The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Joe, interesting that you separate topics by physics, mathematics and science--when both physics and math are disciplines of science. Demoting science to a level equal to its subdisciplines suggests that there is no one scientific method by which all its fields operate, no one guiding principle.

Nevertheless, there is a context by which I agree with your topic choice. Mathematics can be strictly classified as art, apart from its applications to science and physics. (I belong to this camp.)

So while math is intimately joined to physics, it has no connection to science at all, absent a guiding principle by which one can objectively make a closed logical judgment. I satisfied myself years ago that Jacob Bronowski had the right prescription: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."

So as to the state of physics, mathematics and science today--I would opine that far more attention is paid to self-promotion, than to unity of method.

The reality is that people, and other living things, are assigning the numbers for their own position variables. People are moving their legs and arms and vocal chords, walking and talking, and driving cars and dropping plastic in the ocean. PEOPLE are assigning the numbers for their own position variables. But physics says that the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, assign the numbers for the position variables.

So what an absolute disgrace is the 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting and all such meetings, and physics, mathematics and philosophy in general.

Because the latest IPCC report was released a month ago, a "code red for humanity", but these people are still championing a view of the world where people can have no effect on the world.

Many prominent physicists openly admit that physics says that people can have no effect on the world:

1) The physics view says that people are mere epiphenomena, by-products of the laws of nature;

2) The physics view says that people don't change the numbers for the variables, it's the laws of nature and nothing but the laws of nature changing the numbers for the variables;

3) The physics view says that it's the laws of nature that are 100% responsible for all outcomes.

The 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting (and all such meetings, and physics, mathematics and philosophy in general) is all about a group of people imagining and modelling a type of world where people could have no effect on the world.

People flew planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. People moved their arms and legs and vocal chords, and took over and controlled planes. In other words, people assigned the numbers to their own position variables.

But physics, mathematics and philosophy can't face the reality that we live in a type of world where people and living things, and other suitably integrated matter, can change the numbers for their own variables.

Physics is still holding onto the idea that we live in a type of world where the laws of nature are the only entities assigning the numbers to the position and other variables. Physics is still holding onto the idea that the laws of nature are the only entities that caused the planes to fly into the twin towers, and that people are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature.

When will physics, mathematics and philosophy catch up with the REAL world, a world where people have a genuine effect on the world?

Lorraine, please forgive me if you have already answered this question:

What is an example of a 'law of nature'?

Followup:

How does one know?

Physics says that no matter what you do, whether you rape, pillage and murder, or you set a ghost net adrift in the ocean, no matter what you do, you couldn't have done otherwise because the laws of nature are causing your outcomes, you are not causing your outcomes.

No matter what the law courts might say, physics says that you couldn't have done otherwise. Physics says that you can't try to do something different, because that too would only be what the laws of nature cause you to do.

In other words, physics says that people have no effect on the world, because it's the laws of nature that change every number for every variable; it's the laws of nature that have an effect on the world. Physics says that you personally have no effect on the world because physics says that you yourself can't assign the numbers for your own variables.

Who would have the temerity to suggest that physics could have got something very, very wrong? Well, the QBist physicists seem to have a different view of the world [1], not that physics takes much notice of them.

The point being that, contrary to what physics says, the world is such that people and other living things are assigning the numbers (e.g.) for their own position variables.

1. "...the world is so wired that our actions as active agents actually matter. Our actions and their consequences are not eliminable epiphenomena.", A Subjective Way to Take Ontic Indeterminism Seriously, Christopher Fuchs, https://cast.itunes.uni-muenchen.de/vod/playlists/p7KZK1hh0R.html .

Most physicists believe that what we do in the world still matters even if determinism is accepted. In other words, determinism doesn't negate the concept of free will. This is known as Compatibilism. The best description of this position known to me is Sean Carroll's Free Will Is as Real as Baseball.

Tom,

I HAVEN'T given any examples of the "laws of nature"; I'm assuming that you are already familiar with the equations that physicists use to represent the "laws of nature".

But I'm not considering the laws of nature. Instead, I'm considering the NATURE of the laws of nature.

I'm describing the fact that the laws of nature are relationships between categories like position, mass, charge. Categories/ relationships are foundational mathematical entities; and clearly, some foundational aspects of the world are relationships between categories, which people symbolically represent by equations and variables.

My point is that not every foundational aspect of the world should be seen as relationships between categories (which people symbolically represent by equations and variables). Quantum mechanics tries to turn behaviours into relationships between categories. Complexity theory tries to turn epiphenomena into categories. But I would say that it is invalid to try to turn behaviours or epiphenomena into categories. Instead, you need Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent some foundational aspects of the world, including the aspect of the world whereby one discerns difference.

