not in themselves elements of reality
Sequential Stern Gerlach experiments show up or down result propensity is not maintained across tests at different detector angles. It is not a fixed property
Spin correlation and anti correlation of entangled particle pairs seems to show the particles come with a temporarily maintained relationship (relative orientation). And while preserved can be regarded as one system, rather than two independent particles. However the relation between them is maintained/ lost according to local conditions encountered; not inter-particle (super-luminal) communication.
There is no actual wavefunction collapse but evolution of noumenal reality into a condition from which one outcome state and not the other previous possibility can be generated.
The result not found-where does it go? It is never produced, so can’t go /be anywhere. Occam’s razor casts doubt (a great deal) upon a multiverse explanation.
.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 20, 2022 @ 03:51 GMT
Quantum Mechanics and reality ------------ Georgina Woodward 20/2/2020
Giving up spacetime (continuum) local realism, for source uni-temporal noumenal reality allowing emergent phenomenal reality (that can be detected or sensed)
attachments:
Quantum_mechanics_and_reality.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 21, 2022 @ 02:23 GMT
Superposition- unreal In a uni-temporal evolving universe; what will be/what is imagined as possible is not Noumenal or phenomenal reality.----Singular evolution of existing noumenal reality is actualizing a result.(R)= Noumenal/Object reality-----Observation product generated -manifestation whereby known or recorded (R*)= Phenomenal reality.---Let the superposition represent not knowing; that becoming actual from that just imagined-until the actualizing of one result.---Use manifestation of result to retrospectively cull the imaginary branch from the evolution history (past unreal in this model).
No wavefunction collapse affecting which reality is actualized but evolution according to individual absolute relations (involving noumenal existentia; esse(ntia-situs, esse(ntia)-motus, esse(ntia)-orientum, esse(ntia)-Energia,) to local environmental conditions.--
No need for Many worlds as other possibilities have not been actualized.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 21, 2022 @ 04:01 GMT
Occham's razor suggests Many worlds, requiring a great many extra universes is highly unlikely to represent reality.
Evidence in favour of uni-temporal model as proposed . (Woodward, G., 12. 12. 2021) https://vixra.org/abs/2112.0057 ---;provides sequential time, allows relativity of observed, dispels the paradoxes of Relativity.
Hydrodynamic analog of quantum behavious shows there may be some likeness to noumenal of the wave representation of particles. (NB) differences.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 21, 2022 @ 21:09 GMT
To clarify: Hydrodynamic analog of quantum behavious, [oil droplets bouncing on vibrating oil pool], shows there may be some likeness to the noumenal [reality] of the wave representation of particles. (NB) differences.
(past unreal in this model) is referring to there being no existing, noumenal, material future or past, only uni-temporal Now.
noumenal existentia; esse(ntia-situs, esse(ntia)-motus, esse(ntia)-orientum, esse(ntia)-Energia,) Can't have a "property without what possesses it.
Questions?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 22, 2022 @ 18:58 GMT
Paper, Quantum mechanics and reality, available at http://viXra.org/abs/2202.0131 if you'd rather copy and paste.
link to paper on viXra
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 2, 2022 @ 02:42 GMT
On interaction free testing and photon divisibility
attachments:
bomb.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 2, 2022 @ 02:47 GMT
Proposal. Half silvered mirrors are able to divide photons into a detectable portion, detected as a particle. That particle is still called a photon despite having undergone ‘amputation’. For clarity it shall be called a cut photon body Also a sub detectable portion is formed having wave like character. Which will be called a sub-photon member. Identified by causing wave interference when recombined with the portion it was split from (the cut photon body)). The sub-photon member is an existing element of noumenal Object reality. Source of the phenomenon of detection indicating wave interference has happened. This can explain observed outcomes, rather than needing to use superposition for explanation.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 2, 2022 @ 02:50 GMT
Results summary and explanation: For a dud bomb there is always photon body and sub photon member reunion and interference which always gives a C detection no matter which part took which path. For a live bomb; No photon was detected (50% of tests). Lower path taken by cut photon body Explosion! Or Cut photon body takes upper path. As usual chance of being deflected at mirror or not. The photon detected at C (25% of tests). The photon detected at D (25% of tests).
