Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

[deleted]

I must get going. I will look at this, but can say anything of this nature is irrelevant. The issue is not what sentient organisms subsequently process, the point is what was received, and hence what caused that.

And in the case of sight, what is received by any thing (it is just that some entities can process it) is a photon based representation of what occurred. So there is a timing delay between occurrence and receipt of light, and receipt of light neither affects that light (except that it ceases to exist in that form) or the existent occurrence which it 'represents'.

Paul

[deleted]

Anonymous,

that's an interesting problem too but different.

The shell "game" is a con because the coin is removed and not under any of them, until it is put there. It is not a game of probability but deception. It can't be won unless the person with coin chooses to let the person guessing win.

[deleted]

Peter

Instead of philosophy and irrelevant considerations about how the brain, etc works, here is a set of simple Q&As.

1 Q: Is there something which exists independently of the mechanism whereby it is detected? A: Yes, all entities (sentient and non-sentient) receive physical input, ie physically interact with something if in the line of travel of it.

2 Q: Is this physical input the physically existent reality? A: No, it is physically existent, but is the result of an interaction with the physically existent reality and certain physical phenomena which are not part of the existential sequence.

3 Q: What is the difference between sentient and non-sentient entities? A: Sentient entities have acquired, through evolution, the ability to subsequently process this physical input. So for sentient entities, it has acquired the functional role of an independent physical representation of the physically existent reality.

4 Q: Does this sensing have any effect on what physically exists? A: Only in so far as the physical input ceases to exist in that form when received by any entity (sentient or non-sentient). Otherwise, there can be no effect either on that, or on the physical existence which caused it.

5 Q: What other important consequence is there? A: Because the physical input has to travel, there is a time differential between the time at which physical existence occurred, and the time at which it is received.

Paul

pjackson

Paul.

So you give up. That's ok. Most would have got it wrong, possibly even Georgina because (sorry) there IS a coin under one. Now, as there are only two shells, the way we use our brains tells us clearly that there is a 50:50 chance, Yes?

Of course it's 50:50 ...if the way we think is correct. It's so obvious that anything else would be absurd as Pentcho would claim.

But we don't think correctly, and 50:50 is wrong, which is why most of us can rarely see past a short horizon, or dig down and find the deeply hidden assumptions we use which are wrong. Our thinking is anthropocentric, which limits our vision. You are clinging to your 5 points, yes, they're all fine, but when told there's a big new world of implications and other truths beyond that you just saw a blank wall and clung to those 5.

The shell game is just a peek. In fact despite suspicions that the offer to switch may be an effort to stop you winning, you increase the odds to 2:1 in your favour if you switch. The reason is equivalent to the 'paradoxical' Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the most favoured basis among quantum physicists (but with only ~30% support!). It says states are superposed until observed as the observer is part of the system, thus having the issue called the 'measurement problem', or how can something not 'exist' until observed!!

To find the logic there's a higher level 'space' you need to conceive. Cardano, who first described it called it 'sample space' (to me it's 'home'). It is a beautiful sunlit causal universe above the dark labyrinth of confusion.

But I can't just 'tell you it's there', or show you the maths. To find it you must first realise it IS there and set about seeking it. Then it's easy, and very rewarding. The shell game only gives a glimpse, but let me point you the way with a simpler question;

We all know the highest probability from tossing a coin 100 times is 50 heads and 50 tails, OK?. So if you test it, and toss 10 heads in a row, are your chances of the next toss being tails increased?

Best of luck. Peter

PS. In answer to your question 5; The solution to every paradox and anomaly in science. 1-4 alone solve nothing.

[deleted]

Peter

As I keep on saying, I am not interested in philosophy, neither am I interested in the biology, psychology, sociology, etc, involved in the subsequent processing of what is physically received. This is, as I have said so many times, and somewhat obviously, irrelevant to physics. It is only relevant in so far as understanding how that processing works enables a better understanding of what was received.

You have some problem with what I am saying, which is not articulated beyond allusion to a "big new world" and a "higher level space". While really I should go no further because you state no specifications, just an almost religious assertion, I will state the following:

-we are trapped in a closed existential system and can only be aware (either directly or by proper hypothesis, ie not belief) of what it is possible for us to be aware of. That is, we can only know of one form of existence. There is the possibility of alternatives, but this is irrelevant as we cannot know of them.

-there is no existent phenomenon which corresponds with space, or nothing. There is something which is not something else, and the spatial difference between things. Any referencing in order to calibrate something must be effected wrt something, and in order for subsequent calibrations to be comparable, constancy of reference must be maintained.

-the reference for spatial calibrations is a conceptual spatial matrix which is 'imposed' on any given physical existent state, and is operationalised as above.

