Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality:

How would you measure/observe it?

"If they are not relative, then presumably they are absolute. What state is absolute order and disorder?"

Yes they are absolute. Their relative usages lead to misunderstanding. An example would be to speak of the random tosses of a coin. Each toss is a toss. Each results is definite, either heads or tails. I can't tell you which it will be, but I do know that it is not random, because I know that during those tosses, I will observe equal numbers of heads and tails many times. that result is repeatable. There was no part of the whole event that did not have direction. I know each part had direction because all together the results reveal that heads and tails will each appear 50 percent of the time over and over again.

Absolute order is what the universe consists of. There is no example of meaninglessness or lack of direction anywhere in it at any time.

"How would you measure/observe it?"

Nothing in this universe has ever observed, actually I prefer experienced, randomness or disorder. Every object in it plays its role both in communicating information and using information. There is no place or time of lack of information. Even the existence of noise in its fullness tells me information. Even if I lack the ability to actually isolate individual pieces of information, I can know if nucleuses and electrons are sources of some of the noise by looking at its spectrum. What's to measure except parts of order.

James Putnam

Tom,

I understand that you use the words random and disorder in relative sense as if they can exist sandwiched in-between orderliness. I have many times read your statements that showed this.

"Your question: "Your claim is that the means for the paper clips to by chance become strung together did not exist while in the bag?" -- is a non-starter, because there is no prior probability for the paper clips to form an ordered chain. My example is strictly empirical."

Empirical yes, your conclusion no. There was a prior probability for the paper clips to form an ordered chain.

James Putnam

James,

" What's to measure except parts of order."

That's the point, that you can only measure parts of it. Think in terms of taking a picture; You set the focus, speed, aperture and direction to get the most or the desired information from the waves of light which might enter the lens. If you simply opened up the aperture, set the lens to infinity and left the lens open, the frame would be white, even though you would be gathering potentially far more information.

The same applies to flipping the coin, the more times you flip it, the more it statistically averages out, so no decision is clarified. It would be nearly the same as not flipping it at all. So unless your focus of information is statistical averages, no decision is made.

The ideas of randomness, indecision, fuzziness, etc. are when the preferred signal is obscured by too much or wrong information, ie. noise.

Regards,

John M

John,

Parts of order are parts of order because there is nothing to measure except order. The idea of perception ruling the meaning of randomness in physics is not accepted by me. It leads to misleading statements such as "Nothing is unstable." So it is conclusively shown that the universe originated from nothing. I won't be following that lead. There has never been randomness nor disorder nor nothing in the universe. No one knows, by scientific means, what can be concluded about 'before the universe'. There are many observations and conclusions resulting from one's perspective that yield contrary statements.

"The ideas of randomness, indecision, fuzziness, etc. are when the preferred signal is obscured by too much or wrong information, ie. noise."

I do understand the acceptance of this position does occur often. However, Your words 'obscured' and 'wrong' do not support your conclusion "i.e. noise." That is if you mean the result lacks direction or meaning. You accept a perception definition for randomness and disorder. I don't. I am describing physical properties that actually exist in the universe regardless of one's perception. One's perception can lead to self-imposed limits as to what is random and what is disordered.

It is as if randomness or disorder are products of one's perception. They are not so long as they are portrayed as existing physical properties in the physics sense. Perceptions aside, there has never been randomness nor disorder anywhere at anytime in the universe. The evidence for this claim is that the universe remains orderly and so far as we can see back into its past it was always orderly.

James Putnam

James,

I certainly accept that everything is ordered in and of itself, but that is circular logic, ie. "It is what it is." So the issue for me, is how do we perceive this order. As I see it, there is no universal, 'God's eye' view of everything, because the more information, perspective, etc, the more the white noise issue.

Regards,

John M

John,

"I certainly accept that everything is ordered in and of itself, but that is circular logic, ie. "It is what it is." So the issue for me, is how do we perceive this order. As I see it, there is no universal, 'God's eye' view of everything, because the more information, perspective, etc, the more the white noise issue."

