From page 4: "One approach to the problem of induction is to build theories from the ground up. That is, rather than construct theories based on our observations of the world, we could attempt to deduce them from first principles, i.e. axiomatize them." Four hundred years ago, Bacon proclaimed that reliance upon that very approach was directly responsible for delaying scientific progress for 2000 years. In other words, it is a dead-end as far as understanding "reality" is concerned. Rejecting that approach, in favor of induction, subsequently formed the basis of what came to be called THE "scientific method". The axiomatic approach is the method of choice for mathematics. But Physics is not Mathematics. Whatever the problems with induction, deduction, based upon dubious premises (the only kind that exist, pertaining to "reality") is even more problematic.

From page 7: "The universe's existence is independent of our observation of it." But one truly fundamental fact remains: Our observations are not independent of the universe's existence, even if that universe is no more that some vat in which our brains sit. The universe, whatever its structure may be, is fundamental to our existence.

Rob McEachern

    Hi Ian, I like your essay very much. I agree that consideration of beables is very important. As you discuss before the end there is lack of clarity about what is meant by 'the universe' or even 'the totality of all that exists'. I think there needs to be separate terms for different versions of the universe or notions of the universe. Clearly the beable universe is not the same as the visible universe. At least as I see it, the beable universe is what exists -Now and the visible universe is what can be generated from receivable, EM signals.You wrote " The universe's existence is independent of our observation of it. We don't simply observe that it exists, it does exist."I.D. But what we observe is not what exists. We observe products of our senses or measurements which are relational, tying back in with the one side of a cow. The beables are the sources of all observations of them.

    The beable cow has no difficulty being in a black /brown 'superposition' of states. In one man's view of the universe it is brown and in another's it is black. So the seen universes are not identical to the beable universe. Each man's observation gives a singular, limited, fixed state that is an impoverished version of what exists. If he was to make more observations and the cow was to turn around it might seem that the blackness or brownness of cows is random! (I don't mean that literally but as an illustration of the relational aspect of what something is deemed to be.

    Kind regards Georgina

      Dear Ian Durham,

      FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

      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

      Dear Ian Durham, I agree that the universe can not be fundamental, but the space is the foundation for building the fundamental theories about it, because it is matter according to Descartes identity. New Cartesian physics, in which this principle of the identity of space and matter builds the universe from scratch and pretends to be the theory of everything. . Look at my essay [https://fqxi.org/]New Cartesian Physics[/community/forum/topic/2999] in which I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Rate and leave your comment there.

      Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

      Dear Ian,

      thank you for your good essay, I found some interesting points in commons with mine about absolute relativism, but we follow different paths. I think that you could be interested in the book "Why the World Does Not Exist" by Markus Gabriel. It's a divulgative text, but the core idea has something in common with yours.

      Bests,

      Francesco

        Ian:

        Wonderful, instructive essay.

        I note each of us has experience of the universe that is slightly different than others. These experiences form the basis of our descriptions as you note with the cow. So our experiences form the basis of our descriptions. Thus, the science need to repeat the observations and to interpret the observations to benefit ourselves.

        Hodge

        Dear Ian,

        I enjoyed reading your essay. It contains very interesting discussions of Bell's beables and the relation with what is fundamental, and you explain in a very engaging way. The conclusion is surprising and intriguing. Happy birthday, and success with the contest!

        Best wishes,

        Cristi

          • [deleted]

          • Post #15

          Hello Ian,

          Surprised to see you claim existence of a neutrino magnetic moment. Quick google search gives reasonably recent reference

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269315009545

          where they claim an upper bound only of a few 10^-11 Bohr magnetons. Hope this is not central to your point.

          Trying to get some sense of what a beable is. What is relation between beable and the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction? Beables are observables? If so, then a beable would be the incoherent lump of energy we get when we collapse a wavefunction, beable = single measurement observable? If, why not just call it that? If not, how is it different?

          Now I'm confused, see the statement that vector potential is not observable. What about Aharonov-Bohm effect? The quantum phase associate with a potential can be measured, just isn't a single measurement observable. Phase is relative, requires two measurements.

          and beyond that the statement that E and H fields are beables. They are not single measurement observables. What we measure in collapsing a photon wave function is dependent on how we collapse it - do we use a loop antenna or a whip antenna?

          finally googled for beable and got this - anything that could possibly be. So it becomes a task of figuring out what is impossible? Such fun. Thank you bery much.

          section 2 opens right on point with this - "can a universe be a beable?"

          answer is yes.

          local and nonlocal keep popping up in the text. Distinction is straightforward, and not confined to what we usually regard as a quantum-only phenomenon.