-similarly with timing, the reference is a conceptual constant, only in this case it is rate of change.

One of Einstein's fundamental mistakes was not realising how timing works, and he thereby created a non-existent 'extra layer' of time in physical existence. I get the impression (because you do not specify the crux of your assertions) that you are making a similar mistake with space.

You then mention Copenhagen. As I have stated many times, this philosophical view of physical existence is incorrect. Physical existence, as knowable to us (people are free to dream whatever they like, but not to assert that as existent), cannot occur in some bizarre state. Whatever constitutes it can only occur in one definitive physically existent state at a time. That is the definition of physical existence. Any form of sensing involves receipt, and therefore has no effect on what previously physically occurred. Receipt involves the cessation of what was received in that physical form, but this is a statement of the obvious and meaningless. And anyway, what was received (and therefore ceased) was not what existentially occurred. So in no sense are we part of the physical process. If photons ceased to exist, or all sentient entities were extinguished, physical existence would continue.

So, can you please, without recourse to philosophy or puzzles, explain what is incorrect in what I am saying.

Paul

[deleted]

Peter,

the shell game is not the best example to use. Although what you are saying about probability is interesting, your shell game is -unusually- honest. You did not specify in the original question that there IS a coin under one of the shells.

pjackson

Georgina,

True. I always assume honesty. Physics is confused enough without adding deliberate deception I suspect!

The identical case of 'Ask Marilyn' was brilliant in that it had 1,000 PhD's and the top mathematicians in the world insisting Marilyn's advice on odds were wrong. The eminent authority Paul Erdos even got very angry about it. It should have shown them all that the fundamental assumption they were making about the way we do maths was wrong.

It didn't. They were all proceed entirely wrong, and agreed it, but almost none could see the important meaning of it to maths. They just clung on to what they knew and shut their minds. Godels theorem has shown something similar, but they dismiss that too!

I tried to use it as a 'doorway of realisation' to help Paul move on as I could think of no other way to do so. Unfortunately it seems I clung to a wrong assumption myself; that it was possible. But never mind, I always believe we should try.

If you're interested try this; The basis of predicate logic (and Calculus) is this; a = a. 'a' is equivalent to a 'noun', so Plato = Plato.

But there is only one Plato as proper nouns describe 'unique entities', so a = a is only 'meta'physical. So how about common nouns; tree = tree snowflake = snowflake. Do they? Are there two identical trees or snowflakes? I suggest above a particle level that proposition is incorrect.

So there we have it. Maths has no 'physical' meaning, it is either metaphysical or wrong. This is because a probability amplitude distribution applies.

i.e. In biology; Humans have 10 fingers, yes?.

That is actually wrong! We can only ever say 'most' humans have 10 fingers as some are born with six on each hand, so probability is never zero.

I've found deeper implications emerge which resolve all the issues in science! But I think mainstream science thinking is a little like the posts above; Nothing but what they already believe can possibly be important!

Views?

best wishes

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

it does seem a big step to go from identifying a problem to your statement "So there we have it. Maths has no 'physical' meaning, it is either metaphysical or wrong."

I can appreciate that there is a problem with using a letter to represent a noun which represents an object of some kind. I agree objects that can be classified by the same noun are not equivalent at anything more than a superficial level of consideration. Though many manufactured objects are made to be very similar.

You are making an important point about probability. There can not be complete certainty that two observable objects of the same name are equivalent.

The way nouns can be used to describe entirely different things of the same name, such as a flesh and blood cat and a picture of a cat, is also problematic. The objects are certainly are not equivalent but one does represent the other. Isn't the representation cat=cat valid as a sort of code that has a useful but different meaning non the less? (Incidentally calling the image of an object by the same name as the material object has been the underlying reason for some of the paradoxes in Einstein's work.)

Peter wrote "I've found deeper implications emerge which resolve all the issues in science!" All the issues?

[deleted]

Peter,

Thinking about what you said about assuming honesty. The environmental context will have an effect on probability. In a magic show, as the clearest example, the probability that a does not equal a is increased. However the assumption of equivalence is essential for the "magic". It is important to know as much as possible about the environment, to know if it is affecting the results in a way that might not have been taken into account.

[deleted]

Peter

Not that I want to distract you from the question in hand, but in respect of your repeated point. Obviously no one 'thing' is the same as another 'thing'. Indeed, from one instant to the next any given 'thing' is not the same, ie there is alteration. The concept of 'thing' is ontologically incorrect, in that we deem a 'thing' by virtue of certain superficial physical attributes, and as long as they, or most of them, persist, we deem the 'thing' to have continued in existence. We even speak of the 'thing' continuing to exist, but with changes.

