Recognising Top-Down Causation by George F. R. Ellis

O.K.

I sending just now again

Dear Dr Ellis,

First of all I would like reminding to you one quote from famous neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch, known for his work on the foundation for certain brain theories and his contribution to the cybernetics movement .

In the last century he wrote:

''As I see what we need first and foremost is not correct theory, but some

theory to start from, whereby we may hope to ask a question so that we will

get an answer, if only to the effect that our notion was entirely

erroneous. Most of the time we never even get around to asking the question

in such a form that it can have an answer."(Discussion with John von Neumann

John von Neumann Collected works, Volume 5,p.319)

It was about mind - body relationship and brain function

My question is the following:

I think this is applicable to modern physics?

I put forward 3 questions:

1) 4D space-time?

2) Gravity as a fundamental force?

3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G, c, h)?

My attempts to get answers see my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Sincerely

Yuri Danoyan

Dear George,

When I commented above 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", I was not referring specifically to 'your' definitions, which I had not bothered to lookup, but to the generic definition of 'top' and 'bottom'. In fact, my mind was still on Fred's excellent question and my response to him. There was no criticism of your essay intended, none at all.

And the rest of my remark to Pentcho was due to the fact that I had recently read a comment of his on another thread that contained quotes I found very interesting. I did not realize that he had been insulting you, although I do know that he pushes his own view with minimum tact. Again, there was no criticism of you implied.

These side issues distract from what was, I thought, an excellent question by Fred. I find dualities both fascinating and deep.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

George F. R. Ellis,

Edwin's message of today drew my attention to your message from which I quote this:

"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?"

I hope that you decide to ignore and remove offending messages instead. Earlier this morning I was thinking about your forum and felt motivated to write a thank you message. I haven't participated in discussion here that I recall, but, my thought earlier was that I appreciate that you submitted an essay and also that you give generously of your time to particpate in discussions with other authors. Your essay has been at the top or very near the top in community votes. It is the participation of the professionals that makes this contest work. Anyway, this is a thank you from someone who's ideas of which I believe you would strongly disapprove and prefer to not be bothered with. :)

James

I wish to thank George F.R. Ellis for the immense quality of the author's thread; that I, and the community, read ever with pleasure.

There is a sea of knowledge, a complete and deep quality of the answers, that all of us appreciate.

I cannot avoid that a person can attack Ellis, so I ask a great favor for the community: I don't consider important to read the attacks to Ellis, so that he can erase the attacks.

Saluti

Domenico

Dear George,

I couldn't add a new post at the end of the discussion page so I try in this thread that seems somehow related.

How robust your hierarchy depicted in Table 2 for a digital computer system is in the light of Turing's universality? From Turing universality we know that for a computation S with input i we can always write another computer program S with empty input computing the same function than S for i. Also one can always decompose a computation S into S and i, so data and software are not of essential (ontological?) different nature. I also wonder if it isn't statistical mechanics the acknowledge that the view you are arguing against is not the general assumption in the practice of science.

Dear George and Fred,

George wrote: "Not sure about the application (of the general principle underlying 2nd law of TD) to the particle motion. take it more to deal with systems of particles rather than individual particle".

The above comment was with reference to my earlier statement: ...." the two processes form an interface between the two levels by usurping a fraction of energy from the lower level. The second law of thermodynamics comes into effect by way of this process of interfacing of the two levels of energy. "

This General Principle (since it is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE) should apply to particles taken separately or collectively, in the same way as gravitation applies to each an every particle in a body or the body taken as a whole.

Newton in the Principia addressed this principle. Under the 'Definitions' he dealt with both a system of particles as well as a discrete motion of a single particle (body)

About a systems of particles in motion:

"It is a property of motion, that the parts, which retain their positions to their wholes, do partake of the motions of those wholes. .... if the surrounding bodies are moved, those that are at rest within them will partake of their motion.... For the surrounding bodies stand in the like relation to the surrounded as the exterior part of a whole does to the interior, or as the shell does to the kernel; but if the shell moves, the kernel will also move, as being part of the whole, without any removal from the shell.

