LHC - the last chance for all theories of everything?

[Dmitry67]

It was a trick: I did not want to discuss the meaning of "EXISTS", I wanted to show that there is no consensus on even basic things.
Let’s admit, based on this and all previous discussions: there is no consensus about the meaning of words:

Event
Exist
Real / Virtual
Reality/Realism
Measurement
Observation
Particle
Spacetime (4D? Bulk?)
Etc etc.

If we think about the words as some clouds in some space of meanings, then before they had sharp borders. Then they because more and more fuzzy. They started to intersect with each other.

But wait: this is exactly what Max Tegmark predicted! On our way to TOE all these words MUST lose their meaning, becoming “mere labels” (c) These fuzzy clouds are the last image we see as the objective of our science photo-camera is de-focused completely.

 

[Fra]

On my way but some more meanwhile..

Mmm you seem as obsessed with "existence", as I am with "inference", not sure what to say here...

I assume your argument is that the subjective view is different from your imagine objective view? Sure, but so what? I mean, what physical impact does this have? You seem to think it's a logical inconsistency, as it breaks your realist logic, that every question, even the ones that aren't asked, must have a definite - observer independent/inference independent - answer?

In my view, the "inconsistencies" actually imply physical interactions, in the sense of a selective pressure in the evolution.

This is what you do in symmetry arguments as well, that two choices of a gauge, imply an physical interaction. The difference is that I apply the inference also to the symmetry transformation itself, so we get an hierarchy of information.

That means that you have to give up the subjective perspective and believe in the objective world telling you that other areas of space will "support" A to continue to exist.
So in some sense A ceases to exist from a subjective point of view, but it will continue to exist from an objective (or realistic) point of view.

This is exactly the consequence of Berkeley's idealism. He was very clear about the fact that if you assume that only "observed phenomena" are existing, then you have to explain how things can exist even if nobody is looking. As Berkeley was a bishop he trusted in good to observe everything in the universe and keep it existing.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. That something is indistinguishable from the point of view of observer 1, does not mean we can infere there is nothing there, it only means we know noting of it, and this unkonwn also does not influence our actions in a distinguishable way.

That's enough for me, I don't understand why you keep insisting in want to konw what you can't know, when it's indifferent to you?

I'm not one single bit religious :)

Your judgment regarding existence of certain entities is either subjective or incomplete. As you certainly want to avoid subjectivism you have to overcome incompleteness. You doubt that this will work w/o reference to any externally existing entity (material objects, laws, ...).

Incomplete? Of course there is a limit to my predictive power of the future - for several reasons, that is the whole starting point. It's the basic observation that is the starting point for it. My whole approach is based on inference based upon incomplete information. But the intrinsic form of this, is not like standard information theory, where you can exactly quantify what you don't know, instead you simply act on what you know, period. It's a game, the choices are to play or not to play.

If you are considering a realist view, where the information exists in some external sense, and in this birds view you can explain the incompleteness of the inside view, then it's not intrinsic inference.

Actually in my view, the external inference model DOES apply, when you as a large observer study small subsystems, because then you can physically justify at least an emergent EFFECTIVE birds view.

But this is a special case. Looking at your remote horizon is not a subsystem which environment you cna monitor.

This is - IMHO - why a new "evolving" logic is needed.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. That something is indistinguishable from the point of view of observer 1, does not mean we can infere there is nothing there, it only means we know noting of it, and this unkonwn also does not influence our actions in a distinguishable way.

I just responded to the following statement

If we suppose that this is the door to another world, and that the door is irreversibly closed. Then to be honest, I would never raise the question - I would probably be better off investing my time in posing a more constructive question.

... I don't understand why you keep insisting in want to konw what you can't know, when it's indifferent to you?

I do not insist that I want to know something about a certain entity, but I am insisting on the fact that my examples point into the direction that talking about existence of some entity must not only be based on its affect it has on your actions. If you restrict the meaning of existence to "is observed" or "has an affect" then you have to answer the question "who is the observer?" or "who is affected". With my examples I try to show that restricting to you as an observer may not be sufficient because then some entity that existed in some sense may cease to exist because of your horizons. That means the existence of this entity relies on "external observers" which essentially saves us from idealism (solipsism). I hope this clarifies what I mean by "incomplete".

One remark: I think the discussion is still interesting and we continuously uncover new aspects. But finally it always boils down to the fundamental different perspectives we have. I only want to make clear that I appreciate your reasoning! It's not that I am blind or ignorant, it's only that I see (from my perspective) certain obstacles in changing to the "dark side". So if you still like the discussion it's fine for me; if it becomes boring or if you think that we start to go round in circles then let me know.

Thomas

 

[Fra]

With my examples I try to show that restricting to you as an observer may not be sufficient because then some entity that existed in some sense may cease to exist because of your horizons. That means the existence of this entity relies on "external observers" which essentially saves us from idealism (solipsism). I hope this clarifies what I mean by "incomplete".