Now, apart from maintaining sanity, etc, as with any simplification, this works, but it must be understood for what it is. And then when it matters, the proper existential construction of physical existence, must be invoked. So a tree is a tree because it manifests certain generic physical characteristics. As a physically existent entity it is different from another tree. And it is deemed to be the same physical entity, even with changes, so long as certain superficial attributes persist. Indeed, when it dies and falls over, it still tends to be referred to as the same tree. There just comes a point when the few rotting bits of wood left no longer justify it being deemed the tree.

All of which reveals the fallacy of the underlying conceptualisation. What matters, when it is necessary to matter in the context of the analysis, is the physically existent state that that 'entity' was in at any given time. In order for physical existence to occur, whatever constitutes its substance, can only exist in one specific physically existent state at a time. Physical existence must be existential sequence, where the predecessor state must cease for the successor to exist.

Which then raises the question of what constitutes substance. Again the concept tends to be elementary particle (different types thereof) attributes of which are changed by something else. But actually, what must constitute the substance of physical existence is whatever it is which is capable of innately changing (which may involve different types).

Now I do not mind comments on this, after all, it is one of a limited number of points I have been making for the past 18 months. But I would still want you to address the main point of this thread.

Paul

pjackson

Georgina,

Spot on about probability amplitude distributions (PADS). Did you read the essay on the Montevideo interpretation of QM? Worth reading. Topic 1310.

I'll explain; We CAN have both determinism and uncertainty, (unifying classical and quantum physics), because a complex quantum system (read 'inertial system') of uncountable parts is incomputable. There WILL then be a causal mechanism of interactions and scattering of light etc, but we cannot anticipate it, so can only work with PADS.

Now back to a = a. This is the fundamental pretext of all logic and maths from Aristotle onwards, formalised by Russel, Wittegenstein etc. Yet logic, like maths and science, is always ultimately beset by paradox. (Godels theorem is proven).

I've tracked the reason right back to the fundamental assumption a = a. in fact no one 'a' can ever be said to precisely equal any other 'a'. In fact Feynman nearly got there, saying the same of geometry; "...the assumption that we can use geometry down to the last notch is false".

If you study every red balloon in the world, everything 'supposedly 'identical' which a common noun describes or every printed letter 'a', with an electron microscope there will always be differences. We never get 100% likeness.

That leaves Proper Nouns, which by definition are unique. In that case a = a can never be physically relevant, it is only a metaphysical concept. Your other comments, true as they are, largely only serve to distract from the fundamental problem. - but indeed yes; Loads can happen to emitted signal fluctuations before they reach our lenses.

What we CAN then do is use the wave = sign, and PADs. We consider variations 'trivial' and use the term; "accurate for all intents and purposes." No. Not quite ALL, and therein lies the problem at the heart of our understanding. Once applied universally the lights all start to come on and science becomes intuitive. I'm not sure our thinking methods are ready, but there's only one way to check!

You ask "All the issues"? That's probably not 100% true (nothing is!). It can only so far solve all the ones I've found. But that is a lot. Just throw some at me and I'll put then through the model sausage machine.

pjackson

Paul,

Sorry but I can't spend any more time on that discussion, I'm behind with 3 papers and my tax return! Your resistance to perceiving beyond your current comfort zone, or tracking implications, is too great. I did my best.

Of 'non-uniqueness of physical entities' and logical systems, you also agree some fundamentals, but again it is the ultimate implications of that for our hidden assumptions that really matter.

If you can follow my conversations and get there yourself I'll be impressed, but I can't explain, debate and help guide you along a whole pathway when you refuse to move.

If you have contrary beliefs you should test and develop them into your own theory.

Best of luck, and best wishes.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter

"Sorry but I can't spend any more time on that discussion".

Well, you need not have sent the time you did in responding to me with philosophy and mind games. What I said was very simple, so if it is wrong it is very easy to point out why.

Paul

pjackson

Isaacson, Green, Steinhardt discussing Relativity and QM; "the major problem in theoretical physics how to match general relativity and quantum theory." (WI).

"super string theory ...is a completely theoretical undertaking. It is completely mathematical. It has yet to make contact with experimental data." and; "...we have quantum mechanics, we have general relativity, we have to put them together in some consistent way," (BG).

And PAUL STEINHARDT; "My own point of view is that we have to change one or both of these two key components of our understanding of the universe. We either have to dramatically revise them, or we have to overhaul them entirely, replace them with something that combines to make a powerful theory that really does explain, in a powerful way, why the universe is the way that it is." ... and; ... "Until we have hard evidence to the contrary, I think we push this program of looking for unification and simplicity until it takes us as far as we can go."