Conclusion: The photon splitting proposition can explain observed outcomes, rather than needing to use superposition for explanation.
Interaction free detection is a misnomer. As this result relies upon the sub photon member being taken out of ‘circulation’ at the bomb. So it can not reunite and interfere. That enabling the chance of D detector detection
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 4, 2022 @ 02:41 GMT
Consistent with-1. Detecting a photon always on only one path after a bean splitter. This is the cut photon body producing the same detection as an entire photon that has not encountered a beam splitter.2.No detection on other path. Sub photon member not directly detectable. 3.An interference pattern being observed only after both open paths are brought together. Showing something, not detectable as a photon, does travel along the 'empty' path if not blocked. This might be environmental remnants from photon behavior or considered part of an entire photon, that accompanies it. What matters is that there is something actual (a noumenal reality) traveling the path. The actual effect, the material interference pattern it causes, can be observed (phenomenal reality) and identifies it. Like identifying an animal by its footprint rather than trapping the animal itself.4 consistent with double slit experiments.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 4, 2022 @ 23:54 GMT
It was not explicitly set out but given in the Wikipedia article linked; the reason D gets no detections when the bomb is dud, (same as if not there/ no obstruction ) is destructive interference.
Proposed explanation: When a live bomb is obstructing the path, the sub photon member is halted so can not participate in destructive interference.
Same applies for this apparatus without a bomb but a mirror placed before the top mirror, deflecting the beam to a third detector. This also allows D detections. However rather than it being a non local effect on a beam that has not encountered the inserted mirror, it is due to deflection of the sub photon members to the third detector. So, being unable to destructively interfere.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 5, 2022 @ 01:45 GMT
The proposed unequal splitting not only casts doubt on interference free testing, It puts to rest the quandary over when a photon decides to be a particle and when a wave. Subject of many real and thought experiments. The decision isn't being made.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 8, 2022 @ 03:40 GMT
On Interaction Free Testing and Photon Divisibilityhttps://vixra.org/abs/2203.0020
Are Photons Fundamental and Indivisible?https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 8, 2022 @ 19:05 GMT
In the first paper an experiment is set out, with the usual results predicted. The explanation of why those results are going to be obtained is different; fitting the hypothesis. Leading to the conclusions: The photon splitting proposition can be used for prediction and explanation. As a viable alternative to use of superposition. Interaction free detection is a misnomer. Re D detector's detection. I haven't clearly stated that destructive interference is lost and that's why a detection can be made.
In the second paper a new experiment is given, Three possible outcomes are stated. 1 and 3 supportive of the hypothesis, 2 is not. No prediction is given. My prediction is outcome 3. This apparatus allows discerning of a photon that is detected as such but is incomplete from n entire photon. The former is shown not to just be an ordinary photon in particle state, by its subsequent behaviour past next 1/2 mirror.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 8, 2022 @ 19:57 GMT
Simply, an entire photon will behave the same each time it encounters a half silvered mirror; having the capability of being subsequently found to express a wave interference pattern when tested. This will be so if an un-reunited photon is entire but just in a definite particle state. The cut photon body, on the other hand, that has not been reunited with the severed sub photon member has permanently lost the ability to be found showing wave interference. So it is made to encounter another half silvered mirror after the first and prevention of reunion. No wave interference pattern when paths are joined.
