Anonymous replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:20 GMT
Also, if I can ask a question of the physicists here regarding black holes and general relativity I would appreciate it.
I read a lot of books and watch science programs about black holes and stuff but I still don't understand it. In our science club we had a talk about einsteins general relativity and our teacher gave the diagram of the ball sitting on a rubber sheet with grids on it. The ball distirted the grid and another ball placed on the grid would start to move because the grid was distorted by the other ball sitting on it. This doesn't make sense to me and the teacher couldn't give me the exclanation of why a body would move at all, regardless of whether space is curved.
I can buy the idea that mass causes the space around it to be curved. What I don't understand is how another body around the mass would start to move just because the space is curved. So if I have an object not moving, how does the curvature of space start the ball to suddenly start moving? Doesn't it require a force anyways? Sure the object would move through the space that is curved but what causes the movement to begin with? Our teacher didn't have any answer. It makes no sense to me.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:21 GMT
I would say that answer depends on your passion.
I have a Ph.D. in High Energy Physics Phenomenology, taught for a few years, then left the field for a better-paying opportunity. If money is your first passion, you probably will make more money with a Masters in Engineering than with a Doctorate in Physics. However, if the search for knowledge is your passion, you might want to learn enough physics to be able to participate in these discussions. I'm the CEO of a family business during the day, but physics is my favorite hobby, and this blog-site is one of my outlets.
And like Tom recommended, there is a lot of information on sites like Wikipedia. I wouldn't trust them 100%, but it is usually an accurate start.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 17:05 GMT
Anonymous,
I realize that "rubber sheet geometry" is a popular teaching tool, but I honestly wish they would retire that analogy.
It doesn't really give you the true flavor of general relativity. In GR, space is mostly flat, Euclidean. It is only at great concentrations of mass that this rubber sheet thing applies, and it doesn't apply well at that, because you are getting only a 2-dimensional view of a 3-dimensional phenomenon embedded in a 4-dimensional spacetime. So it isn't suprising that, if you are at all a deep thinker in this subject, you would be confused as well as unsatisfied.
I think something to help you decide whether you want to be a physicist or not, is a serious read of Einstein & Infeld's classic, The Evolution of Physics. That will bring you through classical mechanics, and up to relativity. If you appreciate what's in there, you will surely want to probe deeper. It's an easily accessible book even for a high schooler, no heavy duty mathematics, but a lot of insight.
So far as your teacher's dilemma of not being able to answer why a body would move at all -- nobody can. The origin of inertia is still a mystery. In terms of this "rubber sheet" relationship, however, we can calculate the attraction between masses by Einstein's gravity equation -- you can look that up. You probably won't understand it, but get the flavor, anyway. It describes the gravity field in which the bodies move.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT
Alright. Thanks. These probably sound like dumb questions to the advanced people here. I am just confused as to why the mass starts moving without a force to move it. I understand the curvature part when realtivity states that mass curves space, but it doesn't explain why the mass would deicde to start moving through the curved space in the first place so it makes it look like there is a force. The old law of physics by Newton says that a body won't move unless a force is applied to it so I can't understand how a body would start moving just because space is curved. So what if space is curved?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 22:28 GMT
Anonymous,
Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 23:03 GMT
Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation. Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity. If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. What is force?
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 23:53 GMT
In the United States anyone in the business of science or engineering is in the bueiness of going out of business. To pursue a physics career I advise becoming fluent in one or more foreign languages so you can expand your options in the world. The US of A is a declining civilization (has been for the last several decades), one which is degenerating into an economy favoring a few investment fat-cats and bankers, and where the rest of us will be left working casinos and tatoo parlors.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT
In the United States liberty is the engine of invention. Those who are in science and engineering and who emprace liberty will thrive. The key is to avoid simplistic ideologies from those who are educated but who have not completed the full cycle of learning and remain embedded in their own self-pride. Be not led to unrealistic thoughts that originate in the minds of those who desire to dominate you or to be admired by you. You can recognize the false prophets because they will not give straight answers to your scientific questions. They give a smattering of facts and make grand pronouncements, not knowing that they have not yet learned that they know nothing.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 01:45 GMT
All politics is trash, and more to the point political ideology is crap. It is the case that a dominant political party or one going to some sort of extreme ends up bringing up personality disordered and sociopathic types. Oh and yeah, conservatives (GOP) have run things in the US by about a 2 to 1 margin for the last 40 years. The nation has lost considerable ground on nearly all fronts of R&D and industry through the time period.
LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:20 GMT
"All politics is trash, and more to the point political ideology is crap."
Politics is a function of liberty. It is the business of the people and their representatives. There is, of course the intrusion of crap such as socialism and communism. Even as crappy is psuedo scientific dogma that makes no sense and lacks logical and empirical support. Politics is trash for tyrants who wish to dominate humanity. There is of course the pretense that it is for the good of humanity. Without exception, it is for the tyant's needs.
"It is the case that a dominant political party or one going to some sort of extreme ends up bringing up personality disordered and sociopathic types."
The typical immature name calling of middle schoolers is typical of intellectually immature middleschoolers.
Both politics and science function to serve humanity in spite of the middleschoolers who would simply make noise in order to disrupt and gain attention for themselves.
We could perhaps finally make progress if only someone truly brilliant could explain the fundamentals of theoretical physics. Like: What is force; what is mass; what is electric charge; what is temperature; what is thermodynamic entropy?
Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation. Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity. If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:38 GMT
James,
You asked, "Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation."
Actually, there is no way in principle to tell if moving particles are intelligent or not.
"Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity."
One shouldn't confuse science with philosophy.
"If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?"
What is "physicist?"
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:40 GMT
Dear Friends,
Time will tell the truth, but it looks like we traded better climate science for worser space science. We also traded better Health Care for the poor for worser Health Care for the elderly (and it involved one of the ugliest displays of politics that I've seen in a while - my Representative 'Blue Dog Democrat' Alan Boyd advertised that he was opposed to Health Care reform, but voted for it anyway). The economy is still pretty slow (despite the fact that the government now owns more of it). We are still involved in two wars. We still have aggressor nations who hate us. The more things 'CHANGE', the more they stay the same.
Can we get back to Lisi's theory? I would much rather talk about that.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:58 GMT
Dear T H Ray,
"You asked, "Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation.""
'Actually, there is no way in principle to tell if moving particles are intelligent or not.'
Can change of velocity of a particle of matter be the result or the cause of intelligent activity?
"Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity."
'One shouldn't confuse science with philosophy.'
I am not clear on what your are driving at. Is "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."" science or philosophy?
"If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?"
'What is "physicist?"'
Physicist was Dr. Crowell. Actually, anyone is welcome to answer that question. Another question would be: Is gravity a force? And: Is force an act of intelligence? This matters a great deal. It either is or is not. If it is not, then I think we have no physics theory that can explain this universe that gave birth to intelligent life.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 11:54 GMT
Hello dear Anonymous,
My simple humble advice is the desire to understand the things around us.
At the age of 14 , I said but How these particles know what they must become.
I think in fact that it exists real works about our foundamentals and that in all sciences, naturals, reals and rationals.
The truth is everywhere, the system is universal.
We want undertand our reality and we have equations for that, proofs.
All centers of interests are interestings when the realism is correlated.
Maths, physics, chemistry,biology, evolution,philosophy, astronomy, astrobiology, universalism,sociology, ecology....in fact all is complementary and linked simply.
A doctorate or others is not the most important, but the real quest of the truths is a beautiful road of learning.
It exists good or bad books, good or bad teachers, good or bad works,....but when a theory or an idea, or an equation is foundamental, it synchronizes itself simply with our laws and universals correlations.
The universality is a good teacher and the desire to understand is so important.
The sciences are everywhere and in interactions ,the good books dear Anonyme , the good books and the foundamentals equations, it is only simple like that...Newton ,Bohr, Feyman,Gallilei,Einstein ,Darwin,....in fact we must continue their works simply and continue the correlations.
When the confusions appear thus forget these things, when you feel the synchro, continue ....
Good luck and regards....choose well your university and your centers of interests ,
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 12:14 GMT
Gravity is not really a force. The motion of bodies due to gravitation is geodesic motion, or due to extremal paths in curved spacetime. The point of supergravity or unification is to indicate how the other gauge forces are ultimately a similar physics.
As for politics, if we want to really return something called democracy to the process there is one things everyone can do: turn off the television. The whole process has been turned into a complete media three ring circus of nonsense and disinformation.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT
If the gravitation is not really a force, thus there ???? I don't understand because the general relativity and the gravitation are not synchronized.
The cause of the mass is intrinsic.The center of gravities atre harmonized for an real evolution of increase of mass .The time duration is a constan,t which helps for that.
The gravity is a force function of its intrinsic rotating system of spheres, it is evident , its forces exist relatively speaking with the volume of this sphere and spheres.
It is the gravity which curves and not the space time which implies the gravity, it is totaly different.
The superimposings of all gravitational systems are correlated with these spheres and their rotations. The mass is better understood in this line of reasoning.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Friends,
In my opinion, the origin of gravity exists in the 5-brane of hyperspace, is translated to spacetime via entanglement (lattice models like Lisi's and mine may lead to conserved geometrical-like quantum numbers) or entropy (Verlinde-like) or fractal properties (El Naschie-like), and is observed via spacetime geometrical effects. The origin of mass is also hidden. If this is the case, then we need to seriously ask ourselves "Can we reconstruct the hyperspace gravitational Lagrangian that leads to observed spacetime gravity?" So much is hidden and mis-understood...
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:41 GMT
James,
You asked, "Can change of velocity of a particle of matter be the result or the cause of intelligent activity?"
Of course. And usually is. You're assuming that there is some boundary between intelligent behavior and self organized behavior, yet no such boundary can in principle be shown. A swarm of particles -- whether they be pollen grains in Brownian motion, birds in flight, or human beings in a traffic pattern -- exhibit behaviors that differ according to the scale of observation. One makes assumptions about the physics of the behavior, but one can neither assign nor deny properties of intelligence.
You asked, "I am not clear on what your are driving at. Is "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."" science or philosophy?"
Science. Wheeler is explaining how the fundamental physically real element of general relativity -- spacetime -- informs the continuous relationship between mass points in its field. Field theories in general contain the mechanics for communicating point to point. If you understood Lubos Motl's criticism of Garrett Lisi's theory, you see that Motl is asking, basically, "Where's the physics?" I.e., if it's true as Motl says that Lisi's theory contains only bosonic relationships (bosons are massless), then getting field theory dynamics from it is problematic, because without mass points (fermionic particles) there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics.
You asked, "Another question would be: Is gravity a force? And: Is force an act of intelligence? This matters a great deal. It either is or is not. If it is not, then I think we have no physics theory that can explain this universe that gave birth to intelligent life."
Gravity in general relativity is not a force; it is a consequence of the shape of space evolving in time. Whatever you mean by "act of intelligence" does not inform us of what "intelligence" means. Actually, we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a priori.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:44 GMT
I can understand but the cause is intrinsic , it is these rotations of these spheres which imply mass.
Furthermore in your models ,El Nashchie, Lisi, You, and others, you apply the infinity in a finite serie, that has no sense all that.
In a thermodynamical point of vue, that seems irrealists all that.
The origin of mass is not hidden, only the different steps before the wall are hiddens.It is totally different too.
If the gravity and the relativity are utilized like that, it is not possible.
The hidden things are proportionals, far of us but proportionals and coherent with the foundamental laws.
The gravity is a force wich increases due to the polarization.But its perception is relative with the volume of the studied sphere,( and its velocity of rotations, spinals and orbitals.)
The mass of all spheres can be calculated because we can know its rotation,...thus we know its volume simply and all the others proportions....
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Bubba Gump replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 14:55 GMT
I think the student who asked the question is now very confused.
As another poster stated, if money is your primary concern, engineering would likely be the more prudent choice. With physics, it is true that you need a PhD to really get anywhere and a Bachelors degree will noto amount to much in the market. An industry that would hire a R&D physicist would likely want someone with extensive knowledge and experience in a paticular sub-discipline of condensed matter physics. The R&D industry is not really interested in hiring particle physicists. They want someone who will help them develop new products.
You can gain very good employment with just an undergraduate degree in a discipline of Engineering. Chemical engineers are in especially big demand.
So, I would eveluate how far you plan on taking your education and do you think you will stick with it all the way to a PhD? If you just want a four-year degree and then plan on heading out to start making a living, I would not reccomend physics as a major as you won't have enough specialized knowledge of any specific area--you gain this specialized knowledge in graduate school. With engineering, you are specializing in one area as an undergraduate.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 20:00 GMT
Tom,
I know you could not tell from my message what my position really is. I do not assume there is some boundary between intelligent behavior and the rest of the universe. You used the phrase self organized behavior. What do you say is the physical means by which self organization occurs. Is the means described by theoretical physics?
"Science. Wheeler is explaining how the fundamental physically real element of general relativity -- spacetime -- informs the continuous relationship between mass points in its field. Field theories in general contain the mechanics for communicating point to point."
