Physics Stops where Natural Metaphysics Starts by Marcel-Marie LeBel

Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Your words: "If these two contrary statements or states were to be separated by time i.e. making them to be 'not at the same time', they would be individually acceptable while remaining as a whole, a global contradiction."

My words: You point out that the universe did not exist and then later it did exist. Your point is that not being and being can be separated in time. There can be a before and after, but those conditions are not the act of creation itself. How do you propose that a separation in time can exist in an act of creation?

James Putnam

Dear Marcel,

Thank you for your reply. My question was intended to give you a reason to expound on your ideas. Thank you for your remarks about my essay. I will try to avoid interjecting my own ideas into your forum. I thought your essay was very good from a metaphysical point of view up to the point where I submitted my question. I think your contribution here is valuable because I think that theoretical physicists could profit greatly from prizing metaphysics as much as they do their theories.

I chose to question you at the point where I thought you moved from metaphysics into theoretical physics. My intent is still to give you an opportunity to explain how you make this transition. Thank you for your previous answers. I do ask now: How do you know that time began at the beginning of the universe? Are you assuming the correctness of relativity theory for your taking that position. I am not taking a position myself while discussing this with you. I am interested in your justifications for your ideas. I need to get passed this point before knowing what to ask further.

James

Dear Marcel,

Thank you for your answer. I believe I understand your position about time. As for myself, I definitely did not mean clock time, assuming that any activity in the universe that is repetitive can be used as a clock. Relativity theory is, for me, not a basis for defining time. However, that is not important here. Your definition is what is important here.

I do have another question. You speak of time as the "Cause". I assume that you are saying that there is a continuous relationship between time and all effects and that this exclusivity, not seen by other theoretical causes, indicates that time is the reason, the cause, for the effects? You use the common appearance of time in physics equations to support this view. Is this a correct understanding?

Also, your said ... [The "time" I speak of is a substance-process of a continual explosive type that makes everything in the universe and which variations and structures work by rules of logic.] Where did the rules of logic come from? Are they properties of time? I do not mean to sound confrontational. I am interested in your reasoning. Whatever answer you give is the one I am asking for because it is your answer.

James

REPLY III TO PUTNAM

PUTNAM: You speak of time as the "Cause". I assume that you are saying that there is a continuous relationship between time and all effects and that this exclusivity, not seen by other theoretical causes, indicates that time is the reason, the cause, for the effects?

LEBEL: The system universe is ruled by logic and allows only one cause. A cause is identified by logic in the example of gravitation. It is the only cause.

PUTNAM: You use the common appearance of time in physics equations to support this view. Is this a correct understanding?

LEBEL: Yes. As explained, since time makes everything, we already have some knowledge of it, in a form or another, by way of our own metaphysical appreciation (consciousness+memory). This knowledge from our perception of time is not entirely wrong. The time of physics is perfect for physics.

PUTNAM: Also, your said ... [The "time" I speak of is a substance-process of a continual explosive type that makes everything in the universe and which variations and structures work by rules of logic.] Where did the rules of logic come from? Are they properties of time?

LEBEL: The rule of non-contradiction is shown, in the essay, to be a requirement of accepting that something really exist... and this rule is the basis of logic...

..James, is it me or you are taking an awful long time in getting to the point?

All my answers from I to III are taken straight from the essay. How about you say what`s on your mind?

thanks,

Marcel,

Hi Marcel,

The question "whether or not space or time really exists in the universe" refers to a higher realm from which the eventual existence of spacetime can be determined: if to non-believers there is no such realm so the universe has to create itself out of nothing, then spacetime is among the things it creates (see 'Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe'), so it certainly is no metaphysical quantity but instead created by its inhabitants, the particles to which their distance matters energetically, to which the existence of spacetime is a sine qua non for their own existence.

If there is no higher realm, then there is no authority to lend creations in/of the universe the title 'real': if the universe creates itself out of nothing, then things inside, including spacetime itself, exist only to each other, but have no reality outside of it.

To illustrate this, let's imagine a huge volume of spacetime with only a single particle in it, never mind for the moment that for lack of other particles to exchange energy with, it cannot even exist itself. As long as it has nothing to interact with it doesn't matter energetically where it is: as it cannot know where it is, all positions are identical to the particle, so the volume can be infinitesmal as well as infinite. To the particle spacetime then is a completely undefined quantity, which is not surprising as it can exist itself, have mass only by exchanging energy with objects in its environment, an exchange providing information about their direction and distance, and so about the dimensions of spacetime itself. If particles create each other (see the essay for the mechanism) so they see each other appear at the same time, in concert, we might imagine the universe to start with particles of a very low energy, their exchange proceeding in extremely large wavelengths so their position, their distance is very indefinite, spacetime between them ill defined.

As even a large displacement takes almost no energy, all positions being almost identical, it doesn't even make much sense to use an adjective like 'large' for their distance or the dimensions of spacetime.

