The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Physicists symbolically represent the world by equations, variables and number symbols. To make these symbols represent a moving system, physicists differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and physicists move and change the symbols. In other words, physicists are part of the system of representation. The equations, variables and number symbols alone do not represent a standalone moving system.

Human beings can never fully extract themselves from their symbols. However, to symbolically represent a stand-alone moving system, you need to include Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the physicist. I.e. you need to include Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent the world differentiating itself (discerning difference in itself), and to represent the world moving itself, which includes, what we would represent as, the assignment of new numbers to the variables.

What we would represent as the assignment of new numbers to the variables is NOT what the law of nature relationships are doing: the symbols that represent the law of nature relationships merely represent passive relationships between categories.

Differentiating (discerning difference) corresponds to basic consciousness; assigning new numbers to the variables corresponds to basic agency.

Algorithms, by name, have been part in parcel of mathematics for 1200 years. In fact the word 'algorithm' originated as an honor to the Arab polymath al-Khuwarizmi in the Latin translation of his Arabic text ~825 A.D. introducing the Hindu place value system of 9 digits and 0, and specifically refers to the procedures and rules for computation of arithmetic calculations. That rule based convention making it possible for mathematicians to communicate, collaborate and expand upon the works of each other, has continued to expand with the growth and revolutionary periods in mathematics with its application to all fields of science. Throughout, terminology, symbols and forms has evolved, changed and come in and out of favor. But always, those rules which have withstood axiomatic rigor have remained in use and have been the basis in teaching mathematics, whether they are identified by the word 'algorithm' or not. The Quantum revolution in mathematics was exponentially accelerated by the January 1939 paper by Lise Mitner, 8 months prior to the outbreak of WWII, revealing to the industrial powers of the world that an isotope of uranium could be made to fission and release nearly incomprehensible amounts of energy. Yet in the 1944 printing of the 1941 copyright 5th Edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gifted my Mother from her Father when she was in college in 1948, 'algorithm' is not listed. 'Algorism' is listed and simply defined as 1. The art of calculating by means of nine figures and zero. 2. The art of calculating with any species of notation; as, the algorisms of fractions, surds, etc.. Algorithm as a word was reinvigorated (ad nauseum) by the computer age, but physicists have been filing dry erase boards and blackboards before them with algorithmic operational symbols and notations all along. And discovery comes not from what symbols you employ, but from your mind. Choice of symbols is a fickle task master. And instructing a computer may get you the result you already know you want, but telling other people to do what you want, usually gets an opposite and equal to or greater than reaction. jrc

"...To make these symbols represent a moving system, physicists differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and physicists move and change the symbols. "Lorraine ford| Not necessarily. " However, to symbolically represent a stand-alone moving system, you need to include Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the physicist." Lorraine ford| False v and a are representations of properties that are kinds of moving.

Correction. False. v and a...etc

Georgi,

Agreed, The form of many of the algebraic results that are the standard fare of undergrad coursework, are by definition an algorithm of the earliest kind. F=ma has the same form as p=mv (momentum) and are the results of comparative analysis of differential calculus across a broad range of real measured value sample experimental observations. Where more modern criteria of algorithmic procedure can be helpful would be in such transformations as might be sought for the rate of change from a force translating into a transfer of momentum. (a) being a positive or negative changing speed, and (v) being a uniform speed. jrc

First two paragraphs: Targeted at individuals, rather than at science content. Therefore inappropriate.

Denigration of others and self aggrandizement does not affect whether your argument about physics is valid or not. You have added nothing new to that argument.

For the benefit of those that don't know, I'll explain what an algorithm is. An algorithm is a set of step by step instructions for performing a task or solving a problem, e.g. the detailed series of steps required to put rubbish in a bin, or the detailed series of steps required to solve a mathematical equation.

A mathematical equation, on the other hand, is a string of symbols that represents a static relationship.

The steps in an algorithm are represented by special symbols. Word symbols are OK, but to avoid ambiguity, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols. Precision and detail are also needed: no step can be omitted, and every step must be correctly expressed and in the correct order, if one wants to perform the task or solve the mathematical equation.

