Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

thanks a lot for pointing me to this very interesting open letter. Indeed, cosmology is one of the most model-dependent theories we have due to sparsity of data obtainable and the lack of experiments we can perform (except for some analogues in lab experiments, we have to rely on serendipitous discoveries), among others. Yet, it is no unique phenomenon that one "mainstream theory/model" has been developed and others fell out of focus, this is not much different from other highly complex sciences, e.g. medicine.
This trend to favour a particular idea and abandon others completely was a major motivation to write my essay. In my view, running in a single direction and adjusting inconsistencies with further assumptions even if we keep on lacking observational confirmation makes us blind for alternative models compatible with a sparse set of data.

Underdetermination problems allow for a variety of solutions and we should explore the set of all of them (including ambiguities in the representation of each model solution). As Richard Feynman once said so pointingly in his famous lectures at Cornell, up to a certain level, many different interpretations / descriptions of a phenomenon are possible but not all of them inspire us equally well to move to the next level of a deeper understanding. While it may be a costly and dry task to systematically investigate develop a complete model to explain all cosmological data, we are much more likely to find those solutions that inspire us to a deeper understanding.

Personally, I find that the big-bang theory is a good example for a highly sophisticated abductive model discussed in my essay and I agree to the criticism put forward in that open letter, not necessarily because the big-bang-theory may be incomplete or wrong but because I would like to know whether this is the only solution currently compatible with our data. As far as I know there are also other models that have not been rejected based on observational evidence so far.
Another criticism I would have, is that there have been arguments from philosophy of science that the big-bang theory can hardly be refuted due to its construction. So one may also ask in how far this model is a dead end if our technology will not give us any observational confirmation nor is there any self-inconsistency in the theoretical framework to refute the idea on deductive grounds.

Best wishes,
Beige Bandicoot.

      Your description of a different scientific approach of replacing "best-laid schemes" used to our advantage with a "science of senses" rather than building assumptions, coupled with your good metaphor of Robert Burns' poem, shows a different human approach for science. It reminds me of another essay regarding negative externalities humans create which exploit nature rather than observe and use what what nature offers. Both ideas attack a human approach which strips science and humans of a purity that science could and should pursue. Your "mice and men" is good metaphoric imagery for your human approach to a different science.

        James Hoover

        Dear Apricot Capybara,

        thanks for the very interesting comment, now I see that point -- Robert Burns destroying the mouse nest while harvesting grains... I am thinking how science and humans could be more pure. What do you mean with it? To take what Nature offers can have a broad interpretation. For me personally, the "mistake minimiser" in the sense of securing our survival in a better way was closer to my intention for writing the essay than the thought of exploiting nature. Taking much more than we need implies that we destroy ourselves mid-term or even short-term given the current world situation. In my opinion, this would actually decrease our happiness instead of maximising it.

        Can you point me to the essay you compared mine to? That would be great!

        Best wishes,
        Beige Bandicoot.

          Vladimir Rogozhin

          Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

          thanks for the additional article. When I read such debates, I cannot help but wonder how much people belief in the models of reality that were set up. Each of these models underlies certain (often not empirically testable) assumptions and, as always, they may be simplified in order for us to understand the most relevant features of the system under investigation. For the Big Bang I would say the assumption that Einstein's field equations describe continuous quantities in order to infer the Big Bang is questionable. For me, the earliest observables that we can have, like the cosmic microwave background, are the limit up to which I consider the Big Bang Theory to be testable and a good approximation to our current data. Tensions arise now because this model needs to be extended due to our increased knowledge obtained by more and complementary observables again.

          But there is no way for us to currently find out whether the Big Bang actually happened due to the lack of data at this event. One may also argue that a different cosmological model (like the ones put forward by Roger Penrose) makes predictions about artefacts of a precursor universe. However, while this is a testable predition of his model, to be sure to refute the Big Bang cosmology at the same time, he also has to show that the latter cannot produce these artefacts in any other way. And then it's up to the cosmologists which explanation they find physically more plausible (unless on of the models gives something directly contradicting observational evidence). To facilitate this debate, I favour my suggestion for a different way of knowledge gain as put forward in this essay.

          Bests,
          Beige Bandicoot.

              Jenny Wagner
              The problem is that today there is no open competition between models of the universe.
              General relativity is a phenomenological (parametric, operationalist, "effective") theory without ontological justification / substantiation (ontological basification).
              Pierre Teilhard de Chardin left a good philosophical testament to theoretical physicists (cosmologists):
              "The true physics is that which will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his wholeness in a coherent picture of the world."
              More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the task of constructing a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World." ("The Self-Aware Universe").
              [https://web.archive.org/web/20111205183605/http://v-nalimov.ru/articles/111/395/]
              In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set out in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning" [https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3088]

              And which of the physicists will fulfill the philosophical precepts of John A. Wheeler "unsung paragon of science":
              "We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
              "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"

              In your model of the World (the Universe), its physical/metaphysical origin, are there places for meanings/senses?