About the discrete motion of a particle:

"A property, near akin to the preceding is that, if a place is moved, whatever is placed therein moves along with it. THEREFORE A BODY, WHICH IS MOVED FROM A PLACE IN MOTION, PARTAKES ALSO OF THE MOTION OF ITS PLACE ...." (p. 9)

And under 'Axioms' Newton dealt with a system of particles in motion (in Corollary V) as follows: "The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forwards in a right line without any circular motion" (p. 20). ..... "A clear proof of this we have from the experiment of a ship; where all motions happen after the same manner, whether the ship is at rest, or is carried forwards in a right line...".

The above was in reference to Galileo's statement: "The CAUSE of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's MOTION IS COMMON to all the things contained in it" (p. 187).

(And do you know what this principle is? It is GALILEO'S PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY. Poincare removed the CAUSE - COMMON MOTION - from this principle. And used only the apparent effect to formulate his Principle of Relativity. This distortion made by Poincare is a significant contributory factor to the present crisis in Physics).

When a particle on earth is set in motion on earth, the effective applied energy p' =Mvc too HAS TO HAVE A COMPONENT OF COMMON MOTION WITH THE EARTH. And to determine this component, we need to apply EINSTEIN'S PRINCIPLE OF 'INERTIA OF ENERGY' to p'. Which is p'/c2 = Mv/c (extensive component of the energy).

As discussed in the previous post the general principle is that a fraction of energy in action is usurped equal to the product of the extensive component of the energy in action and the intensive component of the background energy field (just like in Carnot's engine). For the case of a relative motion of a particle on earth, the intensive component of the background energy is the velocity of earth's orbital motion u.

Hence the component usurped to form the organic link with the background is (Mv/c).u. Then the momentum left for relative motion is (Mv/c)(c- u).

At near light velocities v/c tends to 1. Hence for these velocities the displacement x' = (x -ut) which is the so-called "Galilean transformation".

But how do we get from here to Lorentz transformation? How do we account for the GAMMA-FACTOR in LT?

Please see the last section "Geometrodynamics of the Lorentz transformation' of my essay:.http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

This is why Einstein INTUITIVELY wrote: "The UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations, ..... This is a restricting principle for natural laws, comparable to the restricting principle of the non-existence of the perpetuum mobile which underlie thermodynamics" (1, p.57).

By discovering this Universal Principle (or "Top Down Causation") which runs through all the physical processes, we are proving Einstein to be right.

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear George,

You wrote: "Well I'm delighted you have proved Einstein right. Just one point: he got the gamma result direct from the relativity principle. He got it right".

1. Which "gamma result" did he get direct from relativity principle? Which of the following are you referring to?

Is it G = 1/sq rt(1- v2/c2) where v is the velocity of the particle. This G is variable. (which is in "mass increase" and "time dilation").

Or is it G' = 1/sqrt(1- u2/c2) where u is the velocity of earth's orbit for all experiments that human beings have ever done. This G' is constant for a given ref frame. For ECIF G' = 1.000000005. (This G' comes in LT's)

2. Since you have said "He got it right" and you are so sure of it, can you explain how Einstein derived gamma-factors G and G' direct from relativity principle?

Best regards,

Viraj

I think that due to the lack of time you do not have time to read all essays. I sending to you only cosmological conclusion from my essay.

As a cosmologist you can assess at a glance.

Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-27; h=10^-27; h=10^-27

alfa =10^-3; 1/137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=11-12

Once again, why G and c not fundamental.

Because in the same space - time they vary synchronously, but in Planck units of length and Planck unit of time they have different dependencies, and therefore none of them are true.

My approach close to John moffat proposal a variable speed of light approach to cosmological problems, which posits that G/c is constant through time, but G and c separately have not been. Moreover, the speed of light c may have been much higher during early moments of the Big Bang.

You might not think John serious scholar?

Then another thing ..