George,

You say,

"One of the basic assumptions implicit in the way physics is usually done is that all causation flows in a bottom up fashion, from micro to macro scales. However this is wrong in many cases in biology, and in particular in the way the brain functions."

My essay speaks of empirical evidence such as the trapping of anti-matter in space and the perceived weightlessness of thousands of sightings of UFOs in our atmosphere as good hard evidence. Macro and micro studies try to address this mystery. Is it an exception regarding your thoughts?

Jim

    Dammit the system logged me out. That was me.

    And here is the correct link, I hope. This websystem should allow one to look at the posting in its final form before putting it up: then these errors could be avoided.

    George

    Dear James

    I'm afraid I don't take UFO sightings seriously as evidence about fundamental physics.

    George

    • [deleted]

    • Post #335

    Dear Dr. Ellis,

    1. First of all I must let you know that I am not a 'special relativity' denier, in the sense that I reject the a) principle of constancy of velocity of light, b) the validity of the displacement equation of Lorentz transformation, c) the slowing down of internal processes of a particle when in motion, d) transverse Doppler effect (TDE)of light, d) matter particles cannot move at the velocity c, etc.

    I am glad to say that I not only accept these empirical facts which you call as the "tightly integrated package", but I have also derived these by extending principles of TD into whole of physics as Einstein intended.

    . "By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead to assured results. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics. The general principle was there given in the theorem: laws of nature are such that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum mobile" (Einstein's Autobiography, p.53).

    By extending the principles of TD (as Einstein intended), I have proved a) how the velocity of light remains constant in a given medium. b) Shown how the TDE occurs c) With TDE, I have shown how null result of the MMX comes to be. d) shown extremely accurately how an atomic clock in a GPS orbit loses 7.213 ns/day. e) Using the same algorithm which is used to calculate the above time delay, proved why a matter particle cannot move at velocity c.

    So if you like, I have provided a "tightly integrated dynamic foundation" to the "tightly integrated package" which has so far been collection of ad hoc kinematic assertions. Thus fulfilling Einstein's dream of having a theory of principles in place of the makeshift constructive theory he created provisionally.

    I am not a relativity denier in the sense of rejecting the 'package'. I don't throw the baby with the bath water. But you must admit that the LT time equation falls into the category of 'bath water'. It is not an item in the 'tightly integrated package'.

    2. You wrote: "yes I agree that that specific equation per se has not been verified but time dilation has, which is its core element".

    No it is more than that. In the millions of experiments you mention, which have proved the LT space equation right, these have at the same time proved the LT time equation to be false.

    If the 'specific equation' has not been 'verified', and there is the other equation which is the core element, does it not mean that the whole contention around the 'specific equation' is false?

    I am glad that you have the honesty and courage to effectively admit that no experiment has proved the fundamental contention of SRT, which is: :.. "The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz transformation') are postulated for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME."(1, p. 55).

    You wrote: "I don't have to have a test of that one specific equation in order to test the theory as a whole".

    But according to Einstein this equation is a FUNDAMENTAL premise for SRT. It is this time equation that transcends the contradiction between his other two postulates as you can see from the above quote from Einstein. So does not the theory fall apart on this account?

    But the 'integrated package' remains with the "Right Way" - the TD interpretation!!

    3. You wrote: "I call it putting my attention to items that are likely to lead to progress".

    It is for progress towards what Einstein indicated as the "Right Way" I am drawing your attention to. Einstein wrote: "If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented (fictitiously), can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay more has the right way any existence outside our illusions? ......". We need to note that in answering the above question , Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas: " ..without a hesitation that there is, in my opinion a right way, and that we are capable of finding it (in the future) ...Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is a realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. (thus quite in contrast to the abstruse mathematical formalisms of SRT and GRT), I am convinced that we can (i.e. WILL be able to) discover by means of purely mathematical constructions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena" (Philosopher-Scientist, p. 398).

    Best regards,

    Viraj

    Another example:

    Here is a study of top down effects (the role of environment on galaxy evolution) in astronomy, from a seminar here today.

    Title: The MASSIV Survey

    Abstract:

    The MASSIV survey is composed of 84 star-forming galaxies at 0.9 < z < 1.8 selected from the VVDS. I will present its selection and focus on the main results of this survey: the kinematic diversity, the discovery of inverse metallicity gradients, the evolution of scaling laws and the role of environment on galaxy evolution as deduced from the study of the merger rate from MASSIV.These results will be put in regard to other integral fields surveys at larger (e.g. LSD/AMAZE, SINS or OSIRIS) and lower redshifts (e.g. GIRAFFE).