This seems to be a repitition of your previous answer. What is the mechanics for communication point to point. I am not aware that anyone has isolated either space or time for our inspection. Can you point to a explainable cause and not to effects?
"If you understood Lubos Motl's criticism of Garrett Lisi's theory, you see that Motl is asking, basically, "Where's the physics?" I.e., if it's true as Motl says that Lisi's theory contains only bosonic relationships (bosons are massless), then getting field theory dynamics from it is problematic, because without mass points (fermionic particles) there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics."
Even with mass points there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics. That is unless you can explain what cause is?
"Gravity in general relativity is not a force; it is a consequence of the shape of space evolving in time. Whatever you mean by "act of intelligence" does not inform us of what "intelligence" means. Actually, we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a priori."
We have no means whatsoever to conduct experiments on either space or time. All data has to do with objects. So the force gravity remains an unexplainable force. It causes matter to accelerate. It is a force. Is there another way of showing that gravity is not a force?
Reliance upon principles of self organization is taking something that is observed and saying that it contains all of the potential properties necessary to cause all of the observed effects. That potential must include the means for intelligence. Intelligence cannot emerge from dumbness. It emerges from fundamental properties that must already contain in potential form every observed intelligent effect. You say there is: "No need to assume intelligence a priori." Of course there is. Intelligence cannot arise from dumbness. Higher intelligence cannot arise from lower intelligence. All effects must be provided for in the properties that existed since the beginning of the universe. Obviously those properties cannot be only dumb properties.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 21:29 GMT
James,
I had started to make a long reply addressing your questions one by one, assuming that you were serious in your inquiry. I somehow hit the wrong button, however, and lost all the information I had typed in the window.
No matter, though, when I returned and read your final paragraph, which I had not gotten to, I realized that any reply would be pointless. All that you wrote, I'm afraid, comes under the heading of "not even wrong" (Pauli). In fact, we know to a reasonable certainty that the idea of a designer universe is superfluous--and yes, self-organization is a huge research area in theoretical physics. You might want to look it up.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 22:12 GMT
Tom,
My messages are serious. Why theoretical physicsts think that they can define a universe using dumb, inanimate, purposeless properties and end up with intelligence as a given is definitely unclear to me. I am sorry that you feel that understanding the origin and cause of intelligence is "not even wrong".
Intelligence is not theory, it is fact. Your theories are not facts. They are invented ideas about the nature of cause. We receive all information in the form a a mixed storm of photons coming to us at the speed of light from innumerable sources. We must already know how to discern patterns and how to decide the best choices among patterns and how to apply meaning to those patterns and how to then draw ourselves a mental picture of what we think is occurring. That interpretation of photonic date is an entirely local phenomenon. All meaning that we attach to it, including the idea of distance, is not experienced by us directly. We add the idea of distance and continuity.
I think your position is untenable, not even wrong.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 23:16 GMT
James,
Solipsism is not science, and hardly a worthy topic in a science forum.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 23:32 GMT
"Gravity is not really a force. The motion of bodies due to gravitation is geodesic motion, or due to extremal paths in curved spacetime. The point of supergravity or unification is to indicate how the other gauge forces are ultimately a similar physics."
This is silliness. You have no curved spacetime data. You have only data about the motion of objects. Is there any other way besides relying upon theoretical constructs that can show us that gravity is not really a force? What real empirical difference separates gravity out from other forces?
"As for politics, if we want to really return something called democracy to the process there is one things everyone can do: turn off the television. The whole process has been turned into a complete media three ring circus of nonsense and disinformation."
I understand that you are impatient with having to let others express and even worse implement their ideas. You are helpful here in showing why democracy is the best solution. It may not please any of us all or even most of the time, but, it is better by far than having always to do things your way or the way of someone else who feels as you do but has the determination to force the rest of us to dance on the end of their strings.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 23:41 GMT
Tom,
I don't hit the floor that easily.
"Solipsism is not science, and hardly a worthy topic in a science forum."
How about forgetting the tactic of dismissal? You may be a superior intellect, but, that is not apparent yet. How about answering questions with answers? getting back to: "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."
Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is. What is electric charge? Is it one of your possible answers, then you have no answer. If you become interested I will explain why. If you already know the answers then how about please giving some answers that do not involve guesses and conjecture?
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear Cosmic Ray,
"Can we get back to Lisi's theory? I would much rather talk about that."
I do not agree with Dr. Crowell's politics. I think he should stick to his specialty of inventing other dimensions.
I looked in and saw what Tom had to say and felt it needed to be challenged. After-all, real answers should not be so cryptic and unscientific. A real empirical answer would have sufficed. If Dr. Crowell chooses to take the opportunity to go off topic just because I re-appear to ask a scientific question, then, I respond so that he gets pushed backward. I do not understand why his political nonsense survives. However, there are many others like him who wish to perfect the world so that it no longer offends their immature senses.
I say their senses stink. I say they are not the saviors they make themselves out to be. I think that they think in very simplistic ways that are prone to causing social damage more than improvement. If this thread could stay on topic, I think that would be an improvement. I challenged Tom and I am far more interested in his answers than I am in Dr. Crowell's vitriolic views. I think it should be possible to engage in scientific debate without him interjecting half baked political ideology.
I would very much like to see you and others get back to Lisi's theory.
James
report post as inappropriate
anonyrat replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 09:54 GMT
Dear anonymous high school student,
More than half the people here are not competent physicists. They are random members of the public who want to understand or who think they understand or who have their own ideas or philosophy that they want to push. Just because they talk about space and energy and physics does not mean they understand the subject. Some of them are probably more confused than you are.
You may have noticed on the Internet that when anyone may contribute to a discussion, that includes people who don't know what they are talking about, and even people who don't know that they don't know what they are talking about. The situation is especially bad on physics forums, because there are just so many people who think they have it figured out, or who refuse to believe the modern discoveries, and so on.
I recognize the name Lawrence Crowell above. As I recall he is involved in speculative theoretical research which I personally think is in the wrong direction, but I can guarantee that he does truly understand orthodox quantum mechanics and general relativity. So he is probably a safe person to listen to, if you have basic questions about theoretical physics.
As for the career advice, I have no answer. People don't do degrees in advanced physics for job security. But competence in physics does indicate mathematical, logical, and problem-solving ability. During the height of the recent financial bubble, mathematical physics graduates found it relatively easy to get a job in mathematical finance. I personally know many physicists who went into biology. So a physics degree can indirectly be an asset.
anonyrat
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 10:44 GMT
James,
I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the sciences long ago.
You ask, "Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is."
Of course not. Nor is it either necessary or relevant to science to know what cause "is." There's no "isness", no innate something that changes nature from dead to animate. What we do know, is that in the positive feedback effects of a self organized universe, cause is overwhelmed by decohering effects -- Murray Gell-Mann is the major light in explaining quantum decoherence. I agree heartily with Gell-Mann that "something else" is never required to explain a phenomenon; no mysticsm need enter.
You are exercised over Wheeler's wonderful metaphor for general relativity: "mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move." No, of course, one doesn't interpret it literally, as a human-like conversation. It is quite accurate, however, in that local effects of mass interacting with spacetime involve communication -- exchange -- of properties among points in the field. Mass effects change in the massless points of space, as the spacetime field changes relative location of mass points by directing their motion.
You may reserve your right to be incredulous. Your personal belief is your own business. We know these effects to be valid, however, by experiment. Even if turns out (a long shot, but possible) that relativity theory has to be adjusted, no facts would change -- just as the facts of Newtonian physics did not change with Einstein's adjustment.
I apologize to the forum for going off topic.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 11:28 GMT
What a beautiful discussion ....
Dear James, they do not want understand simply, it's a job for them , they win monney with these stupidities and absurdities,they shall continue thus unfortunaly.
Even in the LHC and in all labs, these monney implies chaos and decrease of velocity of evolution.
In fact they speak abot democracy or others but they dislike the truths, the real democracy and the real universality.
They confound all in sciences, they use maths tools to manipulate the public simply, they use the badest method for their credibility.
Their vanity is their sister.Their words are without universalism, without the real foundamentals.
It is logic in fat to see these planets in this state.
It exists only a few people who are real searchers, real experimentalists, real scientists.
I invite them to study the horticulture ahahah they shall be more happy .
SAD and the word is weak....
Best Regards dear James and congratulations for your works, the origin of the intelligence is foundamental and purely linked with the mass.I liked a lot to read it on the net you know.
I saw an interesting idea about the velocity of rotation, indeed the mass is linked, the spheres when they decrease their spinal velocity, increase their mass, thus their we can insert the informations, the fusion light gravity, and the increase of mass, the volume do not change, only the density and the mass, thus the quantic number too do not change.After the evolution is important to encircle the polarisations aged from 13.7 billions years, thus the volumes of the spheres are essentials.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 22:53 GMT
Tom,
"I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. ..."
Of course you are stumped. You do not know what cause is? Therefore, your theories about causes are guesses.
"I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the...
view entire post
Tom,
"I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. ..."
Of course you are stumped. You do not know what cause is? Therefore, your theories about causes are guesses.
"I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the sciences long ago. ..."
Please not the dismissal tactic again. Answers are what win debates.
"..."You ask, "Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is."...
Of course not. Nor is it either necessary or relevant to science to know what cause "is."..."
Wow! I am impressed by this admission, but you do not seem to be aware that your theoretical beliefs survive or fall by what you deem cause to be. If theoretical physicsts, in general, admitted this we would advance scientific learning about the meaning of empirical evidence without being forced to swear allegiance to the guesses about the nature of cause offered by theoretical physicists
"There's no "isness", no innate something that changes nature from dead to animate. "
Ok. Another unsupportable grand pronouncement. Very unscientific.
"What we do know, is that in the positive feedback effects of a self organized universe, cause is overwhelmed by decohering effects -- Murray Gell-Mann is the major light in explaining quantum decoherence. I agree heartily with Gell-Mann that "something else" is never required to explain a phenomenon; no mysticsm need enter."
You are welcome to agree with whomever you please, but my question challenged you to explain how the evolution of intelligence occurs by means of the properties presented to us by theoretical physics?
"You are exercised..."
I am asking you to be scientific in your answers to the point that you can explain things? I think you are excercised in trying to pretend that you are explaining why anything happens. Can you please answer a question directly? What empirical evidence do you have to offer that space and time bend? What experiements were performed upon either space or time?
"...over Wheeler's wonderful metaphor for general relativity: "mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move." No, of course, one doesn't interpret it literally, as a human-like conversation. It is quite accurate, however, in that local effects of mass interacting with spacetime involve communication -- exchange -- of properties among points in the field. Mass effects change in the massless points of space, as the spacetime field changes relative location of mass points by directing their motion. ..."
"This claim is just plain unexplainable and even more importantly has no empirical basis. Matter tells matter what to do! That is all you know. You have nothing to show for what happens inbetween. If you do then please show it?!
"You may reserve your right to be incredulous. Your personal belief is your own business. ..."
As is yours.
"...We know these effects to be valid, however, by experiment. ..."
Holy cow. You have finally gotten to the point. The point is that we only know about effects. We do not know what cause is. You may list the effects, I have no problem with that. Empirical evidence is a welcome sight when conversing with theoretical physicists.
"...Even if turns out (a long shot, but possible) that relativity theory has to be adjusted, no facts would change -- just as the facts of Newtonian physics did not change with Einstein's adjustment."
Of course facts do not change. Theory changes. The reason theory changes, and is vulnerable to drastic changes, is that it purports to explain what cause is. You nor anyone else knows what cause is. For a single example: The early stages of theory included defining a property we call mass. Even today no one knows what mass is. When we learn what mass is, everything could change.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 23:19 GMT
James,
The problem is that you are asking a scientifically imappropriate question. You seem to be wanting something similar to Schopenhauer's "Will and Representation" idea of the world.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 23:32 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
I noticed that Tom made an effort to call in the troops be referring to 'anyone else'. You did not respond to my question: Do you have anything else to offer, besides the unempirically provable space-time, to show that gravity is not a real force? By the way, what I really seem to be asking is for real answers about the nature of cause.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 02:54 GMT
To anyone whom it may concern,
[This was originally addressed to Tom, but can be answered by anyone]
I wrote that:
"Intelligence is not theory, it is fact. Your theories are not facts. They are invented ideas about the nature of cause. We receive all information in the form a a mixed storm of photons coming to us at the speed of light from innumerable sources. We must already know how to discern patterns and how to decide the best choices among patterns and how to apply meaning to those patterns and how to then draw ourselves a mental picture of what we think is occurring. That interpretation of photonic date is an entirely local phenomenon. All meaning that we attach to it, including the idea of distance, is not experienced by us directly. We add the idea of distance and continuity."
I welcome a response from any theoretical physicist that does not rely upon mystical answers of empirically unobservable properties introduced by theoretical physicists into otherwise empirically based equations. Please, leave mystical, i.e. invented and unverifiable, theories out of this. I will ask for explanations.
