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

Thomas Ray

"So the rotation of the planet, the average length of our feet, etc, are not basic aspects of our reality?"

Foundational? No.

"I think I can see your problem."

I don't think you do.

John Merryman

Tom,

"What is the basis of a measurement function?"

Whatever is the physical attribute, constant, or intersection of various phenomena being used as the standard. The problem with time is this seeming lack of a universal standard for that presumed flow from past to future, given that every action is its own clock.

Your analogies are as strained as your logic. Joy is gong up against an establishment grown accustomed to non-locality. You, meanwhile, are defending the very mainstream assumption of spacetime as being physically real and not just a useful, but limited model.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

They are extremely foundational to our anthropocentric perspective. It is helpful to understand the full context, before insisting particular models are somehow foundational to reality and not just another framing device.

What is intuitive to a physicist? Blocktime? Non-locality? Strings?

It seems whatever is scribbled on a chalkboard is more real than the chalk and the board.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

'What is the basis of a measurement function?'

"Whatever is the physical attribute, constant, or intersection of various phenomena being used as the standard."

Give an example, and the result you come up with.

Thomas Ray

"They are extremely foundational to our anthropocentric perspective."

So what? Are you a creationist who thinks the world was specially created just for us?

Thomas Ray

"Joy is gong up against an establishment grown accustomed to non-locality."

Just as Copernicus went up against an establishment grown accustomed to your beloved epicycles.

"You, meanwhile, are defending the very mainstream assumption of spacetime as being physically real and not just a useful, but limited model."

Dude, that's classical physics. It holds up to experiment. Your belief doesn't.

John Merryman

Tom,

For one thing, "making it up as you go," has an illustrious history in physics. Dark energy would be the most recent flagrant example.

Yet if I say tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates, that is a product of my imagination? I must have a very powerful imagination.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"For one thing, "making it up as you go," has an illustrious history in physics."

And in fables.

"Dark energy would be the most recent flagrant example."

You think someone just made that up?

"Yet if I say tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates, that is a product of my imagination? I must have a very powerful imagination."

Since tomorrow never comes, your delusion is just as powerful.

John Merryman

Tom,

You are the one who keeps saying we can only know the model and knowing the model is necessarily dependent to our perception.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

Epicycles are a very useful comparison to spacetime, since both are mathematically effective and dependent on some metaphysical mechanism.

"It holds up to experiment.'

Only those experiments which correspond to the model. I've yet to see the experiment where the cup pulls itself back together and jumps up on the table.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

"You think someone just made that up?"

To fill the gap between theory and observation.

"tomorrow never comes,'

So you agree that only what is present is real?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Epicycles are a very useful comparison to spacetime ..."

No they aren't.

"... since both are mathematically effective and dependent on some metaphysical mechanism."

Spacetime isn't metaphysics.

'It holds up to experiment.'

"Only those experiments which correspond to the model."

If you ever learn what "model" means, and I've explained it several times, then you will know that *no* model corresponds to an experiment not done.

"I've yet to see the experiment where the cup pulls itself back together and jumps up on the table."

So what? That has nothing to do with spacetime as a physically real phenomenon.

Thomas Ray

"So you agree that only what is present is real?"

I've never said differently. You really never listen, do you?

Thomas Ray

" ...knowing the model is necessarily dependent to our perception."

No it isn't. If it were, the world would have no objective meaning.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

Now you specified what you are meaning with a (topologically) continuous function. I have to apologize for in a hurry choosing poor examples as to illustrate my point.

You wrote: "Real arithmetic (number theory) ... is not an adequate fit for the natural phenomena we observe." While you and others consider C, H, and O indispensable, I see basic adequacy in the opposite direction, i.e. with just R.

The parabola y = f(x) = sqrt(x) does only exist for positive x. Likewise, a function of radius makes only sense for positive radius.

I am not a presentist, and I also uttered arguments against SR and spacetime. Nonetheless I hope we may agree on that Akinbo's neo-Monadology is inconsistent with most basic mathematical reasoning while close to Cantor' infinitum creatum.

Eckard

John Merryman

Tom,

If we can't perceive the model, it isn't a very good model. A signal is not just what is sent, but what is received.

How is meaning objective? Isn't meaning what's left when you distill away all that is meaningless? The particular signal in the noise. Does that make the noise subjective?

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

"Spacetime isn't metaphysics."

Epicycles assigned agency to the pattern, in that they assumed the motions of the cosmos were directly based on a closely matched physical mechanism. Spacetime makes the same direct assumption, that the patterns of shifting measures of distance and duration are directly based on this 'four dimensional fabric of spacetime.'

"*no* model corresponds to an experiment not done."

Presumably the model is created prior to experiments testing it.

"That has nothing to do with spacetime as a physically real phenomenon."

It has to do with the fact that no experiment has shown time to be symmetric.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

"I've never said differently."

And that what is present is dynamic?

Regards,

John M

Fred Diether

Hi Joy,

Well, it looks like the message you posted earlier has disappeared so posting a reply here. Yeah, the conversations on the original topic have gone way off topic. In fact, let's see what I originally posted that started all of this... Oh yeah, it was this on Oct 4th.

"The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge."

"The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth."

- W. Somerset Maugham, The Razor's Edge

LOL! That sure did start up a long discussion! I guess people here just like hangin' out on your forum topics. You are one of the very few FQXi members that actually respond on these forums. Sure would be nice if posts and replies didn't disappear.

Best,

Fred

Fred Diether

Actually I attributed the quote,

"The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge."

wrongly to Maugham when it is my saying that I derived from "The Razor's Edge". I am surprised no one asked more about what it means because it can have two meanings. Of course you might think it means that the truth is very hard to get at as a standard straight forward meaning but here is what it really means (hidden meaning. There is nothing thinner (figuratively) than a razor's edge so you are already at the truth. You just have to open your mind to see it. Those that have read the book might have "gotten" the hidden meaning.

Best,

Fred

« Previous Page Next Page »