Is a Revolution in Physics Imminent?

[Dmitry67]

I think this questions reveals that you may have a different idea of what the theory is like than me. I think the answer depends on it's evolutionary state. Ideally each parameters is a result of an evolutionary history, and if you loose the information of the history, then you end up with a "free parameter", but it really isn't "free", it's just that you might have lost track of it.

Then there are laws of that evolution. If these laws are included in the TOE, then parameter is not free. If it is not included, then it is not TOE (by the definition of TOE)

But let me back up to the question about the model. What is a difference between model and reality, map and territory? Imagine that TOE equations look like

F(Y)=0

where F is formula. Y is some variable (complex? quaternion?). If appears that this equation can be solved only when Y is a variable in (real, complex, quaternion, something more complex) K-dimensional space. Based on the equation, the value of Y tends to compactify to something which appears to be a string. Different vibration modes manifest as different particles, etc, etc, you get the idea.

It is important that you don't need any words. You can derive anything from this formula.

Now your turn.

A. You can say "F(Y)=0 is just a formula, just a model. It is not a reality"
Then please tell me what a "reality" is and what it is made of.

B. You can say "TOE won't look like a set of formulas. We will need formulas and something extra"
Then your turn - please give any example of a physical property which can not be expressed in the mathematical terms.
So far we had no such examples (expect may be consciousness)

C. Finally you can say - there is an infinite sequence of TOE's, and no final, ultimate TOE. As I said, it would be depressing but I don't have any contre arguments.

 

[Fra]

I see two points in this discussion now.

a) what's the deal with this "reality" vs "image of reality"

b) What would our best theory look like and work?

Then there are laws of that evolution. If these laws are included in the TOE, then parameter is not free. If it is not included, then it is not TOE (by the definition of TOE)

(a) If you by TOE mean something that contains now, all answers to all possible future questions, that I am totally convinced that TOE will never be found.

However, sometimes TOE is used as a more moderate meaning of something that unifies not only EM, weak and strong forces (a GUT) but also gravity. This is what I was talking about.

What I expect from such TOE, then the "laws of evolution" are not hardcoded, they are also evolving. There are of course some initial laws of evolution, but these are subject to revision.

Also the equations can not predict all the universe, the equations only describe the action of an observer. To describe a collection of interaction particles I'd expect two interaction equations that influence each other.

B. You can say "TOE won't look like a set of formulas. We will need formulas and something extra"
Then your turn - please give any example of a physical property which can not be expressed in the mathematical terms.
So far we had no such examples (expect may be consciousness)

C. Finally you can say - there is an infinite sequence of TOE's, and no final, ultimate TOE. As I said, it would be depressing but I don't have any contre arguments.

I'd say a combination of B, but mostly C. Of course I expect to see mathematics, and equations. But the equations themselves would be subject to evolution, and part of this evolution is inherently unpredictable.

The challange is to understand how an observer can self-organize and respond as to learn to survive in an unknown and unpredictalbe environment. The key is I think that as long as you can predict _something_ that may allow for your survival.

What I'm looking for is the logic of survival, from the frog-perspective. This is partly a game, where you invest your own life, in trying to persist and take control of the environment.

A. You can say "F(Y)=0 is just a formula, just a model. It is not a reality"
Then please tell me what a "reality" is and what it is made of.

(b) My only point is that, suppose I sit in white box, and watch ym environment by the state of the walls of the box.

(Ie the inversion of the black box problem, you are the box and the unknown environment on the outside is the "black box" of unkonwn size)

I obviously ask what the reality is out there, and I form myself an expectation of the outside - this is my "image", and it's all I'll ever have. There isn't anything more to it than that. To try to compare this image with the real thing is nonsensial. IT can't be done by me. Wether it can be done bysomeone else is not an answer to the question posed.

In essence, I am saying that the closest thinkg to the BIRDS view we can get, is the frogs EXPECTATION of the birds view. But this will be different from frog to frog. And this expectation of the birds view, is by definition what the frogs view is anyway. So that brings us back to the frog view.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

Ok here is more in order to explain my own expectations of what is to come

In essence, I am saying that the closest thinkg to the BIRDS view we can get, is the frogs EXPECTATION of the birds view. But this will be different from frog to frog. And this expectation of the birds view, is by definition what the frogs view is anyway. So that brings us back to the frog view.

Suppose with TOE I don't really mean answer to all question, but rather "the best theory we can come up with" then

This means that there would be one TOE for each frog. And the development of the TOE goes hand in hand with the evolution of the frog.

Just like I think matter, ENCODES the laws of physics, evolution of the universe is then evolution and formation of matter, but also evolution of _encoded_ physical law. A piece of matter that encodes a very twisted law, simply will have a hard time to survive in that environment. This is why the properties of matter emerge to become apparely universal.

I can stretch myself to label the frog-TOE to the frogs expectation of a birds view, but the frog-frog interaction is DRIVEN by the inconsistent bird-views. The interaction itself implies evolution of the frogs, which frog influences the other one more than the other, is also dependent on who has bigger inertia and can bully the other frogs opinon.

It's the exact mathematics of this I'm looking for, and how that can be exploited to emergent matter and emergent spacetime and forces.

/Fredrik

 

[Dmitry67]

(a) If you by TOE mean something that contains now, all answers to all possible future questions, that I am totally convinced that TOE will never be found.

