The Castle and elephants; Indescribable, undecidable, un-computable, and unpredictable by Georgina P. Woodward

Dear Georgina P. Woodward, you, as a participant of the FQXi online is supposed to, have fully disclosed the topic of the essay contest: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability, adequately describing the Universe and the nature of time at the very beginning. I want to note that according to the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, which is based on the identity of Descartes's space and matter, space moves relative to itself, since it is matter. It follows from this that the Universe is a changing space, as its separate regions rotate. We do not see this rotation of the parts of space, and only the rotation of bodies, which themselves are parts of space, highlights it for us. The number of all successive changes in the entire Universe we measure with time. Thus, time is a measure in the aggregate of universal changes in the world.

聽聽聽聽聽聽If people understood and believed in the identity of space and matter, then in the world Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability became less.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes: "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 Semyonovich. "

This was a fun read Georgina...

The key element is the incongruity where the analogy breaks down. Groucho Marx said "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas; I'll never know." The first line makes sense, but in the following line the sense of things is reversed. Sort of like "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

I had an elephant in the room for one FQXi essay, and now here you have put him or her into the fridge. How that elephant got in the fridge I'll never know. But it's a joke because it sneaks up on you; you have to assume an elephant could get in the fridge to answer the question.

The huge footprint comment actually makes sense, and if you were to ask 'what would leave footprints when stepped in?' butter is a good answer. But of course an elephant is so much bigger than a mouse that it would squish the butter flat, however it would not fit in the fridge in the first place.

That kind of analogy speaks volumes about some of the incongruous juxtapositions with incompatible questions. H. Dieter Zeh asserted that Quantum Mechanics was easy to understand if you just accepted that there are no quantum leaps or particles, and that only the quantum wavefunction really exists at all.

But to abandon the sense that objects are real entirely seems too radical a step to make, in order to understand QM's reality. However; Zeh's greater distaste was for the more popular idea that QM only presents reality probabilistically. He detested that notion and liked to think in terms of absolutes, as do you.

I will come back to this, and I have also downloaded the 43 page RICP summary document from viXra, for reference. I may not agree, or see eye to eye with you, but I want at least to understand your view.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Georgina P. Woodward, I have a question for you: "Have you read my essay?" I read your essay, but you didn't. If you read, you would leave a comment on my page, but it is not, but this does not mean that you did not read my essay. You may have read it, but left no comment. In general, for me the situation is Undecidability, but for you not, you know for sure whether you read my essay or not. Sorry for the pun.

Of your essay, I liked Background the most. If you lived in Russia, you would definitely quote from the song "There is only a moment between the past and the future, hold on to it" I did not comment on the rest, since due to the need for translation I limit myself to short comments. However, I note that the speed of time is a tautology and this concept should be changed so that it acquires a different terminology, for example, acceleration (second per second). Obviously, where you saw the speed of time, dynamic processes occur, since acceleration is the result of the manifestation of force.

Your essay is preparing material for the FQXi grant, "Consciousness in the Physical World." Perhaps you want to improve it through comments. I can tell you something, but first you must show that you have acquired the identity of Descartes's space and matter, and believe that physical space moves relative to itself, since it is matter.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I again invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes's space and matter: "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 Semyonovich ".

Regards, Boris Dizhechko.

Thanks so much Georgina,

I am reminded of a comment by Kodish and Kodish from "Drive yourself sane" where they talked about the term 'things are changing' and suggested that the view according to quantum mechanics would be 'changes are thinging' instead - which is much closer to H.D. Zeh's views. There too; it is shown or implied that behind every object lurks a process.

If things are objects, they don't change, although their configuration or orientation might. But seeing every object as an ongoing process allows transformations or transmutation from one form or appearance to another. But this begs the question, because then the atoms would be the individual objects, and we know they are more process-like than a rock or a ball is.

The Chinese language is much more process-like than English - which divides things up into objects and subjects - at least for traditionals. In modern Westernized speech that distinction is becoming watered-down over time. But it is reflected in the ease of learning for orientals studying some subjects. And it may be the faults of English are an underlying cause of the disconnect you cite.

