Is There “Ultimate Stuff” and Are There “Ultimate Reasons”? by David Rousseau and Julie Rousseau

Hello David,

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't having a go at philosophy generally. I just think there are certain issues in physics, which if you try to get answers for them using a philosophical approach, you will sometimes get answers coming out of that, but you won't really know if they're right or wrong, because there's no way to check them.

So you just predict them, and wait. I'm sure you're right about the Copenhagen interpretation though, that's safe bet.

Applying philosophy to physics is hard in places partly because of the state of physics, and I really must apologise for the mess the field is in at present. We haven't managed to clear it up yet, and are questioning a lot of the principles. Because of that, until we get some clarity coming into the physics itself, I'm not sure that there's enough of a solid landscape for you to attach things to. But what you say about energy is interesting, and other things.

To me it's about grasping at an underlying reality by looking at conceptual clues. And they're very specific, clickety clack down-to-earth physical clues - at present that's the best we have, because the underlying principles, and anything general, are all being questioned. Still, perhaps you can get a handle on the kind of general things you look at, and cut through the present uncertainty about which principles we can rely on. Good luck anyway.

Best wishes, Jonathan

David and Julie

Top essay. The best kind of philosophical approach, much missing from physics. Good score coming. My own is very mechanistic by comparison, but I hope you agree just as important, and, along with Peter Jacksons fuller ontology, should represent real adavancement.

Thanks

Rich

David & Julie,

I love it when philosophers deal with questions of science head-on. Indeed, I'm seeing in the principle of sufficient reason some identity with the law of requisite variety (Ashby). Perhaps the latter can help lend mathematical rigor to the former?

Though I've not thought much about the philosophical implications of systems research, you've made the importance quite clear. (My technical background is similar to Julie Rousseau's, so I grok much of what you're saying from a personal perspective.)

Have you looked at Lawrence Krauss' latest, *A Universe from Nothing*?

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay site. Deservedly high rating follows.

Tom

David

In simple terms.

We can only know of physical existence as it is independently manifest. As such, it must comprise elementary stuff (probably different types thereof)-whatever that is(!). But there is a difference between what comprises physical existence, and its physically existent state, ie the reality (whatever that is!), as at any point in time. The latter is what physically exists (and then re-occurs differently, and so on), and is probably associated with the state of the properties of the elementary stuff.

This differentiation is crucial as it demonstrates that the existent state (reality): a) has a definitive physical form, b) any causation which is attributable to other existent states can only be from amongst those existent states which immediately precede it in the sequence, and were spatially adjacent to (or in the same) the spatial position it 'occupies'. Because physical effects cannot 'jump' physical circumstances. In other words, the systems you refer to can only be deemed as existent 'one step at a time'. This proper deconstruction of any given reality to the level at which it actually occurs reveals the falseness of concepts of observer influence, oscillation, reaction, future, etc, etc.

For example. Take any elementary stuff which must be changing in some way (otherwise reality would only be in one existent state for ever). Forget the specifics of what it is or what is changing. But address the question: what physically exists, given that there can only be one physically existent state at a time?

Paul

Hello David,

thanks for your email and kind comments on my essay. I'm posting my reply, to clarify some earlier points. Best wishes, JK

------------------------

Thank you very much David, I enjoyed your essay too.

I hope my comments on your thread were not misinterpreted, I'm all for a philosophical approach. I'm glad you've written to me, so I can clarify a little - please show this to your co-author too, in fact I'll post it as well.

I do think that in the present situation, your kind of approach might help people distinguish between principles that are fundamental, and those that are emergent. It's clear that philosophical thinking might really help with that. That could be very important, but my own particular take on these things is that a general 'reshuffling of the principles' is probably not enough. I feel that there must be missing pieces of the puzzle, and I've argued here and there that thinking that allows for unknowns is needed. That's the main point I've been making to people in the discussions. I'm sure you're the right person to tell this to, as you philosophers are capable, if anyone is, of taking that kind of principle onboard.

Where I feel philosophy might be limited in its ability to help the present situation (and I shouldn't assume anything like that of course), and what I was trying to say earlier, is that right now we need something that will bring certainty, ie something that includes a clear mathematical resolution of some sort. And it seems to me that perhaps only the conceptual clues can lead to that. So I think a new conceptual understanding, leading to new mathematics, might be what's needed.

Whether or not your approach can get directly to that, you might well be able to help point the way, and help to limit the possibilities, as I've been trying to do. I also appreciate the points you've made about energy, which help to show that block time may well be wrong. Anyway, good luck with what you're doing.

