Reality, No Matter How You Slice It by Ken Wharton

Hi Ken,

I finally got to your essay and gave it the best mark.

One minor criticism. A definition of dynamics would have helped less sophisticated readers like myself.

I invite you to visit my essay and see how I "give up dynamics", If you visit please be critical..... There is too much agreement around here.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Dear Ken,

This is miles better!

First of all, I'm glad that you don't think acceleration resolves the twins paradox. But I do wonder why you would use 'acceleration' rather than saying something like 'the boosted twin', especially since acceleration has been wrongly thought by many to resolve the paradox.

But now to important stuff. I was talking with someone yesterday about my concerns with using verbs to describe space-time points, events, all of space-time, etc. What I learned was that a B-theorist uses the word "exist" non-existentially. Personally, I consider it nonsense to use language that doesn't actually apply to things by redefining words in such a convoluted way. Moreover, I think it leads to a lot of confusion, especially because it's so hard to not fall into the trap of thinking of these non-existential things that 'exist' as *existing*. (As an example, when you read what you wrote, don't you find it hard to not think of a *static* block? I think it's really hard to think of the block as a temporally singular, non-existential thing. I honestly can't make sense of "a thing that doesn't exist." Then I also have a tough time not thinking of existence *and* motion along the block when you write "updating is performed by a 3D agent over time"). And finally, I think if what's being proposed is so nonsensical that it can't even be properly described because the language comes to mean something else entirely, that's a pretty good indicator that it really is just nonsense.

So what's my point: I do understand what you've written here, insofar as every time you say "I'm" you're really speaking non-existentially about what you "are". I'm actually pretty okay with the description until the last paragraph, because I don't think you're being too cavalier with your use of non-existential verbs until that point. But in the last paragraph, I think you're getting a bit carried away when you use three in a row ("updating is performed") in a way that tends to give the impression that you're not only talking of the block as something that 'exists' but doesn't really exist, but also of a sequence of updates that move up the world line.

Alternatively, you could say (with the use of single quotation marks to indicate non-existential use of verbs) "The whole 4D block 'exists'. My world-line 'exists' in it. At each point along my world-line, I 'have' some knowledge of the entire 4D block; i.e., as I may 'know' something about past, present, and future events at each point of my world-line. At 'later' times, my knowledge of the block is more complete than at 'earlier' times." (I know "earlier" and "later" are adjectives, but I think it's good to still use the single quotes there). Maybe you could sum that up by saying, "one's incomplete knowledge of the 4D block 'is' a monotonically increasing function of one's worldline, where at each point along the worldline, that incomplete knowledge 'is' 4D".

I think we're now on the same wavelength about what you want to describe, and I think the description of 'subjective updating', if stated carefully in this way, making sure to note the non-existential meaning of 'exist', etc., is about the best you can do. But then I simply have to wonder why you want it to be that way anyway. One reason, from our discussion above, might be that you don't like quantum non-locality. But I have a tough time seeing how a fear of existence in a world in which magic happens, can lead one to want to 'live' in a world where one doesn't actually *live* at all; where one doesn't actually *exist*. I think it's better to try to sort out our problems than just give in to unrealistic implications--and I honestly think a realistic version of quantum theory, or really quantum gravity, will come about after we've taken the more immediately necessary step of properly interpreting and understanding relativity.

I guess that brings the discussion back to the one we were having above. Would it be at all possible to take that up again now? I think I've shown an ability to really understand this position that I think needs to be rejected, being very open to thoughtful consideration of its meaning and implications. I think you'll find if you do read what I wrote there, that I've given the same thoughtful consideration in coming to my own position on the matter.

One more thing I wanted to say before I quit, in relation to the point you made early on about symmetry, is this: last night at the summer school on physics and philosophy of time that I'm attending, Stephan Hartmann gave a talk about the No-Alternatives Argument, which basically runs as, "Physicists have identified certain constraints, C, and have a set of data, D, that they want to use to construct a quantum gravity. To date, only string theory seems to meet all of C and D. Given the amount of effort that's been put into the construction of an alternative, we can be optimistic to some extent that there reall are no alternatives." The "some extent" is evaluated using Bayesian analysis.

My objection to this entire line of reasoning comes in at the very beginning. It's true that having identified C, the usual goal is to try to construct a theory that adds C explicitly into the framework. But we know of cases in history, where ideas have been rejected for a long time just because they were naively thought to be at-odds with some constraint or other that people thought necessary to hold onto. For instance, given a butterfly's ability to easily flutter about, or even the fact that the Earth retains its atmosphere, people felt quite strongly for a long time that the Earth has to be fixed at the centre of the solar system, and this constraint was violently held onto (e.g., Bruno). But then Galileo showed (with a simple thought experiment that didn't even need to be conducted) that butterflies can flutter around just as well in the cabin of a ship, as they can when it's back at harbour, and it was realised that this constraint wasn't necessary to the realisation of the data, and the Solar System could, for all that constraint had mattered, be heliocentric. In light of what I've written about symmetry above, I would like you to consider that perhaps the standard symmetry constraint of modern physics maybe is being made too explicitly, for all the observed symmetries that must be reconciled.