Yes,

There is a disconnect between what physicists SAY they believe, and what the ideas and equations of physics actually say about the nature of the world. Clearly, most physicists are experts in the dark art of doublethink.

The concept of "free will" is spurious idea.

The RIGHT question is: do people have any effect on the world, OR do the laws of nature assign every number for every variable? The answer is that physics says that the laws of nature change every number for every variable: physics says that people have no effect on the world.

The above should read: The concept of "free will" is a spurious idea.

Hi Lorraine, Paul, ¨

Dear Paul, The link that you have given is very interesting, I work myself about all this having a theory , the theory of spherisation, so the philosophy is important too in my humble model. I agree about this free will being real , we have assumptions inside this community but the free will indeed is real. It becomes complex considering the physics, the maths and the evolution like these cognitive sciences correlated with the consciousness and this philosophy.

I like and respect the intepretattions of Julian Barbour but I don t agree about how he considers this time, this time is real too and is essential correlated with the motions and so the changes, variables.Why we make choices and why we have favorite things ? there is a logic and rational physical , mathematical and biological cause and this cause can be compute, but unfortunally it lacks pieces to add. Probably that the consciousness is correlated but even in understanding the physics of particles a little bit and the microtubules or others, we have limitations.

And it is there probably that we must better understand the foundamentaöl objects and the philosophical origin of this universe and for me we must consider the 3D spheres and the DE and DM encoded too in our standard model.

We have the same limitations about the general complete laws of nature and so the reality , we just analyse the emergent propertieas but not the main causes. I am not a religious , I have searched answers when I was younger in reading the religious books but they have not given me concrete answers. I have searched in the philosophies, I like kant and spinoza, but it is in ranking the sciences, animals, vegetals, minerals , maths, physics, evolution when I was at university in geology that I have better understood all this and so I have created the theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quant and cosmol 3D spheres. I consider personally an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D creating this physicality.

But of course we cannot prove it. It is there that I can understand the interpretation of Barbour about the time when we correlate in meditation with this eternity where the space , dimension,time, matter don t exist, but at my humble opinion we are inside a closed evolutive system where these parameters exist. There is an uncompleteness appearing generally about this general philosophy and the main cause and foundamental objects.

I have remarked personally having worked the strings before to find my theory that these strings, fields and the GR alone have enormous philosophical problems considering this infinite eternal consciousness. I conclude so that the fields and the strings cannot be the main philosophical cause. But it is just my opinion of course.

The duality maybe is not really important, just the reality seems essential when we consider the proved axioms, laws, equantions. If the philosophy general of the origin is better understood, so we can better understand this consciousness and free will and this free will can be even harmonised considering the foundamentals of this universe created by this infinite eternal consciousness, like if some evidences appear and so like if some choices are correlated respecting this infinity and eternity. We are in fact for me inside a project of evolution simply and the consciousness is a tool , it is the meaning too of my theory of spherisation.

Who has the best theories general and philosophy ? we don t know, we just interpret in function of informations that we encode and after we choose to create and we try to converge with determinism after all simply.

Thanks for the link, it is very interesting and relevant,

Best Regards

Tom,

At its foundations, the world does not have an overview of itself; the world is not a computer system with someone (or even nothing) programming it; there are no mathematical calculations/ computational steps underlying the law of nature relationships.

So, I disagree with (what seems to be) your outlook on the world.

In fact, PEOPLE have overviews of the world; PEOPLE created and program computer systems; PEOPLE need to do mathematical calculations/ computational steps when they manipulate the symbols that represent the laws of nature.

I am merely saying that the ideas of physics are such that people could have no effect on the world.

Re Paul Topping wrote on Sep. 14, 2021 @ 23:25 GMT:

The idea of "free will" is a load of rubbish.

"Free will" is an obfuscatory idea; no one can even define or agree what the term means.

So let those that believe in "free will" define what they are talking about; let them define "free will" in clear unambiguous terms; and let them define "free will" in terms of known, actually existing entities.

It is a waste of time talking about "free will". The only relevant issue is: do people have an effect on the world, i.e. do people change the numbers for the variables?

Physics says that the laws of nature change every number for every variable. i.e. people have NO EFFECT on the world.

In other words, physics is wrong about the fundamental nature of the world, because people DO have an effect on the world, i.e. people are changing some of the numbers for the variables.

Hi Paul and all,

wow, I think there are much, much more aspects to consider regarding the issue of "free will" than were mentioned or examined in the article by Sean Carroll. I like to mention some of these aspects here.

