The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Re physics versus the upcoming COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow:

Let's not forget that physics models of the world say that people can have no genuine effect on the world. Physics models say that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents every aspect of every outcome in the world.

According to physics, people are 100% a product of these laws of nature, i.e. people are mere epiphenomena that can only ever have the superficial appearance of responsibility for outcomes. Physics models say that the world is such that people can have no genuine responsibility for outcomes, and no genuine effect on the climate.

Physics says that the world is such that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents people's own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords. Physics says that the world is such that people can't assign any numbers to any of the variables that represent their own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords.

So how could people be responsible, how could people have any effect on outcomes, if people can't assign numbers to their own variables? How could people have any effect on outcomes if it's the laws of nature and nothing but the laws of nature that are responsible for every number for every variable?

I hope that there will be some straight-talking physicists at the conference, soothing and reassuring the participants, and telling them not to worry, because physics models of the world say that whatever happens is inevitable: the laws of nature are responsible for every outcome, and people are mere epiphenomena that have no ability to have any effect on outcomes.

(But clearly, physics models of how the world works are wrong: the world is such that people ARE assigning numbers to their own variables.)

Maybe it should be said that some material objects do have a 'time dimension' to their form (While Still being wholly existent at one time.) E.g. The cut trunk of a tree showing growth rings, Spatial position on the surface relates to a particular period of growth. Similarly other objects showing simple periodic growth such as a dipped candle or Gobstopper, un-contorted or otherwise disturbed sedimentary rock layers. These are exceptional. Development is often not spread evenly in a simple temporal-geometric relation. Material form also does not depend on relation to an observer.

For observation products temporal/spatial-material origin of received signal and relation to the observer is (ignoring possible perturbation of signal) resulting in the geometric form of the product (seen wholly in the Present).

I don't fully agree. While its true we construct similar observation product in the same environment, the product is not all there is. He is leaving out the mechanism of sight. In order to see, rather than just hallucinated product, reflected or emitted photons must be received and processed. A camera can stand in as the observer and will record a similar scene showing it is not hallucinations. The Moon really is there as source of EMR. That men can walk on it is pretty good evidence it is materially real. The observation product I generate using EMr input is neither there when I"M not looking nor materially real..

Being seen wholly in the Present isn't a particularly helpful thing to say.-Observer generated spacetime images with semblance of objects are experienced in observer generated spacetime environment. The observer being a material object is not smeared out over time but is and has all parts existing (present tense) at the same time; Uni-temporal Now. This gives an unusual set structure that has all observer generated Virtual spacetime within Uni-temporal Object (material) reality space. The apparent higher dimensional spacetimes are within a singular lower dimensional space. I think this is strange and interesting.

Here's some questions. Sets contain objects, Can the entirety of a seen Present qualify as an object or just individual experienced space-time (images of) objects? Likewise the object reality: instead of its entirety should just a single element such as one person be considered?

This still puts higher dimensional experienced objects within the lower dimensional person set. If this is not allowed mathematically it makes experienced (images of) objects a special class of objects that can't be put into sets OR we have to pay attention to category and not combine or use together sets of observation product and set/sets of material objects. This will prevent the mathematical nonsense that the philosophical or metaphysical structure presents. Does there need to be a new mathematical rule for this situation, do existing rules have it covered or do we just allow and enjoy the paradox.

Who or what is responsible for outcomes in the world, i.e. what's moving the world?

When it comes to the question of what's moving the world (representable as what's moving the numbers for variables like position or energy), I suppose that you've only got 3 choices. Keeping in mind that, at a foundational level, the numbers don't smoothly change, they "jump", the choices seem to be:

(1) No entity is jumping the numbers for the variables, the numbers just jump.

(2) The law of nature relationships are a type of entity that jumps the numbers for its own variables.

(3) Matter is an entity that assigns new numbers to some of its own variables.

But there's a problem here: why do the numbers for the variables always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable. Once again, I suppose that you've got 3 choices:

(A) Nothing has any oversight, but miraculously the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

(B) An entity has mathematical oversight, making sure that the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

(C) No oversight is required: the numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out; when some of the numbers for the variables "jump", i.e when new number relationships are created, other numbers for other variables are passively changed due to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

(3C) describes a type of world where people and other living things are genuinely responsible for outcomes.

I see where I'm going wrong here. The structure I'm thinking of is not a Venn diagram. If it was the set of experienced objects and the set of material objects would not intersect. Unless we specify members of the set of material objects or experienced images of objects sharing a name with members of the other set (than its own.)In which case the two sets overlap. Showing an issue for clear thinking.

The structure with higher dimensional space inside lower dimensional space is more like a map, showing a relation between a 4 dimensional virtual space-time to (assumed to be) 3 dimensional or no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned) space...shown in 2 dimensions.

