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

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.

Hi Daniel,

The frog story is amusing, I can imagine the researcher's frustration.

In "Teach your child how to think" Edward de Bono wrote: "Many people ask is there an 'ideal' type of thinking that can be used for all occasions. The answer is that there is not.", he then talks about a golfers many different golf clubs, the gears on a car and how a saw and glue have contradictory functions but are both useful. He writes "Thinking behaviour will often require an ability to switch methods as appropriate."

The very close relationship of modern physics and mathematics has led to predominately black and white thinking and the history of science has been rather adversarial. Specifically -How- to think and the diversity of ways that a person -can- think, is not generally taught in schools or universities. Thinking ability is assumed to be something that will just happen, is a natural gift or deficit and doesn't need cultivation. Edward de Bono strongly believes that thinking can be taught. He has given presentations on thinking techniques to companies, his ideas are used in some very large companies today and there are corporate training courses based upon his ideas. If this happens in business it could also happen within science establishments.

The usefulness of bringing together people from different disciplines or walks of life is that they are already thinking in different ways. So rather than having one versatile mind working on a problem the versatility and enhanced effectiveness comes from the combined mindsets of different people. The internet ability to bring people together can be helpful in this way. FQXi is doing this, as illustrated by the variety of talks given during its last conference.

So the answer, I think, is -No one does not have to be outside the box to think outside the box because anyone could learn other ways of thinking. However it might be quicker and easier to match the existing thinking skills and experience of someone to the problem. As illustrated by your wonderful frog harness story.

I'm glad you liked my essay, thank you.

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

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

Dear Georgina

I very much like the overall way you have done this essay, using de Bono's ideas as a framework, and your overall analysis of image and reality (which is a key issue).Just one comment on that part: Tegmark is a very capable physicist but when he says "Evolution has endowed us with intuition only for those aspects of physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, such as the parabolic trajectories of flying rocks" he is wrong - he's buying into the myth of evolutionarily determined folk physics modules, which don't exist. Actually nature has endowed us with the ability to learn from our experiences, which eventually enable us to anticipate how rocks will move - it's not innate.

The crux of your argument is your interesting diagram (thanks for the high-res version) which is in effect a model of how we create our models of reality. Where I part with you is your section "So which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?' To my mind it goes a bit too far in emphasizing subjectivity rather than objective reality. They both exist - the issue is the relation between them. But then I am with you again in Diagram 2 (which will not surprise you).

One final comment: you say "Stephen Wolfram's cellular automata show that complexity can arise from certain inputs and certain sets of rules, reiterated upon the output" Actually the level of complexity that can so arise is very limited. Yes his patterns are fun: but they don't begin to compare with a single living cell. They are about as complex as you can get by bottom-up processes alone. Genuine complexity requires some kind of organising principle which is in essence equivalent to a top-down effect (I know it won't surprise you that I claim this).

Best wishes

George

Dear George,

thank you so much for reading my essay and taking the time to work out what the diagram 1. is showing. I would not myself word it as image and reality, but appreciate that you can see the important separation that is being made. I have, over a long time talking about these ideas on FQXi blog threads, worked out a precise way of consistently communicating the particular ideas. Object reality, exists independently of the process of observation and Image reality, that we experience as reality, is fabricated via the processes of observation.

The quote you picked out from Max Tegmark is, to my mind, above all amusing. I like his writing very much. It is taken out of the context of his essay but in both situations it is being used to say that we can not rely upon human intuition alone to answer the difficult problems of physics.Its not really IMHO a serious comment about how we come to have that intuition. I don't think it is saying that intuition is instinctive rather then learned but I see that it could be interpreted to mean that. Let me say then (combining Max Tegmark's and your arguments) that; evolution has endowed us with the ability to learn from the physics happening around us and thus to have intuition about what is happening or going to happen, shooting a hand out automatically to catch a ball in flight; but that doesn't help answer all of the difficult questions and problems of physics.

You said "To my mind it goes a bit too far in emphasizing subjectivity rather than objective reality. They both exist - the issue is the relation between them."

