An Accidental Universe

Rob,

Did you ever see the attached? It addresses your objections to Lamport's result. You can skip the technical part if you wish and skip to the last page.

TomAttachment #1: 1_1_Buridans_Principle_and_the_point_at_infinity.pdf

Paul,

I will avoid going over arguments we gone over ad nausea. But here is one that is somewhat new. You write, "Mathematics is a representational device, an alternative to (say) narrative, or graphics. It has no inherent validity."

You are intellectually dead wrong on this! Math is not the symbols. It is the reasoning! Its proven statements are true for everyone and forever. This is much more than being "a representational device". The Pythagorean Theorem, for example, can be represented in symbols or in words. But its not the symbols that make it true. It is the reasoning that proves it true. That's Math!

Constantinos

Hi Tom,

You wrote:

"For any self-consistent mathematical formulation that describes a physical phenomenon, there are any number of equivalent formulations that do not. Conversely, for any physical phenomenon described by mathematics, there are any number of phenomena that remain unexplained by mathematical language. We only say that we have understood a phenomenon when we do formalize it in mathematical language."

Your apparent definition of "equivalent" here would not be mine. If there was an equivalence, there would be equal outcomes, yet you imply this may not be so. This is logically inconsistent.

The converse statement is a bit empty and obvious. There will clearly be unexplained phenomenon in our lifetimes, but what relevance does that have to the explained? Godel is a red herring.

As for the "we have understood" and later reference to "spacetime" which I am quite sure you are implying 4D, perhaps it would be better to say we have some kind of understanding that appears to work out for some possibly incomplete check which is not proven to be unique or singular. This makes your claim of "physically real" for spacetime and GR a statement of your religion and not one of fact. I would hope after our previous exchanges you appreciate the fact that it would not be my religion, which instead is that 4 dimensions does not span the space of reality, but 8 does.

Rick

Hi Rick,

Welcome to the party. :-)

You write, "I would hope after our previous exchanges you appreciate the fact that it would not be my religion, which instead is that 4 dimensions does not span the space of reality, but 8 does."

I know. You are mistaken to surmise that I consider spacetime merely 4-dimensional, however. A good part of my research has been devoted to showing that spacetime can be formulated in 0 1 dimensions of the n-dimension Hilbert space -- where every even dimension is measure zero. (To keep things on topic here, this is consistent with Albrecht's hypothesis of clock ambiguity by choice of scale.)

I appreciate that your research is valid and well formulated -- I appreciate that it connects with Joy Christian's 7-sphere limit of quantum correlations -- I appreciate that octonions are beautiful and useful for physical modeling.

Where I depart -- and I had many exchanges with Ray Munroe (rest in peace) on this very subject -- is that dynamic physical relations must capture continuous measurement functions. I feel the same about Lisi's program -- it appears to me like a painting filled with beautiful and interesting objects, frozen in time.

I couldn't hide my disappointment at the outcome of this year's FQXi essay contest -- not because Spekkens came in first, but because Ellis didn't. This seemed to me a backward step for physical acience -- "causal structure" -- the same principle that you advocate, opposes relational structure in the most general sense. J S Bell makes the same error that Spekkens makes a virtue and that you make a religion.

I do agree with Spekkens that what you call "the space of reality" (what he calls by the conventional term of quantum theory, cofiguration space) is what we conventionally rely on to frame our theories. You find octonionic space to be complete; he finds that completeness is no issue for causality and nonlocality tantamount to physical law.

My own direction forbids the choice of any "space of reality" and extolls the importance of what Minkowski and Einstein always relied on to frame their theories: spacetime. As Albrecht and Phillips imply, it's the free choice of clock that makes reality tick.

Tom

Anonymousse

"Time dilation is the (proven) fact that when an observer watches an object in motion, the observed time rate onboard the object, that is the actual rate of the ageing process as seen from the observer's viewpoint, is slowed"

Indeed, as I said a couple of posts ago. The observed rate at which the actual sequence is altering will appear to change if there is variation in the spatial relationship between source and observer. Because if the distance is increasing then light conveying the existent sequence, so that it can be observed, will take ever longer to reach the recipient observer, thereby creating the impression, to the observer, that the sequence is slowing down. And vice-versa. The actual sequence is not affected, neither is the light conveying a representation of it. By definition. Physical existence, and the physical phenomenon conveying a representation of it (ie light) occurs before it is received, indeed it may never be received by a sentient organism. In other words, physical existence occurs at a time, and alters at a rate independently of whether it is observed or not. Time/timing is concerned with the rate of alteration in physical existence, not the rate as perceived by any observer.

