Space is Basis by John Brodix Merryman

Dear John Brodix Merryman,

In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

I have concluded from my deep research 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

Hi John,

i enjoyed reading your essay. Your lines of reasoning are easily tracable in a systematic manner, since you define 'fundamental' as systematically, deterministically evolving processes of nature.

However, I cannot see why the anthropocentrical demand of knowing as much as possible together with the fact that there could unknowable things beyond our complete reach - which are at least equally fundamental than mathematics - should logically lead to the conclusion that physics has to be strictly deterministic at its very core.

If nature would be strictly deterministic at its core, you had no chance to write your essay the way you did - and I had no chance as to read it and comment it like I did. I think this is an inevitable implication of a deterministic worldview.

You now state that nature allows purposeful behaviour. In light of strict determinism, this would be a false statement, because there can be no purposeful actor which could be able to selectively controll some causal factors - in your framework all is deterministic and there is no choice for anything to select something (until you would introduce some some causa finalis - which you want to eliminate with your approach).

If determinism would be equal to fundamentalism, your insight into that must have been given exclusively only by a deterministic natural process (facilitated by your brain and some environment).

Albeit it is true that your deterministic framework is, if ontologically true, a causally closed system and indeed has a self-confirmative dynamics, it would only seem to us that we have some choices which axioms about the fundamental level of reality we want to adopt, since they are all predetermined (and surely also the *change* of some of our axioms are predetermined).

Let's now presuppose that you change your view on an actor (observer) that should be able to selectively controll some causal factors - by realizing that this false induction was just a result of a deterministic (albeit highly complex) process in your brain - and no 'actor' really can change the course of events. Then this change in insight was not brought about by you, selectively controlling something, but again by nothing more than strict determinism.

The fact that you believe you can really make choices in this world is in contradiction to what your framework supposes. I think you can't have the cake here and eat it too. If nature is strictly deterministic, then you would have to re-interpret what we traditionally understand as mathematics. You had to presuppose that mathematics is a somewhat dynamical network, able to become aware of itself at some point of its evolution (or always was to some extent conscious) - and begins to somewhat discriminate between some consistent and some inconsistent parts of itself in a mechanistically manner - realized by for example *you*.

For arriving at a consistent scheme, you had to equal consciousness with at least some part of mathematics - to eliminate any real causa finalis. But this would only be an ad hoc assumption for the 'purpose' of eliminating such a real causa finalis. Stated differently: in your scheme, mathematics is able to be conscious and deterministically strives towards the conclusion that consciousness has no causal role. Hence, this kind of mathematics strives towards the conclusion that there doesn't exist any causa finalis within itself.

This would mean that the very dynamics of mathematics to become aware of itself and that there aren't any causa finalis happens itself without any causa finalis.

This is no wonder, since 'causa finalis' is defined as a free choice between some mutually exclusive alternatives. Mathematics has no such choice, it is a strictly deterministic system (albeit hard to trace in its details).

I think that albeit there could indeed well be some top-down mechanics and some emergent properties in nature, in your framework these terms only express our hitherto incomplete knowledge of the involved relationships. I cannot see how these terms are able to justify that dead matter is able to think about itself, other than just presupposing it due to the fact that there is consciousness that is indeed able to think about dead matter. The 'brute fact' that there is such consciousness is incorporated into your approach as a hint that determinism must be fundamental. However, I cannot see how subjective Qualia could be reconciled with dead matter other than stating that obviously dead matter, together with mathematics, is able to transcend itself.

If it is true that something can transcend itself, the question remains wether or not systems per se are able to transcend themselves in the sense that they can realize that they are only systems, built from axioms, inference rules and logics to come to an unequivocal output. I understand your statement that an emergent structure can purposeful control some causal factors in the sense that systems per se are able to transcend their own 'mechanics' (correct me if I misinterpret you in this regard). Nonetheless, if such a transcendental dynamics would be possible, this real purposeful behaviour in the sense of some ability to freely decide between some mutually exclusive alternatives doesn't anymore need to know and trace all relevant causal factors consciously to decide what suits its needs - otherwise it would again merely be a deterministic unconscious process, a process which does not 'trace' anything but merely evolves in a strictly deterministic manner.

So, if strict determinism is true, consciousness can never determine all the causal factors that lead to a conscious decision. It seems to me that such a strict determinism, contrary to the claim that it is able to identify and therefore know all causal factors that lead to a certain result, at the same time states that this can never be proven in principle (because tracing *all* causal factors by a causal observation changes the whole causal dynamics).

