Joe, you're all territory and no map. You can never be lost; neither, though, is there anywhere to go. Nor is there any science.

Tom,

Reality does not need a map. Because all surfaces travel at the same constant speed, land maps and blueprints can be accurately drawn.

Joe

That's where you're wrong, Joe. It doesn't mean anything to say that "surfaces travel at the same constant speed" -- because all motion is relative, as we've known since Mach wrote The Science of Mechanics in the 19th century.

When you walk on a surface -- the ground -- is the surface traveling at the same constant speed as the surface of your feet that meet the ground? You wouldn't be going anywhere, would you? -- imagine that you are on a treadmill turning at the same speed as your stride, in the opposite direction; you would be walking "in place" relative to the surface of the treadmill. Have you been on a moving sidewalk at the airport? -- if the sidewalk is moving at say, 5 mph relative to the floor, and you are walking in the same direction as the mover at 5 mph -- are you not moving at 10 mph relative to the floor? If you dismount the sidewalk and stand still on the floor, are you not at rest relative to the floor?

You want to say the floor is carrying the surface of your feet along at a speed constant with all other surfaces in nature -- in which case, nothing moves, ever. Not you, your feet, or the floor. Which contradicts your claim, "all surfaces travel at the same constant speed."

"Reality," the way you are using it, only amounts to the old saying, "Wherever I go, there I am." Yes, that doesn't need a map, though it also contributes nothing to our knowledge of the territory. It isn't science's idea of reality.

Tom,

I'll start a new thread to get back on topic. I detect a hidden variable in your essay approach, namely the original EPR wave equation which seems to be ignored in speculative arguments about the double slit experiment. EPR's argument was that it could be possible to discover a state of position or momentum of a particle following the correlating event of impact with another without disturbing the first mentioned particle ( let's use working class terms of solids and stripes referring to pool balls when betting prefers the faster game of 8-Ball, to Rotation ). Let's call the particle we'll subject to measurement 'solid' and the unmeasured object particle 'stripe'.

The EPR argument was that to deduce the position or momentum of the 'stripe' after impact with the 'solid', did not require measuring 'stripes' properties, but could be found from knowing one parameter such as position of 'solid' by it's passage through one of the double slits and by measuring the momentia change of the screen itself imparted by both particles. Consequently a measurement was not necessary of 'stripe' which would change its state. That was the argument, position and momentum can be determined from other properties without effecting or losing the intrinsic pair (q,p). And in your essay the prime criteria is that a closed logical argument can only be had if the probability has a binary outcome, q or p in the EPR scheme of things.

We can go on with other examples where your essay generalizes to math. Let's look at Schrodinger's Cat (anybody that would suggest doing that to a cat has some issues, anyway). Firstly, its only true of spherical cats and felines are predatiously linear, so is light. Illumination can be treated spherically, but to subject the detection of a 'photon' to a random probability on a spherical surface projection which relativistically increases eightfold with doubling of the time parameter, only means that the initial direction of emission is not known, or sought within the source.

In answer to the question posed by EPR, if QM is a complete theoretical description of reality, we really needn't resort to arguments on QM's terms. Max Planck, himself, fully expected that his self-avowed 'lucky guess' would eventually be rationalized. In the immediacy of events of that era, following two centuries of progressive Newtonian predeterminism intellectuals were starving for a ration of free will, and the new maths were simply more inviting than constructing a classical model of light that would reveal cause of the Quantum. The catch-22 of fundamental randominity is that it too results in not having means to determine choice. We have come full circle sociologically. Humanity does have free will to choose between two probable causal results, and none if the outcome is random anyway.

It is really time to let Schrodinger's cat out of the bag, and answer Planck's question. :-> jrc

    Tom,

    I crammed the EPR argument a bit. Their wave equation finds foundation in the momentum imparted to the screen by both particles and the known measured separation of the two slits. Their point being that direct observation would naturally disturb the q,p state of a particle, but simply knowing other parameters does not constitute an action. jrc

    Very nice, John! I delayed replying until I could read a few times without distraction.

    We are fortunate to have you in the forum.

    I'll just add one comment -- you say, mirroring the EPR view, that " ... if QM is a complete theoretical description of reality, we really needn't resort to arguments on QM's terms."

    In fact, though, the argument from binary probability does meet QM terms -- it just limits the probability distribution and eliminates prior probability. I am gratified that you agree that the prior probability of randomness obviates free will.

