Thank you. Very nice essay.

The conclusion could be a bit more advantageous, as if you stopped because of just writing for the sake of the essay.

Since closed systems are conceptual systems, thermodynamics must be conceptual too. Hence the call for rewriting the concept on the base of interdependent systems.

I read also your essay "The Arrow of Functional Complexity".

I was pleasantly surprised by your models, cause they resembled, to me, something of one of my inventions. you can find it under:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339237504_Reciprocal_Energy_Converting_System

all the best,

Jos Hoebe

    Thank you, Jos for the nice comments. I'm glad you looked at the arrow of functional complexity--figuring that out was my motivation for getting started on this venture many years (decades) ago. This contest and essay give me additional fodder for my argument on why we need to move beyond the Hamiltonian paradigm, which still has a hold over physics after nearly 200 years!

    I looked at your Researchgate article. It looks interesting, but I need to spend more time on it to absorb it.

    Best to you,

    Harrison Crecraft

    Dear Harrison Crecraft,

    Thank you for an excellent essay. I believe that your definitions of empirical versus conceptual models are superb, and I will probably quote you in my own essay, as they are extremely relevant to my topic.

    I also found your treatment of Hamiltonian mechanics and thermodynamics quite interesting; my essay may have something to contribute to these arguments.

    I very much appreciated your concluding analysis of Gödel's relevance to physical reality interpretations, which addresses the essay topic beautifully.

    I wish you the best in this contest,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      We have a few points of agreement...

      I like to think of thermodynamic entropy in terms of spreading, which makes randomness an effect of entropy instead of its manifestation, but I guess you covered that in your Hamiltonian model discussion. As with Ed; I'm glad you worked that part up, to show things from a 'total energy' view.

      A lot of people get hung up on Lagrangian analysis without ever realizing Hamiltonians are not just equivalent but sometimes advantageous to use. And I like the connection with MWI that implies, which explains some of the views of Dieter Zeh in decoherence theory. A different point of view from the norm though. Perhaps what is needed.

      My research appears to show that we should view the entire universe as a dissipative system, rather than imagining all symmetries are absolute. I think what's real is global asymmetry with local symmetries that extend out to a very large neighborhood - perhaps the Hubble volume - but are ultimately broken and lead to a cold dark end, or a new cycle.

      More later,

      Jonathan

        Wow! Thank you Edwin.

        I'm glad you found some useful ideas.

        I look forward to seeing your essay.

        Harrison

        Thank you for your comments, Jonathan.

        I am in complete agreement that the universe is best modeled as a dissipative system. This is discussed in the two essays referenced. As noted in "time reinvented," implication #4, the declining ambient temperature of the universe, currently at 2.7 K, has significant implications on its evolution.

        Harrison

        10 days later

        Hi Harrison,

        Nice essay. The conflict between empirical irreversibility and physical reversibility as pertaining to the entropy and the arrow of time was studied by Josef Loschmidt and is known as Loschmidt's paradox, which I cover in my essay. I believe this paradox can be used to show that wave particle duality is implausible. I think Maxwellian electromagnetic radiation is an example of the dissipative dynamical system you mention in your essay. I like the idea of a complex time embodying reference time, thermodynamic time and mechanical time. I argue elsewhere that the reference time is actually cosmological time.

        All the best

        Lachlan Cresswell

          Hi Lachlan,

          Thank you for your comment. In regard to Loschmidt's paradox, you ask in your essay "what breaks the time-reversibility of classical mechanics?" I agree that electromagnetic radiation is an important illustration of irreversibility. However, the mere asymmetry of electromagnetic propagation from a point source does not necessarily mean fundamental irreversibility.

          The expansion of a gas into a vacuum is undeniably asymmetric in time, but most conceptual models of physics assume that it is reversible, in principle. If motions were reversed, expansion would reverse, and no laws of mechanics would be violated. It may be astronomically unlikely, and this breaks the symmetry of time, but whether it is fundamentally irreversible is a deeper question and one that is generally ignored.

          Fundamental determinism and reversibility are deeply ingrained in conceptual models of physical reality, and it is rarely questioned. As I argue in my essay, however, fundamental determinism and reversibility are not empirically provable, and randomness and irreversibility are, in fact, compatible with observations and with the deterministic laws of physics. The reason is that determinism means a precise cause maps to a precise effect, but with fundamental randomness, there is no precise initial cause. Deterministic evolution of an initial cause or state with fundamental but empirically unresolvable randomness can be irreversibly amplified to macroscopically random outcomes.

          Assuming fundamental determinism and reversibility requires extraordinary, and unnecessary, machinations to explain empirical irreversibility and the spontaneous organization of complexity within open systems (e.g. the origin and evolution of life). An absolute-zero ambient temperature is unobtainable, and the absence of fundamental thermal randomness assumed by most conceptual models of physics is an idealization that simply does not reflect physical reality.

          Harrison Crecraft

          14 days later

          Dear Harrison (id I may),

          I fully agree with you that "determinism is empirically undecidable by observations", as I also voice in my essay, in the conclusions. However, I also try to argue why determinism seems less realistic than indeterminism, even in classical physics. So, while empirically equivalent, there cuould be phiòlosophical arguments that hint at one direction. You might like to have a look at that and we can then maybe discuss this further

          All the best,

          Flavio

            I look forward to reading your essay.

            To be clear, I argue that fundamental determinism may be consistent with observations, but it leads to unreasonable conclusions. Fundamental indeterminism is also consistent with observations, but it leads to highly plausible conclusions. It allows extending physics from states to dissipative systems, and it allows for an explanation of spontaneous evolution of complexity. The spontaneous evolution of complexity is consistent with observations, but it is incompatible with determinism.

            I believe empirical observations clearly favor an interpretation of fundamental indeterminism, even in classical mechanics.

            I will read and comment on your article.

            Harrison

            25 days later
            8 days later

            Dear Harrison,

            Thanks for this beautiful and well-argued essay. I agree with the undecidability of determinism versus randomness but disagree about what you say about the irrelevance of Gödel's theorems - how could I agree with you given my own essay in this contest! Fortunately, your reasoning rather seems to confirm the relevance of his incompleteness theorems, and if you had ended your essay saying this, it would have been just as natural. There is a long tradition (going back to Daneri, Loinger, Prosperi, early 1960s or even earlier) of relating randomness of measurement outcomes in quantum mechanics to metastability, but this tradition missed the importance of the classical or macroscopic limit of QM in enhancing the importance of external perturbations, which destabilize a metastable state and lead to collapse (cf. your endnote 2). See my 2017 Open Access Book Foundations of Quantum Theory, available at http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319517766

            Best wishes, Klaas Landsman

              Harrison,

              Great essay, spot on topic and nicely argued. I also conclude the same as you, but I've identified a very specific mechanistic and largely deterministic sequence producing the irreversibly and divergence, or "dissipation" in your terms. I'm interested if you think it compatible;

              It's a shame you missed last years contest as I derived this in detail there, but I touch on it this year and can outline it here. We simplify 'measurement' as exchange of momentum between signal and detector polariser field electrons - so vector addition. HOWEVER, this is new!;

              Consider Mawxwell's TWO momenta; the orthogonal LINEAR and ROTATIONAL ('curl'), and think afresh about spherical rotation (OAM). Interacting radially at any point, what do we find?, imagine your finger touching the rotating sphere surface (an analogue for absorption) and answer these 4 questions;

              Touch it at a pole;

              1 Can you feel with certainty which way it rotates? (clockwise or anti..)

              2 Can you feel whether it's moving left or right?

              Now approach from above the equator;

              3. Can you feel with certainty which way it rotates? (clockwise or anti..

              4. Can you feel whether it's moving left or right?

              What you should find is; Yes/No/No/Yes. (1/0, 0/1) OK? From geophysics we know the LINEAR case reduces from 1 to 0, from equator to pole by the Cosine of the Latitude; CosTheta. Now the 'curl' case reduces INVERSELY of course!

              Now lets take 1,000 interactions. Most vector output, for BOTH cases, is reasonably certain. However the odd one or two will hit PRECISELY at the pole or equator! So asked questions 2 or 3 the vector output will likely be 50:50, so maximum uncertainty, & divergence ('dissipation').

              That actually produces what the spin statistics theorem and Dirac equation do (only) mathematically!

              There's more to it of course (derived last year), and more implications, identified THIS year, including the need to change foundational assumptions!

              But back to your essay, very well done. Agreement of content isn't a scoring criteria of course, but for me it does excellently on the valid matters so I'll be scoring it very high.

              I wish you well in the contest.

              Peter

                Hello Professor Crecraft,

                Congratulations for your essay, I liked a lot your approach. I see that you are PhD In geology, I was in geology I have stopped in second in belgium due to a coma due to a big epileptic crisis, my professor was Mr Overlau from the FNDP in belgium, Namur the Town, I like this geoology, I have ranked the minerals , the animals, vegetals, biology, Chemistry, physics , maths also, it is like in ranking even that I found my theory of spherisation and the 3D spheres like foundamantal objects , I wish you all the best in this Contest, a very relevant general essay,

                best Regards

                Thank you Klaas, I appreciate your kind comments. And thank you for the pointers to additional research. I look forward to reviewing your book on quantum foundations.

