Dear Dr. Gruendler,

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Gerold Gruendler,

As your essay clearly shows:

- there are "aspects of reality, which are not subject to mathematical laws";

- "The choice aspect of reality, present in each and every phenomenon, and showing up in each and every measurement process, is not subject to laws of physics";

- "The violation of Bell's inequality merely proves that there really is an irrational aspect of reality, and that consequently free will, aims, and intentions, which may impact the course of objective events, can not be excluded".

I think that physicists need to stop pretending that all aspects of reality are representable as mathematical relationships. A rational theory of reality will be much more untidy than the extreme mathematical purists would like.

This is an interesting, well-written and well-reasoned essay, displaying a mature and thoughtful point of view.

    Dear Ms. Ford,

    Visible physical reality cannot possibly have any invisible aspects.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Gerold Gruendler,

    your essay is - at least for me - easy and enjoyable to read and a conceptually well-grounded investigation into the question where ‚aims and intention' could have their natural places in contemporary physics.

    Your conclusions are logically consistent and not biased by personal 'aims and intentions', so to speak. Therefore they can be considered - at least by myself - as maximally scientically objective.

    The only thing I would question is to look at the missing counterparts of the Aristotelian causes 'capability' and 'choice' in quantum mechanics as 'irrational'. 'Irrational' suggests - at least for me - that these missing counterparts in quantum mechanics are somewhat an inconsistency within nature that has to be replaced as soon as possible. I would prefer to look a little bit different at it, to make it more rational: as you thoughtfully state in your essay, there is no proof possible to identify the irrational element you spoke of as the final piece that could objectify the existence of free will, aims and intentions in our assumed to be mathematically closed world.

    The reason for this impossibility is that the assumption of our world having to be necessarily mathematically closed, can neither be proven nor falsified. This is so because disproving the claim of the ontological exclusiveness of mathematical systems by giving a counterexample would require a formalized procedure in order to at all qualify as a proof for proving a certain phenomenon to be fundamentally nonformalizable. But proving a nonformalizable phenomenon to be nonformalizable with the help of a formalized method called 'proof' is impossible, because no nonformalizable phenomenon can per definition be captured by a formal system. Therefore no formalized system can say something mandatory about the existence of nonformalizable phenomena. On the other hand, proving all things to be mathematically formalizable in detail is also impossible due to practical and principle (infinities) limits.

    It seems to me that it would be less irrational if one could accept the limits of mathematical formalizability from within the system (in the sense Gödel showed it) and that exactly these limits are rational to understand, because no formal system can reliably decide between a possibility and a necessity (i elaborated on this in my own essay). If one takes logics as a formal system, it is natural (it's logical!) that logics should have its limits, too, in the same sense as first-order arithmetics. But this does not necessarily mean that beyond our bivalent logics, there resides only irrationality. Following further the analogy with Gödel's results, the limits of bivalent logics imply a realm beyond it which should give *meaning* for bivalent logics to have these limits at all in the first place. Surely, for us, totally contained within this universe and in everyday logics, it is not obvious at all that there could be a transcendental realm beyond everyday logics. But i think logics demands it, for otherwise one had to consider it as inconsistent - instead of merely incomplete. In this sense i think your term 'irrational' could turn out to be pretty rational, even from the frog's perspective within the system.

      Hi Gerold, I really enjoyed reading your essay. The arguments are clearly presented and the essay is very well written and an easy read overall. I think it is really nice the way you have incorporated Aristole's ideas and looked for where they fit in physics.

        Dear Stefan, 'irrational' should not be misunderstood as a pejorative or deprecatory notion. It merely means `not accessible to scientific analysis´. ('capability': is rational, analyzed by quantum theory. I guess you wanted to say 'realization'.)

        You say that "proving a nonformalizable phenomenon to be nonformalizable with the help of a formalized method ... is impossible". Here you overlook the method of a `proof by contradiction´, even though you come close to it, saying some lines later that "if one could accept the limits of mathematical formalizability from within the system (in the sense Gödel showed it)".

        Remember, for a most simple example, how Hippasos of Metapontos proved that sqrt(2) is an irrational number. (I trust that you will not confuse the irrationality of numbers with the irrationality of some aspects of reality.) For a `proof by contradiction´, he assumed that sqrt(2) is a rational number, sqrt(2)=m/n, with m and n being integers. Then he demonstrated --- ´from within the system´ of the arithmetics of rational numbers! --- that this equation inevitably results into contradictions, i.e. that the assumption `sqrt(2) is rational´ is wrong.

