Demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations by Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli

Hi Flavio Del Santo

Hi Chiara Cardelli

Wonderful demonstration... "how the current scientific methodology entails a certain kind of research for foundations of science, which are here regarded as insurmountable limitations." to get to the foundations dears Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

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.

- 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

Best

=snp

Dear Flavio and Chiara,

What a lovely and insightful essay! We have reached remarkably similar conclusions. I have written more extensively in reply to your comments on my essay, "Reductionism Is Not Fundamental."

A few additional comments: I was especially impressed by your treatment of Bell-type theorems, which you have done very elegantly and philosophically. In addition, I read and studied your arXiv paper on the new no-go theorem, your ref. [30]. It is exactly the type of "outside the box" thinking that modern theory needs.

And Chiara, your algorithm for the correct folding of proteins is fascinating. It's neat that you can get a reasonable M just with directionality added to the toy blocks. Does adding additional characteristics of specific amino acids, such as the potential for hydrogen bonding, limit the value of M to one or a few "correct structures? Organic and/or biochemists should like your model, for they are adept at playing with realistic toy structures.

All in all, a very impressive piece of work.

Cheers,

Bill

Dear Flavio and Chiara,

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Your grasp of the topic is impressive and your essay is the most intelligent one I have read so far.

Throughout my years of education in physics, electrical and radiological engineering I have appreciated the fact that curriculum is presented in "a building block" fashion because it is easier to learn, but I agree with you that the search for foundations of science by "decomposition of systems in basic building blocks of Nature seems to lead to a dead end." I guess it is as one would expect. After all, when we stand on the structure of science (which was built on a foundation of these basic assumptions and models), and peer out at the landscape of unknowns and anomalies, it seems insane to chip away at the fundamentals. Doing so would quake the very structure that brought us to the higher perspective. Surely, the brilliant scientists who came before us tested the foundation, so perhaps we trust them out of respect or we fail to challenge them out of humility.

It is very difficult to publish a paper that challenges foundational concepts without knowing and addressing all of the most advanced theories and claims (I have tried). As you said, "Our fundamental theories look as they look also because they are derived under a certain underlying methodology." So there is a method to this madness and it is easy to be dismissed as a crackpot when proposing a new perspective.

You pose a very good question when you addressed the requirement to "avoid a violation of the bound imposed by the (finite) speed of light. But why is it so?" Yes, why is it so? The standard (authorized) answer is because the mass of the particle increases to infinity. But why is that? I think I have stumbled on the answer to that question. I can't explain it in this brief post, so I ask that you read my essay, "A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness" and tell me if you think my reasoning is sound on my page. Basically, the reason I think the speed of light is constant is because light is the fundamental reference - the only thing that is not moving. Everything physical in the universe is moving relative to something else. But the speed of light is not relative to its source, which makes no sense if light were actually moving. Do we actually measure the speed of light... or the speed at which darkness recedes?

Ted

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

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 must consist 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

A brilliant paper, thank you! You have demonstrated a rigorous process for challenging philosophical prejudices (what I refer to as articles of faith in "Faith is Fundamental") with empirical and theoretic falsification. You have specifically debunked the prejudice of non-directionality or, as I put it, the faith in randomness. Interestingly, although you have not discussed it, this specifically calls into question the key premises of the multiverse theory. I agree, and believe that a variety of scientific findings in the past century in physics, life sciences and complexity have increasingly demonstrated a directionality or purposefulness in the cosmic evolutionary process.

I would suggest however, that there are also logical constraints to the empirical enterprise. There are features of our universe that are self-referential, specifically invoking the logical limits of Godellian incompleteness. Under this constraint, there are categories of propositions that are not falsifiable. Certain things need to be accepted on faith - but we should be clear about our faith and humble about the possibility that we are wrong.