    Frank

    Your items 1) and 2) relate to consciousness. This is enabled by brain function, which in turn is enabled by a combination of bottom up and top down causation in the brain, as delightfully explained by Eric Kandel in his new book The Age of Insight. Item 3) is a 2-part philosophical statement. I can live with the first part but not the second. Indeed as physics is based in mathematics, I think those two parts contradict each other.

    One has to be careful about not claiming too much for what one has done. My essay does not attempt to account for all the things you mention, and there is no reason why it should. It has a clear limited goal, and I believe succeeds in that endeavour.

    George

    Some of the essays in this competition relate to the relation between models and reality: a key feature of the way science works. Those who want to think about this in depth may find this article on models in science useful.

    Section 5.2 of that article is related to my essay, because we when we consider the hierarchy of structure and causation as discussed in my essay, we are actually using many different models, involving different representation/coarse graining scales, to represent the same physical reality. The issue is how they relate to each other. In general relativity, this leads to the issue of coarse graining and backreaction; in general it leads to the issue of what relations exist between these different models of the same system - that is, bottom up and top down relations between them.

    George

    The further essay here , discussing inter-theory relations, also takes up the same theme in a useful way.

    George

    Frank,

    no one but you thinks your essay is fundamental to science. Your claim that dreams can be used as a basis of understanding physics takes you outside the mode of operation of the scientific community, because dreams are not replicable evidence.

    You are not willing to concede this point, so we have such different standpoints that no profitable debate between us is possible. I will not be responding to any further posts from you.

    George

    Hi George,

    Very nice essay. I am wondering if top-down / bottom-up causation is a duality? Could one exist without the other? I think that is what you are saying or the point you are trying to make.

    Best,

    Fred

      Thank you Edwin,

      I suppose it is the same or similar to the argument that classical-quantum is a duality. Hopefully a good discussion point here.

      Best,

      Fred

      PS. I am going to try to answer your questions about my essay tomorrow. Sorry it has taken so long; I will explain why over there.

      Dear Pentcho,

      I agree that the definitions of "top" and "down" are both fuzzy and arbitrary. To this extent it is may be a triviality. But I think it's deeper than that.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      PS. Some people get tired of your cutting and pasting, but I think that you have a knack for getting to relevant points of view. Keep it up.

      "There is nothing new under the sun": one open question and two failed challenges.

      The one respondent on this thread who has seriously challenged the scientific content of my essay is an anonymous physicist operating under the pseudonym "There is nothing new under the sun", claiming I have not given a single genuine instance of top-down causation that could not be explained in a purely bottom up way. I have responded to him in various posts, particularly one on Sept 14:2012@22:51 GMT, and in a summary response on Sept 17th:2012 @18h15GMT give a series of counter examples to his claims.

      I have conceded that one point in my argument can be queried. He has failed two challenges I have set him.

      The point that remains open is the validity of my arguments regarding the Caldeira-Leggett model, which I claim is a top-down effect; he claims it can be explained in a purely bottom up way via the renormalisation group. I still believe that my argument, set out in detail here , is valid, but I have to look into the link with the renormalisation group when I have time. That study might make me withdraw my claim about the Caldeira-Leggett model, or it might lead me to claim that renormalisation group descriptions, like superconductivity theory, embody an essential top-down element. This is work in progress; but I acknowledge that there is a legitimate query to be answered.

      The first challenge he has failed is as follows: on Sept 14:2012@22:51 GMT, I wrote the following: "Here is a challenge for you. Explain to me in a purely bottom up way how state vector preparation is possible, as for example in the Stern Gerlach experiment. Quantum physics is unitary, as we all know: how does the non-unitary behaviour of state vector preparation emerge in a purely bottom up way from that unitary dynamics? You won't be able to explain this action without invoking the effect of the apparatus on the particles - which is a form of top down action from the apparatus to the particles." He has not responded to this in any way. He has failed that challenge.

      The second challenge he has failed is as regards the arrow of time. He has strongly insisted in various posts that Weinberg's quantum field theory derivation of the H-Theorem resolves the arrow of time issue in a purely bottom up way, because it shows that entropy always increases. As well as referring him to other sources that support my view, I have responded to this claim with a step by step demonstration that this is not the case: see my posting of Sept.16:2012@14:06 GMT, which definitively shows the arrow of time issue cannot be resolved in a purely bottom up way, because Weinberg's derivation -- just like Boltzmann's -- works in both directions of time.

      In my follow up posting on Sept19:2012 @ 05:37 GMT, I said the following:

      " So come on. Which is it?

