What is ultimately possible in physics depends on foundations and philosophy by Peter Lynds

Terry,

I agree with you that people who accept that motion and change are illusions are actually pretty scarce. There is one prominent, well published physicist who does though and that is Julian Barbour. I can't accept his "static" postulate for all sorts of reasons, but he has, hopefully, at least prompted more people to question our assumptions about "time" and the way it has traditionally been represented in our theories.

In relation to this, I don't agree with the following you said in the discussion thread to the Silberstein/Stuckey essay:-

"Our "Nows" are Relative, not Subjective. They are Positions in/of Time. They are indispensable to science. The Relativity of Simultaneity is all about relative Nows. The problem is they are transient and we don't know how to express transient time."

Have you thought that the reason we don't know how to express "transient time" is that it doesn't exist? That the "relative Nows" are positions in relative evolving configuration *space*, not some unmeasurable/unobservable "time"? If I asked you to describe your "Now" as you read the word, how would you go about it? What would constitute your now? Yes, what we call "Nows" are relative, but only in the sense of frames related through the motion of observer and light in relative configurations. In relation to their subjectivity, I believe this goes along with the rest of science and therefore in response also to Tom's statement:-

"Individually, perhaps. When individual results are replicated by others,however, we call the result objective. If it's illusion, it's an illusion we all share, so that the illusion cannot be differentiated from objective results."

I would say that replicated experimental results can only ever be confirmation of our collective subjectively derived *expectations*, based on our collective subjectively derived representations (theories) of the world. Those physical theories are essentially mathematical, so unless you agree with Max Tegmark that reality *is* mathematics, not just described by it, then how can you say that we are making direct contact with an *objective* realty? Maybe all we can ever know, in principle, is a collectively corroborated "illusion". This does not deny the existence of an "external" objective reality, unless you invoke solipsism.

Tom,

I can't speak for Peter, but I think you were being pedantic and selective with your response:-

"Not at all. Science in fact, assigns no value to personal belief."

I think Peter's meaning there was exactly what you stated in your own response! That "science is concerned with reality", ie not personal subjective beliefs. If I am wrong with this, could you perhaps explain what other scientific principle results from eschewing personal belief?

Cheers

Roy

Ray

1. I have no problem with any formalism, including Barbour's (by the way I am not here entering into the argument about Duration. Not enough space or time). If people want / need to use Configuration Space or any other Pllatoist entity I say: " let them !" - but eventually they must relate their formalisms to the real world of scientific observation. Too often physicists and philosophers spend all the time on articulating, justifying and explaining the formalism and its logical consequences. They never get round to the crucial step: explaining the observed reality.

2. ALL scientific obserations, i.e. the Reality we all experience all the time, is denoted by assigned and measured co-ordinates / n-tuples. The minimum number of co-ordinates for empirical data is 4, 3 for where something happened and 1 for wheni it happened. When it happens = NOW. Every piece of scientific data has a NOW assigned to it - and they are all different (ignoring the complicated simultaneity issues).

3. Unless you think science is about something other than explaining scientifc data, it is impossible to do science without NOW - and lots of them.

4. You can use any formalism you like as indicated in (1) to explain what is behind the observations - but the observations are the reality, not the formalism.

5. According to Steven Weinberg (see my essay for refererence details) the purpose of science IS explanation. Do you disagree ? Many people confuse "to explain" with "to explain away". They present a logical formalism without doing the hard bit and actually explaining how we observe what we observe. instead they conclude that the things we observe and are trying to explain don't exist. That is what you have done. It is not an explanation. It is a confusion.

NB I do not deny that there may be levels of reality, but excluding the one we observe is dumb.

6. Perhaps it would be a lot easier and far more productive if we agreed that an Illusion we all share based directly on scientific observation shall be called "REALITY". How else can we get on with life and participate in this stuff ?

7. Unless you can observe your so called "External Objective Reality" all we can do SCIENTIFICALLY is deny its reality - but you can still think like that if you want to.

Frankly I don't like these word games. They are unproductive and silly. The job of science is to explain our experience. Not to deny it. Whatever formalism they want to use is OK as long as they explain our experience- not deny it.

Perhaps you understand why I chose the topic for my essay. Confusing the REASONABLE with the RATIONAL is rampant. So is BlockWorld 4D-itis. Where and when will it end ?

I will be responding to Silberstein / Stuckley separately when i get time. I am being attacked on many fronts. Situation normal.

PS To save Peter the effort you may want to confirm that Relativity does not mandate a 4D continuum. Silberstein etc. have already acknowledged I am right about it. It is a sad comment on the effectiveness of science that so many people get it wrong.

Roy,

You wrote "I think Peter's meaning there was exactly what you stated in your own response! That "science is concerned with reality", ie not personal subjective beliefs. If I am wrong with this, could you perhaps explain what other scientific principle results from eschewing personal belief?"