The explanatory framework I have set out (summarised in diagram 1.) is all about the correct relationship between them. Its not really objective and subjective as those terms are regularly used in science but unobservable, observer independent, reality and the observer's fabricated output reality from received sensory data. The explanatory framework, containing two different facets of reality and the data pool that bridges the two, is able to answer numerous long standing physics questions, overcome the paradoxes of relativity and prevent serious philosophical and theological problems.

In the section "So which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong" I have pointed out those basic assumptions that have to be wrong if the explanatory framework is correct, for example space-time is not independent external reality. There is sensory data distributed within the uni-temporal space but that is not space-time itself; it becomes space-time when the data is processed by the observer.

From what I have seen, and I have not read all of Stephen Wolfram's book about cellular automata, I agree with you that they don't have the complexity of a living cell but some are remarkably patterned. It is an interesting, different way to start modelling the material aspect of nature. I think complexity can be rapidly introduced into very simple models and that is one avenue that I am beginning to explore. In complex life forms there are many pattern generation controls operating together. Shape, surfaces and concentration gradients will all be able to affect the operation of the growth processes and a selection process will operate on the outputs culling defective patterns from the population.I mentioned natural selection as a larger scale pattern control mechanism in my essay. Above that, operating on every material thing at all scales is continual Object universal change and motion. (Missing from the space-time continuum model.)

I am really grateful for your feedback, and glad that there is some overlap in our viewpoints. Thank you.

Hi Georgina

It was nice to read your essay, I found it very clever and creative in the way how you exposed your points. I think you touch some important topics. Certainly I must confess that you touch so many topics which due to the lack of space it is impossible to treat them in more detail. I just would like to make some comments about the topics that you touch.

You have listed many of the inconsistencies found in physics by making a comparison between theory and the "observed" reality. It seems to me that you have noticed that physicists some times make non-sense assumptions. If you have read my essay I am sure that you have understood the why. Some times it is very difficult to model in mathematical terms the reality and theorists must resort to weird assumptions and oversimplifications of observations or data.

On the other hand, I would like to make clear something about the following. I think that there is some misconception with respect to QM. For instance

You say: Einstein's relativity is completely deterministic but QM relies upon probabilities and so is

non deterministic.

Relativity is certainly deterministic, and it is deterministic because it deals with macroscopic systems which are not considerably affected by the process of measurement. But however, QM has two components. If you take a look at the Schrodinger equation you will realize that the equation has a deterministic character. While doing the calculations of a particular system one assumes that reality is deterministic. The harmonic oscillator, the hydrogen atom etc. are treated formally as deterministic problems. The probabilistic part arises from the measurement problem, the uncertainty principle etc.. So one can consider that QM assumes a deterministic reality but however the measurement problem makes this deterministic reality non-deterministic because the measurement affects the system under study. Recall what I mentioned in my essay with respect to this assumption. If the measurements on macroscopic scale affected considerably the system under study relativity theory would most probably become non deterministic. I hope you have gotten my point. What I said is highly connect it with this:

You say: Classical physics can't explain; the probabilistic physiological effect of radiation, the

photoelectric effect, line spectra, black body radiation, wave properties of the electron. QM

can.

You also said that: There seems to be an arrow of time that is inexplicable by Einstein's relativity or QM

I think that the cause of this lack of explanation has to do precisely with some of the false assumptions that I point out in my essay. If you consider thermodynamics, in particular the second law teaches us that the entropy of a system always increases, this means that no process is reversible. One can interpret this as if no event is repeatable, that is, that a given event cannot repeat again in exactly the same way. This suggest that there is an arrow of time pointing in just one direction. Therefore, relativity and QM cannot explain this asymmetry because they were designed to describe only reversible processes. The asymmetry arises due to the construction of the equations that allows to repeat the events in any direction of time. Consider for instance, Newton equation, F=am=md^2x/dt^2, if you change t for -t you will get again the same equation. This same thing happens with Einsteins equations and the Schodinger equation. What I want to make clear is that these 3 equations again are describing an ideal universe that in reality does not exists, actually they describe a very simplify universe but these equations are useful to make the practical calculations required for technological applications.

