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

Hi Stefan,

What is fundamental? I see it my business to ask whether or not so called no-go theorems may be questionable. In other words, are these claimed theorems and their interpretation in physics really fundamental or are they merely the fundaments of something called by Einstein's castles in the air?

I tried to explain without any emotion why I consider causality a most indispensable basis.

I am however disappointed if experts ignore my strict distinction between established theoretical constructs and what I defined in a previous essay as conjectured reality. Wigner's delayed choice gedanken didn't persuade me that it isn't reasonable to accordingly strictly distinguish between ideal past and ideal future in reality.

An ear is definitely not aware of the chosen reference point for time.

I consider this a most fundamental in the sense of undeniable fact, and I hope, at least you will agree on that.

Eckard

Flavio and Chiara--

I found your essay very interesting and stimulating. Although your essay is more rigorous and technical than mine, we actually cover some of the same ground and arrive at some similar conclusions (e.g. about the limits of reductionism). Also, in addition to being less formal, my essay argues for some conclusions that are a bit different than those you argue for here. I hope you will have a chance to read my essay and comment on it, I'd be interested in your analysis.

Meanwhile, I have a few brief comments on your essay to offer some (hopefully) constructive criticism. Regarding what you call "fundamental constraints," my issue is that I don't believe that we can establish those reliably. Historically, what seemed like a fundamental constraints in one time period was sometimes found to not be so--how can we know what we don't know? Regarding Popper, it's true that philosophers dispute his approach and that scientists typically quote him approvingly, but I disagree with the contention that scientists behave in accordance with Popper's dictums. If you examine what scientist do instead of what they say, you find very little to support Popper. For a more sophisticated alternative view, I think Polanyi was a much better thinker. On a related note, it seems like you are not taking into account at all the Quine-Duhem thesis and underdetermination more generally. Well, I'll leave it at those comments for now. Thanks.

Dear Flavio and Chiara,

Thank you for a beautiful essay and well done criticism of some of the current prejudices in science. I agree with most of your criticism, including of conventionalism, reductionism, the pop-Popperianism which pervaded much of current research. Not that I would find the current situation wrong, I think that it was expected (1) since we departed so much of the possibility to easily falsify our ideas, much of the gestation of a theory can inevitably be based much more on deduction and mathematics and less to physics than it used to be, and (2) we need to develop and explore so many possibilities to explain the world, that it is unavoidable that a large part of them would simply fail. These problems, along with the current pressure to publish, led to a very difficult situation. So it is important to go at least once in a while back to square zero and reconsider our methodology. Maybe I look a bit like devil's advocate of conventionalism, but I am not, I just try to understand the reasons of this situation. After all, despite a spread belief that Popper invented the scientific method, I think what he actually did was to describe it by looking at the most successful theories of that time, particularly special and general relativity. Since 100 years passed since then though, we should expect an improvement of the scientific methodology, but this didn't happen. By contrary, due to the current crisis, more and more voices advocate an evasion from Popper's demarcation. And it is in fact what already happened in practice.

I like the proposed solution, which you exemplified with no-go theorems about quantum mechanics and explained very well. In the previous edition, in my essay, I used these no-go theorems as illustration of what I meant by metalaws, not in the same way as you did though.

I like how you closed, "We have shown that the search for foundations is a dynamical process that aims at removing "philosophical prejudices" by means of empirical falsification." Of course, some may want to conclude from this that, to avoid "philosophical prejudices", one should avoid philosophy, but I would say by contrary. Even though some philosophers are caught themselves in some prejudices about various ideas in physics, and a handy example is the quote you gave from Feyerabend, who seems to adhere to a widespread idea among philosophers that the debate about the foundations of quantum mechanics was about determinism, when this was in fact just incidental. If he was right, then for those who accept indeterminism there should be no foundational issue in QM, but there still are.

Very good essay, I wish you success!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Interesting essay, but I have found something to object:

" forPopper, a statement is scientific if and only if it can be formulated in a way that the set of its possible falsifiers (in the form of single existential statements) is not empty"

I disagree because this misses the important distinction between particular statements and scientific theories. Particular statements are almost always unfalsifiable, to obtain falsifiable statements one needs complete theories, and (if one takes into account Quine's arguments for his holism) even a lot of different theories. Popper has discussed this somewhere in Conjectures and Refutations.

Then, there is no "impossibility of instantaneous signaling implied by both quantum formalism and special relativity". The impossibility is purely relativistic, non-relativistic QM has no limiting velocity.

"Indeed, a theory that would violate this condition allows for instantaneous signaling and it thus would mean a failure of the scientific method as we conceive it. It would be in principle not falsifiable"

This is wrong. Only a particular observation which falsifies relativity would not falsify this theory. The theory could make a lot of other falsifiable predictions. For example, such superluminal signaling would define a preferred frame. A natural falsifiable prediction would be that this is the CMBR frame.

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)