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

John Merryman

Tom,

Yes, I'm using model and theory somewhat loosely, but it is a bit like hardware and software. They do influence the development and evolution of each other. Genes and gene expression, networks and nodes are similar relationships. You are the one who keeps impressing on me that there is no objective reality, only models(and theories), yet you seem to assume the practice of science is purely objective. What is its foundation, other than the human mind and its relation to its environment? Is that an objective foundational basis?

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Language and literature would be another example.

Thomas Ray

" ... it is a bit like hardware and software. They do influence the development and evolution of each other."

Not really, John. Software can run on any substrate. The software adapts to the hardware, sure; however, software also evolves independent of the hardware. Gregory Chaitin is doing deep research in this area.

"Genes and gene expression, networks and nodes are similar relationships."

If you mean self similar, I agree.

"You are the one who keeps impressing on me that there is no objective reality, only models(and theories), yet you seem to assume the practice of science is purely objective."

You misunderstand. It is *only* our theories and models that are objective. Because we define the terms. The theory's correspondence to physical phenomena -- experimental results -- makes it both objective and true.

"What is its foundation, other than the human mind and its relation to its environment? Is that an objective foundational basis?"

No, it is not. The terms we agree on inter-subjectively, constitute the objective foundational basis.

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

You are saying software has had no influence on the development of hardware? I'm no expert, but there are a lot of feedback loops you are not taking into account.

What if we are, "inter-subjectively," wrong? Every single one of us is a resident on this planet. For the vast majority of human history, just about everyone agreed the earth was the center of the universe, with the sun moving across the sky during the day and the stars pirouetting around the heavens at night. The math and theory to explain this, epicycles, was quite effectively predictive and could always be patched with another gearwheel. All Copernicus really did, mathematically, was to make the earth's motion one of those cycles. As Galileo put it, "It moves." So how can we ever be truly sure our 'objectivity' isn't just another popular assumption? For example, when we have to edit out that cups do not spontaneously gather themselves together and jump back up on the table, doesn't that provide any clue that there might be something missing with spacetime as a complete theory?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"You are saying software has had no influence on the development of hardware?"

Human hardware or a natural substrate?

" ... when we have to edit out that cups do not spontaneously gather themselves together and jump back up on the table, doesn't that provide any clue that there might be something missing with spacetime as a complete theory?"

No, it does not.

That we do not observe teacups reassembling themselves does not obviate a continuous spacetime.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

"What if we are, 'inter-subjectively,' wrong?"

That is called the brains-in-a-vat argument. Being wrong does not imply being unobjective.

John Merryman

Tom,

"That we do not observe teacups reassembling themselves does not obviate a continuous spacetime."

It does create an asymmetry that isn't explained by spacetime.

"That is called the brains-in-a-vat argument.'

That is a rather extreme example. Those people who thought the earth was the center of the universe simply lacked a slightly more objective perspective. Why do we presume to think there are not similarly overlooked factors in our theories/models. When observation doesn't match theory, sometimes it's the theory that is wrong, not that there is some newly discovered dark element.

I think we are getting in our usual back and forth on Joy's thread. If you want to take it to another..

Regards,

John M

Jonathan Dickau

In response to Joy's comment above..

I have perhaps been too feeble, because I think there is a cure to some of the ills ('something rotten'), if we can once again make it OK to play - in the pursuit of progress in Science. The need for that freedom was, in fact, the central premise of my grant proposal which FQXi selected but chose not to fund (a book and video). At least those who are turned down for grants get a detailed report of the strengths and weaknesses of their proposal, which unfortunately essay finalists do not get, and which tends to be useful information.

I echo Tom's comment about the need for cooperation, in order for the scientific enterprise and Science in general to prosper. As I said in my lecture for FFP11 in Paris; part of the key to that is keeping alive the cerebral nature of that endeavor through conscious avoidance of those behaviors known to originate in the midbrain or hindbrain - sometimes known as the lizard brain. Fair play and cooperation are prerequisites of higher-brain playfulness with ideas.

And I do understand that people in fields like Physics do have a responsibility to be faithful stewards of the sciences - which tends to mean open-minded, and interested in learning new things - rather than being competitive about who has the one best answer.

Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan Dickau

It might be helpful to..

