The mathematical systems best suited to describe the physical world are well-known. There is no wonder what they are. Much of the competition is already past and now over. Possible candidates were already reviewed, and the ones that best fit were selected and very well verified. They are of course the established theories of physics : as far as we can tell now, they are the theories of General Relativity (with the Least Action Principle), Quantum Field Theory with the Standard Model, and the concept of density operator. Or, to take the main effective theories respectively resulting from them that more directly appear in practice : Newtonian gravitation, electromagnetism and thermodynamics. For more details on these lists, see in my essay, and in my site.
A Mind/Mathematics Dualistic Foundation of Physical Reality by Sylvain Poirier
Dear Sylvain Poirier,
I have replied to your questions on my essay over at my post page. I will read your essay opportunely. Thanks.
Regards,
Christine Cordula Dantas
Dear Sylvain,
Very deep analytical essay in the spirit of Cartesian doubt and interesting thoughts about "consciousness" and "law". I think that in order to overcome the "crisis of understanding" in basic science must be a deeper ontology and dialectic in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa - "coincidence of opposites" and dialectics of "eidos" and "logos". Fundamental knowledge, mathematics and physics, requires a deep ontological justification (basification). In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification (basification) along with the empirical standard.
I invite you to see and appreciate my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing a new basis of knowledge and new unifying paradigm - the basic generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory... I began to read your site.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Sylvain
You have interesting approach toward physics. You do not look all with some physical laws, but every correlation, every information is like a physical law. Thus, all lack of information about uncertainty principle or about chaos, or about entropy are very similar, according to you.
You have a huge web page about quantum consciousness, I will read it more precisely, when it will be enough time.
We agree about panpsychism and about quantum consciousness. Although many scientists think that this is crackpot, Tononi and Koch also agree with this.
We disagree about entangelment at quantum consciousness. As I understand, by you, time arrows are causes of wave function collapse and not entagelment? I need to read you more, but by me, entangelment time means time of decision. What is your motivation for this claim, maybe because entagelment times are very short?
I like your statement, that checking by measurement is necessary, where mathematics is not enough.
My statement that »QG will also tell more about quantum randomness, what can be connected with free will« is not very confirmed intuitively, others are more.
You have very interestiong argumentation of FQXi points with a blog and I hope that this will happen more often by other contestants. A year before I also gave some proposals for more fair estimations.
My new statement in this essay is that consciousness and free will are connected, consciousness does not exist without free will. In prolonged version and in 2013 essay I described also thought Turing experiment on this topic.
We both also find Peter Woit's as an interestiong essay.
I gave comment about U(1) symmetry. Peter Woit.
What is your opinion about U(1) symmetry?
Best regards Janko Kokosar
Dear Professor Poirier,
I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
The word "entanglement" may be ambiguous. The formalism of quantum physics makes no fundamental distinction between entanglement and classical correlations. Usually, classical correlations are entanglements that macroscopically behave as mere classical correlations due to decoherence (that destroy the practical ability to measure observables not commuting with a specific one). And decoherence is an emergent phenonenon.
In my opinion, wave function collapse is caused by conscious observation (a non-physical condition) which requires decoherence (an emergent condition from physics). And time arrow is a property of consciousness, which causes the time arrow of thermodynamics.
Yes, not only entanglement times (i.e. before decoherence) are very short, but I see the idea of letting decoherence a precondition for observation (or free choice) a more logical way to articulate physics with metaphysics, for the reasons I explained in my site.
See my reply about U(1) symmetry in comment to Peter Woit's essay.
Best regards
Sylvain
Dear Joe Fisher,
Sorry for you but I have several reasons to consider the review of other essays a higher priority than yours, and one of them is your ridiculous claim to think that all essays in this competition are exceptionally well written, and that you do hope that they all fare well in the competition.
Dear Sylvain,
Due to the fact that I think I had a relapse of my Asperger's Disorder, a comment I posted on some of the esteemed essayists sites was woefully contemptuous. The recipients rightfully complained about the inappropriate nature of the comment and the Moderator removed some of them. Unfortunately, the Moderator classified the useful part of the comment as Obnoxious Spam. I have proven that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity, Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about then explosive capability of NOTHING.
