Edwin, Martin Tajmar's measurement's have been disowned by his co-investigator. But in any case they are solar system measurements, which do not relate to what happens here on earth, where the effect is not discernible.
Frank, we simply have very different views of reality and causation. We will have to agree to disagree.
George.
I have replied just below to this comment: the reply somehow got displaced.
Here is the kind of research you dismiss out of had. Must be amazing to live life with the ability to deny the validity of what so many other highly competent researchers are doing. I suppose you feel safer with your blinkers on. You should take note of the Feynmann quite I gave above (Jul. 21, 2012). Or do you look down on Fetnmann too?
Experimental application of top-down control analysis to metabolic systems.
(PMID:8438233)
Quant PA
Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Trends in Biochemical Sciences [1993, 18(1):26-30]
DOI: 10.1016/0968-0004(93)90084-Z
Abstract Metabolic control analysis (MCA) has provided the language and framework for quantitative study of control over flux, or over metabolites, by individual enzymes of a pathway. By contrast, top-down control analysis (TDCA) yields an immediate overview of the control structure of the whole system of interest, giving information about the control exercised by large sections of complex pathways. Unlike MCA, TDCA does not rely on the use of specific inhibitors or genetic manipulation to determine control coefficients. The method and an application of TDCA to ketogenesis are described.
Typos corrected:
Here is the kind of research you dismiss out of hand. Must be amazing to live life with the ability to deny the validity of what so many other highly competent researchers are doing. I suppose you feel safer with your blinkers on. You should take note of the Feynmann quote I gave above (Jul. 21, 2012). Or do you look down on Feynmann too?
George,
You stated "Edwin, Martin Tajmar's measurement's have been disowned by his co-investigator. But in any case they are solar system measurements, which do not relate to what happens here on earth, where the effect is not discernible."
Not sure what you're talking about George. I haven't heard this of his co-investigator, and his measurements were most **definitely** performed on Earth, *not* elsewhere in the solar system. I think you're confused. There is a link to his experiment in my essay -- it is performed in a lab on Earth's surface.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Edwin,
yes you are right, I'd remembered it wrong. It was indeed a laboratory experiment. But it remains the case that the experimental relativity community does not believe it. The problem is that gravity is such a weak force, and to generate the gravimagnetic effect requires large masses moving at high velocity; if they were there, they'd have other much more easily measurable effects. But I agree its a nice idea and you have developed it well. It is a good idea.
Frank I have replied on your essay page. I simply don't agree that dreams can be the basis of any scientific theory of the way things are.
George
In case you miss the post below, here is a key element I point out there. In view of your statements, I think it needs spelling out.
You state
"The H-theorem (3.6.20) holds for both directions of time and Weinberg writes about the theorem: "so we may conclude that the entropy always increases". This is very easy to check. Your misunderstanding of the H-theorem is typical of the "deepest thinkers in cosmology". "
So the key point is, if entropy always increases, in which direction of time does it increase? Weinberg's derivation has no answer. I'll explain step by step.
Choose a time coordinate t. The theorem as developed by Weinberg, according to you says
dS/dt > 0. (1)
Now choose the opposite direction of time:
t' = -t. (2)
As you admit, "The H-theorem (3.6.20) holds for both directions of time" (I show why in my post of Sep. 12, 2012 @ 17:30). Hence it holds also for t'. Therefore the Theorem as developed by Weinberg also says
dS/dt' > 0. (3)
Is (1) true or (3) true, or are both true, or is neither true?
Weinberg's derivation, like Boltzmann's says both are true. It does not pick out the preferred direction of time which underlies the 2nd law of macroscopic physics.
So in which direction of time does entropy increase? Weinberg's equation (3.6.20) does not provide the answer. It can't explain the most elementary fact about everyday physics.
So where is the misunderstanding in this elementary line of reasoning? Your sardonic comments are in tatters if you can't reply convincingly.
Maybe if you look at this carefully you'll at last understand what Wheeler, Feynman, Sciama, Davies, Zeh, Penrose, and Carroll and others were on about.
Dear George,
Your essay casts a valuable light from Physics on the complex way in which causal interactions play out in systems. These complex causal networks make reductionistic interpretations inadequate. Although 'top-down' processes have been recognised in biology and social science (as you point out), this idea cannot find a secure footing in the paradigm until physicists take it on board. Such a foundational understanding is much needed for progress both within and beyond physics. For example, as you rightly point out, deep problems in philosophy of mind hinge on such conceptions of causation.
