Dear Ian,

While there are quite a few interesting points that place strong constraints on the evolution of systems, the most important of them is convergence on macrostates of systems, such that other macrostates become nearly improbable. But there seems to be a confusion at certain point between microstates and macrostates. For example -

"The number of microstates that will produce a given macrostate is known as the multiplicity ...", which is still in line with, "The probability of a given roll (i.e. macrostate) is given by the multiplicity of that roll divided by the total multiplicity."

But on page 6 we find, "For realistic Einstein solids, the peak is so narrow that only a tiny fraction of microstates have a reasonable probability of occurring." Or, "This means that we can make highly accurate predictions of which microstates will occur given some initial input data." On page 8, "... regardless of how those energy units are initially distributed, over time the system will find itself limited to just a few possible microstates." Then again, "This is simply because a few microstates near equilibrium have an enormously higher probability of occurring than all the other microstates."

I wish to understand if I have missed something, or 'microstate' is just a typographical error.

Also, it appears, I did not fully connect the conclusion from the premise below. "As I said before, the behavior of a six-sided die is different from the behavior of an eight-sided die. So at the most fundamental level there has to be something non-mathematical in order to distinguish, for example, a quark from a lepton or even the number one from the number two." Is this conclusion based on the requirement that things should not have been different given mathematical laws? Since if the physical entities are different, then they interact differently, giving away their differences. Looks like, I certainly missed something here.

Rajiv

    Ian,

    Lovely essay, well presented and pertinent with some important truths but I have to suggest some key propositions are flawed.

    Your use of 'probability mass' was novel if rather cumbersome. Correct of course (I asked Marylin!) but a better and clearer Cardano 'sample space' was long ago derived which you rather muddy in re-inventing. Indeed even Wikipedia is wrong on this stating origins from the 1800's (Google 'Monty Hall'). Cardano was born in 1501.

    Applying sample space to 3-axis oscillations isn't so much an issue as wrongly assigning the outcome as "due to maths". Your; "almost entirely mathematical" is at least a small step back, and credit for; "After all, the mathematics refers to something physical." Which rightly contradicts the earlier error! I can see what you were getting at, but that thinking is what misled all the top maths PhD's to be embarrassed by Marylin dos Savant.

    I suggest, in line with probability theory, that ALL 'chance' can stem simply from a 50:50 coin flip or particle x axis orientation with respect to an interaction (all fermions in space and particles from a splitter either present North OR South poles to a detector/observer (D/O); 50:50 (unless modulated to a common direction in a field at the D/O) with MAX UNCERTAINTY AT A SPIN EQUATOR!

    We could then say your statement "the shifting of an energy unit from one oscillator to another. This microprocess is fundamentally random" is erroneous, but could also say it's correct IF the randomness is derived from the above at 50:50 (and think 'electron', or even; 'Majorana fermion'!). Which you should agree it can.(??)

    Now something new I propose; In 'OAM' there are TWO distinct momenta states (as Maxwell) which may be transferred on 'contact' (or absorption/re-emission). One is the UP/DOWN at the equator. The other is the 'curl' at the poles. These are then then orthogonal and vary 0 to 1 non-linearly by the cosine of the 'latitude' on the interaction point on the sphere surface (a fact you'll find hidden away in geophysics).

    I suggest your paper does get part of the way there, going rather off track, but then does give a pretty good overview of how QM can actually be derived deterministically (classically) down to a reducing fractal uncertainty.

    Of course your model doesn't raise cognative dissonance where a more Classic QM does, so will doubtless remain dismissed!

    I'd be interested in your views if you get a chance to study my essay better explaining the model and it's ('multi layer' space) derivation 'aims and intent'.

    Very Best

    Peter

      Hi Jim! Thanks for the feedback. Here's a link to a translation of Einstein's 1907 paper. It is fairly standard as a simplified model of solids and I'm treating it in the orthodox textbook manner.

      I do want to point out that I don't use quantum oscillators to give a deterministic approach to QM. I make no claims about the ultimate nature of QM. What I do is simply show that deterministic macrosystems can (and do) emerge from random microsystems. In other words, it is entirely possible that QM is random while classical physics is deterministic since this generally shows that it is possible for them to coexist, if you will (or for one to arise from the other).

      So while it is a highly simplified system and not really like reality, I state in my conclusion that I am simply pointing out that these simplified systems show that it is at least *possible* for deterministic systems to arise from random ones. Does reality work that way? I don't know, but the fact that even simple systems such as these can exhibit this kind of behavior would seem to suggest that more complicated systems, which have more constrained combinatorics, should exhibit similar behavior.

      Ian

      Yes, this is a typographical error. It should say `macrostates' in that line, not microstates.

      Dear Ian Durham

      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

      Not sure what you mean by "probability mass"? At any rate, I, again, am only attempting to be suggestive here. It's an intriguing line of inquiry to be studied and this is far from a definitive answer.