You hate that proof. That is your option.
Admirably
Joe Fisher
You cannot have proven anything, since you don't even have a clue about logic.
I don't hate any proof, I just don't have time to waste with pure nonsense.
I cannot take seriously a "proof" that 2+2=5 and I do not consider it worth looking at the details because I have good reasons to know it must be false and worthless, no matter what the details may be. Where is the hate ? Just a reasonable time management. It is clear that you cannot be having a clue at the things you claim to refute. You are trying to make up claims of problems where there is no problem except the problem of your own failures to grasp things that were successfully discovered. That's only your personal problem and science is not concerned. Now that's enough.
Asperger? Haha. To be called so, people ought to be intelligent, which you are not, or maybe a little more than average (yeah I often forget where the average is) but nowhere close to what is need to discuss physics. You already proved quite enough that all your thoughts are nonsense, by the absurdity of you first comments to me. You insulted me and treated me like idiot right from the start, and now you would like me to dedicate work to examine your... nonsense ? And argue with you until when ? Until your majesty is satisfied and convinced that my replies are good enough and that you are convinced ? Are you crazy or what ? Now please go play elsewhere and don't disturb those who have serious stuff to discuss, thanks.
Dear Sylvain,
Following the conversation we already had on my essay's page, I am now going to comment your essay in detail.
The way I understand it, your system is based on the twin entries at the bottom of your table on page 7: Mathematics and "The Matrix", which encompasses all relevant aspects of "reality" that are not mathematical. That's why you begin your essay by arguing for the existence of laws that are not mathematical. You give the example of "artistic laws" and "psychological laws" as being impossible to define in an algorithmic fashion. I agree that those type of laws can certainly seem non-algorithmic and un-mathematical, but could it be that it is just due to our failure to be able to consider complex enough algorithms and mathematical entities? You claim that the behaviors that result from these laws would require algorithms that are "too big to be stored in a computer", but do we really know what is the theoretical limit that a computer can achieve? Even if we could show that the physics of our universe prohibits such a computer, how can we be sure that our universe is not being "run" on a computer in a higher-level reality where the physical laws do allow for such complex algorithms? I know, from reading your website, that you firmly believe that artificial intelligence will forever remain impossible, because of the classic "computers have no soul" argument. We certainly do not agree on this issue: I think we will see true general artificial intelligence within the next 20 or 30 years, and I am convinced that this technological breakthrough will have a profound impact on philosophy and on the way we see reality. I guess we will just have to wait and see!
On page 2, your discussion of "Time and unpredictability in mathematics" is very intriguing. I will have to dig deeper and explore what you wrote on your website about the "time order" of mathematical reality. Since, in my view, there is a way to understand the totality of what exists as a a mathematical structure, I believe that, although mathematics as a whole is "atemporal" and "eternal", it is possible to define mathematical structures that evolve and change relative to other mathematical structures that play the role of "time counters".
On the issue of the relationship between mathematical and conscious existence, I agree with you that "the conscious perception of mathematical structures can explain and constitute their physical existence". In my view, mathematical structures that do not contain "self-aware substructures" are not physical, since there is no one to "feel" their "physicality". Where our views diverge (but maybe not that much), is on the question of the need to "add" something to brain computation (what you call an "immaterial soul") to explain consciousness and feelings (qualia). I think that the mathematical computation, the biophysical reactions, and the conscious experience are three different levels of description of the same structure --- a structure that can be seen, from one point of view, as purely mathematical (all is computation), but at the same time, from another point of view, as purely mental (all is thought). Of course, I think most physicists, and most authors in this contest, would say that it is the middle ground, the biophysical reactions, that is the true fundamental level... which make essays such as ours terribly counter-intuitive and almost nonsensical to many!
