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

Is diffusion a requirement of reality?

John,

As near as I can make out, your definition of "physically real" -- which you don't offer up -- somehow emerges from a concept you can't precisely define. I can tell, though, that what you mean by the term is not what Einstein meant -- you write, "Prior and subsequent events to what is currently happening are not physically real because the energy that did manifest them or will manifest them is presently engaged in manifesting the current set of circumstances."

This militates against a definition of physically real, which states simply and precisely: "Independent in its properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."

Spacetime, which you claim is not physically real, fits this definition (for which Einstein wrote it, in fact, by way of introducing general relativity). Spacetime also qualifies as physically real in what you seem to be describing in so many words as, "any dynamic phenomenon."

What separates -- precisely -- your concept of "physically real" from the physics of spacetime that you claim is not physically real?

Tom

"Is diffusion a requirement of reality?"

Yes, if the second law of thermodynamics is true.

Tom,

there is mathematical correspondence between the model of the output reality and experimental results- that's Einstein's and Minkowski's and Lorentz' and others' work on modelling relativity. Then there is the mathematics of Quantum electrodynamics, and as Feynman has explained in his lectures it works, the calculations are very precise and accurate, and the mathematics of QM. That is the realm of the source of potential sensory data and the sensory data itself.

Linking the two, this is the interesting part, is what happens to the potential data between origin and receipt.I.e. what is going on in the data pool. Its the same question that still intrigued Feynman at the end of his life. That's where Roger Penrose's light cone model could have a part to play and Joy's model could be relevant and that's why I think MIT's Femto photography is interesting (and the "multi shadowed" objects). The Femto photography technique is allowing a visualisation to be constructed, built up, from experimental data of what happens very close to light speed. How the photons are scattered yet is still able to transmit the data from its origin is an intriguing question for me. However such a set up but with several observer positions that make simultaneous detections should demonstrate that the potential data in the environment is able to generate multiple different output manifestations not just a singular output manifestation. So it is not that the observed object exists in a superposition of states prior to observation but the data to generate a manifestation exists in a superposition of states. Neither the data nor the output manifestation are the actualised object made of atoms. Thus overcoming the temporal paradoxes, fitting particle physics in its correct place, and allowing QM and GR to co exist without contradiction.

One reality Tom but with two facets.As the Image reality is contained with in the Object reality. It is a part of it but also not it. Rather than complicating The RICP explanatory framework simplifies matters as neither QM nor GR mathematical model need be rejected or thought limited because it cannot be the other and account for things shown by the other model. The wave function collapse is the switching from considering one kind of reality using the mathematics pertaining to it to the other facet of reality and the mathematics that pertains to that one. The many co-existing potential realities encoded in the sensory data in the environment become one processed output.

I think that if one would like just the observed output to be the whole of reality, or just the data pool( and the topology of its mathematical description ) to be the whole of reality, or just the material sources, the atomic structures and their arrangements, to be the whole of reality then each of those models are incomplete. The material facet of reality and the observed/experienced facet of reality are linked by the sensory data which allows conversion of information originating at the material actualisation source to be processed into output manifestations.

I can see that precisely what is happening in the data pool needs more investigation; so that not just the unhindered spread of data is mathematically modelled but all of the potential interactions with objects and media can also be precisely described. That will allow better prediction of what will be observed and working back allow better understanding of why/how certain manifestations have been observed. As well as with that clear understanding of the processes allowing development of novel ways of enhancing what can be observed, which MIT camera lab appear to already be working on. Maybe since FQXi's new large grant round is concentrating on information something helpful might come out from that research. There is nothing irrational about the concept of the proposed framework which is why the implication that there is annoys me.

Tom,

"Independent in its properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."

Wouldn't that be an effective description of a God? Yes, I would militate against that as a description of physically real, no matter who said it.

