We arrive at an important point considering the evolution and the adaptation , my theory is mainly about the evolution and changes, the theory of spherisation it is this, the evolution optimisation of this universe with 3D spheres mainly like foundamental objects. So the big question is why these adaptations and homochiralities , it is not a darwinistic competition only which implies this, but deeper parameters of evolution, there are like choices made for the chiralities and it is the secret to find.It is not like a chance , but about informations stored.
Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli
Now if we consider the atoms and the standard model and the dirac particles having an antiparticle, it becomes relevant about the chiralities and the changes.We arrive at the same reasoning fo the helicity, the spin and chirality of particles.Some bosons are massless like the photons or the gluons, they are supposed massless but a kind of mechanism like the higgs can be considered due to the massless scalar fields of the DE and the massive scalar fields of the CDM , that is why the mass appears for the gluons like the higgs mechanism but with a d ifferent mechanism and fields. An other question that we can search is the fact that the massless photons maybe is an error and so we arrive at new philosophical reasonings. That is why the helicity and chirality of bosons and fermions can be better understood and mainly if these scalar deeper fields are added. See that in my equation an important point is that Y is antigravitational and not constant , permitting this evolution because possessing the main informations. These scalar massless fields are the main chief orchestra and permit the diversity of atoms and the specific spin, helicities, chiralities , mass of particles in function of codes and informations in this field. That is why these chiral symmetries breakings become relevant in ranking all this puzzle with the spherical topological geometrical algebras that I created with these spherical volumes and specific series considering the 3 main systems free cosmologically.It is really a question of broken symmetries due to main unknown informations.
End of naivety about measurement, rather. The measurement process imposes a relative perspective, and quantifies or qualitatively determines something about the object or actualization relative to something else. I.e. there is an [object - actualization]/[ observer or apparatus] relationship, providing context. In this way, a state or value is isolated by measurement and attributed as a property of the measured entity. Though the determined value, the quantified measurement or determined singular qualitative state attributed to the variable is really offspring of the contextual relationship. This is not confined to quantum physics. Measurables are sample-able variables, parameters and constants used to gain some cognition of the external world. Those sampled measurables provide the 'properties' that allow construction of models and ideas about how that World/ universe functions. Map-variables, not terrain.
The Terrain that is the reality that exists outside of our minds and representations, is more than a singular 'Map' representations encapsulates. There are many ways the Terrain can be interacted with and represented. One deterministic Map doesn't show any of the other possibilities that have not been put into the 'Map'. Preparation -The multiplicity of value or states ceases to apply. Not thinking about Wild type, complete objects but a limited set of observables or measurables that could be selected for measurement. Method A relationship is formed with the object giving access to a facet of the chosen observable. Result Finally the result is obtained and the single fixed state or value is promoted to representation of the property of the object or phenomenon considered. Thought-There is a connection to the Many worlds idea. Potential for many Maps at the source, not many Terrains on product side.
"... several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable. The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival "view from nowhere" or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example."] "Scientific Objectivity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
The brand of objectivity that I prefer comes from the correspondence theory of truth that Popper rehabilitated for science. As with any correspondence theory, it is based on a metaphysically real philosophy--i.e. it holds there is a reality external to the observer -- which is diametrically opposed to the views of these physicists (and is, I perceive, the majority view of the FQXi membership)
A lot of the debate on what it (knowledge, related to facts) is and isn't could be eliminated by agreeing on an extra term; 'misinformed knowledge'; Referring to what seems to be knowledge of an external truth but is not what it seems to be.
A belief can be justified without the subject of that belief being the truth or the whole truth. It is also possible to see that JTB (Justified True belief) can change to JMB (Justified Misinformed belief) when additional information is available. i.e. what was true for the known data set is not true for the expanded data set. Example: All swans are white -until the first black swan is found. The opposite process may also occur; supposed (according to available data and expert opinion) JMB can change to JTB when more facts are available later. Example: a high fat diet can be healthy for a human being.
hey to you,.....
""End of naivety about measurement,""
Information and measure
information : it is a quantum state change is due the modification of one degree of freedom from the considered quantum system.
During a measure, To be informed by the system, the measurer needs information, taking information out the system during the measurement process but with the measure, the new system to considers is the global system, there was only a transfer of information between two parts of the global system; similar to the known concept of entanglement
Belief doesn't belong in science, Georgina. One can't be half rational.
We can have our assumptions but after all we can never affrim them without rigourous mathematical proofs, The wisdom is there, we can only accept the pure rational deterministic proved laws, axioms, equations. The problem now inside the theoretical sciences community is that we are arrived at a difficult time to explain the unknowns and we have an ocean of theories, models and all we are persuaded but we don t know these unknowns, abd when you add the vanity, that does not help of course. That said what told georgina is important about the belief because without belief we have no critic, we have no interpretation, no creativity simply, but a sure thing is that only the determinism seems the truth .
"Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once." Descartes R, 1641, translated by J. Cottingham.
How do you judge whether the correspondence is between true/factual existential reality, Tom? Fact is defined as true and true is defined as fact. How is correspondence to existential truth to be ascertained? If using some process you consider reliable surely you have some faith or belief in that process. If correspondence between theory and result -how do you know you have the correct metaphysics? If relying on what is 'sensorily' given to use Einstein's phrase, the assumption is of correspondence between that and existential reality.
P.S. That's what 'justification' was about.