First of all, there are fundamental, "primitive" needs for any living human subject, at least until that subject is more or less an adult. For example these are food, water, a shelter against rough environments, care from other humans. These are the "hard physical" needs that increase the chances of survival even - and especially - for newborn babies, but also for adults.

Then there are other needs, such as security, love, care, being accepted, being recognized and valued. Additional needs may be our striving for "happiness", "fun" and "playing", or in other words to be creative, to create something - even if it is just creating food for some animals out of what one had planted on the field or to create something just for the purpose of fun (the rules of a chess game, baseball game etc.).

Now, for each and every of these mentioned needs there can be specified some exceptions:

The homeless person who doesn't want to live again in a conventional home / shelter. The subject who committed a hunger strike. The other subject who deliberately committed suicide (maybe by a hunger strike, but surely also via other measures). And there may be persons who do not need, for whatever reasons, "things" like love and being valued, for example some psychopaths ore else.

When talking about "normal" people, we take it for guaranteed that they regularly have the "will" to eat during their living. That they do not kill themselves. That they like to be happy as much as possible (in opposition to being grumpy as much as possible). That they want to achieve something in their lives. For these people we cannot talk about them such that they deliberately choose to eat everyday by free will, since they are not free to choose whether they are hungry or not. Same is also valid for most of the needs I just mentioned above that are already there when a subject is just a baby.

Now, some kind of free will comes into play when some of these (baby) needs suddenly are in conflict, in opposition with some other needs. To understand this, we have to admit that the more primitive needs can be overwritten, replaced by some more sophisticated needs. For example there are cases where people in the 9/11 disaster choose to "waste" some precious time in the towers to help other people to escape that inferno. Cases where the helpers were aware of the contradiction between their intuitive feeling to instantly leave the building due to high danger of death and their intuitive feeling that it is likewise or more valid trying to help others getting out.

The main aspect to consider here is what people judge to be worth doing or not doing (even worth thinking through or not thinking through!). So an element of judgement, a real element of belief in what worthiness things have or don't have comes into play. The terrorist may not have at all orchestrated their plans if they didn't thought that their goals are of a personal high worth. The same is true for all the helpers that died or have survived that day. In fact, such beliefs in a "higher" worthiness apart from the "primitive" needs of food, water and shelter can be observed on many occasions. As already mentioned there are suicides and hunger strikes in the world as well as wars to enforce "worthiness". But on the other side there are also kind acts of humanity all over the world that meet other definitions of "worthiness".

Since Osama Bin Laden was obviously very happy with the results of 9/11, it may have been the case that this satisfied his need for some "happiness" in his life. If true or not for that special person, most people obviously have very different beliefs of how to best satisfy their needs for happiness. And not only regarding their need for happiness, but also regarding their need for love, care and attention.

For me, the main point here is not the plethora of different "beliefs" in "worthiness" of different people that are often mutually conflicting each other. It is the fact that most human beings, during their lives, repeatedly come across two or more internally conflicting beliefs of "worthiness" already within their own hearts / souls / minds and have to make a decision. Whereas the more "primitive" needs like hunger are usually not conflicting with some other needs, belief-based needs can often do so.

Independent of what one thinks about the "worthiness" (or reliability concerning the truth of these beliefs) other people's various beliefs, these beliefs surely often lead to effective and irreversible results in physical reality. Moreover, weighing up two conflicting needs happens in the human mind and whether or not such a weighing up happens in a human's mind depends on another belief of that person, namely whether or not it is worth at all thinking more deeply about these two conflicting needs / beliefs / emotions.

Of course one can always "decide" that every decision the human mind makes is predetermined by the physics of the brain - even that very decision! That is another belief and, if true, the minds of all the people are populated with a plethora of beliefs that never can be proven / disproven constructively to be true or false - unless there would exist a method to explain how the brain can reliably differentiate true from false beliefs in all cases.

So we are left with a plethora of beliefs and don't even know whether or not they can be examined and analysed such that we are guaranteed to know whether or not there is any reality, any "worthiness" at their basis. We can't know that because we even cannot know what such a "basis" should look like, since a deterministic production of beliefs in the brain mustn't in any way coincide with the true ontology of ultimate reality, whatever it is. Nonetheless many scientist seem to believe that one day every truth about ultimate (physical) reality will be revealed to some human brains by means of deterministic processes in those brains such that these brains have complete knowledge about all that constituents of ultimate reality.