Ok, if I understand you right which I think, the yes, we have "incompleteness". Agreed.

Now what I suggest is that this incompletness is no arfitfact due to a my flawed reasoning (like I think you think?) - it is a physical incompleteness to me, consistent with all I know. That's my point, and this incompleteness in any inference system, has measurable consequences in the actions.

I think it's also responsible for the arrow of time.

It is correct in a sense that my reasoning is unstable! It's just that from a realist view it is not unstable, it's incomplete and possibly inconsistent.

I'm suggesting instead that the instability has a direction, the subjective arrow of time. In this "flow" evolution of law are the slowest changes in the hiearchy and hardest to predict, the most vibrant "flow" is the ordinary time, that is flowing respect to the lower level states.

This is of course just a vision, but it's how it should work in detail when I get this worked out.

One remark: I think the discussion is still interesting and we continuously uncover new aspects. But finally it always boils down to the fundamental different perspectives we have. I only want to make clear that I appreciate your reasoning! It's not that I am blind or ignorant, it's only that I see (from my perspective) certain obstacles in changing to the "dark side". So if you still like the discussion it's fine for me; if it becomes boring or if you think that we start to go round in circles then let me know.

I know :) I'm not blind either, in a certain sense I do see your points. I guess I wanted to explain how the weaknesses you see, are handled in my view.

In a nutshell we do seem to get back to the deductive systems. From the point of view of deductive reasoning, my stance IS inconsistenct or incomplete. You conclude from within that system that my view is thus "probably" wrong? Does that sound fair?

Insteaf from My point of view, this inconsistency and incompleteness are real and physical, and instead the problem is the deductive inference system! If we instead take on an inductive type of inference, inconsistencies are not fatal, they just cause the inference system itself to revise.

I think like this:

The problem with your approach is that is risks to come to a halt, or simply fail to make progress in a rational way. The advantage is that it's more definitive, and not as subjective, and inferences are certain.

The problem with my approach is how to make sense out of this subjective mess. The advantage is that it does not easily come to a halt and it' a builtin deadlock avoidance since inconsistences are handled be evolving hte inference system which inferred it! Thus inconsistencies are interpreted as a need to revise the inference system itslelf.

I have tried to defined the motivation for why the deductive fixed axiomatic model are likely to fail, and motivate a search for a more flexible framwork. I also have at least tried to argue how I handle subjectivity. When two rational solipsists interact adn communicate, they will come to a consensus, a kind of emergent objectivity, but this objectivity has meaning only to the interacting parties.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

Thanks for the excellent summary!

 

[John86]

Hello Fra,

I am following this thread for quite a while now, and find your ideas really inspiring and usefull in more than one way. Subjectivism an evolution of physical law sounds very reasonable to me. But what role does Non-locality play in your ideas ?.

 

[Fra]

Hello Fra,

I am following this thread for quite a while now, and find your ideas really inspiring and usefull in more than one way. Subjectivism an evolution of physical law sounds very reasonable to me. But what role does Non-locality play in your ideas ?.

Hello John. I'm glad to be of some inspiration :)

Usually locality or non-locality refers to spacetime and distance. In my view, spacetime is emergent but there is a sort of locality principle that is can be defined prior to the regular spacetime.

I could it phrase it so that the principle is simply that the physical action of a system depends only from the evidence encoded in it. Thus there is "locality" in the sense where you envision a distance measure in "hypothesis" space, where the action weights possibilities in accordance to their respective confidence level. Thus, things with low or zero confidence level, has low or zero impact on the action.

Edit: I don't think I explained this well. I want to point out that I distinguish between action and reaction. The reaction is the backreaction from the environment following the systems action. This together gives evolution. So the action, is not a global action, it is only defined differentially so to speak. The action defines a differential change; it does not define the definite change since this involves evolution which has an undecidable part that is due to physical incompleteness.

In fact, this type of distance measure beeing a kind of information divergence, is a possible hint to how spacetime can emerge. Ariel Caticha (which is not as radical as i am, but still) has turned the coin around and suggest that instead of saying that things that are remote from each other are unlikely to influence each other; that things that as a matter of fact appears to have little or no influence on each other, and pretty much no correlation defines a distance, this way one can define distance in information space.

Some technical details though is that there are different ways to do this, there is also a standard topic (information geometry) where there are information theoretic origns of the metric. I picture it differently, that gives a more weird and "subjective" geometry, but then that advantage it's exactly the subjectivee view of the geometry that implies interaction forces. I consider a intrinsic kind of information divergence ( that lacks objective meaning) and it's exactly the relativity of this measure that implies that these systems when interacting in "their view of space" are subject to interactions from the disagreeing systems.