    Best,

    Tom

    Dear Tom,

    Each real surface is attached to a real sub-surface. All real surfaces travel at the same constant speed. Each real sub-surface travels at a unique speed that is less than the constant speed of surface. When you stand on a treadmill, your surface and the surface of the treadmill travel at the same constant speed. The area of your feet that touches the treadmill belt form a sub-surface and that covered area travels at a unique speed that always remains less than the constant speed of surface. This is why although all surfaces always travel at the same constant speed, and each sub-surface always travels at a unique speed, each and every thing stays in a unique position.

    Incidentally, FQXi.org has labeled my idea "OBNOXIOUS SPAM" and has removed it from several sites where I have posted it.

    Thank you for not reporting my post as being inappropriate.

    Joe Fisher

    Tom,

    I also agree that arguments must also address QM probabilities. As the saying goes, 'to beat a mathematician you have to hit'em in the math'. I don't want to be a distraction, and hope you get some competent feedback. Probabilities become anavoidable in complex systems, and systems don't need to be very extended to become complex. Not my bag of tricks though, and I tend to look at probability as a pry-bar to open inquiry as to what it evolves from. Good Luck, jrc

    Joe, the only world I can think of, in which every surface is moving at a constant speed relative to the surface beneath it, is a 2-dimension expanding Euclidean plane of uniformly separated points. Imagine a sheet of paper uniformly growing in size in every direction.

    If you were a dot on this sheet, and could see in every direction around you -- on each axis of observation you choose, in every direction all the other dots would be moving away from you.

    Now the kicker:

    There is no mass in this world. What you call 'real' doesn't include you, the 3-dimensional observer. So suppose you want to say that the 3 dimension world is an illusion -- that we are all really 2-dimension creatures. Then you would have to explain the apparent existence of the directions up-down and left-right as well as forward-backward.

    You should be able to deduce that the existence of six degrees of freedom on three axes instead of four degrees of freedom on two axes implies rotation in a spherical space. As a consequence, the curved motion you could not detect locally, on your 2-dimension plane, is evident in 3 dimensions as two components of relative motion: one component rigidly straight to your origin of measurement, and one around the curved space in your vicinity.

    Here is what Galileo found:

    In the field of your observation, the local gravity field in which you are at rest (not moving in relation to points of the field) other objects of 3-dimension mass that move toward your position accelerate at the same constant rate regardless of whether they move in a path straight to your plane (i.e.,in straight line free fall), or in a curved trajectory.

    So whereas your 2-dimension world can only expand from the center of every point in one direction at uniform speed, the motion in our 3-dimension world is both uniform and accelerated. These two kinds of motion are described in Einstein's theory of special relativity (straight line uniform motion) and general relativity (accelerated motion).

    So you're clearly wrong with your idea that all motion is only in 2 dimension (a surface and its sub surface). How about 4 dimensions, though?

    When Einstein took the step of adopting 4-dimension Minkowski space for general relativity, the addition of a time component ("4th dimension") explained accelerated motion relative to uniform motion -- i.e., the rate of change in a system of coordinates is referred to your (the observer's) position in time as well as space, and physical reality is that of spacetime, not of either space or time independently.

    So let's return to your world of uniformly expanding points on a 2 dimension surface:

    That surface IS part of our real world! The most popular (and physically validated) solution to general relativity cosmology (the big bang) informs us that the universe is expanding at every point of spacetime. The origin of creation is literally both in you, and around you.

    Abstractions regarding relative motion are actually more real than our naive perceptions of motion. Our physical space is 3 dimensional -- our brain-minds, however, are 4 dimensional.

    Best,

    Tom

    Please open your eyes. Everywhere you look you will see a plethora of real surfaces. Those surfaces must all be travelling at the same speed, otherwise, you could not see them instantaneously and simultaneously. The real sub-surface cannot relate to an abstract conjecture. Each sub-surface must travel at a unique speed in order to keep each thing in its own unique place. A real surface can travel in any direction. A real sub-surface can only expand or contract. Picture a cannonball and an air-filled blue party balloon on your front lawn. If you run towards them they will both grow bigger, yet their surfaces must travel at the same speed. The only way they could grow bigger would be if each one of their sub-surfaces was expanding at a unique rate. We do know from careful experiment that air-filled balloons are constructed differently from cannonballs.

    Calmly,

    Joe Fisher

    Joe, open you own eyes, and you will see that your naive view does not differ from that of a religious creationist. Everything is "just so." Enough of this.

    Tom,

    Looking in from outside of your universe, you continue to present your case brilliantly.

    James

      James, that is very kind of you.

