Tom, thank you for commenting on my essay. Wheeler's idea of "the game of twenty questions in its surprise version" fascinates me. I'm behind in the essays, so I've only scanned through yours, but I look forward to reading it closer. Best of luck in the competition.
Tom
""the origin of the physics" is the only way to put it".
I agree.
"you take too much for granted. When one assumes properties of reality (e.g., "physical existence is a sequence, and it is independent of sensory detection")"
I do not agree. This is the given, the origin, the basis. Without that, we should all pack up and go home.
Forget all metaphysical possibilities, this is science. So:
1 Something physically exists independently of sensory detection, because not only is a physically existent phenomenon received (NB: physically received) by the sensory system, but also it is the result itself of an interaction between two other physically existent phenomena. The processing of this is irrelevant, the point is about what physically occurs extrinsic to any given sensory system. I am not interested in psychology, physiology, biology, sociology, and certainly not philosophy.
2 There are differences. There is an occurrence, then another occurrence. When compared, differences are identified.
3 For difference to occur, then at the very least, the same physically existent something must be involved in one difference.
Put simply: physical existence is a sequence. And a sequence can only occur 'one at a time', the predecessor must cease so that the successor can occur.
A sequence could be anything, the entirety of reality, you, the moon, St Paul's cathedral, an elementary particle.
Paul
This is going nowhere, Paul. I realize you have strong opinions,but they are demonstrably inseparable from naive realism and are not foundational physics. That "physical existence is a sequence" is a nonsensical statement. Ordered sequence or not?-what kind of sequence, of what duration and how many members?-if ordered, what is the origin and how does one know? Sequence of events?-trivial. Well ordered axiomatically, as a number sequence?-no demonstrated connection to physics and not different from Zorn's lemma mathematically. I could go on, though it probably won't make a difference to you, and is of no importance to me.
Tom
Hi Tom,
I don't think the book "Falling for science, asking the big questions" by Bernard Beckett, is your cup of tea. It is to do with the questions of being alive, relevant to the finale of your essay, I thought - but the emphasis is on the search for meaning and therefore is a somewhat sceptical look at science, and the stories that we tell ourselves. Quote- "There is a world of difference between understanding the physics involved in floating, and lying back in a sparkling bay, soaking in the sun and feeling at peace with the world" Bernard Beckett.
I also didn't explain the game very well. The game ends when the paper is unfolded and the complete animal, which no one has previously seen or chosen, is revealed to everyone. The amusement is partly in the surprise, which would not happen if anyone knew what the other participants had drawn.If there is ever a dull moment to fill.....
Not important, but I didn't want to feel that you had been mislead by my earlier comments. I hope your essay gets lots of interest and positive feedback, which it deserves. Good luck.
Tom
Why is "this going nowhere" and what I write "strong opinions"?
Having properly ignored all metaphysical possibilities, there is something which is physically existent, it re-occurs. It is a sequence. That's it.
Sensory systems have evolved to take advantage of certain components of this something, which enables the identification of difference with the comparison of occurrences, and the order of occurrences. By definition, theses sensory systems are independent of physical existence, they just enable the possessor thereof to have a representational awareness of it.
I fail to understand where the "opinion" or the "naive realism" is in this, as a generic statement about what is, and how it is not foundational to physics, since that is supposed to be objective knowledge about what is. Starting on any other basis is doomed to failure, because that is how physical reality occurs (in simple language).
"what kind of sequence?" A sequence of physical existence, which is what I said, and you quoted, before then asserting it was a "nonsensical statement", and then asking this question. A sequence is an order, that is the definition of it. Obviously it is not "duration", that is a feature of the sequence as such, ie the rate at which difference occurs irrespective of the characteristic of the change. As I said, by definition, because it is all sequence, its "members" can be anything you wish to define ("A sequence could be anything, the entirety of reality, you, the moon, St Paul's cathedral, an elementary particle").
"what is the origin and how does one know?"
By definition, we cannot know. As I said above "having properly ignored all metaphysical possibilities". We can only scientifically investigate physical reality as manifest to us (much of which is not directly manifest because of practical problems in the sensory detection process, not metaphysical concerns), not what it might be on the basis of some belief.
Paul
"We can only scientifically investigate physical reality as manifest to us ..."
That's naive realism. Now please, let's put a period on this.
Tom
Tom,
Was re-reading your essay. A thought occurred to me. What is one example of what you might have included if the page limit was sufficiently larger?
James
FQXi you merit better. Mr Tegmark, take your responsabilities and forget the false friends !!! It does not exist an universal faith for people loving the opulences and the lies !
Wake up Mr Tegmark !!!I know that you you are not a pseudo ! make a sorting in your team please, don't be troubled by their strategies and their plays.They are not real universalists!
Regards
"You make a good job, congratulations Th "
Thanks, Steve!
Tom
I have people who checks my pc , I am totally parano Tom. I don't know who it is.I am parano against a lot of people, I beleive even that you, Lawrence,Georgina,Joy Christian , and friends are in this team, I become crazy me you know. I am sorry if I hazve touched people, it is due to this parano and this checking of my pc.They check even the platforms like facebook and linkedin and xing, you imagine ???? wHO are these persons ????
