Hi Barry, the modern theoretical physics has not easy to reach these deep unknowns, like this quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness, the DE and DM, the gap mass problem,the cosmological constant problem.... It is more difficult than 100 years ago where it was easier due to fact that the observations, measurements, experiments were less complicated to create. It is mainly due to problem of scales and interpretations of observations, That is why the maths are utilised with partitions and symmetries, integrations,derivations, combinatory analysis, geometrical algebras....But indeed these abstracts maths can imply confusions and an ocean of assumptions that we cannot prove. Sometimes these maths permit to prove, sometimes they imply all these assumptions, and so the philosophy, the ontology, the origin of our universe, the dimensions, the foundamental objects are for me not really well interpreted.

The thermodynamics seem more than we actually analyse considering the main codes of this space vacuum and the two fuels encoded in this space if my reasoning is correct, all seems coded and distribute a specific matter and a correlated energy, fields, ...and so a specific thermo. My reasoning intuitive is a little bit like this EPR and of course all rational thinkers can recognise that the QM and our actual standard model is not complete, I d say even that it is far to be complete lol, we know so few in fact. We need really to think beyond the box, and these actual abstratcs maths and strings for example in considering only this general relativity and these fields like main philosophical origin has created a prison where an ocean of assumptions emerge. The universe is very simple generally and the old school could rebecome the best way I believe instead to complexify a pure general simplicity. It is the meaning of my theory and these 3D spheres, why we create extradiemnsions and we consider only the fields ??? the opposite seems the key , particles like main essence and this space vacuum of the DE like main codes and this DM cold balancing could permit to superimpose two other spacetimes and that d permit to complete this QM, standard model and explain our uknowns. But the problem is that now the thinkers have difficulties to think differently because these strings are an institution and even a business and it is teached at university , and the general relativity alone also . And if we consider the vanity or the fact that these thinkers have worked hard about these abstracts maths of strings, so you imagine why I am a problem with my coded Spheres 3D and the 3 ethers. But it is the life, I must like all prove my assumptions, but it is not easy due to these problems of scales and observations, measurements.

Hi Robert, It is very interesting what you tell, I like a thinker, one of my favorites it is von neumann, he is incredible and you could like his interpretations about all this.

Barry, yes probably , he was famous indeed, the father of the information theory, you could like Von neumann, this thinker was also a general thinker very very incredible, see if you are interested what he has imagined , see the links with the von neumann entropy, the gibbs works and the shannon ones, regards

Barry,

Yes. I am referring to Claude Shannon's Information Theory. Although I was educated as a physicist, I spent most of my career in the Signal Intelligence world, where my forte was developing algorithms for doing things like extracting the maximum amount of "Information" from highly-garbled communications signals. Consequently, I became very familiar with the limitations to information recovery, that had been identified by Shannon. It is the insights gained in that realm, that I have brought to bear, on the "measurement problem" and "Uncertainty" in physics.

Here is what the physics world has never understood about "Information": In this short article about Shannon, the first 75% of the article talks about all the probability and entropy issues - the "math". The physicists dealing with "Quantum Correlations" etc., are quite familiar with all this. But all that is "just math". But what those physicists have never even tried to understand, is the last 25% of the article, that deals with actual physical reality and not "just math"; beginning with the statement that "But it was the next step that seemed, depending on one's perspective, miraculous or inconceivable... the one Fano called "unknown, unthinkable," until Shannon thought it."

The article continues: "Until Shannon, it was simply conventional wisdom that noise had to be endured. Shannon's promise of perfect accuracy was something radically new... it was this promise above all that made Shannon's theory "Copernican": Copernican in the sense that it... revolutionized our understanding of the world."

This is what "quantization" is all about. It has nothing directly to do with the physical properties of space, time, matter or energy. It has to do with quantizing "Information" in order to enable perfect (error free) information recovery.