Cheers,

Daryl

Dr. Wharton

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

With regards,

Than Tin

Dear Ken,

Kindly indulge me. Probably no better place to clarify things with the experts than this forum.

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Ken,

Thank you so much for your posts. It means an awful lot knowing that you feel you've benefitted from this exchange, as I certainly have. Honestly, I really hope we can continue to agree to disagree, because for me it's all about getting things right, and being precise and careful at every step is such a huge part of that. In that regard, I don't know if it could be more beneficial than to have an opponent who truly understands and can appreciate both sides of the argument for what they are.

I have some specific responses to what you wrote. Copying isn't working on my phone, so I'll only quote a few words.

>if there is a cosmic rest frame...

Is a whole 3d space that exists any more non-local than a 4d block that 'exists'? Also, Shelly Goldstein sure gave a persuasive argument last night in favour of Bohmian mechanics.

>And it would seem to be rather convoluted...

Do you have Hawking and Ellis handy? Can you flip to the section on spherically symmetric gravitational collapse? It refers to observers O and O', and there's an E-F diagram... Consider the implicit definition of time that's being used--I.e. the variable they use to refer to time's passage. You know I think there's an objective time variable for the whole universe. It's not the E-F advanced time parameter. In any case, I think we both agree that descriptions of actual temporal passage are inconsistent with einsteinian notions of the relativity of simultaneity, which is what they're implicitly assuming--I.e. they give a dynamical account of temporal passage while assuming a physical definition of simultaneity that's inconsistent with that.

Now look at the statical coordination of de sitter space in the images I posted above. The r coordinate becomes imaginary at the coordinate singularity. It's simply no good after that, for all t. I talked about this with Gordon Belot today, and he thought Felix Klein showed that this was the right way of interpreting the line element. I actually think the Schwarzschild 'event horizon' is also such a coordinate singularity. Remember, I think space-time is globally hyperbolic at a fundamental level.

Now, to get back to the E-F description. Do you have Kip Thorne's black holes and time warps? He recalls a conversation with Lipschitz, where he called Finkelstein's paper a revelation that lifted a fog (or something like that). It was what convinced Wheeler that black holes exist, etc.

Personally, I find all of this convoluted. I think you can only have my sense of existence or your sense of 'existence' and neither admits of the dynamical emergence of black holes in the universe. I think it's entirely inconsistent.

>I'll note without comment...

Ah, but I'm allowed to conduct my thought experiments assuming absolute simultaneity in the Earth's rest-frame due to the principle of relativity. The important thing in assuming a cosmic rest-frame is whether the empirical evidence supports that. Right?

>Finally, I will caution... (whole paragraph)

:) Can I say I feel justified to be just a little snobbish about these things, insofar as I personally think a non-existential definition of "exist" (and all other verbs) is a convoluted and misleading way of speaking, which has led to a mountain of confusion (by the way, a good chunk of my essay is devoted to discussing this)?

Again, thank you so much for discussing all of this. I can't tell you how much it means to have the opportunity to debate with you. It's been very clarifying. By the way, do you think Greene is really thinking non-existentially about the block? It seems to me in the quote I posted below, that he's really emphasizing the block's existence.

Best regards,

Daryl

Dear Ken,

Replying to post on physical basis for introduction of principle of least action (dated Jul. 13, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT)

Having (time x change), or (time x energy) comes naturally by way we introduce the principle of least action. But this introduction is done on the level of effective systems, i.e. not at fundamental level at all. The bigger picture, with places to introduce spacetime as one piece on both low and effective levels, is painted in http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1597 Notice there that notion of time is connected to the system, i.e. it is not a global time (can we call it local time?). And since it is not a global time, a little special place of time in Lagrangian method does not produce global problems, which none of us want :) .

De facto, when we look for a new theory (i.e. suggesting new Lagrangian), we watch out not to have bad things like negative energy. And, although it is beautiful to have complete time-space (t-x) symmetry, we avoid certain theories specifically based on this aspect of time being experimentally a little different.

Sincerely,

Mikalai

Hi Ken,

OK, a little more in the way of a response to your response:

1. I'm still not sure that what Eddington is talking about is unphysical. He's just talking about probability theory. Chains of probabilities are naturally asymmetric. It's just the way they are. Which leads me to...

2. Again, I think relativity is mis-interpreted. The arrow of time is built into it via the very fact that the sign of time in the metric is opposite that of space. It's easier to see if you work through relativity graphically using diagrams, but once you see it you can't "unsee" it, as they say. The only way to make time perfectly symmetric in relativity is to either drop the basic notion of cause and effect or allow for things like complex-valued masses and strange things like that. So, in short, I think it's incorrect to say that all the laws of modern physics are time-symmetric. They're not.