I should say I agree with all the above, but see it as incomplete as it misses the most important point. It fails to note that if such a theory does arise, then it will not be recognised as it will be a little 'different' to the present theories so unfamiliar.

I propose it exists. In a 'discrete (unified) field' model a body of medium, say a lens, will modulate the local propagation velocity datum to it's own frame. It does this via boundary 'fluid dynamic coupling' at it's domain limits (i.e. at surface plasmon scattering, and at Earth's bow shock, etc.) This is of course precisely what is found observationally.

An underlying quantum mechanism thereby directly derives the classical postulates of Special Relativity; inc. CSL. The Navier-Stokes hydrodynamic equation unsolvability ensures the probablistic nature of the fully deterministic causal mechanism that unifies SR and QM. It opens the door to many other hidden likenesses.

Any help in falsifying this very falsifiable and quite new understanding is most welcome, as I and all have failed so far. - i.e. please do tell me where it's wrong.

Many thanks. Peter.

[deleted]

Tom,

I hope my point on beliefs trumping evidence is made. Planck evidence shows this again. You'll recall my list of actual and implied predictions re the CMB, some repeated in my end notes and in the discussions above, included explicitly;

An axial flow, but not to a 'great attractor'.

A helical quadrupolar asymmetry centred around the flow.

An asymmetric density pattern each side of the flow.

Surfaces last scattered to modulate lambda throughout the CMB.

A significant bipolar asymmetry weaker on the 'attractor' side.

Higher dark matter content than estimated.

and implicit the quasar based recycling model

A 'cold spot' aligned with the flow axis.

Weak lateral signals (due to flow width constraint).

I flag up that all these highly novel and peculiar anisotropies have been confirmed in the Planck results (gen paper below) But the simple model deriving them is ignored as it's different to the concorance model. This is despite the anomalies being described by ESA as follows;

"...something fundamental may be missing from the standard framework"

"...challenge the very foundations of cosmology"

"...some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink."

"...the model should be at the very least extended, if not radically modified."

The comparative redshift models studied were supposed to represent 'all' options but all used the same wrong assumptions so none worked, despite them also saying

"... The anomalies in the CMB are telling us something fundamental: we do not know yet what this is, but we are eager to find out,"

Bless'em. Just a test of assumptions would resolve every anomaly, and all both SR and QM friendly. They had my paper 4 years ago. I've sent a reminder but no reply. When data starts to trump beliefs maybe we'll start making better progress. Point now made I hope?

Ade, P.A.R., et al., Planck 2013 results. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB. 2013.

Akinbo Ojo

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your comments on my essay in the 2013 contest and hope to get your rating.

We are certainly on the same road but we may be seeing certain things slightly differently.

You say "Assumption 5. Apparent speed c + v is not accessible. We discuss this shock further as the medium (not vacuum) case of 'apparent' or 'imaginary' c+v without violating CSL must be firmly embedded in place of the old assumption which has screened our view of reality. Apparent speed may be considered ~equivalent to the additive 'rapidity', a concept which may need it's hyperbole reviewed and a real quantum process provided".

Again, "Scene 2. Observer frame matters. The importance of an observers frame has emerged".

I take all this to mean your dissatisfaction with aspects of SR. You are not alone but you will have an uphill task because just as Eddington adopted Einstein's theory almost unconditionally, the establishment today feels likewise about SR and GR. (e.g. see www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf). So for now your logical arguments cannot count because of this unconditional love affair. Maybe in future.

However, I will like to draw your attention to two rotational experiments which show REAL and not 'imaginary' or 'apparent' c+v and c-v unlike another rotational experiment that of Michelson and Morley expt which showed c+v = c and c-v =c respectively for receptor moving towards and away from incoming light beams. These are Sagnac's experiment and signal delays due to earth rotation in the GPS (global positioning system). These delays correspond exactly to the value of receptor velocity, v.

If ALL the experiments are correct, then your idea of how vacuum or space as a medium behaves on and above earth surface may come in here to resolve the seeming discrepancy.

Best regards,

Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,

Thanks. I agree entirely, except for one small semantic thing.

Because the speed 'modulation' process works down to the scale Maxwell's near/far field transition zone (equivalent to a 'shock') at a few particles, then we may say that actual local "propagation speed" is still modulated to c in the cases you refer.

I have argued the Sagnac and GPS case in the nth detail, and it's irresistible using those terms. In a Sagnac ring gyro the propagation speed is the one constant. Using 'frequency' from arbitrary frames is the cause of much of the confusion.

Peter

« Previous Page