• [deleted]

  • Post #147

In an effort to keep the most relevant ideas in one place, I reproduce most of the comment I made to Roberto Mangabeira Unger:

In your essay you state that "causal explanations make no sense outside time; causal connections can exist only in time." This I agree with. But then you say "...the moves in a mathematical or logical chain of argument do occur outside time." I'm less sure of that. A mathematical argument goes from step to step in sequential fashion which seems to incorporate the nature of time. As it does not matter when one steps through the sequence, it is time-independent. Much of physics (the physics covered by energy conservation) is time independent: dH / dt = 0. I do not see this as equivalent to the Platonic vision which does truly seem to proclaim a realm outside time and space.

In similar fashion I view logic as a property of reality that allows the physical structure of AND-gates and NOT-gates. The physical implementation of logic gates, combined combinatorially in space and typically sequenced in time, provide counters that generate the natural numbers and address Kronecker's maxim: "God made the integers, all the rest (of math) is the work of man."

Thus I see logic not as an 'outside' rule or 'law' but as the primary property of physical existence, supporting a single, self-consistent, unitary reality. Physical evolution in time yields math 'circuitry' at almost all levels, but perfected at the level of man. The logical operation of such circuits (in a computer, a cell, or in our brains) is independent of time in the sense that it does not typically matter when the logic sequence is triggered nor how long the steps take, but still, the physical existence and operation is embedded in time. Of course structural changes that 'endure' in time record information, and this too is typically time-independent, but is in no way 'outside of time'. Thus all the basis of math is derived from and 'evoked by' physical reality. This operation of the universe is not "subject to laws" outside time, but we can abstract relations (as I briefly show in my essay) that capture the operations reliably and thus appear to have the character of law, or "timeless truth" -- probably more accurately stated "time-independent truth."

Finally, I fully agree that "mathematics cannot replace physical insight." As an example I show in my essay how mathematics, based on faulty physical insight, led Bell to introduce a mystical 'non-locality' that almost banishes physical insight. And this is not the only 20th century mathematics that muddles physical thinking. I see the correction and clarification of these induced mystical concepts as the greatest need in today's physics. Then we might move forward. Most movement today impresses me as lateral or even backward.

You certainly could have been thinking of John Bell when you stated:

"The less we grasp the non-mathematical reasons for the application of mathematics ... the more enigmatic and disconcerting the application of mathematics will appear to be."

Bell did not grasp the underlying physics, and thus based his mathematical treatment on false assumptions. The correct application of mathematics to incorrect physics has certainly led us to enigmatic and disconcerting conclusions. In this sense mathematics is as you say, "a good servant but a bad master."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Having read your essay, we will need to revisit it again to form an opinion on your stand on Bell's theorem. In the context of the first two pages of your essay, you remarked in your post on our page:

"I have employed a robot as a vehicle to eliminate bias and "baggage", while providing pattern recognition, learning algorithms (neural nets, self organizing maps, etc.) and have shown how counting, derived from logical physical structures, is essentially (along with simple arithmetic logic circuitry, silicon or biological) all that is required to go from raw measurement data to feature vectors of the quantum persuasion. "

While you do mention that this is elaborated in the early part of essay, and certainly there must be much more detail in your book, it will be very helpful to us if you could explain again how, after deriving counting from physical structures, you build the number system, as well as geometry and algebra. Is there a parallel with the cognitive processes we discuss? And what did you mean above by `feature vectors of quantum persuasion'? Thanks.

With best regards,

Tejinder, Anshu

    Dear Tejinder, Anshu,

    Thank you for reading and thinking about my essay. As the issue of Bell's theorem and physics is quite complex and exceedingly important, it's wise to revisit it until it is understood and can be accepted or rejected. References [2] and [4] contain much supporting physics. I do hope you find time and are motivated to understand my treatment of Bell. I believe the key fact is that my local model has produced the correct correlation, -a.b, which Bell claims to be impossible.

    It is very important for everyone to understand that experiments do not "prove" non-locality. They prove only that Bell's models do not work correctly. The question is why? I contend, and offer evidence, that it is Bell's constraints that force any such local model to fail. This is an artifact due to incorrect choice of mathematical 'map', not a feature of physical reality.

    You also ask, given that I establish the fundamental physical nature of counters and counting -- based on fundamentally physical logical operations NOT and AND that provide all arithmetic operators -- how I "build the number system, as well as geometry and algebra." Although many here trace the history of math, I rely upon Kronecker, who said "God made the integers, all else is the work of man." As you note in your essay, after analytical geometry every geometric object and operation can be mapped to numbers.