Even if the hypothesis is wrong , the experiment is demonstrating photon nature; making it valuable demonstration tool.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 8, 2022 @ 23:54 GMT
About outcome 2. interference is obtained after path joining at second interferometer with non re-united photon input. The photons are not behaving as if they have some part missing, responsible for the interference pattern being formed. Does not support photon partition hypothesis. However the partition could be into an indivisible photon and its separable environmental effect. No interference if paths not joined. However the environmental effect can regenerate and participate in future separation and reunion; giving interference pattern. In that case the name 'sub photon guest' (of the photon) seems more fitting than 'sub photon member'. Same argument re interaction free testing, only using the guest model. So too explanation of seeming non local effect when an opaque barrier is put in one of the paths instead, preventing destructive interference. Only using the sub photon guest model, instead of the sub photon member.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 9, 2022 @ 00:42 GMT
Are Photons Fundamental and Indivisible? https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034
Outcome 2 or is the difference between having sub photon guests or members being separated from the photon body. How to show the presence of guest/members rather than non local photons in superposition: Make a detector by passing photons though half silvered mirror and not reuniting paths. Then join with path from a different half silvered mirror photon input encounter. Different from usual reunion giving interference every time. Now there can be 2 photon bodies brought together or two sub photon guests/members (probably not detectable) or one of each, body and guest/member. This should provide an identifiably different result.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 10, 2022 @ 01:30 GMT
Meaning, can amputation and transplantation be shown which is incompatible with the superposition model.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 10, 2022 @ 04:04 GMT
I've said I predict outcome 3 .That allows a definite is or is not as predicted. I'm actually torn between possible outcomes. I'd like experimental evidence.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 11, 2022 @ 19:50 GMT
Can amputation and transplantation be shown which is incompatible with the superposition model? I think the question is good. I'm having doubts about the method being able to tell, and the reasoning for it. However the superposition doesn't rely upon re-union, the photon partition or photon/'guest' partition does. Thinking caps on.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 9, 2022 @ 03:17 GMT
Seems I upset Wolfgang by his reply on viXra. I shouldn't have said the apparatus [https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034] is simple. I meant not unfeasibly complicated or prohibitively expensive. I think it is achievable but have no personal experience of setting up interferometers to draw on. Which is not saying I think it's not time consuming and not requiring some skill and effort. Do I expect it to be done for me/ No-I hope in time it will be done because its interesting and can be done.. Am I serious? Yes. I'm challenging the indivisibility of photons. Though not part of the paper even outcome 2 can be interpreted in a way that refutes conventional non locality and interaction free testing. A method for checking has been suggested, on this site, Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 9, 2022 @ 00:42 GMT.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 13, 2022 @ 03:38 GMT
Revised Photon Partition hypothesis A photon is not fundamental and indivisible. It is divided into a photon body, which is localized and measurable as a photon particle; Also divided ‘a’ wave-like sub photon companion, that is not directly detectable. However the effect of the sub photon companion can be known, indicating its presence. The sub photon companion is divisible at double slits or beam-splitters, so it has non local existence. Accounting for non local effects such as, what has seemed to be interaction free testing and ‘spooky’ knowing when paths are blocked without passage of a photon body by that route to detect the blockage. Whether it's part of the photon itself or an environmental effect will be addressed. Photon behaviour is not the product solely of properties of the localized photon body. Reunion of the sub photon companion can result in wave interference that influences the trajectory of the photon body.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 13, 2022 @ 19:12 GMT
The main difference here is that the sub photon companion is divisible. That makes it able to take both paths .So it can be the reason for non local effects (by one sub photon part being absorbed.) Or it can cause wave interference when reunited. This is a combination of localized photon body and non localiz-able sub photon. In this way wave-particle duality can be visualized as a physical reality not just an abstract idea.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 18, 2022 @ 01:15 GMT
In my latest paper, submitted to viXra but I do not yet have a link, the revised Photon partition hypothesis is set out. Providing a physical embodiment of wave-particle existence. Three experiments are described: Young’s double slit experiment on light, the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb thought experiment, a variation without a bomb but a path blocking light detector. A quantum physics description of how each experiments outcome happens is given. For comparison the photon partition hypothesis is used to describe how the results come about.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 18, 2022 @ 03:26 GMT
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 18, 2022 @ 03:50 GMT
I've added a couple of comments, which make things clear.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 18, 2022 @ 22:26 GMT
I thought maybe I should look at describing how the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment outcomes come about. Sabine Hossenfelder has an informative video on it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U Which is basically showing the reaction to the results is 'a fuss about nothing'. She mentions at the end, the weirdness of the original double slit experiment and says she thinks the bomb experiment is far weirder than the quantum eraser. in the first half of my latest paper, I have given both the quantum physics and photon partition hypothesis explanation of the results both of these experiments; (the latter quashing the weirdness).
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 19, 2022 @ 00:46 GMT
Here, once again, we are dealing with a situation that doesn't have a simple black and white answer.
The subtle difference between a wave and something influenced by a wave/ waves. Only the something influenced, (a localized existence, or element of noumenal realty) that is able to cause a detectable phenomenon.
