Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Den Yera: on 6/17/22 at 16:14pm UTC, wrote Thanks for post!

Balybin Urievich: on 5/16/22 at 17:05pm UTC, wrote As for me, teaching the younger generation is one of the main tasks of...

Steve Dufourny: on 4/22/22 at 10:07am UTC, wrote Tom, that said on the other thread, the solitons semm important, the real...

JAMES DECANDOLE: on 4/21/22 at 17:46pm UTC, wrote Fundamental nature has revealed these numerical clues: the speed of light...

Thomas Ray: on 4/14/22 at 13:06pm UTC, wrote John, Georgina, It's a thought experiment, but even a thought experiment...

Georgina Woodward: on 4/13/22 at 3:22am UTC, wrote Hi Tom, the source of the photons isn't just photons though. Surly its...

John Cox: on 4/12/22 at 23:25pm UTC, wrote Tom, I get what you argue as the end result. Providing a perfect mirror...

Thomas Ray: on 4/12/22 at 21:57pm UTC, wrote Georgina, "Ii think the crushed source will prevent the mirrors from being...



FQXi FORUM
June 25, 2022

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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 .

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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).

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 16:07 GMT
E.g. “the anthropocene”

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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?

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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”.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 5, 2021 @ 23:41 GMT
Oops. The above “effect” should be “affect”!

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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”.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 10, 2021 @ 10:06 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

yes, i agree with what you wrote.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 12, 2021 @ 01:17 GMT
What happened to the edit? NOT stereotypical.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Oct. 14, 2021 @ 23:34 GMT
Oops. "Required", not "requited".

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 01:31 GMT
31 logical fallacies in 8 minutes

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2021 @ 22:49 GMT
That is URL, https://youtu.be/1SL-j1XoDms

Bookmark and Share
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..

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 28, 2021 @ 18:30 GMT
Error XML

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 30, 2021 @ 04:44 GMT
Yes it does. What if ?- to be continued.

Bookmark and Share
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.)

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
post approved
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 8, 2021 @ 02:30 GMT
Bigotry and sexism.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
post approved
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2021 @ 23:22 GMT
More grandstanding and irrelevant sexism.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2021 @ 04:45 GMT
Correction " % of men"

https://youtu.be/snj1wBtn6I8

What the HECK is Energy? YouTube video

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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).

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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 SEQUITUR

Numbers 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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 20, 2021 @ 02:07 GMT
Correction. False. v and a...etc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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).

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Monika Součková wrote on Dec. 31, 2021 @ 13:00 GMT
Is there a pattern behind prime numbers?

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kwan Chiang wrote on Jan. 7, 2022 @ 23:33 GMT
here is the paper attached.

attachments: 4_PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-Published-13Chiang.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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)?

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 2, 2022 @ 02:42 GMT
On interaction free testing and photon divisibility

attachments: bomb.pdf

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 8, 2022 @ 03:40 GMT
On Interaction Free Testing and Photon Divisibility

https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0020

Are Photons Fundamental and Indivisible?

https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 18, 2022 @ 03:26 GMT
The revised Photon partition hypothesis. Interrogating photons

Here if you'd rather copy and paste http://viXra.org/abs/2203.0095

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.)

Bookmark and Share
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".

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2022 @ 10:30 GMT
The very end, last paragraph before the acknowledgments.

Bookmark and Share
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?

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Den Yera wrote on Jun. 17, 2022 @ 16:14 GMT
Thanks for post!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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