Paul,

The evoked things are first technically the Platonic abstracts (also remember Kant's "thing in itself"). The evoked is first a state of the mind. In saying "first", I am of course already making a choice regarding the chicken-or-egg question. The abstract idea before the corporeal embodiment... (Note, however, that Lee's evoked things are already of the compound mind-and-body, since he somewhat rejects the Platonic.)

The state of the mind is directly related to the state of the brain-and-body - e.g., neuron and synapse states. It therefore would require the 'cycling' of the brain-and-body state to make permanent the mind state.

A cycled brain state, is a cycled mind state. A cycled part of the brain remembers/stores the information - i.e., the evoked things/properties. The brain-body circuit should be there to recall the memory. Wack the brain and you have a wacked mind.

Extend that to the observable pancosmic reality, and logically there would be the suggestion of the retained information or the lost info as the case may be. It is the state of the pancosmic reality (Lee's "single universe") that renders permanent the evoked properties.

It appears that the mechanism you asked of is the brain-and-bodyset for the mindset that renders permanent the properties of evoked things.

Sometimes the info also sort of get stored outside the brain-and-body. Photographs, or some other bodies, and etc., help one recall the info. The outside storage is sort of part of the circuit.

But in the pancosmic, once the info is forgotten - i.e., cut off the circuit - the info is lost because outside of the pancosmic reality is the panchaotic reality where the info continually gets decayed, where, so-to-speak, eternal death occurs - e.g., the scapegoat is sent to the wilderness never to be seen again.

There is of course the idea of an all-encompassing existence, the all-encompassing reality, which can be tricky, but the logic remains.

Just my own take.

It would be nice if Lee Smolin will also answer your question..

Your purpose illumines semi-quantised conceptualism which dots the big picture from reality.

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

I quote what Basudeba repeatedly wrote:

All motion takes place in space in time. All observations are made at "here-now", which is referred to as space-time. Thus, by implication, Einstein's interpretation of the Leibniz's principle makes everything dependent on observation only. An object does not exist unless observed by a conscious observer - which concept of Bohr he opposed! Einstein based his conclusion on the M & M experiment, which used light. But light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant. Thus, his conclusion is faulty.All motion takes place in space in time. All observations are made at "here-now", which is referred to as space-time. Thus, by implication, Einstein's interpretation of the Leibniz's principle makes everything dependent on observation only. An object does not exist unless observed by a conscious observer - which concept of Bohr he opposed! Einstein based his conclusion on the M & M experiment, which used light. But light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant. Thus, his conclusion is faulty. END of my quote.

Having several remarks, I nonetheless agree on that light in empty space is background invariant.

However, shouldn't we at least avoid obvious incorrectness like "Michaelson and Morley experiments"? It was Michelson, not Michaelson, and not not Morley and hence also not M & M, who performed three belonging experiments. Already the first in Potsdam in 1871 had a null result. The third measured the Sagnac effect.

In contrast to my ally Lee Smolin, I consider the present also incorrectly listed between past and future.

Eckard

Harlan,

You quoted the sentence "Properties off mathematical objects, once evoked, are true independent of time."

Since my native language isn't English, I am not sure whether "off" should read "of". In this case I understand the properties as belonging to mathematical objects. Otherwise, I feel forced to speculate, the author might mean properties that do not belong to mathematical objects.

Perhaps, I did not yet fully grasp the conception of evoked reality because I consider already my distinction between measurable elapsed time and the abstracted from it usual event-related notion of time (cf. Fig. 1 in topic 1364) an appropriate alternative to what Lee Smolin criticizes as timeless.

I would appreciate if you or Lee Smolin himself could tell me how to understand the "off".

Regards,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #33

Dear Lee,

I enjoyed your essay and do not disagree with anything you said. In fact I am glad to know that renown physicists like yourself are willing to stand up to, what I humbly consider ridiculous ideas, like multi-Universes, and timeless reality (in the sense of prior or predefined and unchanging) that some seem to actually advocate... (how they do it with a straight face is beyond me). I also enjoyed your books and considering your celebrity status, I'd be honored if you read and reply to this post.