The wave by itself is not detectable. Because of that it is less than a photon (sub photon Companion). Known to be present because of its influence on the localized element of object reality ( or in some scenarios its separate non local presence can be inferred by the lack of detected influence.) Still, evidence of physically real interaction.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 19, 2022 @ 19:20 GMT
Radiation with Annihilation(Edited by Zeeya on 23 March 2022 -- just to format your external link Tom, because it was doing something funny on the comment sidebar.)
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 24, 2022 @ 22:30 GMT
Thanks, Zeeya. Much appreciated, though the title should be "radiation WITHOUT annihilation".
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox wrote on Mar. 23, 2022 @ 18:50 GMT
Hello again, both Tom and Georgina,
At great risk of setting off an 'Oh Hell NO!' reaction, both of your recent postings actually contribute to a matter near and dear to me. Modeling a realistic cyclic Wave/Particle soliton 'wavetrain' of EMR. One big metaphysical problem is an ontology that provides a gravitationally bound soliton that does NOT interact with (a manifold) other solitons, independent of wavelength. So the spacetime displacement model Tom has sketched out is workable. And Georgina, now you are getting serious! Good to see. I also conceive of a partition of a divisible Quanta, though I'll not discount efforts to quantize a partition of a whole Quantum. best wishes. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 24, 2022 @ 22:25 GMT
Hi John,
Good to talk to you again. I am working to make this idea compelling, and I appreciate your vote of confidence.
It is in broad agreement with Samir Mathur's 2021 1st prize winning essay in the Gravity Research Foundation competition, The Elastic Universe. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f2
7b8/t/609d5462d37887169927b065/1620923493922/Mathur_2021.pdf
So far as Georgina's program goes, I think she is trying to redefine "quantum". I'm not into that, because if it's plausible, it takes too much work to prove mathematically, and I see no practical way to test it. It seems to me that a massless particle divides infinite times, and what's the use of that?
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Mar. 25, 2022 @ 03:47 GMT
Tom,
You make a very solid argument equating the std QM superposition of 'massless particles' with a displacement of physically real spacetime. And that implies a rigidity at the limit of gravitational bound, however tenuous by our macro world registry devices to observe.
It also implies that a Quantum of energy along with its mass equivalence is transferred across space. I do...
view entire post
Tom,
You make a very solid argument equating the std QM superposition of 'massless particles' with a displacement of physically real spacetime. And that implies a rigidity at the limit of gravitational bound, however tenuous by our macro world registry devices to observe.
It also implies that a Quantum of energy along with its mass equivalence is transferred across space. I do however agree with Georgi in that the conventional interpretation of 'Quantum' is ill defined. Afterall, the quantum is an empirically derived theoretical measure of the energy transferred over the duration of one full second of time. Yet we are accustomed to counting the actual number of waves in such reception apparatus as good ol' radio. So if we accept that e=hf, then a quantum is nothing more or less than the number of waves of any specified frequency per second, and it is only by experimental estimation of intensity that it can be calculated that only a very few 'quantum' have been observed. So I am pleased that Georgina is getting down into the weeds of experimental comparison towards an ontology which will call into practice an actual mathematical analysis that makes 'hypothesis' something more than conjecture.
