Every event occurs as a consequence of some previous event

[JonF]

I am talking because I the science department could not come up with an answer to counter my claim.

why would they bother if you don't support your claim? I can list endless claims that you can't give a counter example for, that almost everyone would agree are false.

 

[Fra]

Hmm your response reminds me on how difficult it is to discuss philosophy in a sensible way. I totally disrecognize you comments on what I wrote I an suspect that you got me wrong, and perhaps because I failed to express what I meant to say in a clear way. Also since we don't know each other and lack a joint mutually agreed upon terminology, it gets even harder.

However, I beg to differ with you Fra, on the impact of A being truth/correct before infering B. You see, all what you are stating is "mechanistic philosophy" of reality.

I do not recognize "mechanistic philosophy" one bit I wonder what you mean by it? If you mean something like a Newtonian deterministic philosophy, you couldn't be more off, because my philosophy really takes a right angle to that.

"Infere" was just a word and it has nothing to do with "mecahnical implications", like pool. What I rather meant is that A and B are typically probability distributions, or a set thereof. One probability distribution (or more realistically, a set of distributions from different, but related event spaces) can infere/imply/induce/suggest new distributions.

But usually, the BEST inference, is still fuzzy.

Actually A => B is fuzzy itself, we can only propose a probability distribution at a certain probability so to speak. So the implication is fuzzy, but my point was that the very BEST scientifc implication we can make is fuzzy.

IMHO, this is like trying to define absolute definition for non-extensional concepts. Yes, this will work in classical mechaincs physics, for example, but fails in quantum and relativity. I don't have to go far to show that for complex systems this is total failure.
And one cannot even approach certain issues with this philosophy at all. (consciousness, etc..)

Again, I don't follow you here. I suspect we simply don't understand each other. The philosopy I advocate most definitely comply to QM and GR, and moreover I think it can resolve it's problems in the quest for QG. And it will even have the form (when done) as a kind of artifical learning model.

What I talk about is what I'd called an information theoretic relational approach.

I figure you know of thermodynamics, that's basic. The macroscopic variables, temperatur and energy *induces* a probabilitydistribution on the microstates. If one want, can can interpret it as two different probability spaces that have a defined relation.

In the full theory, all prior information is specificed in the language of probability distributions, and each information has a sort of "mass", which is comparable to confidence level. Then we construct a grand microcanonical ensemble (or something thereabout), from a mix of event spaces that are related. Then dynamics of physics will be derived as a "generalised diffusion" in those spaces. This dynamics is simply identified with the inference. This approach is yet under progress and not mature yet, but I am optimistic. Also, several other people are trying to derive general relativity from such approaches, where the physical spacetime geometry(http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301061) , and it's dynamics are identified with various kinds of information geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_geometry) where the measure is defined on various probability spaces, finally yielding metrics. The evolution of this is simply a stochastic evolution, which in turn is the optimally inferred educated guess. But there is more to it, and that's how dimensions and structure should come automatically.

I have hard to tell how long it will take. But I hope more people get into this.

/Fredrik

 

[sneez]

Hmm your response reminds me on how difficult it is to discuss philosophy in a sensible way. I totally disrecognize you comments on what I wrote I an suspect that you got me wrong, and perhaps because I failed to express what I meant to say in a clear way. Also since we don't know each other and lack a joint mutually agreed upon terminology, it gets even harder.

Well I was commenting on your statement that ONLY RELEVANT causality... I understood that you think that there is only one kind of relationship and that is casual. This is trully not so and moreover it just one of the relevant to understand reality. My point was that such thinking is comming from classical mechanics philosophy.

I do not recognize "mechanistic philosophy" one bit I wonder what you mean by it? If you mean something like a Newtonian deterministic philosophy, you couldn't be more off, because my philosophy really takes a right angle to that.

Well, don't take me wrong , I am not saying this is your case, but I know ppl who say such things but are unaware of the assumptions of classical mechanistic philosophy in their rendering of the world. (There are many sub-philosophies that sprang from this, empiricism, materialism, etc... which all have evolved into stong, weak ...etc. however, they have one common divisor and that's why I am so keen on maybe overlly to spot this) This is in general and I just might have wrong impression from your post earlier.

actually A => B is fuzzy itself, we can only propose a probability distribution at a certain probability so to speak. So the implication is fuzzy, but my point was that the very BEST scientifc implication we can make is fuzzy.

Sure, my question: is there a better way to form relationships than casual and still get something out of it. My answer is, most definitelly. Probabilistic approach is good but only to a degree (just like everything else).

The philosopy I advocate most definitely comply to QM and GR, and moreover I think it can resolve it's problems in the quest for QG. And it will even have the form (when done) as a kind of artifical learning model.

I think we don't have time and space but I would want to see that philosophy of yours. Since QM and GR have a lot of similarities and a lot of contradictions between each other.
The model you describe sound interesting, some new ideas. I do not know it so i will refrain from commenting on it, but I know a lot of similar aspirations which are about to fail or will fail since the inherent mechanistic philosophy in their assumptions. Note that physics is only one area where we are stuck. Dont let me go into biology or sociology economics,... So my "complaint" is with general philosophy because I can given enough time show you how they are all connected, but I think you seem honest enough to see it yourself.

I think there has to be in general a paradigm shift away from this desperate philosophy. I am not sure at this point if trying to just find a way to combine the 2 is sufficient. There have been many attempts of interdisciplinary this and that but all it does it serves as another dividing point. This is due to wrong philosophy. You see, there is a double edged sword in this because we can always adjust theory to fit observed data. The problem is how to recognize that this is not enough and approach it with new paradigms in mind. This will in turn change the observations prior to that. Well, I am not going to bore you with history of that, but just something to have on mind in general.

