The Misalignment Problem by Jack James

Jack James

Essay Abstract

1. From the lens of ontology, I begin by defining and distinguishing physical truths and mathematical proofs, prioritising Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems. 2. I then develop an expanded version of John Barrows Gödelian chess game, illustrating the crossroads of these kinds of claims of reality and introducing the possibility of mathematical truths, which I subsequently address. 3. From this threefold landscape, I apply Gödel's incompleteness theorems across ontologies, which I term amalgamated sleuths. These applications serve as failures to ground initial axioms within (or between) mathematics and/or physics in a clear, consistent ontological framework. I ultimately refer to this as the misalignment problem. 4. I reanimate this problem in a more traditional, adversarial way: a question between missing physics or metaphysics? I reinforce that to arrive at what is missing we will need to temper mathematical and physical theories in consistent ontological frameworks. If we do not, then either alone or together we cannot say what they mean of reality. This misalignment problem is the direct cause of current undecidability, uncomputability and unpredictability. 5. I conclude that with collaboration, from the lens of ontology, these issues can likely be resolved or quarantined. On this basis, I hold out that David Hilbert's formalist ambition for mathematics may well make a return.

Author Bio

I received a PhD in Philosophy from the University of New England, Australia in 2018. I am 35 years old. I have spent the last two years researching in the philosophy of science (not within academia), whilst working. I have previously worked for mutlinational corporations then as a Crown prosecutor in criminal law. I am now seeking new work.

Download Essay PDF File

Dizhechko Semyonovich

РЈРІР°Р¶Р°РµРјС‹Р№ J Jack James , РЅРµРѕРєР°СЂС‚РµР·РёР°РЅСЃРєР°СЏ С„РёР·РёРєР° - СЌС‚Рѕ С‚Рѕ, С‡С‚Рѕ РІС‹ РёС‰РµС‚Рµ. Р' РµС' РѕСЃРЅРѕРІРµ РїСЂРёРЅС†РёРї РёРґРµРЅС‚РёС‡РЅРѕСЃС‚Рё РїСЂРѕСЃС‚СЂР°РЅСЃС‚РІР° Рё РјР°С‚РµСЂРёРё Р"РµРєР°СЂС‚Р°, РёР· РєРѕС‚РѕСЂРѕРіРѕ СЃР»РµРґСѓРµС‚, С‡С‚Рѕ РїСЂРѕСЃС‚СЂР°РЅСЃС‚РІРѕ РґРІРёРіР°РµС‚СЃСЏ, С‚Р°Рє РєР°Рє СЏРІР»СЏРµС‚СЃСЏ РјР°С‚РµСЂРёРµР№. Р' РјРёСЂРµ РЅРµС‚ РЅРёС‡РµРіРѕ, РєСЂРѕРјРµ СЂРѕС‚Р°С†РёРѕРЅРЅРѕРіРѕ РґРІРёР¶РµРЅРёСЏ РјР°С‚РµСЂРёРё, РµРіРѕ РІРёС...СЂРё РѕР±СЂР°Р·СѓСЋС‚ РјРёСЂ, РєРѕС‚РѕСЂРѕРјСѓ РјС‹ РїСЂРёРЅР°РґР»РµР¶РёРј. РћР±СЂР°Р· РІРЅРµС€РЅРµРіРѕ РјРёСЂР° РІРѕР·РЅРёРєР°РµС‚ РЅРµ РІРЅСѓС‚СЂРё РЅР°С€РµРіРѕ РјРѕР·РіР°, Р° РІ РїСЂРѕСЃС‚СЂР°РЅСЃС‚РІРµ РІРѕРєСЂСѓРі РЅР°С€РµРіРѕ С‚РµР»Р°, С‚Р°Рє РєР°Рє РѕРЅРѕ СЃРІСЏР·Р°РЅРѕ СЃ РЅРёРј.

РџСЂРёРіР»Р°С€Р°СЋ РІР°СЃ РѕР±СЃСѓРґРёС‚СЊ РЅРµРєРѕС‚РѕСЂС‹Рµ Р°СЃРїРµРєС‚С‹ РЅРµРѕ РљР°СЂС‚РµР·РёР°РЅСЃРєРѕРіРѕ РѕР±РѕР±С‰РµРЅРёСЏ СЃРѕРІСЂРµРјРµРЅРЅРѕР№ С„РёР·РёРєРё, РєРѕС‚РѕСЂС‹Рµ СЏ РёР·Р»РѕР¶РёР» РІ СЃРІРѕС'Рј СЌСЃСЃРµ: В«The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris SemyonovichВ»

Branko Zivlak

Dear James,

Thanks for your interest in my essay.

You say:

We assume there are infinite universes and infinite sets, is one "more"infinite? Does this matter re complexity, given incompleteness arises in more complex systems?

My, let's just say philosophical result (from calculations) are the views I have expressed regarding the finite / infinite universe. It is not clear to me whether we agree / disagree on the finite / infinite universe. Or is it another misalignment?

Kind regards,

Branko

Jonathan Dickau

Gee this looks interesting...