But this is all open questions as I see it, and the details remain to be nailed exactly. For any later comers, my modest contribution to this thread on TOE etc is just to try to convey my view what I think requiring a coherence of reasoning suggest about how it may or may not look like. And that this alone, may actually guide us to finding not a static TOE, but maybe as close to an effective TOE as might be possible.

/Fredrik

 

[moniker2]

It was a trick: I did not want to discuss the meaning of "EXISTS", I wanted to show that there is no consensus on even basic things.
Let’s admit, based on this and all previous discussions: there is no consensus about the meaning of words:

Event
Exist
Real / Virtual
Reality/Realism
Measurement
Observation
Particle
Spacetime (4D? Bulk?)
Etc etc.

If we think about the words as some clouds in some space of meanings, then before they had sharp borders. Then they because more and more fuzzy. They started to intersect with each other.

But wait: this is exactly what Max Tegmark predicted! On our way to TOE all these words MUST lose their meaning, becoming “mere labels” (c) These fuzzy clouds are the last image we see as the objective of our science photo-camera is de-focused completely.

labels? I got kick out of the forum two years ago for posting this.

Liquid Space Theory
F = force
M = mass initial
V = velocity
C = speed of light
A = acceleration
H = Planck’s constant
E = energy


F = {[(m/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-m}a

Second law of time

A ={{[(m/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-m}^-1}f

Infinite change of time

M = [f /{[(1/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-1}a

Mass as a vector in a 3- orthogonal space

V = c [- (ma/ma-f )^2 +1]^1/2

Velocity of time

C = [v / [- (ma/ma-f )^2 +1]^1/2

Speed of light as a function of mass

E = {[f /{[(1/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-1}a}{[v / [- (ma/ma-f )^2 +1]^1/2 }^2

Time conservation law

Wave = {{[f /{[(1/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-1}a}{[v / [- (ma/ma-f )^2 +1]^1/2 }^2 } / h

(e / h)

Wave length and energy of the force
Energy of the force = {{[(m/(1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-m}c^2}
Wave = {{[(m/ (1-(v^2/c^2)) ^(1/2)]-m}c^2} / h

Time has an avg. 10^18 – 10^23 Hz

Not a good source at all but interesting...
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=47124&Forum=time_travel&Words=satown&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=46807&Search=true#Post47124"

 

[John86]

Thanks for your reaction Fra,

But this inference proces is a purely informational relational proces as i understand it ! The subjective observer acts on i'ts environment and viceversa am i right. Then this will have certain fundamental consequences for measurements undertaken in science, because they then are purely subjective and belong more or less to the classical measurement outcomes taking place in our brains.

 

[Fra]

But this inference proces is a purely informational relational proces as i understand it ! The subjective observer acts on i'ts environment and viceversa am i right. Then this will have certain fundamental consequences for measurements undertaken in science

If I read you right, I can roughly agree so far.

they then are purely subjective and belong more or less to the classical measurement outcomes taking place in our brains.

? I don't quite follow this parts, and how it relates to the ideas I describe?

My ideas are not directly related to models of the human brain. Observer also does not refer to a human.

Observer is a general physical system.
The inference system is physical inference system, not a biological brain. If you use brain as a metafor for inference system, then any physical system has this. But the word brain and humans brings in totally misguiding associations. I do not think in terms of humans or brains at all.

Maybe I missed your point here?

Edit: Maybe your reason for talking about hte brain, is because you consider human science? OK, then I agree. BUT there are complications, humans are far more complex than particles, and humans are not only constrained to their brain. Humans pretty much control an entire planet, and has learned howto exploit control and use it's environment as an extension of itself.

So the inference system of human science inference, is not just the biological brains, it's much more. We have techonology, computers, libraries etc that are a significant part of our "complexity". Not to mention gigantic laboratories they we have built be exploiting our acquired knowledge of our environment. This technology continously increase.

But in a sense that's no different than how I picture it on the microscale, and how complexity is gained by taking control of the enviroment.

But all this, is no "problem" as I see. It's just another illustration that science is a complicated by evolving thing. Our environment, in several ways connects our subjective brains, so the emergent consensus is not subjective.

/Fredrik

 

[John86]

No sorry you are wright. This doesn't work very well in biological systems. I used the human brain merely as a metaphore.

But is this inference proces purely materialistic of nature ?.

 

[Fra]

But is this inference proces purely materialistic of nature ?.

I am not sure what you mean, if you mean if it's materialistic - as opposed to say something spiritual or divine :) Then yes it's materialistic.

However, what does "materialistic" mean? Usually that means it's made of matter, but in the reconstruction I envision matter is also emergent and I reall don't see a firm starting platform, this is exactly why the evolution appears as the ratioanl solution.

There is also a difference between the observers own inference system, and inference systems existing in it's environment (other obserers, or particles etc): From the point of view of any given observer, the inference system of the environment is reflected in it's own emergent inference system.

