Laplace's Demon -- Thwarted by Modern Physics, or Does He Know Something We Don't? by Stephen Klein

Dear Stephen.,

Great to see a young student such as you at this context. Wish you all the best for your nice essay, and for asking a very pertinent question.

If you are interested, I answer precisely the question you ask (in the affirmative) in my essay here: The pollen and the electron. Underlying quantum theory is a deterministic dynamics at the Planck scale. The emergent theory at low energies loses predictability because it is not probing precisely enough.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Dear Stephen,

I am delighted to see your entry here.

I wish you the best of luck!

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

"Quantum formalism sets a definite limit on the deterministic universe predicted by Newtonian mechanics."

Consider Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections:

Lestone, John Paul. Possible reason for the numerical value of the fine-structure constant. No. LA-UR-18-21550. Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2018.

Consider the following hypothesis: Lestone's theory is either wrong or it requires a new law of physics.

According to some of the string theorists, spacetime is doomed. If spacetime is doomed then is a new uncertainty principle required? What might be wrong with the following?

There exists a Lestone-maximum-mass > 0, such that for any massive elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics,

(standard deviation of position) * (standard deviation of velocity) тЙе

(reduced-Planck's-constant/2) / (Lestone-maximum-mass) .

Dear Stephen,

You give very good doubts in the spirit of Descartes. As Hegel said "The owl of Minerva begins its flight only at dusk."...To overcome the modern crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of knowledge today, mathematicians and physicists must stubbornly "dig" to the most remote meaning-distinguishable ontological depths. Carlo Rovelli is right: Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics . The same can be said about mathematics, taking into account the centennial problem of the "foundations of mathematics", which Morris Kline well presented in "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty": "Mathematics needs Philosophy / Philosophy needs Mathematics".

From the list of Carlo Rovelli the most pressing questions for modern physics, the first two: "What is space?", "What is time?". Therefore, the conclusion: Mathematics, Physics and Ontology must meet each other and meet at the ontological "point with the embryo of vector". Here, the dialectical ideas of Kuzansky and Whitehead (process metaphysics) are already helping.

Planck and Einstein began more than a hundred years ago the Big Ontological coup in the foundations of science. But this coup was not completed. Any theory that claims to be fundamental must have an ontological basification (justification substantification). Quantum theory and General relativity are phenomenological (parametric, operationalistic) theories without an ontological basification. Therefore, it makes no sense to combine them, let each work on their own "field". Today, in order for science to overcome the crisis of understanding, the holistic paradigm - Universum as a whole - must come to the aid of the paradigm of the part.

It is necessary to start an "ontological attack" on "matter" with the goal of its deeper, holistic, understanding in the spirit of Plato: matter is that from which all forms are born. This is also required by the modern Information Revolution and the solution of the problem of the nature of the phenomenon of "information", its place in the scientific picture of the world. Let us recall the ancient Greek "goddess of form" Eidothea, daughter of the sea deity Proteus ("Proteus of nature" is a metaphor for "matter") and the goddess of the sea sand Psamata, who told Menelaus how to put Proteus on the net so that he could tell Menelaus the way back to Greece ... Concepts "dark matter", "dark energy"- entities without necessity. In order to "grasp" (understand) the ontological structure of matter, the "Occam's razor" must be extremely sharp. To understand is to "grasp structure" (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). Criticism must begin from Newton's metaphysics - "Absolute space". Of particular great doubt is the philosophically naive hypothesis of Big Bang. At the same time, remember the philosophical testament of Paul Florensky "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Hi Stephen,

Laplace's demon is such an good and inspiring topic in the context of this essay contest. And despite some principled limits of knowability, known from current physics (thermodynamics and quantum mechanics) as you mentioned in your essay and also from Gödel's theorem, which limits the knowability for formal languages, it is extremely difficult for me to think away the possible existence of a Laplace's demon.

This certainly is because I imagine the world in a simplistic realist way (what I criticise in my essay). But also because I haven't really seen a convincing derivation of the need of probability as a fundamental concept of the laws of physics that isn't merely epistemic (a limit of knowledge of the subjects taking part at the reality). Even if quantum mechanics suggests that randomness is not merely an epistemic problem.

Hopefully, we find in this contest an essay that can do that. Let me know if you do.

Thanks for you essay,

Luca

Sorry to barge in Luca. Request you to kindly see my essay, The pollen and the electron, which addresses this very question.

Thank you,

Tejinder

Dear Stephen,

A most enjoyable essay. I cover similar ground in my essay, which I hope you will read and comment on (I look at LaPlace's demon and Maxwell's demon with respect to quantum uncertainty).

I would like to state that I am not a fan of many of the interpretations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). I would make a comment that from my 'Machian' perspective all particles and their attendant fields are infinitely connected in some degree to all other particles and their fields, and hence there is always going to be an uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, in a dynamic system. However, I think HUP has been grossly misused when arguments are made that as we go down in scale (at particle scales) that momentum (and hence energy) increases accordingly. For those of us, like myself, who have developed working preon theory, such a notion is preposterous, as the preon units that make up the fundamental particles have only their binding energies (which tally to produce the particle energy), not some enormous energy as predicted by HUP.

I would also like to comment on information loss and the black hole (BH) paradox. I take the position that certain information is lost upon a hypothetical spacecraft crossing the event horizon. I suspect that the matter that formed the spacecraft (protons, neutrons and electrons) are not lost but are converted to their constituent preon particles, which I call gimlis [Unless of course one or more particles are annihilated by a corresponding anti-particle]. What is lost are the binding energies of the particles' constituents, and any information pertaining to the arrangements of atoms (such as in the on-board computer's software memory) prior to crossing the event horizon. The BH's gravity has increased as a result of the new additions, and the BH jets may release some of the binding energy as electromagnetic radiation.

Good luck with your essay,

Lockie Cresswell

Dear Stephen Klein,

We are delighted to find an undergrad level student here like us!

However, your essay was as good as any other we have encountered here, both in terms of presentation and content!

The line that resonated most with us was:

"Furthermore, our mathematical formalism and analysis of nature are unavoidably human".

The crux of our argument presented in our essay, which we hope you find interesting enough to read, analyzes the link between mathematics and cognition.

Kind Regards,

Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza

Dear Stephen,

Great to see a young talented student such as you at this context. In this context,I think that the past essay article to be published from the book is closely linked to your question. The partial answer was given but your clear viewpoint cannot be answered in my viewpoint of the past essay.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Stephen,

"Despite the holes in our physical theories and the valid questions of our impartiality as human beings, we can regard our physics as predictive." As I say "Maybe, by the passing of a trillion tomorrows." And regarding bridging quantum to classical states, which you mention, US & Austrian physicists have evidence of that, which I site in my essay. An interesting discussion, Stephen.

Jim Hoover

Dear Stephen,

Let me first say that I am both delighted and impressed that you entered the fray! I found your essay to be well-written, interesting, thought-provoking, and enjoyable.

I really enjoyed how you brought together multiple examples of information and indeterminism under the context of Laplace's demon. I am especially delighted to see this because, as an educator, I often worry that we present physics to our students as if everything is well-known and well-understood. Clearly, you have an excellent grasp of a number of things that are not well-understood.

Keep thinking and wondering! There is much that we all have yet to learn!

Thank you again!

Kevin