Epistemic Horizons: This Sentence is 1/√2(|True> + |False>) by Jochen Szangolies

You can see easily that I consider coded particles like causes of our reality. I don t consider strings and 1D main Cosmic filds creating these geonetries, topologies, matters and properties, nor a geometrodynamics. I beleive that the strings are a fashion philosophically speaking like if all was fields, Waves, oscillations, I prefer to consider particles coded in a gravitational aether where the space dispappears and is coded if I can say. I doubt that this universe is an enormous heat and that we have only photons like primordial essence and after vibrations, oscillations creating this physicality. I beleive that the strings and thsi GR have created a kind of prison for the thinkers, but it is just my opinion of course, we have for me a deeper logic to all this puzzle.

Hi, All this is very interesting about the polytopes, and the plays of maths. We search after all what are the foundamentals of this universe. The polytops can converge, but for this we must be sure about their properties and if they are foundamental, we know that we have many different polytopes , like the Lie Groups also and this E8 for example,or the infinite polytopes, the abstracts ones or the complex polytopes also. And dualities appear also. Now the real question is , must we consider these polytops really considering the QFT ? is it just a tool to rank and study better the fields in our standard model ? the real question is there, and we can extrapolate philosophically deeper, are we sure that all is made of Waves and fields ? like in the strings theory , or in the geometrodynamics, because if we have coded particles instead of fields creating our physicality , so we must consider particles and not fields implyinmg these geometries, topologies,properties of matters and so the effects possible in extrapolating the maths. The maths are Always interesting but they must be utilised with the biggest wisdom considering the interpretations and assumptions, we cannot extrapolate and conclude all what we want.The problem foundamental for me is that we consider still these geometrisations due to fields , like if we had a 1D main field from this Cosmic scale and permitting with the oscillations to create the reality with these 1D strings at this planck scale, all is false if the particles are coded and in 3D, don t forget that we can create all SHAPEs, geonetries, topologies with coded 3D particles, 3D spheres for example, now imagine this, imagine that the codes of geometrisations and properties are inside these particles , imagine a Ricci flow, the Hamilton Ricci flow, a kind of assymetric Ricci flow to create the unique things, imagine too this poincare conjecture and the heat equation and imagine the plays of maths with the topological and euclidian spaces, and the lie derivatives and lie groups, we can create all geometries and topologies also, so we arrive at big philosophical questions about these foundamental objects and the main cause of these objects and their properties. You can tell all what you want with polytopes, we cannot affirm that it is foundamental simply. The same for my reasoning considering these 3D spheres coded at this planck scale considering a gravitational coded aether sent from the central cosmological sphere. I beleive that we must prove what we extrapolate simply and at this moment we are limited simply. The aim is not to create mathematical partitions but to find the real universal partition, it is totally different at my humble opinion. The convex polytopes and the linear transformations must be sure after all, and the vectors and scalars also, the problem is that we cannot affirm in fact, so the same for the extrapolations and assumptions. The secret maybe if I can is to superimpose a deeper logic to this universe , the fields, strings, geometrodynamics and the fact to consider only photons like main essence imply a prison for the majority of thinkers, that is why we cannot explain our unknowns mainly for me.Think beyond the box and maybe consider coded particles, the Waves particles duality is respected because they are inm motions and in contact in a superfluid these particles....Regards

Jochen. I enjoyed your paper. You may find my essay. "Clarification of Physics--" interesting. I introduce a self creating system, a new basic level to the current epistemically horizon and show how it fits into the creation of a multiverse that includes "our" physical universe. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John D Crowell

here is a general post about the entropical spherical informations

Entropical spherical informations and general universal communications , the sortings, superimposings, synchronisations and the link with quantum 3D spheres and the general spherisation of the universe .Why and how ? sources, signals and encodings .....

The complexity appears with the quantities of informations and can be ranked between the minimal and maximal of informations . For this let s consider a main universal emission from the central cosmological sphere, it is there that this infinite energy codes and transform thsi energy in matters, 3D finite series of spheres for me in a gravitational coded aether where this space disappears playing between the cold and heat generally.The source is from there and the aether is the source but it encodes also and recepts in function of evolutive codes and properties disered to create the diversity and communications of evolution in logic.

The works of Shannon can converge and the uncertainty can be better understood at my humble opinion seeing the complexity and number of these finite series having probably the same number than our cosmological finite series of spheres, there is like an universal link between this finite number,

the redondance and the equiprobability can be better understood if we know the real universal meaning of this general thought

The thermodynamics can converge considering two main constants for this gravitational aether, like codes playing between this zero absolute and this planck temperature, it is an assumption but when we consider all the properties of these series, we can understand better the synchronisations, the sortings, the superimposings with all the motions, rotations , oscillations of these 3D spheres.

The second principle in thermodynamics become relevant , Q/T correlated with this entropy and we can converge with the entropy of Shannon and the topological entropy in considering several mathematical Tools of ranking, like the lie derivatives, the topological and euclidian spaces, the Ricci flow and an assymetric Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture , the lie groups and others mathematical Tools. See that the motions, rotations , oscillations, volumes, densities, mass, angles, senses of rotations, moments, and other physical properties can help for the rankings and for a better understanding of communications ,uncertainties and probabilities.

