How to Empirically Confirm a Rational Theory of Fundamentals by Jack H. James

Jack James

Essay Abstract

Rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) will have a vital role when it comes to revealing fundamentals. However, empirical confirmation will still be available- but not in the way (and where) we currently promulgate. This article offers insight into an empirical alternative to direct quantum experimentation.

Author Bio

I recently completed a PhD in Philosophy at the University of New England (Australia). I currently facilitate the 'philosopher.io' website, and work in criminal law.

Download Essay PDF File

Scott Gordon

You made two statements that rings true...

1) Rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) will have a vital role when it comes to revealing fundamentals.

2) We must approach the problem of fundamentals from the empiricism we do have available, not the one we can't probe.

Correct me if I am mis-interpreting, but is what you are saying that philosophical thinking is the only way to expose the fundamental aspects of reality which is conveyed in the field of physics? And then we have to use the knowledge that is available to hypothesize the starting fundamentals with no obvious direct link as to how we came up with them... So long as we can derive from the hypothesized fundamentals our current knowledge? I like IT!!! But by whom or what group will be able to accomplish finding the correct fundamentals? Great input from philosophy angle.

Jack James

Thanks Scott, I appreciate your comments. Yes, metaphysics of the E.J Lowe kind empirically confirmed by evolved cognition, pre-consciousness. Metaphysics becomes physics through brain science. So metaphysicians and theoretical physicists work with evolutionary neuroscientists to arrive at fundamentals.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Jack, I read your essay with interest. It is clearly set out and easy to read too.

I like that you conclude with suggesting the way forward is multidisciplinary. I agree because we are human beings investigating the universe and so our ways of doing that are 'bound up with' what we find.That is, the findings pertain to the specific context of the investigation or observation to find them, that provide singular values or states.

More on that in my comment, on comments for "No rule without an exception, except this rule." Stefan Weckbach. Thanks for sharing you thoughts on how to progress with us. Kind regards Georgina

Georgina Woodward

Perhaps I should add that I agree that philosophy and metaphysics is very important. Providing the framework, with the correct relations of the different parts of physics, that can then be expressed with mathematics. Georgina

Jack James

Thankyou Georgina Woodward for your kind comments. I agree with your sentiment re metaphysics, and I think E.J Lowe was pretty close to the mark in terms of their placement relative to each other. See this summary if you are interested here. Thanks, Jack

Sue Lingo

Hi Jack...

I am unable to concisely differentiate what may be critical sematic distinctions within the essay... e.g. rational/cognitive/consciousness... but I applaud your symbolic compression format, and if I have correctly interpreted the content, we seem to be meandering toward the same conclusions... i.e. there is requirement of, and potential for, evolved individual rational/cognitive/consciousness.

I agree that cognitive abilities are emergent, but I also have observed cognitive emergence can be individualized rather than speciel.

That is to say that utilization of Pi*R sq. is not indicative of the cognitive ability to derive Pi*R sq., nor is deriving Pi*R sq. indicative of the cognitive ability to discern the initial requirement for Pi*R sq.

Hmmm??... is it possible that ET's could be Metaphysical Energy enhanced humans... i.e. humans that have achieved a structural change in consciousness, and utilizing empiricism of an "evolved cognition", have installed the Star Trek Replicator app on their mental desktop?

If one acknowledges other than Physical Energy phenomena/processes, ENERGY PROCESSES become hieratically fundamental to PHYSICAL and METAPHYSICAL in the Knowledge Base (KB) directory tree... i.e. Energy mechanix are no longer constrained to a PHYSICAL/ENERGY Knowledge Base (KB) directory configuration.

Physical limits on empirical analysis of Energy have and will continue to necessitate reliance on rational/cognitive abilities in order to develop a priori to revised KB codec/translator... i.e. a Physically unverifiable minimum unit of Energy (QE) must be conceptually/mathematically defined in terms of a Physically unverifiable minimum unit of Space (QI).

That is to say that a solution to a Unified Unit Quantization of a Spherical Singularity geometry must be resolved.

Utilizing rational/cognitive clues... i.e. the codec/translator geometry solution must support mathematics for a continuous pulsed Emission and Distribution of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) equal in all Spatial directions from a single point source... a Unified Unit Quantization of a Spherical Singularity geometry has been resolved, and it yields minimum units of Space/Energy/Time as CAD/SIM Information.

