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

Dear Russ,

thank you for reading my essay and for your very kind remarks. I am glad you liked it and found it compatible with your own way of thinking. Thanks too for the further explanation of your thoughts and your web address.

Thank you James,

I do hope you will be able to see how it all fits together. The framework might appear complicated at first but when it is understood it is really rather simple and then easy to use as an explanatory tool.I do have a higher resolution file of diagram 1, if it is too difficult to make out the words on all of the input arrows. Some quality was lost when putting it into the text file. I look forward to reading your essay.

Frank,

thank you for the links. I had not read the paper on chirality before but was familiar with the subject of chirality from the study of biochemistry, as part of my degree. I have looked at the review of the book about the diaries of Lancelot Law Whyte. He does sound like an interesting individual, doing interesting and broad research. Without reading more I could not say how much overlap in our thinking there is but it does sound like he is taking a holistic multi-disciplinary approach. That kind of approach, looking at the "big picture" is going to be helpful to science in my opinion. There is a hint of that near the end of my essay.

Georgina,

I am fairly certain that one cannot exploit the ability of the unconscious to logically reorder what we know without exposing our minds to multidisciplinary material.

I have known about the double helix of DNA for a long time, but it is just recent that I learned that many of the chemical structures in our body have helical/chiral properties. From the somewhat dated Whyte article, one can conclude, that, within the universe, helicity and spin extend from large galactic formations, down to diverse biological forms, and further down to atomic structures. It seems logical to me that some influence is responsible for this fairly uniform characteristic, and I can't help thinking that the mechanism that creates the force of gravity is involved.

I did not know Whyte was working on a "Geometrical Model of Electromagnetism," Ch 5, May 23, 1969, until I read his diaries several days ago.

Whyte Diary Ch 5

My essay is about a specific characteristic of electromagnetism presented in a geometric form.

I get periodic emails from the Wolfram group about cellular automata. I suspect I get the emails because I did send an email to Wolfram via his website referencing my IEEE paper, and I know my web site received a couple of hits from a Wolfram specific server. Whether Wolfram himself read my paper I do not know.

And yes, your Object Reality section points to the big picture. You quote Feynman, who considers everything being run from behind the scenes by some organisation, the same physical laws. That fits in nicely with Whyte's article on Chirality. There is a physical law and associated mechanism that produces the uniformity of chirality in so many structures.

And there is a left hand bias.

Hi J.C.N.Smith,

you ask what is truth?

I would like to separate truth from truthfulness.

I think we can have greater and lesser degrees of truthfulness but no access to absolute truth. Complete or absolute truth is not a particular viewpoint (physical perspective or subjective opinion or relative measurement). Absolute truth has correspondence to all possible measurements and physical perspectives of some thing or event, from all directions, scales and distances and times and even different observer kinds. It is the whole elephant,seen every-way, so to speak not any part or individual glimpse.What is or was in every possible way it could be described.

Science ought to aim for a high level of truthfulness in the representations of reality that are constructed, which is good but partial correspondence with what is or has existed.

Truthfulness is increased by having good experimental designs, honesty, having more data from more varied experiments and checking for all factors that could influence results, ie generating more complete and reliable information. That in turn allows more reliable conclusions to be drawn. Theory can be examined for its fit and modified or discarded if necessary. Rather than relying on a single accurate viewpoint from repetition of the same or very similar experiment and drawing strong conclusions from the replicated partial information that has been generated.

If all of the different reliable experimental results can be accounted for because they correspond to aspects of a coherent explanatory framework then it is likely that that framework has truthfulness. Though it is still only a model of reality and not reality itself and so can not be the whole or absolute truth. I agree with you in that we can get closer and closer, we can sneak up on it, but never catch it. Even the very best model has to be an incomplete representation.

I still might not have made that differentiation clear.

The truth is in the Object reality.It is the structures and patterns and their relationships.Former iterations being the home of historical truth.It is independent of human thought about it or description of it.

Any physical viewpoint, or opinion, or measurement, (only) has a relationship to the truth, that is what I meant by correspondence. It isn't the absolute truth itself.

Several different observers can give their own accurate accounts, according to their perspective. All of those accounts can be different and seemingly contradictory. All can correspond to foundational truth, the source of the data they have used for their personal representation of reality. So all are truthful.

There are far more perceptions and measurements that -could be- made than the few that are selected and from which a representation of reality is constructed. The greater the amount of reliable data that is available, and the higher the quality of the data, the greater is the likelihood there is a high level of truthfulness in the fabrication made from it.

