Aspiring author

[jeffocal]

Aspiring author

I have spent large portion of my retirement contemplating the reality of our universe and have come to the conclusion that it can be define scientifically based on its observable properties. I joined this group not for comments regarding the mechanism I believe defines it’s but to discuss its philosophical implications to our understanding of our common reality. I have included brief excerpt from one of my books which I hope will engage.

Thank you for your time

Jeffrey O’Callaghan

Defining the Probabilistic World of Quantum Mechanics in Terms of the Determinism Space-time

This question is especially relevant for physicists who struggle on daily basis to define the “reality” of our universe.
Some attempt to define it only on the abstract mathematical analysis of an environment.

For example, Quantum Mechanics describes the "reality" or state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made.

However, describing it in those terms means that each probabilistic outcome of an event can become one in the future. This is why some proponents of Quantum Mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.

This also may be one reason why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that "If Quantum Mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

However, others derive it in terms of observable proprieties of our universe.

For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a mathematical relationship based on observing the movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a “reality” which could predict their future movements based on observations of their previous movements.

Both the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws give valid descriptions of “a reality” because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.

However, the purpose of theoretical physics not only to define and predict what we observe but to explain why we observe what we do.
For example, at the time of their discovery Newton's gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they could not explain why those laws exist.

However, Einstein defined a different “reality” that not only could explain why they those laws existed while providing explanation for why they are what they are.

This shows, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" which could explain them, there could be one that explains the predictive powers of Quantum Mechanics.

This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory's mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.
As was mentioned earlier describing “reality” only in terms of the probabilities as Quantum Mechanics means every possible outcome can become one in the future.

Yet this would not be true if those outcomes were the result of an interaction between the quantum properties of an environment and a physical one of our observable universe.

For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after it is rolled. This is because the probability of getting a six is determined or caused by its physical interaction with the observable properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled and not on the probability of a specific outcome occurring. This tells us the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

However, as was mentioned earlier Quantum Mechanics is able to quantify the observable properties of our environment but is unable to explain why those properties exists.

But that does mean we should not look for another way to do so.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by interacting with someone or something. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.

Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.
As was mentioned earlier what defines the “reality” of getting a six when rolling a dice in casino is not the probability of getting one but the physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.

Similarly, what defines a quantum environment may not be due to the probabilities associated with the wave function but the interactions of an energy wave with the space-time properties of its environment.

This means there may be an alternative “reality” that can not only can explain the quantization of our observable environment but can also provide an explanation why that happens.

What we as theoreticians need to ask ourselves is our job only to quantify our environment as Quantum Mechanics does or should we also attempt to explain why it is what it is in terms of our observable environment.
 

[Age]

Aspiring author

I have spent large portion of my retirement contemplating the reality of our universe and have come to the conclusion that it can be define scientifically based on its observable properties.

Well I could hope that you had not come to the conclusion that 'the Universe', Itself, could be defined, scientifically, based on Its non observable properties.

Also, I thought that it was rather obvious that 'the Universe' can be defined, scientifically, based on the Universe's observable properties, and on those properties only.

I joined this group not for comments regarding the mechanism I believe defines it’s

Why not?

Also, let 'us', for arguments sake and for an example, say that you tell us 'the mechanism' that you believe defines 'the Universe' came from 'the person or being' who created the whole Universe, Itself, then why do you 'hope' no comments regarding 'this mechanism', which you believe defines the Universe?

but to discuss its philosophical implications to our understanding of our common reality.

1. What is 'our understanding', of 'our' so-called 'common reality', exactly'?

2. What even is 'our' 'common reality', exactly?

3. Who and/or what does the 'our' word here refer to, exactly?

4. What does the 'philosophical' word here meaning, exactly?

5. What is the 'its' word here referring to, exactly?

6. What are some or all of the Universe's, or the mechanism's, supposed and alleged, 'philosophical implications', to 'our understanding', of 'our common reality', exactly?

I have included brief excerpt from one of my books which I hope will engage.

Thank you for your time

Jeffrey O’Callaghan

Defining the Probabilistic World of Quantum Mechanics in Terms of the Determinism Space-time

This question is especially relevant for physicists who struggle on daily basis to define the “reality” of our universe.

The reason any so-called "physicist" would struggle, on a daily or any basis, to define the so-called 'reality of our universe' is because:

1. There is NO 'our universe'.

2. So-called "physicists" and all of you other human beings have not yet even decided, agreed upon, and accepted a definition for what the 'reality' word is even meaning, or is even referring to, exactly.

3. There is NO such thing as 'the reality of our universe'.

Now, there is only One Reality, and, only One Universe. And, when, and if, any of you, also, come-to-know, and understand, what both of them are, exactly, and fully, then those ones will never 'struggle' on a daily nor on any basis, here.

Some attempt to define it only on the abstract mathematical analysis of an environment.

Okay, and others attempt to define 'it' only on other things, right?

For example, Quantum Mechanics describes the "reality" or state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made.

Well the 'shape' of the Universe, Itself, is not the exact same when each and every different measurement is made. Therefore, it could be said and argued that any so-called 'reality of our or the Universe' 'has changed', or is in a different 'state' or 'way', on each and every new measurement.

However, describing it in those terms means that each probabilistic outcome of an event can become one in the future.

Which, more or less, just means that the Universe is changing, always, and also in all ways.

This is why some proponents of Quantum Mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.

Okay. But, does what any one here 'assumes', really matter?

This also may be one reason why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that "If Quantum Mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

What do you think or believe is in so-called 'quantum mechanics', exactly, which would or could so-called 'shock'?

However, others derive it in terms of observable proprieties of our universe.

For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a mathematical relationship based on observing the movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a “reality” which could predict their future movements based on observations of their previous movements.

And ...?

Both the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws give valid descriptions of “a reality” because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.

If absolutely any of you human beings here 'see' or consider that there is some sort of inconsistency or contradiction between 'the two', then please present them, so that 'we' have some thing to 'look at', 'solve', and 'discuss'.

Otherwise, there is no issue nor problem here, at all. Well not for me anyway.

However, the purpose of theoretical physics not only to define and predict what we observe but to explain why we observe what we do.

One can 'define' what they observe, but I am not sure how one could predict 'what they observe'. The words 'what we observe' implies 'what has already been seen'. So, again, I am not sure how one could 'predict' 'what has already been seen' or is, already, being 'looked at'.

And, why 'we' observe what 'we' do is obviously just because 'we' are 'looking at' 'it'.

However, if you meant some thing different like, 'Why is what 'we' are observing, or 'looking at', 'there', or 'here', then this is a whole other matter.

But, then you might have meant some thing like, 'Why are 'we' observing what 'we' do?' from the perspective of what are the actual processes involved in why are 'we' 'seeing' or 'observing' what 'we' are, then this is just because of the interaction between the physical eyes of the human body, the sense of 'sight', itself, the brain, and thoughts, themselves.

But, then again, you might be meaning something else, entirely.

For example, at the time of their discovery Newton's gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they could not explain why those laws exist.

And, there are a LOT of things that you human beings, in the days of when this is being written, cannot yet explain why they exist.

Although, why absolutely every thing exists is, relatively, very easy and very simple to explain, and even to understand. Although finding those who 'want to listen', and understand, is another matter, entirely.

However, Einstein defined a different “reality” that not only could explain why they those laws existed while providing explanation for why they are what they are.

This shows, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" which could explain them, there could be one that explains the predictive powers of Quantum Mechanics.

This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory's mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.

It could be said and argued that anytime throughout human history what is imagined, believed, or known has given human beings the so-called 'most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.

But, 'predictions', themselves, are like 'assumptions' and 'theories', of which all of are just 'guesses', themselves, which may, or may not, come true, at all.

As was mentioned earlier describing “reality” only in terms of the probabilities as Quantum Mechanics means every possible outcome can become one in the future.

So what?

Yet this would not be true if those outcomes were the result of an interaction between the quantum properties of an environment and a physical one of our observable universe.

For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after it is rolled. This is because the probability of getting a six is determined or caused by its physical interaction with the observable properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled and not on the probability of a specific outcome occurring. This tells us the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

But, 'the casino' is not some 'thing', itself, that defines 'any probabilities'.

'The casino', itself, came about because of the One and only observable property, itself, interacting with 'its self'.

However, as was mentioned earlier Quantum Mechanics is able to quantify the observable properties of our environment but is unable to explain why those properties exists.

As was implied, if not mentioned, earlier, explaining why ALL properties exist is a, relatively, very simple and easy process.

But that does mean we should not look for another way to do so.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by interacting with someone or something.

What is so-called 'space-time', exactly?

See, understanding the very definition, for the words that are already in use, in the days when this is being written, helps, tremendously, in coming to understand, and, literally, 'to terms', as well, as to why ALL properties exist has not yet been fully comprehend and understood by most of you, here.

This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.

Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.
As was mentioned earlier what defines the “reality” of getting a six when rolling a dice in casino is not the probability of getting one but the physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.

And, what defines 'the casino' are the physical properties of how 'the casino' interacts with the 'very thing' 'it' occupies. And, what defines the 'very thing' are the physical properties of how the 'very thing' interacts with the 'very thing' that all of these 'things' are in, or they occupy, continually until 'we' get to right up to the Universe, Itself, right?

Which, by the way, is, fundamentally, made up of just two things, only, and of which one is a physical property, only. So, there, essentially, is absolutely nothing too hard nor complex to comprehend and understand here, at all.

Similarly, what defines a quantum environment may not be due to the probabilities associated with the wave function but the interactions of an energy wave with the space-time properties of its environment.

Saying some thing like; The space-time properties of its environment', implies that both 'space' and 'time' have properties. And, if they do, then what are those properties, exactly?

Also, did you explain to 'us' what 'space-time' even is, exactly, above here?

This means there may be an alternative “reality” that can not only can explain the quantization of our observable environment but can also provide an explanation why that happens.

There are NO so-called 'alternative realities', at all. There is, however, and instead, one just 'Reality'. And, the 'quantity' of the human being 'observable environment', and of ALL of the universal environment, are just two, only. Which are, by the way, 'space', and, 'matter'.

'Matter' just being the, obvious, observable physical things, and, 'space' just being the not always as obvious invisible distance between 'matter', itself.

And, as for why 'this' happens, it is because:

Both 'matter', and, 'space' have always existed, (and it could not be any other way, if any one is interested).

And, why 'this', as the most deepest fundamental level, happens is so that "i' can bear witness to what 'I' am Creating HERE, NOW.

What we as theoreticians need to ask ourselves is our job only to quantify our environment as Quantum Mechanics does or should we also attempt to explain why it is what it is in terms of our observable environment.
 
[/quote]

[attofishpi]

..poetic justice comes to mind.

One thing you might want to include in your book is the fact that it's an unforgiving universe especially when determinism results in AGE.