An Accidental Universe

That's just hot air, not physics. You have to hook it into equations and experiemtal results. The standard view is that the sequence is an illusion. You have to say why it isn't, if you think it isn't, or you're not in the discussion. Some of what you say implies physics is meaningless, but the fact is, we're only unable to get a handle on things if we take your kind of approach, ie. not bothering about equations and experimental results. So your criticism of physics is underneath a criticism of your own approach to physics. The person who can never find out for sure, as you say, is you. Physics can find things out, and it will.

Anonymousse

1 Can you please state which particular aspect of that post is "hot air" rather than based on physics, and why?

2 Separately, can you please then explain why an explanation has to be couched in terms of equations, especially when the comment is a generic one.

3 I do not care what the standard view is, only what it can be. So can you then explain why what I have said is not an adequate explanation as to why physical existence is sequence, given that this is a post and the point is generic. If you have some factual evidence that physical existence is not independent of us, and does not involve alteration, please state what this is and why that alternate view is justified.

4 Nothing I say implies physics is meaningless. It certainly does prove that certain theories are based on metaphysical presumptions about how physical existence is constituted. By definition, if what I (or indeed anybody else) state about how physical existence occurs is correct, then the consequences are correct, that is the definition of fact. The point is not about "experimental results", per se, because when the subject matter is existence, if the start point is flawed, then the 'results' and the theory will be flawed. Especially if we are dealing with aspects of existence which are outwith direct, unequivocal experience.

5 All my statement are simple, because I am only tackling the subject at a generic level. By the same token, if there is something factually invalid about what I am stating, then you, or anybody else, should be easily able to provide proof to the contrary. Denunciations about hot air, etc, are not that.

Paul

Tom,

"The interval (the unit second) is physically real; what it measures, isn't. Why? -- because the stick -- or the interval -- only measures what's in the interval. "

The interval/duration is the process occurring, what is physically real. The marks, say the peaks of the waves, the days, etc. are only real as they are occurring, as the process is producing them.

The problem is that this interval can be variable, given different conditions, say gravity fields. So how does one incorporate what seems to be a universal passage of time, from past into future, with variable clock rates? Do we construct a complex four dimensional geometry, in which the dynamic present is an illusion, in order to fix the events occurring at different rates into one framework, or do we view the process, what is occurring, as real and the marks as subjective, ie what comes into being and then is erased, ie. going from potential, to actual, to residual?

As you say, the marks; yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc. are not physically real. What is in the interval, the process occurring, is. So wouldn't we take the process as the constant and the marks as the variable? Therefore it isn't the present that moves, only the marks.

So I consider the action, the processing of the interval, to be physically real.

Georgina

So what you are referring to is the best validated knowledge we have as at the current time. Which is fair enough, because obviously we do not want belief masquerading as knowledge. But I am lost as to how this justifies your original comment on my post, when you asserted that two concepts are not incorrect but just misunderstood (to paraphrase). Which is why I asked questions as to a definition of the words you were using.

Here is one of the best quotes which encapsulates Einstien's flawed idea, although one does not have to any further than 1905, section 1 part 1, which is very easy to follow, including spotting the mistakes. Einstein 1916, para 4 section 9:

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

This is nonsense. Physical existence exists. At any given time of choosing, what occurred, occurred. The occurrence of physical existence is not dependent on sensing, it existed long before sensory systems developed, is not affected by sensing, and would continue if all sentient life anywhere was obliterated. Timing is an extrinsic, human devised, measuring system which calibrates the rate at which physical existence alters. Alteration, in a sequence, is what is physically happening, and that occurs at a rate of change. The point is that we receive a physical input, if the appropriate sensory detection mechanism is in the line of travel. These inputs (one type being light) which are created at the same time as that particular existence are received at different times, depending on circumstances.

Apart from the fact that it is easy to identify how and why Einstein was wrong, given a properly constituted definition of physical existence, one cannot 'change the goalposts' in order to justify the correctness of what he said. Although considering an explanation can be found in the functioning of sensory systems, etc, is obviously wrong anyway. That processing happens after physical existence, so how can it have any effect on it??