Maximising truthfulness should be the aim. There shouldn't be a presumption that the truth itself is known on the basis of scant, partial evidence.Conspiring against that aim are two human biases: the tendency to draw strong conclusions from incomplete information, ie. "what you see is all there is" bias, which was mentioned in the essay, -and- the tendency to form coherent causal stories from unrelated facts,ie. "the narrative fallacy". Two of many human biases that Daniel Kahneman identifies in his book "Thinking fast and Slow" -see the essay references.

Hi Georgina,

"It is the whole elephant, seen every-way, so to speak not any part or individual glimpse."

That perfectly answers the question "what is truth?" for me. Thank you for your insightful reply. Totally agree. Science seems to involve the incremental sneaking up on ever better descriptions of, and explanations for, the elephant's nature, while remaining wary of falling prey to the illusion (mirage?) that, regardless of how close we may think we've come, we've finally succeeded in capturing it perfectly. If we ever did that, we'd be out of a job, and that would spoil the fun!

jcns

Dear J.C. N. Smith,

I'm glad the elephant analogy works for you. It is insufficient on its own though because it seems to imply that the elephant has to be detected in some way to be the truth. Which is not so.

It can still be truth, but unknown, even if there is no observation or description of it. Also as I said there are many more possible observations and measurements, giving truthful but partial information, than are actually selected:Also many more different but truthful descriptions that might be found. Sorry for my earlier rambling replies.I was trying to pin it down.

Yes, I think you have nicely summarised the role of science.I don't think it should ever be declaring the truth but continually finding what is truthful and not truthful to help piece together a better understanding of nature.

Here is the high definition version of diagram 1. used in the essay.

Some quality was lost putting it into the text. All of the words can be clearly seen on this pdf. Easy to print out and turn around.Attachment #1: RICP3D_high_def_essay_version..pdf

Hi Georgina,

I read and truly enjoyed your entry. You identify and elaborate on what is, in my opinion, one of the main problem in research today. One that has nothing to do with the intelligence and technical skills of scientists but every thing to do with their mindset.

There are two main approaches to theoretical physics. One is to branch out from the assumptions of current theories, which is what that vast majority of researchers do (and should do). The other implies exploring the consequences of an original axiom set.

Those who follow the second approach are people who are willing to question the very foundation of science, even throw out the window, if necessary, theories who have proven to be successful. Those are the people who are thinking outside the box. The problem is, it's extremely difficult to think outside the box for whose mind has been trained to think in certain ways. Do we need to live outside the box, outside of consensus, to allow our minds to see approaches that would otherwise be dismissed? Do we need to live outside the box to think outside the box? History suggests that innovations come from people who actually lived outside the box (who later created new boxes for generations of physicists).

Living outside the box must certainly help setting up the creative mindset needed for the second approach.

I would like my comment with the following. A few years back, I saw a documentary which was, at least in part, discussing how biologists and engineer tried to develop a harness that frogs in the wild would not slip out of (the harness was necessary to attach a tracking device). After months of failed attempts by the scientists and engineers to create a harness frogs wouldn't shed, the problem was submitted to a fashion designer. The fashion designer solved the problem in a matter of days. So does one need to live outside the box to think outside the box? You tell me.

Georgina

As per my response to your post on my essay, I at first did not want to repeat previous exchanges. However, here is a list of points I would raise (some of which to varying degrees you agree with). In other words, I sense that this correlates more with what I have said over the past year (I cannot spot any difference between the diagram and the one published in March), but there are some issues, and I found I could only follow the points as they occurred, rather than commenting on a model as such.

1 Ref 1a (white). Relativity is not about observation, it is about referencing. And the core hypothesis is dimension alteration. The explanation of it is incorrect, because that is based on a misconception of time, and the substitution of light speed for distance in an incorrect way in an equation expressing time. But, an incorrect explanation of a hypothesis does not invalidate the hypothesis. Dimension alteration may, or may not, be correct. In other words, it is Poincare with simultaneity, and spacetime, that is the problem (See my posts on my blog 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24).

2 Ref 2 (white). QM incorrectly presumes a relationship between observation and physical reality that cannot occur. No form of sensing can have any effect on the physical existence of any phenomenon. That existence has occurred before the sensing, and it is not what is sensed anyway.

3 Ref 1-3 (white). Both these theories can appear to work, ie correlate with experiment, for two basic types of reason: 1 the flaws do not impact when experimentation is conducted, 2 there is self-fulfilment because of the model which depicts physical reality. They are not compatible, neither will they ever be reconciled, because both are based (in the case of Relativity, that is only the explanation thereof) on physically incorrect presumptions as to how reality occurs.