I picture a mutual selective pressure where at a certain level of equilibirum, the inference systems reach a maximum of consistency, this corresponds to the case where all observers are in maximum agreement about the "laws of physics". But du to intrinsic limitations of complexity, there can never be perfect consistency - this "residual inconsistecy" - manifests as interactions between the observers that are described by the locallly objective laws.

I used the human brain merely as a metaphore.

Ok, then it's great question. But of course, the inference system of the environment, is always inherently uncertain as inferred from the instrinsic perspective of one observer.

So, in my view, the evolving laws means that, not only like QM where we have set laws, and a state of the system (wave function) which evolves, we have both a state of the system, AND a "state" of the inference systems (state of laws) but these laws are not predictable from the inside view, there are only expecations - which gives an arrow of change - and the only way to find out the real future is to act as per the expectations, and also face the feedback.

In a well equilibrated system, one expects a layers of effective objective laws ot have been stabilised, realtive to which we have a time evolution probably like what we have in the current standard model - thus the standard model and QM, corresponds to steady state of effectively stable laws. The residual mutual uncertaints that are irreducible cause interactions that are descried by effectivelt(not fundamentally) fixed laws.

This is exactly how human science also works, but we have not yet translated this logic to physical interactions. I am convinced there is more insight to collect there.

In the end, "material properties" are properties of inferred inference systems, I'm stills struggling but for sure there is a close link with inertial mass and complexity of the inference system. This will also PROBABLY be strongly related to gravitational mass since the inference systems ability to take control of the environment and thus INCREASE it's own complexity(mass) will increase with it's own starting complexity(mass). I see great potentials on howto develop this into something nice.

The phenomenology of interactions would be expected when we can find the steady states of the effective laws. In there we should also hopefilly find some things that are currently "parameters". The parameters are explain as the ones required for a steady state.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

But is this inference proces purely materialistic of nature ?.

That's a very good question to step in again. Usually we distinguish (in an ontological sense) between physical objects (like electrons, photons, ...) and the corresponding laws (quantum mechanics, quantum field theory like QED, ...).

As far as I understand the idea of the mathematical universe everything is simply an entity, element, ... of a (consistent) mathematical framework. Therefore the ontologoical difference between physical objects and laws of physics does no longer exist.

@Dmitry67: Am I right?

Now back to the context of evolving laws due to inference processes.

@Fra: is there an ontological difference between objects and laws? are the objects somehow "materialistic" whereas the laws are "super-materialistic", i.e. is there a different level of existence forthe laws? or does the difference between objects and laws no longer makes sense?

If there is no difference between objects and laws then there should be no difference between evolution of laws and interaction of particles.

Tom

 

[Fra]

@Fra: is there an ontological difference between objects and laws? are the objects somehow "materialistic" whereas the laws are "super-materialistic", i.e. is there a different level of existence forthe laws? or does the difference between objects and laws no longer makes sense?

If there is no difference between objects and laws then there should be no difference between evolution of laws and interaction of particles.

Tom

Yes, there is no distinct principal difference! The difference is merely the stability and decidability. Laws are the most stable structures in this evolving view, and they correspond to different levels in a hiearchy.

This is the unification. Nothing escapes the inference framework. Not even the inference system itself. However inference has two extremes: deductive logic or deterministic predictions, or free evolution. I'm exploiting the range in between.

/Fredrk

 

[Fra]

If there is no difference between objects and laws then there should be no difference between evolution of laws and interaction of particles.

In here is also IMO the key to understanding the difference between (as smolin also pointed out about the validity of the current logic of eternal law in subsystems).

The same interaction can appear either described by effective laws, seen from an outside observer controlling/monitoring the environment, or as unpredictable evolution (the inside view).

The key I think is to see that these two pictures are not in contradiction, they are two sides of the same coin and I think one key is the scaling of the complexity of the inference system - this is why from the point of a more massive infrence system, things that to a small inference system appear unpredictable are effectively predictable.

One can think of this also as a sort of deeper "renormalisation" picture. The distinguishable laws are dependent of the complexity. But the scale itself is not objective.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

One can think of this also as a sort of deeper "renormalisation" picture. The distinguishable laws are dependent of the complexity. But the scale itself is not objective.

Clarification:

One key question in my approach is, How does the inference systems themselves change as we scale the complexity of the inference systems?

This is exactly the same question as to ask, how a physical systems perceives physical laws as the systems get lower and lower mass. Ie. what "laws of physics" does say a proton "see" or a quark "see" and thus act according to?

I think this is a key to the unification. Since the logic of the action of these microconstitutiens are I think constrained by the relative simplicity or low complexity of their inference system.

Gravity I picture here beeing related to the fact that the running of the "complexity scale" is actually related to the physical process of a system loosing or gaining mass (by controling or loosing control of it's environment)

So all interactions, including gravity, really does have a very logical connection here. With some stretch of imagination this is how I probably with some strong biaos of mine interpreted some of Frank Wilzceks ponderings about what symmetry really is.