Let's assume for a moment that you're right and that there is a non-mathematical Matrix, a set of minds united in a coherent whole, that uses the mathematical (and sometimes physical) Maxiverse as a "playground". You claim it is the Matrix that "selects" which universes truly exist: as you say on page 4,
"To create the Universe, Consciousness first chose a mathematical law as "theory of everything" of physics [...] The physical Universe is the trajectory of this exploration of the Hilbert space by consciousness."
It is an intriguing hypothesis, but to entertain it, we need to postulate an entire, separate level of reality, "The Matrix", that has remarkable capabilities and complex behavior, such as the ability to "choose" and "explore". Everything that current scientific understanding has trouble with (the hard problem of consciousness, the flow of time) gets conveniently explained and taken care of by The Matrix. The Matrix even allows us to have "real" free will, while making sure that we do not have too much liberty to individually select which part of the Hilbert space gets explored, by enforcing global coherence across all physical perceptions... But the fundamental nature of the Matrix remains a mystery, and it seems to me that we are back to square one: instead of having no idea what the fundamental nature of the Universe is, we've separated the Universe in two: one part is what we understand (math/physics), and all the rest is The Matrix, but we have no idea what it truly is, where it comes from... As Morpheus says in the movie, "No one can be told what the Matrix is... You have to see it for yourself!"
Although we do not agree on many issues, I find your essay and your website fascinating, and I will certainly be going back to what you wrote (and continue to write, as I see your process as a work in progress) when I have the time. Meanwhile, I've given your essay a boost that, I hope, will make it more visible: with so many essays, the essays at the top of the community ratings have a better chance to get more attention and more votes, while many good essays remain buried and forgotten in the middle of the heap...
Oh, I almost forgot one specific question I have: in your essay's abstract, you talk about the mathematical world being a "Platonic mathematical realm slightly less than infinite". Why "slightly less than infinite"? To avoid the paradoxes associated with infinity and incompleteness? I find the concept of "slightly less than infinite" intriguing, so I would like to know more about how you think about this.
Best regards,
Marc
Thanks. I just added your essay in the top list of my general review of essays in this contest. Despite our efforts, it seems the ratings (both community and public) remain nonsense as I explained. About "too big to be stored in a computer - do we really know what is the theoretical limit that a computer can achieve ?", I think I already explained. Reminds me of "the unit of distance (meters, m) is specified strictly for decorative purposes" in William T. Parsons essay. But the main point here was, more than an exact measure of this complexity, the fact that the source of this complexity is non-mathematical (unlike anything that this universe can produce, which logically results from its relatively simple physical laws).
The "slightly less than infinite" is explained in p.5 as concerns the physical observation that it goes so (it is a character of quantum physics). Or are you asking for a philosophical motivation why it should be so ?
Dear Sylvain,
One significant feature of your essay is the fact that the two poles of your dualism are mind and mathematics. This is unusual, because, as you are well aware, the two poles for an ontological dualism are generally stated to be physical and mental existence. Without trying to enter into the mind-body problem, I can say that your positioning of mathematics as fundamental is well worth considering.
I find it also important that you bring issues of good and evil into the picture. In your discussion of the problem of evil, you state clearly and concisely a relevant fact when you say, "It is very strange indeed that psychological laws (free will) only physically operate at the level of individual minds." We are so used to the individuation of consciousness that we do not notice that it is at least logically possible that consciousness in the cosmos might have been organized differently. Moreover, as you say, the world would be a different and better place with either superordinate co-ordination or effective application to smaller-scale details. Nonetheless, as you also indicate, people have to start with the world as it is, not with the world as people might have wished it to be. Probably the main thing for readers to retain from your essay is this emphasis on values, and the call to action to make the world a better place.
Best wishes,
Laurence Hitterdale
Dear Sylvain
Thank you for extensive explanation of gauge U(1) symmetry in Woit's theme. It will help.
But I am thinking about photons, for instance in the Feynman's book ''QED, the strange theory of light and matter''. Photon's wave function behaves like circular U(1) structure, but at the same time it seems that its circular structure is a consequence of Maxwell's equations. I see this as a quick explanation, why photons are gauge particles. Is this correct and how you say this better?
