Dear Flavio,

Looking back thru our thread...

"I just finish to read your essay, trying to figure out whether I could find there the answers to these misunderstandings on the empirical content, but I didn't. I will comment on the contents of your essay on the dedicate thread, though."

If you have intent to follow up on this, you might find it easy and expedient to check out this brief thread on renormalization in the Linkedin quantum physics group.

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/1892648/1892648-6368178828442890243?midToken=AQGj9NsuXko5pw&trk=eml-b2_anet_digest_of_digests-hero-12-view~discussion&trkEmail=eml-b2_anet_digest_of_digests-hero-12-view~discussion-null-otwg3~jdlyv0eh~d5-null-communities~group~discussion&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Aemail_b2_anet_digest_of_digests%3BN95EpJmZQRi3L5YoO7TdpA%3D%3D

Dear Flavio,

wow, this is a great essay!

"At a naive stage of observation, our intuitive experience leads to the conviction that concepts the likes of determinism, absolute simultaneity, local realism, conservation laws (e.g. of parity) were a priori assumptions of scientific investigation. What it turns out, however, is that there is in principle no reason to pre-assume anything like that: they are mere "philosophical prejudices"."

I couldn't agree more. I've been holding this view for a long time, but you here express it, and argue for it, in a brillant way that I've never seen it before. Relating it to Popper, and illustrating it by example of quantum mechanics and biophysics (!) is really an excellent way to explain it.

There is another aspect to this insight that I'd love to discuss with you at some point. Namely, I think that it is just *a lot of fun* to "demolish philosophical prejudices" and to find that nature is different from what we thought in surprising and fascinating ways. I'm really wondering why large numbers of physicists and, in particular, philosophers devote their lives to finding a way to go back to the old prejudices (e.g. trying to build a naively realist interpretation of QM etc.). What do they find so attractive about that?

Anyways - congrats for a great essay!

Markus

Flavio, Chiara,

You raise some important issues, which could be considered in other fields as well.

Cosmology, for instance, has totally ignored Popperism, as any gap between theory and observation is filled with some enormous new force of nature and all non-cosmologists assume some great discovery has been made, not that any underlaying theory has been falsified.

Before Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy there was a patch incorporated into the original assumption of an expanding universe, when it was discovered the redshift of all those distant galaxies were directly proportional to distance and this created the effect that we appear to be at the center of this expansion. So then it was argued that it wasn't simply an expansion within space, but of space, based on the premise of Spacetime. Which totally overlooks the essential fact of GR, that the speed of light will always be measured as a Constant. If light is taking longer to cross an expanding cosmos, in order to be redshifted, obviously it is not Constant to the ruler of that frame. Two metrics of space are being assumed from the same intergalactic light. A stable one, based on the speed of that light, as well as an expanding one, based on the spectrum. Since C is treated as the denominator, even the cosmologists must instinctively sense the theory is nonsense.

Now we are at the center of our view of the universe, so an optical effect might be well worth considering. If this effect compounds on itself, it would explain the parabolically increasing rate of redshift, without need for Dark Energy. Also beyond the point all radiation is shifted off the visible spectrum, we would still be getting it in the radio spectrum, thus the CMBR. Which would be the solution to Olber's paradox.

As for philosophical prejudices built into our models, the issue of time is of primary concern. While we experience reality as flashes of cognition and so think of time as the point of the present, "flowing" past to future, which physics does codify as measures of duration, between events, it is actually change turning future to past. As in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns.

This makes time an effect of action, much like temperature. Duration is the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve.

The real reason time is asymmetric is because it is a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both. There is no underlaying dimension, as past and future do not physically exist. Energy is "conserved," because it is always and only present.

Good luck on your endeavors and pray your generation of scientists do spend too much of your careers chasing the chimeras of prior generations.

Regards,

John B. Merryman

    Dear John, Flavio, Chiara,...

    love the way dialogs evolve in the fqxi competition/collaboration format.

    Came back to 'Demolishing Prejudices' to reply to a different thread and got caught by 'Do NOT spend...'. Being closely related to oppositional defiant disorders, i was immediately in.

    takedown of cosmology and inflation is excellent, thank you. That it leads to classifying redshift, accelerating expansion, anomalous radial dependence of galactic rotation,... as 'optical effects' gives a nice little perspective shift. Suggests to me that until we understand how quantum gravity is related to the photon the 'Do NOT spend...' injunction is well advised.

    staying with the optical effect for a moment, in particular to have an understanding of what goes on in the near field at the Planck length in photon emission and absorption seems essential in quantum gravity.