One can also picture here a plausible way to expect something like asymptotic freedom as we scale down the complexity of the inference system (which is what happens inside the collisions in a high energy experiment), since some interactions themselves become less distinguishable from the inside poitn of view - thus their mutual interacting get weaker.

As far as I see, it's not hard at all to imagine how this inference reasoning connects to many open questions in physics. That's one of the motivators for me. It's really exicting and promising, and it has IMHO a very higg level of coherence in the reasoning, which is very important for me. But indeed it's also currently at least very fuzzy.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

Usually we distinguish (in an ontological sense) between physical objects (like electrons, photons, ...) and the corresponding laws (quantum mechanics, quantum field theory like QED, ...).

As I am not sure if everybody understands my reasoning correctly I would like to comment on this remark. Therefore I use a very simply, unrealistic example, namely a universe with only finitely many, structureless, massive bodies interacting via V(r) ~1/r. There are no humans (therefore no measurement, no minds/brains etc.).

1) you have the bodies
2) you have a representation of the bodies, their masses m_i and coordinates r_i; these representations are equivalent to the trajectories
3) you have the physicals laws; in my example there is just one law, namely an Hamiltonian H(r_i, p_i); m-dependence suppressed.
4) initial conditions for the movement of the bodies; these are not contained in 3)
5) in addition you can think about a sheet of paper on which you can write H, draw the trajectories etc.; This is certainly different from (2) and (3); I would say that physical laws "exist" even if there is no sheet of paper or computer monitor to display it.
6) you can introduce god into that theory; he may know about all bodies, laws, trajectories and initial conditions

Note that the existence of (3) is different from the existence of the bodies, simpy because (3) applies for all bodies you can think about, whereas (1) applies on to the bodies which exist in a physical sense. In a universe with three bodies you can still think about applying H to a fictitious fourth body.

As far as I understand the discussion here the aim is to collapse at (1) - (4) into one framework where the differences between them disappears or become irrelevant (just as the difference between the Earth and the moon is irrelevant in the context of Newtonian physics; they are two special cases of massive bodies, nothing else). As this would be a ToE it would certainly contain (5) and (6) as well.

But I think this is where most people will have problems with. It is by no means clear that a physical body and its mathematical representation (in some appropriate framework) are identical! We haven't found such a framework; we cannot even guess how it would look like. I have tried to describe a very simple universe,but still most of iús would agree that the sentence

(M_moon, R_moon) IS the moon

is wrong. It is a representation of the moon.

I have one final question rearding MUH: We discuss very complex issues like universes with different physical laws. Let's discuss one rather simple problem, namely two universes looking absolutely identical, except for the fact that in one universe the solar system is missing. Are these too universes two different mathematical frameworks, or are they on such framework in two different occurences? Does the MUH imply that all those universes (w/ or w/o solar system; w/ or w/o you and me, with other planets) exist? Does the possibility that I am able to write some equations specifiying the movement of a 10th planet in our solar system create universes where this planet exists?

 

[Dmitry67]

As far as I understand the idea of the mathematical universe everything is simply an entity, element, ... of a (consistent) mathematical framework. Therefore the ontologoical difference between physical objects and laws of physics does no longer exist.

@Dmitry67: Am I right?

correct

 

[Dmitry67]

1) you have the bodies
2) you have a representation of the bodies, their masses m_i and coordinates r_i; these representations are equivalent to the trajectories
3) you have the physicals laws; in my example there is just one law, namely an Hamiltonian H(r_i, p_i); m-dependence suppressed.
4) initial conditions for the movement of the bodies; these are not contained in 3)
5) in addition you can think about a sheet of paper on which you can write H, draw the trajectories etc.; This is certainly different from (2) and (3); I would say that physical laws "exist" even if there is no sheet of paper or computer monitor to display it.
6) you can introduce god into that theory; he may know about all bodies, laws, trajectories and initial conditions

This is what Max Tegmark calls a 'baggage'. If you try to get rid of ALL words in this toy universe, you will see that the difference between 2 and 3 will dissapear. 1 is a mere label (definition of a 'body'). 5 does not make any sense. "I would say that physical laws "exist" even if there is no sheet of paper or computer monitor to display it." - correct.

But I guess the your idea to discuss some 'toy' universes is a very good one; we don't know OUR TOE, so it easier to discuss simpler universes. For example, "Game of Life" is a perfect example. So, in the Universe "Game of Life", what is a difference between structures (bodies) and laws? When I was young boy, I discovered that game and played a lot with figures on the chessboard. Does that game require a chessboard?

I think many people agree that methematics can perfectly describe the reality. But (they think) the formulas are dead until you "incarnate" them into something, until you fill them with some substance. But for TOE, there should be no magical substances, because TOE by definition must describe everything.

