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

        7 days later

        Dear Dr. Crecraft,

        I followed your discussion with Dr. Petkov about his essay with great interest and therefore read your essay as well. Thank you very much for this inspiring view on determinism and measurement problem(s)!

        What I found highly interesting is your DDCM, which generally shows the advantages of describing systems from the perspective of their "background"/reference surroundings. I have some question concerning this splitting:

        - can we say that thermal randomness occurs due to the non-perfect split into "system" and "surrounding", because the system always interacts with the environment (unless both are in equilibrium with each other)?

        - if the latter point is the origin of thermal randomness, is it really objective reality because, it may be possible that different observers can take different choices how they split into "system" and "environment"?

        - concerning the very last part about Goedel's undecidability, I think you are right, even if we can build a perfectly decidable theory on the basis of logic, it may still leave some freedom in the physical interpretation. If you are interested in a cosmic example, have a look at my essay. I think we are on the same page that we cannot know what reality does between two measurements.

        With best wishes, success and luck for the contest,

        Jenny Wagner

          Hi Jenny,

          Thank you for your comment. You raise an excellent and fundamental question, which I paraphrase: if we can choose how to split a system from its surroundings, and if physical reality is contextually defined with respect to its surroundings, is it really objective?

          When we define a boundary separating a system from its surroundings, we choose the system's surroundings. When we conduct an experiment, the experimental apparatus defines the systems ambient surroundings at measurement. So we are choosing the system's surroundings (and inertial reference). This is why a contextual physical reality is so difficult to accept. But the ambient "surroundings" for the universe as a whole, or more properly its ambient microwave radiation background, is objectively defined and any subsystem can be defined with respect to that ambient background. In a contextual reality, the context is a given and part of the system's definition; once the system's context is given, the system's description is objective and complete (in the limit of perfect measurement--see Fig 1).

          Thermal randomness is also a very tricky concept. Thermal randomness implicitly assumes random fluctuations of precise coordinates, but precise coordinates are definable only with respect to an assumed ambient temperature of absolute zero. As long as a system interacts with its actual surroundings, it exists as a contextual state, whether it is an equilibrium or metastable state. States evolve deterministically and there are no random fluctuations. Randomness only comes in during irreversible transition from one metastable state to another more stable (higher entropy) state. During an irreversible transition, the system is not interacting with its surroundings. This is the basis for the quantum zeno effect.

          Harrison

          Dear Harrison,

          thanks a lot for the further explanations!

          I agree that fixing the background gives a definition of the system for one observer, so that this observer can probe the system and obtain his results. But my question goes further (or I did not fully get your answer): assume observer A uses the cosmic microwave background temperature at his position as background temperature and measures the temperature of a system next to him. Now let observer B do exactly the same, but with the difference that the microwave background temperature at his position is not the same as that at A's place. Both measure the temperature of the same system but with their respective background. So both need to agree on a common reference (i.e. a background to each other, if you like) to be able to compare their measurements, right? Hence the split into background and system is not unique. So does every observer have their own contextual reality or is there a common one after they agree on a reference between each other? Or is the problem solved by stating that each observer only has his own knowledge about the system in the reference frame he chooses and does not know whether an objective, absolute reference frame exists?

          Thank you as well for the further comments on thermal randomness. Guess I need to think a bit longer about that!

          Best regards,

          Jenny

          Hi Jenny,

          More great questions!

          Any meaningful discussion HAS TO start with mutually agreed assumptions. Here are the assumptions of state for the Dissipative Conceptual Model:

          Postulate 1: No system has surroundings at absolute zero temperature and no system can be perfectly insulated from its ambient surroundings.

          Definition 1: The ambient microstate for a system in equilibrium with its ambient surroundings is defined by the properties that are measurable by an ambient measurement device.

          Postulate 2: Perfect measurement is a reversible process of transformation between a system's initial microstate and its ambient microstate reference.

          Postulate 3: At perfect measurement, there are no hidden variables. The microstate is therefore a complete description of the system's physical state at measurement.

          Postulate 4 (1st Law of Thermodynamics): The total energy for a system plus its surroundings is conserved. A system's energy is conserved in the limit of perfect isolation.

          I have an article that fully develops the model and would explain your questions. I submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal in a major family of scientific journals. It was peer reviewed, but not accepted, based on easily resolvable issues and misunderstandings. I would be happy to share it off-line if you email me. I plan to rework it (probably incorporating ideas I have gained from this contest) and resubmit it. An essay in Medium, Reinventing Time, does a pretty good job summarizing some of its key points.

          Contextual reality depends on its context, which includes ambient temperature and inertial reference. Any observation and measurement defines a system's context at measurement. One might therefore conclude that reality exists only at measurement or observation and reality is subjective. This is not correct, because the universe and any delineated subsystem has an ambient and zero-inertia context relative to which it is contextually defined, independent of observation or conscious beings. Any subsystem of the universe, by definition, must have a delineation, which is a given part of the system's definition, as is the system's context. Who, what, or how the delineation came to be is outside the scope of the system's description.

          My comment on thermal randomness was misleading. Thermal randomness really applies to random fluctuations in energy levels, as defined by Boltzmann's partition function at a given temperature. A gas's absolute temperature is a measure of its energy relative to zero energy at absolute zero. In dissipative dynamics, thermal randomness is defined at the ambient temperature(*), and the energy defined at the ambient temperature is the system's ground-state energy. Ambient temperature and ground-state energy are always positive.

          Absolute temperature and total energy are non-contextual properties and they do not depend on ambient temperature. They are measurable by observers A and B, independent of their context.

          Since voting (and commenting?) ends after today, I'd be happy to continue discussion offline by email.

          Harrison

          (*) To avoid contextuality, conventional interpretations define thermal radomness either at absolute zero (deterministic mechanics) or at the system temperature (thermodynamics)

          Dear Harrison,

          since we do not know how long posting still works, I have sent you an email. Hope it has arrived well!

          Best regards,

          Jenny

          9 days later

          Mr Crecraft, you could answer to all persons, you beleive that you are special or that you sort the persons to answer ??? for me you are a common thinker, nothing of special, sorry but I am frank, I dislike these comportments, you have not answered to 3 persons, why ? this Vanity and lack of consciousness begin to irritate me a lot to be frank

          Write a Reply...