      In this context, I interpret Bar-Yam's theory of multi-scale variety thus: Though we may all see the world through our own unique eyes, it doesn't make the world any different for any of us. It only means that the marvelous variety of viewpoints available is many times bigger than any one of us. Isn't it the greatest pleasure to participate in, and increase, that variety?

      Thanks, and all best to you in the essay competition!

      Tom

      Hi Thomas,

      Great essay! You provide compelling arguments for the mathematical universe hypothesis. However, my essay takes an opposing view; I would be glad to take your opinion.

      Best regards,

      Mohammed

        Tom, it's a very fascinating essay and a great contribution. Your philosophical approach on non-locality and Bell's theorem which you backed up by a thorough technical analysis, is quite inspiring. Also very enlightening is the last section on the Correspondence Principle and Popper Falsifiability. Thanks again, Steve

          Also (as I mentioned in my reply to your post)- congratulations on being published by Springer :)

          Thanks, Steve -- as I posted in your forum, we are in accord on many things, and the foundations of computability is, I think, the most important issue in frontier science.

          Beyond the scope of the essay question, the growing fields of brain science and artificial intelligence depend strongly on resolving the issues of network robustness and integrity -- i.e., the amount of information that can be effectively used at each decision point such that positive feedback doesn't overpower the computing function.

          It's a key point -- the number (1) in your concluding remarks, that twice applying the self-referential operation generates a true statement. It's the identical point I was making with the Popper example of pairwise correlations followed by a single result that may or may not be correlated with the pairwise value. Length restrictions kept me from exploring the basis of Popper's program -- which is Richard von Mises's theory of the independence of collectives -- Popper notes (p. 196) in *Realism and the Aim of Science*:

          "von Mises's 'axiom' (which postulates the existence of a limit of the relative frequency of the occurrence of a property P in any probabilistic sequence of events or 'collective') may be written as a universal-existential-universal-existential-universal statement, of the following form: '*For every* probabilistic sequence, *there exists* a real number x between 0 and 1, called the limit of the relative frequency, such that *for every* given fraction y, however small, for which y > 0 holds, *there exists* a natural number n, such that *for every* natural number n (for which n > m holds) the relative frequency of m/n, of m occurrences of the property P up to the nth event of the sequence does not deviate from x by more than y, that is to say, - y =/< x - (m/n) =/< y."

          In network terms, adding a time parameter, this implies that information lost to one decision node is not lost to the network hub at which it originated, such that continuously shifting hubs of decision activity are self-organized in the same context that you take to be self-referential.

          As I think it is pertinent to the content of both of our essays, if you don't mind, I am going to repost this in toto in your forum.

          Thanks again and all best,

          Tom

          Sure, Mohammed. As soon as I can make time. Thanks for commenting.

          Best,

          Tom

          Hi Tom,

          As I told you in my FQXi page, I have read your intriguing Essay. Here are my comments:

          1) Although I am a collector of aphorisms (particularly of Einstein's ones) I did not know the aphorism of Bronowski that "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses". It is very nice.

          2) I think that black hole physics and its importance in the route to quantize gravity is an example of your beautiful statement that "Mathematics research will uncover further physical regularities in nature". I also find intriguing your extending to symmetry between mathematics and physics the Tegmark's MUH.

          3) I find profound your question "What determines the objective result of a measurement - hidden variables or hidden assumptions?".

          4) Can you give details on your statement that "Hawking radiation is a theoretical example of a locally real quantum phenomenon with simultaneous past and future equality"? This could indeed have implications for the black hole information puzzle.

          5) I find very nice your Einstenian equation M=Pb^2=4P

          6) I think your pretty final sentence that "In this game of unlimited possibilities called mathematics, our bet is on human imagination" should have been appreciated by Einstein.

          In any case, the reading of your very nice Essay enjoyed me a lot. It deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.

          I wish you best luck in the Contest.

          Cheers, Ch.

            Thanks, Christian!

            The Bronowski quote is from his collection of post-war essays in the 1950s, called, *Science and Human Values.* It is a very inspiring little volume that I return to often to renew my optimism for the future of the human race and the role of science in it.

            My view on Hawking radiation is based on the Hawking-Hartle no-boundary/imaginary time proposal: "This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time."

            The state of the universe in imaginary time is local -- every point of the Minkowski space-time in an expanding universe, is the origin of creation. (I'll send you something privately that explains it in more technical terms.)

            Thanks again, and all best -- looking forward to more dialogue,

            Tom