I think we can all agree that "massless particles" continue to be a convenient patch over an experimental lack of understanding. While this does not dispute that light velocity is the limit to acceleration of any size mass, that does not preclude that size of mass may well be the limit to that velocity being achieved. A small enough mass equivalent quantity may have a proportionate upper density bound that would be less than that exhibiting a ballistic, or parabolic function response which is the criteria by which mass is measured. And as always, I continue to hold that energy density varies in direct inverse relation to existant velocity. We would not be able to directly observe that relative density, but if we can theoretically deduce it, we would still be dependent on SR for measurement in observations. best ;-) jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 27, 2022 @ 19:37 GMT
Hi Tom, John, I'm not trying to redefine 'quantum' but questioning the idea. At the outset, there is a question to be asked- When we detect/ measure a photon are we detecting/measuring all that there is ? Or are we only measuring that part which activates the sensor or causes visible effect? In the latter case we can speculate that the detectable portion may be separated from some of the not directly detectable. Which as argued can account for interference on reunion, non local effects after beam splitting; in particular 'interaction free testing.' The sub photon part, while not directly detectable can be known by its effect. (Like an animals presence in an area can be known by its footprint.) That it exists and can be directed may yet have some practical application beyond 'interaction free testing'. As to whether the detectable photon body is divisible, it may well be more cohesive than the sub photon. I offer some experiments to interrogate photon nature.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 28, 2022 @ 16:53 GMT
I should make clear, that what I'm calling a photon is that existence, a noumenal reality, emitted by an exited atom. Also initiating the phenomenal realty of a photomultiplier click or discreet spot of exposure of a film. The name is also taken to imply 'something ( fitting previous description) that is entire.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Mar. 28, 2022 @ 19:53 GMT
hi Georgena,
Yes, I got that, and I think its worthwhile to inquire into. There are the Conservation Laws that are a reliable guide to investigation so any partition can be quantifiable within an experimental protocol of total input and total output of measurable effects. I like the Work function of rapidity, myself, in the interpretation of the photoelectric effect, in contravention of the general consensus of a whole quantum valued single particle photon. There is lots of theoretical room to be had in the Transition Zone as well. Best of Luck and don't hesitate to commit to a few mathematical guesses to see what might pan out, you don't have to tell anyone unless you think you've hit on a rationale that promotes an ontological line of reasoning. That's how a lot of discoveries were actually made. The ol' "poke it with a stick" approach. jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 25, 2022 @ 14:34 GMT
Hi John,
Not superposition, which is a mathematical artifact. In general relativity, spacetime is a real, physical quantity. Because it has the property of "having an effect ... not itself influenced by physical conditions" it must displace itself. I maintain that the same Newtonian equation that defines mass, applies to spacetime under pressure (the LASER effect, which I plan to expand upon).
You speak of a "quantum of energy" when Georgina is using a quantum of light--a photon. So I really don't understand what she and you are up to, and I won't have time to study it in the near future. (At my age, everything is in the near future.)
More, later.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Mar. 25, 2022 @ 15:29 GMT
Hi Tom,
LOL, my future is pretty near too! I'm waiting on results for an EKG, apparently I've developed some arrythmia but I don't notice it.
To my way of thinking, what we generically call 'energy' is a material manifestation of the tension inherent to spacetime conceptually illustrated as the difference between a straight line and a curve. 'Material' connotes substance such as macroscopically experienced solid objects, yet I think we can stretch that to include the physicality of spacetime being provisional of the stuff of a material point. It need not be of such density to exhibit an inelastic response, in parlance it could be quite ephemeral and yet rigid in that it would not be itself influenced. So I can easily envision a soliton manifesting in physical form a whole range of tension density that gives rise to the fields from gravitational response only, across 4+ magnitudes of light velocity to the gravitationally compact 'hard' particle with which convention holds the fields are associated. But one does have to narrow things down to a modest enough scope to be able to produce at least some aspect of nature in usable formality. best jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 31, 2022 @ 00:05 GMT
John, Georgina:
As soon as I can penetrate your reasoning enough to comment, I will.
I've refined my quantum gravity paper:
Gravity
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 3, 2022 @ 15:23 GMT
Hey John,
Usually, when one gives physical meaning to lines and curves, it is in terms of changes in velocity, not an inherent energy in spacetime. That's what special relativity says, too. Change of velocity due to strong gravity ('curved spacetime') does not change the velocity of light. It’s the constant by which mass is measured.
I have a long passage from Einstein on building a theory out of material points, if that's where you're going. Otherwise, I don't get the rest of what you are saying, could be my reading comprehension declining with age.
Georgina,
I still can't grasp the value of splitting a quantum. What am I missing? What physical conclusion am I expected to reach?
Best always, guys -- Tom
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 4, 2022 @ 21:17 GMT
Hi Tom,
I think one important point is that it allows for physical reality based explanation of 'quantum strangeness', rather than just abstract mathematical. Nicely demonstrated by " interaction free' testing. Which using the partition hypothesis is not interaction free- but enabled by removal from circulation of the interacting (not directly detectable) sub photon.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 5, 2022 @ 11:16 GMT
Hi Georgina,
So if it's based in physical reality, it's testable, true?
