The Logical State of What Underlies our Reality by Marcel-Marie LeBel

Dear Marcel-Marie,

Once you discover that reality has structure and that this structure has a fairly simple foundation. then you want to discover and explore that foundation. This is what the Hilbert Book Model project does.

See: The Incredible Story About the Reality; http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0033

Hans, retired physicist

Marcel-Marie LeBel,

After reading your essay - I think you may be interested in reading mine...

The Day after the nightmare scenario - Scott S Gordon

Dear Marcel-Marie,

I read your essay with great interest. A very important conclusion:

"Many arguments presented above require further demonstration. A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the "how" side of physics helping us stay in line."

I believe that this requires constructive dialectical logic (in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa - "coincidence of opposites", "coincidence of the minimum and maximum") and a deeper constructive dialectical ontology.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

You wrote: "One could ask how well we understand the universe."

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Marcel-Marie Lebel,

It's great to see you back in the contest. I've always felt that your 2009 essay "Physics stops were natural metaphysics starts" is one of the best of the hundreds of FQXi essays over the last decade. Your definition of truth as absence of choice, and use of this definition to develop logic is simply superb. Then, as now, you argue that one 'substance' exists by itself; the same point is made in my 2009 essay. This is where we diverge. You believe this 'substance' is time; I believe the substance is gravity. We both are faced with the problem of evolving our universe as we know it from this basic substance. That has, in one way or another, been the focus of many of my essays.

My current essay addresses the non-intuitive concept of "the relativity of simultaneity". If the universe is happening now, I believe that 'now' must mean universal simultaneity. Having spent much of this year reviewing the history of special relativity (and Einstein's later 'second thoughts') I conclude that an energy-time interpretation of (clock-based) reality is preferred to the 'space-time symmetry' interpretation, and remains compatible with relativistic particle physics of the twentieth century.

Einstein claims "there is no space absent of field" which seems to place 'field' as the fundamental substance, leaving 'space' as an abstract category of 'empty container'. Of course Einstein mixes time and space as a 4D-entity while Hertz and others imply 3D-space plus 1D-time.

You quote Unruh as presenting 'time' as something that does exist by itself. He notes "gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places...". This, and his following remarks are based on space-time symmetry. In my view it is the idea of time as measured by 'perfect clocks' that is in error. Time flows equably, not faster some places, slower others. Local energy of moving systems does however vary from place to place, and since clocks count cycles and thus measure energy, (since E ~ freq) then it is false to conclude, as is done, that

"We know that time does run slower closer to the ground."

This is the standard GR-based misinterpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment. It leads to all the space-time symmetry paradoxes of SR. The universe 'happens' at the same rate everywhere, but local vibrations are energy dependent and vary from place to place.

I agree that your essay is far too profound for a casual look, and it is impossible to compare the interplay of logic and gravity, versus your treatment of logic and time, in a comment or even a number of comments. I do very much enjoy your thinking, and always love your essays.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Deconstructing previous theories is pretty hard work. Reconstruction is just as hard.

My essay was about constructing or revealing a totally new vision, as much as possible free of the concepts that are either not well defined or obviously the result of our own perception.

So, I traveled into a new domain, obviously ignored, trying to lay out the foundations of its principle concepts and basic rules of logic. This domain is about understanding logically what things are made of and what cause is behind spontaneous evolution, i.e, what the universe is and does.

The rest of it, the metric part, is on a "need to know only" basis, for us sentient beings to be able to DO something with elements of our reality.

So, this domain is about explaining logically what is and happens in every point ... before we consider all these points and events grouped together as our reality, and ask pretty much the same questions...

All the bests,

Marcel,

Dear Marcel-Marie,

maybe no pick is needed when time is regarded as deviation from expectation and hence as a measure of entropy.

There is a low-contact micro-culture of Amazon-Indians having no concept of time whatsoever. They cannot make sense of the concept, because they are very close to what we call 'one with nature'. Living since many generations in their tiny territory, there is nothing left that could cause deviation from expectation. Their language, one might say, has anticipated their environment, i.e. the phenomena. What then should time be good for?

When very little happens (very little deviation from expectation) time creeps along. We modern time-addicts can hardly stand such situations.

When much remains to be arranged before close of office, time begins to fly.

When too much remains to be arranged before close of office, things are getting chaotic, meaning that it is no longer obvious in which way to act, because things are becoming less 'thingy'.