In the full theory, all prior information is specificed in the language of probability distributions, and each information has a sort of "mass", which is comparable to confidence level. Then we construct a grand microcanonical ensemble (or something thereabout), from a mix of event spaces that are related. Then dynamics of physics will be derived as a "generalised diffusion" in those spaces. This dynamics is simply identified with the inference. This approach is yet under progress and not mature yet, but I am optimistic. Also, several other people are trying to derive general relativity from such approaches, where the physical spacetime geometry(http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301061) , and it's dynamics are identified with various kinds of information geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_geometry) where the measure is defined on various probability spaces, finally yielding metrics. The evolution of this is simply a stochastic evolution, which in turn is the optimally inferred educated guess. But there is more to it, and that's how dimensions and structure should come automatically.

This sounds very familiar to me in analogy. I am into bayes theorem and probabilistic spaces and its application in remote sensing. I would have to study it more to have sensible comment on it, hope it will yeild some move in new direction.

 

[Fra]

I completely agree that we need a fundamental shift in physics, that would start from the philosophy.

I also completely agree about more general systems - biology, human brain. I definitely have that in mind.

I think we agree on a lot actually.

I think we don't have time and space but I would want to see that philosophy of yours. Since QM and GR have a lot of similarities and a lot of contradictions between each other.
The model you describe sound interesting, some new ideas. I do not know it so i will refrain from commenting on it, but I know a lot of similar aspirations which are about to fail or will fail since the inherent mechanistic philosophy in their assumptions. Note that physics is only one area where we are stuck. Dont let me go into biology or sociology economics,... So my "complaint" is with general philosophy because I can given enough time show you how they are all connected, but I think you seem honest enough to see it yourself.

I have no intention of fooling anyone, and definitely not myself. If I find out that I was completely wrong, I will dump the approach immediately. However I've got sufficient ideas and thinking that has been cooking for a few years now, and I recently resume physics thinking. I would not resume this if I didn't think it had potential. I dropped my other hobby completely since I resume this.

In fact the triggering factor that brought me back to physics after ten years is a long story, but during a few years I've taken as a hobby to understand yeast cells during bewing fermentations, which lead me to sensory analysis and finally when I was reading a neurology book on the human brain, thinking about the possibility of how the brain can be trained to make sense, basically out of a bunch electrical signals I felt that now it's time to get back to physics.

This sounds very familiar to me in analogy. I am into bayes theorem and probabilistic spaces and its application in remote sensing. I would have to study it more to have sensible comment on it, hope it will yeild some move in new direction.

Yes it's about probability spaces, and probability spaces of probability spaces even. And how structure emerges. I see it as analogous to learning logic.

I do not however want to spend too much time on explaining philosophy alone. My intention is to instead try to prove that this will in fact lead somewhere. I've started from scratch but is also scanning online papers to see what others have done in related approaches.

I have a few details to solve before it get really concrete though. But I've got a good intuitive guide, so it's mainly a matter of getting time to get to it step by step.

I could do some semi-classical synthesis of my ideas to get quicker sample theories, but I don't want to contaminate myself too much with the standard stuff yet, so I'm trying to do it the right way. I choose this because I'm sufficiently convinced by intuition and current approaches alreday elaborated that this most certainly will work out. I wouldn't want to waste time if I wasn't convinced.

I will probably post stuff for comments when I have something explicitly worked out.

My experience with phsycology is that nonone, not having the seem philosophy aren't very likely to even try to understand it unless there is proof of success. I definitely hope to find some "proof of success" of these ideas.

Explaining some standard physics from first principles is one thing. I'm currently fiddling with basic gravity and entropy bounds. But I am not doing it within ordinary GR, I'm doing it from more basic information theoretic approach. But of course, in some classical limit, GR should probably pop out as "statistical law" in the generalized probability spaces.

/Fredrik

 

[sneez]

Exceedingly interesting to hear that. I was going in similar direction, then i got intersted in connection of connections in relations, ie. society where individual brains cooperate/compete. I attempted some primitive modeling from self conceived whollistic framework but did not have enough drive. I am digesting fractals and non-linear dynamics on higher level now but feel not good philsophically about that approach. on long term.

Since my second hobby is philosophy of science and its history I realize that until philosophy changes, no new discoveries will be accepted. I have numerous example of how ideas which we now think are correct were present long before ppl which we attribute them to today. The problem was that the "priesthood" and hence general society did not accept them.

Well this is just to sidetrack. Wish you luck, I am always happy to hear new thinking.

 

[Fra]

We seem to share some common ideas, I'm philosophical to mind, but of course philosophy along isn't the end of story, I have no intention of "prooving my philosophy" because I can't . That serves only one purpose, and that is to guide me forward.

In a certain senes, scientific models produce predictions and can thus be thought of like a black box, and some people not into philosophy only conclude if the black box is useful or not. So far that's fine. But of course, the interesting question is howto improve the black box, when it's wrong?

To explain my philosophy, my focus is not on the black box, it's on the evolution of the black box, relative to the previous state. I consider that to be more fundamental.

Time is the main problem, of hobby based research. But the major advantage OTHO is no affiliation, no worrying about pleasing funders. I have no reason whatsoever to take shortcuts because I'm fooling no one but myself.

/Fredrik