Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

"Even considering 1+1=2 as a tautology, in the void neither description exists because there is no existent form to idealize."

That's essentially correct. By the time Russell published Principia Mathematica, which consumed 300 some odd pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2, Godel had proved that no system of axioms is strong enough to prove itself. So 1 + 1 = 2 isn't a theorem in the axioms of arithmetic; the theorem is that if 1 + 1 = 2, then 2 + 2 = 4.

Mathematics is always done in a void, as you call it. Perfect proofs are only a system of self consistent statements. That's why mathematics is art, not science.

"Information is emergent with what it defines."

Let's talk about that. You say that my failure to understand you, is my lack of information of your epileptic condition, such that what "emerges" as information in my mind should be the definition, or idea, that studying the literature is dependent on one's mental state. I don't buy that:

You post here daily in a coherent and articulate way. Having been a professional writer and editor for 50 years, I know intimately the relation between writing and reading. If you do one well, you can do the other reasonably well.

As for time and resources to learn, no one ever has enough. Parallel to your epilepsy is my own struggle with a head injury at age 3, which left me with a dyslexic-type disorder which stymied my ability to acquire a formal education. So I had to give up a lot of other things to learn on my own, and even today my investment in books and other learning tools outweighs that of food and clothing. It's a matter of priorities.

I'm not saying that my choices are better than yours. I'm saying that when one indulges in a community dialogue of a technical nature, it's different than bantering around the cracker barrel. Is it important, though? -- do you consider the people you influence with your words? Do they deserve the best information you can convey, or do you expect it to "emerge" as if false premises could lead to true conclusions?

Just my two cents. For what it's worth, I could even get change.

Tom,

Science arises as a formalization of essential human curiosity. It is not handed down as holy scripture. As such, different practices and even beliefs will result, such as the view of whether spacetime is a mathematical construct, or underlaying fabric of reality.

As I've pointed out frequently, my larger interests tend to be sociological and political, which leads me to study and appreciate the objectivity of the scientific endeavor, as an effective way to explain the inner workings of society, that rarely emerge from topical discussions of such activity. So that tends to be the direction my reading goes.

It is quite interesting to view all these political and economic dynamics in terms of thermodynamics, with radiant energy and gravitational consolidation providing the opposite poles. Such concepts as liberalism, conservatism and all their various permutations come into sharper focus, when you consider all the mixing this process enables. Such as why conservatives tend to be focused on order and generally seek solace in the past, while liberalism is constantly trying to upgrade the various social systems and expand their reach, but seemingly lacking a strong sense of structure.

Now for someone in a traditional mindset, with the dichotomy of personal desires and public responsibilities providing the motivation for their particular world views, the current world situation, with its loss of economic momentum, dissolving political and national clarity, a growing sense of religious and spiritual hollowness and general breakdown of what we consider tradition, might seem increasingly chaotic, though you would prefer me refer to it as "unpredictable." Yet I think it safe to say that edge between certain outcomes and uncertain ones, is getting quite close to home for many people. In my terms, the lack of an organizing frame to make sense of it, makes it seem like lots of noise, while the signals mostly seem ominous.

This may not qualify as suitably technical in your view, so I will recommend a two part article by Edward O. Wilson, that might help to bridge the gap between your worldview and mine;

Ants Are Cool but Teach Us Nothing

Masters of Earth, Alone in the Universe

If you wish an edited version, here is the second to last line; "We need to understand ourselves in both evolutionary and psychological terms in order to plan a more rational, catastrophe-proof future."

Regards,

John M

"Science arises as a formalization of essential human curiosity. It is not handed down as holy scripture. As such, different practices and even beliefs will result, such as the view of whether spacetime is a mathematical construct, or underlaying fabric of reality."

No, John. Science is a rationalist enterprise. There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way. I saw E.O. Wilson's ant lecture in person, in Boston, years ago in connection with a complex science conference. Read his conclusion again.

Tom,

""Information is emergent with what it defines."

Let's talk about that."

"Mathematics is always done in a void, as you call it. Perfect proofs are only a system of self consistent statements. That's why mathematics is art, not science."

And the fact remains, as Godel points out, that it can't be done in a void. Anything multiplied by zero is still zero. Anything added to zero is still only what it is and nothing more. We don't even know what 1 is, without a rather complex process of definition, distinction and judgement, as Robert McEachern has pointed out.