It is not that I can't describe the concept: That which is manifest is physically real. The problem is trying to qualify the boundaries. As I see time as an effect of action, there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time, anymore than there is such a thing as a dimensionless apple. Anything multiplied by zero, is zero. So a dimensionless point in time would be like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. Nothing exists without action. It's like a temperature of absolute zero. This means that nothing, not a quantum particle, not an automobile, not a pretty girl's smile, not a beautiful day, not a miserable day, exists independent of its action. There is no independance. When all action ceases, the manifest is no more. It cannot be measured, it cannot be seen. It cannot be felt, as all require action. Measurement is an action. So the boundary between what is and what is not, cannot be measured, because measurement is. As Eric Reiter shows, our ability to measure only extends to the limits of effects and effects are interaction between things that exist; The measurement device and the measured. Julian Barbour argues we cannot perceive distance, only angles, in his thread on shape dynamics. Does that really mean distance doesn't exist when it cannot be quantified? Is reality a function of measurement, or is measurement a consequence of reality? I argue the second.

Tom,

1st order results are useful, but I'm suggesting that to really understand nature we need to understand the underlying quantum mechanism, which may only be apparent at 3rd order ('bottom up' logic).

Let's consider your proposition more closely. We make 'all round' emitters for em signals, but even then they are different photons, intervening conditions differ, and certainly distance and flight times differ. Light is far more varied. Of 80,000 in a stadium no two will have precisely the same view of the tackle so receive identical photons, and even then their lenses differ. Trivial in itself I agree, but no less true. And I'm saying I've found that thinking in that very new way (like Earth orbiting the sun), can shed new light on a very important hidden aspect of nature.

Firstly we realize there is NO observation until detection, which is ONLY possible by a process of interaction. The quantum 'measurement problem' then emerges. The measurer is part of the system measured. Unification is now just a Chinese puzzle I'm saying I've found the answer to, and will try to explain it;

An 'inertial system' must have n particles involved or it does not exist. n particles makes a 'medium' (however tiny). EM waves interacting with the medium (any observer) do not then just have a frequency which varies subject to relative motion, on interaction they also instantaneously have a 'wavelength' LAMBDA, which is DELTA lambda wrt the approaching waves. This is a very new but completely logical viewpoint. All detectors have lenses or similar, which all then represent dielectric media, and which all have a state of motion (as well as a refractive index n.) so represents a discrete kinetic field. Let's postulate that all particles re-emit absorbed energy at c. (in Proper Time, so in the rest frame of the particle system).

Now think hard about that, and consider that in all media c = f*lamba, = a constant, with f always the inverse of Lambda. Now I suggest the greatest realization since e= mc^2; This means c = f*lamba on approach becomes c' = f'*lambda' (plus a gamma factor) after transition.

So CSL ('continuous spontaneous location' by each particle) derives CSL.

Other hints are in the essay. I'm also about to post some links of some more cases of predictions verified, these on Earth's bow shock as a vector field of ions across two frames, similar to the fine structure of the surface of a detectors lens. Our ionosphere implements the ECI frame for local CSL.

Can you see the importance of that unfamiliar way of thinking?; the SR postulates are derived direct from Raman scattering at c. That's the DFM.

Peter

"Wouldn't that be an effective description of a God?"

Yes indeed, John. The intervention of an agent external to physical reality is a perfectly legitimate definition of "physically real." Where science is concerned, however, the God Hypothesis is what logicians call "sufficient but not necessary."

Einstein, who frequently spoke of seeking to know the thoughts of the Old One, allowed that one can either view all the world as a miracle, or nothing as a miracle. The rationalist scientific enterprise views nothing as a miracle. So "the mind of God" in Einstein's words (a phrase borrowed by Paul Davies for one of his marvelous books) is nature itself as reflected in the behavior of the world. (This is also Spinoza's theology.)

"Yes, I would militate against that as a description of physically real, no matter who said it."

And you would be in the company of militant atheists for whom reality is "just so." Personally, I am a non-believer as well -- but "just so" explanations keep me from being the kind of anti-believer that atheism requires; I really see no distinction between belief and anti-belief.

Skipping all that came before, and going right to your conclusion: "Is reality a function of measurement, or is measurement a consequence of reality? I argue the second."

Your argument logically self-destructs. A function of measurement, f(M), has measurement as consequence. I.e., the value of M is the value of the function.

