Nature\'s grammar, mathematics, settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein by Gordon Watson

Hi Joe,

Many thanks for initiating a fresh dialogue here. I fondly recall our discussions from 2013. I hope you do too?

In my view (which has not changed) we share a crucial common passion for being precise about the important difference between Abstract and Concrete objects. (In many ways, Joe: it is, alas, an UNCOMMON passion.)

Now: from your new essay, you might be best discussing this next point with Akinbo Ojo (re the nature of real points and surfaces): "Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface."

For my part, on the same p.2 of your essay, I find:

"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 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 simultaneously."

JOE: Please DO NOT concretely ATTEMPT this next experiment but think about this abstract scenario: In my experience, if you attempt to exit an American freeway incorrectly (eg., say, at night), you will typically see a large sign; typically red: "WRONG WAY: GO BACK!"

However, if you do NOT go back but continue on (here, by thinking about one headlight in each pair), you will soon OBSERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY many distinct headlights coming in your direction THOUGH THEY TRAVEL at different non-constant speeds toward you. Thus, Joe, please: how then am I to understand the quoted statement?

PS: At (almost) the same time that I received your message, I received another with a suggestion. The messages are so similar that I've decided to test a by-line with my FQXi signature (see below).

In my opinion, the byline goes to the heart of your (FQXI 2015) essay (as captured in its title). So I really would welcome your critical comments ... and such will be very relevant to my essay this year ... in the hope of coming to a new agreement. Thanks Joe.

..................

"Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling (which can be tricky), but just one grammar, Nature's beautiful concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Watson (2015:5).

With best regards, I'll pop a link in your comment box; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Dear Joe, v.2 follows (based on that lodged at your Forum):

..........

"Nature speaks in many ways (which can be tricky), from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling; but just one grammar, Nature's concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Gordon Watson (2015: p.5).

............

With best regards; Gordon

Dear Joe

1. I trust this friendly form of address is still acceptable to you? As it was in 2013? So why not call me Gordon?

2. Please, do I anywhere refer to "abstract nature"? In the opening sentence of my essay you can see: "Ever-truthful (never lying or misleading; which is handy), in accents ranging freely from big bangs to whispers (which can be tricky), Nature counsels us in many ways and sometimes nicely: * ..."

3. I trust it is therefore clear that my definition of Nature is as one with that commonly accepted: "In the broadest sense, Nature is equivalent to the natural, physical, material or concrete world or universe. Thus "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. The study of Nature is a large part of science."

4. NB: Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often taken to be a separate category from other natural phenomena. Therefore please note that I specifically exclude human activity via this qualifier: Nature (ever-truthful; never lying or misleading; which is handy).

5. I trust this makes my position clear. So, please, to help me understand your position clearly: Please answer the question (3 posts ABOVE) about oncoming cars and their headlights at night. For I'd like to see how far we can progress beyond our agreement (as I see it): That we must carefully distinguish between concrete and abstract objects.

* Like when, as a child: I planted one seed and Nature delivered 10 large melons and 423 new seeds; or when I explored the underground drains of our town and a rain squall flushed me safely out!

Thanks; Gordon

Many thanks Akinbo,

1. If you take these enquiries elsewhere, it would be best to clearly number all you questions so that you can collate the answers and more easily find inconsistencies.

2. Given that your examples indicate some bulk confusion (and expense; DHL to Venus and Mars does not come cheap), let's see if some low-cost bulk answers can do the job.

3. In my terms, in the tests you define: classical black/white balls, quantum positive/negative charges AND ordinary black/white buttons are isomorphic (= corresponding or similar in form or relations in so far as your specified tests are concerned).

4. I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk with ordinary black/white buttons (or similars; like Left/Right socks). So please do this "classical" test and let us have a report confirming your above conjectures.

5. We now turn to bypassing your incorrect "using spin therefore" statements at your point #2:

5a. Spin is NOT isomorphic to the 3 "classical" classes above.

5b. Spin is a typical quantum property: which is just what we want!

5c. For spin is typically perturbed when a particle interacts with a polariser.