      Hmm. I replied to your comment but the reply seems to have disappeared. At any rate, I want to point out that I'm simply saying here that it is possible for QM to be random and yet for us to live in a largely deterministic universe on the macroscopic level, i.e. there's no disconnect or disjunction.

      Dear Ian,

      It's clear to me that randomness can represent a "back door" for free will to express itself (or himself) into our physical world.

      In my paper I suggest an experiment in order to check whether it is true and mesurable.

      Please, read my work and give me your opinion.

      You can find it here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2894

      Good luck,

      Claudio B. Borsello

      Ian,

      The 'probability mass' is invisible but remains in place in the '3 shell' game or 'Monty Hall problem' when one of the 3 shells NOT chosen is removed, leaving the one chosen and just ONE other. So;Q;

      1. Are your chances of having the correct shell of the two then 50:50?

      2. Are your chances IMPROVED if you switch choice to the OTHER remaining shell?

      If you had a Probability scientist in your faculty rather than just mathematicians he'd give you the correct and non-intuitive answer. You must SWITCH SHELLS to get a 50:50 chance!! (It's been proved irrefutably)

      Fundamentally that's Cardano's 'Sample Space', needing thinking outside the box the truck came in that delivered the boxes the crates that held the box came in. Intruiging indeed, but most suffer the effects of cognitive dissonance (CD) even trying so dive head first into the sand instead. But it's massively important for understandu ing nature, and is where the Classic solution to QM in my essay revealed itself.

      Can you overcome the CD to rationalise it?

      Best

      Peter

      I am well aware of the Monty Hall problem and its proper solution. And we do have someone who specializes in probability on our faculty. I have simply never heard that term before.

      Hi Ian,

      Thanks for the link. It looks like Einstein was four years ahead of Bohr in trying to apply Planck's constant to the atom. I've bookmarked the site and should the strange thing called free time show up, I might read other articles.

      Jim Akerlund

      Thank you of course I understood the essence of your paper. In a way you are 'saving the phenomena' - much easier than my rashly taking the tiger by the tail given my relative lack of knowledge in physics!

      Hello Mr Durham,

      Happy to see you again and your papper.

      Congratulations for this general essay.

      all the best from Belgium

      Dear Ian Durham

      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 Ian,

      I was amused by your author bio.

      But I'm sorry, I can't get past your definition of determinism: "we can define a deterministic process as being one for which the outcome can be predicted with certainty. To put it another way, a deterministic process is one for which there is only a single possible outcome." Surely, a deterministic process is one in which, because of the rules (e.g. law-of-nature rules), there is always only one logically possible outcome whether or not (for various reasons e.g. complexity) all logically possible outcomes of these rules can be predicted. Whether a process is deterministic or not has nothing to do with whether we can predict outcomes.

        "Is free will just an illusion? Does it require randomness or does it require it require determinism? The answers to these questions undoubtedly lie in a deeper understanding of the transition from quantum systems to classical ones." In order to understand quantum theory at a deeper level it might be necessary to identify the empirically valid interpretation of string theory. I have suggested to the string theorists that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

        Dark Matter or Modified Gravity - McGaugh, YouTube 2015

        The string theorists might be correct in saying that the equivalence principle is 100% correct -- in this case, my guess is that there exist MOND-chameleon particles. These hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. This weird hypothetical property might allow Milgrom's MOND to be approximately correct and to allow an APPARENT (but not real) violation of Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory. In any case, I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- based upon the empirical evidence which NOW exists.

          Dear Ian,

          Good to see you back here on the contest.

          Your proposition that deterministic sysytems can arise from pure randomness is interesting.

          When a "reality" emerges from the randomness of what I called Total Simultaneity it seems for the emergent agants in this reality most of the times deterministic because time (and so cause and effect) and space were introduced (emerged also) in this relity.

          In my perception it is also consciousness that is ordering the entropy of chaos (the randomness),. When consciousness is restricted by time it sems that the pst is always deterministic.

          Of course this is only a too short introduction of my essay "The Purpose of Life" and I hope that you can find some time to read/leave a comment/and give a rating.

          I rated you high because I learned from your essay for my next article, besides of that I cannot understand the "authors" that just give ONE's without even leaving a comment (I received 4 ones)....

          best regards

          Wilhelmus de Wilde

            Hi Lorraine,

            I think you have missed the point partly. I am simply proposing a set of axioms and seeing what can be accomplished via those axioms. They may not be the correct axioms. But you have to start somewhere. And my definition of determinism is the same as the one used by D'Ariano. I agree prediction is not necessary here. Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part since it does not necessarily require an agent, but the basic idea is that there are multiple possible outcomes, none of which is oreferentially more likely to occur than any other.

            Ian

            Thank you Wilhelmus! You make a very important point. Time and space must necessarily be emergent from any such fundamental system. I think most physicists would probably agree with that, though exactly how it does remains a bit of a mystery. It's something I've been grappling with for some time now.