    I like what is said about time, that it emerges from 'action', or more precisely from inter-actions. Pauli vacuum wavefunction is that of the geometric objects of 3d space - point, line, plane, and volume elements of geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra. No time there.

    Interaction of two wavefunctions can be modeled by geometric product of Clifford algebra - sum of inner (dimension lowering) and outer (raising) products. Inter-action generates the 4D Dirac algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime. Time emerges from interactions of the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction.

    Peter,

    I'll have to read your entry when I get back from work. I did address Dark Matter as well in my own entry. That possibly gravity is the entire spectrum of wave collapse, starting with the photon effect, so that mass is more an effect of gravity, then that gravity is a property of mass. So the Dark Matter effect is due to it extending throughout the radio and light spectrum.

    Think of galaxies as cosmic convection cycles and mass is precipitating inward, as radiation expands out.

    I could take this relationship much further, such as society being the dichotomy of social and biological energies expanding out, as cultural, political and civil structures contract inward. Remember we evolved entirely within this thermodynamic environment and so it makes sense to consider it might also permeate every aspect of our existence.

    Dear Flavio,

    I see two points in your most recent reply,

    the first asserting the most physicists are naive regarding fundamental entities and their 'simple' interactions, and that what is truly fundamental as revealed by your philosophical musings is 'constraints', and

    the second opting for the philosopher's 'realism' rather than exploring the underlying physics.

    regarding the first, imo it is a gross simplification of the creative process by which the physicist explores meaning in the physical world, and find the manner in which you present it superficial and alien to my own process of discovery and the physics it has revealed.

    regarding the second, my objection is to using the phrase 'violation of local realism' to describe non-locality. This abuse of the language has its origins in a combination of both historical and present day ignorance regarding the wavefunction and its interactions, as made clear by the persistence of point particle models in the world of the physicist and the proliferation of wavefunction interpretations in the philosopher's world. There is no violation of reality, of realism, no violation of causality, of special relativity. There is only a property of the wavefunction that is not clearly understood.

    Just as the phrase 'gauge' has been unfortunately substituted for 'phase' in QM, thereby obscuring the foundations of gauge theory and gauge invariance for the beginner and placing a fundamental constraint on the specialist's prejudices

    So has the conceptual prejudice 'violation of local realism' that you toss about so carelessly been substituted for 'single-measurement unobservability of quantum phase'. There is no violation of realism, local or non-local, just unfortunate choices of words. In physics this is not so unfortunate, in philosophy a damaging prejudice.

    still haven't seen your comment on my essay page, curious regarding what you do and don't understand, what i might learn from what you have to say.

    Flavio,

    I thank you for your philosophical views. Such things do interest me.

    My main point is that while you argue (very articulately) against reductionism -as a philosophy- the main proponents of such activities, meaning fellow particle theorists, aren't actually practicing it. Thus any aversion to a 'haughty' philosophical attitude toward other "approaches" which work well (perhaps better in some physical sciences) is SHARED. To be sure, any such philosophy is not well-founded, as the quantum state algebra 'averages out' long before one reaches a macroscopic scale.

    In reality only the preon algebra is a _mathematical_ reduction from QCD. Few pursue this simplifying 'reductionist' algebra (notably Kaufmann, Smolin, Bilson-Thompson and Markopoulou). I of course learned of this studying combinatorial algebra, and have never really pursued the subject due to its being considered "reductionist".

    Perhaps I am distinguishing between the sub-classes of "reductionism" which you cite. The subject is rather new look at things, although clearly I favor mathematical reductionism. I ascribe to the approach that a theory well-founded in mathematical formalism, as WELL AS equally non-disproven by experimental observations, both particle and astrophysical, exists.

    The hard question then becomes 'what is the observable difference?', but that is certainly not a topic for this forum.

    As one looks to enumerating the aspects of a theory which are fundamental, well, that is a topic for this forum. In fact several essays attempt address this issue. I wrote my essay to address that, as well as show mathematical examples which pass the requisite fundamental criteria.

    {Noting again that causality is chief among them, which btw does not auger well for most attempts at finding a 'better' particle theory}

    In fact, I would more clearly categorize my work, if you must, as "Constructivist".