6. Which nicely brings us to that experiment T defined 2 posts above:* with its spin-half particles for comparison with Bell (1964). For there we have a "classical" experiment (in my terms; see essay), with quantum-style perturbations of spin-half particles to boot.

* Alas Akinbo, there is no escaping experiment T; even here where we do your bidding.

7. However, and beautifully, old Malus' Law [as adapted by me to the spin-half particles that we have here; see equations (1)-(2) below] is all you need for complete understanding: remembering that T is NOT the full-monty EPR-Bohm test in Bell (1964) but is a real (executable) non-misleading test for pedagogic purposes.

8. So, BIG HINT, with you being Alice.

P(U|T, Alice) = cos2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (1)

P(D|T, Alice) = sin2 [(1/2)(a,b)]; (2)

E(UD|T, Alice) = (1) - (2) = a.b; (3)

since +1 is typically assigned to U, -1 to D.

9. When you are clear on this (it takes a while, but re-reading my essay may help; especially re Bohr's important insight): you will note that we have not used those tricky terms in your point #3; and we invoke no "orientation inconsistencies" per your point #4.

10. Trusting the above moves us, we growing band of CLRs (convinced local realists), to much closer agreement: please do not hesitate to raise any ongoing issues.

With thanks for the opportunity to address your concerns; and with best regards; Gordon

PS: Typos corrected and this added: I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk using equations (1)-(3) to derive E(AB|T) = -a.b.

Dear Harry Hamlin Ricker III,

Thanks for reading my essay and now being part of 'the joke'.

PS: Harry, I recall that one of your many essays refutes Einstein's theory of relativity on 12 grounds (based on maths, physics, philosophy and experiments). Alas, as you've seen, the essence of 'my joke' is that it is not so easily refuted.

Thanks again; Gordon

Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

If you would be so kind as to provide "the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth", I will be pleased to respond re any deviations.

For example, noting that such questions are not provided in your essay: We might then productively discuss my "deviating from your paper" in the context of "those exact definitive questions".

Thanks, Gordon

Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

A: In relation to our exchanges: Please note that my comments arise from my seeking to understand YOUR opening response to my essay. Let me repeat your response here:

You are deviating from the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth. (MSJ)

So I'll be pleased to defend my essay as soon as you (i) clarify for me these exact definitive questions of Universal Truth, or (ii) rephrase your objection so that it makes sense to me.

B: In relation to the comments on your Essay-Forum, you introduced the truism: ... everything is not possible to explain in this comment box. But these comment boxes are surely large enough for you to provide at least one of the "exact definitive questions of Universal Truth" that you say my essay does not address. Further, if you need additional space, simply open another comment box!

PS: Since the four experiments that I analyse yield truths, such will not conflict with any Truth that you care to offer. And since my essay is essentially written at the level of undergraduate maths and logic (given that I will happily answer, at that level, any technical questions), why not pinpoint an error in my work and link it to one of those exact definitive questions of Universal Truth of yours? In this way we might both learn something.

Sincerely; Gordon Watson

En,

Thanks for your comments and the spirit in which they are offered. Those 11 pages of unused white-space in your own essay would certainly have come in handy! Nevertheless, I thought my limited use of white-space was justified given that: (i) My essay had to begin with precise definitions of its terms and symbols. (ii) It is expansively written at the level of undergraduate maths and logic. (iii) With its heavy mathematical content, it's meant to be read critically!

Moreover, my theory was not developed for fun. Rather, it arose in response to widely-recognized difficulties associated with John Bell and "nonlocality". Further, it is not without some signs of progress: for we now find many Bellians (and prior avoiders) back-peddling from their earlier positions.

En, given the similarity of our conclusions and the rarity of such challenges* to Wigner's position, I'd welcome any deeper and more critical analysis of my work.

* For easy comparison, here's a conclusion from my essay (p.5; the piece that you cite):

3.6. We therefore close with a happy snapshot of Wigner's (1960:14) views and our own:

... "The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve."

... Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to whispers [like the whisper of an apple falling], but just one grammar, beautiful mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws.

Here's yours: "There is no mystery. Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it."

There is no mystery. [...] inserted for clarity. Thanks again; Gordon