Check out the slides for my talk at FFP11 - Learning to Cooperate for Progress in Physics where I explore the connection between civilized behaviors in the research community and brain usage, detailing how that affects cooperation.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Eckard Blumschein

Yes Rob,

There is "NO evidence that "space-time" exists within the entity or as part of the entity being observed. It may, ... , merely exist in the same sense that color exists; It is a mind-made construct". However, has it really "proven to be a very useful way to describe our perceptions of reality"? I would like to object that our direct perception of reality does not matter at all because it has already created a lot of reliable knowledge to which the space-time idea did not and perhaps will not essentially contribute.

I would like to mention that Joy has consequently avoided to take issue concerning your arguments as well as mine.

Do you agree with Jonathan on that "octonions ... tell us (and Nature) what to do next"? Isn't telling nature a theory a rather arrogant attitude?

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Jonathan,

That was a nice lecture. But there is a reluctance to use the whole brain rather than just a part of it. I find the "reductio ad absurdum' method of dialectic very powerful in discerning reality, but not everybody agrees with this method.

Akinbo

Thomas Ray

"Isn't telling nature a theory a rather arrogant attitude?"

Only if one assumes that nature doesn't want to be, or can't be, understood. I choose the philosophy of Einstein (and Spinoza) "God is subtle ... not malicious."

Thomas Ray

"'"That we do not observe teacups reassembling themselves does not obviate a continuous spacetime.'"

"It does create an asymmetry that isn't explained by spacetime."

No it doesn't. Can you read my PowerPoint in your computer?

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

Spinoza equated God with nature. G. Cantor claimed having got his continuum hypothesis directly from God. Einstein was even cheeky enough as to, if necessary, tell to God that his theory is correct and God must be wrong.

I am not aware of anybody who just managed telling to nature how to behave in his own actual past. The past cannot be influenced, and nature does always overrule theory.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

Jonathan,

Thanks for sharing your slide presentation. I thought it was excellent.

Before I got caught up in the events surrounding Joy Christian's research, I thought the peer review system was fair, that everyone who pursued science held the same ideal and goals, and that the self-correcting mechanisms of scientific debate were virtually infallible.

Not to make this discussion too personal, but my own experience resulting from a childhood accident that left me overly left-brained and which I have struggled all my life to overcome, also taught me the value of embracing our differences. Though I doubt that any of us do it perfectly, and I know that I don't often come close, the value that we invest in science -- as a cooperative, rational, objective enterprise -- compels us to try.

This latest chapter -- which has the community of critics failing to acknowledge the success of the Christian-Roth computer simulation -- has brought me to the brink of cynicism. It's as if the 18th century Enlightenment never happened, and we've completely forgotten the wise words of Joseph Joubert: "It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it."

All best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

Believe in the past if you must, Eckard. Spinoza's god, Einstein's god -- the same as mine -- doesn't harbor such prejudices.

John Merryman

Tom,

When debating the laws of nature, there are no referees, only advocates. My impression of your views is that certain models are 'objectively real' and beyond question, even though, not just myself, but Eckard and Robert consider the issue of the time component of spacetime to be debatable.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Nature likes tension.

Thomas Ray

To reinforce my point, sometime about a year and half ago, I was banned from Wikipedia editing for merely voicing my opinion on the "talk" (!!) page, not even the main article, that the treatment of the "Bell's Theorem" entry was far from evenhanded. I made it clear that Richard Gill was controlling the content in a very insidious way -- and after being snidely chastised by a gang of anonymous adolescents, I had Jimmy Wales himself tell me he would consider the weight of Gill's opinion in reinstating my editing privileges. Could any enterprise feigning objectivity be more corrupt?

The facts stand as they are: Gill was wrong about Joy's nonexistent algebraic "error," wrong about claims to knowing enough analysis and topology to fairly judge the framework, and wrong about the tractability of the framework to computer simulation. This paragraph remains on Wikipedia *to this day*:

"Richard D. Gill has argued that Jaynes misunderstood Bell's analysis. Gill also points out that in the same paper in which Jaynes argued against Bell, Jaynes cautiously praised a short proof by Steve Gull, that the singlet correlations could not be reproduced by a computer simulation of a local hidden variables theory."

I was a loyal supporter of Wikipedia. Never again will I be taken in by any organization so weakminded and easily manipulated.

Tom

Thomas Ray

"When debating the laws of nature, there are no referees, only advocates."

Nature is a sufficient advocate for herself. Our theories and models *are* objective when they correspond to measurement events.

« Previous Page Next Page »