TOE is different from any theories we had because TOE ends the reduction: "bodies-molecules-atoms-hardrons-quarks-strings.." so the most fundamental entities can not be "made of something". If they are not "made of something" they are just "described by formulas". I don't see any possible void where the difference between the ultimate description of reality and reality can hide.

 

[Dmitry67]

I have one final question rearding MUH: We discuss very complex issues like universes with different physical laws. Let's discuss one rather simple problem, namely two universes looking absolutely identical, except for the fact that in one universe the solar system is missing. Are these too universes two different mathematical frameworks, or are they on such framework in two different occurences? Does the MUH imply that all those universes (w/ or w/o solar system; w/ or w/o you and me, with other planets) exist? Does the possibility that I am able to write some equations specifiying the movement of a 10th planet in our solar system create universes where this planet exists?

So, the laws are identical, but initial conditions are different?

If Universe is infinite, all combinations must happen. But MUH is much easier to be accepted if you accept MWI (eliminating the problem of initial conditions of matter in our universe) and if there is a mechanism to generate all possible Universes with all possible parameters of the Standard Model (eternal inflation?).

MUH will be in big trouble if MWI would be proven wrong or if there are some fundamental initial conditions (God Had choice when created our Universe). This is a good news because it is a falsifiable prediction.

Max Tegmark wrote:

common feature of much string theory related model building is that there is a “landscape” of
solutions, corresponding to spacetime configurations involving different dimensionality, different types of fundamental particles and different values for certain physical “constants” , some or all of which may vary across the landscape. Eternal inflation transforms such potentiality into reality, actually creating regions of space realizing each of these possibilities. However, each such region where inflation has ended is generically infinite
in size, potentially making it impossible for any inhabitants to travel to other regions where these apparent laws of physics are different. If the MUH is correct and
the Level IV multiverse of all mathematical structures (see Section V) exists, this historical trend is completed: even the “theory of everything” equations that physicists
are seeking are an environmental accident, telling us not something fundamental about reality, but instead which particular mathematical structure we happen to inhabit,
like a multiversal telephone number. In other words, this would entail a crushing complete
defeat of fundamental physical laws. However, contrary to how it may at first appear, it would not constitute a victory for initial conditions in the traditional sense.

There is nothing “initial” about specifying a mathematical structure. Whereas the traditional notion of initial conditions entails that our universe “started out” in some particular state, mathematical structures do not exist in an external space or time, are not created or destroyed, and in many cases also lack any internal structure resembling time. Instead, the MUH leaves no room for “initial conditions”, eliminating them altogether. This is because the mathematical structure is by definition a complete description of the physical world. In contrast, a TOE saying that our universe just “started out” or “was created” in some unspecified state constitutes an incomplete description, thus violating both the MUH and the
ERH.

 

[Fra]

As I am not sure if everybody understands my reasoning correctly I would like to comment on this remark.

If you were referring to me then I defeinitely think I see your position. It's just that I don't share it so to speak. My arguments serve to try to convey why your position is questionable from my point of view, and what the weaknessess are. But it doesn't mean I don't see your position.

But indeed, I also see what the weaknesses of my view are - from your point of view.

Somehow I think this mutual understanding is as far as we can get until you agree to join the dark side ;-)

I feel I have tried the structural realist side. It was the side I am coming from and my own reasoning and experience has lead my onto another path because the realist/axiomatic view has IMO serioust problems, some of that I think you posted about as well, and it's not cast in stone but it would take extraordinary arguments or input the revise this position.

6) you can introduce god into that theory; he may know about all bodies, laws, trajectories and initial conditions

This is one of the things I objected to before. The birds view supposedly justifies the realism. But as long as the complete birds view is inaccessible, which it is for several reasons it seems to be only a mental construct to justify a (from my point of view) "flawed" reasoning.

But I think you know my position there already no need to repeat.

But I think this is where most people will have problems with. It is by no means clear that a physical body and its mathematical representation (in some appropriate framework) are identical! We haven't found such a framework; we cannot even guess how it would look like.

Maybe I mix up your comments on the evolving law idea, and Dmitrys view, so I am not sure to whom this was addressed.

If the comment applies to my view, then it's true that many has problems with it. It's like having the ground under you removed. But that we cannot even guess is not fair I think. I think the latest discussions has hinted at least conceptually how the framwork could look like. At least to speak for myself, I have a much better guess even if it's currently immature how this evolving framework is going to solve problems, than ideas howto make progress starting from the QFT framework and GR without changing anything.

The most common and most natural objection to the somewhat inference approach is I think that it renders everything apparently subjective, and that it would be hard to do science without an objective basis. I've tried to explain how this is not a problem once you see the whole picture.

But as far as I know, compare to string theory and the other large competing approaches, it seems that almost nooone is working seriously on this. Wether it's because no one has any ides or simply because the ideas are suppressed by the community is another discussion.