""Movement does not determine duration of existence." That is a conclusion you draw purely from consulting your intuition, and it's wrong"

Really? How does movement affect duration in physical existence-see above?

Paul

Rick,

In the quotes in your post to Tom, Tom was responding to my claim that "physical laws can and should be derived as mathematical identities".

Could you please comment on this?

Constantinos

Constantinos

"Math is not the symbols. It is the reasoning! Its proven statements are true for everyone and forever"

This is irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a representational device, because something is beiung used to represent physical existence. Whether it is valid or not is, of course, a different point altogether, and maths cannot be presumed to be inherently valid. Just as with any other construct, if the presumptions are wrong, vis a vis physical existence, then the ensuing construct will be flawed.

Paul

Tom

Just to take one example from this: "That's the famous paradox. How will you ever get from Point A to Point B if there are infinitely many things along the way?

The flaw with this is:

AB is a specific spatial circumstance relecting a spatial difference between physically existent states. It has no duration. Differences do not exist, the states do. And as either entity A &/or B alters, so does the distance AB. In other words, it is not possible to travel AB. The concept, when expressing distance in terms of duration incurred, is that instead of assessing distance as the definitive spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be measured as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But as this cannot happen, it must be understood that there is no duration, as such. It is just an alternative expression to, and the equivalent of, a specific spatial measure. Failure to understand this results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt.

In other words, there is an infinite number of possibilities. What is happening here is that the metaphysical possibility of 'always an alternative' is being confused with the fact that we are investigating a specific form of existence. In sum, infitity is not a valid representational device, because the physical existence being investigated is limited. 'Tending towards infinity', is OK, ie so many that it is impossible to put a quantity on it.

Paul

We allow for that effect, and include it in our calculations. It's called the Doppler effect. We measure both it and time dilation. They're two separate effects, and we understand both of them very well (both mathematically, one conceptually too), even students do. You're confusing them because you haven't studied physics, as you admit. This is like talking to a deaf person, except that that might be nicer in some ways. Go away and study phyiscs - your intuition is wrong. It seems right to you, and you can't concieve of it being wrong, but it's wrong. That's why you repeat ideas I've taken apart already. Please no more discussion, as what I'm saying isn't going in. You just got away with your ideas up till now, no-one bothered to put you right, for utterly obvious reasons. So you believed you knew what was going on, but you don't. Bad physics can look right VERY easily if you're vague about things, and if you don't hold it up to the reference points we have carefully. Read the posts above again, they may make more sense after a while. I hope that helps.

Here is the "Multiverse Hypothesis probability computation" as I see it:

Let p(Un) be the probability that Universe number "n" has initial conditions and physical laws, such that they result in "intelligent life-forms", that attempt to understand how they came to exist.

The Multiverse Hypothesis can then be stated as:

The probability, P, that every such life-form exists, somewhere within the multiverse, is:

1) P = p0*{p(U1)+p(U2)+p(U3)+...} = 1,

2) since {p(U1)+p(U2)+p(U3)+...} = 1

3) and it is an unstated assumption, that p0 = 1

Statement (2) is the standard hypothesis that if you sum up an infinite number of all possibilities, the result is an inevitable total, cumulative probability of 1.

But what is p0, and why is it assumed to be exactly equal to 1?

p0 is the *a priori* probability that such a life-form must *necessarily* exist.

p0 = 1 means a lifeless multiverse is *known* to be impossible, even before any such life comes into existence.

The problem with this hypothesis is that, because its proponents do in fact *know* that p0 =1 *a posteriori*, they have unwittingly assumed that it must *necessarily* also be the case that p=1 *a priori*. But this assumption is false.

In other words, because they know, after some game has been won, that a winner actually exists, they have assumed, incorrectly, that it is impossible to create a game that can *never* be won.

Since it is not *a priori* necessary for a multiverse to exist, it cannot be *a priori* necessary for a multiverse with intelligent life-forms to exist. So p0 cannot equal 1. So the hypothesis fails to explain the only fact that it was created to explain; why p0 is known to equal 1, *a posteriori*.

