LHC - the last chance for all theories of everything?

[marcus]

...About other related predictions, Smolins CNS makes predictions on the maximum mass of neutron stars. Finding a neutron star more massive than the limit would falsify CNS.
...

thank you for your reply.
I have another question
Is there an effective way to distinguish
1. MWI (everything happens) + AP (Anthrophic Principle)
from
2. Cosmic Darwinism
and from
3. Evolving law?

Dmitry, that's a beautiful clear question. As Fra already indicated Cosmic Darwinism (the usual version is Smolin CNS) does make predictions. It predicts that you will not find a neutron star with mass substantially greater than 1.6 solar. And various other specific things. The general prediction is that you will not be able to find a Standard Model number that is not "hilltop" optimized for black hole production in the sense of being better than its nearby neighbors.

Anthropery does not predict anything quantitative. Whatever you measure in the future, whatever Standard Model number, it will automatically be consistent with our having lived and with our having measured it. Any possible physics discovery is consistent with life having arisen and learned how to investigate physics.

CNS was developed partly for the very purpose of providing a testable alternative to Anthropery. To show that you could construct falsifiable multiverse hypotheses. It is very different from the typical stuff about ManyWorlds, or StringLandscape, or EternalInflation and suchlike colorful fantasies which give infinite food for imagination without solid quantitative predictions.

Science theories can never be verified, only falsified. But if they pass tests a lot, they get tentative acceptance. If you want to know if we live in a CNS universe, the way to get a handle is to try and disprove it. Try to find a change in any of the 30-some numbers that characterize our universe which, if it were somehow implemented, would have resulted in more black holes.

The other thing you ask is how to tell the difference from Evolving Law.
I don't know of any definite Evolving Law hypothesis that can be tested!
I think it is unscientific and irrational to assume that there are eternal immutable laws---because we have no proof of that. All the evidence is that our knowledge is only provisional and the patterns we see are subject to revision.
To claim that there are eternal unchanging laws would be to assert much more than we actually know.

But I could not deny that proposition either. How could I, on what basis?

To answer your question I need to have some specific Evolving Law hypothesis. Some law and some mechanism by which it evolves. The only specific I can think of is Smolin CNS.
It conjectures that a law (the standard models of particle physics and cosmology, given by the 30 dimensionless numbers) changes slightly and evolves towards reproductive success, so that you expect hilltop optimality. That is a case of Evolving Law. But it is not so interesting to just have one sole case.

How about you think up another example, a different reproductive mechanism, a different optimization for reproductive success. A different optimality prediction about how the numbers should be. Then we could test.

Maybe someone else can respond, but I don't see how unless you give me some specific Evolving Law mechanism to examine and compare.

 

[tom.stoer]

Tom, I have a tricky question ...

Dmitry67, I need time for the answer. In the meantime you can think about the following: Since God is all-powerful, can he create a stone too heavy for him to lift?

Tom

 

[Fra]

I can think of several ways to comment on this. Marcus already provided some comments but there are some more.

Note: The obvious example of evolving law, that Marcus makes and also that Smolins makes is that it's a basic observation to note that what we humans have thought was physical law, has changes over the years. Now, the typical realist objection to that would be that we are confusing physical law, with our knowledge of physical law. But that objection is inconsistent with another hypothesis of mine, namely that physical action depends upon the inference system and the information at hand only. Ie. every system responds/acts upon the information it has only.

Ie. it's exactly the view that you CAN distinguish between information about a fact, and the fact itself, that is the difference between a realist and a nonrealist IMO.

I am saying that the physical action of a system is invariant to which.

thank you for your reply.
I have another question
Is there an effective way to distinguish
1. MWI (everything happens) + AP (Anthrophic Principle)
from
2. Cosmic Darwinism
and from
3. Evolving law?

I'll try to write more later, on my way to work.

But in my view of evolving law, which is a little different than CNS, the viability should come from several components.

Diversity from uncertainty; uncertainty is bounded and so is diversity - there are no inflated landscapes of unconstrained possibilities.

The selection and evolution of an inference system is implemented by means of feedback from the environment (the unkonwn) as subjective times progresses, and this forces the inference system to either revise or to face destruction. A property of self-preservation selects inference systems by fitness. But this is environment dependent, and what is fit depends on the environment. Therefor some interaction of inference systems must be considered to find a probable distribution of inference systems in nature.