So I certainly have ideas on this framework, and I will also keeping searching for it independently of wether most others aren't motivated. The price I pay is of course, that I am on my own, an this is constrained to beeing a sidetrack along with alternative professional carriers. But I think that is a reasonable price ot pay. It would not make sense for the public to invest in all small possibilities. That some minor approaches are suppressed is somehow how the world works.

New ideas doesn't necessarily come out of the mainstream work. So the fact that there aren't much "almost mainstream" ideas on how this framework is like is not one bit discouraging or surprising for me.

/Fredrik

 

[Dmitry67]

Fra, it was difficult for me to formulate the question about your approach, because everything looked so fuzzy. But now I have one:

So, everything is subjective. Say, there are observers O1, O2, ON, ... etc

Is view of different observes consistent? Or is the notion of self-consistency applicable? If yes, then to what extent? For example, in the macroscopic realism approach all views are consistent on the macroscopic level. But in MWI, view of observers in different branches is not macroscopically consistent (in different branches, but consistent in the same branch). Is it possible that O1 is observing the dead cat, O2 - alive cat, and O3 denies the existence of observers O1 and O2? Are there any invariants in your approach?

 

[tom.stoer]

@Fra: I am sorry for the confusion. I did NOT address you, neither with the comment that not everybody is clear about the problems, nor with the problems people have about the approaxches just discussed.

Why I was posting this was mainly because I found one aspect which seems to be common to both, Fra and Dmitry67, namely the fact that the differences between objects, representation of objects and laws for the objects fades away. In that sense both approaches are even more radical than evolving law, multiverses etc. Therefore I think that even people who could basically agree would refuse to agree to the more radical implications.

 

[Fra]

Dmitry, we concluded previously that we differ quite a bit, so my response to the below questions are relative to my reasoning.

Is view of different observes consistent?

Note that an "inconsistency" requires an inference system, and in the deductive inference inconsistency usually means you can make two deductions which shows a contradiction, say something beeing both true and false at the same time. Such inference system is "inconsistent".

But in my view, the inference system itsel is evoling, and always uncertain! An inconsistency of the type above in this case, simply is an "observation" that decreases the confidence in the inference system in question, which effectively is why it evolves.

Is view of different observes consistent?

Also for this to even have meaning in my view, the observers must be interacting.

In this respect I think Rovelli phrased it well in his RQM paper that the only way for two observers to relate their measurements is to communicate - ie. to interact.

So given that requirement, then a certain form of consistency or consensus between the observer is emergent, as a result of the interaction.

This means that in my view

- observers that aren't interacting, does not even have the notion of mutual consistency defined since it is only defined throught the interaction.

- even observers that are communicating, can be inconsistent transiently, but mutual inconsistency always means off-equilibrium and thus interaction forces.

The main difference from the standard notion of consistency as defined by say a symmetry transformation, is that in my view this transformation itself is not given, it's emergent, and without interactions the transformation itself is undefined.

But in MWI, view of observers in different branches is not macroscopically consistent (in different branches, but consistent in the same branch).

I'm not much into MWI, but certainly if the observers are in different non-interacting branches the notion of consistency has no meaning; which also means that any INconsistency is IMO simply unphysical because hte physical event realising the "inconsistency" will never happen.

Is it possible that O1 is observing the dead cat, O2 - alive cat, and O3 denies the existence of observers O1 and O2? Are there any invariants in your approach?

Sure, that's possible. but wether it's a stable state or likely to be observered is another question :)

In my view, it's not so much a question of what's possible, but more of what's probable to
be observed. In general inconsistencies means interaction forces, which means off-equilibrium.

Are there any invariants in your approach?

There are subjectively EXPECTED invariants, that is reflected in the action of the observer. But these invariants are not universal, global or objective and are generall subject to evolution as real interactions take place.

/Fredrik

 

[friend]

Note that an "inconsistency" requires an inference system, and in the deductive inference inconsistency usually means you can make two deductions which shows a contradiction, say something beeing both true and false at the same time. Such inference system is "inconsistent".

But in my view, the inference system itsel is evoling, and always uncertain! An inconsistency of the type above in this case, simply is an "observation" that decreases the confidence in the inference system in question, which effectively is why it evolves.

In this respect I think Rovelli phrased it well in his RQM paper that the only way for two observers to relate their measurements is to communicate - ie. to interact.

So given that requirement, then a certain form of consistency or consensus between the observer is emergent, as a result of the interaction. /Fredrik

Fredrik, your "theory" or "view" seems to lack any faith in reason or logic. And I see an inconsistency in what reasoning you so far present.

