Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Georgina Parry

Hi Georgina,

"So is it a 3 dimensional source object in a single 3 dimensional space? How are the dimensions to be oriented?"

From the perspective of my incredibly simplistic view of the universe, this question is too complicated. Here's my simple view, fwiw:

1.) The universe is comprised of a whole big bunch of "stuff" bumping around "out there" (i.e., apart from the bits and pieces which are myself, myself being just an infinitesimally tiny portion of the totality of the stuff).

2.) There is some real, evolving relationship among all the various bits and pieces (and yes, EM data are a part of all the stuff).

3.) The instantaneous nature of these evolving relationships is intrinsically unknowable to me, *not* because the instantaneous relationships do not exist, but solely because of limitations imposed on me by the nature of sensory data for which I'm equipped to be conscious/aware).

4.) The relationships among all the various bits and pieces appear *not* to evolve randomly; rather, this evolution appears to be governed by rules with we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics.

5.) Regardless of whether this evolution progresses in quantum steps or continuously (still to be determined), this evolution constitutes the "history" of the universe.

6.) Empirical observations available to me lead me to conclude that the universe has one, and only one, real history.

7.) Due solely to limitations imposed by sensory data (as discussed in point 3 above), every observer of the universe will *perceive* its evolution differently.

8.) Observers such as human beings have developed the ability to think about and to interpret their empirical observations and to communicate these interpretations with one another in a way which allows them to form, incrementally, increasingly better understandings of the universe in which they find themselves.

This has been an incredibly complicated way to convey to you what is an incredibly simple view of the universe. But sometimes it's useful to spell things out carefully; we may take for granted that these things are "obvious," but they may not be obvious to others, who may think that what is obvious to them is contradictory to what is obvious to us. The only way to get to the root of it is to use our words carefully.

"The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." (David Deutsch, 'The Beginning of Infinity')

I'll close by sharing another favorite quote:

"What guarantees the objectivity of the world in which we live is that this world is common to us with other thinking beings. Through the communications that we have with other men, we receive from them ready-made reasonings; we know that these reasonings do not come from us and at the same time we recognize in them the work of reasonable beings like ourselves. And as these reasonings appear to fit the world of our sensations, we think we may infer that these reasonable beings have seen the same thing as we; thus it is we know we have not been dreaming." (Henri Poincare, 'The Value of Science,' published in 1913.)

Cheers,

jcns

Dear J.C.N. Smith,

thank you for that really nice summary. I don't think there is any significant disagreement between us about what must be going. The clarity with which you express those ideas here and in your essays is very valuable.

How best to describe all that mathematically is another question. John Merryman might think any mathematical description inadequate and therefore not worth pursuing. Max Tegmark might think all the verbal description in the world excess baggage to be stripped away. I'd like something in between, both and anything else that might help too ( diagrams, symbolic representations, sculptures, whatever helps) so as many bases as possible are covered. The verbal and symbolic description can then be used to capture it loosely and the mathematical description to pin it down. (The pinning down is difficult because it seems to resist the attempts.)

I was thinking that, as well of the problem of orientation of 3 spatial dimensions, I should also have mentioned the importance of considering what is happening over the many scales, not just the scale of the observer,(that could be thought of as another dimension.) As well as the amount of complexity (that could be regarded as another dimension too).

I agree with your point about a singular history but what that history actually is (the truth of the matter one might say ) is far more complex than any singular spatial/temporal viewpoint of an observer or observers, or regarded at any one particular scale, or specific degree of complexity. Which is why it may actually be easier to think of multiple histories as it is easier to contemplate than the multidimensional entirety.

Looking at any part, one linear path (or imagined time line)could give what seems to be -the- history but it is only one path out of many, many, many possibilities that might have been chosen. Same with scale, same with degree of complexity considered.[To try to illustrate that: Any one history is taken from within the greater set of histories -at all scales- containing that particular history (its just a snippet) and similarly from the greater set of all levels of complexity.] It isn't possible to say it was definitely just this (rather than anything else), with a tiny selection of incomplete data.

Nice quote.

Scale seems to be related to the magnitude of the entirety under consideration. Not necessarily the magnitude of the constituent parts but how large the CONTEXT under consideration. A very small part of the big picture or a bigger part or a bigger part and so on. So what the Object universe is must be the largest scale , the ENTIRE CONTEXT at uni-temporal Now (a single fully simultaneously existing iteration), containing all of the lesser relationships within that whole(that might be taken out of that absolute context and abstractly considered separately).

The complexity seems to be the RESOLUTION with which something is considered or needs to be considered to fully describe it. Some simple objects or processes of low complexity can be simply and adequately described at low resolution but others can not be captured without high resolution. So the Object universe must exist at the HIGHEST RESOLUTION afforded by nature and contain as well all things that we can adequately abstractly describe with lesser resolution.

The description given by spatial dimensions is to do with how it is thought about, VIEWPOINT, more than an independent property of the Object universe. As there may be many different 3 dimensional descriptions for different imagined viewpoints, that are all valid, it must be considered as ALL VIEWPOINTS or NO SINGULAR VIEWPOINT and therefore not simply 3 dimensional.

The Universe is not merely the manifestation, the Image reality, formed from received EM data. So it is important to differentiate between the visible Image Universe (fabrication from data) and its source, the unseen (material) Object universe, and not to confuse the two of them.

Hi Georgina,

"The Universe is not merely the manifestation, the Image reality, formed from received EM data. So it is important to differentiate between the visible Image Universe (fabrication from data) and its source, the unseen (material) Object universe, and not to confuse the two of them."

Absolutely! But who is doing that (i.e., confusing the two of them)?

jcns

Dear J.C.N Smith,

You replied "Absolutely! But who is doing that (i.e., confusing the two of them)?"

A: Not me, probably not you. I can't speak for everyone else. Most people in the general population have probably not spent much, if any, time thinking about the idea that the things they are observing are fabrications from received data, rather than the objects themselves; so there are two versions of the things in the universe, experienced images and source objects. That's because, I should think, most people have other things to think about that they consider important and interesting.I can't see into their minds though, to know what they think and who is confused and who isn't. I am aware that you and I have, what has until recently been, a rather strange niche interest in alternative ideas about time and the Universe.

The space -time continuum still seems to be the accepted mainstream explanation of the universe. I regularly see it presented as "The Universe" on TV and in magazines. When many people speak of the Universe they are talking about the space-time continuum. That is not thought of as just images or what will be observed but as actual material objects distributed in time and space -hence the grandfather paradox and all other ideas about time travel.Its still mainstream stuff not "the fringe".There is still, it seems to me, a lot of general uncertainty about how the quantum world of atoms and sub atomic particles can be made to fit with the space-time continuum necessary for Einstein's relativity. I don't want to be undiplomatic so I don't think I can say much more than that.

Hi Georgina,

"I am aware that you and I have, what has until recently been, a rather strange niche interest in alternative ideas about time and the Universe."

I know what you mean by this, Georgina, but in truth an "interest" in alternative ideas about time and the universe goes back at least as far as Heraclitus and Parmenides. So the ebb and flow of thinking about time seems to have been more about the paradigm used in our interpretations of our empirical observations.

The relatively recent (in evolutionary terms) invention of calendars and (especially) clocks has been both a helpful breakthrough and a curse in terms of their influence on our thinking about the nature of time. Having lost sight of the fact that the primary role and purpose of calendars and clocks was to serve as a concise, convenient shorthand notation for conveying information about configurations of the universe, people began to assume that clocks "measured" a mysterious thing called time. When combined with the operational definition of time (time is that which is measured by clocks) and churned into mathematical models of the universe using time as a "fourth dimension" we've arrived at space-time, block time, a denial of a flow of time, a claim that distinctions between past, present, and future are illusory, etc. In my view this has been brought about largely by a faulty understanding of the proper role clocks.