As you suggested on our essay page, there is a significant overlap between the 'metaphysical drift' of your essay and ours, even though you and we target different problems in foundational knowledge. I think that we could contribute to the position that you are developing, in terms of conceptual clarifications we are developing in our work in Systems Philosophy, which we touch on in our essay. We are working on articulating conceptual understandings for terms such as 'existing thing', 'physical thing', 'concrete thing', 'abstract thing', 'property', 'causal power' and so on, in a way that is broadly consistent with their usage in metaphysical debates and (critically) mutually consistent. Formalizing the definitions you give in your essay in this way would make your point even stronger and clearer, and remove possible misinterpretations of your argument, such as assigning causal powers to 'patterns' rather than to the systems that realize them. This would enable important further distinctions to be made between the things you identify as "existing" and having causal consequences yet being "non-physical". For example, minds would be what they are whatever sense we make of them, but arguably computer programs exist only in terms of the sense we make of them. Such clarifications might be important in the future development of your argument.
Meanwhile, congratulations on writing a clear essay about a perspective that will be important for how our fundamental understandings will develop. We're glad to see it doing so well in the rankings already, and will add our own positive rating!
Best wishes,
David
Dear David
Many thanks for that, I'm glad to know about your project.
" Formalizing the definitions you give in your essay in this way would make your point even stronger and clearer, and remove possible misinterpretations of your argument, such as assigning causal powers to 'patterns' rather than to the systems that realize them. This would enable important further distinctions to be made between the things you identify as "existing" and having causal consequences yet being "non-physical"." Yes indeed. Any help in such clarification will be welcome.
George
Hi George,
Thanks you for reading and commenting on my essay. This was most appriciated. I have read your essay many times and feel that many of your ideas correlate well with those I have also contemplated.
You state:
"A key assumption underlying most present day physical thought is the idea that causation is bottom up all the way: particle physics underlies nuclear physics, nuclear physics underlies atomic physics, atomic physics underlies chemistry, and so on."
Yes! however, recall that as we became the ultimate reductionists, we stumbled on the idea that the degrees of freedom for obtaining information at the tiniest level is dual physics to the grandiose level ie., ADS/CFT. Information we measure at the microscopic scale is the same as that from the dual information measured on the grandiose scale. It may be that the informational physics at the center of these two measures is where "life" does its measuring. At this central point location in "life measure" we get top/down & bottom/up in fairly equal proportion. It is a kind of life information model having "Feynman-Wheeler 1/2 amplitude (retarted and advanced) summed information" with causal being the measurable actions and the non-causal being our thoughts that came before the action. The causal actions are subject to be measurable information while the non-causal actions are the "result" of thoughts that come prior to the action. Currently thoughts are not subject to be measurable information and this may be why the advanced wave is not subject to any dielectric affects in the space between emit and receive, a tackyonic "think space," for Feynman-Wheeler to accurately predict radiation reaction.
Like all physics, Maxwell's equations to Einstein's equations we get converging and diverging wave solutions, and, BOTH can and should be used in the proper manner for obtaining total information (think what would happen if Dirac threw awat his positive solution... no positron prediction). We tend to throw away the solution that we just can't put our "causal measurement finger" on, but, it may be that we are throwing away the top/down or bottom/up information that must be used to accomodate all the information obtained from things we do "measure" ... possibly clearing up all the misconceptions in entanglement, etc, as Feynman-Wheeler actually addressed quite well when proper boundaries are applied.
In your statement:"Hypothesis: bottom up emergence by itself is strictly limited in terms of the complexity it can give rise to. Emergence of genuine complexity is characterised by a reversal of information flow from bottom up to top down"
If physical characteristics of "life" is what emerges in the top/down approach we will likely also require information from bottom/up to explain the utmost detail in how it evolved. Could "life information" be a superposition of both top/down and bottom/up, and, thoughts and measureable actions compromise the top/down and bottom/up information, respectively?
Have a great day,
Tony DiCarlo
George I appreciate your last comment on my thread and would like to make one final comment.