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Utilizing resolved Singularity geometry to quantize a CAD/SIM environment, as a codec/translator, virtual empirical analysis is now being conducted on Metaphysical Energy choreography mechanix.

Utilization of virtual empirical analysis, in which minimum units of Space (QI) and minimum units of Time (QT) reveal Energy choreography Information... i.e. a Space/Energy/Time/Information digital model... has verified a fundamental Energy principle underlying both Physical and Metaphysical phenomena, facilitating Energy process application upgrades to both empirical and rational/cognitive analysis.

Thanks Jack, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

Will be back to rate when I get a chance to read as many as I can before deadline.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Jack James

Thanks for your kind comments Sue Lingo. I will think on them, and also read your entry. Good luck,

Jack

Edwin Klingman

Dear Jack James,

You argue that rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) must have a vital role when it comes to revealing fundamentals. It is hard to find 'pure' cases (without experiential input) but I examine a case wherein a null result led to a theory based on pure reasoning, with the result that unreasonable assumptions (multiple time dimensions) took hold and have endured for a century.

Your point C discusses "our rational theories matching our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality". In the case of special relativity, our evolved cognitive perception of reality was that of universal time as universal simultaneity. Einstein's assumptions, upon which he rationally based his theory, led to conclusions that contradicted our evolved cognitive perception of reality. It's a real ball of wax.

Interestingly, an alternative rationale leads to the same mathematical result (the Lorentz transformation) by an entirely different path while yielding a theory that does match our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality. The difference is based on careful analysis of "perfect clocks".

The empirical confirmation offered by relativistic particle physics confirms the applicability of the Lorentz transformation without contradicting either the space-time symmetry of SR or the energy-time asymmetry of the 'real world' (one time dimension)-based theory.

I'm uncertain what the relevance of this is to your analytical approach, but it seems to provide a 'test case' for you to apply your approach to.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. My sense is that your approach is a reasonable take on a difficult problem.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Cristinel Stoica

Hi Jack,

So short essay with so much content! I like your proposal "A Rational theory of quantum fundamentals", and in general I support giving rationalisms, in particular wrt quantum foundations, a much more weight in theoretical physics and philosophy of physics. Perhaps this is the reason why, in my previous essay The Tablet of the Metalaw, I used the quote by Kurt Gödel, "I don't believe in empirical science. I only believe in a priori truths". Now of course theoretical physics has to be completely informed by and submitted to falsification of experiments. But indeed we have currently still much work to do in order to understand the experimental data and to put it on a really solid and consistent mathematical foundation, let alone to understand the foundation from physical point of view. So, despite the apparent end of physics announced by some recent thinkers because of the inflation of theories and mathematical models (in particular in quantum gravity, particle physics, and foundations of quantum mechanics), I think that these should be researched rationally until they reach maturity, and only then let the experiment make the selection. Of course, a better way is to separate general principles and keep only those consistent with experiments and use them in the multitude of models, but with caution, to not throw the baby out with the water. Good luck in the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Jack James

Thankyou for your kind commemts Cristi. I agree with your comments. To be perfectly honest the idea presented is crazy. In one way its an empirical idealism- the brain empirically in its construct holding the answer to what is fundamental. This idea goes against most thing's i am inclinded to say are true, But its just so counter-intuitive and unique that i had to put it up here. Thanks for reading.

Best

Jack

Joe Fisher

Dear Jack H. James,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Peter Jackson

Jack,

Nice job, valid, well written & argued. With the intellectual failure to unravel anything and increasing reliance maths some decades ago Metaphysics & Philosophy were somewhat 'purged' from physics leaving it in the wilderness. Vladimir Rhogozin's essay also firmly supports yours.

However I don't think you've read many of last years essays which seem to demonstrate rather more is possible that you suggest. i.e. see mine. I also hope you'll read mine this year, identifying an apparent classical mechanistic reproduction & ontology for QM (see also Declan Trails which has a matching code and plot of the results giving the magical CHSH >2). Though of course those with current doctrine embedded to abandon it without a lot of objection!

Thank you for yours. A very nice read. I could have well coped with more but you said it all well!

