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

Hi John,

It's hard to tell exactly why people thought that the quants weren't bound to screw things up. I like your theory about that!

- Shawn

Dear Eckard, yes I am sorry I have asked Brendan if he can move the misplaced post to its intended destination. Which lectures are you referring to? Are they the Auckland ones available via FQXi resources?

There is some confusion generally about the term "physical reality". I understand from talking and listening to Tom that it can have a very specific meaning , which is the definition given by Einstein. That definition, as I see it, refers to the space-time continuum and that is what is being talked about when the term is used by Tom. Though other people use it to mean what they regard as real. So there can be quite a bit of talking past each other.That problem of different people using different meanings for same words (or phrases) was brought up at the last FQXi conference.Different understandings of the terms 'entropy' and 'information' were given as examples.

You know by now that I think there is a difference between where relativity is usefully and correctly applied and where it is inappropriate. If one is talking about unobserved co-occurrence that is independent of a particular observer manifestation of the event, then relativity is not appropriate. However if one is talking about appearances, observed manifestations, then it is relevant.

I'm convinced that the manifestation is a fabrication from data processing and that the hypothetical space-time continuum is an interpretation of the effect of potential sensory data that persists in the environment and permits manifestations to be formed after the events. Something fundamentally different from the source material interactions that are occurring unobserved and providing potential sensory data.

If investigation of a question is being conducted outside of the concept of a space-time continuum such as in Newtonian space or Hilbert space, shape space or some kind of phase space, like the kind showing fractals, then what 'physical reality' aka the space-time continuum is in relation to it is another question entirely. Though infinity can be a part of the mathematics related to modelling of the space-time continuum it is not also necessary for it to be a part of the other kinds of model showing other observer independent aspects of physics. I.e. what the atoms are doing is not the same as what the people are seeing, though it affects what they will see.That foundational activity falls outside of the definition of 'physical reality' as it is used by Tom, and others that understand it to have the same meaning.

Being an electrical engineer you know more about waves than I do Eckard. It seems to me that whether relativity is appropriate or not depends upon whether one is talking about waves moving through space time.I.e. working back from the observed manifestation or talking about unobserved waves moving through space.

Shawn,

They didn't screw up. Quite the opposite. They succeeding in blowing a financial bubble beyond anyone's wildest dreams. There is something like over a quatrillion dollars of derivative leverage built into a world economy with only about 60 trillion dollars worth of hard assets. It is the equivalent of a hydrogen bomb buld into the foundations of the economy. Physicists love constructing and deconstructing the world around them. It's the bankers who are srewing up, as that bomb is built into their system of control and when all is said and done, privately run banking systems will have gone the way of monarchies. Democracy works by keeping political control as local as is effective. A community banking system would be the foundation for larger regional and national networks. So no, don't knock the quants for enabling the bankers to blow themselves up, just as we shouldn't knock the more out to lunch mainstream theorists, promoting multiverses, super symmetry, et al, because they will draw more scrutiny to the the entire model. Future generations of physicists are not going to spend their careers worshiping a patchwork system that has gone far beyond testablity.

Once the tide turns, all bets are off.

3D printing new industrial revolution

3D Printing show

US Army builds own 3D printer

This topic seems relevant to George's essay as the 'Complex' machine and code are giving 'top down' CONTROL of simple 'bottom up' process, gradually building up arrangements of material to give objects. The process is very simple; however the outcome is not just resulting from the simplicity of the process but the environment in which the process occurs.

Did reply John, @ Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 10:57 GMT hoping Brendan can move it here where it belongs.

"Isn't falsification negative proof?"

No, John. Mathematical theorems are proved; a scientific theory is never proved, nor even can be. That's why science is so strong a standard of truth -- the theory makes itself maximally vulnerable by offering up the means to be proven wrong. Science admits the possible physical existence of anything -- purple cows included -- in the measured correspondence of mathematical theory to physical result.

Tom

Tom,

?

So basically you just made my point; There is that fuzzy area of what may physically exist, but cannot tested/proved.

I'm thinking you're are so determined to contest everything, that you forgot the argument.

Georgina,

This thread is way too long. Even this cable link seems to load it slowly.

John, you don't find that point trivial?