More later,

Jonathan

Well written, Georgi,

you have become much more cohesive in aligning the multiple facets of your ideas to reflect an internal association. It is easily readable, good job.

I'll only make a couple observations but from an historical perspective, because 'controlling the narrative' has been the persistent theme in all pursuits, throughout. "Publish or Perish" is so ingrained that Theologians categorically speak of Five Great Religions all of which stem, and continually change, from religious writings before the advent or introduction to the Age of Reason.

Firstly; while Newton, a religiously strange personality, did wax metaphysically on Time Immemorial, in his development of the method of calculating derivatives and in application to analysis (he supported himself by contracting to do analysis of other's experimental observations hence the breadth of accumulated topics in the Principia, along with payment for tutorials from the Chair and Rooms he bought at College) that analysis was mathematically conducted in 'instantaneous measures' then stringing them together (integration) over a time span. The same thing as your notion of Uni-Temporal Time, you might consider giving some attention to the life and times of Newton as a supporting argument. But as narratives go, 'Newtonian Time' has become conflated with DesCartes and generally thought of as a continuous metronomic 'flow'.

Secondly: the narrative of Einstein's SR also has been conflated with Minkowski's Four Dimensional SpaceTime, with the attendant assumed paradoxes. Einstein was swept along with the currents of his watershed rationalization of Maxwell, but SR is strictly only the geometry of constant uniform motion constrained to only two degrees of freedom. Your qualifications of Image and Object, while not typically addressed metaphysically are none-the-less incorporated as 'delay'corrections' in practical practice. So you aren't 'coloring outside the lines' there, either.

Thirdly: You make cogent arguments addressing undecidability in the QM method of Spin State Characteristics. All of which are consistent with Shannon's concise definition of 'Information".

Fourthly; and finally, I will take issue with your contention that because "each different configuration of all that exists is a different time, it makes no sense to talk of the speed of time in relation to that". Events that in your Object Universe may coincide in an observed configuration corrected to the metronome in your observatory, but that does not prove that Time is registered in the inertial reference frames of those objects at the same rate as your metronome. And Your Own opening scenario freely admits that there is no universal reference of scale for either time or space. There is only the bounded interval of possible speed between nil and light velocity. It is a mathematical consequence of omission of that degree of freedom in Minkowski SpaceTime that spawns the so-called SR paradoxes.

I'll let the panel judges decide if you have "use(d) this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the authors pet topic". It's worth a cool 1/3 weight of score for relevance, you know. Good Luck, and never be satisfied with your arguments and axioms as they stand now. They may change in a different configuration of acquired knowledge. Best Wishes, John

Georgi,

wise, I agree. This is not the venue for interminable debate. Incidentally, as there is no edit tab for comments on essays I should clarify; I found your arguments of QM Spin States consistent with Shannon.

I'm fond of history as its very instructive of how people thought and how much change there has been in usage of language. Also, there are many ideas and approaches that would have been very relevant to the prevalent thinking of the times, and which simply are not considered today because they were not in vogue in their day. The 'meme' creating the narrative. Fun fact about Newton, if you have seen the TV sitcom 'Big Bang Theory', Newton was the same sort of socially naive curmudgeon as the Sheldon character, he reputedly keep a cat in his rooms at Trinity and had a small hole cut in the bottom of the door so that the feline could go freely in and out. When the cat dropped a litter, he had the carpenter cut smaller holes, one for each of the kits. His idea of immutable physical laws was such that he expected the kittens to follow them.

Q: When do you take an elephant on holiday? A: When a suitcase just won't do. :-)jrc

Dear Georgina P. Woodward, my perseverance comes from the desire to consolidate in your subconscious the identity of Descartes' space and matter, according to which physical space moves, since it is matter. It is possible that someday it will affect the course of your thoughts, and you will become a supporter of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics.

Regards, Boris Dizhechko.