I say again, only when *you* know what you mean when you use the term "physically real," can you communicate that meaning to me or anyone else.

Tom

"There is nothing irrational about the concept of the proposed framework which is why the implication that there is annoys me."

Georgina, my use of the word "rational" does not imply that your framework is irrational as one would mean to say goofy or off-kilter or some such. I have tried to be careful with context and speak of "rational correspondence of theory to result," which has no opposite, as "irrational" would imply. The correspondence is either there, or not.

Anyway:

"One reality Tom but with two facets.As the Image reality is contained with in the Object reality."

What you describe, though, is not one reality with two facets; you describe two realities with boundary. That's why I interpret your framework as dualistic. Think of Cartesian dualism (mind-body). If you really do mean to describe one reality with two facets, those facets -- like the facets of a cut diamond -- are smoothly connected, without boundary. As Wheeler put it, "The boundary of the boundary is zero." Show where this boundary is degenerate(zero valued) as two facets of a diamond connect at their common edge, and you have it.

Tom

I think I misinterpreted your meaning of unitary there, which (non-)explains the non-important question about diffusion (although during the thoughts I found an article which is interesting to read http://www.icfo.es/images/publications/J06-051.pdf ).

Anyway, wow, that femto-camera imaging stuff is pretty wild. I see in a video that they construct an isosurface (a little blue person in a running pose) from the data, which means that they have extracted some kind of 3D field of density values (I did not read any of the papers, so I don't know precisely how it's done). That density data would be a pretty awesome tool for augmenting the standard 2D computer vision toolbox -- kind of like a brain function augmenting the eye functions (if you haven't already, see Werblin, Roska for how the eye is like a multi-channel / multiple render target graphics processor, because it'll blow your mind and stuff). Exciting times. Thanks for that stuff, Georgina the Awesome Link Hunter.

- Shawn

P.S. I just found the Werblin and Roska Nature article. Probably breaking copyright by linking to it, but here goes anyway:

http://hebb.mit.edu/courses/connectomics/Roska Werblin vertical interactions ten parallel stacked representations mammalian retina 01.pdf

The coolest is Figure 2, second row (ganglion type "3"): it shows how one of the channels is geared specifically for edge detection, which means that the eye is most definitely a processor that exists beside/outside of the brain proper.

Ending off-topic babble now.

Tom, it is rational in the way that you use the word and I explained how. The output reality is not actually in "another place" separate from the foundational space, it just appears so. They co-exist while being different. Though there is a also a boundary where conversion occurs which is a reality interface. Many of the problems of physics have been due to not taking account of that naturally occurring "duality", which has without it being realised, been built into the physics that has been constructed.

S. Halayka, I'm afraid your link does not work but I think that the structure and function of the visual system is relevant both to George's argument about top down causality and mine about output reality being distinct from the foundational; reality. So thank you for the suggestion that we look at that work.

I'm sorry, Georgina, but there is little chance I will understand what you're getting at unless it is stated in formal language. Do you know anyone who can translate these words ... "They co-exist while being different. Though there is a also a boundary where conversion occurs which is a reality interface ..." into a mathematical statement?

One might ask, why is that important? -- I don't know. I do know, however, that without being able to logically close the judgment, I personally won't be able to grasp it as science.

I already offered my opinion on the fundamental formal meaning of boundary conditions.

Tom

Tom,

the mathematical structure is, I think, novel.If it was ordinary and simple it would have been known about and understood long ago.

You may not understand everyday English but I think you surely must have the ability to comprehend a Venn diagram and simple flow chart.On the diagram it has been necessary to show the Image reality on a different level though it is contained within the Object reality. If you recall the earlier version that separation was not shown.

It also raises other interesting mathematical questions to do with how numbers and infinities relate to the different realities as there is the 'explicate' and 'implicate' mathematics to consider.

Georgina,

Then I'd say your best bet is to go in search of a mathematical theory to incorporate your concept. It's happened before in a dramatic way -- as when Einstein's friend Besso pointed him toward the then little known Riemannian geometry.

Sure, I understand Venn (or Euler) diagrams. The map of general relationships, though, doesn't inform one of ordered relations.