At this point it is a good guess that the plethora of conflicting beliefs in the world are all more or less trials to satisfy the variety of human needs enumerated above. It would be interesting to answer the question which of these beliefs is best suited for permanently satisfying these human needs. But as history, philosophy and a plethora of discussions at least since the age of enlightenment has shown, no overall consensus can be expected to arise for humanity concerning this question. Why? Because for analysing the whole issue, almost all steps of that analysis are themselves steps of belief in this or that.

So, if it is true that each and every human's life is driven by a set of more or less "primitive" internal needs / emotions, then every human is at first driven to satisfy its own internal primitive needs / emotions by its own internal "primitive" beliefs (for example "it is good to eat", "it is good to drink water", "it is good to have a shelter", "it is good to receive recognition" etc.). On the other hand, the resources to satisfy these needs may decrease from time to time - or steadily - via known and / or unknown causes.

We can surely state that there are many people who's needs are not served in this world. One now can react to this by ignoring these people or by at least being aware of them in one's own environment and trying to help them from time to time, even if some acts of little help require some acts of little sacrifice / relinquishment of one's own needs. Unless there would exist a method to explain how the brain can reliably differentiate true from false beliefs in all cases and therefore also figure out whether or not human decisions are indeed fully predetermined by the physics in the human brain, I would say that helping or not helping somebody, thinking or not thinking about one's own and others needs and how oneself handles these needs is in any case a personal decision that has indeed some kind of "free" will (in a binary sense) in it.

Hi Stefan,

you have well generalised this free , there are indeed many parameters to take into account, you begin in describing the primitive ones, correlated with the locomotion, reproduction , nutrition. And it is function of our environments and its interactions. The survival being an essential point, we are a little bit in the darwinism and this competition to survive. Lamarck and the will too can be considered for the encodings of informations and the changes in the dna.

You speak about the feelings like the love , the recognising....it is also essential points building our personalities and it is still correlated with many parameters with these environments more the education, the genetic, ..... You speak too about the pleasure and the game, it seems too an important point because when we are children, I have remarked that we are full of energy and we can play with innocence with all , maybe it is this imagination, creativity, innocence the secret, maybe we loose unfortunally this in becoming adults.

You analyse after an important point about the lost of something implying rebellions or depressions, it is because the environments deceive us I believe or the personal problems, personally I have suffered a lot since I am young, my father drunk and was violent with my mother, we have had the police at home many times, I was obliged at the age of 16 to stop him, he is dead I was 19 years old and I was at university in geology. I have stopped in 3 due to a coma, due to epilepsy, but I cannot stop to study maths and physics. My mother after was in depression and in psychiatry. I have lost my mother 6 years ago , a cancer, she has begun too to drink , I have no sister and brother, I have lost my god father 4 years ago and my grandmother 3 years ago, they were my only familly. I have known during the funerals of my mom that I was adopted. It was difficult, I have had many depressions. I have had a heart failure 10 months ago and an operation in emergency.I have had sexual abuses too when I was a child. And other problem, in fact I have never been able to breath . But This consciousness and survival has helped me , I was near a suicide I must say but This universe has helped me. Maybe without my theory and this faith in this universe, I d be not here .

It was so my choice to live , and accept this past , the free will is not predeterminated , maybe generally yes bot not in the details.

You spoke about the 11 september, we arrive at the philosophies and the psychology, why these kind of evil comportments ? it is complex , it is still about the education, the cognitive sciences, the environments, the choices, and even the spirituality in this case, the ideologies extremist are simply sick comportments in a sense that the consciousness lacks of universal altruism and moderation.

This free will is so complex and is function of so many parameters that we cannot really compute it , it is about the uniqueness of things too.

You speak about the global problems, it is a general free will to choose to solve these problems because if the leaders were more consciousn universally, we could solve but the humans and our past imply that we have bad habits simply and that a kind of normality is accepted. But when we analyse the whole of sciences and this universal philosophy, we have the choices in hands to harmonise because simply it does not lack nor of potential, nor space,nor energy, nor matter. It is just a choice general altruistic global. The planet generally is sick Stefan due to a lack of universalism at all levels of this society. The needs are not really the problem, the choices yes permitting to harmonise these said needs.

Steve,

thanks for reading my comment and for replying.

Steve,

thanks for reading my comment and for replying.