Fortunately (and I'm using this term somewhat with tongue in cheek), physics more and more is finding itself in the state described by Thomas S. Kuhn as a "crisis state." Physics, in essence, is being coerced, against its will, as it were, to think anew about all these ideas, which for a while were believed to have been put to rest. In this context, the views which you and I share must compete in a newly vibrant marketplace of ideas. That's why I wrote in my post of 24 August (above) as follows:

"This has been an incredibly complicated way to convey to you what is an incredibly simple view of the universe. But sometimes it's useful to spell things out carefully; we may take for granted that these things are "obvious," but they may not be obvious to others, who may think that what is obvious to them is contradictory to what is obvious to us. The only way to get to the root of it is to use our words carefully."

You, too, have been spelling out your ideas carefully, as in your essay for this competition. And I've been pleasantly surprised and pleased to see our ideas receiving favorable comments from people whose opinions on such matters I value greatly. Revolutions in science do not happen rapidly, and that's the way it should be and must be. In the final analysis, our ideas ultimately must stand or fall on their own merit. Crucial to this process is having our ideas present as players in the marketplace of ideas. Perseverance is important. Hang in there, Georgina.

Cheers,

jcns

Hi Georgina,

Apologies for back-to-back posts, but wanted to jump in with a quick recommendation of a book. In case you've not already read it, I think you'd really enjoy 'The Nature of the Physical World' by Arthur S. Eddingon. I'm reading it now, and can't help thinking about you and your essay as I do so. Following is an example:

"We picture the mind like an editor in his sanctum receiving through the nerves scrappy messages from all over the outside world, and making a story of them with, I fear, a good deal of editorial invention." (p. 100)

Published in 1928, the book is centered on exactly the issues we find so fascinating. George Ellis recommended the book to me, and I owe him a debt of thanks for having done so. Wanted to share the pleasure and enlightenment.

jcns

Hi J.C.N. Smith,

thank you for the book recommendation and encouragement.I should have called our interest uncommon rather than strange.

I have more ideas about the description of objects in Object reality (pre-space) but I think I should wait a little, work on explaining it well, simply and succinctly, and then I can post something more useful.

In the meantime, it does seem that sentient beings have a relationship with the information or data that is accessed and used to fabricate a reality, not with the universe or world as it fully is. (I can see an amusing parallel with the idea of the world we fabricate from headline news. It might be impartial reporting, lots of people might read the same news but it isn't objective, it doesn't look at issues in every way they could be considered. However good, it is still a gross simplification and specific viewpoint.) There is far more data potentially giving all sorts of different realities. They are not realities until fabricated into them though, just potential. That's relevant to the question of dimensions, Truth, and QM / Many worlds in superposition.

Might be interesting, fun, to test how many different versions of a singular object (could be tried for many different ones) with non uniform form or surface patterning an observer can identify as different. A game of spot the difference but to illustrate the potential or "multi-verse of possibilities" related to an object. I read about something similar done for different colours and the answer comes out as something far higher than I would have imagined.

This is interesting especially the fascinating video; showing creation of objects that give multiple "different output realities" The potential to produce different sets of sensory data, that will generate different image realities for the observer, is within the structure of the object. The observer's reality is produced from the data that is selected for observation.

The stopped clock illusion

This is interesting and relevant to the point about whether a clock (or any material object we might care to name) is the unobserved object, data in the environment emitted or reflected from it or the observed output of data processing.There is currently a lack of clear differentiation of the difference in physics.

When a person looks at a clock (unobserved object) they receive sensory data emitted or reflected from it and see the out put of processing of that (the normal well understood process of vision). Though the output is a fabrication it is regarded as the source object. Yes I have experienced this illusion too.This is relevant to ideas of relativity involving clocks because they involve what an observer will -see-!!

Georgina

Lovely and even amusing essay, with an important theme consistent with others here. We're in stiff competition.