I'm confused. You say it's interaction free tested (I don't really know what that means), but your tests are not interaction free. Then if it's already tested, why do you need to introduce another set of conditions that show the existence of an undetectable particle?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 5, 2022 @ 21:51 GMT
Hi Tom, it's possible to carry out some tests that will give some evidence of photon nature.
Interaction free testing is suggested by the Erlitzer-Vaidman bomb tester thought experiment . If a QM explanation is used.( A variation of the experiment has been carried out. I don't have the reference to hand). Two sensors are positioned so that they correspond to the 'dark' and 'light' bands of an interference pattern. If there is interference the 'dark band' detector doesn't make a detection; as it is dark, Only the 'light band ' detector detects. However if there is no interference the formerly unresponsive detector can be activated. There is no interference when, according to QM while in superposition , there is non local 'encounter' with the bomb, which is a measurement. The measurement causes the superposition to become instead a localized particle, on the path without a bomb. No interference when the paths are joined and the
particle never encountered the bomb, That's why it's called interaction free.
The partition hypothesis proposes that wave like sub photon companion takes both paths. That gives interference UNLESS the free sub photon is taken out of circulation by a barrier or detector or object in its path. There has to be interaction, by that way of thinking, to loose interference.
It isn't directly testable but can be known by its effect.
The tests are not the bomb experiment but asking what happens if the photons nature is this that or the other.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 6, 2022 @ 02:27 GMT
HI Georgina,
The bomb experiment sounds to me like a fancy way to observe collapse of the wave function. That could be valuable, for narrowing the field of candidates for a correct quantum theory. Personally, I believe that it can't succeed, merely for the facts that superposition is a mathematical, not physical artifact--and that the transformation of the superposed particle is discontinuous.
A non-collapsing interpretation of QM (such as Hugh Everett's relative state model) has the advantage of preserving locality without those assumptions of conventional quantum theory. BTW, my research agrees with the Everett model, insomuch as the role of time defaults to a local nonlinear state--as opposed to the conventional nonlocal linear state. It's in the paper.
As to the nature of the photon--speaking of my paper, which deals a lot with photons--what would you say happens when the mirrors reach zero separation? What is the nature of the trapped photons vs. the photons that escape? What are the consequences of having two sets of photons with different natures?
Thanks for the clear explanation, much appreciated.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 6, 2022 @ 21:41 GMT
Tom, I've taken a look at your papers. They are over my head. I don't have any answers to your questions.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2022 @ 10:36 GMT
Georgina,
Okay. Then just explain to me what you mean by "photon nature."
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 7, 2022 @ 19:19 GMT
By photon nature i mean Form and function, as it exists and happens within material, noumenal reality. Not the measured or observed phenomenon. Not an abstract 'entity' in mathematical space. I don't presume to know photon nature but I've made some suggestions and given what I think would be the experimental outcomes of such; for the given experimental set up.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2022 @ 22:57 GMT
Forgive me again if I've missed it. What do you expect to conclude, or predict as an outcome of the experiment?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 8, 2022 @ 00:12 GMT
My fault I was being ambiguous. The experiment I was referring to was set out in https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0095
The Revised Photon Partition Hypothesis: Interrogating Photons Not your own thought experiment.
From that paper, Question:
Is a treated photon that has encountered a half silvered mirror and not been reunited by path joining,
1. divisible into all non detectable members
2. divisible into a detectable and an undetectable part like an untreated entire photon or
3. fundamentally different from an entire photon in its indivisibility.
Using a combination of Mach Zehndler interferometers, with and without barriers to deny and allow reuniting of paths as needed.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 8, 2022 @ 00:20 GMT
Possible outcomes and what they imply:
Outcome 1: no detection. Addresses the question Can the cut photon body be divided? May indicate that even a cut photon body is not an indivisible fundamental particle. As will occur if divisible into all non detectable members. Supports the photon partition hypothesis for explanation of so called quantum effects. (Check the apparatus is working and set up correctly by testing with opaque blocks removed and getting usual photon detection results.)
