Dear Edwin,

You say You say "at least we know that there is room for free will." and "Thus I see no reason to contend that free will is isomorphic to math.".

I wrote "at least we know that there is room for free will, whatever this may be", and also, when talking about neural correlates, I said "But by this I don't claim we can explain consciousness, with or without mathematics."

About you disputing Bell's theorem, I may say more after I will read your essay. But I just want to let you know that his theorem is correct and I've seen so many failed attempts to contradict it. If I will find yours is one of them, I will not be interested in insisting to convince you :)

Best wishes,

Cristi

"But can we find a property of time that can't possibly be described by mathematics? In fact, time was best understood due to mathematics, in relativity and thermodynamics."

This "understanding" is based on postulates that could be false. For instance, Einstein could have mistakenly "taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed" - then not only the "understanding" of time, but theoretical physics as a whole would be wrong:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

    This is how science works, if a theory turns out to be wrong, we try to find a better one. I doubt that so far relativity and theoretical physics as a whole turned out to be so wrong, but I admit they don't answer everything yet, and they may be replaced by completely different theories someday.

    Dear Christi,

    You try to go very far in the identification of the object and the words/mathematics that describe it. Your map of all sentences to numbers in the segment [0,1] is very illustrative. But you could as well have selected the formalism of QM where epistemological statements are the rule. I understand from your very good essay that you are a platonist, isn'it? What opinion do you have about the ontology of physics? Do you see a cutting edge betwwen the map/description and the physical object? Myself I am reluctant in accepting that physics is just maths and I am not sure that this reluctance can be formalized.

    Michel

      Dear Michel,

      I am not sure I identify objects with mathematical descriptions. I just say it is possible to find for any object a mathematical description that captures everything that can be said about that object, precisely because mathematics is so versatile. And it is versatile even if our world is not really a mathematical structure, and that's why we can't really distinguish the two. The introductory discussion is just a toy to make a point. To make everything a point :)

      I don't consider myself a Platonist. I don't care about abstract mathematical worlds, disconnected from our physical world. But I think that our world is indistinguishable from a mathematical structure, and if we rely on something non-mathematical, this is just provisional.

      I think that we should admit supermathematical* descriptions as final only if we are sure that we exhausted any hope for a mathematical description. And I don't think this is possible

      Best wishes,

      Cristi

      _______________

      *Supermathematical is to mathematical what supernatural is to natural.

      Dear Cristinel Stoica,

      In your essay you wrote, "... it may be possible that we will be able to find the fundamental physical laws. The reason is that it seems that the universe seems to be very regular. The physical laws appear to be the same at any point and at any time." Does each universe in the multiverse have precisely the same physical laws? What, in your opinion, might be the explanation for the space roar?

        Dear David Brown,

        You ask Does each universe in the multiverse have precisely the same physical laws?

        I don't know what's outside our universe, assuming there is something. But if you refer to a particular multiverse theory, it comes with its own answer. For example, in the Many World Interpretation, as well in the multiverse predicted by some theories of inflation, the fundamental laws are the same. However, the laws that are not fundamental and depend on symmetry breaking may be different.

        You ask What, in your opinion, might be the explanation for the space roar?

        I didn't study the space roar and I don't have an opinion about it.

        Cristi

        Dear Cristi,

        I always enjoy reading your essay, full of refreshing information and rational, logical and complete argument. I completely agree with you that there must be one coherent theory with one formula that produces only one Integer number normalized one "1" based on one principle derived from one source. I also completely in agreement with your hypothesis that "our universe has to be Turing complete". This is because the universe wants us to know its secret recipe not only for our own survival but also for the survival of Existence (Creator) itself. If not, it is not possible for mere human like us to find this theory and its formula. In other words, this theory of everything not only knows the mind of our Creator but it is the Creator itself, so that Existence, hence the Creator, would avoid its own extinction by allowing us, the avatar Creator, to save ourselves and our Creator. This is because Existence is precariously in the border of collapse and it does need fine tuning to stay on existing. Existence is living dangerously from extinction at any time, because Existence supposed not to exist. If I may plead that KQID might be such theory that would deliver the good.