I hope youget to read mine and comment.

Thanks

Rich

Hi Richard, thank you for taking a look.

You comments are ambiguous to me. Perhaps they are intentionally so, like describing a red wine as reminiscent of a warm summer's evening. My essay is intended to be extraordinary rather than quaint and entertaining rather than comical. I hope you found it so. If not perhaps you would need to spend more time to fully appreciate it. There is a high definition version of the diagram 1. in this essay discussion thread.

Having only just come upon this brilliant and entertaining taxonomy of idea A (draft) taxonomy of ideas by David MacCandless I must apologise to everyone whose work I have called interesting. If it is interesting to me it is something special (meant in the best way), without associated implication of my feeling regarding current functionality.I would have 'interesting' on the conceptual structure axis, as it could apply (as I use it) to either functional or (currently, seemingly) dysfunctional ideas.

The designer doesn't have lovely or amusing on his taxonomy. Nice and funny seem the closest which, interestingly, cancel each other out on the functionality scale. Still ranking higher than interesting on the positive scale of conceptual structure. So thank you.

I will read your essay.

Dear Georgina,

I have read your essay a few times and I have liked your novel point of view. Your essay is very well-written, interesting and highly relevant. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of some biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria) as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.

I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

Dear Georgina,

You are also requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

Dear Gurcharn,

thank you for your favourable comments about my essay. I am delighted that you have spent time with it and consider it worthy of being a finalist.

Re. your concern about essay positions: Many people have not yet voted. The positions of the essays could- and probably will- change significantly between now and the end of community voting. I have read a lot of essays, commented upon some of them, and intend to read more. I expect everyone is a bit surprised by the number of entries this year.

FQXi blog comments and essay filtering are not a paying jobs though. If I had been paid for the hours spent on this site over the years I would have earned a considerable sum by now and my family would be better off and happier. I am only going to do what I feel able and happy to do at this time.I am not willing to do more. Hopefully I will get to your essay and be able to leave some constructive or positive comments.

Kind regards and good luck to you.

Hi Georgina,

I rather like your essay as it highlights the human aspect of doing science and considers how we think and approach problems and dilemmas. And we sure have plenty of those!

I had been thinking that I would have very much liked to have placed some diagrams into my essay because I imagine many readers might think it is a bit heavy on the math and dense conceptualism (that was necessary to rigorously demonstrate the findings), but there was just not enough time for that. The beautiful diagram in your essay was a real inspiration for so that I recently created and uploaded 2 diagrams explaining the essential findings of the essay (your principles in action).

If you should have to time to take a look and venture an opinion that would be very much appreciated. The topic seems to be very much in line with what you consider in your essay concerning time, space and the emergence of space-time.

With best wishes,

Steve Sycamore

Hi Stephen,

thank you for your feedback. I'm glad you were inspired by the diagram. To fit with the instructions given by the organisers, I used the framework, represented by that diagram to answer the specific question that was set. Rather than just discussing in detail the explanatory framework itself.

FQXi contest information -"Note: Successful and interesting essays will not use this topic as an opportunity to trot out their pet theories simply because those theories reject assumptions of some other or established theory. Rather, the challenge here is to create new and insightful questions or analysis about basic, often tacit, assumptions that can be questioned but often are not."

I hope that that is what my essay clearly does. Questioning how we think about science and, by thinking about it differently, questioning some very strongly entrenched basic assumptions that are most likely wrong.

I too hope I will have time to read and discuss your essay.

Yes, I've been thinking too about the wisdom of the guidelines you quoted. One important measure of relevance of each essay ought to be how many deep and pertinent questions the essay evokes and what valid approaches to possible answers may be considered without becoming fixated on any one answer prematurely.

Thanks for your excellent observation.

Steve

Hello Georgina,

I'll respond here rather than there. Thanks, will look at your essay again, with that in mind.

Best wishes,

Jonathan