As an analogy, think of the French Maginot Line during World War II. Instead of trying to push their way straight through that "problem", the Germans simply went around it. Shannon's "Copernican" discovery, was that there is no need whatsoever for attempting to push through the "measurement problem" and the limitations imposed by the Uncertainty Principle, because it is possible to simply go around it (by making discrete "decisions" about "Information" rather than continuous "measurements" of physical variables). "Mother Nature" also discovered this fact, eons before Shannon; and that is what put the "Quantum" in Physics, at the most fundamental level possible. This is what ultimately enables all "deterministic" behaviors to emerge from the chaos of all the unknown and non-perfectly measureable conditions, surrounding each and every entity in the cosmos. It is what enables entities to behave in the exact same manner, each and every time they happen to encounter the exact same (and perfect recoverable) "Information"; that is what "Determininism", such as Laplace conceived it, is all about. It does not happen by magic or some miraculous ability of entities to "just know", with absolute perfection, all the conditions that just happen to exist at their present location, in space and time.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

Very succinctly stated. I especially applaud the last half of the last paragraph. We can model what we might imagine the physical reality to be but it will be due to like behavior to like conditions, and our observations limited to our criteria of what we choose to measure. best jrc

Having spent most of my career in a telecommunications laboratory, I spent about half exploiting Shannon's work developing digital digital telephone exchanges. The second half exploiting Maxwell's and Shannon's work developing "smart antennas"leading to 5G, near field probing and low noise amplifier techniques, Adsl, Vdsl and fibre to the home. As a hobby I have authored or co authored several papers in international peer reviewed physics journals. All of these papers have exploited Maxwell as the arbiter of crucial experiments that underpin QM. Namely, the AB effect, uncertainty principle, the absurd photon, Stern Gerlach, Compton, EPR and entanglement etc. In my dotage I'm here peddling my wares. I'm trying to sell "local realism" and "causality" as precious commodities and I'm prepared to de-radicalize QM's, flat Earther's, water-diviner's, never landed on the mooner's, theist's and creationist's. Let's get back to the scientific method. A new renascence I guess you would call it. We are currently in a dark age, dark energy, dark matter black holes etc. Dark is code for total ignorance. I think It is probably a male thing to always proffer an answer rather than admit I don't know, no matter how absurd or illogical the answer. BTW I have solved that hoary old problem of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. New physics, new force and faster than light are very popular these days, there's a rumor that a very intelligent ant collapsed a wave function the other day, yes he peered into a box and killed a cat?

End of rant, gee! I needed that, I'll be OK now.

Barry

    Barry

    Yep. New force, same old problem.

    Hi Barry, we try all to respect this empirism and deterministic realism , and we are at a age where the unknowns are difficult to explain, it is mainly due to problems of scales and limitations. The philosophy and the ontology are essentials to consider , that permits to give ideas and roads for the experiments and mathematical extrapolations.

    I am curious Barry, what is for you the philosophical origin of the universe, why we exist and from What ? and what is for you the foundamental objects, are they points in the relativistic spacetime, or strings in 1D , or others ?

    What is also for you the Dark Matter, the Dark Energy, and this quantum gravitation for example? have you ideas respecting the local realism like tou tell ?

    Regards

    G'day Steve. When I was 10 or 12 years old, I pondered the origin of the universe and why anything exists at all. This troubled me to the point of mental anguish, so I consciously chose to drop it in favour of all the other wonderful things around me. I have been tempted many times to ponder these thing, but I have concluded that that these questions are unknowable. I find sufficient pleasure in exploring mysticism and paradox. I also believe that all knowledge is provisional, so the challenge is to try and defeat the provisional nature of knowledge or at least increase the quality. Never leave facts unchallenged in resolving paradox's. I think all paradox's should be resolved before moving on or advancing new law. Quantum gravity is a red herring, gravity is mysterious enough without adding ultra mysterious quantum mechanics to it. The coulomb and magnetic force's are just as mysterious as gravity. The strong and weak forces are even more mysterious. There are too many particles in my opinion.

    Dark and black are code for total ignorance and probably don't exist. Dark matter may be: protons, electrons, H1, H2, carbon dust, and iron dust. These materials are virtually invisible when cold. These particles probably emit in the low infrared and RF region, and are indistinguishable from the cosmic microwave background (CMBR). It's unlikely that the observed microwave background originated from the big bang, but is down converted starlight as Grote Reber suggested.