Math is a mapping tool, not the foundational structure. It is the skeleton, once we have boiled away all the vital tissue, not the seed from which reality springs.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

" There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way."

As we discussed previously, it does involve a process of trial and error and in order to do that, considerable speculation is required, to which proponents, being human, assign a great deal of emotional and circumstantial(read careers) attachment to.

Now, yes, in that theoretical void, it is a strictly rationalist enterprise and I assume, the results are consequentially thus deterministic, but as I keep trying to point out, I view this through the lens of human psychology, in which rather deep divisions do often occur.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

" Read his conclusion again."

Here it is;

"The instability of the emotions is a quality we should wish to keep. It is the essence of the human character, and the source of our creativity. We need to understand ourselves in both evolutionary and psychological terms in order to plan a more rational, catastrophe-proof future. We must learn to behave, but let us never even think of domesticating human nature."

Lol.

Regards,

John M

"As we discussed previously, it does involve a process of trial and error and in order to do that, considerable speculation is required, to which proponents, being human, assign a great deal of emotional and circumstantial(read careers) attachment to."

John, how many scientists or mathematicians do you actually know? Of these, what specific actions of theirs support your claim to know their states of mind?

Well John, you compel me to retract my statement about good writers necessarily being good readers.

Tom,

You have me on that. Beyond conversing over the internets, zip. Though I have followed the social aspects of science out of curiosity since the early 80's and mentally process the achievements better from that perspective, than from a more mathematical one.

It was really originally the observation in Hawking's A Brief History of Time, that Omega=1, which started me down this rabbit hole of questioning the Big Bang picture of cosmology.

That the expansion of the universe and the contraction of gravity are inversely proportional. Logically they would balance out to a larger cycle, not simply be coincidental. Thus making the redshift evidence of Einstein's cosmological constant.

It was in this further consideration that I started to see the issue of time and treating measures of sequence as foundational to the actual processes being measured, as being the focal point of this issue.

I would ask you a similar question; How many of the scientists and mathematicians, that you know, are human? Further, how many of them are intellectual products of a system of education stretching back centuries, in which each generation has gradually built on the foundations laid down by previous generations. Further, has it ever happened that within this system, it was discovered that assumptions, concepts, models and other such mental tools were found to be incomplete, misunderstood, lacking crucial insights, etc. which then required re-working and rethinking? By this, not only the physical sciences, but everything from history to geology.

In what reading I have done, rarely are new ideas accepted when first proposed and frequently the rejection is valid, but there are certainly enough examples of where the outsiders were eventually accepted as having been right, that the status quo cannot always be assumed correct.

As you state it; "Science is a rationalist enterprise. There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way."

The consequence is that one frame emerges and while that frame logically considers itself to be universally objective, the fact remains "that no system of axioms is strong enough to prove itself."

Right now, some of those on the cutting edge of theory, strings and supersymmetry come to mind, who think some of the more formal proofs of science should be relaxed. That, as others have strongly objected, is not a good move.

There are a number of ideas out there that many people have devoted decades to, which could well prove to be intellectual dead ends. That is the nature of science. And civilization.

Regards,

John M

"I would ask you a similar question; How many of the scientists and mathematicians, that you know, are human?"

All of them. All of us humans belong to one or more subcultures, John, whose boundaries seem opaque to outsiders.

"Further, how many of them are intellectual products of a system of education stretching back centuries, in which each generation has gradually built on the foundations laid down by previous generations."

None of them. You assume that historicism drives science -- by what evidence?

"Further, has it ever happened that within this system, it was discovered that assumptions, concepts, models and other such mental tools were found to be incomplete, misunderstood, lacking crucial insights, etc. which then required re-working and rethinking? By this, not only the physical sciences, but everything from history to geology."

Scientists and mathematicians thrive on the possibility of discovery and re-discovery. Probably a bit like prospectors who do backbreaking labor for long periods of time for small rewards.

"In what reading I have done, rarely are new ideas accepted when first proposed and frequently the rejection is valid, but there are certainly enough examples of where the outsiders were eventually accepted as having been right, that the status quo cannot always be assumed correct."

That's what makes being right so special. Once in a while, someone does discover the mother lode. That doesn't devalue the worth of the achievements and experiences of the rest of the prospectors -- on the contrary, it motivates more hope, more labor, more expectations for success. The journey is everything.

