Hi Jon,
No, I don't think physics could take that away. As reality is objective describable, it is about relationships. Information is always only described between two semantical levels, between two terms: macrostate and microstate, measurement apparatus and measurement object.
I belief, that the formalism of quantum mechanics relies on that, but I couldn't prove it.
Luca
Hi Conrad,
thanks for your comment. The quantum theory part became very short. And surely needs some clarifications.
"The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" has two parts: 1. Why is mathematics the lanquage of objective science and 2. How can we explain, the incredible unity of physics? The first part may be answered by stating that objective knowledge must have a mathematical structure. The second part however is trickier. The unity of physics left us with only a few elementary particles (to many in my opinion) and a few interactions, that explain almost everything in our observable universe. How is that possible? Is the universe mathematical? And which mathematical structure must it have?
I don't belief the universe s mathematical. If the universe is not mathematical there comes the problem, how objective knowledge (physics) is possible? The kantian answer is "because physics is the precondition of objective experience". Can we derive physics from a priori arguments? Imagine Newton closes himself in a room and finds out the law of gravity. Unthinkable! How could we make that thinkable?
Every finite dimensional state can be decomposed into a tensor product of qbits. To measure a qbit we must be able to choose a direction in a 3 dimensional space. That means that the 3 directions must be commensurable. The associated observable must commute with each other. The two states get entangled in like in the von Neumann measurement. the 3 dimensional observable might be the space observable. To measure the 'space' (distance) observable a field might needed. And so forth. The only objectively knowable structures might be the ones derivable by this theory. We might get a kind of map of possible experience. We must use that map to order our experiences.
Now for the parameters. That is a very difficult discussion. In my theory of measurement after each step a new parameter pops up as 'interaction strength' combining the different structures in each iteration step. After the first step the interaction parameter would be the velocity of light. The next step would be the charge. The mass parameter is a problem.
The role of time logic in this theory is that the theory is probabilistic. To get a coherent interpretation of the probabilties in the theory time logic is needed.
Luca
Thanks for your kind comment. I'm sure you would like von Weizsäcker a lot. As he was very activ in the dialog between the churches and was very relgious man. He also tried to think scientific and religious knowledge together and succeded quite well in my opinion.
But I will try to comment more on that in your forum.
Luca
Dear Luca,
Your essay raised some interesting points and had a strong emphasis on the theory of CArl Friedrich von Weizsaecker. The first time I got exposed to his views was in fact through an essay in another one of these contests; you may find it interesting, it was written by Charles Raldo Card, and he set in comparison with some other views:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1837
Concerning temporal operators, perhaps you may already be familiar with the work of Arthur Prior, but he used the same kind of modal logic to define temporal operators with Kripke Semantics that I am also using. Google him if you are not familiar with him.
Regarding the connection between Logic (and, more generally, philosophy), mathematics and physics, you are certainly correct that time is one of the major pieces that brings such a connection about. I am not convinced by the the currently popular view that time comes out of thermodynamics because it is already present, deeply embedded, as it were, in the structure of Minkowski spacetime, even in the absence of matter, or only a few particles.
Your last point comes close to one of the projects that I intend to tackle next, namely learning Von Neumann's approach of building up the Hilbert Space from orthomodular lattices. I believe this exercise will help me make it much clearer how my model relates to various aspects of standard QM.
Thank you and best wishes,
Armin
Dear Luca Valeri Zimmerman,
I do not wish to upset you, but I honestly feel that abstract mathematics and abstract physics have nothing to do with how the real Universe is occurring.
As I see it, I have a complete skin surface. Every real object appears to have a complete surface of one form or another. one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.
Warm regards,
Joe Fisher
Hi Joe,
Not upset at all. Physics and mathematics have nothing to do with reality. If I would have wanted talked about reality, I would have written a poem. Or just been silent. So I tried to avoid the term reality in my essay.
But here the fun starts. How s possible, that mathematical physics is so successful in making predictions?
So I don't know what real objects are, what constant speed means, what time or real space is. But I know, what they mean in classical newtonian physics. And maybe also in special and general relativity. There is some experience how these theories can be applied to explain certain phenomena. Quite successfully.
So if I try to develop a new theory, I will have to explain, why these theories are so successful. And maybe I have to use their understanding to explain my new theory. Otherwise my theory would not be understood. That how I want to proceed in getting an understanding of our physical world view.
Best regards
Luca
Dear Luca,
Thank you for not reporting my comment as inappropriate and have it classified as Obnoxious Spam by the Moderator.