I'll have to give this one a good read soon.

Best of luck,

Jonathan

Jonathan Dickau

I love it!

Of course; it is not an essay, per se. But it has an interesting branching structure that makes you parse out alternative realities. So it is at least fun to read. I think I want to read it again, but I'm not sure what you conclude yet, and that means I'm not certain if I agree. I find value in this work and in your exploration through queries and possible replies.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan Dickau

I would recommend you check out...

Marcel Marie LeBel wrote an FQXi essay back in 2009 that touches on some of the same points you make, in a way that is more conventional. Focusing on Space and Time as conceived in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; he concludes that what one theory makes fast and assumes entirely physical, the other theory forces to be a metaphysical concept instead.

This forces researchers to choose between two different metaphysical landscapes, while leaving the physical reality undefined. I think you are making some of the same points in a very different way, but it is worth checking out. And I will be happy to discuss it further here.

Physics Stops where Natural Metaphysics Starts

Enjoy!

Jonathan

Jonathan Dickau

Thanks for commenting on my page Jack...

And feel free to expand on what you have written here. People need to learn how some choices of a Physics point of view lead to metaphysical variables, and that it might be the metaphysical contradictions between established views that need to be examined and ironed out - to solve the Physics problems. For what it's worth; I thought some of the 'quotes' were very humorous in the context offered, and made your 'not an essay' a lot of fun to read.

Best, JJD

Peter Jackson

Great stuff Jack, well done.

I think you hit the key areas head on, I liked your structure and chess game approach, and it was easy to read, a quality often lacking in these parts!

I agree sound ontology is essential and I've agreed with you in my own essay the distinguishing physics from metaphysics is important in resolving the issues of the topic.

A couple of questions, on 'measurabilism' and reality; Do ypou agree with Bohr and Von Nei uman among others thet in measurements involving interaction the "meter is part of the system" producing the result? - with the implication that it can 'influence' the result. If so how does that sit with your apparently slightly contradictory 'what we can measure is real'. I agree the state is real AFTER the measurement of course. But what about before?

I do hope you'll read mine, which finds success in similar ways but re-appraising physics from it's most fundamental foundations.

Best

Peter

Flavio Del Santo

Dear Jack (if I may),

Thanks for sharing your ideas. Although it is not properly phrased as an essay, I found several interesting ideas there. For instance, your 'measurabilism' which relates to what I am trying to characterize. Namely, what is a measurement? (A question that goes beyond the context of quantum physics wherein is usually asked). You might like to ha a look at my essay, where I define the 'minimal requirements for a measurement'. I think this can be useful for you as well.

Cheers,

Flavio

Michael muteru

can anthropic bias help us out in indeterminism.read on here in my essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525. your ideas/votes opinions are highly appreciated.

John Crowell

Hello Jack I liked your essay presentation and I agree with your conclusions 1. .... need to address the ontological landscape your mathematical or physical theory is necessarily, always within/of .... 2. ...will only arise accurately from a combined resolution. In my essay...Clarification of Physics A Complete, Computable, Predictive Mode of "Our Multiverse, I describe a Successful Self Creation process/results that originates in chaos, converts chaos to order and creates "all of the order in existence". This created ontology includes the origination/foundation (fundamentals) and overall landscape of "all ordered existence" -- which includes all of self creation, all intelligence, the complete physical world, the laws, rules, mathematics, computations, etc. necessary to complete and maintain the Self-Creation process/results. Impresent a unified ontological/epistemological/Successful Self-Creation model with clear explanatory power for math, physics, philosophy, chemistry, biology, psychology, religions, etc.

As I claim in my essay the processing/results eliminates incompleteness, uncomputability, unpredictability as well as irreducibility and infinite regression. The lowest level- the foundation- for all of these are the C*s to SSCU described in the appendix of my essay. It's scale up to become the landscape of all ordered existence is in the body of the essay. I hope you will read it and I would appreciate your comments. John David Crowell

Michael Popov

Jack,

It is interesting (indeed) attempt to define some protoproblem ( in your case - misalignment problem ) for all UUUs. Earlier similar attempt was made by Turing in his alternatuve solution of Riemann problem, where mathematics of primes as a whole became some computational object produced UUUs... I called them as " UUU based mathematical problems ". I hope you can continue your investigations of such sort of integral questions in future.

With the best wishes

Michael

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Jack,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"I reinforce that to arrive at what is missing we will need to temper mathematical and physical theories in consistent ontological frameworks. If we do not, then either alone or together we cannot say what they mean of reality. This misalignment problem is the direct cause of current undecidability, uncomputability and unpredictability".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Sue Lingo

Hi Jack...

Excellent!!... your application of a non-standard abstraction level, facilitates a diplomatic but very effective exposure of the cracks in the foundations of fundamental analysis.

Thanks for providing me with a more formal academic defense of my insistence that fundamental analysis is a geometry problem... i.e. Gödel's thermos are not applicable to geometry.

Good to see you back again this year Jack, and of course I am delighted that you are still shaking the eroding foundations.

Just scored you a 10.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician