Where the Question Leads by H Chris Ransford

Ransford

Thanks for commenting on my paper.

Look around. You are in a single universe. If you mean 1 and only 1 universe , then you have misinterpreted the phrase. If you mean to postulate multiverse, then you have it backward -there is no unique evidence that more than our universe exists. That would require evidence. (The multiverse is an interpretation of QM. Many interpretations of QM exist. To accept a multiverse requires observation evidence that rejects all the other interpretations and does not reject multiverse) .

I like a modified Bohm Interpretation (BI) with a partice light (photon) being directed by a pilot wave. The weakness of BI is it omits how and where the pilot wavw originates. Consider General Relativity. Matter warps space ( medium like an aether) ant the warp directs matter. So, the pilot wave in the BI is caused by matter. (Unity of GR and the small?)

The advantage of BI is that there is an experiment that rejects all QM interpretation except the modified BI.

The following papers present an experiment that is easily done that rejects a wave like nature of the light (photon) and by extention the electron.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw

Then play the video titled Photon Diffraction

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603

"Diffraction experiment and its Stoe photon simulation program rejects wave models of light" click on mse42MY.pdf .

As you said more documentation than 10 pages allow except as a reference.

Science logic has to have some postulates. The paper postulated the emergence philosophy was a Emergence Principle of the universe. From that it follows the single TOE exists.

Another thing to note, the QM model as a probabilistic model is an indiator of a set of agents unknown but existing. I think they are my plenum (continous that supports wave action and hods matter). This was mentioned.

If you chose another assumption, find the data.

BTW. In the STOE model there has to be a Source (at the center of spiral galaxies) and a Sink (elliptical galaxies). These have to come and go from somewhere, perhaps another type of universe. But not a 3D+time.

There is considerably more evidence to support the Emercence Principle than the multiverse from QM.

I regard words/concepts such as intent, free will, conscious, mind as being without merit in science because they lack sufficient definition. Look at these papers, they use the same words and mean different things. For example, look at the phrasing of "Delayed Choice experiment". Especially "choice" as if that is what is being measued - Its not. Like the ancient Greeks the matter has no "Choice" or other human abstract quality. My papers above show there is a deterministic model to explain Young's and Hodge's experiments.

Hodge

Ransford

Another possibilty to your 2 is that "mind" is isufficienctly defined. Therefore, the phrasing of the question is meaningless.

Infinities and singularities are unreal. If a math answer is infinitiey or singularity then the physics incorrectly models the universe.

You postulate the other universes are dlike ours. So light from another universe should behave in ours. The spaces should meld. As you maynote above, the other universes could be very different (ie 2 D).

Hodge

Hello Mr Hodge and Mr Ransford,

Thanks for sharing your works to both of you.It is relevant because indeed we search the laws of this universe.The philosophical point of vue is important.About multiverses and the causes of laws.It becomes complex when we insert indeed the maths.This to explain that the domains chosen so become philosophical.We arrive so at how must we interpret the uniqueness and the entire entropy above this physicality in complexification.Multiverses for me of Mr Tegmark are more subtil than we can imagine because that extrapolates towards personal singularities ,like if we had our own universe.I have even said him that he could create the multispheres where personal psychology and gravitational soul are extrapolated.But of course we arrive at a complex play of maths and subjective analyse but what I find relevant is that subjectivity and objectivity can converge.But if I can it is important to consider the principle entropiqua the principle of uniqueness,the singularities, personal and gravitation are linked.We die electromagnetically ,not gravitationally.When we consider these singularities, quant ,personal and gravitational,we can also consider that all turns around this cosmological singularity implying this uniqueness;That is why the aether is gravitational and that we must consider multispheres like subjective and mathjematical about the singular soul of each uniquenss serie.We retrun always to this uniquenss at all scales.The multispheres return always at this uniquenss due to main causes from this entropy considering a central BH for this universal sphere.Eisntein said that god does not play at dices, newton and tesla were fervent thinkers in this infinite entropy above our understanding creating a physicality with codes and informations of evolution.The uniquenss seems foundamental on this irrversible entropical Arrow of time....I like a lot your line of reasonings to both of you.We search answers after all, we know so few still about this universal sphere and its quantum sphères for me.They turn so they are.

Regards

The author analyzed the question about mindless math and aims and intentions, which was nice but I thought the questions intention was to stimulate creativity concerning representation theory of some aim or intention of the science of Physics

Mr Ransford

You say:

„There is, as of yet, no consensus on whether our universe or multiverse is finite or infinite."

About infinity?" (word universe is enough).

We should be precise on what is meant.

I cited RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković "Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility".

Therefore I say: mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite and Universe is eternal.

Generally speaking your statement about role of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences is quite acceptable.

Zivlak

Dear Chris Ransford,

you made some good points in your essay by asking what ingedients of nature could be more fundamental than others, some Ur-mind 'stuff' or explicitly material stuff. I like that you try to argue with already established scientific/mathematical results to find out what these results can say about the limits of their own field of investigation.

I think it is important to think about scientific arguments which involve infinities and investigate if the consequences of these infinities are all consistent with each other. As you, i think that defining the 'universe' as an infinite hierarchy of infinities, is highly problematic. As you describe, it would lead us to think of reality as some kind of infinitely dimensional Hilbert-Hotel where former impossibilities necessarily must transform into necessities.