    You also state in your essay "pattern recognition, with inputs from arithmetic, is the basis of algebra." The robot is designed with robust pattern recognition capability, and rich algorithmic resources. You mentioned "hardwired" human primordial perceptions such as object, size, shape, pattern and change..." The robot is hardwired to extract such features from numeric data and to build a "best" (using entropy extremization) feature vector, which is a 'primordial' Hilbert space representation. I used a US colloquialism which is probably inappropriate. I interpret 'persuasion' here as 'type'. The equations that conserve the eigenvalues [features] are eigenvalue equations.

    Finally you ask whether there is a parallel with the cognitive processes you discuss. There is not in terms of the robot, which is assumed to lack conscious awareness. Of course the robot was designed by intelligence, but my purpose was to show that, based simply on the physical reality of logic gates/operators, one can go all the way to classical and quantum mechanics without conscious awareness, given sufficient measurements and appropriate pattern recognition and arithmetic processing capabilities. I have treated consciousness in an earlier FQXi essay, but the robot is not assumed to be conscious nor to evolve toward consciousness, only to be capable of very sophisticated mapping of numbers into features.

    As you observe, there is much more information in The Automatic Theory of Physics. Thank you again for your comment and your questions.

    I hope you reach some conclusion on Bell.

    Best,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    You've not emphasized the conceptualisation of intuitional notions which results for "Truthful" actions which erases the name "Trick" from the subject.

    It's important to explore the True picture!

    Good luck!!

    Sincerely,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

      First of all, I must admit that I am not a fan of Bell's analysis. There are so many deep flaws in Bell's approach that I do not consider it even useful discourse.

      Fortunately, your essay really had very little to do with Bell's arguments and I was pleasantly surprised by the flaws you note in Bell's approach.

      And I especially liked your comment to me about Hestenes geometrical algebra. The spin or phase of quantum matter is not something that we normally sense and that makes quantum action a little mysterious. The phase or spin of matter is what is missing from gravity action and that is a real shame.

      Your approach is largely based on the reality of empty space just as Bell's was and the typical statement of nonlocality is one that presupposes empty space as an object.

      I believe that quantum action does not need space at all and it is much more useful for the concept of space to emerge from action and not be a place for action to occur in the first place.

      1.0, entertaining

      2.0, well written

      1.5, understandable

      2.0, relevance to theme

      6.5

        Dear Steve,

        Thanks for reading and commenting. I would agree with you about 'useful discourse', but Bell has had such a profound effect on our physics, it is necessary to discuss him, useful or not. And I'm glad you were pleasantly surprised by the flaws in Bell's approach. Some responses to these flaws are not so pleasant.

        I have found Hestenes' approach very worthwhile, as every entity in his math has both a geometric definition and an algebraic definition, which is a far greater coupling than exists in other maths.

        I'm not sure how empty space emerges from action, but I tend to view space as containing at least the gravitational field and hence not being truly 'empty'. But obviously, this aspect of reality is one of the less agreed-upon features of modern physics.

        Thanks again. I'm glad you found my essay understandable. That was my main worry.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Miss Sujatha Jagannathan,

        While I have stated that intuition should guide our choice of the many mathematical maps applied to physical reality, you are correct that I did not emphasize the conceptualization of intuitive notions. Yet the classical model that yields QM correlation is very intuitive, and it contradicts Bell's extremely non-intuitive concept of non-locality.

        Thanks for reading and commenting. I look forward to reading your essay.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin,

        I read your highly professional essay executed in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt with a great interest. I have only one question. How you consider when Mathematics ("Queen and Servant") and Physics ("Princess on the pea") lost certainty? When they lost a reliable existential "map"?

        Kind regards,

        Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir,

          Thanks for your comment. That is a very interesting question! Einstein of course contributed when he confused 'synchronicity' with 'simultaneity', and again when he replaced the gravitational field with "curved space-time". But I believe the biggest disconnect between the math of physics and the intuitive trust in physical reality probably occurred when physicists began believing in "superposition" as if it were a physically real condition rather than a mathematical artifact. I think that's where the train left the tracks. After that physicists felt comfortable simply introducing another 'quantum field' or equivalent whenever a new problem needed to be solved. Today no physicist knows exactly how many 'fields' there are in physics, nor has any idea which fields are 'real'. As so many essays and comments here state, finding physics to fit the math is the wrong way to go. Much better to use math to describe real physics.