Tom,

Individual lives can be trivial. The point is that is what we were arguing about; How one describes and defines that which is physically real. Obviously we have started this debate off from much broader concepts, such as whether the time vector of spacetime could be considered physically real, or whether it is an efficient modeling of sequence, much like narrative in general.

I'm thinking back to some of our previous discussions of generalization, vs. specialization and while a generalist may not know every aspect of every detail, their function is to keep the details in context. While a specialist is only tasked with knowing everything about a particular subject. Functionally, a generalist would look at an Escher sketch of a stairway going in circles and sense something is wrong, even though they may not know exactly what, while a specialist is content with every part fitting into the next part and assumes it must work. Unfortunately physics has been taken over by the specialists and every time they come upon a gap between theory and observation, they don't step back and look at the whole, but rather construct the most efficient patch and physics keeps going in circles.

Unfortunately this tendency infects much of society today, from politics and economics, to religion and philosophy, as swarms of specialists construct myriad Towers of Babel.

In the long run, the entire planet is trivial, but it is what we have for the moment.

John, what I meant was -- the point that you took away was not the nontrivial point that I made: I.e., science is concerned with statements that can be shown wrong, not with statements (such as "anything's possible") that don't convey objective meaning.

"Trivial" in this context means "obvious."

Tom

Dr. Ellis,

Thank you for your reply:

"We don't know the bottom most cause nor the topmost one, nor in some deep sense how causation works (calling some thing a Gravitational Force is just a naming exercise: but that exercise is useful!). That does not stop use of the idea of causation in a meaningful and practical way."

This is true. However, my point applies directly to theoretical physics. It is theoretical physics that adds that which is missing to equations that begin bymodeling only that which is learned from empirical evidence. And, that which is missing is cause.

Theoretical physics exists for the purpose of proposing natures for cause. I say natures because theoretical physics introduces its guesses about cause in multiples. There are four fundamental forces only because theoretical physics has been unable to account for empirical effects with just one cause.

Those empirical effects consist of patterns in changes of velocities. When those patterns differ so greatly that the theorist cannot account for them with just one cause, they introduce multiple causes. This practice introduces artificial end points in the search to understand cause. With regard to theoretical physics, this practice forces disunity onto the equations that model the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The disunity introduced is evidence for error in theoretical physics.

My point is that the additon of more than one unavoidably inexplicable cause introduces error into theoretical physics right from its start for reason of lack of knowledge only. After the disunity of this practice is forced onto the equations of physics, unity cannot be regained without the introduction of addtional theoretical and empirically unverifiable properties.

Those added-on guesses give the appearance of progress toward unity; however, verifiable unity cannot be regained except by returning to the origins of theoretical physics and removing all but one cause for all effects regardless of the scale at which they are observed to occur.

This is my opinion. I appreciate it being critiqued.

James

Dear Georgina,

Yes, the Feynman lectures were held in 1961-63, written and copyrighted in 1964. Recently, they were perhaps merely improved for Auckland. They aimed and as Feynman himself admitted largely failed to explain modern physics to only 180 freshmen and sophomore students of Caltec. Nonetheless they were and still are perhaps very welcome worldwide to experts like Ellis and Crowell who appreciated them as a well readable even to laymen explanation of many oddities. I have at hand only vol. 2, in English, 6th printing 1977, and vol. 1, in German translation, Oldenbourg, 3rd edition 1997. My browser seems to be not suited to read Auckland.

When I look at 15-3 and Fig. 15-2, it is obvious to me how Feynman shared the mistake made by Potier, Lorentz, Michelson & Morley, etc. by assuming symmetrical paths BC' and return C'B': "as to be seen from the symmetry in the figure". As shown experimentally by Feist and illustrated in my Fig. 5, the assumed symmetrical tilt is wrong. Paul Marmet was correct: The interpretation of the null result of the MMX and its consequences need reconsideration.

Eckard

James,

The "add-on" approach you refer to is at the heart of the obstacle we face to a better understanding of physical reality. The mapping from the piecemeal physical model to mathematics is surjective, picking the less fundamental math that seems to work out can and does lead to problems with unification. It is like doing a puzzle. Two pieces appear as though they should go together, but they do not. An obvious example is GR and QM. Another example is electrodynamics. You can do a beautiful job with "4D" tensor calculus on potential functions, but you will have trouble extending this 4D math to gravitation without using something completely different like intrinsic curvature. I have shown a different mapping for electrodynamics to particular math using octonion algebraic analysis, outlined in my essay. The nice thing about this approach beyond its ability to provide a potential function cover for gravitation in harmony with electrodynamics is that you are not permitted "added-on guesses". The structure of the algebra provides in no uncertain terms the mathematical structure of a complete set of forces, with no room for any more without going beyond requirements for algebraic invariance. I think everything to be found is present.