Thanks, best wishes, Jonathan

Dear Julie and David

I would like to let you know that I have read your essay which I enjoyed very much and found it very interesting. I hope you have read my previous essay where I discuss about the principle of causality and the fundamental notions of space and time. As you notice in your essay, the principle sufficient reason may lead to an infinite regression if one does not set a minimum limit. In this respect I agree with your view. As I understood the introduction of the energeum is aim at trying to explain dark energy and the apparently violation to the energy conservation principle. My proposal assumes however that the vacuum is some sort of material fluid and this simple postulate suffices (as the theory of C. Christov shows, see below) to explain most physical phenomena without the need of introducing a new concept. In order to introduce you into my context, I shall mention the following:

Physicists have some problems that demand a solution. These problems are understood within the context of the prevailing theoretical framework (TF) which is founded on a certain number of assumptions. If one replaces the fundamental assumptions, one is replacing, partially or totally, the TF. When this occurs we have another TF in which the physical phenomena may acquire a completely different physical meaning. An example that comes to my mind is the explanation of gravity: first, a la Newton as a force and then, a la Einstein, as the curvature of space-time. So if I chose a radical TF, current problems may look radically different. After analyzing the history of the foundations of physics I found that there is one consideration that was pivotal in leading physics to its present state: the rejection of the luminiferous aether. Evidently by doing this, we are depriving any future theory of the conception that space is a material medium and that, for instance, an EM field or a particle (actually a soliton) is a state and manifestation of this medium. The notion of aether was replaced by geometry (Minkowski or Riemann space-time). So according to relativity, space is modeled as a geometrical vessel filled with ordinary matter and fields (gauge, EM, etc.). This view, although very productive in its time, has led physics to the present state: Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, horizon and flatness problems, CMBR, wave-particle duality, etc. All these issues are the result of modeling space as a manifold, as a totally empty background.

After several attempts to unify GR and QM many people wonder which of these theories is fundamentally incorrect. If we reconsider the assumption that space is a massive fluid with an internal structure (viscosity, elasticity, etc.), the medium for EM fields (that is, the opposite view to relativity) we have a radical and different TF in which the problems of the prevailing TF look completely different. In some cases (such as dark energy, dark matter, expansion of the universe) the problems do not even exist.

There is a well developed theory that I am supporting [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to explain most physical phenomena (IMO, this is the right theory). This theory is in need of further improvements and experimental verification. But, as I explained above, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view. Despite this, I found it consistent and in agreement not only with the body of evidence but with intuition too. So, since I have found a consistent TF, for the future my task, as a physicists, is to show that this is the right approach.

The theory of a fluid space (actually is a four-dimensional space) has some drastic consequences. It implies, for instance, that there is no Big Bang, no expansion of the universe, no dark matter and no dark energy. From this TF these phenomena are fictitious.

Finally, I want to thank you for supporting my work and for your interest in continuing the discussion beyond this forum. I would be happy to discuss any topic you may be interested in. Surely, your work is worth of consideration and deserves a good score.

I wish you good luck in the contest!

Israel

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear David and Julie,

I have just re- read your essay. I think the idea of hierarchical systems is an important one that has perhaps been rather neglected in physics. A number of authors have been talking about the important role of information having control at a higher level of nature. I think the hierarchy of structures is also important as structure and function "go hand in hand".

For explanatory purposes it may be best to look at higher levels of organisation operating together rather than just from the particle level. Scale is interesting because not only are there different sizes of system but systems within systems, within systems etc. and what is happening will depend on the scale that is examined. It is fascinating to imagine that scale dimension. Thinking that way isn't part of our everyday experience but a perspective that takes account of the interconnectedness of nature across scales is useful.

Good luck in the contest. Kind regards, Georgina.

Hi, David

Some thoughts on your responses:

Q7/R7: I don't think that fractal theory can exhaust natural complexity. Fractals are algorithms; as such they can describe only pseudo-random sequences or patterns. The meaning of random is that it cannot be (i.e. has not been) captured in an algorithm. If nature is "truly" random, or indefinitely complex, then it may have levels of complexity, levels below (or above) those levels, etc--i.e. complexity that does not correspond to any formula. This goes to the heart of whether the world is truly commensurable with reason or not.

R8: I would like to read your paper when it comes out. Please send.

Q12/R12: I don't agree with Chalmers' assessment. I too have a paper under review, if you want to see it, that sets out my "solution" to the MBP.

Thanks again,

Dan

David

Wonderful read. Do please give the philosophical view on our essay.

Thank you

Matt

David

Thanks. I think you are the first person who shows signs of really 'getting the point'.

Looking at my essay now, which is usually the case, it could be better expressed, so pleae feel free to seek clarification.

Paul

David

I am not happy with you or anybody else 'wasting time' when a better version is available. So I have just dumped the first 22 new paras on my blog. Sorry I do not know how to do links.

Paul

Hi David & Julie,

I'm sorry I haven't communicated as much as I'd really like to. I did add posts on George Ellis' site on 10/10 about 1000 GMT to which he replied about 1600 GMT, which I think you will probably find relevant to our recent discussions.

More later.

All best,

Tom