Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals – Have We Spotted Them All? by James N Rose

Dear James N Rose,

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

When we parse essential relationships vis a vis "objectivity", the only 'thing(s)' that cannot be corrupted are the identified general relations, the intangible incorruptible "laws of nature", aka "rules of behavior".

Why not break from our shackling experiences of physical existence .. and associations inferred in math from them - orthogonal whole units?

Dear James -- I absolutely love your essay. It has so many great ideas and thoughts and your writing style is very clear and well thought out.

The Whorf ideas are a nice way to introduce your main ideas.

Yes I agree totally that maths needs "orthogonal whole units" and that the "laws of nature" are intangible and incorruptible.

Since you answered the question so well I have given you a very high score!

I think you would like my essay since it does assign "orthogonal whole units" as the basis for math, and shows that the laws of nature must be in pure state away from the physical yet these laws do give us what we call reality. And basis goes through your ideas one by one amazing co-incidences abound between our two models. You actually could of written the word-only version for my essay. If you have the time have look at my essay What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" Notice how we make areas fundamental as you predicated (technically "Areas (of squares) are numbers, not SQUARED lengths", or more simply we have been doing our maths wrong by assuming that 3 is fundamentally a length on the geometry, what we should do is say 3 is represented by a square. And I go thru all of maths and physics replacing our concept of lengths=numbers with the new idea areas=lengths and the sides of the square numbers can form operators that encode the information for the actual "n" in the square to other areas.

Please read the FQA attachment on the first post as well. It will help a lot. And as to the idea of "existence" well I have a few words about that subject that might be of interest to you as well.

You are one of the few who actually answered all aspects of the essay question -- well done.

Dear James,

Your essay conveys quite clearly that despite your 70 years on this planet, you have not lost your child-like curiosity and excitement about the world around us. That is wonderful, for so many people do lose it as they get older. Some specific comments:

1. I was previously a little familiar with Whorf (his famous "snow" example), but the quoted paragraphs helped me form a fuller mental picture of his thesis. I quite agree with it, and my own paper which does not change the mathematics but the interpretation of an aspect of special relativity (and which required me to coin new words to go with the new concepts), and derives from it novel physical insights, could be thought quite well as a project along those lines.

2. You mention the role of existence, and I agree there as well. As of the early 21st century, in my opinion a major but largely unrecognized obstacle to a more fundamental understanding of nature is that we do not currently have a physics-based criterion for what might be called "physical existence". The term functions in physics currently as nothing more than a sterile primitive notion, but many physicists do not even realize that this is a problem. I am glad, however, that you do. The second part of my 2-part series will propose such a criterion as a starting point for the development of a physics-based theory of existence. It will be interesting to see the reaction.

3. You mention the need for the development of new mathematics, and once again, I quite agree. In my view the problem with understanding how quantum and classical are related to each other is intimately related to the difference in the ontological status of objects in the respective theories. This difference, when expressed formally, may require more nuanced distinctions than just "true" and "false", the only ones possible under current mayhematics, which is based on first-order logic. There are expressive more powerful logics which could serve as a more suitable foundation for future mathematics. For instance, modal logic allows you to distinguish between something that is necessarily true from something that is just possibly true, from something that is just true. These sort of forma distinctions in ontological status may demarcate the domains of validity of quantum and classical theories, but without even a physics-based theory, we cannot even begin to examine it.

So, all in all I largely agree with the overall vision you present, and my own research is very much guided by similar considerations.

All the best,

Armin

Unfortunately there is a glitch with the formatting: each time a new line is supposed to start, it inserts an "n" instead and just continues on the same line.

Sorry!

Dear James N Rose

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

James N Rose, your essay is a deep reflection worthy of being a prize winner of the contest, I believe that our understanding of existence can improve the recognition of the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes, which physics missed. Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I hope your high praise

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

James

Thank you for your message. I haven't yet read your essay, however as my message said, your essay is on my read list.

A biologist! and you've read my essay which advocates that the process responsible for generation of biological complexity, is also potentially responsible for generation of universal complexities, the character and complexity of matter, structure and process.

A Darwinian process which has been exclusively the domain of your field of study, you hesitate to allow its extension to physics. You have gone so far as to "warn" me against using this approach. But I am not sure your warning was followed with reason? If you have such an argument I would be glad to hear and discuss it with you please?

But I do understand and sympathize with you and others, for how foreign it must sound. Foreign can appear silly based on established preconceptions. I can place myself in your shoes quite easily in this respect. If you do choose to rate my essay, please do so on the basis of whether it is a well formed argument, rather than whether you find agreement with it. And I will judge your essay on the same basis.

If Baryons do derive their capacity for force and agency from the environment of space, then we can look at the structures and agencies of matter and ask the "what if question?". Do the structures and agencies of matter make a logical sense in terms of this prospective relationship? I think my essay demonstrates that there is such a prospective interpretation which flows quite easily, and it didnt feel forced as I developed it. Infact it felt more like a free flowing discover of prospective answers. Was I just kidding myself? possibly!