The potential of these series so become the key and the distribution also of informations in function of codes of evolution and properties of matters. It is a question of internal energy and distribution of this energy in function of internal codes and informations. The relevance becomes the infinity of combinations.

Regards

Dear Jochen.

It is only now that I am daring to make comments on your excellent essay because your approach is quite another one as mine. But I think one is learning most with an open mind, so I made the following notes while reading your essay:

"the Newtonian, classical framework, can no longer be upheld". Why not, it is describing our daily macro reality quite good and can be used in many ways. In my opinion, it is the mixing up of the micro and macro, and then especially the quantum "world" that is leading to such remarks. The mainstream of 14 interpretations are created by agents inside an emergent phenomenon (reality) while they are themselves part of it and so are trying to UNIFY the two, while when we are splitting up our emergent reality and its source (in my perception: Total Simultaneity) we can treat them apart. A TOE needs not to be a unified theory of ALL but can be a theory that is dealing with different entities.

Quote

1. Finiteness: There is a finite maximum of information that can be obtained about any given system. 2. Extensibility: It is always possible to acquire new information about any system

Unquote.

I would add the following Finiteness: there is a finite maximum of information that can be obtained by an agent about a given system at a certain moment. Extensibility: no changes it already covers my addition in 1. (you also indicate this with "old" information.

The "Horizons of understanding" are in my perception limited by the borders of our emerging reality, the Planck units and the velocity of light. Heisenberg's uncertainty relation is just describing that at a certain moment there is the only position of a particle, the velocity is a relationship with a new moment in time and space. So velocity can only be measured inside the emergent phenomenon of reality. Superposition: more quantum states can be added together, every quantum state can be represented as a sum of two or more other distinct states. We are reaching out to the borderlines of our reality and nearing Total Simultaneity (unreachable) where each point can be represented as an INFINITY of distinct states. (phase space) Measurements are "events" that are time and space-restricted, so results are always from the past, and only dealing about ONE distinct state.

I think that the first part of your argument " But this means that there exist some state sg and measurement mg such that the value of mg(sg) cannot be predicted by f." should be extended to Any state sg and its measurement mg cannot lead to any "prediction". Because sg and mg are both events from the deterministic past, the future is containing still ALL probabilities, so is always indeterministic.

Entanglement and Bell's Theorem are also explained in my "Total Simultaneity Interpretation", and I hope that after reading these remarks you may be interested to know more about it. Of course, my essay is not so clearly written as yours, but it is quite a new approach to the essence of reality I think so I would be very obliged to hear your opinion.

You can find it HERE .

Best reagards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Wow Jochen, this was great!

You managed to tie together undecidability and epistemic horizons in a way I have never seen before, and which intuitively rang true to me. For what it's worth, I believe that the way quantum mechanics will ultimately escape from the problem of supporting so many radically different ontologies is precisely through the kind of reconstruction you propose, and the fact that you managed to tie this to the kinds of epistemic horizons discovered by Godel and Turing blew me away.

I have responded to your kind comment on my piece over there.

Best of luck in the contest!

Rick

Hi Jochen,

great essay that demonstrates that empirical data restrict the freedom to extend quantum theory by some deterministic hidden variables already for one and the same kind of QM-experiment. I think you made a very good job to decrease chances for getting thrown out of an office for making a certain suggestion.

If you like i would be happy if you could comment on my essay where i also try to link undecidability to quantum events (although not as elegant as you have done).

Hope you are well an healthy.

Dear Jochen,

You write: "Instead of trying to infer the underlying ontology ..."

I believe that in order to overcome the crisis of understanding, the crisis of interpretation and representation in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and cognition in general, the most profound ontological ideas are needed. Quantum mechanics is a phenomenological (parametric, operationalist) theory without an ontological basis. A. Einstein pronounced the ontological verdict on Quantum Mechanics: "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

Yes, Planck and Einstein began the Big Ontological revolution in the basics of knowledge, but it remained incomplete. Gödel's theorems - this was the answer to the protracted crisis of the foundations of mathematics, which has been going on for more than a hundred years. And this problem for some reason "swept under the carpet." In overcoming the crisis in the philosophical basis of science, one cannot rely on the "classical ideal", since it is precisely the cognitive attitudes of the "second Archimedean revolution" ("hypotheses non fingo", "physics, fear metaphysics"), the atomistic paradigm (mechanistic, part paradigm) that prevails in science holds back the necessary ontological breakthrough in philosophical basis of knowledge. Now it is appropriate for all physicists to recall the philosophical precepts of A. Einstein: "At the present time, a physicists has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater extent than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science" and of J. Wheeler: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers." Carlo Rovelli calls for such a step towards Philosophy in the article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics .

With respect, Vladimir

Dear Jochen Szangelios,

I apologize for misspelling your name and hesitating to read your essay the title of which was deterring to me. Meanwhile I guess, the successful application of QM doesn't require orthogonal quantum states, and the distrusts of McEachern and of Kadin are not unfounded. Should we still invest more effort into quantum computing?