"As you state it; 'Science is a rationalist enterprise. There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way.'

"The consequence is that one frame emerges and while that frame logically considers itself to be universally objective, the fact remains 'that no system of axioms is strong enough to prove itself.'"

That, John, you should realize is an objective statement.

"Right now, some of those on the cutting edge of theory, strings and supersymmetry come to mind, who think some of the more formal proofs of science should be relaxed."

On the contrary, string theorists are among the more rigorous theorem-provers of mathematical theorists. I think you mean that some think that string theory deserves more status in the physics community despite its lack (so far) of novel physical predictions. I expect that Ed Witten would be among those, and Joe Polchinski -- and I think they have a good case. String theory is the only mathematically complete theory that unifies all the forces of nature which are already experimentally supported.

"That, as others have strongly objected, is not a good move."

Here again, John, a reference to the literature would be helpful so that we have the advantage of knowing who said what, and what they are objecting to.

"There are a number of ideas out there that many people have devoted decades to, which could well prove to be intellectual dead ends."

Absolutely. Everyone in the scientific community knowingly takes that risk. So? The journey is everything.

"That is the nature of science. And civilization."

More risk, more reward. :-)

"Having had far more than average and also ongoing experience of academics and academia I find your statement an entirely accurate description. I understand Tom has little more experience in that than you."

Oh really, Peter? Then I invite you to -- without attribution, to maintain anonymity -- cite a case close to you (besides yourself) of a scientist who insinuated his position and emotions over objective research results. And do remember we are talking about research scientists, not academics in general.

Tom,

" You assume that historicism drives science -- by what evidence?"

While our increase in knowledge has gone parabolic over the last century and a half, thinking our current state didn't arise and is necessarily based on prior knowledge, as well as beliefs, seems extremely shallow. Everything we are able to perceive is of prior events and the information is a continual process of compilation and distillation. The evidence is so overwhelming I would have to ask you where there is any proof otherwise?! As you have argued, we need a model to make sense of anything, so how does that model come about? Is it just handed down from on high?

"Probably a bit like prospectors who do backbreaking labor for long periods of time for small rewards.'

There is also the fact that many of these advances are professionally competitive, given that accepting some theories will necessarily mean rejecting competing theories.

"That doesn't devalue the worth of the achievements and experiences of the rest of the prospectors"

In theory it shouldn't, but in practice, there do tend to be winners and losers. How much respect do steady state cosmologists draw today?

"That, John, you should realize is an objective statement."

To the extent it is an admission no model is final. It is not that we don't strive for objectivity, but as I keep trying to point out, perception requires a frame of reference. Even deductive reasoning requires first inducing those general principles from sets of observations. Otherwise the alternative is assuming we have discovered some platonic realm of pure knowledge and this is hubris. We extract what we are able. Nothing more and nothing less. We need that frame to distill the signal from the noise. Even laying the groundwork for this frame has taken millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations, in order for our knowledge to even start to go parabolic and now it seems our main accomplishment will be to destroy our own environment. In which case, our quest for objectivity would be an evident failure.

"String theory is the only mathematically complete theory that unifies all the forces of nature which are already experimentally supported."

What you are saying is that it is the most efficient patch over the gaps in current theory. It would be if an accountant, finding a discrepancy, simply wrote in whatever number required to fix it. Now to be fair, this accountant doesn't yet have access to all the books, so it could be either some prior mistake, or some piece of information not yet acquired. The problem for the scientific method is that if one is simply allowed to insert whatever is required to fix the problems, then there is no way to actually falsify any theory that has managed to become accepted, when any potential falsification simply means projecting some enormous new property of nature.

" a reference to the literature would be helpful so that we have the advantage of knowing who said what, and what they are objecting to."

While they are not something I'm in the habit of saving, here is a recent one. First comment in the comments section.

"The journey is everything."

As the above post shows, yes the journey is everything and very few are willing to turn around and backtrack, if it should lead into the jungle, with no evident path onward.