Best Regards
Janko Kokosar
Dear Sylvain,
Your essay is one of the very best in this contest: you are touching those levels of the problem, which are not even seen by so many participants. You surely deserve one of the highest ratings and I wish the jury to notice your essay and let it be among the finalists.
Good luck!
Alexey.
Hi Sylvain--
I enjoyed your essay very much. Wow! You covered an immense amount of ground. Your essay must hold the record for substantive subject areas. In this regard, your Abstract is superb. It clearly and succinctly outlines your position. I especially enjoyed your analysis of the Problem of Evil. In my opinion, your views are spot on.
As to the rating system for this contest, I have no comment ... other than to say that I hope my rating of your essay has pushed it in the right direction!
Best regards,
Bill.
Dear Sylvain,
Drawn to your essay by your clear (and often very accurate) comments in other places here, your essay then drew me to the "new social network" ideas in your other writings. Especially re trust!
It's in this context that I'd like to address an issue that has applicability to your essay and your trust-forum ideas. An issue that is already troublesome at FQXi; as you have seen. An issue where I believe us to be in general agreement as to ends, though differing as to means.
Allowing that my own essay may be nonsense,* the question arises: How is it that, in public and semi-public fora, non-science receives so many "top rankings"?
Suggestion: From psychology we have the well-known ripple-effect of small kindnesses; it being well-established socially that the gift of small kindnesses to friends and strangers motivates the exchange of similar kindnesses in return. This is especially effective with those who crave or are needy of such; and I'm not talking about withholding encouragement, for the pro-evolutionary benefits in general society are clear.
But the modern con of this in science-related public fora is that the cost-free gifting of fake-praise and unrealistic support (its high value often signalled) leads to the ongoing spread of pseudo-science in return! And hence (in turn) to the rise of a cohort of misleading pseudo-intellectuals in their mutual admiration societies and cliques.
Perhaps it was ever thus ... in politics ...
Please: How is the related issue of trust addressed in your new social network?
* Given the following approximate pattern, it seems that my essay is not entirely nonsense; though the consequent negative-ripples of my concrete tough-love responses shine through:
Public vote: 10x4 1x5 => 45 votes/9 = 5.0.
Community vote: 10x4 1x5 => 45 votes/9 = 5.0.
With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.
NB: Re-posted with typo corrected.
Thank you for your thoughtful message and interesting questions.
"differing as to means" : which ones do you think of ?
"How is it that, in public and semi-public fora, non-science receives so many top rankings ?"
I gave a sketch of explanation in my review of this contest, section "What is obscurantism and why is it so popular in the world". The requirement of superficial appearance of rationality in the public's eyes, is quite different from the requirement of true scientific rationality, so that it is easier to satisfy the first by dropping the second. I described many examples of this phenomenon in my page On humanity's failures to steer itself properly. See also in my philosophical site the pages on irrationality and Nottale's Scale Relativity. On the "kindness" issue, see also MBTI and morality.
"How is the related issue of trust addressed in your new social network?"
There will be different aspects of solutions. The way is first to provide dynamic logical tools for Web-wide distinctions of ideological communities, providing the means for each community to define itself, co-opt is members and develop internal discussions. This will make it possible to create scientific fora "only for serious people", free from any flood of pseudo-scientific contributions. Of course, pseudo-intellectual communities will still develop on their side, but the important thing is to make explicit the distinctions and oppositions between communities, so as to provide to "right people", no matter which ones they are, the chance to only interact with other right people when they so choose, no matter if they are a minority of the population, without being harassed by the contributions of a possibly larger number of wrong people.
See also my description of power system, where people can choose qualified representatives to manage complicated problems for them (only for them ! the majority cannot force anything on the minority here), when they are aware of not being able to manage themselves.
Once done, I expect things to evolve as follows :
Rational communities will have better abilities to clearly define themselves, process debates and reach internal agreements. Irrational communities will remain an unstable mess, unable to reach a common clear agreement on what they believe in; their superficial appearance of mutual praise will fall under the mounting evidence of their many internal contradictions and unresolved conflicts that new technologies can detect much more efficiently than now.
