Causality is Fundamental, not Math Ontology by Roger Schlafly

Dear Roger Schlafly,

Thank you for a very stimulating essay. You have two parts. One says that causality is important and the other says that mathematical objects/equations are less important. What about mathematical objects/equations that describe causality? Is it not true that such mathematical entities are as important as causality. Newton's laws can be thought of as describing causality.

Thank you for such an interesting essay.

Please take a look at my essay.

All the best,

Noson Yanofsky

Dear Dr. Schlafly,

thanks for this short, but interesting essay. Although I don't agree overal with your starting point, namely that "the search for fundamental physics usually focuses on mathematical objects". I think that this is a mere collateral effect. The search for fundamental physics search for the fundamental "things" (being them laws, or entities, or principles, etc.). Mathematics is the most successful way we found to describe those things, but it is used as a tool to model our ideas in such a way that we can perform experiments to test these ideas.

Having said this, I am also convinced that, exactly because of this, causality is fundamental. In my essay (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3017) I called it a "fundamental bound", beyond which it is no more meaningful to perform experiments to test our theories.

I hope to discuss this further, also if you have a look at my essay.

I wish you the best of luck for the contest,

Flavio

Dr Schafly,

The title intrigued me as I am quite sure that causality is a fundamental property, and that current particle theory is remiss in its acausal formulation. But sure such a discussion should have, at a minimum, referenced the literature on the subject?

See J.B. Hartle, S.W. Hawking and T. Hertog, "The Classical Universes of the No-Boundary Quantum State" hep-th/0803.1663v1 March 2008. and especially

N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality", hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000. in which they establish a causality criteria.

The NBWF fits the requirement but lacks a quantum algebra. {I supply that in many of my earlier works}

regards, Wayne

Thank you for the explaination. Please take a look at my essay.

All the best,

Noson

Yes, those arguments against causality of those "Philosophers and others" are "just wrong on every level".

Those standard wavefuction solutions used to describe phenomena are time irreversible, but contrary to a common confusion in the literature, those solutions do not correspond to time-symmetric equations. It is trivial to show that the weavefunctions used in quantum scattering are not solution to the Schrödinger equation, but solution to the modified (time-irreversible) equation

[math]i\hbar \frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t} = H \Psi + \eta ( \Psi - \Phi )[/math]

with Phi the unperturbed wavefunction and eta the infinitesimal that regularizes the power series expansion of the perturbed state Psi.

In fact, a generalization to mixed states of the above time-irreversible equation is used as base for a formulation of irreversible quantum statistical mechanics. I mean the Zubarev equation.

Those decays of unstable particles you allude are often described by a time-irreversible extension of the Schrödinger equation obtained by replacing the Hamiltonian as H --> H - iR. The associated quantum states of the instable particle no longer are defined in a Hilbert space and give one of the known formulations of irreversible quantum mechanics.

Entropy is not fundamental. The irreversible equations mentioned above continue to work in situations where the concept of entropy does not apply or is ill-defined. The second law "Entropy increases with time" is only an approximation. It can be demonstrated that the monotonic production of entropy is only valid in the Markovian regime. The classical second law is not a fundamental law, but only an approximated way to characterize irreversible processes.

Yes, it is very funny how some people dismiss the second law as "empirical". The most ridiculous argument against the second Law I know is found in the textbook by Robert Zwanzig. He argues that all that we know about the classical second law is derived from experiments made in a Human timescale "the ice cube always melts and never reappears", and so we cannot really trust thermodynamics about what will happen in thousands of million years, instead he claims we must trust dynamics and its time-reversibility, and that the ice cube will reappear, even if we will not see it, because dynamics says it will happen. It is ridiculous because dynamics has been also formulated over the base of experiments made on a Human time scale. He seem to believe that dynamics was formulated by God whereas thermodynamics was only formulated by scientists. LOL

Effectively, causality does not require an arrow of time. Classical Hamiltonian mechanics is time-reversible (there is no arrow of time) and however it is fully causal. And, of course, causality does not require determinism.

Whereas agreeing with most, I don't think I have to take causality as a fundamental property of the Universe.

Roger,

Whiel I agree whole heartedly with your overall argument, I feel some of the arguments could be made even stronger.

I would propose the 1st law of thermodynamics makes causality redundant. That energy is "conserved," because it is always and only present, but being dynamic, is changing configuration. Causality being the term we use to refer to this change.

Which brings up the time issue. My observation is that since our minds function as flashes of cognition/sequences of events, we think of this effect called time as the point of the present, "flowing past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration, assuming it is an underlaying dimension.

The obvious source of this effect is that changing configuration, by which the future becomes past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns.

This makes time an effect of action, like temperature. Time as individual frequency and temperature as mass frequency and amplitude.

So separate clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. A faster clock uses more energy.

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

So there is only that present state, but what I focused on in my entry is the effort to dismiss space as a virtual effect of geometry, rather than geometry as a mapping of space. Which very much ties into your point about math as a tool to clarify regularities, not a platonic realm. Space is to physics, what zero was to math. That neutral state to which every form refers.

Dear Dr Roger Schlafly

Very nice words in the abstract... "The concept of causality has been derided by philosophers as being not truly fundamental, and the search for fundamental physics usually leads to the quantum state function, spacetime, string theory, or some other mathematical object." You are correct causality is more fundamental.... Best wishes

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may 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 Roger,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay. I completely agree with you. «I argue that causality is more fundamental, and that the arguments against it are mistaken».

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Dear Roger

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

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 and my essay 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. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then 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 attempt of 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 a 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 formation 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 chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. 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 explain 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

"Energy is widely accepted as fundamental, so little needs to be said. But it is commonly assumed that mathematically exact formulas are fundamental, while causality is not." Einstein objected to the replacement of causality by a mixture of semi-randomness and semi-causality. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. Google "witten milgrom". Is nature finite and digital? Do the concepts of time, space, energy, and quantum information fail at the Planck scale? Can quantum information be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram information? Is Milgrom's MOND relevant to the Bohr-versus-Einstein debate?

Bohr-Einstein debates, Wikipedia