Do you not have a real complete skin surface? Does every natural or manufactured object you have ever seen not have a real complete surface of some sort? The moon has a surface, right? The chair in your room has a real complete surface, right?
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 Luca,
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 Luca,
Your essay regarding the Weizsäcker deserves attention, for the portion related to quantum mechanics I am not competent.
Your both references are Weizsäckers. Then please read this http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0008
I agree with Weizsacker that Mathematics is the theory of structures. The structure is also in the title of my essay.
My essay is in accordance with the teachings of Hegel and Bošković and fully meets the Mach principle.
I'd like you to read it, and in this sense to comment.
Regards,
Branko
Dear Luca,
I see we have similar ideas on the nature of time (the past is factual, the future is possible). I find this same kind of time structure both in math/logic and in physics, though I consider these two time flows as only similar but independent of each other. More precisely I consider this time structure of physics as a result of the time structure of consciousness. I explained this in details, and how it gives a coherent interpretation of quantum physics, in my essay.
You ask "How is evolution possible despite the increase of entropy?". There is no mystery here: entropy is continuously created on Earth but then moved away and "accumulated" as infrared radiation in the intergalactic space.
I also added your essay to the list of interesting essays in my review.
Dear Sylvain,
Thanks for your reply. You are of course right. The earth is an open system, where free energy from the sun enters the system and high entropic energy in form of the infrared removed from the system. The entropy in this system is decreasing. For closed system evolution might be explained by out of the equilibrium states. This is done by Prigogine. The claim here is that the informational relationships of multilevel system would make the creation of complex structures possible despite (or even because) the entropy is increasing.
As for the time structure: If it is true, that the time structure is a precondition of objective experience and even of logic, it is questionable if we can express the time structure in a clear language. Von Weizsäcker approaches the problem from three sides:
1. The time structure is used to show derive irreversibility from reversible dynamics. And possibly to derive tense logic as logic of time events and possibly the structure of quantum mechanics.
2. From the physical theory he shows that the time structure can be found phenomenologically in our world: The factual past as documents in the present or in our memories as far our cognition is objective describable. And the open future as evolutonary process.
3. Philosophically as the becoming of timely structures from eternal ideas (eidos). See also my comment in Aleksandar Mikovics forum.
Dear Luca Valeri
About time it is written a lot of in this contest, for instance Smolin said that logic does not exist without time.
I am not sure if you want to tell that quantum logic is contradictory with our common logic, because superposition of spin exists. This is a discrete version of uncertainty principle, where infinity possibility exists. But, my opinion is that measurement is only realisation of our intention. Thus two spins exist in our head and only one is actualized by measurement. Thus, measurement is like a creation.
Can you tell someting more about your quantum measurement in the last section, before I read something about Neumann measurement sheme?
By chance you mentioned also colors in your comment. I also wrote about this. I suppose that three basic color qualia have something in common, thus that they are three options of one quale. Physiological measurement could tell something of this.
Similarly as you I think that time is more basic than entropy. It is also connected with panpsichism and consciousness.
BTW: Weizsacker explained, why space is three dimensional (3 basic SU(2) matrices etc.) Why this is not more often mentioned in books? Is it speculation?
Best regards
Janko Kokosar
"it is questionable if we can express the time structure in a clear language."
As I mentioned, I distinguish 2 independent fundamental time structures: one at the foundation of mathematics, and one of consciousness. We are naturally familiar with the time structure of consciousness and its physical effect is known as the thermodynamic time arrow. Just because consciousness is not mathematical, it cannot be described in exact terms, so that in particular the time of consciousness cannot be described in exact terms either. Still I have an intuitive description in these words : it is the order relation of existence between conscious events, where A is before B if A exists for B ; though I only mean it as a fuzzy concept. I consider the concept of conscious (non-physical) memory, extended to the universal scale as collective memory (though it is largely hidden), as foundational for the interpretation of quantum physics and the thermodynamic time arrow (see my essay for details).
However, since mathematics can be formalized and described in exact mathematical terms, I did find ways to precisely describe the time of mathematics that appears in the detailed study of the foundations of mathematics. As I found it, this time of mathematics does not appear as one concept or structure describing one aspect of the foundations (though the hierarchy of ordinals expresses much of it), but takes different forms that mirror and complete each other, between model theory and set theory. This network of aspects of the time of mathematics, is usually not explicitly explained and qualified as a time in the literature, but I see it as implicitly there, essential for the understanding of the main paradoxes of mathematical logic: Russell's paradox, Skolem's paradox and the Incompleteness theorem.
In case you didn't notice: I replied to you in my thread last week. Sorry to have not done it earlier.