What does it mean to anyone interested in real answers to say that the universe caused intelligence to evolve? Theoretical physics offers only dumbness in the form of mechanical type forces. What is the empirical evidence that shows that dumbness can produce, and in the case of theoretical physics can predict, intelligence. E8 or E88 or E888 or XXXX or YYYY or ZZZZ or any physics theory.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 23:13 GMT
James,
All I can really do is to implore you to read some real literature on general relativity. You could also watch the
Susskind Lectures on Relativity. There are 12 of these and they take about 1.75 hours each. The first starts out pretty elementary, but if you watch these you will read some basic foundations towards the end. I really do not have time to write a whole essay on the nature of gravitation here.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:03 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"...I really do not have time to write a whole essay on the nature of gravitation here."
Thank you for your cordial message and suggested resource. I wasn't looking for a lecture on relativity theory, rather a short emirical type answer. As you already know, I think relativity theory is clearly wrong. I also think theoretical physics is fundamentally flawed beginning back with f=ma. The area I am not yet prepared to speak about is quantum mechanics. That is the area I am currently looking at and working on.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:38 GMT
Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. And you're taking issue with _Newtonian_ physics, too? Wow. Please, find a philosophy or religion blog site.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:59 GMT
The admin is the arbiter of what is appropriate for this site. I don't endorse any views expressed, but I do declare James' comments to be entirely relevant and welcome. Keep the discussion rolling!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 15:06 GMT
Okay, Brendan. I'll play. However, for as many times as the subject arises, I will also point out that it is not science. And why.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 15:29 GMT
James,
Now that I have been given permission to cut loose without fear of being criticized for being off-topic, please give your definition for "cause," and then I will give you mine (the scientific one).
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:01 GMT
To Tom and anyone else interested,
"Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. ..."
No theory is empirical. Theory is the accumulation of guesses that the theorists choose, because of their own philosphical biases, to replace that which they do not know about why the universe functions as it does....
view entire post
To Tom and anyone else interested,
"Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. ..."
No theory is empirical. Theory is the accumulation of guesses that the theorists choose, because of their own philosphical biases, to replace that which they do not know about why the universe functions as it does. Empirical science belongs to the real world, and, it studies patterns in effects. It is only effects that the universe makes known to us.
"...And you're taking issue with _Newtonian_ physics, too? Wow. ..."
The theoretical guess pushed onto f=ma was the decision to declare mass to be an indefinable property deserving its own indefinable units of measurement. No one could have known that that was true. It contradicts unity in the universe. Even worse, it made disunity a permanent part of our analysis of the operation of the universe. That is where theoretical physics first began to stray away from empirical science. That single act caused force to be improperly defined resulting in both energy and momentum being improperly defined and adversely affected all higher level theory that has made use of any of these properties.
Theoretical physics is a facade that prevents us from seeing the universe as it really is. I began removing that facade starting with f=ma. Behind the facade, I have found that the erroneous guesses of theoretical physics have been compounded and are distorting mass, electric charge, space, time, temperature, thermodynamic entropy, the origins of the fundamental constants of nature, the fine structure constant, permittivity, permeability, and have made disunity so firmly a part of our analyses that numerous unobservable properties must now be invented out of nothing in order to try to patch theory back together again. They are the new strain of guesses. That which we carelessly tore apart must now be joined back together with super, or hyper, but in any case, magic glue.
The guesses are easy to identify. Everytime a theorist declares a property to be a cause, it is a guess. Theory is the practice of inventing causes. No one knows what cause is. Furthermore, our equations cannot display cause on either side. If cause is found on either side, then that is a clear theoretical error. It may be a real, even though improperly defined, property, but it is not a 'cause'. There is a symbol that we use in our equations to represent all causes. That symbol is the equals sign.
All of your theoretical 'causes' could be squeezed behind the equals sign and empirical knowledge would not suffer. The equations would be better for it. They would be returned to their original, natural state. They would once again be empirical equations. Then, they could tell us the truth about that which we can know scientifically and that which we cannot. However, so long as they remain represented as physics equations, they can only serve to help us solve mechanical type problems.
I have previously objected to the use of the word 'tells'. It is certainly true that each object in the universe knows what to do. Cause is knowing what to do and reacting accordingly to an effect. An original cause is 'knowing everything to be done'. It is fair enough, in a general sense, to say that one object tells another what to do. My objection was directed at the use of the word 'tells' within the context of theoretical physics. Knowing, or intelligence, is the most important property of the universe, but it is not a property of theoretical physics. The philosophy upon which theoretical physics has been constructed cannot call upon any semblance of intelligent act in order to explain anything. The underpinning of the philosophy of theoretical physics is that the universe is mechanical, inanimate, purposeless and dumb. It can never know 'Why?'.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:10 GMT
James, I think I understand Tom's sentiments here. If you think physics is wrong going back to Newton's De Motu and Principia, then in effect you are saying science itself is wrong. Of course all the while you state this using a machine which is fabricated with considerable knowledge of quantum theory of electrons and phonons in condensed matter. Unfortunately if this is the case then to echo Tom's statement discussion is simply impossible. You may want empirical knowledge of spacetime curvature (Check out Einstein Lens on Google), but if you reject the huge amount of empirical knowledge of supporting Newtonian mechanics, "at large" with weak gravity, then extensive discussion is futile.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:29 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
I am not saying science is wrong. I am saying Tom and you are wrong.
"...if you reject the huge amount of empirical knowledge of supporting Newtonian mechanics, "at large" with weak gravity, then extensive discussion is futile. .."
I do not reject empirical knowledge. My conclusions are based upon empirical knowledge. I say you cannot support the above charge that you have made.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:43 GMT
Looking for specifics here instead of vague generalities and certainly not unsubstantiated theoretical conjecture.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
Sorry, I thought I included this in my last message. It was not there. Einstein's lens is established empirical evidence. However, it is not evidence that his theory is correct. His theory was formed by the use of transform equations. They are not scientifically reliable. The point is that: Empirical evidence will reamin empirical evidence, but, it is not held captive to theoretical interpretation as, say many theoretical physicists appear to be. The scientific question is: What are the real properties of light that produce Einstein's lens, but because they are real, are not suceptible to falling victim to theory as many humans do?
James
report post as inappropriate
Member Ian Durham replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 00:19 GMT
I just want to second Brendan's comments (even though I'm not an admin). I don't necessarily agree with James' view, but having hashed out some things with him on another thread, he has an interesting, relevant, and potentially useful view.
Personally, I think its the political discussion that should be taken elsewhere.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 00:37 GMT
Dear James,
I have avoided this conversation. It was somewhat off topic, and I like you, Lawrence and Tom - I'm not trying to offend anyone.
I appreciate that you question the foundations of Physics. In my opinion, any *EXPERT* should study a field to the point where he/she could tear it apart or build upon it, if so inspired. You should know the strengths and know the weaknesses of any truth system that you accept.
The Susskind lectures that Lawrence recommended yesterday are pretty good.
My opinion is that the weakness of modern physics is its refusal to admit that extra hidden dimensions exist. We wrap up all of the characteristic effects of hyperspace in our definitions of time and fields and particles. As such, we confuse real cause with our idea/model of cause, and we confuse real effect with our idea/model of effect.
I think it is fruitless to directly challenge Newtonian Physics or Relativistic Physics or Quantum Physics because these truth systems perform perfectly well in their regimes of validity. Generally, one cannot overthrow an established theory. The reason is that there is a buffer layer of mathematical modeling that removes theory from direct contact with experiment. If you 'overthrow' an aspect of an established theory, then we recognize an anomaly in the theory by inventing a new model for that specific case.
I think you should narrow your approach, or you won't be able to see the trees for the forest.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 01:17 GMT
James,
Did you really mean to suggest that "cause" means "knowing everything to be done"? You really want to stick with that and defend it as a scientific definition?
Think carefully.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam, replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Ray,
Hi, you are a polite, respectful person and it is a pleasure to know you even if only over the Internet. I think that my opinion should not affect the work that you and Dr. Crowell are cooperating on. I really do look forward to seeing your name attached to a successful submission to a formal scientific journal. I do not pretend to think that I could do the same.
"...My...
view entire post
Dear Ray,
Hi, you are a polite, respectful person and it is a pleasure to know you even if only over the Internet. I think that my opinion should not affect the work that you and Dr. Crowell are cooperating on. I really do look forward to seeing your name attached to a successful submission to a formal scientific journal. I do not pretend to think that I could do the same.
"...My opinion is that the weakness of modern physics is its refusal to admit that extra hidden dimensions exist. We wrap up all of the characteristic effects of hyperspace in our definitions of time and fields and particles. As such, we confuse real cause with our idea/model of cause, and we confuse real effect with our idea/model of effect."
I cannot support this view. Hidden is hidden. In other words, it is not, by definition, empirical. I think that the effects we observe are real, because, they take place in the same space and time in which we live. They are our real evidence. Anything else is added on as an imaginary fix for problems that we have created. That is what I think has and still is happening.
"I think it is fruitless to directly challenge Newtonian Physics or Relativistic Physics or Quantum Physics because these truth systems perform perfectly well in their regimes of validity. ..."
I do not think it is fruitless to review old interpretations in light of new knowledge. The successes of any theory old or new rely only upon the degree of accuracy achieved by the theorist to fit their theory to the patterns observed in empirical evidence. I pointed to this in my first message. Equations begin, or should begin, as accurately representing empirical knowledge. Once they have been reformed, by theorists, into something else that represents the theorist's unempirical point of view, then they can continue to usefully extrapolate or interpolate predictions of other effects that are inherently consistent with the original empirical patterns, but, are no longer valid as representing the true nature of the universe.
"...Generally, one cannot overthrow an established theory. The reason is that there is a buffer layer of mathematical modeling that removes theory from direct contact with experiment. ..."
If you are defining mathematical modeling as theoretical modeling, then I think that modeling immediately removes the empirical form of the equation from existence and replaces it with an unverifiable model of what the theorist wants to speculate about. Once the theorist's unempirical ideas have been stripped away, their theory is also simultaneously stripped away. The empirical form of the equations will remain. The removal of theory does not remove the foundational equations that model the patterns observed in empirical evidence.
"...If you 'overthrow' an aspect of an established theory, then we recognize an anomaly in the theory by inventing a new model for that specific case. ..."
In this case I disagree. If theory is the cause of the problem, then it must be exluded from the corrective action taken to remove the problem. My approach would be to remove inventive models first and then resist inventive models thereafter in fixes or whatever.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 01:51 GMT
Tom,
"Did you really mean to suggest that "cause" means "knowing everything to be done"? You really want to stick with that and defend it as a scientific definition?
Think carefully. .."
Do you still want to say: Mass tells space what to do and space tells mass what to do? Think carefully.
Denying the existence of intelligence is no substitute for explaining the existence of intelligence. By the way, you have not yet given your definition of cause. Also, I cannot be shamed by your condescension alone. I expect you to eventually give scientific responses.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 02:52 GMT
James is trying to ask I think whether there is empirical proof for any physical theory. Of course there is none. Observation and measurement only support theories by confirming their predictions. In fact we can only prove theories false, either entirely so or where the theory breaks down outside some appropriate domain of observation.
I do think that james has stepped over the line from physics to metaphysics in general.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 03:08 GMT
"James is trying to ask I think whether there is empirical proof for any physical theory. Of course there is none. ..."
I am not trying, I am actually asking for theorists, including you, to provide proof that your theories are more than your professional opinion.
"...Observation and measurement only support theories by confirming their predictions. ..."
That only confirms that their equations still retain enough connection of their empirical roots to give some more extrapolations and interpolations that fit the curve that they were designed to fit.
"...In fact we can only prove theories false, either entirely so or where the theory breaks down outside some appropriate domain of observation. ..."
As soon as you have to introduce imaginary properties to save them, they are already properly doomed.
"...I do think that james has stepped over the line from physics to metaphysics in general. ..."
You have misunderstood what is happening here. I am actually returning theoretical physics from imaginary physics back to real physics. I purposefully avoided using the term metaphysics, you have misused it, in this response because, it is not the risky less scientifically formal discipline that you appear to think it is. The original metaphysics was and still is the first disciplinary approach to science that any aspiring scientist, including physicists, should learn.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 09:01 GMT
James,
You wrote, "The original metaphysics was and still is the first disciplinary approach to science that any aspiring scientist, including physicists, should learn."
I told you a while back that your view is that of Aristotle, and now you say it directly. At least have the decency to credit him.
I am waiting for your definition of cause, because we have nothing scientifically objective to talk about without it. You show me yours and I'll show you mine; you started this, and now you appear not willing to own it. Again, do you want to stick with "cause" as "knowing everything to be done"? Do you mean Aristotle's first final cause?