Then it will appear objectively clearer which side is right and which side is wrong: irrational people may look nice but where are the fruits of their ideas ? What did they effectively succeed ? What did they correctly understand and predict ? Then, the law of market will be at work : profits and investments will go to successful communities ; irrational communities will be financially unsustainable. There is also one new tool I propose to help the investment on right projects over foolish ones even if the foolish ones "look better".
Thanks indeed for your helpful and comprehensive reply. I'll continue my studies via your links; noting for now only that "morality" gave a 404 error message.
So there follows here my response to your return question, "differing as to means" : which ones do you think of ?
1. As an engineer, and as a carefully-defined common-sense local-realist (see my essay), I see myself as a very concrete thinker. To that end I take maths to be the best logic and I work hard to resolve differences of opinion via rigorous rational (reasoned) analysis. This mainly involves mathematical modelling of the systems under discussion; though it often involves little more than plain maths, flow-charts, critical-path analyses, or the like. It certainly involves experimental validation wherever possible.
2. Now it seems to me that you are equally (and maybe more so) capable of such analysis; especially when (in my view) the current FQXi essay topic screams out for such rigour. Nevertheless, many of your arguments have been based on your strong opinions. The result is that we essentially find your own strong opinion contesting other strong opinions (most of the latter being crackpot).
3. Moreover (for me), the problem is worsened because your opinions (based on broadly accepted science, which is commendable) often do not get down to "valid subtleties" that your opponents wrestle with (and thus club together with) every day.
4. Here I offer my own essay by way of example; noting that many famous physicists (and former opponents; eg, David Mermin) are now rejecting nonlocality or (eg, Bernard d'Espagnat) are noting that locality is not ruled out by current science -- as I read them. For I take care to present mathematically sharp definitions of such intuitions as Realism, Separability, Local-causality; at the same time noting that (in general) a 'measurement' perturbs the 'measured' system.
5. By way of illustration, a clear example (there are several) arises with regard to Ed Klingman's essay. As I read the comments there (Ed Klingman's Forum) we essentially find opinion versus opinion (with crackpots reigning supreme).
6. Now Cristi Stoica (a physicist, and one of the leading community-ranked essayists here) set Ed a simple technical challenge AND Ed was unable to meet it.
7. Further, as I recall (for I've not recently studied the comments there), I seem to be one of the few that tackles Ed's conceptualisations and his associated maths. This results in the conviction that Ed's program and model are nonsense -- and my reasons and Ed's answers (or lack thereof) are there in plain view -- while at the same time acknowledging that we were once close colleagues and that my work can be found hiding (though distorted) in his.
8. So, if you would deliver your own mathematically-based critique there, a strong case would be established against Ed's nonsense from three serious but rational points of view. In other words, I have attempted to show that mathematical problems hidden in Ed's presentation render it nonsense. And I think even a cursory mathematical analysis by you would yield a similar conclusion; a total of three strong strikes against the crackpots!
9. The beauty of such analysis from you there, and elsewhere throughout FQXi, is that serious readers can follow your arguments more easily and it forces essayists to correct misleading typos, errors, confusions and blunders (of which Ed's essay is but one shining example).
10. Now, in my experience, in any battle of opinions at FQXi: the crackpots outnumber the sane! But the beauty of our dialogue around mathematical analysis would then arise from the fact that your opinion might already rate my own essay to be crackpot -- but (I am confident) your maths and analysis would not:
For my work focuses on the elimination of nonlocality from physics. And surely, for you, that would be no bad thing?
PS: ME of course READILY ACCEPTING that you have every right to follow your interests elsewhere; but for the benefit of us all, please use your maths/logic skills wherever possible!
With my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.