Sure. There is no scientific principle other than demonstrated correspondence between theory and measurement. Theory--not experience, philosophy or belief-- explains the result.

Tom

Fundamental terms in physics should be based on experimental data, means fundamental terms should describe physical phenomena that are measurable directly.

Mass is measurable directly.

Electrical charge is measurable directly.

Magnetic field is measurable directly.

Gravity is measurable directly.

Space-time as a fundamental arena of the universe is not measurable directly.

Gravity waves are not measurable directly.

Both are only math models.

Direct measurement of phenomena means that they exists as a physical reality.

Until we do not measure therm directly should be treated as hypothetical.

yours amrit

Dear Peter, i note that you are in support of either the concept pf space or time. Well, they are not something physical for their existence to be proved through any experiment. Everyone knows that the ether experiment had already failed.These concepts are for the convenience of building theories of relativity and gravity as also to be able to measure distances and timing speeds. There are other concepts too that exist in physics in order to be able to build the respective theories. No concepts no Physics, as these are based on the generality of observed facts as seen by several scientific observers. But i do agree that scientists can build successful theories of processes/phenomenon using alternate concepts. For example, Einstein, though an initiator of quantum concept does not like Quantum mechanics and hoped that one day a new theory will emerge not treating every phenomenon to be determined or expressed in terms of probabilities only. Personally i also feel independent events of any physical process may well be deterministic but experimentally we can not measure it except through averaging over a large number of events. Thus measurement is behind averaging requirements and so introducing probabilities and distribution functions become necessary. But i also believe that the the creation of the universe that we have and are observing has surely an order as well as logic/intelligence behind it. It just can't be random in nature! The manifestation of the capacity to observe, that is through an observer, changes the outlook by way of what we observe. Thus observed event is affected by the observer. But then we don't have a way to observe the universe from outside!

Dear Peter,

I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that "the question of whether a theory's physical foundations and assumptions actually correspond to Nature or not" is not as simple as you seem to suggest, mainly due to the following situation.

In physics, in order to deal with 'reality' we must rely on *some* formal language, since all spoken languages are not suited for this purpose. So without some formalism we cannot (properly) do physics, and hence cannot verify any 'correspondence to nature'.

In general, it appears that a sufficient number of physicists are not completely blind to the inadequacies of modern physics, but the problem comes back to the above fact that, above all, one needs a fundamentally new formalism to be able to see (gradually) what will be gained by jumping to a new ship.

Peter, you wrote:

" ... in relation to Einstein and belief, I was just reminded of his quote when asked how he would have reacted had experiment not confirmed that the path of passing starlight was bent by the sun. "I would have to pity the dear Lord. The theory is correct all the same."

Right. It was correct not because he believed in it; it was correct because he had precisely calculated the difference between the star's actual spatial coordinates and its apparent measured position. Actually, we now know that the calculation was not perfect,just close enough to support the theory (general relativity). In order to truly understand Einstein's references to "the Lord" and the "Old One," one must defer to his oft-expressed Deism, a completely rationalist religious view that is functionally atheistic. Because there is no personal god in the Einstein belief system (borrowed from Spinoza), there is no room for assigning personal belief to natural phenomena. He meant that if the theory were not supported, science would be useless to describe how the universe works, because the order that theory described could be supported only by personal belief.

As Lev Goldfarb points out, we can only communicate the correspondence between how we think the world works, and how it actually works, by constructing a system of formal language, i.e. a self consistent theory (which, in fact, is something that Einstein also pointed out in other writings). We then test that correspondence by measurement.

Tom

Peter

You responded,

"I disagree. I think it is simply a question of the correct interpretation, and in the same way that one can say 2 follows 1, and 3 follows 2, without making reference to time and tense, before, after etc, one can assign an order to events without referencing the present. The same applies to the readings of clocks, dates etc. I would make the same point in connection to J C N Smith's essay. A "configuration of the universe at a particular time" would also presumably represent an "instant."

I agree with your statement about ordering in the relativistic sense. I was really talking about the more general use of time values in our theories, including dimensional quantities, eg v=d/t. I believe it is an incorrect interpretation, manifested in this way that we *represent* time, ie a before and after clock reading, so that *as it is currently formulated* Terry is right about the need for tense in current physics. To make a fully relativistic theory and, in the case of J C N Smith's model, a fully "Machian" theory, should and could we instead formulate our theories in a fully "tenseless" physically relational way? I think Carlo Rovelli's idea is a very well motivated and promising one in this regard.

I cannot speak for Mr Smith, but I think the essence of his "configuration as time" idea does not necessarily imply "instants", but rather makes motion/change primary. The problem then becomes how to describe transience of evolving matter configurations in terms of evolving *spatial* relations between entities (as the orthogonal 4th dimensional component of the 4 vector?), rather than Terry's "transient time".

Cheers

Roy

Peter, you wrote

"He thought it was correct despite it not having yet been tested, because he believed it correctly corresponded to reality! (not to measurement, because had measurement not confirmed it, he still would have believed it)."