4 Ref 1 (black). Both are deterministic, in that they presume a physically existent phenomenon. Physical reality is deterministic in that it has occurred. Relativity proposes that under certain conditions this alters dimension. QM presumes that it cannot identify all the features, and therefore invokes probability based on some that have been identified.

5 Ref 6 (black). There are no paradoxes associated with relativity. These are a function of the failure to understand a perceptual illusion, and/or the incorrectness of the explanation of the theory.

6 Ref 8 (black). There only seems to be an arrow of time, because of the misconception of time. Physically, it does not exist. Alteration does, and that has a rate of change, apart from other characteristics.

7 Ref 10 (black). Free will, or any other form of organism intervention is irrelevant to the physics. Physical reality exists independently of all organism detection. Organisms are merely a component of physical reality. In other words, all organisms could be wiped out, but physical reality would still exist, just without organisms.

8 Ref 11 (black). Nothing needs explaining about observation or any other form of sensing by any organism, other than, the mechanics of sensory processing need to be understood so that validated reverse engineering can be effected. The paradox being that physical existence is independent of sensory detection, but is only determinable from individual perceptions.

9 Ref 1st sentence (red). What is needed is a proper understanding as to how physical reality occurs, so that models which purport to explain it are based on a factual basis.

10 Ref 3rd sentence (red). Any form of thinking is possible, the judgement is whether the outcome correlates with physical reality.

11 1st question (green). The answer is when new knowledge no longer occurs. A situation that has been arrived at in a number of circumstances. This is an epistemological, rather than ontological issue. By definition, knowledge is correct as at that point in time (forget mistakes). Since our knowledge is a closed system (ie a function of sensory detection) then it can become complete.

12 4th para (green). The image reality is part of the physical reality. It is just that part which is functionally usable by sensory systems. Its existence results from an interaction with other physically existent phenomena (one of which is the reality we are attempting to discern), and from the perspective of the sensory system it is a representation of that. In itself it is just a physically existent phenomemon, its acquired role in sensory processing is irrelevant to that. Physically, there is no "passage of time". There are only sequences of alteration, some of which occur faster than others. (5th para) These are not pre-written futures, they are sensory representations of various presents which has occurred. Only presents physically exist. There is no selection, other than in the sense that some of these physical phenomena are received by (in line of travel) suitable sensory organs, most are not.

13 3rd para (what is object). The extent to which it is Einstein's view is irrelevant, as such, it is the explanation which emanates from the spacetime model, which incorrectly reifies time as a variable within physical reality. Objects exist independently of sensing. They may, or may not, alter dimension in certain circumstances. Objects are a physically existent state which occurred at any given point in time. There is no confusion as to how physical reality occurs if properly understood. That is, at any given point in time there will be a physically existent state, and multiple physically existent states, which from the functional perspective of sensory systems, represent various states which did exist at different points in time previously.

Paul

Hi Paul,

thank you for reading my essay and trying to get to grips with it.

The hats were used as a systematic way of presenting the information. Black, white and red inputs and green exploratory arguments demonstrate the very clear foundation upon which the judgement of -Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong- was based. Not just a hunch, unjustified personal opinion, or raw intuition.

Most of your list concern the black and white facts and problems. These are expressions of your opinions, in your own words. I have used the matters of fact that are widely acknowledged. Neither you or I are experimentalists or qualified theoretical physicists. There comes a point when I need to accept what others, more qualified and experienced, say and -work with- that. So I have taken and used the general consensus of many scientists as to the facts and problems, what works and does not work.

Interpretation of what the facts must mean, how they sit within the framework and can be related to the entirety of reality, and therefore which basic assumptions must be wrong, comes after analysis not at the outset.

I have not altered the diagram other than taking out unnecessary reference letters, as the accompanying definitions list was not included with the essay, and unnecessary decoration. I have not become aware of any problem that would require its alteration, although I have been distracted and not spent a lot of time considering it further. Unless I become aware of a problem with it it will not change except to add details or to express it in a different mathematical or symbolic language.

I do not wish to get into another lengthy debate with you about the linguistic descriptions I have used .The temporal differentiation I have made is very precise. I have explained to you my reason for having pre written and unwritten future on the blog threads.

Once again: To say the pre-written futures are "presents" is extremely unhelpful. They are data from former presents but that would under the conventional use of 'past', 'present', 'future', make them the past. However they are yet to become an observer's present which makes them -until receipt- a future that has not yet become present to that observer.Hence a pre-written future. Differentiated from the unwritten future, "beyond" what exists and that has not had existence I don't want to argue about it. I would like you to think about it some more and realise that it works and does not need alteration.