With that said, I have to admit that I thought the word "timeless" meant time-independent or static in the sense that you said "... records of past observations are static and that the properties of a mathematical object are, once evoked into existence by their invention, static." I know of at least one person who has had a "mystical" experience (altered state of consciousness) in which he perceived timelessness in a way that did NOT imply a prior or predefined world. Instead, it was a perspective from which he could "see" or intuit the unity of space and time as different aspects of motion. As a result, he went and got an M.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in Nuclear and Radiological Engineering.

There's nothing mystical about motion; motion is a state and the moving state is a form of change. The word "motion" represents a relative, complementary concept, i.e. "motion" is a single word used to express complementary antonyms (moving and not moving or at rest). When a person is in a rest state, without any outside interference, he or she can experience a wonderful, blissful state of consciousness that is so profound that it may dramatically change their life. During that experience, they might have an epiphany about something and then, unfortunately, some people consider themselves qualified to "make mystical pronouncements that attempt to explain" all sorts of things that are well beyond their epiphany. Some may have special insight or perspective, but to lay "claim to special authority", I think is a criminal. So kudos to you for keeping us honest.

Now back to motion: It is my simple hypothesis (please see "A Space-Time-Motion Model" at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045) that space and time are both conformal projections of motion. Mathematically, the moving state can be expressed in terms of gradable parameters (displacement (s) and time (t)). The gradable parameters, s and t numerate (i.e. quantize) and denominate (i.e. reference to standardized time scale) the moving state of motion to provide a gradable spectrum of motion, v=s/t yet I submit that space (i.e. all of space, call it S = s^2 = x^2 y^2 z^2) and time (T) are also complementary concepts that are expressed in terms of gradable parameters, s and t, where (S=s^2) and (T=t^2). And here is "the trouble with physics". It seems to be universally accepted that T = t = one-dimensional concept while space is unfolded into three. My argument is that time is a scale that denominates motion and is therefore an "evoked" parameter inspired by observations of motion. The STM model is a modification of the Minkowski diagram with an important difference: space and time are treated a equivalent concepts, i.e. space is not unfolded and time is not mirrored about the origin. It is naturally symmetrical.

So the moving state is represented by the linear parameters, s and t, and the rest state, i.e. zero motion, is represented by the inverse parameters, i.e. spatial frequency and temporal frequency (to give E=hf). The result is a clear and concise relational model that accurately depicts the well-known relationship for total relativistic energy of a particle. It includes the Lorentz factor as the magnification that results from projection of the rest-frame units onto the moving reference frame; and provides a reinterpretation of the "event horizon" as an "event reference" that is a perceptual separation between past and future. The model suggests that matter is thus "evoked into existence" by motion.

I'd like to submit a slightly condensed version of "A Space-Time-Motion Model" for publication and would immensely appreciate it if you would review it for me. I will send it to you off line; please contact me at stjohntheodore@gmail.com. Then if you get the chance, I also submitted an essay with an artistic bent for fun called "Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness."

Respectfully,

Ted St. John

Dear Lee Smolin,

Your approach in this excellent paper is not, as you're undoubtedly aware, incompatible with that of Hubert Dreyfus, Evan Thompson, Alva Noë and others and which stands dubbed as Embodied Cognition. Both Logic and Mathematics are expressions or representations of life's interaction throughout maybe a billion years or longer with the physical environment of this planet. After a while, in the course of ongoing informal experiment, regularities in the surrounding world begin to be perceived. Rules are intuited and generalized and communicated and refined by new tools and discoveries. Pretty much Bottom-Up. Definitely more Aristotle than Plato.

So there's a lot that gets addressed and undoubtedly an immensely greater amount that doesn't and won't. Michael Peskin's remark that "Physics is that subset of human experience which can be reduced to coupled harmonic oscillators" comes to mind. Fortunately that's still a fair amount of stuff.

The essays are generally illustrative and explanatory regarding the merits of mathematics in physics. My essay is more illustrative than explanatory. Smolin's is more explanatory with little of the illustrative maths, focusing on the logic of premise and of thesis/hypothesis.

But Smolin's main proposition is illogical.

Smolin puts forth the following "to define temporal naturalism."