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Vladimir,

          I have looked at the interview with Alexander Zenkin. He begins by noting the super-abstractionism of the Bourbaki, leading to two mathematicians working in neighboring rooms but unable to understand each other. Almost all of my math education took place at the peak of the Bourbaki school, and I have been trying to overcome this handicap ever since. The rigor and rigidity is the antithesis of what a physicist should use math for.

          As I've noted in a number of places, I do not believe infinity 'exists' in physical reality, so (except for my early math education) I have paid no attention to mathematical treatments of infinity. In the paper Zenkin mentions that Cantor designates 'a series without end' by the symbol omega and then, skipping through the potential infinity of the series, continues to count further: omega +1, omega +2, ... Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics.

          In short, I am very much in sympathy with the views expressed in the paper.

          I would also point out to you that Eckard Blumshein's essay has just posted, dealing with similar aspects of mathematics and its relevance to physics. I highly recommend his essay and think you will enjoy it.

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin,

          Thank you very much for your answer! I think that the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" - the main problem today. And above all - this is a problem "foundations of Mathematics". This is "problem of the millennium number 1". "The Queen and Servant" should have a strong and reliable throne...

          "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." (A.Einstein)

          "... Truth should be drawn and presented to" unlimited group" viewers. " (A.Zenkin)

          "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers" (J. Wheeler)

          Thank you very much, I'm sure to read the essay Eckard Blumshein!

          Good luck in the Contest,

          Kind regards,

          Vladimir

          Dear Edwin and dear Vladimir,

          Nobody and nothing seems to be perfect, not even the fqxi topic number of my essay. I just got its approval and the correct number 2342, not 2346 which I had seen before.

          What about my name, Edwin wrote this time correctly Eckard but he Americanized Blumschein to Blumshein. In Russia I was advised to change it into Blumschain, and I signed accordingly ;-). Germans pronounce ei like ai.

          I don't think that "the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" is the main problem today". Aren't semi-irrational ideologies more problematic? I don't just refer to malign patriotism and malign islamism but also to the suppression of criticism.

          Why not sober looking at Weierstrass, Kronecker, Cantor, Dedekind, Hilbert, Einstein, Fraenkel and Bourbaki with the due critical distance?

          Yes: "omega +1, omega +2, ... Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics", and it has actually been proven entirely useless.

          I vote for as many rigor as rationally justified, and I arrived at strong arguments against what I consider unwarranted ideologies like Set Theory, Special Relativity, and Spacetime which I capitalized in order to put them into the same drawer as God.

          Eckard

          Dear Edwin

          I read your highly technical and beautifully illustrated paper with great interest impressed by what appears to be your definitive highlighting of the fatal flaw in Bell's Theorem. I say 'appears' because while your analysis is technically beyond me, in my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory I followed physical and intuitive reasoning to reach a similar conclusion: local causality embodied in the anti-parrallel angle between the two particles (your green arrows) is maintained from start to finish even though the spin direction theta is random. In other words this anti-parrallelism is still there when when Alice and Bob measure them so of course they are entangled. By the way you say "theta-dependent scattering should be testable experimentally". It will be great if you can explain that. This cracked Bell has tolled hollow for far too long. I wish you and like-minded researchers more power to silence it for good.

          I am still writing my essay hope you can glance at it when it is published. Best wishes.

          Vladimir

            Dear Eckard,

            I caught the misspelling immediately but didn't want to put another comment merely to draw attention to it. I use voice recognition software which is surprisingly good on well-known names but can make the type of error that you saw on some names. Of course it is my duty to edit my own comments so I can't really blame software. Usually I simply try to cut and paste names in to guarantee correct spellings, but sometimes I screw up.

            Thanks for your feedback on the omega +1, omega +2, etc. I always like to receive your blessings on this type of issue.

            I am curious as to any feedback you could give me on the technical content of my essay. Did you feel that you understood it? Did you find any minor mistakes? Do you have any comments?

            I believe I saw a few weeks ago a comment that you have personal issues taking up a lot of your time, and I realize that my essay is time-consuming. So if that's the case ignore my above request for such comments.

            Best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Vladimir,

            It's good to see you back. Thank you for your comment. You are correct that the anti-parallel spins retain their correlated directions until they reach the remote measuring instruments. This used to be known as conservation of momentum, rather than entanglement. Once in the measuring device the energy exchange process that I describe provides a further correlation between their initial spin and the direction of instrument, and this is the correlation that yields the -a.b result that both quantum mechanics and actual measurements provide, and that Bell says cannot be provided by local models. Although my local model proves Bell wrong and I explain exactly why and how he is wrong, his word has been gospel for 50 years and that's a brick wall to come up against.

