Limits of mathematics in cosmology

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

Ed,

Thanks for the advice, but since some of us are not "taking things too seriously", some of us have to. ;-))

Cheers,

--Lev

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

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?

Lev,

I mean that nonlocal communication must instantiate measure criteria not accessible to our low energy domain. Pp. 8 -- 10 of my "time barrier" preprint linked earlier, explains the technical details.

Tom

Tom,

Can you say it in a plain language?

Thanks Tom,

By the way, if you have not already read Paul J Nahin's book, "An Imaginary Tale: The Story of (sqrt of minus one)" I think you would really enjoy it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"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,

(You replied in the wrong thread, so I am trying to continue the right one.)

The issue is not resolved with the increase in the dimensionality of the space.

The issue has to do with the ability of any space to support structural events. That is the whole crux of the matter!