For example, an algorithm might represent a response to a situation: IF a symbolically-represented situation is TRUE, THEN take these symbolically-represented steps. These steps might involve a "loop", where the same procedure is repeatedly followed. The steps might be the steps required to find the solution(s) to an equation.

So, are there foundational aspects of the world that can only be represented algorithmically (by Boolean and algorithmic symbols) as opposed to the aspect of the world that is represented by equations? Clearly, there ARE foundational aspects of the world that can only be represented algorithmically.

Equations, even equations that include delta symbols like the physics' equations that represent the laws of nature, equations can only ever symbolically represent static relationships.

In contrast to equations, algorithms can symbolically represent awareness and movement.

Algorithms (strings of symbols including Boolean and algorithmic symbols) can represent the awareness of situation, the analysis of situation, and actions taken in response to situation.

Equations can never represent particular situations in time or space or whatever. Only algorithms can symbolically represent particular situations in time or space (or whatever).

Algorithms are a completely different thing to equations. Algorithms can't be derived from equations, and algorithms are not implied by equations.

Algorithms represent a completely different aspect of the world to the aspect of the world represented by equations.

P.S.

Equations can never represent particular situations in time or space or whatever.

Only algorithms (strings of symbols including Boolean and algorithmic symbols) can symbolically represent particular situations in time or space (or whatever).

So, the following type of thing is an example of how one would symbolically represent a particular situation:

"(v1=n1 AND v2=n2 AND v3=n3) IS TRUE"

(where the symbols v1, v2 and v3 represent variables, and the symbols n1, n2 and n3 represent numbers).

How to drive a car is fundamentally different to the car. How to handle an equation is fundamentally different to the equation. The algorithmic steps required to handle an equation are fundamentally different to the equation.

The equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent a moving world: it is the physicist and the equations together that represent a moving world. The physicist makes up for the deficiencies in the symbolic equations, which despite the delta symbols merely represent static relationships: the physicist makes the equations move.

To extricate the physicist from the symbolic representation of the world, one needs to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent what the physicist is doing: the physicist is discerning difference in the symbols in the equations, and the physicist is moving and changing the symbols in the equations.

The world is a differentiated system, differentiated into what we would represent by equations, variables and number symbols. It is logically necessary that a differentiated system must differentiate itself (i.e. discern difference in, what we would represent by, equations, variables and number symbols).

The world is a moving system. It is logically necessary that a moving system must move itself (i.e., what we would represent by, the assignment of new number symbols to variables).

The discerning of difference, and the assignment of numbers, can only be represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

Tom,

Lorraine's post on the 24th with the truth statement assigning cardinal numbers to parametric variables is done for the purpose of condensing the information into shorter bit sequencing. As a physicist, you might abbreviate the value of light velocity in discussion to 3^10 cm/sec, but in actual calculation rigor requires a minimum of six decimal places after the whole number and decimal; that takes an entire 8 bytes in hypertext transport protocol which is shunted to the input pins of the processor which is typically engineered with a 64 bit chip architecture. Then it takes another 64 bit (8 byte) sequence of https for the parameter identifiers of centimeters per second. The assignment of a cardinal number to that real value allows two bytes to transport the variable through the sub routines from input pins to output pins to assemble the routing of quantum level EM pulses of potential difference through the maze of conductive channels to semi-conducting junctions, all engineered on 'time to junction' and 'accumulated level of charge' at junctions. Once the sub-routines, each taking different durations of time to course through the chip circuitry, is assembled by the Fourier Transform to sync as concise signals, the actual computation can be done by identifying the variable values with the truth statement. But instead of transporting the lengthy bit sequencing of the Machine Code https of the numerical values through the sorting process of the sub-routines, those cumbersome real components rest in the do-while loop until actually needed by the machine. Not that Lorraine doesn't temp people to put a penny on the track, LOL, jrc

So, how do the laws of nature work?

Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent a perpetual motion machine whereby one number change at the beginning of the universe sets off a domino effect that explains the events at the end of the universe. The laws of nature are not a perpetual motion generator; the laws of nature are merely passive relationships. Knowledge of these relationships has been derived from physics experiments.