2. The inclusive reality of time: All that is real or true is such within a moment, which is one of a succession of moments. The activity of time is a process by which novel events are generated out of a presently existing, thick set of present events. There are no eternal laws; laws are subsidiary to time and to a fundamental activity of causation and may evolve. There is an objective distinction between past, present and future.

Smolin apparently says that the 'universe' evokes temporal laws (his FAS) that emerge when new physical realities emerge, such that, in sum, all laws are accordingly short-term temporal laws that evolve. Outright it can be seen that his idea contradicts itself.

Smolin's proposition that "there are no eternal laws" is itself a law that Smolin propones. Since his proposition is that the laws are temporal, then, if this law is functional, it implies that his proposition negates itself in time; when the law's term ends, the implication would be that of the return to the idea of eternal laws.

Thus, Smolin's main proposition is illogical. And he does not show any mathematics with a generalized scope that illustratively supports his proposition.

In contrast, my idea is that the universe replicates and establishes its parts as predicated by eternal laws that govern its progression from the infinite past towards the infinite future; it changes only in conformity with eternal laws; it looks generally the same since it abides by the same eternal laws predicated according to the premise that the observer (i.e., the universe) always existed in essentially the same complete form.

To illustrate and support my view, I presented the genesis formula that implies an infinitely hierarchical kinematic cosmos instead of a cosmos from a singularity; it indicates that mass and energy are kinetic constructs; and it explains the eternal nature and origin of gravity.

I identified two fundamental essences of change, two fundamental currents or flows (flux) or processes. They are motion and duration. As fundamental processes, motion and duration proceed in a unison of phenomenon and noumenon.

Duration is the CONSTANT essence of change, because there is no other flow that interacts with the duration process. Duration (time) flows uninfluenced by anything else.

Motion is the VARIABLE (transformable) essence of change, because motions interact with other motions and get accelerated.

I have put forth that motions, including light, may be transformed upon interaction with other motions. And the velocity of light is simply the reference velocity by which the transformations are 'measured'. The c=wf formula suggests that the wavelength w and frequency f may change, while the velocity c is simply the referenced threshold for the effected motion transformations.

When the mass or energy variables are substituted into the transformation equations, the genesis formula is derived and it indicates motion being transformed into the cosmic mass and energy observables; and the suggestion is that these observables may be perpetually preserved in their existence as part of an eternal and infinitely hierarchical kinematic cosmos.

In sum, the genesis formula contradicts Smolin's idea of evoked FAS and temporal laws, because the genesis formula implies an eternal and infinitely hierarchical kinematic cosmos.

The only way to discredit the propositions of the genesis formula is by falsifying or disproving its mathematics and logic... I doubt that anyone can successfully do that.

The indifferent and idiotic may of course simply ignore or ridicule or becloud the merits of the genesis formula. But the astute will make pertinent comments.

I await Smolin's comments (among others'), since I sort of challenged his view and he represents a sector of establishment science...

-

And since we are at FQXi, I'd like to respectfully challenge the great FQXi minds like Tegmark, Aguirre, Greene, Susskind, Randall, Carroll, Turok, Hawking, Guth, Linde, Weinberg, Rees, Tong, Randall, Wilczek, Levin, Silverstein, Wolfram, Seager, Hooft, and etc., to try to falsify the mathematics and logic of the genesis formula. Let's see if that can be done successfully.

-

Smolin's illogical "there are no eternal laws" eventually negates itself. But the idea of temporal naturalism, although grossly flawed, is a clarifying 8-year brain exercise.

The fruit of my own 20 years of brain exercise also needs scrutiny. So, I challenge the FQXi minds to falsify the mathematics and logic of the genesis formula.

Here are the pertinent links regarding the genesis formula.

The Idea of Motion Transformations as the Foundation of the Laws of Nature

www.kinematicrelativity.com

A Summary of the Propositions of Kinematic Relativity

Questioning the foundations of modern physics

If the genesis formula and its implications withstand the scrutiny, then the 100 years of spacetime transformation and big bang delusion will finally be done in and we will have a better understanding regarding the nature of the existence.