    Dark energy could be the result of incorrect assumptions in the measurement of light emitted from "standard candles". Dust is likely obscuring and attenuating the light and destroying the calibration. Even if you assume the big bang is valid the optical radiation at source, is unlikely to make the 13 billion year journey unscathed or unattenuated, after passing thru all that dust and particles. Maxwell says the attenuation is significant if the particle density approaches one particle per cubic metre. Particle size obviously is a factor but coulomb charge and ionisation level increase effective capture area.

    Low frequency radio waves are totally reflected by sections of the very low density ionosphere. QM's would have great difficulty accounting for this phenomenon.

    To be continued?

    Regards

      Hi Barry, I asked me the same questions in being young, and at the age of 17 I have searched deeper answers in the religions, I have read all the sacred books, the bible, the talmud, the coran, the hinduism and vedas, the buddhism, ...after I have continued in reading many philosophes, descartes and the discourse about the method, nietsche, freud, and greek philosophes also,ptolemee, and this and thatmany french writers also, hugo, balsac...and my favorites are kant and spinoza, but the answers were not really convicing even if I consider like spinoza and einstein a god of nature, a god of spinoza,so like I was in secondary in maths , sciences strong, 9hours of maths and 9hours of physics, chemistry, biology more 4h of labs by week and after at university in geology in belgium, I have stopped due to an epileptic coma in 3 , so I have made agronomy after 1 year in resting. So I have searched these answers in the sciences and I have found my theory in ranking in fact the animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, the evolution, the physics, the chemistry , I have seen the evolution of brains since the selacians , and we see a relative spherisation of hominids brains, it is just a page of a book of biology wich has given me this eureka if I can say, I told me oh my god all is in this relativie logic of spherisation and spheres, it is this evolution the most important in my model, not only the quantum and cosmological 3D spheres but the evolution optimisation of this universal sphere or future sphere.

      I cannot stop to continue to improve it in fact this theory and I agree that we must live and contemplate the nature but it is stronger than me this theory, It is in me I believe. I want to go farer, I cannot stop to study the physics and maths in fact lol. The paradox indeed can be solved in a pure empirical deterministic way I believe. The mysticism like you tell is fascinating, this infinite eternal consciousness, the main energy in 0D in my model coding and transforming this E to create this physicality intrigues me, but we are linited in knowledges unfortunally but I know that this thing exists .

      You know Barry , about the quantum gravitation, I have quantified it , I was surprised to reach it in thinking beyond the box, it is not an emergent electromagnetic force, I will publish correctly, in fact the GR and G c and h are not sufficient to reach it even with the non commutativity , the tensors, the geometrical algebras and subgroups, this weakest quantum force has a simple universal logic , the standard model also is emergent, it is the error of many thinkers to consider only the fields and the EFE and the GR , in fact the solution is an opposite reasoning. We know so few and the other ontological and philosophical error of thinkers if to consider the photons like the only one piece of puzzle, they forget the two other spacetimes, so yes this DM in the cold and this DE permit to solve our deep unknowns and answer also to this priniciple of evolution.We can even predict the future of our universe.

      About the BB , even with the CMB you know it is an assumption, and we have a deeper logic than this , it is still the error philosophical to consider like if we had an infinite heat for god and after photons and after strings at this planck scale inside,and lol god plays at guitar with the oscillations but if the main energy of god is not an infinite heat, so we must think differently and it is what I have made. The electromagnetism and the heat are just emergent, they are not the main primoridal essence, the space vacuumm of this DE is probably the main codes and the cold dark matter permits to balance in being encoded and explains also the anti matter and this QG. All is a question of general ontological philosophical origin and foundamental objects . To be continued , Spherically yours Barry , they turn so they are, so we are :) friendly

      2 months later

      The concept of causality led us out of the dark ages, to question it seems to be leading us back to mysticism and the belief in the supernatural. Quantum mechanics (QM) proudly embraces these pre-renaissance ideas. QM's boast about the beauty of paradox's such as Schrodinger's cat. Whenever a problem in the standard model occurs, new physics, new dimensions are proposed and general relativity is questioned. Remember the "Pioneer anomaly". Well, they are at it again with the "muon anomaly". QED and measurement are in disagreement at the umpteenth decimal place! Remember that QED boasts that it is the most accurate theory in the whole of physics. The truth is that QED never predicted anything, it was always catching up with ever more precise measurements. QED was hand tuned to match only two precise measurements: The Lamb shift and the anomalous g-factor of the electron. Ironically this could all be blamed on Einstein's absurd "photon" that reintroduced mysticism and magic back into physics. Einstein eventually became disenchanted with the revolution he initiated and was reported to say: "All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, "What are light quanta?" Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself".

