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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOW -- you do say a lot in a few pages, and the way you do your "idea flow charts" is brilliant. Your essay strikes deeply into the current metaphysical doldrums we have in modern physics and maths. Basically there is no room for the "beyond physics" since science (with maths) claims "everything" as its vantage point with no room for anything else even the "mind" (just about almost). And yes it is all about how B and C are handled -- are we free to "see" what is there or are we "slaves" to our "evolved cognition". Are there really only a prior "self evident truths" just sitting in our "minds" just waiting to be discovered in the way we relate to the "world out there" as in D. And why is falsification of inductive observations the key for us to understand nature. And then why do we feel deduction is "better" than "induction" since it is induction that gets us the "ideas" to do maths and science in the first place. There is something very odd about how we do things and your flowcharts, which assumes a temporal sequence of deductive inferences can be thought of as a "whole story" -- seems to have only inductive inferences supporting D. Maybe I'm looking at it too literally. A,B,C,D then we do some analysis and we get odd inference patterns in A*,B,C*,*-D where * means "nature" made us change our ideas and the minus sign means "our logic made us take it away" -- is that it! Can we take that step away --- what fills the void. Yes QM just might be "beyond" our cognitive skills and we will always have a "quantum of "this makes no sense"" in our science, since it is that "quantum" that makes us US. Maybe is what you are saying using other words (my take on your work at least). Why do we need to interrogate nature for our answers, is it because we think "nature" is totally free of the "mind" or the "inductive" so an inductive hypothesis can be turned into a deductive subject all based on axioms and maths reasoning. It is hard to know how to answer the child who says "How do we know that nature is honest in the first place when we ask it questions about its behaviour" there could be censorship from pillar to post, self-imposed by the mind's evolved cognition systems.

One thing that doesn't change is B our "cognition" but that is supposedly a result of an evolving process which we are still part of, (you kind of assume a fixed reference nexus for B static) in the changing landscape of "what is fundamental". One definition for fundamental is "that which doesn't change", our minds' eye in the flow chart, does change over time, maybe a feedback loop for B, might make point that point clearer -- why B doesn't change.

Is the mind hypothesis based on "induction" or "deduction" inferences. Are the world's fundamental concepts -- a set of inductions or a set of deductions -- very interesting essay. If it was 9 pages long my mind would be too full with ideas.

I have marked you highly (extra credit for being a philosopher we need more in science now to shake it up a bit LOL). Well done on showing us all how to do a short but very powerful essay. Cheers Harri. If you have time I have an essay in the competition as well. What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" where I do a bit of exploring of new outlandish ideas and see how I can put them into one story. The story is what is the "fundamental quanta" which I guess is "the area of the imaginary unit", it is very speculative in scope and reach (maybe too far in places) but it's fun to write an "almost" story sometimes for this competition. Mr H.

Dear Jack,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

It is so close to me. «In this article, I will argue that rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) must have a vitalrole when it comes to revealing fundamentals».

Read my message to the question of the anthology of Vladimir I. Rogozhin https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3001

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Hi Jack

I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

Rate it accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a related and short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

Silviu