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

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

Dear Jack H. James , you wrote a good essay, however, it was better if you were familiar with the New Cartesian Physics, where the fundamental is a space which according to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, is a matter and back matter is a physical space. Time is a synonym for universal total movement of the physical space. Thus, no more dualism between matter and space, between mind and body. Consciousness arises when a body appears the ability to create in space the image of the external world and to remember him for discernment and judgment. In the center of this image of the external world is the body that created it and which is actively positioning itself to prolong its existence. Descartes was a rationalist

New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there. FQXi Fundamental in Dizhechko by Boris Semyonovich

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Thank you, Jack H. James , I'm here to convince everyone to use the principle of identity of space and matter to develop a theory of everything.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Hi Jack,

So much philosophy, so little time!

My essay has a squadron of pigs doing barrel rolls! With pictures! Do check it out. Perhaps you can change hats and help me with an empirical methodology.

I did like you essay and I found a YouTube with E.J. Lowe

All the best,

Don Limuti

G'day Jack!

Criminal Law, eh. There's job security.

Would you say that your reliance on rationalism is in many ways in recognition that good law is good logic? That morals are to ethics, what ritual is to etiquette? That ritual is assigned to display the logic behind etiquette, so that those whom eschew the ethics of social etiquette might break fewer dishes if they come to dinner? That the Rule of Law, is a logical system of proofs intended to preserve as much as possible, that an individual has equal right as the Law itself to appeal to that system of logic in defense of one's own legitimacy of person, purpose, property, papers and affects (*note Affects). And that the challenge of any good Law Director is to assure that investigations follow strict logical rules of proofs, lest the miscreant have opportunity by council to evade interdiction in apprehension by plea to logical fallacies? And that experimental evidence must be qualified to the skeptical juror?

Cheers. Toronto John

Dear Jack,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

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