Finally, I would like to say that to a certain degree Max Tegmark is right. His task is to try to find the correct mathematical structures to get rid of the baggage. He assumes that for every physical element of reality there most be a mathematical one. I think that this may be possible for quantitative explanations (this is why mathematics is used in physics) but not for qualitative matters in which the baggage is fundamental to understand our ideas.

I wish good luck in the contest

Israel

Dear Israel,

thank you for reading my essay and for your explanations. I'm glad you liked the form of presentation. I hoped to write something with much greater clarity and ease of reading than last years FQXi essay, and that other essay I sent to you. I think I have improved my writing by reading "The craft of scientific writing" by Michael alley, listening to your advice and looking at the examples of well written papers. Concentrating especially on setting out the points clearly and using simple language, grammar and sentence structure.

It was not my intention to deal with all of the points touched upon, but to answer the essay question using my own explanatory framework, (which you have seen before) as the means to accomplish that task. There is also a high resolution version of the diagram in this discussion thread. To me that framework is the most important thing in the essay. I was limited, as we all have been, by the permitted character count and so could not develop ideas or discuss them more comprehensively. Without a character limit I could easily have written an essay twice as long. However then it would then have become rambling and tedious rather than concise and enjoyable. It benefits from being less.

I've taken Brendan Foster's advice, that he gave on the blog threads, which was to the effect -if including own work to show how it is relevant and to show development. I also cited your essay, (that you sent me to look at), after my essay with other useful background material because it contains a large number of important "foundational" ideas that are clearly explained.

You make an interesting point about the difference between quantitative and qualitative matters. That other essay of mine, ( you asked me to send to you) was saying that philosophy should not be divorced from science. That it is important to find the correct relationship of ideas not just matters of fact. However I think that having the correct relationship of ideas and the matters of fact they can then be expressed in a formal symbolic way, if not a mathematical way. More so than diagram 1. Though some qualitative products of the human sensory system such as -subjective experience- of colours, sensations and emotions might not be adequately expressed through formal symbolism. These are probably not within the scope of physics. Such matters may be better left to poets, lyricists and artists whose work is able to stimulate the imagination and recreate the sensations and emotions they have expressed through their language or visual art.

Hi Georgina

No problem, I think that this contest is good for all of us in the sense that one can interchange ideas, improve the quality of our works and stimulate our imagination, there is no doubt about it. This contest also makes you realize what your weak and strong points are. Indeed, I noticed that you cited my work, thanks for that I appreciate it.

I agree with you that philosophy should not be divorce from science, in particular physics. But for physicists mathematical matters are more important due to the quantitative character of this science. As I mention in my essay, what matters for science are quantitative predictions because this leads to technological applications. And this is related to the fact of how scientists work. If you would like to understand in more detail this I suggest you should read two important books from the philosophy of science: (1) The structure of scientific revolutions, the author is Thomas Kuhn and (2) Against Method, Paul Feyerabend. The first book focuses on how the changes of thought and paradigms take place in science. The second one deals with the fact that science does not follows rules. Feyerabend argues that for science to make progress, scientists have to be anarchic. A theory gains his popularity not only because it is plausible but also because it is highly promoted.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Dear Israel,

yes, facilitating the sharing and exchange of ideas, (whatever they are/seem; good, bad or curious), is probably the best aspect of this competition. Unlike other competitions where only winner's essay are shared. The whole FQXi site is useful in that way too. It is a marvellous thing, especially for those who don't work in an academic environment. Who would not otherwise have access to the kinds of novel ideas shown on FQXi, and would not get feedback on their own ideas either.

Thank you for the book suggestions.

my dear Georgina, I saw that you answered already to Bobby Gilbertson on the thread of my essay of last year. I am awaiting now the acceptance of my new essay "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" which I hope will be soon, I am sure that is a lot to discuss together, both our perceptions of "reality" are touching each other but also flying far away. Wilhelmus