I have not presented circular logic. I spoke only about what empirical evidence shows us. The universe, so far as we have observed it, has always been orderly. Do you know how we can know this? I did not present a God's eye view. I restrict my comments to fit into the science of physics. If your point is that you or I individually cannot usefully contain all information accumulated, ok. But, that does not describe the breadth and usefulness of scientific learning. Perhaps you find specialization restrictive and detrimental.

I am not sure why you brought up the concept of 'white noise'? My point had to do with physical noise and that it is not evidence of either randomness or disorder. There is no evidence of either randomness or disorder at any time or anywhere ever in the universe. Do you say that this is incorrect?

You did state, I think, that the issue for you is that we do not know and probably cannot know everything because learning interferes with itself. My interest is not in knowing everything. In this thread, my interest has been in refuting ideology presenting itself as science; and, in the loose use, causing misuse, of what I understand is intended to be physics terminology.

James Putnam

James,

We are very much on the same page of trying to peel away some of the mystical thinking. For example, consider the uncertainty principle, in that the point isn't that the structure is uncertain, but that our efforts to probe it also affect if, thus we can only know part of the information about it. Which, in a nutshell, is my point. I just think this goes to the nature of knowledge and information, rather than the reality we are exploring.

By circular logic, I do simply mean, "It is what it is." Take a pencil; It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. It's not fuzzy, or random, or indecisive. All the material components and all their molecular and atomic subcomponents are what they are. We can probe the nature of this pencil and discover what it is, according to our ability to put it in the context of our knowledge base.

I'm certainly not criticizing specialization. It is the professional essence of exploring the parts of knowledge we can examine. Even generalists are specialists at another, broader level, limited by their ability and proficiency at cross referencing the various areas of specialization within their purview.

Regards,

John M

"Empirical yes, your conclusion no. There was a prior probability for the paper clips to form an ordered chain. "

Prove it.

James, your belief in prior probabilities is just what Bell loyalists say is true -- as a matter of mystical assurance, not a matter of scientific rationalism. That is, what you and they mean by "empirical" and "rational" is not the correspondence between an event and a theory; it is correspondence between the event and a probability.

No such correspondence exists.

The probability is a myth, a belief. The only difference is that you are more honest in your faith than Bell believers, who actually perform calculations on prior probabilities; in principle, you do not differ.

True determinism is as you claim -- based in the outcome of physical events, empirical. If those events are probabilistic, however, what you claim actually opposes what you believe.

Will you be a believer, or a scientist?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Me: "Empirical yes, your conclusion no. There was a prior probability for the paper clips to form an ordered chain. "

Tom: "Prove it."

Me: You make unprovable statements regularly. My statement is supported by the empirical evidence. The evidence is that some paper clips form a string.

Tom: "James, your belief in prior probabilities is just what Bell loyalists say is true -- as a matter of mystical assurance, not a matter of scientific rationalism. That is, what you and they mean by "empirical" and "rational" is not the correspondence between an event and a theory; it is correspondence between the event and a probability."

I don't say prior anything exists priorly as if the future is active. I say the means for the end exists before the end occurs. Use the word probability or whatever, but it has no mystical connotations to it. Your repeated efforts to define your beliefs as resulting from rational thinking is betrayed as false by your adoption of theory. What I mean by empirical is empirical evidence. What I mean by rational is to avoid empirically unwarranted inventions and learn that which it is that empirical evidence is communicating to us.

Tom: "No such correspondence exists."

Me: The correspondence that I use exists.

Skip Your continuation ..."The probability is a myth, ... you do not differ."

Me: "You can't see yet where I differ. You don't yet understand what I describe to you. Theory isn't the tool you need.

Tim: "True determinism is as you claim -- based in the outcome of physical events, empirical. If those events are probabilistic, however, what you claim actually opposes what you believe."

Me: That statement demonstrates that we are still not communicating. You obviously mean something different with 'probabilistic'. I presume that you are thinking in terms of some probability theory. Theory isn't the tool you need. Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of the unknown in physics equations. You won't need those invented properties if you learn from empirical evidence. The first corrective step you need to take is to recognize that mass should not have been declared a fundamental indefinable property.

Tom: "Will you be a believer, or a scientist?"