Please note that the source term is mass current density. Thus any quantum effect will depend upon mass density. For example Michael Goodband's particle model is a rotating black hole at the Planck scale which "drags space-time" [that is, produces a C-field]. Such a particle would have an electron mass and a radius of 10^-57 meters which is more than enough to result in a wave of the type I propose. My own model is far less dense, with a radius of ~10^-19 meters and does require the stronger C-field that Tajmar claims to have measured.
Thus the wave function model is mass density dependent and therefore particle model dependent. Also, since mass density is "an ill-defined concept" in general relativity, relativists may be less inclined to credit it. Finally, the mass density of atoms and molecules, and hence solar objects, is very low compared to elementary particles, so Gravity Probe B measurements are as expected, even if a coherence coefficient does exist.
Thanks again for your consideration,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Hi Anthony
Thanks for that.
"Could "life information" be a superposition of both top/down and bottom/up, and, thoughts and measureable actions compromise the top/down and bottom/up information, respectively?"
Yes indeed. May essay kind of takes the bottom up for granted. Maybe I need to emphasize that it occurs too!
George
Dear George,
The Born rule in this setting where you have a system that is perfectly entangled with the environment, can be derived from the symmetries of such a state. Zurek has given a derivation here.
My personal idea on (effective) wavefunction splitting would be to first define the observer as some algorithm that can be in various computational states. E.g. a neural network that given the coordinates of some points can recognize certain certain shapes, like the points forming a square, a circle, or it doesn't recognize anything. Then if we were to give a microscopic description in terms of the electrons etc. then the generic state of this system would be some superposition, and you can then collect together the terms that correspond to "circle", "square", and "nothing".
Hi Saibal
I really like Zurek's work on environmental decoherence, particularly because it is indeed a form of top-down action from the environment to the system. It embodyies one of the key forms of top-down action: namely adaptive selection. However I've never thought of it as being a form of the many-worlds view. I'll have to look at it again.
A key point to remember here is that any proposal to deal with the measurement problem must deal with individual cases: dealing with statistics in not enough. Statistical results only exist if individual events occur.
George
Regarding "There is nothing new under the sun":
Readers of this thread will have noticed I am under persistent attack by an anonymous theoretical physicist who hides behind this ludicrously false pseudonym (counterexample: the internet). He repeatedly claims I have not given one single valid example of top-down causation that cannot be explained by bottom up causation alone. I'm going to do a summary response to his claims here, not because I believe there is any chance he will actually listen to what I am saying and comprehend it, but so that he cannot mislead those of you who have not followed the details of my responses to him.
He gets this result by ignoring or denying inter alia the following examples I have cited:
• The way the human brain functions, as evidenced for example by Chris Frith in Making up the Mind, Dale Purves in Brains: How they seem to work, Eric Kandel in The Age of Insight, and Karl Friston in A Theory of Cortical Responses .
• The physiology of the heart, as described by Denis Noble, FRS, in his book The Music of Life and his article A Theory of biological relativity . To counter these writings, the anonymous commentator insinuates [Sept.14@20:00 GMT] that Noble does not understand the molecular basis behind the physiology of the heart: a truly pathetic claim. Here is Noble's citation record, which attests both to his standing and his understanding.
• Patricia A Quant: "Experimental application of top-down control analysis to metabolic systems." Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, UK. Trends in Biochemical Sciences [1993, 18(1):26-30].
• The way digital computers work, as briefly mentioned in my essay, and developed in more detail in my
http://www.turing100.manchester.ac.uk/index.php/speakers/invited-list/11-speakers/54">
http://www.turing100.manchester.ac.uk/index.php/speakers/invited-list/11-speakers/54) at the recent Manchester Turing meeting.
• The arrow of time issue that has preoccupied many great physicists since the time of Boltzmann. He believes that Weinberg's quantum field theory derivation of the H-Theorem solves this problem, even though (as he himself admits) that derivation is time symmetric (just as in the case of the Boltzmann derivation of the H-theorem, the H-Theorem (3.6.20) Weinberg gives in his book The Quantum Theory of Fields I will hold equally for both directions of time: just reverse the direction of time and relabel alpha to beta: the derivation goes through as before). This result cannot therefore solve the arrow of time problem in a bottom up way [see my post of Sept 16 @ 14.06 GMT], no matter how emphatically he and his mentors deny this basic fact. They are apparently ignorant for example of the Wheeler and Feynman absorber theory of radiation , which would be unnecessary if quantum field theory by itself solved the problem.