            The interesting thing, in terms of this essay contest on math and physics, is that Bell got his math right, but his physics is wrong because he oversimplified the problem. Apparently most of the fighting has been over his math and in the end everyone agrees that his math is correct. As you have noted, the physical analysis of the actual, more complex, phenomena is rather complicated. In fact, even Bell's oversimplification is complicated, so unless one has lots of time and interest in this problem it's just too complicated to fool around with. Nevertheless, it is a problem of major importance, and I am producing more results and working toward an experiment and I'm not going away.

            I won't try to explain the theta-dependent experiment here, but it's really a rather minimal variation on the standard Stern-Gerlach experiment. Considering that was done in 1922, I'm sure we should be able to do a reasonably accurate experiment today.

            And of course I always look forward to your beautifully illustrated and interesting essays.

            My very best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin,

            Quite impressive essay. It has the density of a black hole, but mental light escapes with multiple readings. With less erudition and understanding, I believe I make some of the same points. "Math operations on real world features are the basis of the science of physics." We do use our minds to connect math and physics and our intuition to judge the results. Sometimes peer reviews help us not to slip (BICEP2. I like the math maps and the physical territory forming the substance, and applying the right map.

            I would like your thoughts on my essay.

            Jim

              On another thread Tim Maudlin noted that "The reason that people stop responding to your incorrect claims about Bell is that you do not pay any attention to what they say."

              I responded as follows:

              Dear Tim Maudlin,

              There is quite a difference between "not paying attention" to what you say, and "agreeing with what you say." For example you have said approximately 15 times that the Stern-Gerlach-type experiments describe:

              "Binary outcome space" , or

              are "coded as +1 or -1", or

              are "outcome1 and outcome2", or

              are "spin up and spin down", or

              "red light went on" versus "green light went on", or

              are "above the midline" or "below the midline".

              It's pretty hard to miss that you believe the experiment is based on binary outcomes.

              What you have missed, and missed a number of times, is that this suppresses the physics of the situation.

              As an example, when particles are collided at LHC, some of the collision products come out 'above the midline' and some of them come out 'below the midline'. Nobody cares -- there is no physics in analyzing LHC scattering experiments in such a simple manner.

              I've tried to tell you, in a number of different ways, that Bell ignores the physics going on in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. And by constraining the outcomes to be simple binary outcomes he throws away the information that can be derived from the physics of the experiment. Physicists care (or should care) about this information. The fact that when this information is thrown away the physical model cannot match reality, is significant. Applying correct math to incorrect physics makes no sense, but that is exactly what Bell has done.

              As John Cox remarked, as an academic philosopher, you find it easy to take the physics out of math while leaving the math in physics. As a physicist I don't find it that simple. You have twice stated that I pay no attention to what you say. I have reviewed our comments and find it is difficult to discover any response from you to my valid points. And when I supplied data that contradicted your statement about neutron results, and asked you for any data that would support your position, you said you couldn't imagine why anymore time should be spent on the argument.

              In fact, having reviewed your comments, I do have more responses.

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear Jim,

              Thank you for your kind remarks. Yes, it's a pretty dense essay, but you clearly know the secret - which is found in multiple readings. Unfortunately not everyone has the time to read an essay more than once. But that's the only way to understand very complex issues. I thank you for doing so.

              As I mentioned to Vladimir above, even Bell's oversimplified analysis is complex. When one tries to deal with the more complicated physics going on when a magnetic dipole interacts with the non-homogeneous field, and view this interaction from the perspective of classical determinism while at the same time keeping in mind the quantum mechanical perspective, it gets, as you say, pretty dense.

              Why would anyone even care? Only because Bell, on the basis of correct math applied to incorrect (because oversimplified) physics concluded that nature is non-local. And because no one could find error in his mathematical proof the world at large accepted his physical conclusion. A perfect example of what this essay contest was designed to bring out - the tricks that math can play on physics when one is not paying close attention.

              I look forward to reading your essay and commenting on your thread.

              Best,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Edwin,

              really impressed by your insights giving me new ideas.

              Applying correct math to false physics is the underlying problem in QM and cosmology.

              Please continue your quest of pulling out physics from this 20th-century trap.

              Best

              Lutz