Me: This statement is similar to many self promoting statements that you make. For you theory rules. You believe it and more problematic is that you preach it.

James Putnam

James.

"I don't say prior anything exists priorly as if the future is active."

What does that mean?

"I say the means for the end exists before the end occurs. Use the word probability or whatever, but it has no mystical connotations to it."

No? Then all you're saying is that the likelihood of anything happening at any moment that it happens is ordained by the initial cosmological condition. I agree. Now explain it without invoking a mystical cause. Contrary to your opinion, we do get cause "for free." Life is free.

"Your repeated efforts to define your beliefs as resulting from rational thinking is betrayed as false by your adoption of theory."

Not my adoption. It's what "rational" means.

"What I mean by empirical is empirical evidence. What I mean by rational is to avoid empirically unwarranted inventions and learn that which it is that empirical evidence is communicating to us."

And that requires a theory. Otherwise, your belief is a "just so" narrative, like any religious narrative. There's nothing wrong with that -- you just can't call it science.

"Tom: "No such correspondence exists."

Me: The correspondence that I use exists."

Yes, but it's a correspondence of belief to evidence; in other words, if one believes that witches float, every prosecution of an accused witch in medieval times was just.

In the same vein, if one accepts probabilism as fundamental, every experimental violation of Bell's theorem confirms it.

"Skip Your continuation ...'The probability is a myth, ... you do not differ.'

Me: "You can't see yet where I differ. You don't yet understand what I describe to you. Theory isn't the tool you need."

Theory is the only *objective* tool you have.

Tim: 'True determinism is as you claim -- based in the outcome of physical events, empirical. If those events are probabilistic, however, what you claim actually opposes what you believe.'

"Me: That statement demonstrates that we are still not communicating. You obviously mean something different with 'probabilistic'."

How many meanings do you think that term can have? It's quite unambiguous.

"I presume that you are thinking in terms of some probability theory. Theory isn't the tool you need. Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of the unknown in physics equations. You won't need those invented properties if you learn from empirical evidence. The first corrective step you need to take is to recognize that mass should not have been declared a fundamental indefinable property.

Tom: "Will you be a believer, or a scientist?"

Me: This statement is similar to many self promoting statements that you make. For you theory rules. You believe it and more problematic is that you preach it."

I sure do. Not for my sake -- for the sake of rational thought. Too many witches have been thrown in the river by believers.

Best,

Tom

James. please understand that chaos (order from disorder) is deterministic and nonlinear as well as empirical. Joy's measurement framework fits the chaotic model of nonlinear determinism.

Let's look again at the bag of paper clips -- you say the potential for a jumbled bag of individual paper clips to form ordered chains just "is," that there is 100% probability that chains will form because that's the way they were made. That doesn't explain anything, however -- one asks, how many chains will form under what conditions? How many paper clips will remain as discrete units? Given any finite time interval t --> T, will every paper clip in the bag be a part of an ordered chain? In infinite time? What is the relation, if any, between the initial number (n) of paper clips and the number (m) of ordered chains in a given time interval? What time interval is sufficient for any ordered binary chain to form, given what threshold of energy input? Does the rate of formation of ordered chains increase with energy input? Infinitely? What is threshold of energy input for any chain to form? What, if any, is the role of space in the interaction; is there a maximum or minimum distance of interaction? And so on.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an excellent article on chaos and determinism, accurately allowing that "theory" in the conventional sense does not apply to chaotic determinism:

"There are no axioms -- no laws -- no deductive structures, no linking of observational statements to theoretical statements whatsoever in the literature on chaotic dynamics."

As I said in the beginning -- it's purely empirical.

Back in 1991, Paul Davies and John Gribbin co-authored a book titled *The Matter Myth* (which an internet search shows available as a free e-book online) which tolled "the death of materialism," and argued that matter is not fundamental.

And that's why I always have a problem discussing this subject with you. You are intent on convincing me that mass is a fundamental physical property, and I find no reason to suppose so. In fact, quantum theorists also take mass as fundamental and the results of Bell's theorem assume it, even when the particles in the experiment are massless.