    The main thrust of the essay was to show a "mathematical architecture" exists which meets all the criteria for representing 'What is "that which is" fundamental." Thus I emphasize the many connections to well-known theoretical work. As do several other essays, all of whom I hope would be of interest to you. After all, I doubt that they would recognize many of the traits of (the broader meaning of reductionism) in their work.

    Any of my comments about the FQXi RoE are merely an aside brought to mind by my effort to understand how 'purely philosophical thinking about approaches taken to address fundamental questions' mix with 'current questions actually being addressed by insights into' the same problem. Their scoring system includes both in some proportion. This has zero to do with you, but I did, after all, once ask them to return to more fundamental questions. I tend to favor that aspect of the conversation but attempted, badly, to explain my concerns about how your perceptive academic view tends to (distract or detract from??) much good valid work due to a categorization issue. No matter, and forgive me any inappropriate asides.

    I really appreciate your point of view and plan to continue reading many others, and build the FQXi community, because I find it to be a rather interesting venue for discussions with peers. ...in hopes of it being productive in terms of collaborative thinking.

    Best regards,

    Wayne

    Dear Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    I read with interest your views in, 3.1 Foundations of quantum mechanics.

    QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

    Kamal Rajpal

    Flavio and Chiara

    Most important in physics is to look for external anomalies in experiments and internal paradoxes inside the theories. Unfounded prejudices are common in physics.

    In my essay I point at an unfounded prejudice done by Stokes, when he reduced Michelson's prediction for Michelson-Morley's tests by a factor of 2, and thereby giving room for the absurd concept time dilation. See my essay about that:

    Fundamental Errors in Physics

    Best regards from __________ John-Erik Persson

    Dear Flavio and Chiara,

    I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

    I completely agree with you. «the search for foundations is a dynamical process that aims at removing "philosophical prejudices" by means of empirical falsification».

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

    Vladimir Fedorov

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

    Dear Flavio, Chiara

    If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

    A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

    Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

    My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

    Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

    For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

    My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

    By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

    To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

    Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

    Kind regards

    Steven Andresen

    Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

    Flavio--

    As you may recall, you indicated a few weeks ago that you were interested in offering some feedback on my essay. I am hoping that you will still have time to do that, as I'd be interested in your comments. Thanks.

    --Greg

    Dear Flavio and Chiara,

    Thank you for commenting on my paper and for your excellent paper.

    It is nice to see a modern appreciation of Popperism. While I am not sure most of modern science and engineering really work with Popper's falsifiability in mind, you make some very valid points.

    I like your discussion of no-go theorems. I would like to point out a paper that I published with Adam Brandenburger. The paper is titled "A Classification of Hidden-Variable Properties". You can find it here: https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4650

    We actually form Venn Diagrams like you that show what is and is not possible.

    Once again, thanks for an excellent essay.

    All the best,

    Noson Yanofsky

    ,

    Mr. Del Santo,

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

    Rated accordingly.

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

    Respectfully,

    [linkfqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3130]Silviu[/link]

    Hi,

    You say:

    On the contrary, we believe, with David Bohm, that "the notion that everything is, in principle, reducible to physics [is] an unproved assumption, which is capable of limiting our thinking in such a way that we are blinded to the possibility of whole new classes of fact and law", [5].

    and emergentism, consciousness as Essentials from complex (relations) systems.

    I have started to Think that emergence and complexity also may be fundamental 'forces' or laws. It can be the law that rule evolution? I was happy to find Susskind is thinking of this as a quantum force. It sounds odd that a linear quantum equation would be a law of emergence, but in QM is also entanglement, uncertainty etc, and together they might form the Law. One basic fundamental in it would be consciousness, maybe. Something we yet cannot define properly. Intention is also not defined yet. Still every scientist use those charachters in their work.

    How can we find new Laws? Often it happens by accident, like the p-adic pattern found. We don't push science toward finding new Laws.

    Also, we have no clue about the evolution of new laws, if they evolve, or show up as new phenomena, and it relates again to emergentism.

    Good essay.

    Ulla Mattfolk.

    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

    Hello Flavio,

    Congratulations! You appear to be more than qualified to enter the final phase.

    On February 12th. you noted 'I have your essay on my reading list, and I will comment and rate it soon.'

    Can you find a few moments to do so on this, the final day open for comments?

    I would like to believe that I can be boosted back to the high point of my ranking at 6.8, but something is happening on the last day that suggests that some authors may be desperate enough to downgrade others in expectation that they can raise their own relative standing.