I mentioned above the structure provided by octonion algebra is a "top-down" sort of thing, but I must clarify I do not see it as top-down causation. Octonion algebra does not "cause", it is the architecture of a holistic mathematical approach. So to your statement about seeking one "cause" for all forces, perhaps it would be more realistic to expect one holistic mathematical approach.

Rick

Hi Tom,

"In other words, all the information that makes sense to us, is bounded -- not infinite -- which I expect is the basis of George's statement that continuous is an approximation to discrete. We speak of continuous functions and discrete results; i.e., continuous input, discrete output. From which, we get a general "finite and unbounded" dynamic picture of how the world is put together. ..."

Being bounded is not the same as being discrete. We are certainly bounded. We can know this because we did not create the universe. If this is too 'unnatural' sounding for you, then, reduce it back down to the fact that we do not know what is cause.

"...If "what" is information alone, though, your concerns about cause -- and the knowledge thereof -- is not an issue. It isn't knowledge, of what causes what, that adds anything to the meaning of (objective, physical) reality; it is knowledge of information order and relation. Or as Jacob Bronowski put it: "All science is the search for unity in hidden. ..."

Replacing mechanical existence with information existence is not unreasonable. All that we receive is information; however, in the case of information only we would not know the difference between the two. I have no problem with the information only perspective. However, information must be interpreted. That unknown and non-understood interpretation process is merely another way of recognizing that we do not know what is cause.

James

Tom,

You were the one who started talking about purple cows. My argument was that physically real is what is manifest. Me sitting in this chair, typing at this computer is physically manifest. Me getting a cup of tea in the kitchen is not, even though I have the cup of tea to prove I was recently there. The problem arises as to that very borderline between what is current and what is past, because the energy that is me, the tea and the computer, is inherently dynamic, so an exact, static demarcation between what is and what is not cannot be drawn. From there, we progressed to how one proves existence, vs. non-existence. Then it became a discussion of the parameters of what is scientific.

Now you say, "science is concerned with statements that can be shown wrong."

I would ask, does, in practice, science follow this principle to the letter? Consider supersymmetry; The LHC seems to be doing a very good job of falsifying it, but many who have devoted their lives to the subject don't seem willing to give it up.

How about dark energy; The need to invoke it would seem a very good reason to reconsider Big Bang Theory, considering it already has an enormous patch in inflationary theory. It seems much easier to patch the old theory than hunt for a new one.

How do we test for multiworlds and multiverses, yet they seem to have significant following in the physics community. How do you show something wrong, if those in charge of setting the standards have a vested interest in it being right?

Maybe theoretical physics is no longer a science?

"Maybe theoretical physics is no longer a science?"

It never was, John. I have tried for years with no apparent success to get across to you that the language of science is not identical to science -- that a closed logical judgment, a theory, becomes what we call science when it measurably corresponds to an experimental test. A tested and unfalsified theory is the highest truth standard that science can bestow, and the only objective means of interrpeting phenomena. You will not find any other standard in the physical sciences (check the journal articles for yourself) than this correspondence between theory and result.

You write, "My argument was that physically real is what is manifest. Me sitting in this chair, typing at this computer is physically manifest." Philosophers of science call that naive realism. That is, what you consider real, by your personal interpretation of the physics, is only weakly related to the underlying phenomena.

"Now you (Tom) say, 'science is concerned with statements that can be shown wrong.'

"I would ask, does, in practice, science follow this principle to the letter? Consider supersymmetry ... (and the big bang, dark energy, multiworlds, etc.) ... How do you show something wrong, if those in charge of setting the standards have a vested interest in it being right?"

It takes a lot of knowledge and study to verify that the theories you mention are logically self-consistent, do not violate any known physical laws, and add potential new insights to what we do already know. No one gets a pass, however, on the correspondence of theory to result -- the vested interests don't set the standard; the standard was set by Galileo, Kepler, Newton and others over the last three centuries or so.

Again, though -- don't conflate the language with the science.

Tom

Tom,

" A tested and unfalsified theory is the highest truth standard that science can bestow, and the only objective means of interrpeting phenomena."

So when we get to those situations, epicycles, Netwonian physics, which do correspond in many ways to observation and testing, such that they become foundational to the discipline, yet still contain discrepancies, what is the logical next step? Is it to to keep adding corrections, or is it to to go back and study the entire model from the ground up, to see if there isn't some larger context, missing foundational element, etc. which might resolve such discrepancies?

" That is, what you consider real, by your personal interpretation of the physics, is only weakly related to the underlying phenomena."

So would you argue that "blocktime" is in fact "physically real" and my perception that the conservation of energy requires there to be only one of me extant, not spread along that time vector, is simply "naive intuition?" And if so, what and where is your physical proof? Or is it just belief in the infallibility of the "spacetime continuum?"

Georgina,

I found the above 11/10 post, so response here. No, I don't think 3D printing will create much of a paradigm shift in that regard. If you want to see the dichotomy, it is fairly evident in the difference between eastern and western philosophies. Eastern being far more process oriented. Just as an example, consider the religious models: Western religions are top down and we have dissilled it to monotheism, yet eastern religions are bottom up and the foundation is much more ancester worship. Ie. they are much more concerned with where life comes from, rather than ideals to which it aspires. So I think it is something that will take a long time and go through many gradual paradigm shifts, before we really can mentally encompass dynamic processes, as well as static forms in a mentally wholistic fashion.

John,

"So when we get to those situations, epicycles, Netwonian physics, which do correspond in many ways to observation and testing, such that they become foundational to the discipline, yet still contain discrepancies, what is the logical next step?"

Relativity theory.

"Is it to to keep adding corrections, or is it to to go back and study the entire model from the ground up, to see if there isn't some larger context, missing foundational element, etc. which might resolve such discrepancies?"

Or is it to extend the known physics into a domain that explains the discrepancies, as Einstein did to Newton's theory? What you say about science, John, is simply not the way that science actually works in the real world. Scientists are generally a lot more patient and a lot less ambitious than you apparently think they should be.

" ... would you argue that 'blocktime' is in fact 'physically real' and my perception that the conservation of energy requires there to be only one of me extant, not spread along that time vector, is simply 'naive intuition?'"

Yes, I would.

There's a far more palatable and realistic solution -- which is that general relativity works just as well as a "finite but unbounded" model when it is finite in space and unbounded in time (rather than the conventional view, finite in time and unbounded in space). George Ellis' evolving blocktime assumes just that case: " ... the unchanging block universe view of spacetime is best replaced by an evolving block universe which extends as time evolves, with the potential of the future continually becoming the certainty of the past; spacetime itself evolves, as do the entities within it." (from Ellis' abstract, FQXi Nature of Time essay contest, 2008.)

"And if so, what and where is your physical proof? Or is it just belief in the infallibility of the 'spacetime continuum?'"

I find myself repeating once more that scientific theories are not subject to proof. Spacetime is well grounded, however, in both theory and experiment.

Tom

Hi James,

"Being bounded is not the same as being discrete."

Well, at least, not necessarily the same.

"We are certainly bounded. We can know this because we did not create the universe."

Bounded, you mean, by our life-support system? Nevertheless, we can ourselves create the conditions to sustain life. We do participate in our own evolution in dramatic ways.

"If this is too 'unnatural' sounding for you, then, reduce it back down to the fact that we do not know what is cause."

As often as you say this, I do not grasp the importance you attach to it. I trust that I would continue breathing as long as I live, even if I didn't know how I do it, nor understand that without air I would die.

Me: "...If 'what' is information alone, though, your concerns about cause -- and the knowledge thereof -- is not an issue. It isn't knowledge, of what causes what, that adds anything to the meaning of (objective, physical) reality; it is knowledge of information order and relation. Or as Jacob Bronowski put it: "All science is the search for unity in hidden (likenesses). ..."

You: Replacing mechanical existence with information existence is not unreasonable. All that we receive is information; however, in the case of information only we would not know the difference between the two."

Do we now?

"I have no problem with the information only perspective. However, information must be interpreted."

Bingo, James. That's why we have theory.

"That unknown and non-understood interpretation process is merely another way of recognizing that we do not know what is cause."

A little humility won't kill us, I think.

Tom