I agree with most of what you say about determinism and empiricism; however, your belief in the primacy of mass negates the deterministic view. Quantum correlations don't depend on the prior existence of mass, as Joy's framework shows, because the lack of boundary between quantum and classical domains leaves only two primary relations: space and time (from which we get spinors and other objects). That's why the framework applies to *all* quantum correlations at every scale. It promises to lead to an empirical definition of "quantum," independent of mass. It is faithful to Newton's prescription, "Hypotheses non fingo."

Paper clips and other components of a chaotic complex system aren't physically real. The underlying relations that generate the phenomena we observe, are.

All best,

Tom

"I don't say prior anything exists priorly as if the future is active."

"What does that mean?"

It means that distortion begets distortion.

Tom describing his views of what I mean:

"Then all you're saying is that the likelihood of anything happening at any moment that it happens is ordained by the initial cosmological condition. I agree. Now explain it without invoking a mystical cause. Contrary to your opinion, we do get cause "for free." Life is free."

What I say is that everything that has ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe was provided for since the beginning of the universe. You statement is a misrepresentation. Cause is not mystical. It is unknown.

The rest of the exchange is repetitive of past discussion.

James Putnam

The shaken paper clips can, may, and will occasionally link together. They can because of their form. The may because of their form. They occasionally will because of their form. That covers it.

Your words describing me as believing in the 'primacy of mass' show that your following your own path and not mine. The fundamental indefinable status of mass makes it as 'primary' as length and time. That should not be the case. whatever it is that you mean, you are not describing what I mean. I say that it was the first error of theoretical physics to arbitrarily assign mass the status of a fundamental indefinable property. My meaning is that mass should have been and could have been a defined property. In the equation=ma, both force and mass should have been and could have been defined properties. I have fixed that problem. The theory that mass is a fundamental indefinable property is gone and the equations is now corrected. That is my meaning.

James Putnam

"It means that distortion begets distortion."

This is empirically falsified

"What I say is that everything that has ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe was provided for since the beginning of the universe. You statement is a misrepresentation. Cause is not mystical. It is unknown."

I take it you mean unknown but not unknowable. Then accept the empirical evidence.

"The fundamental indefinable status of mass makes it as 'primary' as length and time."

Then it is not primary, as neither length nor time independently are primary.

""The fundamental indefinable status of mass makes it as 'primary' as length and time.""

"Then it is not primary, as neither length nor time independently are primary."

To readers: Length and time are primary because they are naturally fundamental indefinable properties. They are indefinable because they are the properties of empirical evidence. There are no properties before those of empirical evidence by which the properties of empirical evidence can be defined. For the science of physics empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Changes of velocities of objects when measured with respect to time is called acceleration. From those patterns of accelerations, we learn there are two other properties, force and mass. Neither force nor mass are empirical evidence. Their existences are inferred by empirical evidence.

When f=ma was introduced, it was not recognized how either force or mass could be defined using length and time alone. The choice was made to declare mass to be a third fundamental indefinable property. This choice put mass on the same level as length and time. Length and time are primary properties because they are the first properties. Neither mass nor force are first properties. Only the properties of empirical evidence are first properties. First properties are properties with no other properties existing before them by which they may be defined. The choice to make mass a third fundamental indefinable property elevates mass to the status of a primary property. The fundamental indefinable status of mass was an arbitrary theoretical act that artificially elevated mass to the status of a primary property. Humans made that choice and not nature.

James Putnam

"To readers: Length and time are primary because they are naturally fundamental indefinable properties. They are indefinable because they are the properties of empirical evidence."

No they're not. Meter sticks don't come with pre-marked gradations, and clocks don't come with pre-marked faces.

""To readers: Length and time are primary because they are naturally fundamental indefinable properties. They are indefinable because they are the properties of empirical evidence.""

"No they're not. Meter sticks don't come with pre-marked gradations, and clocks don't come with pre-marked faces."

The sticks and clocks aren't primary nor are their markings. What is primary is object length and action timing so that acceleration can be recorded and evaluated for meaning. The sticks, clocks and their markings are tools. We can decide on different versions or choices of 'sticks' and 'clocks' don't need faces.

James Putnam