But one conclusion of yours I couldn't trace to be logically valid. You wrote "Thus, we have come to a fork in the road: if our universe or multiverse is finite, then mathematics must be the ultimate truth."

I highlight the word 'must' here. I cannot see that there is the logical necessity for a finite universe to be fundamentally grounded only on mathematics. If this could be logically derived (as you seem to have done), then one should be able to formalize this logical necessity via a mathematical proof. But such a proof could only prove what it assumes in the first place as an axiom. So we are stuck with the axiom that a finite universe must have its fundamental basis in mathematics, but this ought-to-be fundamental basis isn't able to deliver what it should deliver out of itself: a mathematical basis (means proof) that it is the fundamental basis of a finite universe.

Therefore i consider the assumption that mathematics should have the ultimate priority when defining the most fundamental ingredient of our universe as highly questionable. I see the fact that mathematics cannot prove itself to be the ultimate truth as an indication that it has its fundamental limits. If so, the corresponding material reality should reflect this. Indeed, as you may know quantum mechanics reflects these limits. For example Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle has found to gain its fundamental validity not only due to the limits of accurate measurements, but as a matter of a natural principle (see for example https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095529.htm).

It is hard for me to reconcile the above results with mathematics as being the one and only ruler of the universe. Surely one can hopefully extrapolate the hitherto empirical successes of mathematics in science into the future. Surely one can assume, similar to Turing's halting problem, that every instance of it will necessarily halt in the future. But isn't this just a counterfactual assumption in the light of the Heisenberg's uncertainties, because due to the latter it cannot ever be proven to be empirically correct? What do we make out of an assumtion which is neither empirically nor mathematically provable - in principle - due to fundamental limits in both fields of investigation? My anser is that the question of what we until now assume to be the fundamental layer of reality (maths and determinism) may alter and enrich its meaning by refering it to its own fundamental limits.

Dear Author Ransford,

Thank you for warning me that you have no idea what reality am.

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

Rodney,

I read your essay with interest, but must disagree with your statement that "our universe is purely mathematical," suggesting that mathematics is somehow more real than the universe it describes. I may be admitting to feet of clay here, but from my perspective, the weakness in this argument is that, unless mathematics is to be entirely self-referential, there must be something on the other side of the equal sign. Those two little parallel lines mean a great deal. Mathematics is always in an adaptive-loop relationship, edging toward the equilibrium moment that signals conformity with some actual dynamic. The universe is its own best equation. Mathematics is at best a refined "stone rubbing" of that underlying reality.

Regards,

Don

Dear Mr. Foster,

The real visible Universe am not mathematical. 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 finite mathematical constructs are.

Joe Fisher, Realist

The author writes:

"...the question ' How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?' contains two markers of possible illegitimacy. The word 'mindless' is stated but not proven, and the phrase 'give rise' posits a stated but as yet unproven time sequence. There would be, for example, no a priori grounds to dismiss the remote possibility that, like humans and apes, both mathematical laws and mindful aims and intentions spring from an ultimately common source, rather than one from the other."

I took this question a different way. The principle of least action, for example, has no variables for representing intention, decision, information, possibilities, information channel, etc. Yet Richard Feynman has described a particle as "smelling" the possibilities in such a calculation, when the mathematics is "mindless" on this account. There is no "smelling" in the mathematical statements. But the idea is strongly intuitive for Feynman and he uses it.

Are there any categories of mathematics in which we could find such things as "goals," intentions," etc.?

Yes. Game Theory for example.

And-- there is another category where "information channel" is the central mathematical object. This is covered in Jon Barwise and Jerry Seligman's book "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems."

Relativity is a good example.

Water and air afford information channels for messages carried by sound. Applying this to space, the idea before Einstein was that the "aether" afforded a similar information channel, in the same way that water and air afford information channels.

But this does not work.

So the choice is either (a) give up on the idea that an information channel carries the message and signal from Einstein's clocks.

Or, (b) hold onto the principle of the information channel; but in relativity (and perhaps regarding intentions), look for an information channel to exist as something different from space.

That complex numbers can be used to model "possibility" allows me to take a next step (cf. An Overall Approach.)

An information channel comprises a system of parts, one part carrying information about another part. But in relativity, we cannot say that space is such a system. We have to expand the search.

Well, the wave function is a complex number. So say, for the moment, that there is a wave function for the Universe and that it is the system of possibilities we are looking for.

Then insofar as the wave function of a particle is part of the wave function of the Universe, the possibilities for, say, particle A can convey information about, say, the possibilities for particle B, by virtue of the system of possibilities (the wave function of the Universe) which now constitutes an information channel carrying information about possibilities from one particle to another.

Or, if you prefer something other than "wave function of the Universe," Bohm and Hiley's Holomovement also works as an information channel for broadcasting possibilities. (ibid. The Holomovement is a stream.)

Lee,

the light carries the information, as frequency and intensity.

Chris, I liked the way you clearly set out your arguments throughout. Your questioning of the question at the start was a nice introduction.

Hi, This essay is commended for trying to address the essay contest topic. However, I was not convinced by the arguments presented. In addition I thought that the essay presented a fallacy in the idea that mathematics exists independent of human beings who invented it. That is a Platonic concept and it has some severe problems in convincing people it is true. I wasn't convinced.

Hi Chris Ransford,

An excellent analysis on the FQXi question for the contest itself...

Can you please through some light on your words...."the evidence that the universe is indeed purely mathematical is overwhelming."

Have a look at my essay also...

Best