Time is subjective in my view, but I disagree with rovelli in that I do not treat the system-system transformations as realist elements. These transformations themselves are emergent as the system complexity increases. A given finite observer, has a limit to how well it can infere the symmetries. In practice he will infere the symmetry, but it will be fuzzy. IE. the symmetry transforamtion itself is uncertain.

This is different than how smolin argues. I interpret smolin to take a little more conservative approach by considering variation of some known parameters. But you have to start somewhere, and I see smolins CNS as an interesting first attempt at something little more concrete, but not necessarily the final implementation of the vision.

Antrophics is mostly an attempt to save situations where you are sitting in a landscape of possibilities and are lost. Then you try to shave of possibilities by saying that the inferences that doesn't lead to what you know, must be wrong. It's a sort of post-diction kind of reasoning. It's a little related to the evolution but the major difference is that my idea of rational action; suggest a way FORWARD, given the present, not just a way from some speculative past to the present. The further conjecture is that all physical actions are constructed this way, and this insight can also help us understand the action of the standard model - that there is a yet not acknowledged logic to it's construction, that is not just geometrical inspiration, it's rather inspired by a new inference model.

If you look at say the path integral, the association is clear that it seems that the physical action is construced by "considering" various options AS PER some specific inference system. I am convinced for more than the similarity reason that this is not a conicidence at all. There is something deep about inference and physical actions that is not yet acknowledged. For ME at least (not sure about smolin) I see this strongly linked to the concept of evolution of law, since the inference system itself is also subject to change. Picture the path integral or a generalisation thereof as a computation, then there is a computer (matter) and and action that is induced from the result of the computation (action) and a feedback from the environment (reaction) that gives feedback to not only the computation but also to the computer.

/Fredrik

 

[moniker2]

thank you for your reply.
I have another question
Is there an effective way to distinguish
1. MWI (everything happens) + AP (Anthrophic Principle)
from
2. Cosmic Darwinism
and from
3. Evolving law?

Here you go, but it comes from an unreliable source.

m = [f / {[(1/(1-(v ^2 /c ^2 )) ^1/2 ]-1}a
This makes many assumptions but the most intriguing is the imaginary units of mass.

 

[tom.stoer]

Tom, I have a tricky question regarding the Occams razor ...

So, it is very likely that our universe is infinite. As we know, the expansion is accelerating, so there are cosmological horizons: we will never ever be in causal contact with some distant areas of our universe.

My question is: do these areas really exist?

Dmitry67! yes, they exist - and again Ockham's razor is on my side.

First I have to explain what the principle of Ockham's razor really means: It essentially says that that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily; when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better": http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
So it does not say that the theory that contains less entities is better, but the theory that provides the simpler explanation of known facts is better.

Now let's look at the expanding universe with horizons. A certain area of space which resides inside our horizon does exist (I hope we can agree on that). Now due to the (accelerated) expansion this area disappears beyond the horizon. The two competring theories are:

1) the area of space still exists but becomes invisible
2) the area of space ceases to exist

Both theories should be based on spacetime and should be compatible with the framework of GR; this means they have a common basis and are of the same complexity. Now the phenomenon of the horizon may add some new entities which are subject to Ockhams razor.

In theory 1) you have to explain what the horion is: it is a geometrical concept that is somehow build-in. There is no extra ingredient or entity besides the fact that you observe accelerated expansion. But that is not really new as it is derived from observation and not from theoretical constructions. The area of space beyond the horizon is no new ingredient, either, as it already existed before it went across the the horizon.

In theory 2) there will be one new ingredient or entity, namely an explanation how a certain area of space plus all matter, energy etc. can cease to exist. You have to provide a process, a formula or something which tells us what happens to all the stars, galaxies etc.

Look at a room with a huge library. Lock the door and throw away the key. Are the books still "there"? I would say "yes" ...

 

[Dmitry67]

Dmitry67, I need time for the answer. In the meantime you can think about the following: Since God is all-powerful, can he create a stone too heavy for him to lift?

Tom

Definitely God won't be able to lift such stone without help of Max Tegmark :)

 

[Dmitry67]

1
First I have to explain what the principle of Ockham's razor really means: It essentially says that that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily; when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better": http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

2
In theory 2) there will be one new ingredient or entity, namely an explanation how a certain area of space plus all matter, energy etc. can cease to exist. You have to provide a process, a formula or something which tells us what happens to all the stars, galaxies etc.

1 Yes, we both agree on the definition of Occams razor. We don't agree on the definition of 'entity'. A HOLE or a VOID in substance - it is an ENTITY?