Best wishes

Peter

Jack James

Thanks for your kind comments Peter. I will indeed check out your essay. I am glad to hear that more is possible in terms of empirical investigation, and look forward to seeing it.

Best,

Jack

Satyavarapu Gupta

Hi Jack H. James

How to Empirically Confirm a theory based on pure reasoning without experiential input.... ? It is very tough, I am also struggling with 'Dynamic Universe Model' on similar grounds started about 35 years back. But at last many experimental verifications came slowly..... Some more predictions exist still now................

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-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 GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

Best

=snp

Jack James

Thanks SNP

Excellent thoughts you provide, I like the totality of your views across all domains. Good luck with your essay.

Best,

Jack

James Hoover

Jack,

You say, "Some would suggest that the human brains quantum elements are as unknowable as quantum reality (of course!). But this argument misreads the ontological structure presented in terms of what B and A invite. A is one of quantum operation, not the cognitive empiricism that validates it in B."

Is the quantum operation what neuroscientists call the electrical activity in the brain preceding a conscious decison? Does that constitute your "rational theory of quantum fundamentals"? In my essay, I see fundamental as evolving with discovery due to experiments and study. Does that mean that cognitive reality alters or catches up with rational theory and quantum reality changes? I must admit that my grasp of philosophy is weak. Hope you get a chance to check out my ideas as well.

Interesting essay.

Jim Hoover

James Rose

Jack James, Fascinating. You replying to Christi Stoica that you assess your own paper's ideas as 'crazy', but that you thought it worthwhile to propose them anyway.

I suppose it's because you use a definition of rationalism that is uniquely different from common meaning. "Experience" is generally defined as: 'having knowledge or skill from observation or participation'. Where as you write that Rationalism is educed from 'pure reasoning without experiential input'.

A true Quantum Mechanical superpositioning of mutually exclusive states, now assigned to existential logic. ... as Mr.Spock's character would intone ... "Interesting!"

I presume you might want to further develop your self proclaimed 'crazy' hypothesis using probabilities in a follow-up paper, rather than Aristotelian categories, as you developed in the current one. (Just a thought :-) )

The one problematic issue that I think you might encounter, is that ... ideas, notions, logic ... self arising without benefit of some real event basis ... would necessarily have to include relevant properties of flying pigs, breathing in a vacuum, weight without mass, etc. The wonderful list of 'realism logic' entities - and their qualities (being potentially "fundamental" - relevant to them) - would far outstrip the smaller list of observed and actually interacted with .. data.

That would skew the weight of 'real fundamentals' against independent evidence ... discovered properties after observation/encounter. And 'reproducable' would no longer have to be a verification criteria.

hmmmmm. I think I agree with your self assessment.

James Rose

Jack James

I agree! Close to aristotles categories yes, im writing an article on those atm actually.

Though in regards to your last point there wouldnt be empirical evidence of flying pigs etc. In the full tranlation mentioned they would have a seperate place. Thanks for indulging in this crazy idea!

Best

Jack

Luca Valeri

Hi Jack,

I love your essay, although I could not follow all of it. But the question of empirical confirmation (or falsification) of fundamental theories is a problem. And is not specific to quantum mechanics. We expect from a fundamental theory, that it provides its own theory of observation. But then the theory as a whole seems circular and it is not evident at all how it can be falsified. Certainly your steps B and C play a crucial role.

What I did not clearly understand is the role of A. My essay indicates the possibility to have a general theory of observable physical properties. Such a theory as a general theory (very much as maybe abstract quantum mechanics) would have the role of the condition of the possibility of empirical experience. So is itself a rational construct, but would enable the possibility of observation of physical properties. Could the 'rational theory of quantum fundamentals' A be thought as such a thing?

Best regards,

Luca

Jack James

Thanks Luca.

To answer your last question it certainly sounds like it. I think a purely rational theory of our minds proofed in empirical brain science -so we find the fundamental core of our reductive mind- will be the quantum solution.

Best

Jack

William McHarris

Dear Jack,

I liked your essay. It contains a lot of profound ideas in a small space. I have written a more lengthy reply to your comments on my essay. It concerns how philosophers might handle nonlinear logic.

Again, thanks for your comments and for a fine essay.

Bill