Now that I have constructed this elaborate house of cards, it should be easily tested on basis. Which foundation card can be pulled from the deck, that will topple my house? I have given three main aspects open to attack, 1. on the QM level, the observable measurable principle of force dilation" 2. on the cosmological level, the variable Baryon mass resolution for galaxy rotation velocities, a geometric and therefore mathematical argument 3. on the level of metaphysics, which explains the first two principles in terms of being an evolved universal system. Optimised for purpose.

Undermine one of these three, and the other two should be falsified. All reasonable falsifications are welcome.

I will read your essay soon and comment on your page. Thanks again for reading mine

Kind regards

Steve

James,

You put a lot of feeling in a subject that often seems locked into frames.

I think math and physics, for all the complexity, ignores basic conceptual facts. To list a few:

Given we experience reality as flashes of cognition, we think this sequencing of events, called time, must be fundamental. Physics codifies it as measures of duration, between events. Logically though, it is change turning future to past, within this state we refer to as present and duration is that present, as events form and dissolve, go future to past. Probability, to actuality, to residual. This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature, rather than space. We could correlate measures of volume and temperature, using ideal gas laws, but temperature is only fundamental to our emotions, bodies and environment, not so much our surface thought process. (Though this cycle of expanding information and coalescing knowledge is somewhat thermodynamic.) As such temperature, as both frequency and amplitude, is more foundational than time, which is just frequency.

Time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

Clocks can run at different rates and remain in the same present, because they are separate actions, like the metabolism of animals.

The dichotomy of reality is energy manifesting form, as form defines energy. Thus energy(conserved/present) goes past to future forms, as these forms coalesce and dissolve, future to past. Note that after a few billion years of evolution, we evolved a central nervous system to process form, aka, information, as well as the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process the energy to drive it onward. Also note the brain has two hemispheres: The left, linear, sequential, rational side is effectively temporal, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is thermal.

Another point is whether three dimensions are really foundational to space, or just a mapping device? Basically they are the xyz coordinate system, which depends on an 0,0,0 counterpoint and that is a subjective location. Much as each of us is the counterpoint of our own coordinate system, overlapping with all others. Consider how much political conflict arises from applying different coordinate systems to the same space!

Which goes to the notion of a dimensionless point, as the essential abstraction. Given it is a multiple of zero, isn't it self negating and no more real than a dimensionless apple? Obviously it is more conceptually efficient not to have to specify some infinitesimal dimensionality, but ignoring that a multiple of zero, even as an abstraction, is still zero, is an assumption too many. It would be like taking a picture with the shutter set at zero.

To go back to the issue of time and linguistic paradigms, Eastern philosophy is context oriented, while western philosophy is object oriented. In the west, we tend to think of the future as in front of the observer and the past behind, because we think of ourselves as distinct entities, moving through our context. While in the East, the past is assumed to be in front of the observer and the future behind, because what is in front and the past are known, while what is behind and the future are unknown. Which relates to the observer being one with their context, as events are observed after they occur, then the energy moves onto other events.

Just some thoughts from another point of view.

Regards,

John Merryman

Center point, not counterpoint.

Darn spellcheck.

James

You honour me with an exceptional message. I am fascinated by circumstances of Darwinian evolution, and account of the following is certainly an interesting account.

"changes in how vein blood leaves the brain was responsible for helping australopithecine primates to stand erect, and lead to the evolution of homo sapiens."

Darwinian evolution is an explanation that is simultaneously subtle in detail, but powerful in consequence. That biology is plastic and reformable based on changing circumstances of environment and opportunity for survival. It presents a functional metaphysics for the existence, and the generation of life's complexity.

Your description of biological respiration based on atomic process, is also an exquisite account. It really does do a very fine job of bringing together consideration of physics process, as they apply to biological process. An exceptional account.

I had thought you were building up to the point that physics process could not possibly have Darwinian roots. I had interpreted your following statement as stating this much?

you said

"In other words .. simple atom changes cascade into prominent animal behavior changes. But without having Darwinian qualities at the atomic/chemical or metabolic levels."

But you go onto say

"Tell a physicist or chemist that certain atoms have 'lungs', and it is a sure ticket to be taken to an insane asylum. :-) But carefully identify process similarities, and maybe a light of acknowledgement goes on in their thoughts."

This gives me the impression your caution might be limited to the extend of, I should be careful not to offend physicists or chemist's fragile sensibilities? That I could be more careful to represent my principles as similarities of process only. I do take this point well, and have given it much thought. I have wanted my considerations and arguments to be entertained by others, but it has been a challenge to bring people past their initial preconceptions to then engage with the idea. Darwinian principles to explain the worlds physical complexity? People feel they can conclusively rule against this proposal without having acknowledge the arguments. Arguments I could do a fine job in defending, if only the tests were put to me! Without others engagement, I'm just arguing with myself ? But in answer to your concern, I do specifically refer to Darwinian principles as a remedy for universal complexities, and I must put physicists or chemist's fragile sensibilities aside to make the necessary arguments.