    In any event, it has been a most enjoyable and edifying experience.

    Good luck.

    Gary

    Dear Mr. Del Santo,

    If a problem is called insurmountable, this means "it cannot be solved". There is perhaps no insurmountable difficulty for you to check the anti-Bell arguments by McEachern and by Traill. I myself feel unable. I have self-critically to admit that my pedantic view on the FT/CT issue is so far not yet suited to clarify some murky counter-intuitive aspects of QM. What about counter-intuitive set theory, Katz guided me back to common sense.

    Let me doubt that your commonly applauded removal of "philosophical prejudice" from massively confirmed science is helpful to science.

    I am still hoping for your reply.

    Congratulations,

    Eckard

    Hi Flavio and Chiara...

    Semantic issues are fundamental to verbalization by the theoretician and mathematical equationist, and the necessity for a clear distinction between logic reduction and accelerated particle annihilation has emerged in the FQXi community quest to resolve "What is fundamental?"... i.e. anti-reductionism as a "philosophical prejudice" should be qualified.

    Would a visually verifiable CAD intimal state geometry model, from which unified scale invariant minimum units of Space (QI) and Energy (QE) emerge inherently, "falsify" a philosophical anti-reductionism bias/prejudice?

    REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

    I am not suggesting that the UQS coordinate system replace the Cartesian/Radian geometry, but I have found that a methodology bias can deny application of a methodology which does resolve emergence of physical empericallity... e.g. distribution of Energy... and many of the essays and subsequent comments echo Donald G Palmer's well stated assessment of the dangers of a mathematical prejudice, in his reply on Jan. 1, 2018 @ 12:05 GMT to P. Gibbs Essay page https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2960

    "Phillip & Andrew,

    There is an implicit assumption when depending upon mathematics "to guide the way" for new directions in physics. That assumption is that our current mathematics is adequate to the tasks we attempt to use it for. If it is not, then we will find it very difficult to make much progress. Mathematics likely suffers from the same effect as you describe for physics - the pen and corral situation.

    I will suggest that this is actually the problem physics, which tends to lead other scientific disciplines, so all of science, is faced with: The mathematical tools we currently have are not adequate to the task science has put to it.

    The limitations of our mathematical tools might actually be keeping us from seeing aspects of our universe, which would be even more reason to consider fundamental reviews of mathematics and its limitations (especially on how it is applied).

    I believe we will find a guide to a new direction this way.

    Don"

    I was fascinated and encouraged by Chiara's biochem 3D CAD analysis, and although I find Feynman's "shut up and calculate" a bit overstated, 5 years ago, I advised Seth Lloyd and David Deutsch that:

    "Although I will not yet insist on the UQS lattice as the only valid Einstein/Higgs lattice solution, I will insist that generating QE expansion generalities, requires that the Einstein/Higgs lattice being utilized, must be graphically declared... preferably as a 3-D CAD model."

    REF: UQS Re: Cornell Archive: arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225 http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMMSLLTT4FW.php]

    ... and I will stand behind it... i.e. the tools are "adequate to the task", the attitude is not... and there is no excuse for the theoretician and equationist not to utilize the power of digital 3D mathematical analysis, and visual verification, to see "aspects of our universe" which are not resolved by a biased application of mathematics.

    Thanks Flavio and Chiara for contributing your insights, and may the FQXi community quest for "What is fundamental?", be advanced by your contributions.

    Sue Lingo

    UQS Author/Logician

    www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    Del Santo, Cardelli,

    Excellent essay, right on the subject, well argued and informative.

    Physics is the study of our experience of the universe. In that sense, We are fundamental to physics and science. Our mental and physical limitations are the boundaries that define our reality. When physics move beyond those boundaries (and associated philosophical prejudices), it shows a partial picture of the underlying reality in the form of this weirdness found in QM and GR. But this does not go far enough since the observer is still part of the process.

    The process of science is to acquire knowledge of "how" things happen on the simple "need to know basis". The universe, on the other hand, has no such need. All the universe requires is some stuff to support its existence and some cause or reason "why" it does what it does.

    Asking a logical "why" question removes the observer while requiring a logical system with its own boundaries. My essay tackles this "why" question and therefore sits a bit outside the prescribed subject of the essay contest. In it, the substance carries the causality ... What level of realism is this?

    Marcel,