        Best wishes,

        Leo KoGuan

          Dear Leo,

          Thank you for the interesting comments. As you have noticed, I also tend to adopt the optimistic position that reason can lead us far, because the alternative seems to me that is limiting us, or even makes us focusing on excuses to avoid going deeper. By optimism I don't understand thinking that everything is understood, since this would be as unproductive as thinking we can't understand more.

          Best wishes,

          Cristi

          Dear Cristi,

          I agree with both of your statements about free will and consciousness.

          Your attitude toward Bell's theorem is reasonable. If you read my essay and understand it, but find it in error, there is no need to try to convince me. Yet I would appreciate it if you could give a hint of where you find the error.

          Please understand that I do not claim his mathematical theorem is not correct. Bell's theorem is mathematically correct. I claim that his physics is oversimplified and his model does not represent the actual physics that goes on in the inhomogeneous field. He assumes the physics of a constant field, which will produce null results, and so leads to a contradiction. When one analyzes the physics in a non-constant field, one finds new physics, and no contradiction.

          My approach is not to deny entanglement as a starting proposition, but to explore Bell's conclusion that no local model can produce the QM correlation. I have presented a local model that does produce the QM correlations, unless Bell's constraints are imposed.

          This would seem to call Bell's constraints into question, and so I have analyzed the reason why he might have imposed such constraints. My essay offers an explanation, based on his confusion of Dirac and Pauli eigenvalue equations, and assumptions of eigenvalue measurements. If this analysis is valid, then the rationale for entanglement is called into question.

          I fully realize that questioning The Gospel According to Bell almost automatically puts one in the kook category. But if fear of being labeled prevents all attempts to analyze fundamental physics we will never escape any errors that may be built into our fundamental physics.

          My very best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #13

          Dear Cristi,

          On the contrary, it is like knowing the rule of the game of Chess, this enabling us to play Chess and the more we play the better we will become. More fun and exciting if we are playing against a grandmaster of Chess, losing and winning is part of the game. Yes, we are in the middle of mathematical game according to FQXI as the creature of Max Tegmark as the creator of this game. Let's continuing on playing as Newton pointed out that the Creator is assumed to help him doing the adjustment to fix the orbits correctly so that our solar system ( our universe at that time) are well behaving and not falling apart. My discovery points me that rather than our Creator is busy in doing so many adjustments in trillions trillions solar systems out there, we as the avatars of our Creator would be the ones doing the adjustments to save ourselves and be the Guardian of Existence.

          No bad a job eh, being the guardians of our universe, we will be very busy like in the cartoon,

          Leo KoGuan

          Dear Edwin,

          I completely agree with you that we should question "The Gospel According to Bell" or anything we accept to be true, including classical locality. Bell himself was led to his results by questioning the results against hidden variables accepted in his time (so you are in good company). Reconsidering the foundations should be done systematically, just like one cleans our houses. I do it myself, so I wouldn't be the one to throw the first stone.

          However, I hate to be a party killer, but locality in any classical sense is "deprecated". Bell doesn't assume anything about dynamics, neither that it is Dirac or Pauli. He deliberately resumes the discussion to observables of what today we call qubits. His results are true and apply to any kind of qubit, being it given by electron's spin or photon's polarization.

          But like I said, I wouldn't stop anyone for critically analyzing his theorem. I am not quantum police. I wouldn't stop anyone to study perpetual motion too. This is how we learn, and many important results were found when thinking at impossible things.

          Best wishes,

          Cristi

          Dear Cristi,

          You claim that Bell doesn't assume anything about dynamics, but on page 141 of 'Speakable...' he states clearly that "the angular momentum, by gyroscopic action, should stabilize the angle between particle axis and magnetic fields." This is most definitely a dynamic assumption and it underlies his overly-simple model.

          The first Letter in the Phys Rev Letters I received today, (PRL 114, 040401, 30 January 2015) states that

          "To determine if the evolution of the quantum system is governed by one or another Hamiltonian, one must perform measurements on the system and use these outcomes to infer the most likely assumptions."