And while we're at it, define "intelligence" in an objectively coherent and empirical way.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 10:52 GMT
James,
While we're waiting, allow me to ask how one would know that particles in Brownian motion are not intelligent?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 16:16 GMT
James,
I admit that I have grown unreasonably impatient for a reply, so forgive me for going right ahead:
I can’t deny taking offense that one feels free to proclaim knowledge, without ever objectively defining one’s terms, or providing examples. If this is the way to truth, give me fantasy any day. A shared fantasy, after all, is at least objective; a solipsistic version of...
view entire post
James,
I admit that I have grown unreasonably impatient for a reply, so forgive me for going right ahead:
I can’t deny taking offense that one feels free to proclaim knowledge, without ever objectively defining one’s terms, or providing examples. If this is the way to truth, give me fantasy any day. A shared fantasy, after all, is at least objective; a solipsistic version of truth allows no objective knowledge at all.
So I will proceed to the scientific view of “cause,” and I will provide definitions and examples as are requisite to intellectual honesty.
1. In the first place, scientists usually refer to “causality” rather than “cause.” The reason is that cause implies an ordered historical relation between cause and effect that is irreversible. Physically, we know—because of the phenomenon of positive feedback—that this general statement is false. A common example is the feedback between microphone and amplifier; there is in principle no way to determine the cause of that disagreeable squeal that you hear. The closed loop of effects merely assumes a cause, without being burdened with the superfluous assumption that one or both of the instruments “knows everything to be done.”
Our experimental protocols are based on negative feedback, i.e., control systems. So we do, in acquiring evidence with the aim of falsifying a theory, have the advantage of assigning strict causality and interpreting effects as having preceded causes. Scientists know that no theory can ever be proved (only falsified); theories do have relative strengths (Popper called it verisimilitude, or “truth likeness”) according to the number of attempts to falsify that have failed. The Standard Model of particle physics, e.g., is the most successful theory in the history of science.
2. I’ll take a stab at formally defining causality: “An ordered relation (i) between nonempty sets (ii) by which physically real objects (iii) can be differentiated from measured results (iv).”
(i) ordered relation: a b
(ii) nonempty: containing energy/mass; e.g., the vacuum energy of space
(iii) physically real: “ … independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions.” (Einstein) E.g., spacetime is physically real in general relativity.
(iv) measured results: objectively agreeable standards. E.g., Einstein cited clocks to measure time and rods to measure space, and then showed that there is no preferred frame of observer reference by which clocks and rods agree. (The mathematical transform that you seem to have a problem with, only shows that observers in different inertial frames still live in the same universe even when their description of events differs.)
Now I want to illustrate the power of this shared scientific fantasy – if you want to call it that, it won’t bother me – through something that has transpired in the past few days.
And Brendan, I hope you’re listening in, because you will know what I’m talking about, through your association with Renate Loll. I would hope that you take this message back to her.
It happens that I was led (for reasons that originated in this FQXI forum but no longer matter) to read a July, 2008 article in Scientific American, “The Self Organizing Quantum Universe,” by Jan Ambjorn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz and Loll (AJL). It’s a really quite nice article on competing theories of quantum gravity, and I would suggest you read it, James, because it directly addresses the physicist’s treatment of cause and effect. (You can find a PDF linked on Prof. Loll’s site under
press .)
In brief, the authors found through computer simulation of their model (causal dynamical triangulations) that what they call the spectral dimension of quantum spacetime returned a value of 4.02 (+/- 0.1). AJL interpret this value as the derivation of the observed number of dimensions (4) from first principles. What struck me, though, is that I derive this same value on the 3 dimensional shell of 4 dimensional spacetime by a pencil and paper method (also from first principles) to an exact 4.0229 … , suggesting that AJL’s error term is too large by one order of magnitude, and the value never actually dips below 4 (there is no error term in my calculation). We can be sure we are talking about the same thing, because our principle method of investigation – self organization – is the same. [*] What I mean is, AJL and I start with the identical hypothesis, “If dimensions are self organized in nature, these consequences follow …” I expect that AJL would be even more ecstatic if there were no error term in their simulation, if the result were exactly 4. I think it cannot be, however, and that the excess fraction – let’s call it the epsilon term – is the fraction of length 1 in n-dimensional hyperspace that accounts for gravity and for the low baryonic matter content in our universe. The lower the epsilon term, the weaker the gravity—and we know that gravity in our universe is very, very weak in comparison to the 3 known forces.
My point for this discussion is that however our models and calculations and interpretations differ, if objective reality exists, we come up with the same terms and the same story. Whether one thinks this is fantasy or not is highly irrelevant; scientists don’t start out assuming inaccessible “reality” or inaccessible “causes”. One simply adopts the language of objective communication, and compares notes with others who speak the same language. The precision with which our guesses and conjectures and theories match results –whether mathematical or empirical – is dependent on the precision of our mathematics, which gets better all the time.
Science, including the mathematical sciences, is the most democratic enterprise on Earth. There is no priesthood, no “proper” way to think about or approach a problem. Whatever we can imagine within the changing boundaries of our commonly objective language is fair game, with the one constraint that what we imagine does not contradict what we already know.
And we are very strict about what it _means_ to “know.” One knows by measured correspondence of theory to result. The result may be mathematical (as in AJL’s computer simulation) or it may be observational (I think Einstein lensing was mentioned here). The physical correspondence is of course the more convincing.
At any rate, when we say we know, we mean that we can show how we know.
Can you demonstrate how you know what you claim to know, James? If not, you are not doing science – as was my assertion from the beginning.
[*] (If one is interested, my site is linked on this same blog Apr 7, 2010 @ 14:28. The derived physical value is found in S3.3, p. 36 of my unpublished paper, “On Breaking the Time Barrier,” and the mathematical derivation is in my NECSI ICCS 2006 conference paper, “Self Organization in Real & Complex Analysis.”)
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Tom,
I looked up Causal Dynamical Triangulation, and was pleased (ok, a little giddy), that causality makes the tessellation of tetrahedrons, slices of space, in time ordered segments, work; they reproduce 3D space + time. Inside of these tessellated building blocks can have more dimensions, but the edges preserve causality. THIS KILLS TIME TRAVEL!!!
Any further speculation about other universes HAS TO proceed as variations of 4D space-time. I've been down this road for a while now. This is my algorithm:
1. Multiple universes exist, all of which must be non interacting (weakly coupled)4D space-times.
2. I can vary the speed of light and the Planck constant.
3. Each universe has its own imaginary time line which results in its own charges, light, electric field and quantum mechanics.
4. I define a set of orthogonal imaginary time lines, one for each universe.
By the way, in a debate I had with someone over the impossibility of time travel, I had to convince them that Determinism cannot be 100% by pointing to the randomly picked eigenstates of an electron. Ten thousand identical Big bangs will evolve ten thousand different ways. Therefore, time travel cannot depend upon determinism. Free will and choice exist. Electrons have free will, but make purely stupid choices.
What is intelligence? Let's start with: what is stupidity? I'll resit the urge to discuss politics. Electrons have the free will to choose their eigenstate. They are, however, too stupid to known what they want or follow instructions. However, multi-cellular organisms with a brain stem and some intelligence, instincts and memory can make some fairly intelligent, perhaps even self serving, choices. Liberals fit this description (oops!).
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear James,
I don't like Lawrence's politics either. If ignorance is bliss, then Lawrence has mastered the art of philosophical misery.
However, I like Lawrence. I think he might turn out to be correct when his tessellation approach is combined with causal dynamical triangulation.
Dear Lawrence,
I don't want to hurt your feelings and I am sorry for it. But your very negative philosophical views are like a tumor that needs to be destroyed. Specifically, (1) the idea that the human race will die out and
(2) that you know for a FACT that God does not exist.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 19:54 GMT
Tom,
"I am waiting for your definition of cause, because we have nothing scientifically objective to talk about without it."
You do not get to define what is scientifically objective for me.
To me what you appear to be saying is that: If my definition does not fit with your philosophical preference, then it cannot be scientific. Your philosophical preference is yours not mine. I am not contained or governed by it. If you wish to think mechanically, then so be it. Science is the study of the real universe and that universe gave birth to intelligent life.
You already received my definition of cause. Here is the point that you do not understand: Making up mechanical causes for the purpose of satisfying ones philosophical preference is not superior to acknowledging that the universe knows what to do. Obviously the universe knows what to do. Intelligence is the most important property displayed by the universe. It is not made up.
If your question is: What does it mean to say that the universe knows what to do? Then the answer is: It knows what to do for the the real reasons, whatever their true nature, that we do not yet understand because theoretical physicist do not want to look for them. They want, instead, to believe in their own imaginary, made up, causes. If you would stop obstructing scientific learning, than perhaps we could progress beyond mechanics. I chose to not to be a cosmic mechanic.
Do you have a cause that you can show is real? Define it in your own terms.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 20:02 GMT
Tom,
"While we're waiting, .."
My time is not set by you. By the way, who is the we in we're? You are on your own for now.
"...allow me to ask how one would know that particles in Brownian motion are not intelligent?"
Those particles are not human. They are, however, some of the same particles that we are formed from. They could become an active part of intelligent life. They will do their part to fullfill the goal of the universe. They could be a part of life. They could return back to the earth. Then, it is possible for them to again become part of intelligent life and again do their part to fullfill the goal of the universe.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 20:09 GMT
Tom,
"I can't deny taking offense..."
Take offense all you want, it matters not to me.
"...that one feels free to proclaim knowledge, without ever objectively defining one's terms, or providing examples."
So far, you are describing yourself.
I will answer the rest of your message when it fits in with my time.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 20:48 GMT
Tom,
"I can’t deny taking offense that one feels free to proclaim knowledge, without ever objectively defining one’s terms, or providing examples. If this is the way to truth, give me fantasy any day. A shared fantasy, after all, is at least objective; a solipsistic version of truth allows no objective knowledge at all."
Ok you adopt allegiance to shared fantasy. That does fit with theoretical physics. I will keep moving through your message.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 21:15 GMT
Tom,
1. In the first place, scientists usually refer to "causality" rather than "cause." The reason is that cause implies an ordered historical relation between cause and effect that is irreversible. Physically, we know—because of the phenomenon of positive feedback—that this general statement is false. A common example is the feedback between microphone and amplifier; there is in principle no way to determine the cause of that disagreeable squeal that you hear. The closed loop of effects merely assumes a cause, without being burdened with the superfluous assumption that one or both of the instruments "knows everything to be done."
It makes no difference whether or not there is feedback of any kind. History has nothing to do with explaining cause. Everything that happens is caused immediately including feedback. Feedback knows what to do in either direction. What is the first cause of any effect that you wish to educate me on?
You just keep after my statement "knows everything to be done." but at some point you are going to have to explain how anything gets done.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 21:36 GMT
tom,
Ok, let's go right to the end of this theoretical, mathematical snow job.
"And we are very strict about what it _means_ to 'know.' One knows by measured correspondence of theory to result. ..."
This is no answer as to what cause is. Why is the correspondence of theory to results?
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 21:49 GMT
In my last message I meant to type 'Why is there..." instead of 'Why is the...'
My too-fast typing may be a sign that I am impatient to read real answers. That is my problem, but Tom, if you please, explain what is cause? What is mass? What is electric charge? How do they do what they do? Please give a description of their nature? I am not insisting that they be human. I am asking for you to please explain the nature of your cause in either instance. Is there meaning to 'dumb' causes? What is that meaning? If there is no meaning, then how do theoretical phyhsicists define meaningfulness? I do know that meaningfulness exists. By the way, what do you think about my comments regarding f=ma? Am I being unscientific?
James
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear James,
I'm not sure that there really are answers to all of your questions. At the end of the day, most physicists committed to these paradigms (such as Newtonian Gravity, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Optics, Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, The Standard Model, Thermal Physics, Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Statistical Mechanics, The Big Bang, ...) because they seem to work.
My answers are different from everyone else's answers. Quantum numbers in unseen dimensions determine these properties of mass, charge, etc. Gravity is the strangest of all. What is the origin of mass? Why does it seem to *DEFY* quantization? Quantum mechanics is pretty fundamental, isn't it? What is the origin of gravity? I think that gravity originates on the 5-brane of Hyperspace, and that information is *SOMEHOW* transferred to our spacetime via observed geometrical effects. I think that particle properties are stored as multi-dimensional conserved quantum numbers. These fundamental particles are not *INTELLIGENT* enough to remember their properties - they simply *MUST* keep track of their conserved quantum numbers - they have *NO* *OTHER* *CHOICE*. In this manner, I think of these unseen branes as 'computer memory' that tracks these conserved quantities, and performs interactions that likewise conserve these quantum numbers.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 22:10 GMT
James,
Jesus. Do I have to reply to serial posts? So be it. I already hate myself for being goaded into this anyway.
You wrote, "You do not get to define what is scientifically objective for me."
So what? You're not talking about science anyway.
"Science is the study of the real universe and that universe gave birth to intelligent life."
And by intelligent life, you mean ...?
"You already received my definition of cause."
??? "Knows everything to be done"? Okay.