Let's see what the following champions of the search for knowledge have to say:

Tegmark, Aguirre, Greene, Susskind, Randall, Carroll, Turok, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Linde, Weinberg, Rees, Tong, Wilczek, Levin, Silverstein, Wolfram, Seager, Hooft, Vilenkin, Smolin, Ashtekar, Rovelli, Ellis, Davies, and etc from the FQXi Membership...

If FQXi is true to the foundational search of Big Answers to Big Questions, we will have answers.

Cheers!

    To continue my remarks from last time. In trying to argue against the idea of preexistence of mathematical realities, you mention a wide spectrum of things ranging from the somewhat mathematical to the non-mathematical. Your argument seems to be that since you can find some (non-mathematical) things that do not preexist some act of creation and you can also go "continuously" from these to mathematical systems, you conclude that mathematical systems do not preexist some act of creation either. However I see this fallacious : just because you want to believe that different stuff are the same kind and you can look for intermediates between them, and pretend you find some which make the spectrum continuous, does not mean that they are really of the same kind. Discontinuities in this range can be found, that can justify to not put all these things in the same category.

    Rules of poetry also implicitly require sentences to be meaningful and appropriate for poetry, a condition which cannot be mathematically defined. So the complete expression of its rules may depend on time (as language and cultural context evolve, modifying the condition of meaningfulness of sentences), thus making this incomparable to the case of mathematical systems.

    For example, chess is an exact problem, but the rules of chess are rather complex and arbitrary, so that it is just one game in a range of billions of possible games with a similar degree of complexity of their rules. Civilizations on independent planets have only a very small probability of having the same game of that complexity level becoming popular. Still, from a mathematical viewpoint, this game exists as a game among others, just like any number between 1 and 1010 exists as a number among others in this range, no matter that it has only a very small chance of being picked up by a particular person who is choosing a number at random in this range. The only thing in chess which is not strictly of this kind (of existing in the abstract but having a very small chance of being picked up), is not the game itself but the names and pictures of the pieces involved.

    Question : if Chess does not exist before a civilization "invents" it, then, did any number between 1 and, say, 1015, remain non-existing until someone uttered it ? You seem to not adopt that view, however, in the sense that you admit that all possibilities inside an axiomatic system exist as soon as the rules of the system were fixed. So, as soon as we have a theory of arithmetic, all natural numbers must exist. More precisely, at least the standard ones, and even more precisely those lower than a number we can tell, such as for example, all numbers between 1 and 1015. This makes your concept of existence of an object independent of the degree of conscious awareness of people towards this object, unlike the rules of chess, whose heavy "existence" in this world above other possible games of similar complexity, actually consists in the conscious attention of people towards it. As explained in my essay, I hold conscious awareness as forming the other component of existence aside mathematical existence, that is where "novelty" as we know it resides (the act of becoming aware of a mathematical object that mathematically existed, but that one did not think of before).

    In biology, things are picked up in a landscape of possibilities that is explosively huge because of the high complexity of everything there. So it would be completely impossible for someone to enumerate all possibilities one by one. But then what ? If that was a reason to deny the preexistence of possibilities not yet picked up, should we also claim that most numbers between 1 and 101015 are non-existing just because nobody ever paid attention to them ? If we recognize the existence of all these numbers just because we have a theory of arithmetic for them, no matter our concrete inability to enumerate them all, then we should also recognize the existence of all biological possibilities because we have laws of physics which, in principle, determine this landscape of possibilities.

    Now about axiomatic systems, and the idea that the whole infinity of truths from an axiomatic system are being born at the time when the particular axiomatic system is being uttered. I'm sorry but this is so ridiculous to draw the line of existence here (I was tempted to say it is one of the most ridiculous places to draw the line, however I'm not here to try arguing that a less ridiculous defense of naturalism is otherwise possible, either). Because, as is well-known in mathematical logic but as you may have missed if you are ignorant in this field (since you admitted that you only recently happened to accidentally discover that a respectable account of a philosophy of mathematics also needs to tell something about the rules of proof, while it might have been better if you went as far as caring to seriously inform yourself on the core concepts and works actually done by specialists of this well-established field of mathematical knowledge, instead of just assuming that, just because you are a renowned physicist and famous blogger, your random baseless speculations on the foundations of maths should be seen just as plausible as anything else), there is a well-known general concept of axiomatic systems and their logical consequences, whose rules are universal and independent of the particular axiomatic system. Somehow you even also implicitly admitted yourself the Platonic existence of this universal system with its absolute concept of proof, that you awkwardly tried to condone and reduce to some pragmatic stuff.