• The fact that the mechanism of superconductivity cannot be derived in a purely bottom up way, as
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/laughlin-lecture.pdf) by Nobel Prize winner Bob Laughlin; see the Appendix to my essay for Laughlin's statement in this regard. The reason is that existence of the Cooper pairs necessary for superconductivity is contingent on the nature of the ion lattice, which is at a higher level of description than that of the pairs; they would not exist without this emergent structure.
• The fact that state vector preparation, as for example in the Stern Gerlach experiment, cannot be explained in a purely bottom up way, because it is non-unitary; see here for an analysis and many other examples.
It only requires one of these examples to be true for his whole dismissive thesis to fall apart. But they are all true.
He apparently believes I am denying the validity of the bottom level physics. This is of course incorrect: what I say is based in an uncompromising stand that that lower level physics is indeed valid, as is quite clear in my paper on quantum physics. The key issue is what determines which
specific aspect of the underlying physics is deployed when and where; and that is where top-down effects from the context come in, embodied in constraints on what happens at the lower levels. This is for example extremely clear in the case of epigenetics: see Gilbert and Epel's excellent book Ecological Developmental Biology.
What I am pointing out in my essay is that physics does not by itself determine what happens in the real world, see also my Nature article . Physics per se cannot account for the existence of either a teapot or a Jumbo jet airliner, for example. You need to have a somewhat larger causal scheme to understand where they come from. Please see the quote from David Deutsch by J C N Smith on my thread on July 20@13:06 GMT for a great comment in this regard. Another example is particle collisions at the LHC at CERN: these are the result of the top -down effect of abstract thoughts in the minds of experimenters to the particle physics level. Without these thoughts, there would be no such collisions.
The postings by this anonymous commentator are a textbook example of the enormous arrogance that infects part of the theoretical physics community, who live in intellectual silos disconnected from the rest of physics, let alone the rest of science, and then look down on those outside these silos in the belief that they themselves are superior to all around (readers of this thread my find relevant my comments on fundamentalism in academia, see sections 2-4 of this paper ).
Please do not delete his postings: sociologists of science will have a field day analysing them in years to come. The casual insults that are taken to be a normal part of scientific discourse, replacing rational argument, are classic. The idea of respecting those you disagree with - the basis of civilised discourse - is non-existent, as is the idea one might have to revise one's own ideas in the face of the counter evidence. Extraordinary that he is willing to present this as his public face.
George Ellis
Correction: "Extraordinary that he is willing to present this as his public face" should read "Extraordinary that he is willing to present this as the public face of theoretical physics". He himself, being anonymous, has no face at all: maybe that's why he feels safe making these derogatory remarks.
Roger Penrose has been one of the most able and creative thinkers in mathematical physics for the past 50 years, inter alia transforming general relativity theory. For someone with no discernible academic record of any kind to denigrate him in this way is outrageous. The senior physicists who have mentored this anonymous commentator have truly failed him by letting him think this behaviour is acceptable - and they have badly let down theoretical physics too. Do you really want to present the subject in this extraordinarily negative light? Is this the atmosphere you want to encourage? It is actually possible to do better.
George Ellis
Hi George,
Sociological implications aside, your withering rebuke of the O.P. has much value for the scientific implications of a fully relativistic theory at multiple scales. That " ... existence of the Cooper pairs necessary for superconductivity is contingent on the nature of the ion lattice, which is at a higher level of description than that of the pairs ..." conveys the physical reality of uncollapsed potential; i.e., the information exchange between particles in the dynamic Cooper state has the particles conspiring to maintain zero angular momentum -- which IMO is fully translatable to higher levels of organization as pure unitary wave function. E.g., conceivably able to deal with questions of large scale phenomena, such as posed by Tanmay Vachaspati "What does an observer who falls into the collapsing object experience?" and Vesselin Petkov, "Can gravity be quantized?"
Point is, the distribution of causality at all levels of organization blurs the distinction between particles -- the "bottom" of the hierarchy -- and systems of particles interacting with other systems to create top down causality.