Talking about trust, confidence, credence, acceptance of reliability having justification of some sort for that particular metaphysical footing.
As Karl Popper discovered, and I accept as fact, no proposition can ever be verified. Certain scientific propositions can be falsified, however. For this I do not need belief; Popper and I appeal to E.M. Forster: "I do not believe in belief."
Phenomena fall into one of three categories: True, False and Unproven. LEJ Brouwer took seriously the law of the excluded middle, and left open the possibility that unproven phenomena might someday be converted to provably true or false. Again, no belief required.
I go into great detail on judging true from false, scientifically, in most of my FQXi essays.
1. "There is a reality external to the observer." Tom.
Its nature is in question.
2. "I accept as fact, no proposition can ever be verified." Quote by Tom (This is a statement of belief.) It weakens your first statement.
I don't see how that combination, statements 1+2 is any better than: to paraphrase- We don't know what external reality is but accept the moon is there when not looking. Which I think is Carlo's position or Sabine's description of herself as an Epistemologist rather than realist. Which is an opt out of saying anything about external existential reality.
"Phenomena fall into one of three categories: True, False and Unproven." Tom How is the discernment of the true phenomena enabled, without justification? Aren't all unproven and unprovable by virtue of statement 2
The consciousness of an observer has such a long chain of custody in the accumulation of elements and their assimilation into an operational role that makes it rather astounding that human nature exhibits a very limited number of recognizable traits and capabilities. Yet we are essentially limited in what we can conceive of and act upon to such an extent that in reading history it often would seem that far flung events are somehow all part of a greater global trend when in fact there is no middle to exclude. Given large enough populations of limited imaginations, there is simply few enough variations on any theme of societal conduct that one group might simply be doing something in one part of the world similar to what is happening in some other part at around the same time, though each group might be following different trajectories involving non-similar causal relationships. So that disparity among limited choices is a component of the human condition which informs us in how we categorize what we perceive to be physical phenomenon which we classify through deliberations in conventions for the convenience of agreeing upon what we might be talking about. To that extent, the observer does change the outcome of any experiment, even to the degree of interpreting the function of an apparatus.
Yet transcending perception, human consciousness seems equipped to imagine an idea, a concept derivative of shared experiences. We convene to share observations and formulate ideas, and formulate operational definitions that adequately describe common occurrences. These then we argue to be physical laws, because collectively we observe them to hold true to all observed occurrences of the same sorts. Our inherent limitations might well shield us from much if not most of what has physically transpired, but that much which we do perceive and conceptualize is real enough.
Let us consider inertia for instance. We accept it as a physical property and operationally define it generically as being such that a mass in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by another force, and inversely a mass at rest tends to remain at rest unless acted upon by another force. So the general definition must be a hidden variable in the correct question; "What is it about inertia that is the same thing for any mass regardless of state of motion?" That is the missing element in both General Relativity and Quantum Gravity. And that suggests that for any finite quantity of mass:energy there is some universal maximum mass density relative to that total energy of a closed system in relation to light velocity. Regards, jrc
edit:
The observed behavior of Black Holes at the center of galaxies would seem self contradictory in that it ejects energy jets when theoretically nothing can escape its gravity. But if there exists a universal relative proportionate mass density; the upper bound of density would be relative to the total energy of the galaxy itself and that which would exceed that density bound would take the antipodal path of least resistance in ejecta. And if universal by relative proportion it could be expected to be scale independent and the relative inertial mass density upper bound at core of a particle would be proportional to the finite mass of any discrete unitary field volume.
GR assumes an average mass density in an observable boundary which of course would therefore be also a constant density across that volume. A proportionate upper density bound in a theoretical core boundary would also be a constant density but would not be an average of the total whole mass of a unitary energy field, and only a miniscule proportion of the total energy equivalence of the field mass in a tiny core volume could physically manifest a large magnitude density value proportionate to the total measurable mass. A literal quantum field particle of continuous density gradient with a finite upper bound quantity value that eliminates the infinitesimal zero point center conundrum of a mathematical singularity. The tasks of science should include discovery from what we can describe.
Carlo I think mentions spacetime being somehow emergent.
Being rational Tom, existential matter should not be put into spacetime to avoid paradox- which is logically disallowed. Spacetime (observed) is a product of EMr receipt and processing. There needs to be distributed matter which is source of emitted and /or reflected Emr. The arrangement of the matter needs to change giving foundational time. EMr transmission occurs in that environment. Justification: unambiguous sequential processes, relative perception, no paradox,
Correction.
Sabine says she's not a realist but realism is a good working hypothesis. She describes herself as an instrumentalist. (I wrote epistemologist, which was incorrect) Her own standpoint: "I can't prove anything exists besides me." "The task of science is not to figure out some truth about reality, whatever that might mean. The task is to find descriptions of our observations, not more and not less." Sabine Hossenfelder
Hi Olivier, information' already has lots of meanings. Using a prefix or adjective with it, to make it a name that fits precisely your particular concept, would be helpful.
Hi Georgina, It is what I tell also about the fact that we need to know the origin philosophical like the meaning of these informations, they must have a strucutre also in correlating with the spacetime of the GR like for the loop quantum gravitation has made. Without a structure, an origin also , it is not sufficient, the informations are a complex puzzle conmsidering what they are really in their pure universal meaning which is different than the qubits that we have invented with the computing,