The equations that represent the law of nature relationships represent the fact that, IF some of the numbers that apply to some of the variables are actively changed for some reason, then the numbers that apply to other variables in the equations will change, due solely to passive relationship.

The numbers that apply to other variables in the equations will change, due solely to passive relationship, but not due to active mathematical calculations being performed at the foundations of the universe. Mathematical calculations are what people need to do because people are, unavoidably, using symbols to represent the world and the law of nature relationships.

(cont.)

The equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent anything active, i.e. the equations do not represent the act of changing the numbers that apply to some of the variables. You need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent the act of jumping the numbers i.e. assigning new numbers to variables.

And the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent who or what is acting, who or what is actively changing/ jumping the numbers. Who or what is actively assigning numbers to the variables is relevant in the question of who or what was GENUINELY responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers: was it the laws of nature jumping the numbers, or are people GENUINELY responsible for jumping the numbers? Clearly people are GENUINELY responsible for jumping their own numbers for their own variables.

Tom, don't ask a question: you need to go to the trouble of making a clear case that supports your point of view, whatever your point of view is; you need to provide an argument; for a start, you need to define what an equation is; and also, you need to say who creates, writes, discerns and manipulates equations.

John, you'll have to do much better than a jumble of words: you need to make a clearly defined argument that supports a clearly defined case, if you can.

Tom and John,

The physics' equations that represent the law of nature relationships only work as a representation of the world BECAUSE physicists discern the symbols and physicists move and change the symbols. The equations only represent a moving system because of the consciousness and agency of physicists. Physicists are part of the system of representation. To symbolically represent a STANDALONE system, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the consciousness and agency of physicists. (Clearly these extra, but necessary, symbols represent the consciousness and agency aspects required in order for a standalone world to exist.)

Prove me wrong. Make a case, make an argument.

Serious problem with the SR explanation for the Lorentz force. In the case of a charged particle in proximity to current carrying wire, Two reference frames are considered A) AND B). A is considering the electrons in the wire to be moving and the free charge keeping up with same speed and direction. B) the electrons are considered to be at rest, as the current flows. As if the electron's point of view. In frame A) the electrons and particle are moving So magnetic fields occur and their interaction gives the Lorentz force. B) no moving electrons in wire. Charged particle at rest. There aren't the magnetic fields that occurred in A). The SR solution I have found on various videos is; As the electrons in the wire aren't moving there is less length contraction of them than when moving .There is also length contraction of the positive ions of the wire. Affecting charge density. The wire neutral in frame A) is charged in B). Electric fields provide Lorentz force.

The big problem, not to do with 'alternative' physics, is the speed of the electrons in the wire. Although current is close to light speed, when a circuit is complete ,the electrons themselves move slowly due to resistance. This is very much slower than the speed of light. For a dc circuit, electrons move at a fraction of a centimeter per second. Too slow for length contraction to be a significant factor.

Physicists seem to imagine that they can look at the world as if the physicist were outside of the world looking in. The physics' equations that represent the law of nature relationships are physics way of claiming that the physicist can externalise himself from the world. But these equations do not take account of the physicist.

What does "taking account of the physicist" actually mean? Taking account of the physicist actually means that physicists' consciousness of the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, and physicists' agency in manipulating the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, are part of the system, part of the world. You can't externalise these aspects of the world.

Consciousness and agency can't be externalised, as though they are not a part of the system. This is what "taking account of the physicist" actually means. And the only way to symbolically represent the steps that are part of both consciousness and agency is via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

The big problem, not to do with 'alternative' physics, is the speed of the electrons in the wire. Although current is close to light speed, when a circuit is complete ,the electrons themselves move slowly due to resistance. This is very much slower than the speed of light. For a dc circuit, electrons move at a fraction of a centimeter per second. Too slow for length contraction to be a significant factor.

Thought experiment: A row of very many electroscopes are placed along the wire. Frame A) electrons passing by the un-deflected gold leaves, as wire is neutral. According to the SR 'explanation': the electrons at rest pass by the electroscopes with deflected/ repelled from each other, gold leaves, as the wire is charged. This is different physics happening for the two different reference frames.