"More risk, more reward. :-)"

As one having spent their life in horseracing, more risk is also more opportunity for failure :-(

Peter, Tom,

The issue which really needs to be considered in that regard is not one of personal, but institutional bias. That members of a community, having committed their professional lives, are not only not inclined to go against received wisdom, but having developed the perspective of that group, necessarily see everything from the perspective of its model. This goes back to my point that an objective perspective is an oxymoron. The problem then is that for practical purposes, objectivity amounts to a broader, more generalized point of view. One which does try to incorporate multiple frames, but necessarily loses some detail, while those most engaged tend to view the clarity of detail as the highest goal. Specialists vs. generalists. Catch 22. The "shut up and calculate" crowd is not about to turn around and get all philosophical about the journey.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

There's little problem with data, though you only get what you ask so prior assumptions can always play some part, the issues arise in interpretation. Many I know in astronomy (somewhat) and optics in particular try to avoid interpretation as they know that trying to fit it to theoretical doctrine makes nonsense of it. But most others entirely ignore the implications anyway! Better to just publish the findings or describe it as anomalous (or keep it as 'trade secrets').

I tear my hair out with fellow astronomers almost every day reading the on line journals and seeing the nonsensical interpretations some suggest to make things 'fit' with what they believe, or sometimes even with 'new' suggestions.

Mostly they simply don't read a wide enough range of other work to update what they were taught at Uni. Many in research read an exceptionally narrow range so get no perspective or 'cross pollination'. Many seem to read ZERO papers and only update ideas at the odd conference!

It's human nature and the way the brain works to test veracity against prior neural network patterns rather than entirely objectively. I mentioned Hannes Alfen's comment recently, strolling between labs from one bunch desperate to solve some problem to another down the hall on different research who've actually resolved that exact problem. He says how he tried to get them to speak to each other, but even when forcing them they found they spoke different languages!

I've had VERY many similar experiences from undertaking a wide range of courses. It's those invisible blinkers we all have. NONE of us can believe we have them. We all assume it's OTHERS talking nonsense when we can't understand, so make little effort to do so. Perpetuating the lie that we're all objective is what keeps theory in the rut.

It's as little conscious as it is entirely prevalent. Lahav calls it normal theoretical entrenchment.

Back in academia, when asked what could be done to improve science teaching the main request for for 'less change' in the subject. The fact that science is mostly about discovery and advancement seems to have entirely passed them by!

Best wishes

Peter

Wow!

Thanks John R. I hope that once all is laid out for examination; it will satisfy those who are looking for answers there. In the meanwhile; I'll continue looking for way to make some obscure point about the Math a little more plain. It is really cool to be able to precipitate an 'Aha!' moment, that allows something which would otherwise be lost to get understood or explained.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi John,

Feedback loops and karma are of course true. But they're not the only toys in the toybox.

The EPR paradox is telling us that their is more physics, more toys in the toy-box, available that may not be revealed by our current mathematical strategies. For example, if we want faster than light technology, we might have to think outside the box. It might take luck, not mathematics, to find it.

For example, the physics community should convince the government to make the following announcement. That the government will pay $10 billion dollars in gold bullion and gold coins to the first extraterrestrial aliens that will land in their space-craft, and claim it. The government shoud make this announcement, and then see what happens.

We should sweeten the deal by offering all our best treasure to whatever space aliens can claim it. Diamonds, monetary currency, art work, land deeds, stocks, bonds, and then we wait to see what happens.

Feedback:

Assume an arbitrary upper and lower bound of density which is distributed in accord with inverse square law along the radius of a spherical volume such that a quantity of whatever medium you choose varies from greatest density at center to least density at the volume boundary. Now, as each successive doubling of radial increment results in an 8-fold increase in volume, the total quantity required to compound the density by the square will always result in the concentric spheres producing a demand that graphs as a linear function until you get to that last volume of 'the glass onion', and then the direction of the function changes. Add another layering, and it does it the same. SO... if you integrate over all those partial differentials you wind up with a feedback at the final boundary instead of having a 'boundary of the boundary' being zero. That's just one of the problems (mathematically) that resulted in the 'zero point particle' assumption, because nobody can say how a finite quantity of energy can be distributed in accord with inverse square law in a spherical volume having a zero difference at the boundary radial limit. Try it yourself. jrc

John,

In practice we find density peaks again at boundary limits, then has a sharp cut-off more akin to the Yukawa potential than Newtons. The peak is also focussed on the vector through the ambient medium, forming the ubiquitous 'bow shock'. (the magnetotail zone is far less concentrated - giving the same 'optical thickness').

Considered as a near/far field 'transition zone' the two-fluid shock structure appears able to resolve a good number of fundamental issues. Does it affect the one you're discussing?

Best wishes

Peter