The premise of my theory is ultra simple. If space where filled with an energy potential that primitive Baryon fields came to exist within, then could the complex structures and agencies of the modern Baryonic universe be interpreted as an evolved state, that is optimized for the purpose of exploiting this energy potential?

You are a biologist and intimate with the principles of Darwinian process. Clearly you are also intimate with atomic and physics processes. It is within your capacity to test this idea, and or test the rationale which I have already formed. I have described a small portion of it in my essay.

Thank you for your message and I'm very much looking forward to reading your essay. If your messages have such thoughtful content then I presume your essay entry must be quite wonderful.

Kind regards

Steve

Thank you James.

It is always informative to bat ideas around and triangulate the connections and gaps.

These contests can be a bit overwhelming though, with the variety of different thought processes at work.

Personally I only got into studying physics as a way to better understand society, since it was evident there are physical dynamics at work, of which only particular details gain attention.

If there is one takeaway for understanding people and society, it's thermodynamics. This might seem a bit obscure, but remember that we did evolve in an environment entirely dominated by thermodynamic processes, just that in our more lost moments, it is a bit like leaves in the wind and when we are most sure, it is like a volcano, bursting through the crust.

As I've told various kids over the years, growing up is like grass pushing up through the concrete. Then one day, you wake up and you're the concrete and there is this damn grass trying to push you out of the way. Cycles.

While this might all seem totally off topic, it does tie into how my day has gone and that is what such encounters are about. A leaf off my tree.

Regards,

John

James

I have read your essay twice, and you receive a top rating from me. I believe it would be in your best interest to have more people read it, you might simply ask them too, and you will be rewarded with a good rating. I am sure. I think your first contest submission is bound to be a great success. And you will be on my "too read list" should you choose to enter again next year.

I will be recommending your essay to a friend of mine, James Putnam. And if you read his essay, you will appreciate why I do so. You identify the structure of language (written and mathematical expression) as having a significant influence on human thought and reasoning. That human thinking can be largely defined in terms of what era it belongs too, due to being imbedded within a data environment of influence specific of a time. Human thought being somewhat limited, bound within context of an era. You have done a wonderful job of expressing these and other considerations, which might be partly summarized as "the unavoidable human condition, we must account for ourselves, as humans in attempt of science". If our intellect is considered the instrument we attempt to measure and understand the world, then we best understand ourselves in terms of being the instrument of interpretation. To understand the world, we must also understand ourselves.

James Putnam realized that the units we apply in physics could all be derived from a common basis. That we could foundation our units of measure on only two "indefinable" units, which are "length and duration", which have no prior units of definition leading them. But then every other physical unit we apply in physics might be derived of these two indefinable units. All independent measures would then communicate with one another by common basis, because they are all defined in terms of length and duration. This would involve defining units of mass and temperature for example, in terms of length and duration. This might seem odd, but it is a very practical and achievable endeavour. It strikes me as a very similar idea that you have struck upon, relating continuum maths with statistical maths. That terms of GR might translate QM, to overcome an arbitrary limitation placed on our sciences by virtue of merely being two indifferently structured systems of measure.

My theory identifies force as being the principle mechanism at the base of all physical interactions and relations. GR is unified with QM by virtue of being redefined as "force dilation" instead of "time dilation". Force dilation is a property of clock springs, and clock springs are responsible for driving clocks. Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force.

Force is definable in terms of length and duration, which serves our new system preferred base units. Mass is empirically measured as inertial force, and gravitational acceleration/force. So mass is definable in terms of length and duration. Temperature is definable in terms of photon activity, and photon activity is definable in terms of C. C is a velocity which is defined in terms of length and duration. So again we can define temperature in terms of preferred base units of length and duration, from which all units of physics could be defined within common scheme.

You are a systems theorist, and you have identified the principle of "relation" that stands "between" the phenomena, as being perhaps the most immutable invariant fundamental. In practical terms, this means you wouldn't define a property like mass in terms of itself, but rather by the nature of its interactions with other phenomena in the world. The nature of a things, their interactions with the world are the most useful and fundamental method to define it. This is quality reasoning. My essay expresses a theory which points to many phenomena of the world, and defines their relations to one another in no loose or uncertain terms. That atomic forces are derived from space, for example. Then I extract a precise measure from that proposed relation, that atomic force/mass scales dependent on gravities square law, which demonstrates prospect of being a mathematical fit for observed galaxy rotation velocity. Then I embed these behaviours and relations of matter within a metaphysics, which extends a logic along lines of being an evolved state of being, toward the very particular complex character and agencies expressed by the physical world. I hope it gives a system theorist much to purchase various considerations upon.

So when I read your essay I relate these considerations strongly. It made for the most enjoyable read. Well done with your essay, and good luck for a favourable outcome. I will contribute positively.

I do hope we have occasion to discuss things further.

Kind regards

Steve