"What does it mean to say that the universe knows what to do? Then the answer is: It knows what to do for the the real reasons, whatever their true nature, that we do not yet understand because theoretical physicist do not want to look for them."
You're anti-science. Got it. Now what?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 22:25 GMT
Tom,
You are not goaded into anything. You may take a hike anytime you wish. But if you do not give straight answers, then you lose scientifically.
"You're anti-science. Got it. Now what?"
Whoa! Ok I understand now, you are authorized by yourself to make judgements without answering questions. Unfortunately for you I do not get discouraged by 'Jesus' type answers.
Please explain how electric charge works? How does it do what is does? Is it just magic that we are given by the mechanical fixtures defined by theoretical physics? If you prefer, then just give the scientific answer for how mass attracts mass? Does mass tells mass what to do? What does 'tells' mean? Do you have answers that do not skirt around the issue? Please get to the point. What is cause?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 22:45 GMT
James,
You win. I read through all your postings. Whatever it is you're into, it doesn't resemble any science I know. So enjoy it and have a good life. I said my piece, and I'll let it go at that.
I will respond to one thing you said: "... at some point you are going to have to explain how anything gets done."
My opinion: the key concept is self organization, assisted by multi-scale variety. You won't understand this and won't investigate it; however, I hardly think it matters.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 22:59 GMT
"My opinion: the key concept is self organization, assisted by multi-scale variety. You won't understand this and won't investigate it; however, I hardly think it matters."
I understand that you do not understand that I understand. By self organization you mean it just happens. Best wishes in your search for theoretical science. I prefer empirical science. If you ever learn what cause is, please come back and let me know because that would be real scientific learning.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 23:01 GMT
Tom pretty much sums it up. James is not talking about proper science. Seriously. just because QED does not tell us how life or intelligent life emerged in the universe does not invalidate it. We should not expect elementary particles to carry "germs" of consciousness.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 23:15 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
So the 'we' materialized: Tom pretty much did not answer scientific questions,
"Tom pretty much sums it up. James is not talking about proper science. Seriously. just because QED does not tell us how life or intelligent life emerged in the universe does not invalidate it. We should not expect elementary particles to carry "germs" of consciousness."
Seriously Dr, Crowell, I am talking about empirical knowledge. Are you saying that empirical knowlege is inferior to theoretical speculations?
"...just because QED does not tell us how life or intelligent life emerged in the universe does not invalidate it. ..."
Of course it does. It must answer the most important scientific question about the nature of the universe: What is the cause of intelligence? If it cannot do this, then it is conjecture. I do admit that it can serve as a useful instrument for solving mechanical type problems.
"...We should not expect elementary particles to carry "germs" of consciousness."
So long as 'germs' means the fundamental origin then, yes we should.
If you think that intelligence can originate from the mechanical properties of theoretical physics, then please give at least the first step in this event.
James
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear James,
I don't want to sound like we are 'teaming up' on you. I am trying to give partial answers to questions that have unsatisfactory answers.
Earlier I talked about conserved quantum numbers being the method that fundamental particles 'remember' their quantum numbers. This implies determinism, and an absence of free will. As a Southern Baptist myself, I am aware of the theological debates regarding free will versus determinism. In my opinion, Sin and Grace must be personal choices (Free Will) or the Crucifiction and Resurrection of Christ is unnecessary and in vain. I am not willing to accept this idea, therefore I suggest that determinism rules fundamental particles via conserved quantum numbers, but we have an emmergence of 'free will' and 'self' due to defects in the manner in which those quantum numbers are conserved. Perhaps some randomness is introduced by quantum mechanical probabilities or measurement error (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) or thermal/statistical fluctuations. However it happens, self/intelligence/soul/consciousness/the dream AND FREE WILL emmerges from an apparently deterministic system. Weird huh? Did we just nuke QED or Psychology?
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 02:55 GMT
Consciousness is not my bailiwick, so I leave the problem of how consciousness emerged to others --- probably later in this century. I should think finding out the origin of life, which is not an aspect of evolution which presupposes life (eukaryotic life at that), needs to be worked out first. Maybe there are pre-biotic signatures on Mars which could be found by sufficiently sophisticated robotic probes. But that lack of knowledge does not somehow invalidate physics, any more than pre-Darwinian science invalidated Newtonian physics because the relatedness of life had not been figured out.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 04:41 GMT
The debate on whether consciousness is merely particle-mechanic with free-will OR intelligence and free will have a "special" comes down right on what we know about the electron. You see, the electron is a quantum particle. That means that it behaves quantumly, not classically. That means that we can never know which eigenstate it will choose. We have no idea if it chooses at random or if there exists some other "special" reality that physicists cannot gain access to.
That is why I call electrons the lowest level of intelligence, which is total stupidity. They can't make rational judgements because they have no memory or reasoning. However, they do have free-will. More accurately, we have no knowledge of anything that tells them which eigenstate to pick.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 09:16 GMT
Lawrence,
I think Gell-Mann's conjecture is the rational model -- consciousness exists on a continuum from quarks to jaguars.
No external cause is necessary. James's assertion about a hierarchy of intelligence is demonstrably false.
When we actually undertake to define "consciousness," "intelligence" and even "life" -- we don't find anything at the center of the onion. The dynamic relations among self organized elements, combined with feedback effect, provide everything we require to outline the behavior of what we call conscious, intelligent life. A priori assumptions of higher intelligence imparting a cause are superfluous.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 09:45 GMT
Physics, and in fact science itself, fall short of ever being able to measure or validate everything that exists. FOUNDATIONALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, physics cannot destroy God or the soul because it cannot fully account for the quantum nature of the electron. Physics models cannot pinch off or exclude the soul from the physical body because of the Uncertainty Principle.
The brain operates of the edge of chaos theory. If ALL inputs are accounted for, then the system (consciousness) is deterministic, albeit complicated. However, there are about 10^23 electrons in the brain that can influence consciousness. Since every one of those is subject to the Uncertainty principle, then ALL inputs cannot be accounted for.
Quantum mechanics is a major fundamental subject in physics that is all about how we cannot predict exact locations and momentum of electrons. If science can't predict it, does that mean that it fundamentally cannot be predicted by anyone or anything? Nobody knows.
If anything could exist within this region of uncertainty, then it might be detectable by a human brain and nervous system. If people have been experiencing ghosts, spirits, and God(s) for as long as their have been human beings to talk about it. Using Occam's razor, is it all just hopefulness or survival instinct? Is it possible that someone's nervous system could be stimulated by electric field disturbances in the Uncertain nature of physics?
It can't be determined. Therefore, physicists and the physics community only have opinions about the subject. If a physicist says that he knows that God doesn't exist, he is lying.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 10:09 GMT
Jason,
You wrote, "If a physicist says that he knows that God doesn't exist, he is lying."
So when someone says they know that God does exist, they are also lying, right?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 12:44 GMT
Ian,
The more I think on it, the more bugged I am about this exchange with James. I find no common ground of communication.
Apparently, you found something "relevant and potentially useful." Relevant and potentially useful to what? To science? Then what in science am I missing to which these questions would apply?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 17:55 GMT
Tom,
If someone says they know that God does exist, then they are ... a preacher.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 17:58 GMT
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 18:13 GMT
Tom,
What do you think about the interpretation that electrons have freewill by virtue of their ability to choose which eigenstate they will pick? Physicists cannot discern any phenomena that makes the electron (or photon) choose its eigenstate. So the electron becomes a unit of free will.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 01:15 GMT
Consciousness migth have some element of Godel's thoerem to it, at least as some finite cut-off approximation. We might not then be able to define consciousness because that requires getting a Godel loop to cut itself --- so to speak. I have indicated that at the Planck scale it is possible there is nothing but self-referential chaos, where structure at larger scalse exist ultimately as accidents. This is what might be called a multiverse level V, or something more fundamental than Tegmark's ideas. This is similar to Chaitan's idea with mathematics. So this Planck scale self-referential vacuum or "sea" is then similar to consciousness if Godel's thoerem is somehow its basis. It is also something one might be tempted to call God --- though a very different idea of God than what religion portrays.
I don't know if science will ever plumb those depths in any meaningful way. Maybe we will get some idea of what consciousness is by mid 21st century. I can't say whether we will get that deep into our understanding on the cosmological level.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 01:49 GMT
Jason,
I don't know if electrons have free will. I do know that there is no way in principle to demonstrate that they don't.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 02:12 GMT
Dear Tom and Lawrence,
By asking this question, I am robbing the skeptics and athiests of their certainty that God does not exist. My personal experiences of God are enough to know/believe that God might not be so similar to that which is portrayed by religion. Then again, there is one Christian I know who suggested that I had experiences with something that was not the Christian God. I will only say that my intentions are to be helpful and good.
Don't believe if you don't want to.
Believe if you do want to.
But science won't give you knowledge in either direction. That statement is not a euphemism. The Uncertainty Principle exposes every one of the electrons in our brain and nervous system to an "ocean" of mystery about what the universe really is. So I choose to believe in God, it works for me.
Believe what you will.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 02:30 GMT
Do electrons have free will? Here is a better question: can electrons conduct free will? Can electrons conduct signals of any kind between the physical universe and some ghostly universe? It is impossible to dismiss the possibility.
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 03:16 GMT
Dear Friends,
Did I lead us off topic? If so, then I apologize. James was worrying about the origin of intelligence. I am also interested in the origin of self and free will. Although electrons are 'intelligent' enough to remember their properties/quantum numbers, I'm not sure that I would actually attribute properties of intelligence or free will on them, although random factors may be introduced through quantum and/or thermal effects. As such, I consider these properties of self/intelligence/ free will to be emergent properties. However, I think we have strayed closer to Metaphysics (something that may never be proven or disproven - It isn't right, it isn't even wrong!), and farther from Physics.
Jason - I have also had a 'Christian' experience, and I know others who have had 'Christian' or 'demonic' experiences. Among my friends, the number of these incidents is similar to the number of 'alien' encounters. Perhaps, Georgina is correct and these are bad dreams... If it was a dream, it was, by far, the weirdest dream I have ever had. Some day I may share experiences with you via e-mail, but I would not want something as personal as that event to get on a blog.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 04:43 GMT
Hi Ray,
I guess I'm partly to blame for getting us off topic, too. I was trying to argue that brain activity and the nervous system fundamentally depend upon electrons and electric fields, from an electro-chemical point of view, as well as a nerve fiber/voltage point of view.
If you all insist that quantum uncertainty is pure absolute randomness that cannot be used by anything supernatural, paranormal, etc., then you fail to see make the connection. As a result, then we are all biomechanical machines without a soul. We have no soul because there is no connection that is possible to a soul or anything that exists beyond this world. I look at the electron and the Uncertainty Principle and I see a clear connection.
Can anyone think of a better way to interface with a soul?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Ray,
Perhaps the paranormal is not a bunch of phony crap. Perhaps bad dreams and sleep paralysis are phony answers. Why is it that we can accept the idea of virtual photons, but the idea that grandma whose been dead for ten years can float by as a spirit and trigger a memory and a feeling of connection is somehow an overactive imagination?
Let me remind you again. The electrons of our nervous system are literally exposed to the Uncertainty principle. If a ghost floats by a coffee cup, the electrons of the coffee cup might interact with it, but the coffee cup doesn't have a nervous system or a brain to be able to say, "Hey, grandma just floated by!"
Occam's razor! Which makes more sense? Are human beings just inherently ignorant little biomachines with imagination and fantasies about God, spirits, demons, dead relatives OR these things exist as virtual manifestations of the quantum universe. Occam's razor, which is it?
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Ray,
"...I suggest that determinism rules fundamental particles via conserved quantum numbers, but we have an emmergence of 'free will' and 'self' due to defects in the manner in which those quantum numbers are conserved. Perhaps some randomness is introduced by quantum mechanical probabilities or measurement error (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) or thermal/statistical fluctuations. However it happens, self/intelligence/soul/consciousness/the dream AND FREE WILL emmerges from an apparently deterministic system. ..."
I am interested in what you and other physicists think about the existence of life, intelligence and free will.
My
website is a lengthy examination of how free will might arise. That is its main purpose. My last essay sums up my view on the origin of free will. What makes it relevent for discussion in a physics forum is that accounting for free will is what required a review and revision of the fundamentals of physics theory. I will write something short to give my viewpoint in a message to be posted here.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Jason and James,
Although I agree that topics such as intelligence/ self/ free will/ spirit/ soul/ consciousness are interesting, they really have nothing to do with Garrett Lisi's E8 Theory, nor would most physicists even consider these issues relevant to Physics - unless we could truly relate these concepts to observable Quantum Hyperspace Physics. We casually use Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but what is its true origin? Why do we call it a 'Principle' rather than a 'Theory'? And I am listening to the E-Infinity people. I think their idea is slightly defective, but close. My business and personal life has been busy for the past month (daughter's birthday, inventory, end of fiscal year) and the next couple of weeks appear to be very busy as well (personal taxes, energy-star rebates). Perhaps I can start getting caught up with my reading and my ideas in May. Until then, I'd rather not disclose anything new.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 17:49 GMT
Ray,
Well, at least we've finally gotten to the admission that we've not been talking about science in these dozens of posts.