Paul

Peter,

RE: "Does that sound at all intuitive to you?"

Not really. There would be a little studying to do & it may include math, or something outside of dream thinking.

I shall though look up "tight soliton" though. Don't think I've ever come across that. It doesn't have anything to do with the female mousse does it?

Certainly I would agree that the single photon scenario is out of the question (it's only theorectical). I don't believe that experimentation is that sensitive yet. One and a half photons, maybe.

THX

To TH Ray

Albrecht's ideas really do not have the same potential. If people do not recognize it, it is because of Albrecht. He has a great university and credential to give him credibility. Einstein, S. Bose and Debroglie had none of that when they proposed ideas that was experimentally confirmed.

Remember, Young and Debroglie used the double slit experiment to confirm logic regarding light waves and electron waves. My heart goes out to individuals like Einstein, S. Bose and Debroglie during the time when they had no credentials but was a part of an academic community that really loved science. Max Planck did not have to help Einstein nor did Einstein have to help S. Bose or Debroglie. They did it for the sake of science. The current science community is not at all concerned with the sake of science but more concerned about self even if it means destroying the fundamental bases of inquiry. You start with the idea and you test it or you start with the phenomena and you propose an idea and test it. Quantum physics was a set of ideas that were created to match experiment so of course it is experimentally successful but there is no depth of knowledge. It is like working back from the answer to a proof. You can't cheat in logic mathematical or otherwise. We live with problems associated with cheaters. Albercht has the ear of the community and he has not presented anything worth listening to in this article. When has anyone other than the usual suspects won any FQXi competition or ideas been considered. They are not looking for the next patent clerk or mathematician like an indian clerk.

Paul,

If you delete the word 'think' in my summary "We know what we think we know" you get, "We know what we know". This is a simple tautology! Hmm! ... maybe you got something here!

But I still don't think we should delete "think"! Rather, I prefer this tautology to read, "We think we know what we think we know". Now that's better! Don't you think?

Constantinos

Tom,

You write, "It's becoming more obvious that standard quantum theory offers no falsifying criteria".

Only 'tautologies', 'absolute assumptions' and Darwinism "offer no falsifying criteria". Can you think of any others? If not, which of the three I listed standard quantum theory falls under?

Constantinos

John,

" ... how does one incorporate what seems to be a universal passage of time, from past into future, with variable clock rates?"

One doesn't, if relativity is true. There is no universal time, and "all physics is local."

"Do we construct a complex four dimensional geometry, in which the dynamic present is an illusion, in order to fix the events occurring at different rates into one framework, or do we view the process, what is occurring, as real and the marks as subjective, ie what comes into being and then is erased, ie. going from potential, to actual, to residual?"

You're mixing up incompatible models. A geometric flow differs from a metric measure ("potential to actual;" "residual" is not physical) in that global least action is nonlinear and not simultaneous with local least action. It's an open question of whether a complex system model bridges the local-global distinction (the subject of my ICCS 2007 paper, "Time, change and self-organization").

"As you say, the marks; yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc. are not physically real. What is in the interval, the process occurring, is. So wouldn't we take the process as the constant and the marks as the variable? Therefore it isn't the present that moves, only the marks."

How does a process constitute a constant?

"So I consider the action, the processing of the interval, to be physically real."

But you said the process is a constant. This is equivalent to Zeno's arrow paradox, and motion is impossible, in principle. Do you understand the contradiction?

Tom

Tom,

Zeno's paradox only makes sense if they are decelerating proportional to the fractions of distance and would quite quickly have to literally vanish, as the level of molecular activity and eventually quantum activity would be greater then the remaining distance.

The speed of light is considered a constant and it is certainly a function of motion, thus process. The light is physically real. What is your understanding of "constant," the motion of light is not?

Paul (feb 21 07:04),

Sorry that I didn't explain my point of view. My research is somewhat familiar with "The Mathematical Universe" by Max Tegmark. So I explore an external reality (the lowest physical level) and indeed, the descriptions of reality are structured by foundational mathematics. There is quite a difference too: I started this project about 40 years ago.