Finally, I conclude that your approach for complete knowledge contradicts itself, since such a complete knowledge is by no means achievable by the very framework you presuppose. Therefore I consider your framework as a coarse-grained description of what nature really does, a description which runs into difficulties when one tries to fine-grain it in the manner for example the different attempts to properly interpret quantum mechanics try to do it. Therefore I would say that reliable knowledge is another expression for the impossibility to gain an objective view on the fine-grained structure of nature. Reliable, complete knowledge about all causal factors involved in a certain dynamics is for me just an idealization, albeit a possible one, but not necessary.

It is thinkable that kinds of causa finali' are involved which we never can detect in principle, since there are many entropy states thinkable which are consistent with our hitherto known physical laws, but nonetheless we never can test whether or not a certain entropy state is the one and only that deterministically fits into the previous state of the examined system. Stated differently: how can you know that the entropy state of your coffee in which you put some milk, is, after having mixed both fluids, is indeed the one and only - in every detail - that has to follow a previous state of the mixed drink. The same seems true to me for the entropy of the brain. Since we don't know whether or not some causa finalis can in all cases be reduced to some physical causes - and we also do not know what physical causes are and how they operate at the most fundamental level - I think that until we finally have reached the level where we are able to exactly determine how causes work in detail to influence some entities, we should be open to the possibility that 'physical causes', intuitively understood in the traditional sense (particle exchange without further forces etc.), are not the whole story.

I generally tend to write longer comments, since I think that merely some lines of text do not suffice to fathom the essay contest's theme in a rigorous manner. Hope you nonetheless enjoyed my lines of reasoning.

Very good essay, since it operates systematically to at all being able to pin down some fundamentals amongst a plethora of rather subjective guesses, or at least shrink such a plethora down to a few coherent options.

Oh, i just realized that i posted my comment above to the wrong author! So, sorry for that, John, since it should have been adressed to Jose P. Koshy... :-) Please excuse this accident - thanks and good look!

Dear John Merryman,

Nice to see you participating again. I think your approach, "more interested in the philosophical aspects of science, than the details", is an appropriate one for FQXi: the forest for the trees.

I would question the idea of 'space' as a 'standalone' physical entity, in the sense of 'empty space'. Einstein eventually concluded "there is no space absent of field", and I concur with that. The self-interacting gravity field exists everywhere "in" space, but what is it "in"? I don't think space is a cosmic container that holds things. It is simply an inescapable aspect of an existing field. Some think that instead of gravity some 'quantum foam' or 'vacuum energy' "fills space", but the idea is the same.

I like your question "is time really a dimension?" In a mathematical sense the answer is almost certainly yes, but in a physical sense as universal simultaneity holds, it is not an extended dimension.

I do very much like your succinct paragraph:

"The conservation of energy means there is no energy left in the past to manifest prior events or coming from a physical future. It is very changing dynamic of this energy that creates the effect of time. Energy is "conserved" because there is only the physical present."

Local systems exchange energy between dynamical modes, and this exchange rate is energy dependent. The measure of the rate or frequency of change is effectively a 'clock', and the idea of 'perfect clocks' measuring a 'time dimension' led to the very non-intuitive idea concerning the relativity of simultaneity. As you know, I view the historical details underlying this thinking; I think it very appropriate for you to sketch the above picture. Thanks

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear John Brodix Merryman, I'm curious to know what you think about the principle of identity of space and matter of聽Descartes, who is a great philosopher. Visit my essay, if you聽 interested in New Cartesian Physics and make note聽 much as it deserves to be a continuation of his work.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Brodix Merryman,

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite mathematical information ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Hi John, so glad you have entered your essay. I really enjoy reading and thinking about what you have to say. You cover a lot of ground in a few pages, and don't disappoint with a great many succinct insights.

"A more efficient explanation for time is that change turns future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns" JBM. Familiar from FQXi discussions. I know you like this one but you seem to contradict it by; "The conservation of energy means there is no energy left in the past to manifest prior events, or coming from a physical future. It is the very changing dynamic of this energy that creates the effect of time. Energy is "conserved," because there is only the physical present."JBM. I like the second better. It is important that the physical present is not confused with the experienced present. You haven't but others might. I use a different term. Your earlier statement, seems to me, confuses perception and imagination with physical change, I can imagine tomorrow but that is brain activity-Now and meteorologists can give me a weather forecast but it is only abstract probability -Now. Yesterday is only memories and records existing -Now. The turning of the Earth does though nicely illustrate the sequential 'unidirectional' nature of passage of time.