                Sincerely,

                Harrison Crecraft

                Hi Peter,

                Good to hear from you. Thank you for your kind comments. I discovered the FXQI site just 5 days before the last contest ended, and then had to wait nearly two years for this next contest. You might recall that you and I exchanged comments during a discussion I initiated several years ago on quantum interpretations on the APS LinkedIn group.

                In my conceptual model, which is further described in the two Medium essays I reference, classicality of measurement is largely restored, with the qualification that perfect reversible measurement is only definable with respect to a system's actual physical context, and this includes a positive ambient temperature. This introduces fundamental randomness in transitions of a metastable state to a more stable state. However, between transitions, a metastable particle's contextual state can be reversibly and non-statistically measured. If measurements are conducted at a basis temperature lower than the system's ambient temperature, however, measurements are irreversible, and the results are statistical. I see no fundamental incompatibility with the measurements as you describe. The dissipation is a consequence of irreversible and random transformation of the particle from its pre-measurement context at its ambient temperature to a post-measurement context at lower basis temperature of measurement. I have several manuscripts that describe this in much greater detail. I've had journals review them, but so far not published.

                Best regards, Harrison Crecraft

                15 days later

                hi crecraft. you beautifully crafted essay raises core questions on the emergence of empirical parameters.Observation or measure....which of the two leads to the other. do we measure before we observe,or do we observe before we measure? I have done something on how all of science is guided by anthropic reason here- https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks all the Best in the essay.

                Harrison,

                That description sounds correct, maybe just incomplete, and indeed we've shown polarisation changes on interaction, and indeed if the medium particles are in lateral motion the optical axis is also rotated, giving the 'kinetic reverse refraction' effect and finally solving the stellar aberration problem!

                I've had papers published on those, one on arXiv, but even then it can mean nothing as they're entirely ignored! But we must persist. Many such areas are referred in my essay(s).

                I look forward to your comments on mine this year.

                Very best.

                Peter

                Hi Peter,

                I d like to tell you an inportant thing that you could consider for this universal balance and my 3D spheres, we try to capture in Words our ideas , like we formalise them in maths and try to prove our assumptions. Like you know , I repeat the generality ,I work about my theory of spherisation, an optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum 3D spheres and cosmological spheres, I consider that all is made of particles and I consider 3 main series finite of 3D spheres having the same number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres, I consider a main primordial serie for the space and two fuels, photons and cold dark matter and when they merge they create the topologies, geometries, matters, particles and fields. I formalise all this puzzle with an intrinsc Ricci flow, the Hamilton Ricci flow, an assymetric Ricci flow also for the unique things probably in the smallest volumes of these series , the lie derivatives, the lie groups, the lie algebras, the Clifford algebras, the topological and euclidian spaces and the poincare conjecture mainly, it is not easy but I try to do my best for this formalisation, I have quantified and renormalised this quantum gravitation with this general reasoning.

                But the important point is to balance the standard model and this consological scale with this cold dark matter, we need a balance between entropy negentropy, cold heat, matter antimatter, order disorder, electronagnetism gravitation, ....it is important to consider this cold dark matter encoded in nuclei , it is even the meaning of my equation intuitive wich must be improved probably E=mc^2+Xl^2 with X a parameter correlated with the cold and l their linear velocity, but it seems that it lacks something I don t know why but I beleive that it is not complete, I know that you are a general thinker, so maybe you could Think about this, the 3D spheres, the 3 main series coded in a superfluid space and this cold dark matter encoded. It seems important, we need to know more.

                Take care, regards

                Regards

                8 days later

                Hi Harrison,

                Thank you for a well-written essay. I almost entirely agree with your essay! In fact, many of the topics and themes we cover reach the same conclusions, that is, Godel and Turing's theorems do not bear any significance on physics as they cannot be implemented in a physical environment; they must contend with the laws of thermodynamics.

                One point I had a question maybe an additional clarification

                ``Physics is virtually united that a precise cause yields a unique and precise effect. This is the doctrine of determinism.''

                I would add that deterministic theories are ones that do not increase the overall entropy of the system and are thus time-reversible. As you point out quantum measurement is intrinsically indeterministic, soley because it is irreversible.

                I would love to get your feedback on my essay. We both reached similar conclusions, however we took slightly different trajectories to get there.

                Thanks,

                Michael