You can be proud of what you have achieved, since you had many resistances to overcome in your life. Others may had become violent, you decided to think about the fundamental things in physics and other disciplines. The issues we discuss are very complex and the possible answers are no less ambiguous. For example, there are many opposing interests involved that had to be settled / balanced for mankind to be on the same page. It begins with the question for whom should I vote for in the next elections in my country to improve / not worsen things...? I think every human being is left with trying to make some little steps in the right direction by questioning from time to time her / his own beliefs and its impacts on other people. At the current state of affairs, I see no other easy way out of the complexity of the problems humankind continuously produces / is confronted with. I think you are a step ahead since you at least believe that there could be something greater than yourself, namely what you call "the universe". Since you know that I believe in a creator that means well with every person but also demands a certain attitude to obey his commandments, I like to mention that such a belief isn't any more considered useful today by more and more people. My take on that is that without believing in some kind of such a creator, people will continue to act more and more anti-altruistic (since the primitive functioning of their reptile brains more and more take over the more sophisticated parts of the human mind). And of course with my remarks on a creator i do not subscribe to any god that allows or demands the killing of people.

You are welcome, thanks too for your words. I have never lost the faith fortunally in this universe. I have searched the answers younger in reading the religious books , after the philosophes , I like kant and spinoza, and after I have ranked the sciences, animals, minerals, vegetals, physics, maths, evolution and it is like this that I found my theory in seeing the evolution of brains, the hominids mainly since the selacians, we see a relative spherisation. I elive in god, but a little bit like einstein , a god of nature in respecting the pure determinism. I am persuaded that we cannot come from a mathematical accident, it seems odd. I have remarked too that the fields like origin of our topologies, geometries, matters have enormous problems when we consider the oscillations and fields. Because if an eternal infinite consciousness has been able to create a so incredible universe with oscillations, why this thing has not created quickly a more perfect universe and why a murderer or others are not stopped with an oscillation. For me it is a proof that we are inside a system in evolution in a superfluidity with particles and mainly 3 ethers , the photons, the cold dark matter, and the dark energy possessing the main codes. I see god like an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D , without time space matter dimension beyond the physicality and everywhere paradoxally, that is why I believe that we have a central cosmological sphere, a kind of super matter energy able to send all informations. Why this thing has decided to create this ? maybe simply this infinity was alone and has taken an eternity to create this central sphere and now we create a system in evolution where the consciousness too evolves, maybe we create it this paradise and the future in this logic is fadscinating. It d be odd to come from a mathematical accident from an infinite heat not conscious I must say. It seems no sense. The persons thinking in this , I respect their choices , I am tolerant, we cannot prove our interpretations in fact, it is sure but something seems to appear .

I have created this forum Global collaboration to unite the thinkers, systems, institutes, scientists and to create a book of concrete adapted solutions to convice the UN and the WB, I beleive strongly that we can success with this consciousness but I have remarked that it is difficult to convice and unite, maybe due to our psychology and the normality and the sad common past. But I have hope, in all case, these solutions exist where all wins, we don t lack of space, matter, energy, potential, consciousness, the win win for all lifes of this earth can be a reality. I will not stop to try to unify but I need help I believe , this vanity and ego and this normality are parameters to take into account, the humans have difficulties to follow and work in team, they are always interested with the notoriety or the money or power unfortunally. Take care stefan , be the force with you jedi of the Sphere :)

So what exactly is WRONG with physics, apart from the fact that physics says that it was the laws of nature, not people, that flew planes into the twin towers? (Because according to physics, the laws of nature cause all outcomes; and everything, including people and their actions, are merely epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature.)

One thing wrong with physics is that it has a system with bottom-up causation, but no top-down causation. Physics believes that, when you look at it closely, top-down causation is nothing but bottom-up causation. I.e. physics believes that top-down causation is unnecessary, and that it doesn't actually exist.

To put it another way, physics believes that a situation symbolically representable as:

"variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND ... AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE"

is identical to the following separate situations:

"variable1=number1 IS TRUE" ; "variable2=number2 IS TRUE" ; ... "variableN=numberN IS TRUE".

I.e. physics believes that an aspect of the world, symbolically representable as "AND", doesn't exist.

So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above, I'd say that:

1. To understand how the world operates, one needs to symbolically represent the world as a system, with equations, variables and number symbols, and other special symbols.

2. While there might be laws/ rules (symbolically representable by equations) that handle simple individual situations symbolically representable as:

"variable1=number1 IS TRUE" ; "variable2=number2 IS TRUE" ; ... "variableN=numberN IS TRUE",

it is not possible to have laws/ rules that handle the myriads of complicated situations symbolically representable as:

"variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND ... AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE" . I.e. in order to handle complicated situations, something describable as "free will" is a NECESSARY part of a complicated system. "Free will" can't exist unless it is a NECESSARY part of a system.

P.S.

Clearly, a situation symbolically representable as:

"variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND ... AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE",

and any further analysis of the situation, could only exist from the point of view of some sort of information-integrated entity: it couldn't exist from the point of view of e.g. a pile of sand.