Ian

*Lifshitz. Sorry. I think it was him and not Landau, but he was talking about Landau as well, I believe. It's been a while since I read that, though. By the way, I'm not thinking of geodesic incompleteness, anymore than there is geodesic completeness past the coord singularity in dS space, described in those coords.

Hi Wharton,

I like the trend that this essay encompasses about not dwelling on the spacetime view of things and also its emphasis on returning to the big picture. It put some critical controversies in history in a more viewable, and relate-able, light.

Thanks,

Amos.

Dear Professor Wharton

Do you have opinion about my essay?

Yuri

Ken,

We agree. In my "It's Great to be the King" I tend to satirically rebuke the Anthropic Principle, especially "It from Bit.

For example, you say, "where everything about the present was encoded in some initial cosmic wavefunction," I deny the existence of consciousness w/o a body during the BB and bodies not possibly existent until 1 billion years after the BB after heavier-element stars.

The connection between consciousness and reality and the subatomic and the macro worlds I say are philosophical / metaphysical with their arguments. They are confused in attributing similar behavior to micro and macro, much like your concept: "case quantum information can plausibly be about something real . Instead of winning the argument by default, then, \It from Bit" proponents now need to argue that it's Better to give up reality. Everyone else need simply embrace entities that fill ordinary spacetime - no matter how you slice it."

Thanks for a well-thought-out read. I am interested in seeing your thoughts on my essay.

Jim

Dear prof. Wharton,

Your statement, "with no objective 'now', there is no objective line between the past and the future", indicates the causality of "microhistory", and implies discrete-time.

With this, dynamic time evolution in configuration space is adapted in string-matter continuum scenario, in that one-dimensional observer for one-dimensional source is ascribed to express the emergence of other dimensions with realistic information continuum rather than probabilistic that indicates the observational plausibility of real-time information continuum on molecular dynamics of simplex in linear time with reference to holarchical discrete time.

With best regards,

Jayakar

Cont..

I am interested on your essay and my best wishes to you. - Jayakar

Dear Ken Wharton,

Just to let you know I have read your essay which I found really interesting and very clearly explained.I like the way you linked your discussion with the essay question making it highly relevant. Nice helpful diagram too

Good luck, Regards Georgina

Dear ken,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Hi Ken,

I hope the familiar greeting is OK. We met during the program review for SJSU a few years back maybe more than 5 years now). Anyway I may be back at SDSU this fall since Alej and I have agreed to exchange colloquium talks.

A very nice and deep essay -- not all parts of which I agree with -- but it bears careful reading and thinking about.

At the beginning of the essay you take a holistic view that one must view space-time in 4D blocks rather than 3D slices which one dynamically evolves forward. (By the way if you are teaching intro algebra based physics don't let your students get their hands on this essay since otherwise when you move from kinematics in the first few weeks of the course to dynamics some student will misrepresent your point and say "But Prof. Wharton in your essay you say dynamics isn't important".) This is reminiscent of a Wick rotation where one goes from Minkowski to Euclidean space by letting t-->it. One question I had in this regard is that there is some real difference between Minkowski and Euclidean space or more directly between spatial and temporal coordinates. Given enough time it is always possible to reach any spatial coordinate starting from x=0 -- either x=-N or x=+N. However starting from t=0 one can only access t>0. There are some subtle issues with this as your figure 1 indicates in terms of the relativity of simultaneity but essentially an observer can equally access left and right (unless one breaks parity symmetry) but past and future are not so equally accessible. I'm not sure if this is crucial to your argument or if it is already addressed in some way but it was something that I thought about.

Next I had a technical question in regard to you example in figure 2 (I did not see where this example was going until the nice connection with the two slit experiment in figure 3). In the example in figure 2 you use 3 colors, but it seems you could use either 4 or 2. 4 colors would seem to work in the following way: blue for H-H, green for T-T, red for H-T and yellow for T-H (i.e. the order of the opposite pair matters). 2 colors would seem to work in the following way: blue for H-H and T-T (i.e. the same color for both like pairs) and red for H-T and T-H. Would this change anything or would it simple alter the numerical values of the different probabilities you calculate?

Actually I have a few more comments/questions but will stop here. I should say the point that I disagree with is the statement "photons behave in a way that disagrees with the dynamical Maxwell equations". Actually this statement is correct but also we know that classical Maxwell's equations are superseded by the quantum version of Maxwell's equations i.e. QED. And in regard to QED there has yet to be any deviation between experiment and theory -- photons as far as we have tested behave exactly as predicted by QED. Some time ago there was some excitement when it appeared that there was a deviation between the calculated g-2 for the electron and/or muon and the experimental value. The deviation was jumped on as evidence for supersymmetry (supersymmetric particles were ignored in the calculation and including them with some given mass made the agreement better). However in the end it was found there was a mistake in the calculation which involved 5 or 6 loop Feynman diagrams!!) which when it was fixed brought agreement between theory and experiment. This does not really have too much bearing on your main thesis which deals with foundational issues rather than using the structure of quantum field theory to make calculations.

Anyway a thought provoking essay.

Best,

Doug