Was there a choice? by William Nelson

William,

Since you prefer a continuum, I am curious ... Do you believe there is an Aether?

All in all, this was a pretty good read. I don't believe in the anthropic principle myself, but I also don't have a better explanation for what is observed. Of course, doesn't that immediately lead to God?

Do we really know that the laws of physics are the same in a galaxy at the edge of our Hubble Bubble as they are in the Milky Way? Is gravity the same here as it is there? Isn't dark matter the result of the belief that gravity is the same here as there? How do we really know that we are not near the center of the universe? I know we think we are not but how do we know it? Maybe we are just moving slowly compared to other galaxies ... and if the laws are influenced by the velocity through the medium then those galaxies at the edge of our Bubble could be very different indeed.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear William Nelson,

Everyone has heard that "choice" question, but very few make any attempt to answer it. You do so in extraordinary fashion. Congratulations.

I certainly agree that our world cannot be viewed as being a mathematical structure, but only as being described by one.

"Mathematics is all very well, but why probability?" Your very credible answer: "... If the goal is to evolve life, then a deterministic universe seems to be a poor choice."

On the quantum, I agree it's bizarre, but whether it underlies everything, or is statistical over reality is yet open. My current essay analyzes Bell's theorem in a novel manner, and I hope you will read it and comment.

Symmetries too are important for life, but it is very interesting that particle symmetries, from iso-spin to SUSY, are inexact. I believe that it is actually the [associated by Noether] conservation laws that are more ontologically real.

I very much like your discussion of discrete or continuous, and agree with you that this doesn't imply a [QFT-like] field theory. And I agree with your conclusion.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear William Nelson,

You have said, "If the universe were built on a deterministic theory then the parameters of that theory would need to be finely-tuned from the outset to enable life". I argue this is a logically false statement.

Actually, there need be only one type of fundamental particle having 4 variables representing mass, volume, energy and force. The mass of any heavier particle formed will be deterministic. Any change in the fundamental values will cause only relative changes in heavier particles, and so if life can emerge with one set of values, life will emerge with any set of values. There is no need for the values to be finely tuned at the onset.

However, if QM is correct, there are 18 fundamental particles, thus leading to 21 independent variables. With so much of these, determinism will not work. The standard model is based on probability. So it may be impossible to build a deterministic world over it. I argue that the standard model is incorrect.

I propose that particle masses are not arbitrary; there is a direct relation between the mass of electron and neutron: Internal Structures of Electron, Neutron, Proton and Nuclei - Particle Masses Are not Arbitrary. Please visit my site finitenesstheory.com for further information.

Just because statistics and quantum theories cannot be axiomatized doesn't mean that math is not a part of nature to be discovered. Probability is merely the first, invented step in detecting a pattern that is caused by some structure described by discovered math and physics.

Another universe: The universe needs a way to disperse the energy inserted into it. S it created cooling flows between galaxies and inflows in galaxies. Life as we know it is a means to increase the rate of entropy increase for the universe in the infall models.

William,

Perhaps there was too much compressing of various subtopics into the allotted space, when it could be more fruitful to focus on one or a few in more depth, however - your essay was well-written, thought-provoking, and seemed to me to provide some novel insights and speculations. It certainly deserves more attention and credit than it has so far. Cheers,

Dear William,

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

Dear William Nelson,

In your essay you wrote, "... the dimensionality that we experience does not have to be the full dimensionality of the underlying theory; additional dimensions could exist which are wrapped up so tightly that we can't perceive them. This very natural idea was first proposed by Kaluza in 1919, and string theory famously requires it." String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis suggests the wrapping up or curling up of extra dimensions. I say that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis suggests that there is no curling up of extra dimensions. Google "witten milgrom" for more information. According to the Gravity Probe B science team, my quantum theory of gravity has already been ruled out. However, I say that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own data and that they empirically confirmed what I call the "Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect." I say that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes functioned correctly and did not malfunction in a surprisingly predictable way. Have your personally studied the Gravity Probe B results, the space roar results, and the photon underproduction crisis results?

Dear William,

You ask:

Why do we see three space and one time dimension? Could it have been diferent?