Rob McEachern

Paul, you write "Whether it[mathematics] is valid or not is, of course, a different point altogether, and maths cannot be presumed to be inherently valid."

This is a self-contradictory statement! Math is valid but "maths cannot be presumed to be inherently valid".

Math is inherently valid! The applications to Physics may not always be. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, why not just say so instead of contradicting what you say. And misunderstanding what I mean.

Try to be clear here! Hard to reason when all you do is argue and misunderstand!

Constantinos

Tom,

The real question is how does math deal with absolutes? The singularity, zero point, inertia, the Higgs, spacetime, void/vacuum, etc. "Has physical effect, but is not affected."

Is zero a point, a field, a state? If a point really has zero dimension, does it exist, or is it a useful contradiction? If it can be localed as a point, can it really be zero, or would it just be one point?

Tom,

In your post above to Rick, you state "that dynamic physical relations must capture continuous measurement functions."

I would say that the measurement functions must capture the dynamic physical relations. Maybe we have different understandings of what the word "measure" means, but my understanding is that it is an effort to define/"capture" some feature or quality.

Tom,

Sorry about that, you were describing Rick's and Lisi's work. I guess my mistake is the assumption you view spacetime and thus blocktime, as "physically real." Which I would describe as "like a painting filled with beautiful and interesting objects, frozen in time."

Do you view time as inherently dynamic and thus the measure of it merely an effort to capture/define it??????

Paul,

In answer to your question, "a definition of Universe is required ... Is this an allusion to what is 'really' there (ie what existence 'really is'), or is this meant to refer to existence as in what is knowable to us?"

I do not wish to debate philosophy. This can easily lead to a 'blackhole of thinking' where no light can escape. When I speak of Universe, I have something very simple in mind. Namely the subject matter of Physics. When I say "knowing the Universe truly is no more possible than truly knowing another person", I am not equating the physical existence of a person with that of the Universe. Rather, I am making an analogy. And I mean 'knowing another person' in the sense of knowing their experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc. What makes them 'human beings'. And I don't reduce these to bodily physical states. We cannot know truly and completely another person because the other person is independent of us; our will and experiences. They are their own actors and behave as they wish. Just like the Universe!

Constantinos

Tom,

"The impossibility of the ass to choose a haystack rests on the ideal of perfect information

-- just as the only solution to a perfect chess game is stalemate. Yet only probabilistic

information can be extracted from a continuous range of variables, assigning arbitrary

boundary conditions. Because quantum mechanics (and by extension, computer

mechanical functions) assumes binary outcomes based on agent decisions, the middle

value is null -- a stalemate or a tied election. The ass (metaphorically speaking) does

change position, however -- from live to death by starvation. The haystacks, in the sense

of general physical information, are a whole order of infinity away from Buridan's ass, just as a chess win or an election win is an infinity away in other examples."

It still seems what needs unraveling is the absolute. Perfect information is no information, the flat line on the old heart monitor. Describing continuity as an infinity of points gets into "frozen time" territory. Math has to find a less confusing method for modeling action. Zeno's paradox only works if they decelerate proportional to fractions.

Peter:

RE:Lipp's Law seems a bit of a mess.

I'll say! And in more beers than one!

The states of any two systems having the same rate of motion see equal states of equilibrium to dis-equilibrium.

Restated: (maybe...more beers than one) -

The ratios of any two systems having the same rate of motion to one another have the same degree of ratios of time equilibrium [entity ones] to dis-equilibrium[entity twos] to one another.

Constantinos

"I do not wish to debate philosophy...When I speak of Universe, I have something very simple in mind. Namely the subject matter of Physics."

I do not, and am not, debating philosophy. Which is why I asked the question, what are you referring to, physically, with the label 'universe', and you have not answered it. So we are no further forward in an understanding of your analogy. Indeed, I even gave you the choice as to what 'universe' could be, ie it is either an allusion to what is 'really' there (ie what existence 'really is'), or it is existence as in what is potentially knowable to us. Which of those are you using with your concept 'universe'?

Paul

Hector,

I suspect there are a great number of people who understand the Nature of Time. I suspect many are isolated with that knowledge. They have never met anyone who is seriously interested in the Nature of Time.

As you said, "I let this sleep for more than 30 years, till reading "Scientific American"".

I too, let it sleep.