Outcome 2: Usual photon behaviour. Detectable as particle or showing interference pattern if paths are reunited. Supplementary question: If this is found How many times can an un-reunited photon be ‘re-cut’? If the nswer is many or indefinitely many it may be indicating that the sub photon companion is being regenerated from the environment. Further investigation is needed to differentiate non split-able photon (photon partition hypothesis is wrong) from one that can split (so can have non local effect) and also spontaneously regenerates.. Lets call it ‘partition plus hypothesis’ Supplementary experiment: If outcome 2 is found, use a series of interferometers as a modification of the apparatus to investigate; after how many half silvered mirror encounters, the interference pattern ceases to be formed after necessary pathway joining. Given a laser of sufficient intensity for use with a series of interferometers.
Outcome 3: Photons can be detected but no evidence of an interference pattern can be obtained, suggests that the photon minus part of its sub photon companion can not be re-divided into normally interfering sub photon companion, and a cut photon body complement. Showing that a cut photon body is different from an entire photon. Supports the photon partition hypothesis for explanation of so called quantum effects
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2022 @ 22:29 GMT
Georgina,
Of the three questions and outcomes, I cannot find one that is testable by scientific method and verifiable by correspondence with a theory that makes a closed logical judgement. I'm only interested in truths that can be shown correspondent to a mathematical model. Not to disparage your research, however--by 3-valued logic, there is true, false and unproven. Many unprovable truths have been converted to scientific theories.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 10, 2022 @ 20:35 GMT
Tom, thank you for thinking about it. I have given the apparatus set up that could be used. I don't know which outcome will be found, It is more a preliminary fact finding mission than proof of a theory. Each question could be written as if, then. If a photon is divisible into all unmeasurable parts then no detection will be obtained; and so on for all three questions and possible outcomes. That's all it is at present. Asking what happens in this specific circumstance.
As for your question. Ii think the crushed source will prevent the mirrors from being brought completely touching together. So the trapped photons will be undergoing repeated phase changes. Whereas the free photons that have passed through stop changing phase when free of the mirrors. I don't know if trapped photons still qualify as photons.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 10, 2022 @ 21:24 GMT
Re. yours. What about gradual dissipation of energy by the material of the mirrors, with very many reflections; especially by the metalic backing? Loss of photons of energy not loss of energy content of individual photons.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 11, 2022 @ 02:16 GMT
Georgi and Tom,
Thinking of Rob McEachern's argument that what we measure is simply that which we seek, the question of 'what is a photon' is a matter of the experimenter's choice. While I can go along with there being non-detected properties, and a divisible quantum or specifically, Quanta, at some point there is a need to mathematically qualify what it is that we seek.
In my early modeling, I simply followed a naive mathematical rationale which partitioned the individual Planck value Quanta between a mass:energy particle and the impetus which accelerated it to a peak periodic velocity at mid-point of any wavelength, and let the chips fall where they would. That quickly led to a seeming contradictory condition wherein the particle portion exceeded the Planck value at twice the wavelength of the arbitrary benchmark wavelength. In the same wise of a 'fact finding' exercise, I simply contented myself with an intuitive reasoning that the physical mass equivalence mattered less then the rate of momentum transfer by the particle form with any detection system. Crude and naive to be sure. But it, in the end analysis panned out as a parametric model leading to fully relativistic mathematical rationale which can account for the quantity of energy in a rest mass particulate field, distributed in a continuous gradient of density defining a finite volume. This satisfies Wheeler's zero boundary condition, where conventional attempts employing integrating over partial differentials always leads to a feedback loop at the minimum density boundary limit.
So I'm not the one whom should argue with how anyone else attempts to analysis "what is a photon?".
Best, as always. I've been dealing with some personal issues, so excuse me if I don't chime in very often :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 12, 2022 @ 15:09 GMT
Edit to last post:
I should have stated it as 'a generally relativistic mathematical rationale' rather than 'fully' in that while the rationale to be consistent with the zero boundary condition requires the time parameter to be generally covariant with dilation. Rather than velocity of the energy field decelerating from light velocity to nil across the condensate, the rate of passage of time slows from light speed equivalence to nil. Hence at the light velocity limit of an empirically derived universal minimum energy density necessary to maintain simple connectivity translatory of inertia, no physical motion of the enrgy at that boundary is either necessary or possible.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE: I have belatedly joined Facebook to facilitate downsizing a bunch of stuff collected over my adult life through the Marketplace feature and 'Groups'. Pretty handy, but FB's conglomerated entanglement is complicated, error-prone, sluggish and a PITA. It wouldn't let me post a listing on a local buy and sell group until I tried logging in to FQXI and leaving that tab open to let FB's algorithm know I was a real account while I went through the FB posting process. It seemed to work BUT... on my next session after shutting down and tabbing up FQXI, I got a big red Alert flag saying fqxi or I might be getting hacked! I have chanced it this once by going the work around of the alert which cleared my FQXI loggin button and had to manually put in my email and password. If you don't hear from me for a while, I've been screwed! Onward through the fog! Facebook is notorious for data mining and I debated long and hard before creating an account, but its gotten to the point where you can't DO anything without being online! Like Einstein said, "It's easier to control the splitting of an atom, than to control what men do with it". :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2022 @ 21:57 GMT
Georgina,
"Ii think the crushed source will prevent the mirrors from being brought completely touching together."