          I don't think Bell should be exempt from that. Nor do I understand why so many physicists are adamantly opposed to investigating a different Hamiltonian than the oversimplified and unrealistic one chosen by Bell to model his local system. I hope that when you read my essay, it might have information that you haven't seen yet. Otherwise there would have been little reason to write it.

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Dr. Stoica:

          Your essay focuses on the liberating aspect of mathematics: "And the Math Will Set You Free."

          In contrast, my essay asserts that mathematics can enslave us and blind us from the truth. "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory" questions the orthodox Hilbert-Space Model of QM, and presents a simple realistic picture that makes directly testable experimental predictions, based on little more than Stern-Gerlach measurements. Remarkably, these simple experiments have never been done.

          The accepted view of QM is that the physics (and mathematics) of the microworld are fundamentally different from those of the macroworld, which of course creates an inevitable boundary problem. I take the radical (and heretical) view that the fundamental organization is the same on both scales, so that the boundary problem immediately disappears. Quantum indeterminacy, superposition, and entanglement are artifacts of the inappropriate mathematical formalism. QM is not a universal theory of matter; it is rather a mechanism for distributed vector fields to self-organize into spin-quantized coherent domains similar to solitons. This requires nonlinear mathematics that is not present in the standard formalism.

          So while mathematics provides essential insights into physics, an incorrect mathematical model that becomes established may be seen as virtually religious dogma which is not to be questioned. That prevents further progress.

          Alan Kadin

            Dear Dr. Kadin,

            I completely agree with you that insisting on a mathematical model despite contrary evidence may blind us and lead us far from truth. But if someone hurts his finger with a hammer, it's not the fault of the hammer. This doesn't mean we can't make a better hammer. People can make anything into a dogma, and is their fault here, not of that thing. We should question anything.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            Dear Mr. Fisher,

            Thank you for reminding us about the uniqueness of various things, from stars to snowflakes, and of course humans. Science, in particular physics, tries to find the things that various entities have in common, since we, as limited beings, don't have the time and resources to understand each unique thing in full depth. It is more efficient for us to focus rather on those things that can be reused in our explorations of various shapes populating the world. Those things we have in common with the others and the universe. The universal. From your phrase, "each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface", I understand that for you this universal is captured in these surfaces. That's an interesting point of view. Good luck in your explorations.

            Best wishes,

            Cristi

            Dear Cristi Stoica,

            Enjoyed your essay. Your comment "there must exist a mathematical structure which satisfies our observations about both the quantum world, and the general relativistic one. Maybe these theories are somehow limits of this theory. But the unified theory must exist, even if we don't have it yet." was well argued and very believable.

            I agree with your comment "The idea that the universe is nothing but a mathematical structure leads to many difficult and interesting questions".

            My essay revolves around modelling the mathematical structures of the particles of the standard model. I hope you get a chance to have a look at the modelling I use for the particles of the standard model and look forward to any comments you may have.

            Good luck on your essay, you deserve a good rating.

            Regards,

            Ed Unverricht

              Dear Ed,

              Indeed, we need a better understanding of the standard model, and I am happy that there are researchers trying various models. It's a fascinating field, in which geometry plays a major role. Thank you for the comments and wishes.

              Good luck to you too,

              Cristi

              Dear Cristi,

              As always I greatly enjoyed you essay. If I understand you, the position you are taking is that we live in a mathematical structure, but can never express the full intricacy of that structure. The purpose of physics is to express the general laws that describe our universe:

              "However, we are just looking for a theory describing the general laws, and not a complete description of this particular instance of the universe, which includes what every human thinks about the universe and themselves. This would not be feasible anyway for practical reasons."

              Is my interpretation of your idea correct? And if so, where would a mathematical structure that failed to match the universe's general laws be said to exist? Or should we take it that one class of mathematical objects conforms to the real world and another are just humanly constructed?

              Also, if you get a chance, please check out my essay where I imagine how a weak version of the MUH might be testable and let me know what you think along with your vote.

              http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2391

              Best of luck in the contest!

              Rick Searle