        Likewise, for a `proof by contradiction´, Bell and Peres assumed that `the decision for a specific outcome of a quantum experiment is accessible to scientific analysis´. From this assumption they derived --- ´from within the system´ of scientific analysis and reasonable logic! --- Bell's inequality. The experimental violation of Bell's inequality proved --- ´from within the system´ of scientific analysis! --- that the assumption `the decision for a specific outcome of a quantum experiment is accessible to scientific analysis´ is wrong.

        Thus by means of a `proof by contradiction´, it is very well possible to prove `a nonformalizable phenomenon to be nonformalizable with the help of a formalized method´. Exactly this was Bell's important finding, that the irrationality of the measurement process can indeed be proved (and meanwhile has been proved) by consequent application of the methods of --- and within the system of --- scientific analysis.

        Dear Georina, the credits for pointing out the importance of ancient greek philosophy, in particular the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, for the interpretation of quantum theory go to Heisenberg, who explicated this issue in many of his lectures.

        Dear Gerold, i think your are right on this. I thought about it and indeed, even Gödel showed with his formalized results that formalizability has its limits. Although he did it from the point of view of a conscious, analytic human being, being independent from taking every axiom involved in his proofs inevitably at face value, he nonetheless could prove that the used axiomatic system must necessarily be consistent, otherwise his proofs could not be established, or alternatively there should be a proof that disproves Gödel's results. Is there such a proof anywhere out there? This is hard to imagine, because it should be easy to be constructed with the same tools Gödel used.

        Although a proof's result is only mandatory if the underlying axioms and premises involved do meet reality, i nonetheless think it has indeed been shown that the ones used to describe the non-local correlations cannot be replaced easily, if at all, by some others to make Bell's result a counterfactual result. The main reason for me to say this is that for making it a counterfactual result, one had to invent new counterfactual axioms about the system, means axioms that never could be verified by quantum mechanical experiments. They also would not be accessible to scientific analysis, at least not in the laboratory, but only by trying to relate them to already gained theoretical insights into nature's principles.

        Anyway, thank you for mentioning your points about this. It is indeed remarkable for me that a formalized system can prove a nonformalizable phenomenon to be intrinsically nonformalizable. You found an interesting point in my arguments.

        It is your essay that I enjoyed reading, take the credit for a job well done.

        Gerold Gruendler,

        Your Essay 'irrational side of reality' is thought provoking. In a post above, you have clarified the meaning of 'irrational', and so your view is clear. But I have some difference of opinion regarding 'irrational' action at quantum level.

        In my opinion, there are no physical laws. There are only physical properties. Motion and force being properties, systems remain changing. These changes follow general mathematical rules (mathematics does not provide any separate rules for physics). Mathematics allows only 'a set of actions'. If the number of variables is very few, the result tends to be predictable; a large number of variables leads to unpredictability. I have also submitted my essay, covering my views.

        Yout statement, "each time an instable atomic nucleus chooses to decay or not to decay within the next second, each time two nearby atom choose to form or not to form a molecule, each time the molecules of a gas choose to absorb or not to absorb a traversing photon, an irrational aspect of reality is active" may imply that particles have freewill. Particles and atoms have no freewill. So at the quantum-level, there cannot be any 'irrational' action; there is only some unpredictability.

        Some physical structures (like living things) formed from atoms do have freewill, an emergent physical property. Actions of these structures are 'irrational' and these actions impact the course of events at that level.

        Jose P Koshy

          Dear Jose, I completely agree to your assertion that `particles and atoms have no freewill´. When I write that `the molecules of a gas choose to absorb or not to absorb a traversing photon´ and the like, this clearly is metaphoric wording. Who decides for or against absorption, and onto which reasons is the decision based? The best answer known to us is `Nature makes her choice, she decides irrationally, i.e. there are no reasons´. For us physicists, educated in classical physics, it's of course hard to accept that this is the best and final answer science has to offer.

          You write that `some physical structures (like living things) ... do have freewill´. I would be much more restrictive: Free will presupposes a brain, which is able to consider various options for action, to ponder about the pros and cons of the alternatives, and only then decide for the best option and realize that option. Thus I feel that human beings have free will, I guess that cats, mice, birds have free will, and I would not exclude that mosquitoes have some marginal free will. But I exclude that trees, stones, particles, atoms have free will, because they have no brains. (I will not engage into the intricate consideration, whether a supercomputer might acquire free will due to appropriate programming.)