Nonsense. That is insulting to Einstein's life as a scientist.

Tom

Dear Peter Lynds,

You concluded in your essay: "Theoretical physics currently finds itself in something like a crisis."

As an engineer I can only add for sure that I found basic mistakes. This essay contest guided me via Steven Oostdijk's essay to www.milesmathis.com/are.html

I dislike the verbose and as I feel unnecessary provocative style of Miles Mathis, and I cannot yet finally judge. However, Mathis is certainly in some sense correct with his nonsensical claim every point on the graph will have two dimensions.

This reminds me of Cantor who rigorously proved that a cube does not have more points than the line. I see rigorous formalism of such kind often anchored in deeply rooted wrong belief I would like you to get aware of.

Causality it often seen as the relation between a single cause and a single effect or possibly a plurality of effects. Adam and Eve and the regeneration from Noah's Ark are genetically unrealistic.

The other way round, we may always consider a plurality of causes and focus on a single effect.

Let me object to "past, present, and future". I feel the present something unphysical like a real number without any extension.

Very few experts seem to entirely agree with me. I would appreciate to discuss their reasons.

Regards,

Eckard

Just a brief post to second the comments made by Mr. Roy Johnstone, who, for all intents and purposes, is as close to being my "alter ego" when it comes to thinking on the topic of time as I've ever previously had the good fortune to encounter. That having been said, I speak only for myself when I add that my concept of time is about as primitive and naive as they come. It's my view that what traditionally has been thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe.

We, collectively, got off track in our thinking about time when our inventions of the calendar and clock "led us down the garden path," so to speak, by enabling us to talk about "time" as though it were something separate and distinct from configurations of the universe. We've been suffering the consequences ever since. Lee Smolin was absolutely correct, in my opinion, when he wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." ('The Trouble With Physics,' page 256)

If anyone is interested, they can find more about this in my current FQXi essay 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel' and in reference 4 to that essay.

Cheers

J. C. N. Smith seconded Roy Johnstone who wrote: Terry is right about the need for tense in current physics.

Well, why not declaring Einstein disabled as a believing physicist and distinguishing between the reality that does not include the future and the abstract notion of time? Cf. my M290.

Well, this would be at odds with the idea of an a priori existing spacetime from infinity to infinity amen.

I quote from Oostdijk's essay the last sentence I agree with:

"I think we must conclude that the actual advancement in physics applications in the last century is by large from the work of engineers and not from advances in basic physics theory."

Let me justify my decision to likewise question Cantor's naive set theory: Who can tell us a single application of aleph_2? Isn't the value of the allegedly rigorous foundation of mathematics rather to provide an excuse for reasonable pragmatism? I do not expect any established belief to declare itself wrong. Will not this be the duty of those who get aware of mounting trouble in physics?

Eckard

Eckard

When I said... "*as it is currently formulated* Terry is right about the need for tense in current physics", I was trying to emphasise that we are tied to that way of calculating because of the misleading *current formulation*. For instance, how would you go about calculating velocity without a before and after clock reading, ie T0 < T1?

I thought I had been fairly clear that I actually agree physics should be tenseless and that the traditional notion of magnitudes of "time" are unphysical and unreal.

Cheers

Dear Roy,

Unless we flip a record, it reflects the original direction. The distinction between past and future is something else. Physics "should" not be tenseless. It is unfortunately tenseless so far, and it will - as I hope - become ultimately realistic.

Perhaps the only agreement between you and me will be to not agree because you seem to share Einstein's belief in a life after the dead. Ritz died in 1909 but as I quoted in my M290 from Zeh, the late Einstein admitted that the Now worried him seriously.

Maybe I can understand why you consider magnitudes of time unphysical and unreal? Maybe you will be forced to agree that the time span between two events is a measurable non-negative quantity while our ordinary time is indeed not even known to our ear.

However, as did the believing physicist Einstein, you seem to believe in a closed system of a completely created spacetime including all future.

As did Einstein, you will understand reality as follows: "If ... we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."

Given I intend to analyze an actually existing sound signal, then I cannot and I intend not predicting it.

I agree that tenseless language can be combined with horribly awkward add-ons.

I am just convinced that the distinction between past and expectation is more natural if we humbly admit that predictions are always uncertain to some extent.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Roy,

Thanks. I can't help but get the feeling that you didn't understand what I said. For example, in relation to your questioning how one could "go about calculating velocity without a before and after clock reading" one can say that one reading follows the other without making reference to before and after, in the same way that one can say that 2 follows 1, without making reference to before and after, past and future etc. It is just a matter of interpretation.

Hi Eckard,

"I feel the present something unphysical like a real number without any extension."

I agree.

Hi J C N Smith,

"It's my view that what traditionally has been thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe."

I naturally agree with that too.

Best wishes

Peter

"It's my view that what traditionally has been thought of and referred to as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe."

Any objection?