Many thanks - George Gantz

Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

Let me ask you about a very specific physics example to see if I am correctly understanding (part) of the intent of your essay:

Mathematically, regular space (xyz) and momentum space (pxpypz) are extraordinarily symmetric in terms of them being Fourier transforms of each other, and in terms of their importance in physics as alternative ways to formulate and interpret quantum mechanical wave functions. Momentum space shows up powerfully in phenomena as commonplace as mirrors and metals, for which conduction electrons form Fermi seas and are "more" in momentum space than in regular space.

Despite this symmetry, few physicists truly momentum space as being "real" in the same way as regular space. That is in no small part because we live in regular space, not momentum space.

For this very reason I think, theory level exploration of momentum space has been less intensive in comparison to regular space. There is no momentum space theory equivalent of general relativity, for example, and even the notion of time gets a bit odd due to energy being the proper conjugate of time for in momentum space.

A machine intelligence (more my area of expertise) in theoretical exploration mode would not view the situation in the same way, because it would have no inbuilt bias from living in regular space. It would instead take both spaces as equally real views of the universe, an assertion with which most quantum physicists would at least tacitly agree.

However, for a machine intelligence not interested in time, reputation, or other human biases, it would quickly notice an inexplicable imbalance of past research of issues in the two symmetric space, and then prioritize a major theoretical exploration of momentum space. In that exploration it would initially rely on dualism and complementarianism opportunities to build new ideas on the momentum space. It would use a game theory mode to fit the resulting tentative pieces of theory together into a larger self-consistent structure on the momentum space side. It would almost certainly uncover some interesting surprises during that reconciliation process, including new experimental predictions.

My apologies for such a detailed lead in, but I wanted to be as specific as possible in building up my example of what I think you are saying.

So, my question now is simply this:

Would this analogical expansion of spatial aspects of quantum theory into momentum space, by a machine intelligence with minimal human biases and time limits, be an example of the transition you show in Figure 1 in which the blue oval of doable theory exploration expands until it approaches the oval of red limits imposed by non-human, more fundamental constraints?

Sincerely,

Terry Bollinger

(essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099)

Flavio, thanks. Your response clearly answers my main question: I clearly do not have even a clue what you are really talking about! Yours is still one of the most cogent essays I've read here, though. Good luck --Cheers, Terry Bollinger

Flavio,

After re-reading your (for me) puzzling response, I should emphasize that the intent was that even for a tool as widely used as the momentum wave function, unconscious biases can inhibit the range of hypotheses generated. I used math symmetries as one of many possible sources of hypotheses, and I used the physics of spaces only as an example.

Cheers, Terry Bollinger

Here is a link to my essay.

"A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness by Theodore St. John"

I've only received 2 ratings so I'd appreciate it if you would rate it (I have rated yours).

Flavio,

I'm not sure our views are all that different? What I call foundation messages in my essay (topic 3099), by which I mean the invariant realities imposed by the universe independently of anything we as human think or say, do not seem to be much different from your foundation constraints. The main difference in our approaches is that I suggest using an information-theory approach to uncovering and discarding human biases. That has the advantage of transforming them into "noise" with quantifiable metrics. Human self-examination in contrast is always a tricky business, and I say that as someone who knows the state of human cognition research pretty well (it was part of my day job).

The best example in your essay of falsifying a philosophical stand is John Bell's inequality. But ironically, in Speakable and Unspeakable Bell asserts that he was able to derive his inequality only through the clarity of thought provided by his own version of the pilot wave model, which was both local and deterministic. Implementation of your strategy thus would seem at least partially dependent on having a vibrant complex ecology of diverse but individually biased researchers with enough enthusiasm (and luck) to create such tests.

Finally, your paper (ref 30) on one-particle, two-way correlation is pretty fascinating. I gather it requires a conventional c-limited channel to validate the correlation.