Thanks for explanations. But I dismiss as irrelevant the claim that it would be "opinion against opinion". Imagine you meet a child, or a member of a primitive community, who strongly believes that the Earth is flat and steady at the center of the Universe, and that the Sun revolves around it in one day. What can you tell him ? If you try to just report what is scientifically known, he would dismiss your views as "just your opinion". We can say about it exactly what you tell here : the opinion that the Earth is round, rotates on itself in one day, and around the Sun in one year, is "based on broadly accepted science, which is commendable" ; however it is just a strong opinion. Indeed, from reporting the known scientific facts to "making a strong case" for them, there is a long way. It would be a lot of work for you to build a complete solid proof. Can we say, then, that, as long as you did not make the work of presenting a complete proof, the evidence for the scientific view is lacking, and the belief in it is "just a strong opinion" ?
My point is, complete proofs just need to be found once. As soon as scientists discovered solid proofs once, there is no sense eternally pretending all over again at every generation that it remains speculative, that "a strong case remains to be made" as if it was not sufficiently made already.
Just imagine that whenever 3 people meet with "different opinions", 2 of them have unscientific views as they are just ignorant about science, and the one defending the scientific view is not ready to provide in the next 5 minutes the full logical content of the 2-years scientific course that would be needed to explain all the details of the amount of scientific evidence for the Round Earth Revolving Around the Sun theory so as to convince the other people in the meeting, we would have to consider the case for the Round Earth as doubtful all over again, a mere "strong opinion", and a strong rational case for it remains to be made. Would that make any sense ? I don't think so. It may be true that it is a hard problem, and that those who believe in the Steady Flat Earth have lots of thoughts and are struggling with conceptual subtleties. So what ? Of course there are conceptual subtleties to struggle with in these issues! This is no news ! There is no point to deny this. Still, at the end of the day, it does not change the fact that the Flat Earth believers, no matter the subtleties of their thoughts, just have absolutely no chance of being right, this is clear and there is no point to waste time all over again to "discover" this.
Now it's up to you to take it as your life mission to go struggle with the details of difficulties that some people face as they did not understand science and they think they have arguments to reject scientific conclusions, in case you would see this as the best thing you can do of your life. As for me I consider that I have some much more urgent and useful things to do for the world with my intelligence than care that much for the psychological problems (lengthy educational paths) of this precise kind of people, since anyway I do not expect them to become as useful to mankind with their re-educated intelligence if I care to teach them those lessons, than I can be useful to mankind with my intelligence directly by myself in other ways.
(Actually, all my above reply is almost redundant with my text on irrationality, especially with the remark "the situation is rather symmetrical", so please care following my links to not make me repeat things too much)
"many famous physicists (and former opponents; eg, David Mermin) are now rejecting nonlocality": well, just like religious people see a mounting evidence against Darwinism, climate-skeptics see mounting scientific evidence against man-made global warming, and Muslims see a growing amount of scientific evidence for the divinity of the Koran. Whatever your opinion you are free to believe in the existence of a growing amount of scientific evidence and number of scientists supporting it. The only problem with such beliefs is that they are not themselves scientific.
"For my work focuses on the elimination of nonlocality from physics. And surely, for you, that would be no bad thing?" You are welcome to focus your work on eliminating the roundness of the Earth from science, I have no problem with it :-p but personally for me the simple fact is that, as I explained in my essay and my more detailed page, I do not see non-locality as a paradox at all, so that I do not see it as a "problem in need of a solution", that would make a newly discovered locally realistic theory of physics anyhow "needed" or "more plausible in principle".
(404 error corrected, I was not careful writing the url, thanks for the note)
Dear Sylvain,
Many thanks for your detailed analyses and exchanges as well as the broad sweep of your interests and their accessibility. We hold many experiences and views in common.
In the same vein, I'd really welcome your math skills being directed at my own math: but I understand and appreciate your position.
In any case, I'm really not ready for such: my second draft will be the better target. For it's not so much about "taking the roundness of Earth from science". More like attempting a considered contribution to the hope that Born addressed in his Nobel acceptance speech.
Which reminds me. Maybe it's time to first write up a simple derivation of Born's rule from elementary first principles. For your critique there would not be wasted; and I'm not aware that it's been done before. (Though even the announcement of such should render it already obvious.)
PS: If you reply here, please open a thread at Gordon Watson: Essay Forum and post a note so that I get a signal of such.
With best regards; Gordon