Wait, wait, TOE should not try to answer ALL questions.

let me give an example. A manual on the INTEL processor, the one probably installed in your computer, inambigously describes every tiny detail of how INTEL processor works.

However, it can not answer a question: is Windows Vista volnerable to the virus XXXblahblahblah, even virus attack is something that is going inside the processor.

The same with TOE: it should be able answer all FUNDAMENTAL questions, but not ALL the questions. It gives a complete basic for calculations, but can not predict individual events (except the universes with Laplace determinism). To predict individual facts we need not only determinism, but we need to know the initial conditions (which are also FACTS). Fundamental question is a question which is fact-free, it is a questio about something, which can be done in a repeatable manner (what is an outcome of the following experiment...)

The set of TOE equations can not help us to tell if there are any advanced civilzations in Andromeda. And the behavior of complex systems, even formally based on the QM/TOE laws, contains so many 'levels' so usually we use another laws. So TOE want answer any questions in medicine, sociology etc.

When you talk about the frog's view and bird's view, this is important. We can not discover all FACTS about the birds view, but we can decipher all LAWS of the Bird's view, like we can find a form of 3D object looking at it's 2D shadow. This is exactly what we did before: we were looking at reality (gamma rays, K-mesons, blach holes) thru the prism of our experminatal devices. We can not see an elector forming a wave in an atom. We interpret some spikes and numbers, coming out of the computer. Deciphering the bird's view is not more difficult.

 

[Fra]

let me give an example. A manual on the INTEL processor, the one probably installed in your computer, inambigously describes every tiny detail of how INTEL processor works.

Ok, I think I see what you mean. I have to say I do not believe such a "TOE" or set of cpu-instructions for the universe will ever be seen.

When you talk about the frog's view and bird's view, this is important. We can not discover all FACTS about the birds view, but we can decipher all LAWS of the Bird's view, like we can find a form of 3D object looking at it's 2D shadow. This is exactly what we did before: we were looking at reality (gamma rays, K-mesons, blach holes) thru the prism of our experminatal devices. We can not see an elector forming a wave in an atom. We interpret some spikes and numbers, coming out of the computer. Deciphering the bird's view is not more difficult.

This is exactly the point. To induce the birds view, from the frogs view is a game, an guesswork, it is not a certain deduction, that is the basic reason for my entire attitutude here.

I do not think there exists no universal deduction scheme todo this. Such a scheme does however develop spontaneously, but it is not universal, and it's not a deductice process. As I see it, any process-strategy is either beneficial or non-beneficial to the observer, this feedback evolves the very induction strategy.

It's this evolution I think we might sniff onto. But I don't think it's possible to find any fixed evolution laws. Even THESE laws are subject to change. At some point, it's all we've got, and it's on what our actions are based. For sure the frog would gladly think that this is his deduce birds view, but it's nevertheless just an evolving guess, an image - and the point is that as far as the frogs actions goes, it does not matter if it's "just an image", because it's nevertheless the basis for all frogs actions!

The difference is when you analyse interacting frogs, the assumption that their "bird views" are the same is a mistake IMHO. I try to avoid that mistake. They can however emerge to be the same, but far from equilibrium, this is I think not the general case to expect.

The difference here, is that since I acknowledge this limit, I do not focus on the unattainable goal (the perfect symmetry or perfect birds view) I focus on the dynamics and evolutionary mechanics of it. I think this is a more efficient strategy.

/Fredrik

 

[Dmitry67]

unattainable goal? I don't understand your pessimism. In your answer you repeat many times that "it can not be done", but I don't see WHY. Have we ever failed before?

 

[Fra]

unattainable goal? I don't understand your pessimism. In your answer you repeat many times that "it can not be done", but I don't see WHY.

Oh, I am not pessimistic, on the contrary do I look step right into the darkest part and accept the challange.

Have we ever failed before?

Failed what? that is the question.

1) Never ever before have we failed to make progress - this is my emphasis. Progress, not perfection. By setting progress into your target seeker, rather than perfection, I think more efficient progress will be made, because the focus is more tuned.

2) But never ever before have we attained perfection :) As I'm sure you agree current models are great, useful and amazing, but not perfect.

My conjecture is that the BEST model, WILL come with some inconsistencies, if you keep looking for a perfectly consistent model to explain everything, you may be misguided.

This does NOT mean I don't care about inconsistencies, on the contrary. Inconsistencies are there to be removed, and inconsistencies in our understanding is the very driving force. I also think inconsistencies between the frog views are responsible for interactions.

So this is not a "problem" or "flaw", I think it's how nature works. How about the mad thought that inconsistenceis are continously appearing and resolve, and that's the flow of time. This is self-organisation and evolution at it's best.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

In your answer you repeat many times that "it can not be done", but I don't see WHY.

Ok, do I know with certaint that it can't be done? No of course not.

Do I need to KNOW for sure in order to make a decision? No.

In fact life is in general composed of decisions made upon incomplete information.
It's part of the game.

I have more reason to believe it can not be done, than the opposite. My personal intution tells me it is the wrong focus.

If I want to get as close to X as possible, I do not ask "can I reach X".
I ask, what is my next step to get closer to my goal, irrespective of
wether the goal will be reached or not.

To add the constraint that is WILL be reached with certainty, adds constraints
on my actions, and this may inhibit me from finding the shortest path.

Still my strategy never prevents me from reaching X! If it's attainable I might reach it,
but my journey is not depending on the destination. I just "move forward".

/Fredrk