Free will? Another superfluous assumption to physical science. If the origin of free will were entangled with the origin of matter, there would be no avoiding a supernatural cause for matter, since free will -- as a primary principle -- cannot be an emergent property of self organized physical systems. The closest we can come is in the controlling effects of negative feedback imposed on the system by cooperating subsystems.
Of course, this supernatural origin has been James's underlying assumption all along. I've simply been trying to get him to admit it.
There is so little room for a creator god in the physics we know that the probability is practically zero. So naturally, James sets about to write some physics of his own.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 18:11 GMT
Tom,
Yes, we have finally gotten down to the issue. Science cannot incorporate all elements of reality. Quantum mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle are proof that science falls short of being able to fully and completely account for everything in the physical universe. If the totality of the universe was classical and predictable, physics would be able to make that claim.
For five hundred years, science has tried to rid God from the universe. Physics has metaphorically closed almost every door in the universe, except one. The uncertainty of quantum particles. It is the back door. It is the unavoidable mystery.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 18:22 GMT
Tom,
"...Of course, this supernatural origin has been James's underlying assumption all along. I've simply been trying to get him to admit it. ..."
Tom you understand nothing yet about my views. You are too blinded by your own. Intelligence is not supernatural. It is a real property of the universe. It is the most primary property. Everything that you think you know about the universe results from your interpretation of information. That information is always experienced locally. There is no distance nor continuity in your reception of that data. You add those things when your mind draws the picture for you. If information and intelligence were the only two things that existed, we would not be able to tell the difference from the universe we see.
There is nothing for me to admit to you. You see nothing clearly yet. We can skip the intelligence talk; however, your universe has no intelligence in it and is incapable of causing it. You do not get intelligence for free just by declaring that it happened. Of course it happened. The fact that it exists is evidence that you, through your scientific perspective, do not yet understand the nature of the universe. With regard to supernatural, your theoretical physics contains mostly unnatural properties. They are invented. They can be dropped and science would be better for it.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 20:47 GMT
James,
You talk much about "intelligence" without ever offering an objective definition. You simply declare by fiat that intelligence is primary to the universe. Therefore, if the origin of intelligence is axiomatic, it is endowed supernaturally, if you also have to insist that "cause" is primary. Pick your poison: intelligence or cause; either intelligence causes cause or cause causes intelligence. Like all religious writings, yours are circular and nonanalytical: "Assume that the universe is intelligent, and all else follows."
You're selling. I'm not buying.
The simple fact of adaptation-- the empirical fact, that term that you also abuse so often -- defines all that we yet know about intelligence in the self organized universe. Complex adaptive systems lie at the further end of a continuum of intelligence.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 21:33 GMT
Hi Tom,
"You talk much about "intelligence" without ever offering an objective definition. ..."
Intelligence is the ability to discern meaning from information.
"...You simply declare by fiat that intelligence is primary to the universe. ...
You ought to know about declaring by fiat, that is your most prominent type of declaration. It just so happens that I am not...
view entire post
Hi Tom,
"You talk much about "intelligence" without ever offering an objective definition. ..."
Intelligence is the ability to discern meaning from information.
"...You simply declare by fiat that intelligence is primary to the universe. ...
You ought to know about declaring by fiat, that is your most prominent type of declaration. It just so happens that I am not vulnerable to grand pronouncements that have no scientific substance. By the way, Everything that you think you know about the universe is the result of your intelligence reaching conclusions about information.
"...Therefore, if the origin of intelligence is axiomatic, it is endowed supernaturally, ..."
NO! If intellligence is primary then it is primary. That is a scientific fact. Please explain why the existence of intelligence is supernatural? Presumably, you think it is supernatural, because the real universe is provably dumb. I pointed out to you that your guesses about the universe being dumb and mechanical are supernatural. Now I will correct myself, they are sub-natural. They are man(or woman)made out of mental-plastic.
"...if you also have to insist that "cause" is primary. Pick your poison: intelligence or cause; either intelligence causes cause or cause causes intelligence. ..."
The short answer to this is easy. No one knows what cause is, including you. You cannot say, except by declaring by fiat that your dumb universe is the source of our intelligent universe. Wait a minute, I almost missed the opportunity to point out quite clearly that you are insisting that cause is dumb. I have already indicated to you that your causes are unnatural and should and hopefully will be discarded for the sake of science.
"...Like all religious writings, yours are circular and nonanalytical: "Assume that the universe is intelligent, and all else follows."
And, declare that the universe is dumb and only mechanical dumbness follows. Unfortunately for your argument I do not have a religion. I am analyzing, by scientific means, this universe. Not your universe. Yours consists of objects bumping around into each other. Maybe connecting together, but for no intelligent purpose and for no intelligent result.
"...The simple fact of adaptation-- ..."
Adaptation occurs by accepting or destroying designs of life after those designs have occurred by means that have nothing to do with environment.
"..the empirical fact, that term that you also abuse so often..."
Or, perhaps that you are abusing so often.
"...-- defines all that we yet know about intelligence in the self organized universe. ..."
Self-organized! In other words local magic that occurs for no previous purpose. You still do not reocgnize that dumbnes cannot generate intelligence. Even lower intelligence cannot give rise to higher intelligence. Illogic cannot produce logic.
"...Complex adaptive systems lie at the further end of a continuum of intelligence. ..."
Another snow job here. You want to explain how any system, adaptive or otherwise, acquires intelligence? What is the nearer end of the continuum of intelligence?
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 22:24 GMT
Tom,
I decided that I should have replied differently to:
"Extra dimensions do have an objective construction, from first principles of geometry."
If your point is that the physics theories, that go beyond the number of dimensions that we observe in our universe, are mathematically sound. I agree. Unfortunately, being mathematically sound is not validation of being real. It depends upon what it is that you are counting. Are you counting the effects of real properties? I think that 'real' means that those properties actually belong to the observable universe. If not, well then, what is your limit to adding on imaginary properties? Is there any mathematical limit to the support that the principles of geometry will lend to the advancement of imaginative properties? My point is that the principles of geometry do not pertain truthwise to the properties you invent and use genometry on. Geometry is a mathematical tool. Mathematics is a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Since the universe is clearly not mechanical, meaning really dumb, the mathematics can take you only as far as a cosmic mechanic wants to go.
James
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 23:30 GMT
James,
You say that the universe is "...clearly not mechanical." In fact, it clearly is. Whatever you take as the basis for your claim, is certainly not from science.
From classical mechanics to statistical mechanics to quantum mechanics, we are adept at modeling phenomena that correspond to real measurements in the real world.
No, our models don't impart meaning. We infer meaning from them. That doesn't imply, however, that you may change the models so that they fit whatever meaning you imagine to be true a priori, simply because you personally believe that your meaning supersedes physics.
Science allows us to constrain meaning so that we may objectively comprehend our universe. "As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." You can be sure that he meant objectively comprehensible, because Einstein had contempt for what he called "mere personal belief."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 23:48 GMT
James,
You write, " ...Everything that you think you know about the universe is the result of your intelligence reaching conclusions about information."
And you mean by "information ..."?
Your assertions that "intelligence does not come from dumbness" is absolutely falsified in principle and empirically, by self assembly, self organization, self organized criticality, evolution and more.
You are no empiricist, James.
Of course, you don't actually give an objective definition of intelligence, so you can lend it any meaning you wish to support your personal beliefs; there is nothing in your philosophy to differentiate intelligence from God. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It just isn't science.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 00:03 GMT
Tom,
"You say that the universe is "...clearly not mechanical." In fact, it clearly is. Whatever you take as the basis for your claim, is certainly not from science. ..."
You mean it is clearly not from the scientific perspective that you have adopted. Now for a different perspective. Dumb mechanical properties cannot generate intelligence.
"From classical mechanics to statistical mechanics, we are adept at modeling phenomena that correspond to real measurements in the real world. ..."
Yes, measurements of patterns in changes of velocity. That is the basis of mechanical interpretation.
"...No, our models don't impart meaning. We infer meaning from them. ..."
You bet you do. You infer meaning from symbols. See my previous message.
"...That doesn't imply, however, that you may change the models so that they fit whatever meaning you imagine to be true a priori, simply because you personally believe that your meaning supersedes physics. ..."
I don't change models. I throw them out based upon their unworthiness. This a prior remark that keeps arising applies to you also. In other words, you ideas about cause are artificial. You simply prefer them because they arfe mechanical. And, because they are mechanical, they are well suited to fit mathematical equations. So, if mathematics is your guide, then you cannot arise above the level of cosmic mechanic.
"...Science allows us to constrain meaning so that we may objectively comprehend our universe. ..."
Your science constrains meaning to the point where only meaningless mechanical causes and effects can occur.
"As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." You can be sure that he meant objectively comprehensible, because Einstein had contempt for what he called "mere personal belief."
He ought to know. Many of his remarks were self serving to his own personal beliefs. His theories are wrong. The patterns of empirical data upon which they are based are correct. The clue that he forced unreality upon that data is that he required the use of transform equations. If he had a real theory with real logical meaing, then he could have derived it step by step up from the fundamentals. Transform equations may apply to real situations; however, they force a mathematical relationship between what we see and what we think, whether or not what we think is real. In other words, transform equations are risky mathematics. Einstein should have moved to get rid of them as soon as possible. I say he did not because he could not. He could not because he believed foremost in his theories and his theories did not allow for it. That is an easy trap for any of us to fall into.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 00:20 GMT
Tom,
"You write, " ...Everything that you think you know about the universe is the result of your intelligence reaching conclusions about information." ...
...And you mean by "information ..."?"
Photons.
"...Your assertions that "intelligence does not come from dumbness" is absolutely falsified in principle and empirically, by self assembly, self organization, self organized criticality, evolution and more. ..."
Lets get this straight. You define the universe as being dumb. Then you recognize that the universe gave birth to intelligent life. Therefore, you conclude that dumbness gives rise to intelligent life. There is another possibly explanation. It is that your dumb interpretation is wrong. I will repeat then that dumbness cannot give rise to intelligence. Even lower intelligence cannot give rise to higher intelligence. Physicists do not get the property of intelligence for free. That is why they struggle to find it in the weirdness of their unexplanable theoretical properties of the unvirse.
"...You are no empiricist, James. .."
I am a real empiricist. What I am not is a theoretical empiricist.
"...Of course, you don't actually give an objective definition of intelligence, ..."
Yes I did and especially for you.
"...so you can lend it any meaning you wish to support your personal beliefs..."
And yours.
"...there is nothing in your philosophy to differentiate intelligence from God. ..."
I merely recognize that intelligence is a natural property of the universe.
"...Not that there's anything wrong with that. It just isn't science. ..."
Except that I am giving scientific arguments to offset your grand pronouncements which I say just aren't science.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 10:17 GMT
James,
You said, "Dumb mechanical properties cannot generate intelligence."
In fact, they demonstrably do. You seem to have adapted a technique from contemporary politics, "Deny, deny, deny." Then continue with more hot air. I'm a rationalist, James.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 10:25 GMT
James,
If photons are identical to information, then information isn't physical, because photons are massless.
Once again, your claim to be an empiricist is dashed against a cold fact, and nothing you say to follow can be consistently true.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 10:44 GMT
Dear James and Tom,
During an MRI I had a while back, I got to experience the "consciousness" of the magnetic fields that were passing through my brain. Yes, I know this kind of talk is not a way to build credibility, but the experience was still interesting.
The magnetic fields, as an intelligence, were very quick and methodical servants to their masters (the technicians). They had no free will, but they also didn't have any concept of desiring free will, or desiring anything. This consciousness was simply content to perform its work.
I think the point of this story would be that there probably is a part of the brain that can distinguish the subtle signals of a magnetic field, and map them to brain language in the form of personality traits and the recognition of intent.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 23:09 GMT
Tom,
""James, You said, "Dumb mechanical properties cannot generate intelligence.""
"In fact, they demonstrably do. ..."
What happened to the demonstration part?
James
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 23:16 GMT
""James, If photons are identical to information, then information isn't physical, because photons are massless.""
"Once again, your claim to be an empiricist is dashed against a cold fact, and nothing you say to follow can be consistently true."
"...nothing you say to follow can be consistently true."
Photons are not physical? What are they supernatural? I know more about mass than do you. You see, I don't carry along with me the errors of early physics theory. Anyway, it sounds like you would prefer to declare victory and end our discussion. Is this a correct interpetation of your message?
James
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 23:40 GMT
Dear Friends,
"Photons are massless" and therefore "not physical". Their rest mass is zero, but their relativistic mass is non-zero. What about mass-energy equivalence? What about the confinement of photons by Black Holes? I beg to differ. Thanks to the properties of light, electromagnetic waves and second quantization, photons seem as real to me as anything else. Maybe I can't throw a rock of photons at you, but I could blast you with a laser... Which would hurt the most?
