Limits of mathematics in cosmology

For any reading the above thread, who are unaware that there is an alternate conception of consciousness, (alternative to the consensus of consciousness as artifact) the following fqxi is a blitzkrieg introduction to the topic:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

"Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" -- essay and extensive comments

Other more detailed info available here and at Amazon:

http://www.geneman.com/books/klingman_book_list.htm

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Tom,

I think we are getting to the heart of the problem. You make two statements that I find incredible:

1) "If numbers map 1 to 1 with time intervals, as you say, there is absolutely no difference between the number sequence and the time sequence. They are identical. Particularly, as you claim that "physical logic underlies math." Things that are not differentiable are identical in physics; e.g., the vacuum and the ether."

and

2) "Physics absolutely does support contradictions -- all the time. The most fundamental contradiction is between quantum theory and general relativity."

Perhaps I have been careless and said "physics" when I meant "physical reality". I try to maintain the distinction. I don't care that "physics" is contradictory, since it is clear from the state of today's physics that all of the current models, from the Standard Model to General Relativity are in big trouble. Lev thinks it's because of problems in math, I think it's because of problems with physical concepts.

I've remarked in several comments that the dividing line as I see it is between Unitarists and Dualists, loosely defined as those who believe in one physical substance from which the world self-evolves, and those who believe in some Platonic world of math that replaces God in governing the physical world.

Those who believe in the Platonic world of math can make statements such as yours, that if two entities map into each other, 1-to-1, they are identical. Mathematically perhaps true, physically false.

I have come to believe that those who live in the 'mental' world of math and logic have, to a serious degree, actually lost touch with the physical world. Drastic, I know, but it's the only thing that I can comprehend that explains the general view which I think you are expressing.

So when you say "Physics absolutely does support contradictions -- all the time" you should notice that I said: "the most basic property of the physical universe is logic, in the sense that physical contradictions do not exist." Either you are not paying attention to the words, or else you do not distinguish between "physics" and "physical reality". Contradictions do not exist in *physical reality*. The fact that they may exist in physics should simply be considered as proof that physics is off the mark.

I don't know whether we have a language problem or, as I suspect, a more serious perceptual problem, which I believe is reflected in both these fqxi discussions, and in the wider world of politics, where there appears to be a large percentage of humans who cannot (or do not) distinguish between abstractions and reality. Math is abstraction, physical reality is not.

I do appreciate your comments,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

How can one do science, while making a distinction between "physics" and "physical reality?" Reality is superfluous -- as Laplace said of a certain supernatural character, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

All scientific explanations are rendered by theory alone. There is thus no operational difference between abstraction and "reality." If there does exist some underlying reality beyond that which we can explain objectively, science won't find it.

Tom

Tom,

If you don't understand, there's no way I can explain it to you. Korzybski pointed out that sanity was knowing the essential difference between the map and the territory. "Physics" is the map, "physical reality" is the territory. Apparently many mathematical physicists have wandered away from the territory and see only abstract maps.

It's as if some drive across country and see the marvelous reality, and others drive with their heads buried in maps. It seems beyond words to get this across. I suspect it's deeply psychological, since it has nothing to do with the actual territory.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Tom,

One last try:

What do physicists say is reality?

Some say there is dark matter and energy. Some say there is a God Particle (Higgs boson) to create mass. Some say there are universes without number. Some say nothing changes in Einstein's 'block universe' of General Relativity. Some say the world is made of mathematics. Some say axions exist. Some say gravitons and gravity waves exist. Some say there is SuperSymmetry. Some say inflatons exist. Some say QCD 'color' exists. Some say the world 'splits' with every quantum decision. Some say 9 to 26 dimensions exist. Some say 'strings' and 'branes' exist. And on and on. What do *all* of these have in common? The have *never* been seen! They are inferred from various theories (guesses!) about the world.

These are the maps. What actually exists is the reality. I don't know how to make it more clear than that.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Let me start a new thread, closer to physics.

I have noticed that one of the FQXi essays written by Don Limuti (his website), discusses motion of a particle as [math]$"\lambda-hopping".$[/math]Now, if this kind of hopping, or pulsation, can be modified to mean that the particle is being instantiated on the basis of the events in the corresponding struct, that might be a way to proceed.