I think" no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned)' could be important for understanding some quantum superpositions. Where the found state depends upon imposing an observer's relative perspective.

Thank you Georgina. Maybe this will work, maybe not:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355169846_Gravity_as_a_4

"No connection to science at all" Tom-? Statistics was a compulsory part of my biological sciences degree, I also took 1 lecture of binomial genetics to decide it wasn't my cup of tea, and wouldn't sit the full class but swap for another.

Yes it does. What if ?- to be continued.

No, but the statistics that will be used to analyze the results can be part of the experimental design process. Replication of outcomes with statistical significance is better evidence for something being a true effect than just a result or unanalyzed number of results. I think this especially used in some areas of science eg. pharmacology. That was not my point though. It was just that maths is a part of sciences apart from physics.

This structure can be likened to a simulated game 'world' of a computer or games console and monitor, generated in response to a players controlling actions. The complete simulated world does not exist (as decoded product) inside the computer/games console and monitor but it is generated partly and is a semblance of a material reality. --------------------The observation product of a person is partial semblance of the external environment. Rather than providing inputs to a games controller or key board -inputs to the brain are provided by the senses. The experienced Image reality is not 'ground floor' reality. The sources of the inputs and the inputs themselves are plausibly 'ground floor'. Except when the sources of inputs are technology or its product such as; TV, cinema film, photograph, computer game, telephone screen image. Consciousness is fundamental to us as functional humans but not fundamental to existence.

A singular consciousness has a point of view, it is informed by its unique sensory inputs. Now try to imagine an asymmetric, variously patterned object seen from all positions surrounding it at once. Or imagine the superimposed images of 100 cameras surrounding it. It will likely just seem a source of 'noise'; not a discernable form or pattern.

Scenario one; there will be an overload of input, That is the intensity of photons will be far greater than for a singular view.. I'm guessing the appearance will be that of a nondescript light source. Whereas for scenario two, it is addition of many observation products. I think in this case the appearance will be of a dark amorphous object. Darker, with less unique form or patterning where there is a lot of addition . 100 images may be enough to obscure any identifiable structure. This is easily done by adding each image as a new layer using translucent film or a computer program.

"Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: "no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." He coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP) from the Greek "anthropos", or human. He went further to suggest that "we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.""

https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/07/a-smoky-dragon-the-cosmos-is-a-participatory-universe-weekend-feature/

The observed phenomena are products being manifest. I'd add not only the far away and long ago are manifest but configurations that did not exist together but have been amalgamated from signals arriving together from different times (Object universe configurations).

For Wheeler, the word "observer" has little to do with humans or conscious beings. What he actually said was [link:vixra.org/abs/1804.0123#comment-4545191795]"what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe."[/link]

In other words, reality (causes and their effects) is entirely "determined" by how all things behave, after they have detected the individual bits of information, that "trigger" their subsequent behavior.

In this view of reality, humans and conscious beings, are merely one type of "equipment" capable of "evoked responses"; but there are many others ("all things physical") that are far older and far more fundamental.

Rob McEachern

Hi Robert, I also gave a quote. Re. the one you provided: "All things physical are information -theoretic in origin..." Wheeler. That is so if by all things physical, the manifest products are being considered and the foundational source of the products is not considered as part of that 'All'. It is so whether the observer is a device and the process is automated or the observer is human. Either way humans are directly or indirectly involved in the acquisition of the products of the experiment. The idea of consciousness causes collapse comes from the double slit experiment. A detector providing 'which way' information seems to prevent an interference pattern result, as if the experiment knows it is being watched. Significantly, Only if the detector is switched on.

My hypothesis is an electric or magnetic field produced by the detector disrupts an environmental interference pattern that guides the particles travel. The premise is that there is an environment, even in a vacuum. Various non observer sources of fields can be tested. The aim to show it is not the act of observation itself causing the altered outcome. Another/ other experiments are needed to show it is due to an effect on the environment rather than a distributed particle. More doable is to show a distributed particle is unnecessary for the results usually obtained.

Hi Robert, I'll try to use an information theoretic approach. The results of the double slit experiment have to be participatory, in that the signal, channel and receiver are assembled and operated by human actions. The binary question, 'did it (the elements of the signal) go through one or both slits?' is a question emanating from the human mind. Participation is integral to the product 'reality'.

When a working 'which way' detector is included, I'm suggesting it is the kind of noise encountered by the signal in the channel that is changed. Which is not an effect of consciousness beyond placement of the detector and choosing on or off. The effect of the noise is independent of consciousness. Maybe the apparatus can be tested to see if the detector is the source of a field/fields. If undetectable that has no greater significance than the undetectability of superposition. This is contrary to the notion that the mind is creating underlying reality.