      * Do you have a counter argument showing I'm wrong? If so what is it? Where is the mistake in this elementary logic?

      or

      * Do you have the stature to concede you and your Santa Cruz experts are simply wrong? - you did not grasp this elementary logic?

      or

      * will you lurk in the shadows, unable to answer and unable to admit you were wrong? -- proving you don't have the capacity to admit that you are wrong, nor the stature required to apologise for the insulting nature of your comments.

      If you give no reply, you choose the last option. Wheeler, Feynman, Sciama, Davies, Zeh, Penrose, Carroll, and others including myself are vindicated, and your condescending comments are discredited."

      He has chosen the third course. He has failed that challenge as well.

      I only need one example to prove that top-down processes do indeed occur in physics, just as they do in many other contexts such as in digital computers and in the human brain and in evolutionary theory . My case (elaborated here ) stands undefeated.

      George Ellis

        Dear Fred,

        that is an interesting question.

        There are two kinds of duality in physics. The one is such cases as the Ads/CFT duality and the duality between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, where they are different descriptions of the same physics. The other is the kind of duality that occurs in quantum physics as expressed in Dirac's bra and ket notation, based in the duality between vectors and co-vectors, where these are complementary aspects of the physics that work together to give the final outcome.

        I suggest that the case of bottom up and top down causation is a duality of the second kind. This dual working allows interlevel feedback loops, which are the underlying enabling factor for the emergence of true complexity in biology.

        George

        Dear Eugene

        I have carefully explained in my essay that I do not claim there is an identifiable topmost or bottom most layer:my comments relate to relations between any two neighbouring levels (and hence to any further levels related via neighbouring levels).

        Is the idea of levels vacuous or arbitrary, as suggested by Pentcho Valev? Well please tell me what is wrong with Tables 1 and 2 in my essay. The very existence of different academic subjects such as physics, chemistry, and biology is testimony to the reality of the hierarchy. I give a much fuller exposition of its nature here . In my reply to Pentcho on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT, I give references that show the reality of the hierarchy in many different contexts.

        I agree there are complications in determining its nature in very complex contexts; there is a whole literature on how to determine it in complex networks. Remember I am only claiming existence of local hierarchies; and there is abundant evidence there are a great many such local hierarchies in physics, biology, computers, and the brain. Please see for example the book by Campbell and Reece on biology and the book by Tanenbaum on computers (the references are in my essay).

        A note to readers of this thread: I am no longer prepared to stand for the personal insults that Pentcho Valev insists on including in his postings to my thread. The administrator of this competition, who decides whether to accept or reject requests for deletions of posts, agrees with me that the tone of his postings has been intolerable.

        If further such personal attacks are made in postings to my thread by anyone at all, I may well cease reading what is posted here and stop answering all postings. Why on earth should I put up with this kind of behaviour?

        George Ellis

        Hi George,

        You replied to Fred, "I suggest that the case of bottom up and top down causation is a duality... (that) ... allows interlevel feedback loops, which are the underlying enabling factor for the emergence of true complexity in biology."

        Indeed. I have not been able to formulate a more general definition of "organization" -- whether biological or inorganic -- than "order with feedback." In fact, how could causality be more clearly implied, independent of an infinite regress?

        You mentioned in a post to the anonymous respondent the barrier of state preparation in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. If you're not familiar with it, you might be interested in Leslie's Lamport's treatment of the experiment. As he notes: "No real experiment, having finite precision, can demonstrate the presence or absence of continuity, which is defined in terms of limits."

        Order with feedback is a demonstrably self-limiting process.

        Best,

        Tom

        Trying again!! This linking system does not seem to work.

        I only need one example to prove that top-down processes do indeed occur in physics, just as they do in many other contexts such as in digital computers and in the human brain and in evolutionary theory . My case (elaborated here ) stands undefeated.

        Hi Tom

        thanks for that, that is an interesting paper.

        You quote "No real experiment, having finite precision, can demonstrate the presence or absence of continuity, which is defined in terms of limits." I agree. In fact I have a closely related strong position, based on a statement by David Hilbert:

        (a) no physics theory or proof that relies on infinity in an *essential* way describes the real world;

        one implication is that spacetime must be quantised at a small enough scale (which is supported by many other arguments);

        (b) the claimed existence of infinities of anything whatever in any physical theory is not a scientific statement, as there is no way that this claim could ever be observationally or experimentally proved.

        However I did not see any close link of Lamport's paper to state vector preparation. Did you mean another paper? Or is it related to the fact that state vector preparation is never perfect? - even if so, it's still non-unitary (consider a wire polarizer).

        Best,

        George