          Unlike the 1/r hidden variable quantum potential of deBroglie-Bohm, it is the

          1/r^2 potential operative in nonlocality. inverse square potentials are those who forces are orthogonal to the resulting direction of motion. They can do no work, cannot communication energy/information, only quantum phase, not a single measurement observable.

          Inverse square potentials include scale invariant quantum Hall of the vector Lorentz force (this is Aharonov-Bohm effect), centrifugal, Coriolis, chiral, three body,... all scale invariant. They cannot be shielded. Brings gravity to mind.

          Darn. Wish I had more to offer here, but just don't get the hidden variable pilot wave stuff and all that has been associated with it. Perhaps I'm tying beables too tightly to dBB? In any case I'm more confused that when I started. To my mind it is just wavefunctions and their interactions, and all the rest is windowdressing we fuss with when we can't see out the window - dark, snow to the rooftops, ice a quarter inch thick on the inside of the glass,... This is what the picture you paint looks to me. Entertaining at times but no fire in the fireplace, and too many empty rooms.

          Don't feel like i know enough at this point to rate this essay. Just confused.

            Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out. I think I see your point though I'm not necessarily saying that the subject-object distinction is all there is to induction and inference. I'm simply saying that it is one facet of it.

            Thanks Wilhelmus! Some very interesting thoughts indeed. Yes, every theory is incomplete. Absolutely, though there is some debate about whether we may eventually find one that is not. This would be the "theory of everything" if it actually exists. I'm not convinced such a thing is even attainable.

            I actually agree with both your statements. In my essay, I am only saying that the universe is not fundamental in the types of theories in which it can properly serve as a beable in the sense implied by Bell. Likewise, in no way am I saying that deduction will get around the problem of induction. Indeed, a good chunk of my PhD thesis was on precisely that.

            Hmm. I guess the question of existence is a sticky one. Personally, as I suggested in the essay, there are certain things that simply aren't provable. But the essence of science is that there are objectively knowable things. So while knowledge in quantum mechanics may be probabilistic, it is still knowledge and it is still predictable in the aggregate, i.e. the probabilistic sense. For instance, while I may not be able to predict if a single cow is brown or black, presumably many such measurements will tell me, on average, what many such cows will be and it is that average (mean or expectation value) that is ultimately highly predictable. After all, quantum electrodynamics, which is built on quantum mechanics, is arguably the most predictively accurate theory ever constructed in terms of how well theoretical predictions match experimental outcomes.

            Thanks for the name of that book. I have never heard of it.

            Thanks Cristi! And thanks for the birthday wishes! Hoping to get to reading your essay soon.

            Actually Bell was a dBB proponent. And you are not the only one who finds beables a bit vague. If you read Bell's original papers, they are not all consistent. What they do seem to represent is an evolution of his thinking on the concept. But the short answer is that, in modern terms, most people accept that a beable, whatever it is, sets the ontology for a theory.

            As for the neutrino magnetic moment, it is worth pointing out that the current constraints are all experimental and have only been able to show that, if it exists, it has an upper bound that is extremely small but, crucially, non-zero. As such, there are some alternative theories in which the neutrino is not a fundamental particle but rather consists of something like a W boson and something else (the exact other particle escapes me at the moment).

            Anyway, it is certainly not crucial to my argument.

            "I am only saying that the universe is not fundamental in the types of theories..." I agree. My point is, that says more about the nature of mathematical theories, than about the nature of the universe. Theories are virtually devoid of information. The universe is not. Hence, the map fails to provide anything more than a very meager description of the territory. Reality is determined by the vast information content of the initial conditions, not the exceedingly sparse information content of sets of equations; change the initial conditions, and you change the resulting reality, even if the equations remain the same.

            Rob McEachern

            Hi Ian,

            Yay, beables! :-)

            One important point about Bell's use of "local beables" that I think it's important to stress, is that every beable is *somewhere* and *somewhen*. In other words, they're parameters that are functions on spacetime. (To take Bell's example that you quote, the field values in classical E+M are clearly spacetime-localized beables.) In fact, if you take this spacetime-localization as the proper reading of his "belonging to objects" quote, the problems you note in section 1 pretty much vanish, I think.

            Then, when you get to nonlocal beables like wavefunctions, it also becomes clearer that you're talking about something very different. Concepts that apply to local beables don't necessarily apply to nonlocal beables. (In my way of thinking, the latter shouldn't even be called "beables" at all -- I prefer "ontology" here, to keep beables connected to spacetime, with wavefunctions and functionals of field configurations in some broader category.)

            But then I certainly come around to agreeing with your conclusion: if the universe is the sum total of all the beables, then the *universe* isn't fundamental -- the *beables* are! But would you be okay with adding the laws and boundary conditions that constrain those beables to the set of things that are "fundamental"?

            Thanks for the essay! -Ken

              Dear Ian Durham

              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