Back in May, I wrote a short piece that I never submitted or posted anywhere, "A fermionic condensate test of Bell's Inequality & local realism" that agrees with Lucien Hardy's statement, "I anticipate that quantum gravity will be a theory having indefinite causal structure whereas quantum theory has definite causal structure." I will attach it to a post on my own essay site ("The Perfect First Question"). I hope you get a chance to read it, as well as my essay.
George, your forum has become quite a clearinghouse for state of the art research in interdisciplinary science! I think it represents the best of what I perceive that FQXi is about.
All best,
Tom
Oops. Post above was mine.
What is your attitude to Gerard 't Hooft
Discreteness and Determinism in Superstrings ?
arXiv:1207.3612 (replaced) [pdf, ps, other]
Hi Tom
thanks for that. Your article is very interesting: will take me time to digest. I am a slow thinker, but quiet thorough when I get there!
"Point is, the distribution of causality at all levels of organization blurs the distinction between particles -- the "bottom" of the hierarchy -- and systems of particles interacting with other systems to create top down causality." Yes indeed, but it is subtle. The ions create the lattice with electrons imbedded and this then creates the possibility of existence of phonons, Cooper pairs, and so on (if its properties are just right). So an inevitable conjecture is, is the existence of the electrons and protons also an outcome of some top-down effect? Maybe those who hold that only fields are real and particles are just excitations of fields are already saying that, but I've always had difficulty getting my head round that one - particularly because particles seem so solid and durable at the macro level.
The thing is that physics has so many aspects, and each aspect can be described in so many different ways (as Roger Penrose points out in The Road to Reality), and each of us is an expert in some corner of the thing - but seeing how it fits together coherently is the difficult part. Yes its easy to learn specific formalisms and calculation tricks and apply them to some part of the whole. That does not necessarily give enlightenment.
Cheers
George
Dear Dr. Ellis,
I have read your essay with interest. As you have pointed out there are hierarchies of structures which influence the structure at lower levels.
In my view, interactions occur within a given structure only with a limited independence. In every interaction there is an overriding-interaction forming an organic linking with the next higher level of the hierarchy. This will be seen from the following. Why we have not realized this in regard to the Lorentz transformation is because hitherto it has always been given a kinematic interpretation. (In my essay I explain and derive it from dynamic principles).
IS LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION A MANIFESTATION OF A TOP DOWN CAUSATION?
We live in a state of indoctrinated amnesia in regard to earth's gravitation, when we apply Newtonian mechanics or SRT to problems of motions of particles. But occasionally we wake up to the fact that earth's gravitational field matters. But it never comes to mind that earth's gravitational field is enveloped within the Sun's field.
So the question is, is there a top down causation on the motions of particles on earth by the Sun's gravitational field?
As we know Earth and all its part 'fall' towards the Sun as it orbits. When a particle is set in motion at velocity v relative to earth, it not only has its own intrinsic energy Mc2 (which was falling towards the Sun even at rest), now it has an additional quantity of energy p'c = Mvc, and it too has inertia Mv/c. This p' too must orbit with the earth as well as 'fall' towards the Sun along with the particle on which it acts.
This means that p' must create out of itself a component, that renders itself to co-move with the earth at the orbital velocity u. So the component momentum is (Mv/c).u. (energy Mvc.u/c). Then what is left of p'c for motion relative to earth is only p"c = Mvc(1-u/c).
Just like the earth when it orbits at the velocity equal to the sq rt of the gravitational potential, it develops a centrifugal force equal and opposite to sun's attraction, so the energy p'c in motion (along with the particle) is equipped now with a centrifugal force opposing sun's attraction.
The momentum that is available motion relative to earth is
p" = Mv(1-u/c) of which the velocity v' = v(1-u/c) and hence the displacement x' = v't = vt(1-u/c).
How this displacement x' turns out to be x' = gamma (x -ut) is explained in my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549
I also attach the MS Word Doc version, since the diagrams have not come out well in the pdf version above
You would find that within the immediate space interactions occur seemingly independently, as if there is no interference from the next envelope of the hierarchy. Or so we assume. But there is 'top down causation' always a top down interaction occurring to form an organic link with the background energy field.
I have shown in my essay the parallel between Lorentz transformation and the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile in terms of this top down interaction. It is in regard to this connection Einstein wrote: . "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" ( p.53).
Best regards,
VirajAttachment #1: 6_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