Next, a Neanderthal man (don't ask me where to get one) substituting another player in a soccer team would fail to understand what's going on here, for he would merely see people dressed in different colors rushing all over the field, forth and back, sometimes ahead of a single (how stupid!) leather bag, sometimes behind. To him soccer would appear as psychologically alarming behavior.

And finally, let's try to mentally get into the midst of an earthquake of force 9 on the Richter scale: pipes exploding from walls, windows crashing, book shelves rocking across the room spilling their contents; floors and ceilings bending like rubber before breaking into parts; abysses opening up and closing in the streets, swallowing cars, trees and pedestrians; fire everywhere and whole buildings collapsing to the ground; causality and gravity suspended; above, below, left, right, forward, backward, fast and slow having lost any meaning. No phenomena, no things, no existence anymore - only change, pure event, pure deviation from expectation, the explosion of time!

Heinrich

Dear Marcel-Marie,

Thanks for your post on mine, though I wonder if you gleaned it's meaning & implications as you didn't critically comment. I'll try to do so on yours. I found it a lovely piece of writing with mainly well conceived and argued fundamentals, the two main ones which I also entirely agree with, and agree their import.

For me though it all rather seemed to fall down and loose incisiveness when you invoked Bill Unruh's 'Time' concept as the central tenet. Agreement to theory isn't what we're scoring, and I'll be prejudiced as I argued the simplest relative motion (in time of course) as that 'first cause'. The difference was that while yours remained philosophical with no apparent useful science mine led to real physical solutions to paradoxes, incompatible findings & interpretations. (Of course that doesn't mean you're 'wrong!)

I entirely agree the logic of cyclic cosmology. Indeed I've published (jointly with J Minkowski) on it (HJ & Academia) and identified how that itself resolved a gamut of inconsistencies in out present model (your ref 6 is very incomplete. link on request)

I noted 'excluded middle' in p6 margin, then saw it on p8. You'll know ALL logical systems still ultimately end in paradox (& not just Russel's) and I've identified (earlier finalist essay) the 'excluded middle' assumption as the cause, positing a 'Law of the REDUCING middle' which is a (Bayesian, Gaussian, Quantum etc) sine curve distribution. (That's also what nature does to sharp square 'binary waves' even in fibre optic cables!). That was part of the journey to unified & Classic QM. (see Declan Trail's essay, presently top, modelling my ontology).

So a very good essay also compatible with my own thoughts but, for me, taking a wrong turn with time (though someone had to try it!) and, inevitably I think, getting rather lost in the ether. However you did recover it very nicely in the conclusions. Currently undervalued but a good score is likely on the way. (I hope you don't get hit with the 1's as mine has!)

Very best of luck

Peter

Hi Marcel,

I liked your essay, you made some important points. I've heard some scientists that asking "why" is meaningless for science, and we should ask instead "how". But you proved the value of asking "why".

Best regards,

Cristi

Marcel,

your essay is dense and stimulating. Not only Aristotle, but also Spinoza would have liked it! Very interesting is the attempt to reconcile the (mainly empirical) explanation of "how" with that one (mainly logical and philosophical) of "why". Science cannot do without either of them. It remains to be established how "two different approaches that are mutually exclusive, but complementary" can be integrated.

All the best,

Giovanni

Hello Marcel-Marie;

You have presented a very beautiful logical framework for the study of the ontological origins of the observed reality. I agree with your observation that "This "ontological" gap in our knowledge of the universe consists in not knowing what type of "substance" constitutes its existence and what type of "cause" is behind its spontaneous evolution".

One of the main pitfalls of the present approach of physical sciences is that it is trapped in underlying traditional conceptions that are not applicable for the study of reality at the submicroscopic level, and in mathematical formalism based on ill defined concepts. As you put it: "the present fundamental ontological consideration must put aside all of our reality and start with the essential logical requirements for some substance to exist"

On the other hand, when you say: "A "substance" is some stuff that exists by itself. When the observer (we) interacts with the substance, it creates in us an "experience""; although I agree with that definition of substance, I think that there is a long road between the Fundamental Substance and the possibility of interaction and observation. In the following schemes I summarize what I mean by this.

Finally, it would have been very good if you had used the same logical frame you developed to discover and understand "Substance and Causality" to establish a set of rule to determine what is and what is not Fundamental.

With admiration and respect;

Diogenes