What you are suggesting is that there is no system of logic applicable to all of reality independent of observation. But isn't that what we are forced to assume, unless we are to think there is something in reality that is inherently illogical. That doesn't sound like a very plausible scientific premise to build any kind of theory on. I think the scientific expectation that all things are reasonable means we have to start with the assumption that all things are logically consistent with each other. The only question after that is how does that dictate the math we are to use.

Can consistency "emerge" from an illogical basis? That seems to be what you are saying. But I think that is impossible. Consistency can only be derived from a logical system - and not from a system of contradictions. If different Observers see everything to be logical arbitrarily close or distant from each other, then the entire universe must be everywhere and always a consistent set of facts.

If you think your theory somewhere can have inconsistencies in it, then your theory is so vague and speculative that it would be impossible to write any mathematics to describe it. I think you need to come to your senses and appologize for your incomprehensible musings.

 

[qsa]

friend, do you think this website can support DR Max Tegmark's theory

http://www.qsa.netne.net

 

[friend]

friend, do you think this website can support DR Max Tegmark's theory

http://www.qsa.netne.net

Obviously we have no choice but to describe reality with mathematics; there is no other language capable of describing it. But there are things in reality that have properties that are discovered through experiment, mass and charge of an electron, for example. These "inherent" properties are the 30 or so constants inserted by hand into the Standard Model. However, it is hoped that eventually we will find some mathematical explanation for these inherent properties, and so they too will be derived mathematically from some more basic theory. So ultimately I think all of reality can be derived from a pure mathematical/logical basis. We just haven't found that basis yet.

Everything having a mathematical basis does not mean that every mathematical system describes reality. It might describe a subset of what we know because it may serve as an approximation in some limited realm. For example, the system of whole numbers can be used to count apples in a basket. But that does not mean that reality is limited by this narrow subset of mathematics.

So the question is what mathematics can we trust will lead to a theory of everything. I suppose we will not be sure until it reproduces something familiar to physicists, like the basic formulation of QM or GR.

 

[Fra]

Friend, I certainly respect your position that you don't see any possible way howto make sense of of the reasoning I advocate.

There is a certainly a clear kind of logic in my approach, but it seems you do not see it, or you see it as inconistent, that's because I don't believe in rigid axiomatic deductive inference - that systems seems not flexible enough to efficiently describe nature.

I guess we will see in the future if we are able to overcome all problems and solve all open problems in physics without radically finding a more flexible framework.

What you are suggesting is that there is no system of logic applicable to all of reality independent of observation. But isn't that what we are forced to assume, unless we are to think there is something in reality that is inherently illogical.

Let's just note for a fact, that the logic system we are all talking about here ARE in fact inferred from interactions - human laboratory interactions with nature. Even mathematics and logic are produced by humans as a result of contemplation and study of nature.

So what I am suggesting is not really as insane as it may first seem, if you see it in the right way.

Maybe you you then say that Earth and nature and the laws of nature was here long before humans - yes of course it was, but at a lower level even matter was once not here, instead it was maybe emergent from a great chaos?

I think the scientific expectation that all things are reasonable means we have to start with the assumption that all things are logically consistent with each other. The only question after that is how does that dictate the math we are to use.

What I suggest is not all that different to what you say. The difference is wether the logic system is fixed and eternal, or if it's emergent?

At human level for example, are we creating the laws of physics or are we discovering them?

I'm saying there is no clear difference.

Can consistency "emerge" from an illogical basis? That seems to be what you are saying. But I think that is impossible. Consistency can only be derived from a logical system - and not from a system of contradictions.

I think I have tried to explain all this already, but I'm sorry to not be able to be more clear but this isn't easy stuff. And there are for sure many unsolved problem as well.

But the problem even in Your approach, from a scientific point of view is, when a given "logic system" or say "theory" is proving WRONG, it when it's falsified - HOW do you find a new theory without starting from scratch? - This is where my main point is, here my view contains a rational scheme for howto infere the new inference system from the old system given detection of slight inconsistency.

This even develops the scientific method in the area where popper left a whole - the logic of hypothesis generation? Hypothesis TESTING is the easyl part.

If you think your theory somewhere can have inconsistencies in it, then your theory is so vague and speculative that it would be impossible to write any mathematics to describe it. I think you need to come to your senses and appologize for your incomprehensible musings.

I don't see what I need to apologize for, except that I am sorry that I don't have more progress made. I rather see adding my point of view in here as part of an intellectual discussion in the search for the framework what can solve the real problems in physics.

As I said before, the real argument is when solution on open problems are on the table. Until them I have to admit I find the competing arguemtns far more inconsistent, simply consistency doesn't lead to uniqeuness. The evolving logic system solves to a larger extent the question of "why these laws".

/Fredrik

 

[Dmitry67]

Fra, do all observers share the same verson of mathematics? Is it possible that for some observers 2+2=5?

 

[qsa]

Dmitry, do you think this website can support DR Max Tegmark's theory

http://www.qsa.netne.net

I hope you got the private message I sent you