                  Vladimir Rogozhin

                  Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

                  thanks again for the very inspiring links and quotes that I have obviously missed so far.
                  Concerning GR being an effective (field) theory, I found the comment made by the late Yurij Baryshev very intriguing that the cosmos need not be homogeneous and isotropic if we let go of the picture that matter needs to form a continuous field and that self-similarity can arise as the next most simple symmetry class then to describe the structures we observe. That makes quite a lot of sense to me if we take into account that none of our data is actually continuous, so our models get one step closer to the observations we make.

                  Now where is the meaning and the sense in all of these models and theories?! That is much harder to answer, as we still don't know whether our reductionism actually works (see also George Ellis' view on top-down causation for a counter-statement). In my view (that I partly sketched in my essay), there is room for more, just like Aristotle saw at least four different ways to answer the question why something is as we see it. Hence, why aim for a single answer in the first place if we could get at least three more, depending on the aspect of the question that we want to focus on?! For you, purpose seems to be quite an essential one and I agree to that, at least when it comes to my personal motivation/curiosity to explore the universe. In my essay, I emphasised on this ambiguity of the world as we see it and I think you are arguing in the same direction that we should come to terms with the fact that there may be several interpretations and ways to answer a (scientific) question, as I doubt that there can be a coherent picture only based on physics...

                  Best wishes,
                  Beige Bandicoot.

                    BeigeBandicoot, KhakiHeron.
                    To your discussion, my opinion about space (part of the article).
                    Can the real world be n-dimensional?
                    To increase the dimension, there must be a ruler of dimensions 1,2,3,4….n. Linearity implies a dual system (1 and 3 are dual to each other, with respect to 2). For the emergence of the 3D world, the next possibility is to combine the 2D and 4D worlds and separate them into dual components. Two 4-dimensional worlds create 3-dimensional and 5-dimensional. From two two-dimensional worlds, a 3-dimensional and one-dimensional one arises. A variant of the emergence of a one-dimensional "arrow of time" and a 3-dimensional Nature was realized.
                    Why are space, matter, energy, etc. 3-dimensional? The 5th dimension is more diverse and more complex. In existing conditions, the main property of Nature is the desire for stability. Stability is achieved in two ways: by maintaining the potential in dynamics (conservation laws) and by accepting a minimum potential. In the cases under consideration, the minimum for the decay into integers is two.

                    About the starting point.
                    Nature is dual (zero splits into dualities). Therefore, the starting point must be and not be. Taking as a reference point the Void (the basis for decay), we make an analogy with the Universe. In the Universe, the property of the Void is possessed by Space. The universe is huge and in fact there is a reference point and there is no point.
                    Example. Start on a spaceship, the observer sees the Earth is moving away with acceleration. The observer makes a fundamental discovery: "There is a "dark" energy that can accelerate the movement of the Earth.
                    If we take the resting Space as a starting point, then the Nobel Prize will be awarded to another researcher.

                    Causal relationship.
                    A cause-and-effect relationship is given by an analogue of thermodynamics - the movement goes from a large potential to a small one. This is how learning arose, that is, human behavior is subject to the same laws as physics. The great potential of the mind created the desire to know the unknown.

                    Question. How do you feel about horror in physics? (A lot of darkness, uncertainty, etc. terms, but fear / horror is not yet used).

                      Aleksandr Maltsev

                      Dear Purple Yak,

                      thanks for responding!!
                      Concerning the n-dimensionality of the world, I have often seen many similar arguments like yours based on symmetry principles from some higher-dimensional groups that split into smaller-dimensional subgroups. While I can understand that from the mathematical point of view, I have yet to understand the physical reasons why this should be the case. What is the observational evidence in favour of more dimensions and, from the theoretical point, what is the fundamental necessity to extend our descriptions of the world into more dimensions? In my essay, I tried to briefly address this point in our model building. Occam's razor is purely based on representational simplicity and any other criterion for model ranking as e.g. imposed in Bayesian data evaluations is also restricted to the realm of mathematics. Hence, in my eyes, physical plausibility is missing in all of these evaluations and introducing such concepts to improve our model ranking, I wonder, how would n-dimensional descriptions be ranked compared to 4d ones? How to we treat the fact that there are no stable Kepler orbits for our planets in higher dimensions but we see at least good approximations to stable orbits in our solar system?