I do agree with Tom that politics and religion should have nothing to do with physics, and realize that I am probably in the minority as a conservative Christian. I don't force those views on anyone else, and am not offended by counter views. As an American, I believe in freedom of speech, and enjoy conversing with all of you interesting people.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 01:16 GMT
Why wouldn't photons be physical? Electromagnetic energy can be dangerous at times. Of course it's physical.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 02:36 GMT
Ray, Photons are massless, but they are physical. Also the invariant interval in momentum-energy is m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (c = 1), which is the invariant. So if m = 0 in one frame it is the same in all frames. A two state system
|Ψ> = 1/sqrt{2}(|0> + e^{iθ}|1>)
is a perfect q-bit system, whether it pertains to a zero/one photon state or the occupation state of a fermion (0 or 1).
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 11:15 GMT
James,
""James, You said, "Dumb mechanical properties cannot generate intelligence.""
"In fact, they demonstrably do. ..."
What happened to the demonstration part?"
Are you reading anything I said? The list included evolution, chemical self assembly, self organization, self organized criticality. You want book references--are you entirely innocent of any of this research?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 11:29 GMT
Lawrence,
You wrote, "Ray, Photons are massless, but they are physical."
Of course they are. I don't know if James doesn't actually understand what I write, or if he is deliberately building straw men.
In any case, James gaves his definition of "information" as "photons." I said that if information and photons were identical, information could not be given a physical definition. That is simply a true statement. In the contemporary information-theoretic world, information is modeled on Shannon's communication theory, whose mathematics is identical to thermodynamic entropy.
Computer science has helped us a great deal toward understanding the behavior of information strings, and the interaction between program and substrate. I am into the first chapter of Vlatko Vedral's newly published book, Decoding Reality: the universe as quantum information. That's how information is ttreated in the physical world; if James wants to claim to be an empiricist, he has to live with it.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 13:00 GMT
Dear Friends,
I apologize for the typo. I meant to say "Photons are massless and therefore not physical?" (I accidentally left off the question mark.) I was responding to this strange conversation between James and Tom. It sounded as if James was trying to draw an analogy between information and photons, and Tom was trying to shoot that analogy down by calling photons non-physical. I say that photons are physical, and my examples are mass-energy equivalence, 2nd quantization, and supersymmetry.
This thread seems to be a collection of mis-understandings.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 16:21 GMT
To anyone interested,
The universe gave birth to intelligent life. The properties that caused this to occur must have existed from the beginning of the universe in potential form. All events that will ever occur in the universe must be provided for in the original properties of the universe. All events means both mechanical and intelligent activity. Nothing that is not provided for from the...
view entire post
To anyone interested,
The universe gave birth to intelligent life. The properties that caused this to occur must have existed from the beginning of the universe in potential form. All events that will ever occur in the universe must be provided for in the original properties of the universe. All events means both mechanical and intelligent activity. Nothing that is not provided for from the beginning can later develop.
It seems to me that it is mostly the case today, that it is not acceptable science to speak about intelligence having existed at the beginning of the universe, even in potential form. Rather, it had to have resulted from inanimate, purposeless, mechanical properties. It seems clear to me that this is impossible. But it also appears to be a firmly entrenched view. It appears to me that ideology plays a major role in that choice of view. Still, it is clear that we cannot show something of substance and say that it is fundamental intelligence.
We think that we do have objects of substance that prove our theoretical physics interpretations about fundamental, mechanical type properties. I think that this is a matter of opinion. All of these type answers are given to us by our own intelligence. Our full potential for understanding the operation of the universe is fully contained within our intelligence. The photons that are communicating to us do not bring intelligence with them. They are signs indicating to us that something changed.
We must formulate within our minds what change or changes might have occurred and select conclusions that make the most sense to us. That sense did not come to us from the outside world. Only photons came forward to communicate with us. The point is that everything that we could possibly conclude about meaning must already be available to us within ourselves before the signs arrive.
Theoretical physics does not deal with intelligence, even thought it stumbles around it trying to find ways to infer its existence from physics properties. It seems to me that the path to take is not to debate the nature of intelligence. It is clear that it exists. It is clear that there must be a cause for it. It is also clear that no one knows what cause is, whether defined mechanically or intelligently. I go so far as to say that the all conclusions by theoretical physicists about the nature of cause are not represented, in the real universe, by real causes.
I think than that the best approach to showing the lack of relevance of theoretical physics to intelligence is to first show that theoretical physics is not the stringent science that it appears to be. Correcting theoretical physics may allow for a later discussion of the evolution of intelligent life. The first challenge is to replace the disunity of current theoretical physics with theory, it can be mechanical, that demonstrates continuous unity right from its founding properties. We need to show that a single fundamental cause exists for all effects instead of inventing several theoretical causes. Those inventions are useful to us, but in the long run they are a great impediment to understanding the nature of the universe.
I gave, what I believe to be the first step in the process of bringing fundamental unity to theoretical physics. That step was my challenging the original interpretation of mass as a unique, indefinable property requiring its own unique indefinable units of measurement. That step is only the beginning of a great many changes that follow. If there is no interest in pursuing this line of thought, then I will return to my work of completing the development of this new theoretical approach. For years now, it has been apparent that this is the kind of work that must by done by an individual.
I have no interest in going in logical circles that rely upon unexplainable ideas and words that get traded off for other words. I also have no interest in trying to work with properties that I think are made necessary only because of earlier errors in theoretical physics. The need for such properties is a sign. It is a sign that we need to review our work. It isn't only photons that are mere signs. It is also our words. If the words cannot direct us to find meaning within ourselves, then they are only meaningless sounds and symbols. Finding scientific meaning means finding those ideas that refer correctly, and hopefully simply, to the properties of this universe.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 21:20 GMT
James,
If you think that the universe has intelligence, physics can't disprove that possibility. Real photons transmit real information and virtual photons transmit virtual information. But physics can't use its measurement equipment to explore the virtual universe. To do that, you need some kind of electrical system that can detect whatever you define to be intelligence.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
Hi Jason,
"If you think that the universe has intelligence, physics can't disprove that possibility. Real photons transmit real information and virtual photons transmit virtual information. But physics can't use its measurement equipment to explore the virtual universe. To do that, you need some kind of electrical system that can detect whatever you define to be intelligence."
Are you saying that intelligence is virtual as opposed to real? And, because of that intelligence must have only to do with a virtual universe? I do not agree with that. I was speaking about real photons interacting with our real particles. Those real photons need our real particles to decipher possible patterns discerned from the photon storm, attach meaning to those patterns, choose the most important patterns, and, create an image of the outside world best fitted to those patterns.
Have I understood you correctly?
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 22:58 GMT
Hi James,
I was raised as a Theosophist and higher spiritualism; then later trained in physics. Reconciling those two points of view is very difficult. I believe in God; the Theosophist definition. I believe that we have a soul. I believe that when we die, our bodies fall away; but some part of our personality and free will survives. Science has tried to remove all of such ideas for 500 years, and has failed to do so because of the uncertainty principle. If you've ever had an encounter with a spirit, something that has changed your life, there is a good chance that it was an intelligent entity, with free will, that can produce effects at the quantum level, sufficient to be able to produce his/her/it's thoughts using your brain and nervous system.
That's what I'm saying.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 23:41 GMT
I think George Carlin got some religion issues a bit nailed down. For his take on the 10 commandments you can hear him
here and see a shortened version of this with him on stage
here.
@T H Ray: Basically quantum information is a convex function(al) of the quantum states or the density matrix. The von Neumann theory pretty clearly connects quantum information with some Boltzmann and Shannon results in classical statistical mechanics and information theory.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 23:46 GMT
Jason Wolfe,
I do not see dualism in the nature of the universe. I think that any problem with reconciling theoretical physics and intelligence lies with the theories of theoretical physics. I am certain that free will exists. I see the universe as being deterministic, yet, through its real physical properties, it gives us an ability that very closely approximates that which we call free will. My repeated reference to our interpretation of photon information points to this conclusion. The seeds for learning about free will are there in that act.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 00:55 GMT
James Putnam,
You said,"I do not see dualism in the nature of the universe." I am surprised! I see nothing but dualism. I see compassion and intelligence at odds constantly. I see self advancement versus selflessness everywhere. Particle versus wave. bosons versus fermions. Men/women. Liberals and conservatives. Good versus evil. AC/DC... The list of dualities goes on forever. Life and death. Real and virtual. Logic and creativity. The interplay of opposites effects everything. Determinism versus free will. Both of these are true.
Personally, I think that physics is very accurate in its ability to measure things that are measurable. Some things exist but are not measurable. Believe me, I would love to make all of the dualities go away, but I don't want to lose my grip on reality.
So if you don't see duality, maybe your not seeking the Truth.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 01:23 GMT
Jason,
"...So if you don't see duality, maybe your not seeking the Truth. ...
Nice succinct refutation. Funny thing is that others might very well say something analogous for very different reasons. Truth does seem to be the baromometer. You have found satisfaction in your truth. I think that is great. I do have work of my own to do that differs somewhat from yours. Best wishes to you.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 02:04 GMT
James,
Not so fast! You just drop a little "tidbit" like that, at me? Since when is Truth about satisfaction??? If you feel like you have a Truth that is better than mine, then please, go ahead and beat me over the head with it. Truth is a duality of another kind. There is the truth that pleases us, inspires us. Then, there is the truth that obligates us. Where exactly is the "power" that is supposed to come from knowing the Truth? I have seen and felt the power of God to move men and women to take action. I have also seen and felt the temptation of the dark side. Immortality might yet be possible, but I don't understand how bliss can be achieved when knowledge of the suffering of others is all around us.
You just come here and say, "hope you find your truth satisfying. I'm busy now. Ta ta..." You think you know the TRUTH!!!??? I have been battering the hallowed halls of this physics forum for over a year now. Ask any physicist, and he will say that the prospects for solving any real human problems are unlikely; that the suffering will continue indefinitely, until death or extinction occurs. I have worked very hard to point out possibilities for new physics that may have been overlooked. I have already struck down two wrong assumptions that the physics community still embraces. First, space-time is not a time machine; what is done, is done, forever. Second, the occult is allowed to exist because quantum mechanics adds a built in Uncertainty to all measurements.
So James, run along now. You have work to do. Go find some satisfaction in whatever truth you hold dear.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 02:25 GMT
Dear Jason,
"...You think you know the TRUTH!!!??? I have been battering the hallowed halls of this physics forum for over a year now. ..."
I do not believe in theoretical physics. I do not believe in dualism. I see it as entirely unnecessary and misleading. I did not feel like debating against spiritualism or anything else other than theoretical physics. Even in that case, I think my time is best spent in challenging the fundamentals. That is probably simplistic compared to what you pursue. I think that your time would be better spent in winning points against those where the points would count for something. For example, I am not a theoretical physicist.
Perhaps I misunderstood. If your case is that theoretical physics is correct, and, that the universe contains mystical properties at a level beyond our reach, then, what difference does it make what I think? I said I do not believe that dualism is necessary. Dualism to me is the practice of separating mechanical aspects of the operation of the universe from intelligent aspects of the universe. Where is the justification for that practice? Is it because you believe in theoretical physics?
Do you believe in both mechanical theory and spiritualism? If you do, then I say best wishes to you in your efforts to promote that view. I am not a proponent of that view. I argue in defense of a single, unified universe. Hyper this and hyper that do not interest me. I think we should learn correctly about this universe first, before arguing over other possible universes. I am not refuting your viewpoint. I just am not pursuing that line of inquiry. Adding exclamation and question punctuation is not sufficient to change that.
James
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear James,
I'm actually not a theoretical physicist. It's just a fun hobby. There was a time long ago when I was a Liberal. I felt the world through my heart and was happy; I knew then that the evil in the world was caused by conservatives. But I wanted to understand why conservatives thought the way they thought. It was like eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. In doing so, I discovered Duality. I couldn't be happy anymore because the Liberal arguments that I believed in, had logical problems with them. It grew worse over the years as I watched the ideas of hope that I once believed, get shredded by the How's and Why's of reality.
As for theoretical physics, it's fun to try to figure out what the universe is up to. When you say, "I think we should learn correctly about this universe first,..." I don't know what we could change to correct our view now, other than the views I've shared. The universe obeys conservation of energy; this is why the equations work so well. They really need to add causality; they're already starting to do that.
But a single, unified universe? I seriously doubt that gravity and GR will ever be unified.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Jason,
"There was a time long ago when I was a Liberal. I felt the world through my heart and was happy; I knew then that the evil in the world was caused by conservatives. ..."
Well that is politics in a science forum. However, I will respond to it as I see fit. Some of us who attended college learn, somewhat later, more than what college had to offer. We find out that political views and political facts presented by many college professors are distorted views that represent their resentment for not being recognized and called upon by leaders of nations and the world for enlightenment; but, instead they find themselves repeatedly subjected to the views and actions of others who may be no more qualified, in their view, than having won elections to political office. It is elitism, and, it can be destructive.