    But, since, in fact, these universal rules of the game of writing axiomatic systems and deducing their logical consequences have been discovered (or "evoked" if you prefer), according to your philosophy, this automatically gives existence to the whole of mathematics, with the totality of possible axiomatic systems and all their consequences. Bingo ! The whole truth of mathematical Platonism is now accomplished.

    Indeed, in case you didn't know, we can easily write down a computer program whose function is to automatically enumerate all possible axiomatic systems one by one, only restricting the possibility for particular axiomatic systems to be included there by the practical limits of computer resources. (We can also enumerate all algorithmically enumerable infinite axiomatic systems by automatically generating and emulating all programs able to generate axioms).

    If on the other hand we considered particular axiomatic systems as not yet created as long as they are not actually uttered by a computer, but created when they are uttered, a problem would be, just uttering is not enough. If a program utters an axiomatic system, it is not yet really an axiomatic system that is uttered as long as it is not functionally used in the intended way, otherwise there would be no objective truth on which axiomatic system was really uttered at at time (it all depends, for example, whether a given logical symbol is interpreted as meaning "and" or "or", just like uttering "1464" remains ambiguous on which number this chain of symbols is supposed to represent, unless we specify some conventions on how numbers are denoted). However it is just a matter of adding one more piece of software and a lot of computer power, for a program of automatic generation of axiomatic systems to also actually give their full meanings to these axiomatic systems, by starting to deduce all logical consequences of these systems in parallel. Then, is it that latter piece of software which, when put in conjunction with the utterance of each axiomatic system, provides these uttered axiomatic systems their actual existence with all their truths ?

    I will still add more remarks later.

    Dear Basudeba,

    The Eleatic Monism was a denial of the doctrine of flux. They are not complimentary unless you submit to a dualistic account of reality. Monism tells us that physical reality cannot be explained by raising change to the status of a primitive notion. In other words, change is an epiphenomenon.

    Regards.

    "Thus, Newton's laws were found to be corrected by terms from special relativity, and then corrected again by terms from general relativity."

    This needs more elaboration. It is a real challenge to derive Newton's laws from GR without a series of assumptions. Actually, it is a real challenge to solve a simple mass-spring system using GR but it is easy to do that with Newton's laws. It appears that GR and Newton's laws describe different worlds. There is no continuity. The question is: if you did not know Newton's laws and someone gave you the GR equation, would you be able to find Newton's laws? Obviously, you would not know what to look for.

    Dear dr Smolin

    Congratulations with your Whole,But can you be so kind and answer you invented or discover it.?It was simply the result of your deep su.

    bcondcious event or simply during the sport exercisess, Now as I understand we have only one game in town- naturaListic whole.Thank you very much- my stomac do not like it.

    M.Kozlowski

    Lee,

    Temporal naturalism, I like. Should we say that in the classical world, nature is independent of observation but in the quantum world, observation breaks coherence? The latter is too simply stated. In my essay, I also say that math helps us to model nature inexactly but the human mind, math and the physical world can connect to bring understanding now and aid in predicting the future utilizing this connection. You obviously have spend time pondering these views. Your eloquence speaks to that.

    I wonder how you might view my connections of mind, math, and the physical world.

    Jim

      Sigh. Terribly out of line. It must be the bit of frustration... Tsk.

      This is exactly the trouble in science. The language is inaccurate. We have statements like "arbitrary transformations of space and time". But what are we to understand by these? Do these mean that space moves and that time moves? Or are we to understand that there is motion through space?

      Very few dare to challenge the conventions. Very few dare to correct the language. Because when they dare, people who think they understand make a point by quoting others - conveniently, so that when refuted, they make the excuse "I didn't say that, so and so did." Tsk.