                      Concerning the duality, yes, I fully agree, if the cosmos is a zero-sum-game, we still observe a lot of dynamics and structure going on! 🙂
                      ...and isn't this concept of a resting space, called a fundamental observer, actually the root of many problems in modern cosmology?! Take, for instance, our current cosmological concordance model and all the tensions that arise and may hint at a more complex model than just a homogeneous and isotropic background cosmology.

                      Concerning the causal relationship, I agree that there is more than just bottom-up creation, but top-down causation also plays a significant role. Yet, my impression is that the latter is only "unconsciously" and "implicitly" incorporated in our theories and models and we should make it much more explicit to gain deeper understanding.

                      Horror in physics? I am a bit scared that we are much more inclined to look at very "crazy" almost mysterious ideas in order to explain our observations, dark matter and dark energy being some of them. This approach has led us to great knowledge gain and shows our highly imaginative mind (exceeding AI by large amounts, in my eyes and making our way of abductive reasoning unique). However, we should not forget about the more "boring" and down-to-earth explanations that can also be found and seem to be equally viable as explanations than the seemingly more attractive mysterious ones. In that sense, we may put an end to frightening dark stuff and forces by demystifying them, e.g. as boundary conditions or effective field theories. But, as in every good horror movie, I think most of us enjoy the thrill of goosebumps running down their backs much more than losing that magic by understanding the trick... 😉

                      Bests,
                      Beige Bandicoot.

                          Jenny Wagner Dear BeigeBandicoot!
                          Everything is the opposite! Zero creates dimension. Line breakdown. The decay of the line creates a plane. Next comes the volume.
                          Horror for physicists (created by mathematics. Technical university level):
                          Matter must be described as a unity of volume and mass. The duality of the properties of the physical vacuum (medium for waves and emptiness for photons and matter) in the two-component nature of the physical vacuum.
                          The movement of time is the process of transformation (condensation) of physical vacuum (gas) into matter (solid). The present is analogous to liquid. All components, a kind of energy.

                              Aleksandr Maltsev

                              Dear PurpleYak,

                              when you write about the duality of nature, I agree that there are some aspects like the particle-wave duality that are dual. But I also wonder, what about emergence? For instance, could some duality be also caused by our problem to define a structure because it is emergent? Consider for instance the definition of a galaxy. Where does it "end" and where does the "Background" begin? Do we need more complex descriptions than just dual ones?

                              Cheers,
                              BeigeBandicoot.

                                Aleksandr Maltsev

                                ...I think I should copy this conversation and thought into this thread as well to keep it for my notes.

                                PurpleYak:
                                Your essay is the only one whose success I control. I'm surprised at the lack of attention.
                                Everyone knows: The system is not capable of reforming itself. The withering away of the old gives way to the new - evolution and involution. Currently, acceleration is created by changing external conditions. External conditions change, those who pay. In all processes, everything depends on people. The essay proposes to influence science not only with money, but also by expanding the popularization of knowledge (information that is understandable). Popularization will require explanations of purpose and meaning, destroying the "fog" of the need for research, for research (Example. Why find thousands of exoplanets now. Without engineers, science will not reach exoplanets. Without verification, information becomes verbiage, and verbiage, information). If the providers of money demand conditions for popularization, it will be easier to see the naked king.
                                Why did I write this? Knowledge creates a worldview - understanding. Understanding is harder to destroy than information. As a result, past knowledge negates information that can change the worldview.
                                I have come across this fact. As a mistake, in my essay, I was presented with the classical definition of temperature. Knowledge of the classics allows one to ignore the fact of changes in knowledge about the nature of radiation, electrons and energy. Popularization will make it possible to overcome the excess of fundamentalism in science.

                                Reply:
                                Dear Purple Yak,

                                thanks for that inspiring comment, I totally agree that popularisation of science could greatly help to gain a deeper understanding. As Feynman once said, if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it. But it takes quite a broad overview and expertise and a separation between what's actually necessary and what is only sufficient to understand a certain phenomenon. Thus, I think, the approach of hierarchical knowledge gain that I sketch in my essay could be very useful to reach that goal and find better explanations everybody can understand, or at least, partition a complex phenomenon into its parts to identify those fundamentals that can become general knowledge and the more complex details that are rather for experts in the field. (should have mentioned that as well, but it took this discussion to bring me to that insight! 🙂 )

                                Bests,
                                Beige Bandicoot.

                                  You have to think big!
                                  It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!

                                  You have to think big!
                                  The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [ appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf
                                  https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2304#control_panel ].

                                  Tejinder Singh

                                  ...I still wonder whether I got my pseudonym purely random or based on my story about the curious mice and men! 🙂

                                    Write a Reply...