Thank you for having taken the time to read the essay and comment.

Georgina

I did not "try to get to grips" with it, I know what you are saying, apart from my own knowledge, I would dread to think how many exchanges we have had over the past year.

Also I am fascinated by the concept that what I say is "opinion" while what you say is "fact". Whether something is commonly accepted does not make it fact, an examination of what the originator of the theory actually said makes it so.

"To say the pre-written futures are "presents" is extremely unhelpful"

Indeed it is, but I did not say that. The fact is I said: "These are not pre-written futures, they are sensory representations of various presents which has occurred. Only presents physically exist"

Paul

Dear Paul,

I did not feel from your comments that you had fully understood the choice of presentation style, the development of the ideas as the essay progresses or the reason why I say things in a particular way. Despite our many previous discussions I do still not feel that you fully comprehend what I am doing.

The black and white facts and problems were the inputs to the development that followed. They do not need interpreting in your own words according to your personal understanding. They are what they are. I have called them matters of fact because they are accepted as such by a great many scientists, they are not my personal opinion or subjective interpretation.

Thank you for clarifying precisely what you said. I do not think it is more informative or succinct or helpful.They are pre-written futures because that is what I am calling them within the explanatory framework, and I have explained why- both in my recent reply and on the blog discussion threads.

I do not want to argue Paul. It would have been nice to hear something that was good about my essay.

Georgina

It is not a matter of arguing, but proposing different views, with substantiation and trying to establish what is correct. Which includes saying, not to you personally, 'hang on a minute, Einstein said this about SR, and that about something else'. Though this is really not what is going on most of the time anyway. That is enough to deal with. You may not believe it, given the number of posts I put out, but I only type with one finger. Its hard work, as it is, without dwelling on all the things that are correct/good.

Paul

Georgina

Wearing my Astronomer hat; Brilliant, clear, logical and consistent. From the Optics viewpoint; a sight for sore eyes, and as an Architect; excellently constructed, beautifully presented and nicely original. You must also be used to teaching some students who are maybe not the sharpest tools in the box, not only as it is among the more readable and comprehensible but because your patience in explaining the concepts is itself commendable.

I'm glad you persisted when you got tired, and really hope you get into the finals this year. I plan to read it again and maybe raise points, but 'first reads' are hard to keep up with when time just keeps going faster as space expands (doesn't it?!?)

Good score coming from me for sure. Best of luck.

Peter

Hi Peter,

thank you so much for prompt administration of the antidote.It was nice to read your highly complimentary comments. I am glad that even with just a quick look you can see some good points worth mentioning. I'm hoping that the simplicity of the presentation does not make readers, especially those unfamiliar with my explanations on the various FQXi blog threads, think that the essay can not contain anything of significance.There are a lot of ideas, solutions and suggestions packed into it.

The explanatory framework is still just the "bones" that give a coherent structure to physics. They can be fleshed out by looking at all sorts of different areas of research and seeing how they fit on those "bones".This was only briefly mentioned at the end as there was not room to elaborate. George Ellis' competition entry is talking about top down control of development and seems highly relevant. Also there can be development of a mathematical or symbolic representation and further understanding of the mathematical relationships of different parts of the framework itself.

Some areas of physics will not fit with the explanatory framework.It is likely that- because so many other aspects of physics will fit, and so many problems are overcome, those that can not fit are based upon physical assumptions that are wrong. The structure of the essay enables the essay question to be handled using compelling evidence and to be answered with conviction.

I have uploaded a high definition version of the diagram which is much easier to read into this discussion thread.

Georgina,

I didn't know Peter Jackson had responded to your essay, as I had not accessed your forum until just now.

I had just posted a comment to Peter's essay (topic 1330) where I quoted a statement from your essay. See Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 16:14 GMT

Hi Again Georgina,

I recently was reminded of a quotation by David Deutsch which made me think about your views and about your essay. Unless I'm mistaken, this is consistent with your views:

"Like an explosive awaiting a spark, unimaginably numerous environments in the universe are waiting out there, for aeons on end, doing nothing at all or blindly generating evidence and storing it up or pouring it out into space. Almost any of them would, if the right knowledge ever reached it, instantly burst into a radically different type of physical activity: intense knowledge-creation, displaying all the various kinds of complexity, universality and reach that are inherent in the laws of nature, and transforming that environment from what is typical today into what could become typical in the future. If we want to, we could be that spark." (From 'The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 75) A nice thought.

Cheers,

jcns