Mathematics is always explicate, never implicate. If you're thinking of the "implicate and explicate" order of Bohm and Hiley, it isn't the mathematical model that describes the dual order -- it's the reversibility of the order. Ordered relations must be constructed, not implied -- that's why we have the axiom of choice, or Zorn's lemma, to start with -- just to show you that I don't entirely disagree with your research direction, I have published a technique to construct ordered relations without the AC. Albeit in a higher dimension model.

Tom

Tom,

Now you have confused me with your language. It may have been better if I had said implicate pre space-time mathematics and and explicate space time mathematics. Yes I was making reference to the paper I have previously quoted which refers to the work of Bohm and Hiley, ALGEBRAS, QUANTUM THEORY AND PRE-SPACE by F. A. M. FRESCURA and B. J. HILEY, Department of Physics, Birkbeck College, London WC1E 7HX UK (Received In February, 22, 1984)

"6. Bohm D. and Hiley B., Generalisation of the Twistor to Clifford Algebras as a Basis for Geometry, Revista Brasileira de Physica, Volume Especial, Os 70 anos de Mario Schonberg, 1-26, 1984."

It seems to me, whether they realised it or not, that they are probably talking about a conversion of a mathematical description of the potential sensory data in a foundational reality to the mathematical description of the output observed as space-time. That also ties in with what I was saying about Roger Penrose's description of the light cone model using quaternion mathematics and possible relevance Joy Christians recent work. I realise there is still a lot of development that can be done with and around the framework. Part of that might be finding different ways to mathematically express the important relations of ideas within it, not just to aid comprehensions but to make it easily applicable to different types of physics work. Thanks for your time, considering my replies and your advice.

I'd just like to add that something both 'belonging' and 'not belonging' to a set has been known for a long time. The Liar paradox, Stanford Encyclopedia Quote: "The Liar has also formed the core of arguments against classical logic, as it is some key features of classical logic that allow capture and release to result in absurdity. Most notable are the arguments for logics that are paracomplete (e.g., Kripke (1975), Field (2008), and others) and paraconsistent (e.g., Asenjo (1966), Priest (1984, 2006), and others)"

The 'division' of reality is not exactly the same as the Liar problem because the Image reality can be part of the object reality while also not being it, so it does not have to be excluded but I think it shows that such a mathematical oddity is not unprecedented.

Re.post before last. Read: Implicate order within pre-space mathematics and explicate order within space-time mathematics.Hope that sounds right.

Tom,

Actually I would consider myself a pantheist. Absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an intellectual and moral ideal from which we fell. A spiritually unified state would be more the egg, than the chicken. It satifies Ockham's razor to assume all biology is inherently aware, rather than assume awarenss arose later, because it makes one mystery, not two. It also helps to explain why life is so tenacious. It also doesn't entail a spiritual split between an absent deity and wandering souls. We are the same elemental light shining through different lenses. Different cells in the same organism.

I don't know that this is required to explain "physically real," though. You do invariably focus of whatever part of an argument isn't tied together precisely and insist that disproves the rest of the argument, as I've mentioned before and Georgina just commented on, so I will repost the body of the argument, without that offending off topic conclusion;

"That which is manifest is physically real. The problem is trying to qualify the boundaries. As I see time as an effect of action, there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time, anymore than there is such a thing as a dimensionless apple. Anything multiplied by zero, is zero. So a dimensionless point in time would be like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. Nothing exists without action. It's like a temperature of absolute zero. This means that nothing, not a quantum particle, not an automobile, not a pretty girl's smile, not a beautiful day, not a miserable day, exists independent of its action. There is no independance. When all action ceases, the manifest is no more. It cannot be measured, it cannot be seen. It cannot be felt, as all require action. Measurement is an action. So the boundary between what is and what is not, cannot be measured, because measurement must be part of that which is. As Eric Reiter shows, our ability to measure only extends to the limits of effects and effects are interaction between things that exist; The measurement device and the measured."

Quote :According to David Bohm's theory, implicate and explicate orders are characterised by:In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv) Wikipedia