Why? Any number of massless particles can occupy the same space,
"So the trapped photons will be undergoing repeated phase changes. Whereas the free photons that have passed through stop changing phase when free of the mirrors."
Significance?
"I don't know if trapped photons still qualify as photons."
Do they qualify as light? What, then? Is a trapped photon still a quantum of light?
The end result should be a polarized population, the dense phase-changing positive state, and the unchanging negative state.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 12, 2022 @ 23:25 GMT
Tom,
I get what you argue as the end result. Providing a perfect mirror could exist, but essentially valid. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 13, 2022 @ 03:22 GMT
Hi Tom, the source of the photons isn't just photons though. Surly its something like a laser or light bulb or heated metal. What is it if not some kind of atomic material or object?
The trapped photon can't be measured or have any effect. so it has no phenomenal reality. You will have to state it is a noumenal reality on the belief that photons can remain as trapped entities, if it is to be at all real. Only achievable because you employ an unrealistic perfect kind of mirror. It seems to me. But I don't claim understand your work.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2022 @ 13:06 GMT
John, Georgina,
It's a thought experiment, but even a thought experiment must be doable in principle.
To try and cut to the chase, I'll say that if the
Aharonov-Bohm effect is true, my proposed experiments--soliton creation and space roar source--are valid.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 22, 2022 @ 10:07 GMT
Tom, that said on the other thread, the solitons semm important, the real secret is still the philsophiucal origin of the universe and why we have these solitons and the most importan why theyr propagate and these propagations are the secret and for this we have also the superfluidity becoming a key.They are everywhere these solitons in nmechanic, like in optic , like in hydrodynamic..... and they can be linear or non linear. For me the real interest now is to analyse the QFT and inconsidering the 3 systems merging that I explained, There are so deeper parameters implying these solitons and the works of sine gordon and schrodinger can be utilised but we need in logic to superimpose deeper equations of cause and mainly the space vacuum possessing the main codes .All this to tell that the cause of our standard model for example if not from the GR but from the spacevacuum of this DE and so the solitons and propagations and oscillations also in a sense ....
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 6, 2022 @ 19:18 GMT
Georgina,
Please forgive me if you've reference this
1995 paper on interaction-free measurement previously.
Just interested in the last few paragraphs dealing with 2-state (yes-no) measurements, which conforms to quantum measurement standards. Classical measurements are 3-state (yes-no-?) or many-state.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 6, 2022 @ 21:34 GMT
Tom, I took a look but can't find the parts you mention.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2022 @ 10:30 GMT
The very end, last paragraph before the acknowledgments.
report post as inappropriate
JAMES DECANDOLE wrote on Apr. 21, 2022 @ 17:46 GMT
Fundamental nature has revealed these numerical clues: the speed of light is 299792458, the proton/electron mass ratio is 1836.15289, and the intervals between the atomic numbers of the noble gases is 2/8/18/18/32. What is the meaning of these numbers? Why not some other quantities?
report post as inappropriate
Balybin Mathew Urievich wrote on May. 16, 2022 @ 17:05 GMT
As for me, teaching the younger generation is one of the main tasks of society, naturally everyone should know the basics of mathematics well, if your child has poor school performance, it makes sense to transfer him to distance learning here https://brighterly.com/math-lessons/ one of the advantages of which is an innovative learning strategy through play and illustrative mathematical examples. Highly recommend
report post as inappropriate
Den Yera wrote on Jun. 17, 2022 @ 16:14 GMT
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.