"...As for theoretical physics, it's fun to try to figure out what the universe is up to. When you say, "I think we should learn correctly about this universe first,..." I don't know what we could change to correct our view now, other than the views I've shared. The universe obeys conservation of energy; this is why the equations work so well. They really need to add causality; they're already starting to do that. ..."
All competent theoretical physicists would ensure that their equations work well. That is not the problem. It is their practice of identifying parts of those equations as representing causes that causes their theories to be artificial. No one knows what cause is. Causes are only represented in any physics equation by the equals sign. That is my opinion. By the way, if you would like to explain something fundamental that is beyond my reproach, then tell me please what is the nature of the energy that is conserved?
One last point. Theoretical physicists are adding only theoretical causality. Theory is not empirical knowledge.
"...But a single, unified universe? I seriously doubt that gravity and GR will ever be unified. '
Since GR is supposed to explain gravity, would you please be more specific about what you mean by: "...I seriously doubt that gravity and GR will ever be unified."
It is the case that I am certain that relativity theory, whether special or general, is clearly wrong. What is it that you are saying?
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 03:53 GMT
Dear James,
I meant to say that gravity and Quantum Mechanics will never be unified. They are completely different kinds of phenomena.
The equations appear to be upheld by conservation laws. Energy is accounted for, always. You can't fool the universe by trying to more energy then is available. I look at these equations, and I think of my budget. There is only so much money. If I spend it, the money has to come from somewhere. The bankers most certainly don't forget.
By causality, I mean that time travel is impossible. You can't get the correct lottery numbers before they are generated, and you can't go back and kill Hitler. That's what I mean by causality.
In an earlier entry, I asked: what causes gravity? I still think the question deserves an answer.
But I disagree with you about Relativity. I think it's correct; but the physics community, and most people, still look at it and think it's a time machine. But it's not. Information is transmitted at the speed of light. If light has to go up or down an energy hill, the frequency will red shift or blue shift. This will give the appearance of clocks running slower than they should.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 04:34 GMT
Dear jason,
"The equations appear to be upheld by conservation laws. Energy is accounted for, always. You can't fool the universe by trying to more energy then is available. I look at these equations, and I think of my budget. There is only so much money. If I spend it, the money has to come from somewhere. The bankers most certainly don't forget. ..."
Except that I asked about the nature of energy?
"...By causality, I mean that time travel is impossible. ..."
I am certain that that is correct; however, no causality is explained by theoretical physics. No one knows what cause is.
"...In an earlier entry, I asked: what causes gravity? I still think the question deserves an answer. ..."
Sorry for not addressing that. However, since the answer would be contradictory to current fundamental theoretical physics, I do not know how to answer you in a short message. It required almost all of my website to arrive at that explanation.
"...But I disagree with you about Relativity. I think it's correct; but the physics community, and most people, still look at it and think it's a time machine. But it's not. Information is transmitted at the speed of light. If light has to go up or down an energy hill, the frequency will red shift or blue shift. This will give the appearance of clocks running slower than they should."
I do not see the energy hill until you explain what the nature of energy is. Do you think that energy is a unique, fundamental, physical substance? I have no problem expressing my view that whether or not clocks run faster or slower has no relevance to the property of time. Clocks only tell us about the rate of activity of physical events. Time is not those physical events. It is not a substance. It is not available for us to capture and contain for the purpose of experimentation. Neither is space.
I say that relativity theory is clearly wrong. Clearly means that relativity theory can, relatively easily, be replaced with more sensible views of space and time. My first essay entry into FQXi.org's first essay contest addresses my belief that time is absolute. My ten page essay is a contracted, out of context, sample of that view. I can't easily support my views in the blog's and forum's settings. They do not lend themselves to lengthy answers. Even the challenge of a ten page essays is restrictive for that purpose. However, I am patient and look forward to the next essay contest.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 06:13 GMT
Dear James,
What is the nature of energy? Energy makes things happen, makes things manifest. If money could hold its value perfectly, then energy would be like money. Energy manifests as light, particles, and fields.
Gravity fields serve as a potential energy hill. From the surface of the earth, if you shine a laser into space, those photons will travel up the potential energy hill until they escape the gravity field completely. The energy necessary to escape the gravity field was taken from the photons energy E=hf. Since the photons energy got smaller, but Planck constant doesn't change, so the frequency gets smaller. Smaller frequency gives the appearance of slower clocks. Therefore, from a point of view far from the gravity field of earth, light, and therefore activity, will appear to be a little slower.
Time actually runs as fast as the speed of light. If the speed of light is doubled, then energy expresses itself with 1/4 the mass. Gravitational acceleration is quadrupled. Everything is lighter and moves faster.
If you believe that time is absolute, that there is only one universal clock, then you must also believe that the speed of light is infinite. An infinite speed of light means that information can reach every point in space, as soon as it is generated. This is the only way that an absolute clock is possible.
So why would Einstein and the others make up such a strange and difficult law of physics, when Newtonian mechanics still worked?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 06:39 GMT
Lawrence,
Re quantum information. Yes, that's the point I was trying to make--physical information theory as opposed to a language-theoretic based definition of information which James seemed to be conflating with physics.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 07:07 GMT
Tom,
Quantum information, to me, means 33% of PsiA + 33%PsiB + 33%PsiC; roll the dice. In other words, it's all about probabilities, how much of quantum system A is included in quantum system B,... At the risk of sounding silly, quantum information is like a dice game.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 14:24 GMT
Jason,
"What is the nature of energy? Energy makes things happen, makes things manifest. ..."
Energy is both a fundamentally unique substance and a fundamentally unique cause?
"If you believe that time is absolute, that there is only one universal clock, then you must also believe that the speed of light is infinite. ..."
I say that time is absolute. I accept that the speed of light always measures locally as C. I find that these two statements are not incompatible. The rates of physical activity are not absolute.
"...An infinite speed of light means that information can reach every point in space, as soon as it is generated. This is the only way that an absolute clock is possible."
This is an interesting point. The speed of light is not infinite; however, the universe is orderly which suggests that whatever is keeping it orderly does reach everywhere instantaneously.
"...So why would Einstein and the others make up such a strange and difficult law of physics, when Newtonian mechanics still worked?"
There were effects that showed that Newton's equations did not hold under some circumstances. Einstein's theory was able to predict those odd effects. The best theory is the one that best models the patterns observed in empirical evidence. I have no quarrel with that practice. However, it is possible for equations that are properly fitted to those patterns to also be theoretically misinterpreted. It is the practice of theoretical interpretation that is prone to error. Consider your above statement about energy. If energy has substance and is a cause; what is the empirical basis for those interpretations?
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 18:06 GMT
Hi all,
If we consider still the evolution, thus the mass increases.
We can see when intelligence appears with the mass.
The intelligence seems a result of evolution where the biological mass and the volume of the hemispheroids are correlated, after the system continues to polarise the informations due to the environment.
The conscious appears evidently like the universality.
The mass thus the gravity is the main cause and the main force of this universal equation.
Newton understood what is the attraction of a mass.
The system polarises thus sorts and synchronizes the fractal of light with its intrinsic gravitational codes.
An important point is this one ,the volumes of the spheres do not change in my line of reasoning, only the density thus the velocity of rotation, there we see an increase of mass correlated with an increase of "sorted informations".
The gravity evolves , the differents results of evolution are intelligence, consciousness, rationality,harmonisation of all mass systems.
In fact it exists only the gravity , after it's a question of steps towards Planck scale simply.
Now dear James , you speak about an essential .
I consider the intelligence so young just because the universal complemenatrity is not a reality.In fact it exists our intelligence like human, unique and the possible Earthian human intelligence in its whole.
The ideas of several are better than the ideas of one , but of course the rationality must be an evidence for the complementarity of the intelligences .
In this line of reasoning we can see an increase of mass if the complemenatrity is made between them.The informations are correlated evidently.
The encoding is fascinating,in our brain and in our adn.
Thanks to all for your discussions, relevants dear James all that relevants.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear James,
"I say that time is absolute. I accept that the speed of light always measures locally as C. I find that these two statements are not incompatible. The rates of physical activity are not absolute. "
When you say "absolute time", you must mean that there is one clock for the whole universe. However there are experiments with airplanes and atomic clocks; which run at a different rate then the one on the ground. There are also cosmic rays that strike the atmosphere and generate muons. Muons have a short half life. When the travel at .999c, they should only penetrate about 600m. But the have been detected much closer to the surface; indicating that their clock runs slow.
Binding energy certainly proves that E=mc2 is true.
In the derivation of special relativity, the speed of light is absolute. For different inertial frames, the frames that travel by at relativistic speeds will be length contracted and time dilated. That's because we are relying upon photons (real and virtual) to transmit information between them.
It is light that is absolute; speed of light c. Not clocks and not distance.
"the universe is orderly which suggests that whatever is keeping it orderly does reach everywhere instantaneously. "
The universe is certainly orderly. Conservation and causality have a lot to do with this. Energy is not being created or destroyed; it has to go somewhere.
As for causality, we agree that time travel is impossible. But it is also true that: Nothing happens unless something causes it to happen.
Can that definition of causality ever not be true?
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 00:47 GMT
Dear Jason,
Let me set the stage. I work alone. My work is very different from standard physics theory. It is simpler both in interpretations and mathematics. However, showing continuous fundamental unity, in the theoretical physics sense, requires going the distance. So my work is extensive, though certainly not complete. There are no resources or references to point to. There are no...
view entire post
Dear Jason,
Let me set the stage. I work alone. My work is very different from standard physics theory. It is simpler both in interpretations and mathematics. However, showing continuous fundamental unity, in the theoretical physics sense, requires going the distance. So my work is extensive, though certainly not complete. There are no resources or references to point to. There are no famous physcists who's opinions I can call upon. So, I must explain every step supporting my view, while, others get to point in this direction or that direction for support. For example, it is not necessary to derive relativity theory in order to argue in defense of it. The opposite is not true, and cannot be done well in a message forum. So I make statements that can be argued without getting into many details.
If I say time is absolute, then I rely upon the fact that time is not a part of physics equations. The 'time' dilation of relativity theory is really 't' dilation. Whatever physicists want to define as 't' is fine with me, but it is not the actual property of time. It is some cyclic activity chosen for its accuracy. As I said, the rates of activity are not absolute. They involve the behavior of objects. They are affected by objects interacting with other objects. So, I can push a little bit against relativity theory by stating that.
I run into a real problem of explanation if I go further. For example, you stated: "When you say "absolute time", you must mean that there is one clock for the whole universe.", and, you are correct. But, If I identify that which I think is the clock of the universe, I will very quickly be faced with a much more involved argument. It doesn't seem worth the effort, because, I will probably get bogged down hopelessly in details very quickly.
Another example: I can say that equations are useful if they accurately model the patterns observed in empirical data. I can further say that that does not protect the equations from erroneous theoretical interpretation. I think that is a supportable statement. So, I can admit that e=mc2 works very well. However, if I begin to say what is wrong with its theoretical interpretation, then I will quickly become bogged down in a very challenging situation. That situation does not lend itself well to a message forum, and, I hesitate to put the effort into it.
I have sated that the speed of light, under local conditions, measures as a constant. Fortunately, I have not been challenged about that statement, because, if I am asked why I add the stipulation of 'under local conditions' then I am faced with the task of explaining why I do not include remote conditions. You say that the speed of light is absolute. You do not have to struggle to support that well adopted view. If I say it is not absolute, where do I go from there except into a very challenging situation. So, I actually do a lot of tip toeing around. It probably doesn't seem that way from the rather brash sounding statements that I often make, but that is the case.
With regard to the orderliness of the universe, all laws and properties flow from that fact and are not really available as causes for that fact. As for energy, it was simply adopted as a substantive part of the universe during the derivation of higher level theories, while that interpretation has no support in the fundamentals.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear James,
The passion you have for your work is familiar to me. I approach the physics from my point of view.
Allow me to share some thoughts that you may or may not agree with; do with them what you will.
First: yes, the speed of light is absolute, locally. Over a distance of thousands of lightyears, it will be possible to find objects that are moving faster than c, with respect to each other. Observations like that can be relegated to frame dragging. It's still not possible to signal or transmit information faster than the speed of light, without completely departing from this universe. There are some cosmological observations that will fool observers, but information signalling occurs no faster than c for this universe.
Second, when a particle emits a photon, that photon typically travels in all directions as a wave amplitude. The particle was the origin; to the emitted photon, that particle is its absolute frame of reference and absolute clock, until the photon is absorbed by something else.
Third, all distance and velocities are measured relative to the absolute nature of the photon. The virtual/real photon carries all of the spatial and temporal relationships of the universe. It sets its own clock to whatever emitted it.
These are just some thoughts. I wish you luck with your endeavors.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies