Philosophy Now Forum

What I'm basically saying, nix, is that these two blokes have to stop bitching at each other and start working together because they're both right.

Ok.

If you havn't seen the book "on space and time" Ed Shahn Majid. CUP 2008. take a look, there are a lot of essays by physicists and philosophers which seem to be going over much of the same territory as we have covered here but with more insider insight than I can bring to the table!

Cheers!

nix wrote:Ok.

If you havn't seen the book "on space and time" Ed Shahn Majid. CUP 2008. take a look, there are a lot of essays by physicists and philosophers which seem to be going over much of the same territory as we have covered here but with more insider insight than I can bring to the table!

Cheers!

And in saying such, nix, you're clearly the more reasonable!

nix wrote:Ok.

If you havn't seen the book "on space and time" Ed Shahn Majid. CUP 2008. take a look, there are a lot of essays by physicists and philosophers which seem to be going over much of the same territory as we have covered here but with more insider insight than I can bring to the table!

Cheers!

Thanks for the reference, I'll take a look at it. However I still reckon you're missing my point about the nature of an observation. You quite rightly say that the current models of physics yield predictions which are continuously being confirmed by observation but you then go on to make a leap of faith. You assume that the explanatory narrative devised to explain these observations is being strengthened as more and more sophisticated experiments are devised to confirm more detailed predictions. This is a logical non-sequitur, as Kant pointed out.

“(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognising it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object”. from The Jasche lectures on logic.

You clearly have a very good knowledge of physics, nix, but in a sense you lack daring. I'm claiming that the spaceless model I'm proposing yields exactly the same predictions ( except in a special case of entanglement) but does so with a far simpler underlying narrative. My model doesn't need to ascribe physical properties to non-physical entities and the unpredictability of natural systems doesn't have to be defined in terms of uncaused events. These are the metaphysical inconsistencies which the spacetime paradigm is unable to resolve and to simply say that these metaphysical inconsistencies are irrelevant is bullshit. It is these very inconsistencies which stand between the current models and the holy grail of a unification model.

I'm disappointed that you didn't take the trouble to read my synopsis because many of the questions which you've put to me here are answered in it. A scientist is always required to keep an open mind and also to respect Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. Leibniz rejected the ontological validity of the Cartesian space on the basis of this principle but physics still holds fast to its Newtonian myth with all its metaphysically absurd implications. As long as physics keeps fruitlessly attempting to make GR compatible with QM it will remain in its conceptual cul-de-sac because they're looking at the problem arse-about. QM needs to be made compatible with GR because the unpredictability of the sub-atomic world is no different than the unpredictability of the relativistic motions of cosmological bodies. Newton conflated determinism with pre-determinism and 400 years later physics is still doing it.

Nicely said but again I have to take issue with your physics, (which acts as the foundation of your position): you say

"unpredictability of the sub-atomic world is no different than the unpredictability of the relativistic motions of cosmological bodies".

This cannot be the case because existence of Planck's constant ensures there is an absolute distinction between physics at the distance scales involved in atomic and sub atomic physics and those at the cosmological distances involved in the motion of planets, galaxies and other "cosmological bodies" treated in GR.

It isn't "the relativistic motions of cosmological bodies" where QM and GR have problems, as you know, it is close to space time singularities (be they black holes or the singularity at the big bang). (you will say there are no such singularities perhaps, but they are the prediction of GR and that prediction is where GR fails because it is here, at distances of the planck length 10^(-35) m that our concepts of space and time being continuous quantities breaks down. The concepts of both QM and of GR will have to be modified to effect a unification into quantum-gravity. But see the essays in the book I mentioned for more informed discussion of this than I can provide.

nix wrote: This cannot be the case because existence of Planck's constant ensures there is an absolute distinction between physics at the distance scales involved in atomic and sub atomic physics and those at the cosmological distances involved in the motion of planets, galaxies and other "cosmological bodies" treated in GR.

This argument simply doesn't wash because you're using the model I'm refuting to refute the model which I'm offering in its stead. Rather like this:

Leo. I refute model X for reasons a,b, c etc.

Nix. Your reasons a,b, c etc are invalid because they refute model X.

nix wrote: it is close to space time singularities (be they black holes or the singularity at the big bang). (you will say there are no such singularities perhaps, but they are the prediction of GR and that prediction is where GR fails because it is here, at distances of the planck length 10^(-36) m that our concepts of space and time being continuous quantities breaks down. The concepts of both QM and of GR will have to be modified to effect a unification into quantum-gravity.