While I don't overestimate my argument that Fourier was partially wrong, I don't trust in Fraenkel's ZFC since I read how he supported Cantor's (as I see it) naïve idea of Überabzänlbarkeit by taking elements of an infinite set of numbers as fixed. I rather trust in Peirce who spoke of mere potentialities and Weyl who spoke of the sauce of real numbers.

Pragmatically, Euclidean spaces are thought to be composed like a set of points, which are defined only by the properties that they must have for forming a Euclidean space.

You Jochen admitted: "it's not easy to see why one should use Hilbert spaces over the complex field".

Klaas Landsmann wrote: "I would not say that Gödel's theorems imply that mathematics cannot be grounded on logic, except when you mean "grounded" in Hilbert's sense, namely a proof of consistency. Without knowing that e.g. ZFC is consistent, it is still a logical language in which we do our mathematics, most of which is decidable in ZFC."

I realize minor changes in the language of mathematics. At school I learned "point product" not yet "dot product". Because I am not a mathematician, I had to naively reinvent the distinction between point and dot which I consider decisive from the perspective of logic and physics.

Let me reiterate: I am suggesting let's learn from Leibniz' success story and calculate as if the unbounded plurality of thinkable references was identical with not just Salviati's notion of being infinite, the logical property of simply being endless. But be careful and understand what you are doing. Don't derive nonsense.

Eckard Blumschein

Jochen,

Great analysis. I appreciate your rare & deep understanding of the issues around QM. I'm reminded of the good advice in your response last year to "focus on observed events", which, yes, I'd done, unfortunately you didn't get to my essay. Yours is flawless (I re-read it to check!) and beautifully written, though QM rarely scores well here, (an exception was my 2015 'Red/Green sock trick' essay).

I very much agree your linking wider uncertainties to QM, something my essay this year also does, even rather more widely! & highlight your 'Toy Model' project to find; "one or more foundational principles such that the quantum predictions naturally follow". Spot on, and this computer plot by Trail 2018 suggests my essay identifies one(..or more). Viz;

Bohr made no 'assumptions' about particle morphology, so had to invent 'quantum spin'. But let's hypothesize OAM as already having 2 momenta cases; Polar Rotation (>0 at the equator {90o} then inverting), and Linear, which is exactly the inverse superposed. I also show both change by CosLatitude. But it's the polarizer electrons we need to apply it to! This needs a new way of thinking about OAM, but Ulla kindly identified last yr it's exactly Poincare's spherical vector distribution! Simple vector addition on interaction at any Tan point gives CosLat output. A 2nd Photomultiplier interaction gives Cos2, with amplitude only above trigger point in ONE channel. Spheres can also rotate on x,y,z concurrently. You see where I'm going with this; A,B 'dials' reverse their OWN findings!!

I hope you might check through it, and also it'll need help from someone with your skills to stand any chance against the "wide agreement..." (your para 1).

Well done for yours. A breath of fresh air and prize candidate. I do hope you'll read mine this year, but also last years; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012 (there are also various papers).

My 2010-11 essay '2020 Vision' suggested the 'discrete field model' (DFM) that spawned this may take 10yrs to emerge. No sign yet, but you may the one with the vision!

Very Best

Peter

Hi Eckard, I can understand what you say, but let s go deeper in philosphy and about our physicality. What is the main cause of our physicality and how we must consider this infity and these infinities and our finite series. Can we really understand this universal distribution at this moment, we can take all the past thinkers having worked about this, that will not change our limitations due to a lack of knowledges generally speaking.

We don t know the main philosophical cause of this universe, I consider an infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality and this thing that we cannot define is so Deep and so far of our understanding. This infinity , the real infinity has created a physicality with a system in evolution with informations, particles and Waves and we see that this physicality is under a kind of universal partition where the numbers, the particles and Waves create this physicality and its topologies, geometries, paproperties of matters. We see these infinities appearing everywhere like mathematical Tools and physical ones but they don t explain this infinity really, they are just like Tools simply inside this physicality.

The philosphy and ontology appear indeed but we are limited simply, we cannot affirm because it is far of our understanding. It d be odd to pretend the opposite, nobody can prove what is this non physical infinity. We can analyse all what we want inside this physicality with the maths, numbers, and physics , that will not change our limitations, nobody can prove philosophically the orogin of this universe, the same for the main codes at this planck scales or the foundamental objects , all what we can is to study and improve our limited knowledges inside this physicality. The aim is to accept these limitations I beleive and respect simply the pure determinism inside this physicality.

Regards

Dear Jochen,

I see it as horse first, as the problems in logic ('paradox') and Philosophy were worse than physics, needing resolving by checking starting assumptions. How do we imagine Aristotle dreampt those up anyway! We now have far better information than he did, but the foundational issues took a long time to dig down to. The sound consequences of the proposed revisions alone seem to confirm veracity.

BUT the most important thing for you to study is the apparent physical solution to QM you suggest your'e looking for on page 1. It's verified by computer, but I trust a good well informed brain more! You didn't get to it last year so I suggest I'm owed a priority look!

Ridiculous Simplicity fqXi 2018.

I do hope your problems aren't family

Very best. Stay safe.

Peter