What I tried to put forward is the discrepancy between general relativity by Albert Einstein and the foundations of reality. Spacetime is not "the fabric" of the universe. It is a "framework" that envelops phenomena and their interactions. Nevertheless, time and space are not seperated (or imaginary) phenomena. So general relativity is not incorrect. The flaw is the well-known confined applicability of the theory at the level of quantum field theory.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the third alinea of your reply seems to argue the thoughts of Paramenides (moving objects in space). I agree with that. But these existent "digital" states are formed by an underlying "analog" reality. So there have to be a continues alteration of space: time.

Henk

Anonymous,

You write, "Quantum physics was a set of ideas that were created to match experiment so of course it is experimentally successful but there is no depth of knowledge."

That is true. Mathematically complete formulations that new frameworks make possible, however -- such as Joy Christian's and Andreas Albrecht's -- could change the way we do quantum physics. That's a big deal.

"Albercht has the ear of the community and he has not presented anything worth listening to in this article."

I have to disagree. His thesis -- like Einstein's -- starts with first principles: a complete domain of equally likely universes and a method

(clock ambiguity, which is relativity-compatible) to calculate the probability of independent initial conditions without depending on assumptions of perfect information or Bayesian statistics.

"When has anyone other than the usual suspects won any FQXi competition or ideas been considered. They are not looking for the next patent clerk or mathematician like an indian clerk."

Maybe not. But then, Einsteins and Ramanujans don't tend to show up that often.

Tom

Constantinos,

" ... which of the three I listed standard quantum theory falls under?"

Tautology. The mathematical proofs of Bell's theorem are by double negation, which leads the experimental results to assume a priori what was to be proved.

Tom

Hi Paul,

Einstein is talking about how it -appears to be- from the output image that is observed, subsequent to receipt and processing of the EM data. Einstein's relativity is all about appearances IMHO. The appearance of reality can not be entirely dismissed as it is what most people regard as being real and the scientific method relies upon observation. There is a place for "image reality" in the RICP explanatory framework and the transition from considering of many possibilities within Object reality to observing a particular image reality is the wave function collapse of Quantum mechanics. So both of the most reliable theories of physics are able to co -exist without contradiction. Its important not to throw the babies out with the bath water.

I just meant that I got the impression that when you decided we can never know the answer to that question, you were looking at your own methods, and your own approach (which you do a lot), rather than the kind of physics that is hooked into the mathematical clues we have more specifically. But anyway, only a thought, sorry if inaccurate, let's leave it.

John,

Are you getting anything out of this dialogue?

All that I can follow of your last is, -- what is my understanding of "constant?" It's a mathematician's understanding, of course, how else would I use it in this forum?

A mathematical constant is 0, 1, pi .... A fixed value that changes other values in interesting ways. It's always a number, however, not some ethereal thing. The speed of light is a physical constant, a measured value that limits the communication between bodies -- to the distance that light can travel in one second. Whiich can be scaled up to cosmic proportions (light year).

So you are saying that the unit "one second" is physically real, in your thinking? See, this is the problem I'm having -- is that you say Spacetime isn't physically real in the same breath that you say the measure of Spacetime is physically real. Measuring something that isn't physically real? maybe in your world.

Tom

Tom,

One second is a measure of duration. Duration is a property of process. Process is what physical properties, such as light do. Think light=noun. Propagate=verb. I guess in math the terms would be factor and function, but since math is so conceptually dense, light and propagation might not be treated as such.

Tom,

Exactly my thinking also! QM is a 'mathematical tautology' applied to physical measurements. And this is what gives QM such great success and experimental precision. A point I have also made about Planck's Law. In my FQXi essay "The Metaphysics of Physics" , and in my chapter, "The Thermodynamics in Planck's Law", I show Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation to be an exact mathematical tautology and not a physical law per se. This result explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum matches so perfectly the theoretical curve!

Constantinos

Tom wrote:

"His thesis -- like Einstein's -- starts with first principles: a complete domain of equally likely universes and a method"

I was not aware that the hypothetical existence of "equally likely universes", has been elevated to the status of a "first principle"

Rob McEachern