Cheers, Terry

Dear Flavio Del Santo

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Flavio and Chiara,

Certainly we must make clear that searching for the fundamental involves "Demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations." Even the dominate theories like the Big Bang and the Standard Theory must be taken as theories and not override what the process of discovery focuses on as your reductionism and methodology sections point out. As my essay develops I point out the same cautions but not as emphatically as you do. Many times the expectations of looking for habitable exoplanets are constrained by the solar system we know. The Jupiter probe -- I pointed out -- revealed surprises to scientists. Your biophysics sections touched on bio studies that might not have seen the discovery of quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent systems such as plants in photosynthesis. Hope you get a chance to check mine out. Your essay rates highly in clearly showing the unencumbered road to fundamentalism.

Jim Hoover

Dear Flavio,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. Your invited me to read your essay and compare and contrast. It's difficult for me to summarize in a few words. My last essay, The Nature of Mind, offers nine pages that address the issue of intuition, which you appear down on. You seem to lump determinism and absolute simultaneity, local realism and conservation laws into the same category of 'prejudice'. My current essay argues for absolute simultaneity, and I elsewhere argue for local realism, while I have a more nuanced view of determinism, and I have argued against conservation as a consequence of symmetry, as all symmetries I am aware of are approximate.

I recently watched a YouTube discussion between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia, a goodly portion of which dealt with Derrida, Foucault, and other deconstructionists and radical relativists. For a number of reasons I feel this nonsense is beginning to infect physics, probably because physics is chaotic in the extreme, based (in my opinion) on fundamental false assumptions and prejudices that have endured for about a century, both in relativity and QM.

Once one discards intuition, one is left with 'word hash', combining words/equations in 'narratives' [see Gibbs essay] and having no idea how to discriminate reality from story. My current essay focuses on one non-intuitive narrative, while previous essays address other such instances. As you spend quite a bit of time on Bell I will address Bell.

You refer to Bell's theorem as "momentous no-go theorem" and spend a couple of pages on his logic. If you look at his first paper, his first equation determines the outcome: A = +/-1, B = +/-1, where A and B are measurements on Stern-Gerlach. This is based on the (prejudiced) assumption of quantum qubits. You clearly state that QM provides only probabilistic predictions. Many-body experiments on spin yield qubit outcomes, as should be expected. Stern-Gerlach does not yield qubit outcomes but smeared results that match 3D spin dynamics in an inhomogeneous field. However Pauli's mathematical projection of qubit mechanics: O|+> = +|+>, O|-> = -|-> is Bell's prejudiced assumption of reality. In other words Bell claims to look for a classical (local variable) description of Stern-Gerlach, but then constrains the problem to quantum results based on the mathematical projection of Pauli, not on the empirical results of Stern-Gerlach.

Feynman later put the final nail in this coffin by assuming that his favorite two-slit photon experiment could be carried over directly to a two-slit spin analog (the SG experiment). Of course the same equations apply, because he's making the same mathematical projection, but the actual physics of the photon in two-slits is vastly different from the physics of atoms in a homogeneous magnetic field, and Feynman's extended SG model has never been tested.

Since Feynman and Bell's math and logic have been accepted as gospel, local realism has been excluded from physics. A no-go theorem based on atoms in a magnetic field, constrained to never-tested single-qubit spin results, is then "proved" by photon-based experiments which actually do produce two-state results: on/off detections.

I repeat - the entire industry is based on the erroneous assumption that the results of the Stern-Gerlach atomic experiments are +1 and -1 deflections, "tested" by photonic experiments that use +1 and 0 detections. The atomic data produced by Stern-Gerlach clearly conflicts with Bell's initial assumption, but instead of trying sophisticated tests of Stern-Gerlach using modern technology the whole entanglement industry is based on 1922 experiments that clearly do not yield +1 and -1 results. The confusion of 1920s quantum mechanics is locked in. Here is your fundamental 'prejudice'.

My suggestion is if one wishes to 'deconstruct' physics, look for the basic assumptions that violate intuition and that lead to nonsense. Of course that is dangerous for those toiling in the establishment, so generalizations are preferred.

This is how I would contrast your approach with my approach.

Good luck in the contest and in your careers.

Edwin Eugene Klingman