      I say "motion transformations." Einstein's "arbitrary space-time transformations" is a trickery and a lie.

      -

      I continue. You call "mystical" the belief in the independent existence of mathematical entities. You point out that they "add nothing and explain nothing". Well, I do not see the idea of independent existence of mathematical entities as trying to add or explain anything, as if it was any kind or addition or speculation. It is not. Mathematical facts are necessary facts. I cannot see any sense in which the truth of 2+2=4 can be said to be or have been "non-existing" at any time. It is the belief in the possibility of non-existence of such truths, that I would call a mystification.

      What is the problem ? You have the problem that you think that whenever such ideas are raised, it "involves us in a pile of questions that, unlike questions about mathematics, cannot be answered by rational argument from public evidence."

      Which questions ? I looked at the questions you listed on page 5, and sorry, this is just laughable. You call these "questions" ? Well of course it is always possible to feel uncomfortable with any idea or any truth, by the sickness of reacting to them by asking tons of "questions" which may be naively thought of as legitimate but which are in fact senseless, just a psychological reaction of inventing problems where there is no problem, because the truth that is seem "problematic" was not grasped in the correct manner. Such reactions are frequent in the crackpot world. For example those who cannot accept relativity theory may ask questions such as "What causes the slowdown of time ?" "What causes the contraction of length ?". On other topics, one can ask "What is an electric charge", "what is a number", "how dense is a black hole", "what happened before the big bang", "what is a specie", trying (as I saw science philosophers do) to make sense of "structural realism" so as to define what is the reality of the structures that are studied by biology and other sciences; and wonderiong a long time about whether light and other quantum substances must be "explained" as waves or as made of particles.

      Example: "If the FAS existed prior or timelessly, what brought it into existence?". Well, nothing, why ? If it existed timelessly then there is no need of any such thing as an event of bringing it into existence. It would only be needed under the assumption of existence of a previous time when that FAS did not exist. But the idea of such a time is a belief I would call a deep, crazy mystification. There never was a need of any physical event to create an FAS because there never was in the first place any physical time when it did not exist and remained to be created. As simple as that.

      "How can something exist and not be made of matter?"

      Well, and how can matter exist and not be made of something else ?

      You choose to call "mystification" the belief of existence of something else than matter. But, well, can we reject as "mystification" the belief of existence of anything at all ? Of course not, as we are aware of our own existence. So we can only reject a belief in the existence of some specific kind of things in favor of that of another kind. The question is to know which are the kinds of things that exist. The only mystification would be to misattribute our existential beliefs in ways not supported by evidence. Our own existence, as conscious beings, is something clear, that cannot be denied. The existence of mathematical truths is also clear as we can study and understand them. But the existence of matter, what the heck is that ? We cannot access it, all we have is sensations about it. These sensations naively suggest to the layman a real presence of material things by means of their coherence (logical patterns). These patterns can be described mathematically. But when analyzed in details, we discover quantum physics, which strongly indicates that material things do not really exist at a fundamental level, but are created by our conscious perceptions of them. Indeed: for example I even heard in this debate on interpretations of quantum physics, all of whose participants are hardcore materialists, a report that many physicists tend to dismiss the reality of the wavefunction, and at the same time hold that "nothing else is real", which would imply that "nothing [exists] at all" (since they did not make the step of admitting another kind of fundamental reality). So I'm not inventing the idea that quantum physics denies the existence of matter, even materialist physicists somehow acknowledge it.

      So we have evidence (or at least strong indications from experience) that matter is not real. Now if a belief in the existence of something we clearly see (mathematical truths) is "mystification", then, how can we call the hard unshakable belief which you expressed in your text, that only one kind of things that we cannot see (matter) exists while other kinds of things which we clearly perceive (our own self and mathematical truths) don't, in spite of the evidence from modern physics that matter is not real ? Maybe "total insanity", why not ?

      (I still didn't finish...)

      You end with 2 observations, the first saying that math objects are independent of time. This is an odd thing to say, as it makes just as much sense to say that math objects are independent of spatial location and temperature. Or just independent of the physical world. But then that is contrary to your 2nd observation, which is anti-Platonist.