They even checked my platform of chess. I played and I was not bad even like a beginier, I played parties of 1 minute against people very good at this play.It was always the same player with different names. I am parano me now with all this story.They even said me that it was the sri cia??? Tom, I need help me, It is bizare all that.
It is logic my comportments. Tom , are you from sri cia also or what ? I need advices you know.
Sincerely
That's a great question, James. I know I had something in mind the moment I released the essay, and I either didn't write it down or if I did, can't remember where I left it. It seemed important at the time. :-)
There's plenty in my notebooks, though, that I would expand on given the opportunity: an entry from February and March is labeled "Topology, spin statistics and a classical twist." It relates to the role of topology in Joy's model. Text follows.
In a nice short exposition in the American Journal of Physics, Roy. R. Gould (http://nonlocal.com/hbar/spinstats.html)explains non-integral spin with variations of the Feynman plate and Dirac belt trick--in the topological context where they properly belong: "The existence of spin 1/2 follows from the marriage of relativity and quantum theory (primary source: K. Gottfried and V.F. Weiskopf, *Concepts of Particle Physics*). But it is topology that underlies the Fermi statistics, and therefore the Pauli exclusion principle -- and by extension the existence of atoms and ourselves."
I would have used Joy's treatment of the Dirac belt trick in its classical framework, to explain how the complete (4 pi) rotation is angle preserving (conformal) to infinity.
Tom
Steve, I seriously doubt that any of us are invading your PC. I suspect that someone is pulling your leg for their own perverse amusement -- ignore them. Relax and try to enjoy life, my friend, is the best advice I have.
Bon chance,
Tom
ignore them, it is easy to say. I am conscient of my discovery Tom like all rationalists having a little of determinism.
The potential at short, middle and long term is so important that my words are logic.
Try to enjoy life , it is easy to say also. You have not had my difficult life,and you have not been always too nice like me. The human nature is bizare and full of vanity. It is a sad reality. I know that my theory is revolutionary and I know that it exists bizare systems without faith and laws. I know that it exists stealers and bad people.I know that the human nature is sad. Perhaps it is not from FQXi , but in all case , it is like that since that I speak about my theory 7 or 8 years ago on the net. I can understand that my theory is revolutionary and that it is the real toe, but frankly it is sad all this story.
Tom , why they make that.Why ? just for this vanity and this monney ??? Why ?
The sciences are not a simple play.The physics merit more than this simple meaning. The theory of game perhaps can imply several catalyzations but frankly it is bizare.
"I would have used Joy's treatment of the Dirac belt trick in its classical framework, to explain how the complete (4 pi) rotation is angle preserving (conformal) to infinity."
I hope you do sometime. Your breadth and depth are amazing!
James
Thanks, James. Honestly, though, it is only in the last couple of years that these disjointed elements of knowledge acquired over many years have come together in a meaningful way. I think it shows the power of one great idea to make sense of a thousand little ones -- I hadn't imagined, and I know of no one else who had imagined, that topology -- through application of continuous global properties and patterns of a compact space, could describe discrete local measurement results without a probabilistic structure.
With the greatest demonstration of intellectual courage, Joy has blazed a trail for us through this thick wilderness where no one else dared to go. Long after the controversy is forgotten and buried, this idea will still be affecting fields of science from cosmology on one extreme, to brain mechanics and consciousness on the other.
Tom
Good work Tom!
I've been a fan of your work for way too many years & this does not disappoint - both content & style. Very impressive. I'm hungry or more!
-C
Thanks, C! A little encouragement from the right person goes a long way. :-)
Tom
Hello Thomas glad you participated again in this year's contest.
And I am very glad you are Alive - as you have proven mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt !! If you follow my argument in Q6 of my present FQXI paper, based on older arguments in my papers referred to therin, you will see that I believe that quantum probability is a mathematical interpretation of a very unprobabilistic local, causal world of wave-like diffusion in a universal lattice In other words in EPR and Bell the photons have identical phase from start to finish, but it is the random state of the detectors that create the illusion of probability.
For this reason although I could see how deeply and learnedly you have gone into these questions, I do not want to take that route myself. I would like to learn about Poincare's circle, though - I have renewed respect for his ideas - and will google accordingly. Thanks and good luck.
Vladimir
Thanks, Vladimir! As an artist, you probably appreciate the idea of infinite hyperbolic geometry in the form of some of M.C. Escher's drawings which were inspired by Poincare. The mathematics of it is explained in this link.
I will get over to your essay as soon as I can. For the record, though, I am not saying that probability is an illusion; I am saying (following Joy Christian) that quantum entanglement is an illusion. In other words, the phenomenon of quantum correlations may be explained in non-probabilistic terms, which obviates quantum entanglement (and therefore, the assumption of nonlocality) as a foundational premise of how nature works. We can still put probabilistic measure schemata to good use in approximating discrete system outcomes in bounded local time intervals (in fact, that is how semiconductors and logic gates function).
Tom