      5 months later

      Hello Everyone:

      The more fundamental question is being part of any system, which we are, what are the limits of understanding of the system being observed, i.e. what is knowable, and at what depth?

      Causality is framed in repeatable environments being explained by a series of accepted axioms for the phenomena being observed. Since the observer is part of the system the question becomes to what extent if at all, does the experimenter's presence affect the outcomes?

      The set of axioms has expanded over time beginning with classical, then quantum mechanics. For each there are a series of axioms that govern the constrained environment of observations. For macroscopic objects that can be observed with the eye, causation is synonymous with correlation. Into both enter the frameworks of heuristics.

      Heuristic Overview

      A series of axioms based on heuristics forms the foundation for further explorations. The assumptions are the experimental environment is stable, and repeatable is required for the correlation of causation.

      The set of applicable axioms for the experiment is finite. In review of anomalies George Pólya's work is of utility.

      George Pólya

      How to Solve It

      Since the set of finite axioms with which one is applying in an artificially constructed closed system a case can be made for the work of Kurt Gödel.

      Kurt Gödel

      Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems

      From his Incompleteness Theorem:

      1. Any consistent formal [axiomatic] system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e. there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.

      2. For any consistent system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself.

      With a correlation of causation, and a set of finite axioms, a causation that is true may, or may not be provable. If it is false it has to be provable as false to be false.

      As more phenomena has been explored fundamental axioms have been added to general cause and effect environments. The perimeter at which the environment is defined, and the extent of considered variable is relevant to expedient results. Our existence belies a complexity of which we are not normally aware. A baseball player is at bat in the series. When the player hits the pitch the observers, based on their past experiences, will instantly understand the ball is out of the park without any understanding of the underlying physiology, and biochemistry of the batter.

      For each environment the granularity, boundaries of observation, and applicable axioms need to be defined.

      Since we are part of the system, what is knowable, accessible, true, and provable about the area of experimental observations? From Gödel there are statements that are true, but not provable, and others which are true, and provable. If the statement is true, and provable is it provable in P time, or can it be shown to be an NP time problem? From Alan Turing, and the Halting Problem, can the experimenter devise a scenario to process the data such that the computer will halt in a reasonable amount of time?

      Causation with axioms fits the Gödel requirements so that a causation may be true, but not provable, true and provable, or false.

      When an inconsistent experimental result is obtained what other axioms are needed to rationalize the data? I do not have any answers to these questions. The preceding has application in other areas. When in a quandary I always fall back to writing the pertinent aspects with a real pencil, and real paper. At that juncture it is often more obvious what is missing, and what is unknown.

      All the Best,

      Volodymyr-----------------

      3 months later

      Quanta: amplitude h of the range of variation of the rate of time evolution for all waves »(EMW as photon and particles) in this universe.

      This makes them all logically operational on each other. Outside this range it does not interact logically with anything and is therefore non-exitent for us

      CAUSE: a difference in the rate of time affecting the probability of existence in one direction (the only type of cause allowed in the universe as alogical system.)

      EXISTENCE: local replacement of time (the vacuum) by logical substitution; in one place, simple time (vacuum-time process) cannot be both simple and complex (matter) as per Law of non-contradiction (LNC)

      LNC Law that defines what exists; 1 not equal 0 is read as "Ì am not nothin" is the declaration of existence.

      «MOTION: non logically satified state of affair in the process of resolution, e.g. gravity»: object falls because existence more probable toward lower rate of time ( the assymetric existence IS here the illogical state of affair)

      Marcel,

      *** Of course, this is NEW Metaphysics! ***

      Goal No 1: complete the duty of Metaphysics: finding substance, cause, forms: ---------足= DONE!

      Goal No 2: gently hand it over to Physics so they UNDERSTAND what they KNOW.

      Goal No 3: Take This Metaphysics OUT-OUT of Philosophy as a bona fide Qualitative science based on logic, as the Universe is.

      Marcel,

      Write a Reply...