If we define spacetime to be larger as it contains more physically, energetically different positions, then to a particle spacetime is smaller as its own restenergy is smaller.As the distinction between the distance between particles and their velocity with respect to each other fades at larger distances, higher velocities or lower energies, all quantities becoming less definite, so does spacetime: the smaller the energy of the particles, the less defined spacetime looks to them, the less physically different position it contains, the smaller it can said to be. The higher the restenergy of a particle, the more physically different positions it can distinguish, the larger its universe is, the more particles at larger distances it exchanges energy with, the larger its part in their creation is, in the associated creation of spacetime, in its expansion.

So mass and spacetime are intrinsicly related, spacetime being a product, an aspect of mass and vice versa instead of something which comes for free, some empty, abstract property-less quantity. As seen from the center of the universe (any point being its center), its rim then is no sharp border but an area where the energy of the particles decreases to become infinitesmal: the more distant, the smaller, the less indefinite their energy, the longer their wavelength and the less definite their position is, the less spacetime is defined, the more the concept of spacetime looses any significance.

Dear Marcel,

I have enjoyed very much reading your essay. I started skeptical, saw that it is surprisingly well thought out and liked the first half very much. As the essay progressed however, things got progressively muddied up into fuzzy philosophy and unsubstantiated speculations. However, the basic original ideas are in my opinion very good and they present a very interesting point of view. I have struggled with those issues myself for quite some time and I had discovered some time ago the link between logic and time. I also discovered it is not enough to fully understand our world. Please see my essay: "Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization". It is mostly on the mathematical side, but the philosophical implications resonate very much with your first part of the essay. Your ideas capture the standard understanding of physics and philosophy, but I am trying to push the envelope and extend math's reach into a formerly philosophical domain. I would very much appreciate your thoughts regarding my essay. Thank you.

Dear Marcel,

You write an essay where you propose a solution to the nature of the universe. I write you three messages in less than two days and you say this to me:

..James, is it me or you are taking an awful long time in getting to the point?

No more questions.

Jamesw

Dear Marcel,

i read your essay with great interest.

Especially your rule of non-contradiction is interesting to me for reasons i layed down in my own essay here in the current contest.

My main question in my own essay - and also in comparison to yours -, is, how are choices *possible* at all in a logical universe (including our minds) that is governed exclusively by that rule of non-contradiction? Why are there not only facts and truths, but also assumptions and choices?

"If we assume that nothing existed at the start, we could face a contradiction

by suddenly making something to exist."

Yes, but what, if this assumption is simply not a truth? For example, in cosmology this "start" is assumed as a quantum fluctuation and therefore, the rules of quantum mechanics had to be in some very precise sense "pre-existent" to manage this start. Even if the explanation of this "start" via quantum mechanics isn't true at the end, one thing seems to remain true for me: For the aim of deducing time as the mysterious substance that makes it possible to link existence and non-existence, time has to be pre-existent according to your rule of non-contradiction. If it wouldn't be pre-existent, we would arrive at the same problem of something coming out of nothing (namely time). So it seems to me that your explanation of the problem that something came out of nothing is a problem constructed by a "truth" that mustn't be - logically speaking - a truth, but also could simply be a choice by assumption (namely a possibility).

It seems to me that every explanation of "everything" via mutually exclusive contraries like "to be" or "not to be" cannot squeeze more information out of these contraries as are put in right from the start (means by constructing a "truth" that needs an opposite to be "true").

REPLY I TO LEBEL

> A good start for a new physical theory is an impossibility, either factual or postulated (see truth systems)

F: Yes, but is but no means the unique way.

>My conclusion is that no physical TOE is logically possible. Mathematical connection/description is still possible.

F: Wrong: Nature seems to have no problem combining relativity with quantum mechanics and gravity in a logical coherent way. Just because we are not yet able to do it is only a reflection of our limited intellectual power, and we should not be too arrogant to claim it cannot be done.

F: And Right: depends on what we mean by a TOE. Mathematics is infinite in complexity, and so is physics. We understand now how the human body works but we will never have a TOE of medicine (we are still battling diseases like cancer). Similarly, there will be no closed mathematical system describing a physics TOE like say the Euclidean geometry. (Axiomatizing physics is still possible.)

>I am not sure of your: physical reality vs real world vs Platonic world ...

F: Reality seems to be nothing but a collection of relational mathematical structures organized in a specific way. But this is fuzzy philosophy. What matters is that you can derive important uniqueness results about nature simply by comparing math and reality.

>I like you addressing the concept of truth: "The universal truth property can be shown to create a constraint on the event manifold that manifest itself as global hyperbolicity [13], typically called time." I would like your short explanation without having to dig into ref (13).