My answer is:

Earth is a consequence of the laws of nature, not the cause. From the perspective of a whole universe dimensions are not essential. You can see in my essay that is quite good results are obtained without using Dimensions.

Regards,

Branko

Dear William,

I just found your essay to be one of the few great essays in this contest, and I just gave it a boost. I also added it to the list of best essays in my general review of this contest. Sorry I did not notice it earlier. I think you will be particularly interested with these two other essays:

Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe by Alexey and Lev Burov, which addresses some common issues with yours, even if the kind of reasoning is different.

My own, A Mind/Mathematics Dualistic Foundation of Physical Reality, where I give precise reasons, other than those you mentioned, for the necessity of quantum physics with its "paradoxical" features, with the non-mathematical aspect of probabilities and the measurement problem, in order for a universe to be able to host conscious life.

If according to you, no mathematics are involved in this creation.

How you would essentially do the astronomical calculations and the numbering?

- Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Bill,

Having just read your essay, I really liked your introduction involving the deeper questions one should think to ask about unicorns (what a wonderful way to teach a child to think more deeply about things in the world, let alone adults) and was struck by how methodically you covered all the areas relevant to your argument.

Concerning your comments on probability, if you permit me, I would like to share some of my own ideas and views: I believe that, ultimately, probability is a measure of "coming into existence" relative to other possibilities. This "coming into existence" could be the outcome of a single event or many (i.e. a frequency) or, if one wishes to treat probability epistemically, the "coming into existence" of certainty of belief.

The problem you pointed out with probability, namely "What kind of mathematical axiom can distinguish the probabilities from the rest? It seems that a probability interpretation must be added separately, and lies above and beyond the definition of the mathematical structure." stems in my opinion from the fact that Kolmogorov's axioms do not distinguish this special kind of measure from other more ordinary ones, such as, say, length and mass.

In fact, I believe it cannot do this because denoting "coming into existence" is not a feature of the measure but of the sets on which the measure is taken, so in reality the problem manifests a limitation in the current foundations of mathematics, namely ZFC set theory.

I am working on developing a foundation in which such a distinction naturally appears. The key, I believe, is to extend classical logic to what is called free logic, which permits the definition of what is called an outer domain. Sets in the outer domain fail to satisfy the criterion of "existence" in the domain of discourse, which is now called the inner domain.

I believe that probability is naturally a measure over sets in the outer domain because the sets it measures cannot already "exist" in order for the interpretation of probability to be applied to that measure. If I am right, then this would allow for a natural means of formally incorporating the interpretation of probability, at least in the sense that it is distinct from other kinds of measures, into mathematics.

I am not sure how this would impact your argument against the universe being a mathematical system, but I hope that you find these ideas at least interesting.

Best wishes,

Armin

PS. I read the sample chapter of your "Relativity Made Real" book and found it to be very lucidly written. Given that you have written an entire book on relativity, I would very much like to know how you would respond if someone asked "what does it mean that for an object traveling at c, a zero proper time implies that a hypothetical observer at rest with respect to that object would measure his own duration of existence in spacetime to be precisely zero?"

Dear Bill,

I only saw and read your response now, and would like to mention that at least in my view, the meaning of what you wrote concerning SR is really the same as what I wrote, because of all possible things one could measure, measuring one's own duration of existence to be zero would seem to be the one thing that would preclude any sort of measurement in the first place.

What I really wanted to find out was your view about the implications one could draw from this, and whether you took any of these to be hints of a deeper understanding about what relativity really tells us about the world. I agree that it is not possible to have a spacetime frame that moves at the speed of light in space, but, it seems unlike virtually everyone else, I do not believe that this necessarily implies that such frames are altogether impossible. I wonder whether we are in this respect caught in a situation like our ancestors, who about 500 years ago, thought that the earth, moon, sun and a few planets was all there was to our world, and who could never fathom that (at least in principle) it was possible for observer frames to exist beyond the boundaries they recognized (e.g. frames on Andromeda, in which the entire Milky Way would be a small speck in the sky).

If you had some thoughts on my remarks about probability, I would love to hear them.

Best,

Armin