Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

Though possibly stopping the spin altogether would allow the ink to coalesce.

Jason,

On the classical level, I suppose pilot waves are what we would refer to as feedback loops.

In eastern philosophy, as karma.

Regards,

John M

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

In a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

Jonathon,

I look forward to your explanation of the Mandelbrot Set (I'm reminded of the Buddha by the originating circles) and appreciate your years of serious effort in mathematical physics. Contributors such as you and Tom Ray are essential guides in learning enough about the necessary maths to follow the discussion of what is intuitively attractive about Pilot Wave Theory, but which displays such an immediate complexity when one tries to conceptualize application of the planar analogy into 4-D. I think Tom is quite correct in topology being the most suitable measurement framework to further development. The videos you posted were quite impressive, a picture may be worth a thousand words but you show us that a mathematical expression is worth thousands of pictures. Thank-you, jrc

"I didn't say they were the same, which is why I listed both as causes of unpredictability, though we might still assign both different meanings."

That isn't true, though, John. A chaotic system exhibits entirely predictable behavior. It's sensitively dependent on the initial condition, such that predictions further from the initial condition are progressively more difficult. Research into chaos and complexity theory is deepest at the point researchers identify as the "edge of chaos," where certain behavior starts to become uncertain.

"I would describe chaotic as not being able to know all input into a situation,"

And you would be wrong. It's been a years-long frustration to me, John, that you have a fine creative mind -- and yet you continue to absolutely refuse to familiarize yourself with the literature. Why? What have you got to lose?

" ... while probabilistic as having far too much input to effectively determine the outcome before hand."

There are two fundamental philosophies of probability: 1) the Frequentist view, where a result depends on the number of independent trials for an event; i.e., the more trials, the more confidence one has in the prediction. 2) the Bayesian view, which requires a certain amount of personal belief to predict a probability on the interval [0,1] though Bayesians believe there is a certain preexistent probability for any event.

Neither of these, however, have anything to do with "input," because they all all about output. The 'input' to a probability calculation is an information model, not physical input. When it comes to Bernoulli trials in a frequentist model -- one cannot, contrary to your assertion, have too much input, because the certainty of a prediction only grows with the number of trials. I won't get into Bayesianism, because I think it's nonsense from a scientific perspective.

Tom,

Your inability to comprehend my behavior rests on a lack of information. Personally I spend a large amount of time running around this farm, have to live on what amounts to a sedative to control the epilepsy and conversing in these discussions is a form of personal relaxation, of which I lack the time and energy to be able to invest the amount of effort required to "know everything." As such I'm entirely grateful for your efforts to converse, even if we often see reality from vastly different frames of reference.

My definition of probability and chaos do not come from careful scientific evaluation, but in dealing with the ebb and flow of my interactions with the world in which I live. As such, they are potent terms to me and if you insist on copyrighting them to only be used in scientific discourse, would you have any appropriate ones which I could replace them with?

If I might add further clarification to my views, it would be that chaos is not having a frame of reference to define the input. In other words, it's all noise and no signal. While probability would be a frame which does allow one some degree of foresight, but not absolute foreknowledge.

"Research into chaos and complexity theory is deepest at the point researchers identify as the "edge of chaos," where certain behavior starts to become uncertain."

The feedback loops start to get a little fuzzy?

I would say this does seem evidence for information being emergent from the underlaying dynamics. Consider even a concept as simple as 1+1=2. While the factors might be considered static entities, the function, addition, is a process, a verb. So the frequentist argument is that it is 100% predictable that 1+1=2, yet you still have to actually ask the question to get the answer. This information is not pre-existing, even if it is entirely predictable. In the void there are no static entities and no processes, so there is no platonic realm containing that information. Thus it is not at a fundamental level, deterministic.

As Lorraine is arguing over on the contest thread, the calculations are all contained in the ground level activity.

Regards,

John M

Ps,

Even considering 1+1=2 as a tautology, in the void neither description exists because there is no existent form to idealize. Information is emergent with what it defines.

"My definition of probability and chaos do not come from careful scientific evaluation, but in dealing with the ebb and flow of my interactions with the world in which I live. As such, they are potent terms to me and if you insist on copyrighting them to only be used in scientific discourse, would you have any appropriate ones which I could replace them with?"

How about "unpredictability" which fits your usage in both cases. And forgive me, John -- I thought we were engaged in scientific discourse.

"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. :-)

John,

"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."

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. Of course the 'Scientific Method' was established to try to overcome that natural tendency, which many recognise and try superficially to avoid, but few succeed. It's a tragedy that the SM has largely failed and fallen largely into disuse in many areas.

Present entrenched theory is riddled with paradox and anomalies, new ones emerging every day, indeed they're in the MAJORITY! (I'll post a couple from this week below) Yet old embedded beliefs still trump all. Academics have too much invested in their 'knowledge' to give it up. It's called 'theoretical inertia'. Most assumptions are hidden so pass by unrecognised.

SM/BB Nucleosynthesis can't explain Lithium -6.

Orbital magnetism unexplained by present models.

Curent models can't explain early massive galaxies. etc.

Of course all these WILL be (most 'are') coherently explainable, but certainly not with present entrenched academic beliefs. Most know that but are, as Bell described those in QM; 'Sleepwalking' so can't see what's in front of them.

Wake up time. Have you got an alarm clock that tells us the right time?

Best wishes

Peter