Does anyone knows any other work on a similar view of particle motion? (Don talks of the original (1925?) Heisenberg paper.)

Lev,

What is physics?

Some say there is dark matter and energy. Some say there is a God Particle (Higgs boson) to create mass. Some say there are universes without number. Some say nothing changes in Einstein's 'block universe' of General Relativity. Some say the world is made of mathematics. Some say axions exist. Some say E8. Some say gravitons and gravity waves exist. Some say there is SuperSymmetry. Some say inflatons exist. Some say QCD 'color' exists. Some say the world 'splits' with every quantum decision. Some say 9 to 26 dimensions exist. Some say 'strings' and 'branes' exist. Some say lambda hopping. Some say bubble men made of bubble limbs. Some say information and time are identical. Some say syntax and semantics are the same. And on and on. What do *all* of these have in common? The have *never* been seen! They are inferred from various theories (guesses!) about the world.

These are the maps. What actually exists is the reality. And that includes consciousness.

It's been fun. Don't take it too seriously.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Your analogy suffers a fatal error. If you think that one's experience of the territory is more real than the map, you neglect that the vast majority of things that we objectively know about our world are counterintuitive.

The experience, therefore, is apparently not the "reality."

Once again, the science of physics does not assume reality; reality is what theory describes as tested against its own self consistency and experimental particle and system behavior.

Tom

Tom,

I'm sure you believe that. Daniel Dennett believes that consciousness is an illusion. The name for this belief is the 'Zombie' theory.

That you believe that experience in not the best indicator of reality simply proves the point I have been making.

I wish you well in your endeavor, and will continue to see you on these blogs. Thanks for your patient comments. You help me to both understand your thinking and clarify my own.

Your fqxi friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

That what we know to be objectively true is almost all counterintuitive has nothing to do with my personal belief. We know it in the objective terms of theory and experimental result.

Dennett also has a name for the foundation of your knowledge:

Skyhook.

We can agree to disagree. I wish you well with your theory of consciousness; I just don't find it compatible with the strong evidence for a self organized universe.

Tom

OK, Lev,

If you're serious, address all of the above...

I'm prepared to.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ed,

With all due respect, as I already mentioned, I see the "above" as a soup of contradictions, so, to be honest, I really lost the interest.

Thanks for asking!

OK Lev,

All of the current explanations of physics are irrelevant. It's in your lap now.

Ed

I don't see what you see in this lambda hopping idea, Lev. It postulates that there is no simultaneous particle position and momentum. If that were true, rest mass would be incalculable, spacetime would not be physically real and general relativity would be falsified.

This looks like another version of Mach's Principle to me, which Einstein has already incorporated into GR.

Tom

Lev,

A large part of the reason that theorists turned to extra dimensions, I think, is the problem you describe as "instantiation." Fact is, we only know motion by what motion is not; i.e., relative motion as an instantaneous relation between bodies obviates time dependence.

Jumps in action demand time dependence. We can't have a jump in zero time, so whatever interval "instantiates" the action is measure zero. Measure zero is on the boundary of whatever internal structure may (or may not) exist at a more fundamental level. This leads in a quite natural way to brane models and holography, because the boundary of the boundary is where we receive information from our vantage of d 1 dimensions.

Tom

Thanks, Lev. I'll order Capek's book. I don't agree, however, that " ... successive moments of duration are untranslatable into spatial imagery ..." when we allow n-dimension calculus. We simply make the space as big as it needs to be.

Tom

Tom,

The hopping is about the pulsational nature of movement which is predicted by the struct hypothesis: in space, you can observe *only* the instantiated events of the corresponding struct.

Lev,

"Pulsating nature of movement" is exactly what wave phenomena instantiate. It is a field action principle. If particle and wave phenomena are unitary (and we in fact know that they are), the pulse informs us of where the particle is (local information) but not where it was or how fast it was going (nonlocal information). The variables are not hidden in 3 1 dimensions, experiment tells us. The encoding must therefore reside in a high order structure.

Tom

Tom,

"The variables are not hidden in 3 1 dimensions, experiment tells us. The encoding must therefore reside in a high order structure."

What do you mean by each of these two statements?