F: You cannot dig in ref 13 because it is not published yet. Basically you can translate Goedel's incompleteness proof almost 1-to-1 into the global hyperbolicity proof. This is very much related to your ideas: if something is true (like past history), then you have no freedom: you get only a frozen past (that cannot be rewritten by traveling back in time). No time travel to the past = global hyperbolicity. In Special relativity one has the Minkowski cone and LOCAL hyperbolicity which separates past from future, but in general relativity one can bend the space time a little bit at each point in such a ways that globally time can wind back to itself, and this violates GLOBAL hyperbolicity.

> You mention a metaphysical questions like the "Nature of time". I don't think that mathematical precision will answer that one.

F: mathematically, time=global hyperbolicity. Philosophically, time is the (unique) mechanism that prevents us from becoming inconsistent and separating existence from non-existence. Without time, there will be only frozen contextual truths (many at odds with each other) and also there will be inconsistent statements. Demanding universal consistency (or universal truth property) necessarily demands the existence of time.

>You say: "Instead on trying to solve the nature of reality, a much more useful approach is not to seek the similarities, but the di®erences. And this is the main idea of this essay." My approach is exactly about "trying to solve the nature of reality" or the underlying reality.

F: Indeed. Initially I have gone your path as well. But what I try to do now is to extract mathematical consequences and prove that the real world has uniqueness. I believe we should be able to rigorously prove in the end that the universe must have 3 spatial and one time dimension, it must has quantum mechanics, it must has the gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces, it must have the particles we observe and their properties, etc.

>"but I am trying to push the envelope and extend math's reach into a formerly philosophical domain" . Maths are based on logic and somehow they are most welcome in the truth system metaphysics. Simple logic only give me the initial "why"; after that I am pretty much lost; maths of explosive process evolution, maths explosive structure, etc.

F: But there are very important "why"s we do not have an answer yet: why are there 3 generations of matter? Why do we have the strong force? Why do we observe the value of the cosmological constant the way it is? Etc, etc. After all major "whys' are answered, then we can concentrate on secondary issues.

>LEBEL: Now, would you do me a favor and tell me where the second half of my essay start and list the fuzzy philosophy and speculation. I may have lost you there along with everyone else. This feedback would be appreciated.

F: you did not lose me; I was able to follow your essay to the end, although admittedly it became much harder to read after the first half. Your essay is losing the physics audience around page 5: "How many substances?" The (wrong) speculation begins fully on page 6: "We got ourselves a universe of time". I do understand fully what you mean, I used to think along similar lines myself, but I now know it to be mathematically incomplete. As much as I had wanted it so, I cannot obtain quantum mechanics only from my universal truth property. What you are missing is the second principle: composability. From composability and universal truth property one can mathematically derive the necessity of both quantum and classical mechanics.

The disciplinary boundaries have been created in science by we humans. In fact, all sciences, including Mathematics, initially had only a philosophical curiousity. Thus human mind is the source of everything we have, as our resource of knowledge.Let us not restrict ourselves in our quest for better truth about our physical universe by introducing limiting boundaries for our professional spheres. i for one have strongly sensed that we need a far closer colloboration with life sciences today than ever before. Physics is getting a stop over in new discoveries, partly confirmed by the award of Nobel prizes in past several years for mainly lifetime studies to the awardees! Interdisciplinary approach is very much the need in order to expand our minds, the main source of concepts/precepts. Keen observation coupled with a self-discriminatory critical analysis is the only way to freshness in acquired knowledge. It already exists in the universe since its birth but we need to widen our approach, instead of narrowing it through what we call specialities.

i wish the author best of luck with his remarkable attempt to pen down an essay. He is correct to suggest that space and time are intrinsic concepts. The homogeneity or linearity in them today may not be true from the start of the universe. As indicated in my essay, the distortions/ inhomogeneitirs in space and time are the souces for production of mass and energy in the universe.However, the theories we have propounded over the years may not provide sufficient confidence, as we are complex in our thinking process and even some simplicities in nature gets converted into complexities due to our own bias and restrictions imposed by what we consider as knowledge that has been proved as successful mostly.

' ... "spacetime" is ... a conceptual bridge between our physical reality and the underlying reality ...'

' ... A speed limit in the universe spelled, 100 years ago, the end of space...'

Spacetime is as physical an object as a chair as it is populated with virtual particles which are real enough as long as they interact, exist, particles which in turn keep spacetime going, one being a manifestation of the other. Unless you believe in some outside creator, there is no underlying reality either: all things in the universe are only real, that is, exist to each other as far as they interact, exchange energy, space being an aspect of mass like energy is of time, one defining, creating the other. Though in a universe created by some creator, a caused and causal universe there is a speed limit, in a self-creating universe the speed of light is no velocity but just a number which says how many meters correspond to how many seconds. Though an observer measures a transmission time proportional to the distance, to the photon its transmission is instantaneous. As you can never cross a spacedistance larger than corresponds to the associated timedistance, nothing goes faster than instantaneous, which is obvious. So there is no end to spacetime either.