Continuing from the first quote, "As an effect of action, it has more in common with temperature, than space." JBM. Familiar from FQXi discussions . I remember our discussions about time and temperature fondly. I think the difference is that foundational time (which is the changing configuration of the universe, IMO) is universal , not any local part alone. I'd say different rates of change are local differences in amount of change of the configuration of matter and particles within the universal configuration. As you point out in the quote below, to paraphrase, things happening faster do not end up in different times. Which is a really good point. "Clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. A faster clock will use energy quicker, much as an animal with a higher metabolic rate will age quicker than one with a lower rate. Yet they remain in the same present. "JBM. I like that a lot.

"Since we appear at the center of this expansion, a logical conclusion would be that redshift is an optical effect," JBM. I agree. It is about how the EM radiation is being received. The material universe it portrays is a product, a manifestation not actualized physical existence. Re. Relativity the reference frames are a space formed by the observer from the received signals. That is necessary, as that is how vision works . It is not the space external to the observer. The dilation is in the sensory product not in the source physical reality. Said as food for thought.

"We can't measure a universal frame, but that is not the issue."JBM. But it is nonetheless important. All individual viewpoints only give singular measurement results. The measurements are necessarily a product of the relation of the observer to the observed source object or rather the signals being received that gave been emitted or reflected from the object. Change the relation, the measurements change as a consequence. That might be relevant to your point about the Hubble telescope. The 'inanimate' natural constituents of the universe do not have viewpoints or reference frames. They do not form representations. Organisms and their EM sensitive devices can have viewpoints. If instead the relations of the surrounding matter and particles to an object, phenomenon or event is considered, it would be from all of its different locations, relative orientations and states of relative motion. Which is difficult as a human being to imagine being used to singular viewpoints, orientations and motions. Also food for thought.

Pg 3 typo para1 raveled. End pg3 typo" space that makes then small" I recall reading your saying that this was done in a hurry. Just pointing them out for future reference if you are going to use the essay elsewhere,

Look out on a clear night try to say that space I'm seeing is just an effect of EM signals I have already received and processed; and if that is a product of my mind , then in what ways is it different from what is actually out there -Now. Have you come across-" It is not the flag that moves, or the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves?" Consider that neither Earth nor object sources of the received signals have been static and unchanging during transmission.

Thanks for sharing your ideas, hope you get lots of readers. Kind regards Georgina

Correction to my response, last paragraph: 'Have you come across-" It is not the flag that moves, or the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves"?' (My question, not part of the quote as I wrote.) I expect it is familiar, said to be words of The 6th Patriarch of Chinese Zen School, Hui Neng.

Dear John,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi John, it is important in physics not to confuse what is happening -Now with the experienced present.

I like your blank canvas analogy. I don't think your are talking about complete nothingness, because you end talking about ether and the vacuum, not a perfect vacuum. I don't think a non existence, a nothingness can have attributes such as being infinite and in equilibrium. It just isn't.

Thought: if everything that exists is taken away, would the space where it would exist if it existed exist? In which case the space exists and so all existing things haven't been taken away.

My point was, taking space to be fundamental basis as you suggest, the space generated by the visual system of the observer is not the same space as the external reality. They are two different paintings, working with your analogy. Which ties in with your identification that the location an of a 3D co-ordinate frame is not singular or absolute, (you say subjective).

I might just create a painting that doesn't have a canvas, just the paint.I have been thinking of how. Kind regards Geogrina

John, Spacetime isn't expanding. As you said "The conservation of energy means there is no energy left in the past to manifest prior events" JBM, "there is only the physical present."JBM. There is something different about receiving light from the local galaxies, compared to EM from those that were more distant when they emitted it. The speed of the EM stays the same, but the wavelength can seem to be longer. Imagine 3 people in a line moving together as if in a race. One is pogo-ing up and down as he moves along, one is skipping and one is taking long strides. The race is a tie. I don't think it needs a measurement frame of reference to be constant but can be because of the characteristics of its host base medium, or if you want there to be nothing extra, because of what it is. Kind regards Georgina