On this point we are in complete agreement but physics is looking in the wrong place for its unification model. Simplicity is truth and they should be looking for a simpler paradigm, not a more complicated one. I regard it as a proposition of the bloody obvious that there can only be one form of determinism in natural systems. The motions of cosmological bodies are chaotically determined thus the motions of sub-atomic particles must also be
chaotically determined. Unpredictability is NOT synonymous with randomness. This was the starting point of my metaphysical journey and the further I progressed along this path the more the story started to unfold. The universe is exactly what it appears to be, an event. Once I took Occam's razor to Michelson-Morley and brought cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary theory into the conversation everything fell into place. However the most significant conclusion to be drawn from this simpler model is that it provides a perfectly straightforward explanation for the existence of life and mind.

"It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid".... Albert Einstein

It is, Albert, it absolutely is.

"The universe will ultimately reveal itself to be an entity of the most sublime austerity"...John Archibald Wheeler.

It has, Jack, it absolutely has. Your "it from bit" universe was right on the money.

Obvious Leo wrote:Unpredictability is NOT synonymous with randomness.

I agree, but our disagreement comes from the following considerations:

There are two types of unpredictability in physics:

1. deterministic chaos. In which the unpredictability comes from nonlinear feedback in the equations describing the situation and where the notion of trajectory through space time has meaning because both position and momentum of a body can in principle be specified to any degree of precision.

2. quantum uncertainty. Due to the existence of a non zero planck's constant there are absolute limits on the specification of the precision of momentum and position so it is in principle impossible to specify trajectories in the way case 1. did.

you cannot model quantum uncertainty by deterministic chaos, the two approaches give conflicting predictions of phenomena in the atomic and sub atomic realms and the predictions of model 2 agree with observation while the predictions of model 1 do not.

It is in this sense that I say model 2 is a better representation of the uncertainty observed in our measurements than model 1.

Once again you assume that which you include in your explanation, which is inherently tautologous. If all motion is in a fractal time dimension only then any talk of position, locality or non-locality is merely a mathematical representation of an observer construct. One cannot make meaningful statements about the behaviour of sub-atomic particles without taking the observer into consideration and yet this is exactly what you're doing.

You seem to be saying that the modification required to get a unified theory cannot assume that planck's constant is non zero in the unified theory.

What I assert is that the unified theory will be a mathematical structure that gives us back standard QM in the approximation of distances comparable to atomic sizes and masses comparable to atomic masses, and will give us back GR in the approximation of macroscopic length scales and masses comparable to planetary masses.

This is how the mathematical structure of physical models change: The mathematical structure of GR gives us back the mathematical structure of Newtonian gravity when we have the approximation of weak gravity and small velocities. the mathematical structure of QM gives us back Newtonian mechanics as an approximation when planck's constant is zero, large distance and momentum.

If this were not the case, then the predictions of the unified theory, would not agree with the predictions of GR or of QM in those physical situations where GR and QM currently give accurate predictions. What the unified theory will do is give us the almost negligible corrections in these situations, and allow us to make predictions where current theory breaks down.

That is why the founders of quantum mechanics were able to use concepts from classical mechanics (cf Bohr's use of the correspondence principle, Dirac and Schroedinger's use of Hamiltonian dynamics) in the construction of Quantum Dynamics.

That is not to say that quantum dynamics is just Newtonian mechanics in a new dress! It isn't. New concepts were invented by these pioneers, guided by both experimental results that didn't fit classical expectations and theoretical insight (inspiration) and opportunistic tinkering with equations until something emerged that gave sensible predictions; but the ultimate criterion of whether they are acceptable or not is whether the theory gives predictions which agree with empirical measurement. If it doesn't then it has to go, (but see below for exceptions) if it does then it might be ok; we continue testing its predictions about different phenomena until such time as it fails. So it is provisionally ok. That is all we are entitled to claim. However:-

Some theories have passed so many tests that we gain confidence that they accurately reflect how nature behaves. Logically it is always possible to doubt and say that no test will determine if" the map represents the territory accurately" for there always exists the logical possibility of a failure. But pragmatically confidence grows in the theory,with the number of tests passed. If nature is a logically self consistent , law abiding thing, then we would expect that our approach would eventually give us a faithfull image. (However it is logically possible to doubt even that nature has these self consistent properties. If you are that skeptical, your project to understand nature cannot even start! and it will be difficult to account for the success of science in such a universe).

Certain concepts have been tested so many ways that we are confident that "nature behaves that way". Conservation of energy is one such. At the present time this is so well established that experiments which suggest it is not conserved will be doubted before we conclude that the idea is wrong. The experiment will come under extreme scrutiny for all possible causes of error and in all cases of the claim so far, errors have been found. This is not because some priesthood of true believers are defending their turf (nobel prize to any physicist who can definitively show a process in which energy is not conserved) but because we can have confidence in this "scientific method" to approach nature. Our confidence can even get to the point where if energy is not conserved in some process involving observed particles then hypothetical unobserved particles may be invented to account for the missing energy (beta emission and Pauli's explanation in terms of missing energy carried off by hypothetical nutrinos, much later shown to be correct).

Physics has built up a whole structure of such tested concepts, so any account of new physics has to be self consistent with the already existing structure, unless there is some very good reason to question a part of it (extraordinary evidence needed for extraordinary claims to be taken seriously). It is more than just a tautology to say new physical ideas are invalid if they violate well established physical principles.

Obvious Leo wrote:physics is looking in the wrong place for its unification model. Simplicity is truth and they should be looking for a simpler paradigm, not a more complicated one.

Do you have the unified theory of quantum gravity?

nix wrote:Do you have the unified theory of quantum gravity?

Yes, although it's probably more accurate to say that it includes quantum gravity amongst its concepts. However it essentially defines quantum gravity as a non-problem because I don't see the unified theory as a problem of physics. It's more a problem of the way we think the world. In a spaceless model the continuum of time and space is replaced by a continuum of time and gravity which means time and gravity can be quantised equivalently in a single fundamental unit of reality. This fundamental unit is a time interval which is very easily defined. It is the smallest possible unit of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and is conceptually equivalent to the Planck interval in the spacetime model. The universe is simply defined as that which is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light so my model is specifically an information theory which defines the universe as a reality MAKER. Specifically a Universal Turing Machine. The status of the Planck length is reduced to an observer construct but this doesn't mean it loses its utility. In fact I very much doubt that such a unification model will replace the current epistemic models in terms of their predictive authority but I feel sure that using the tools of fractal geometry in the Standard Model will yield a substantially different picture of the sub-atomic domain. I can't really say much more than this without stepping way beyond my pay grade but I see the standard model as a model of a non-linear computation which defines the atom as a dynamic process rather than as an object.

You really should read my synopsis because it would save me having to repeat myself.

Obvious Leo wrote:"In a spaceless model the continuum of time and space is replaced by a continuum of time and gravity which means time and gravity can be quantised equivalently in a single fundamental unit of reality."....The universe is simply defined as that which is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light so my model is specifically an information theory which defines the universe as a reality MAKER.

Clearly this makes sense to you but it doesn't make sense to me; it does reflect what I read in your synopsis but that didn't make sense to me either...


We have tried to explore what you mean by some of these phrases and aired some of the possible differences in our view points, but we seem to be going in circles and that just leaves me dizzy!

nix wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Unpredictability is NOT synonymous with randomness.

I agree, but our disagreement comes from the following considerations:

There are two types of unpredictability in physics:

1. deterministic chaos. In which the unpredictability comes from nonlinear feedback in the equations describing the situation and where the notion of trajectory through space time has meaning because both position and momentum of a body can in principle be specified to any degree of precision.

2. quantum uncertainty. Due to the existence of a non zero planck's constant there are absolute limits on the specification of the precision of momentum and position so it is in principle impossible to specify trajectories in the way case 1. did.

you cannot model quantum uncertainty by deterministic chaos, the two approaches give conflicting predictions of phenomena in the atomic and sub atomic realms and the predictions of model 2 agree with observation while the predictions of model 1 do not.

It is in this sense that I say model 2 is a better representation of the uncertainty observed in our measurements than model 1.

I tried to explain this to him in another thread. He denies the difference, which I take to mean he does not understand quantum mechanics at all, even the broadest concepts - such as quantum uncertainty. Or, he does and has a brilliant new theory. But he will not (cannot) elaborate as to how the uncertainty principle is 'really' just a huge misinterpretation of the data. He resorts to claims that his view is 'obvious' and Heisenberg and the rest are ridiculous. He makes similar claims (and obfuscations) with regard to relativity theory.

Thanks for the heads up!

In general it is considered ungentlemanly in philosophy to reject a person's argument without first reading it. My premise is that the spatialisation of time in SR is metaphysically bogus because time is not a Cartesian dimension. It is this flawed assumption which is carried forward into QM and it is this flawed assumption which leads to the so-called "quantum indeterminacy". Quantum "weirdness" is an inescapable conclusion drawn from the spacetime paradigm on which it is predicated, a claim which no physicist will deny, so the only way to resolve the metaphysical absurdities in QM is to dump the paradigm. That's what I've done. However I'll remind you that by doing so I've offered an alternative paradigm which yields a testable prediction. If this prediction is validated then it will unambiguously demonstrate that the Cartesian space is an observer effect, as the Persians claimed 1000 years ago, as Leibniz claimed 400 years ago, and as Michelson-Morley demonstrated over 100 years ago.