          But I do not consent to your suggestion, that the definition of the notion `irrational´ should be somehow related to free will. Instead I will stick to the definition, stated in an above post, that 'irrational' means `not accessible to scientific analysis´. Definitions can not be right or wrong (provided they are self-consistent), they merely can be more or less useful. You write: `If the number of variables is very few, the result tends to be predictable; a large number of variables leads to unpredictability.´ No!!! If 10^19 photons impinge a 50%/50% beam splitter, then predictably 5x10^18 will be transmitted and 5x10^18 will be reflected. But when exactly 1 photon impinges on the same beam splitter, the result is absolutely unpredictable, there is not even the slightest tendency for this or that result. Actually for seemingly irrational decisions of beings which have free will, some reasons might still be detectable due to psychological analysis, while the decision of Nature for transmission or reflection of the single photon is truly irrational, as experimentally proved by the violation of Bell's inequality.

          Gerold Gruendler,

          Quoting you, "No!!! If 10^19 photons impinge a 50%/50% beam splitter, ...". Regarding variables, I meant different types of bodies/particles, not the number of particles of the same kind (I should have made it clear).

          Quoting again, "But I do not consent ... freewill". Here, the difference persists, but not regarding the definition. I am of the opinion that particle-wave duality is not correct, and so there is no 'special'uncertainty at quantum level. Transmission or reflection of the single photon may depend on hidden parameters. I follow-up this argument with a new particle model of light: a ray of light is a stream of rotating particle pairs; thus it has a three-dimensional wave structure, and shows properties of waves. A 'photon' is a quantum containing a certain number of particle-pairs; it has a clear physical structure. This, at least, shows that alternate explanations are possible (though I would like to claim that my model is correct).

          Jose P Koshy

          7 days later

          Thank you for nice discussion starting from Aristotle's four causes for ANY PHENOMENA to the irrational aspects of reality, which are not subjected to the laws of physics and which are not subject to mathematical laws.

          Why do you think the present day knowledge in physics and mathematics is not sufficient to explain these aspects. There are many computational subjects like "Artificial intelligence" which mathematically co-relate knowledge databases from physics....

            15 days later

            Gerold

            A very nicely written essay, covering very salient points well and pleasurable to read.

            However I think you will like to read my essay as two new mechanisms are identified which, shockingly, can make logical (classical) sense of QM. (Though of course no quantum physicist will accept removal of it's wierdness!)

            The mechanism agrees with Bell and (with EPR) that "each photon must arrive at the beam splitter with a complete program for correct behavior (transmission or reflection) at arbitrary values of γ1 and γ2" which I'd quite forgotten and thank you greatly for the reminder.

            I think your score of 3 is a travesty. Trolls lurk. Mine's been hit with 1's twice when at or near the top! Be assured I have you down for one far higher which I think is well earned.

            I may have questions but I suspect when you've read mine we can have a far better discussion.

            Well done and thank you

            Peter

            23 days later

            Hi Gerold,

            Excellent essay. A clear look at some historical misinterpreted phenomena. If you would, take a look at my easy to read essay.

            Also check out my website www.digitalwavetheory.com (the section on EPR). I come to your conclusions with a slightly different method.

            One of the better essays. Thanks,

            Don Limuti

            Dear Gerold Gruendler

            I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

            How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

            1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

            2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

            3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

            4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

            5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

            6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

            7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

            8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

            9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

            11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

            12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

            I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

            Héctor

            Dear Gerold Gruendler!

            I agree with you. New Cartesian Physic irrational point is the point of being, as it always has a length of and width of, and their combination form a continuum. Rational point has neither width nor length and height, nor their combination does not form a continuum. I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

            I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

            I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

            The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

            New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

            Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.

            Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.

            Sincerely,

            Dizhechko Boris

            4 days later

            Dear GG

            I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

            I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

            For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

            Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

            With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

            Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

            Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

            http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

            Best wishes to your essay.

            For your blessings please................

            =snp. gupta

            19 days later

            Gerold,

            You didn't reply to recent comments including mine so I hope you're well. I confirm I found your essay full of important points in agreement with mine.

            Your understanding of QM seems excellent and I really hope you'll comment on my identification of a ('quasi')classical derivation in compliance with Bell. (Even after the scoring deadline.)

            In the meantime, as your excellent contribution is vastly under rated and time is running out it's about to get the score boost it deserves.

            Very best wishes.

            Peter