For me IT IS, because it breaks the symmetry and injects new information into syste,

2 Yes, definitely yes!
So you can apply the same logic to MWI branches - it is logical to say that they do not cease to exist. Once we accepted Level 1 and Level 3 multiverse, it is easier to accept Level 4 multiverse.

 

[Dmitry67]

It predicts that you will not find a neutron star with mass substantially greater than 1.6 solar.

Could you explain, why? My problem is that my disagreement with Smolin is so strong that I would hardly be able to read anything to the end.

 

[Fra]

Could you explain, why? My problem is that my disagreement with Smolin is so strong that I would hardly be able to read anything to the end.

You can read smolins papers, but the basic idea is that smolins conjecture is that our universe must be (or is highly likely to be) optimized for black hole production. The reason for this is that in Smolins CNS idea, a universe that produce no black holes would be steril and unable to produce "offsprings" (with or without variation).

Now smolin has argued that a universe that is so constructed, for optimal black hole production would not host arbitrarily massive neutron stars. "Ie. if the parameters of the laws of physics are so as to optimise black hole production, then there is a limit on neutron star mass."

I think that is the simple general idea. If you want to see the details, or verify that this is a correct inference I think you need to dig into Smolins papers.

But before you look at his specific CNS, I would suggest listening to his general arguments against eternal law first, because it's possible to have objections to CNS but still appreciate the general idea(http://pirsa.org/08100049). To jump into a specific suggestion before appreciating the general idea is I think harder.

I am not overly fond of CNS which I see as a first, probably simplest possible, attempt to realize the idea into something a little more concrete, but I share his general objection to eternal law.

/Fredrik

 

[Dmitry67]

Thanks. Why production of the Black Holes is so important?
Because he thinks that they give birth to other Unvierses, implementing the Cosmic Darwinism?

But if the Goal function is the number of universes/black hole, then it does not explain why do we exist. You can have a very successful 'universe factory', but all these universe can be strile. Say, no elements heavier then He, but manymany many black holes.

That idea would be much more interesting if the creation of Universe would require so rare conditions that it would require an intelligent life. That would be an alternative to AP. In the current form, it just explains why there are many universes, but you still need AP to explain, why at least some of them are life-friendly.

 

[tom.stoer]

Dmitry67,

what do you think: do the areas beyond the horizion exist?

 

[Dmitry67]

Dmitry67,

what do you think: do the areas beyond the horizion exist?

Yes, like the alternative branches in the MWI
I think on our way to TOE we have to give up the falsifiability...

 

[ConradDJ]

Biological evolution is based on fundamental laws (DNA) which are not subject to the evolution process itself but provide a fixed, external system.

Tom – This is profoundly incorrect. The DNA code certainly did evolve. There are many regularities in biology, but none of them have the character that physical laws seem to have, as “a fixed, external system” of changeless laws governing how things change. All of them derive from an evolutionary process, the only “law” of which is just – whatever manages to reproduce itself, manages to reproduce itself. Everything follows from that.

Your earlier statement was more sensible:

My conclusion is that it is not sure that dynamic processes require dynamic laws. Far from it, progress in science tells us that in many cases the underlying laws of dynamic processes are static laws.

The word “dynamic” here is ambiguous. It’s very important to distinguish between physical laws (A) changing over time and physical laws (B) evolving, in a sense that’s comparable with the biological case.

(A) It’s certainly possible that some things we take as changeless laws of physics – the gravitational constant, for example – have actually changed over time. The whole development of cosmology over the past century has shown us how much more dynamic the universe is than anyone had expected. But this is not evolution in the significant sense, comparable to biology. If something in the structure of physical law can be meaningfully said to have changed over time, then that must have happened in the context of a “fixed, external system” – as you said – which doesn’t change. “Change” only has meaning if there is a context that is at least relatively changeless.

(B) When we talk about the laws of physics evolving, we’re talking about the “fixed, external system” itself and where it came from. Even in Smolin’s CNS – which I don’t buy at all – within any given universe, the basic laws of physics are still changeless. It’s only in the process of creating one universe out of another that they change. (And the weakness of Smolin’s idea is just that it has nothing to say about how this reproductive process happens, or why it would result in universes with different laws, or most important, why the laws in a “child” universe would be only a little bit different from those of its “parent”, which is critical to making an evolutionary process work).

In my view CNS is a way-too-literal attempt to apply the biological evolutionary theory to physics. If there is an evolutionary process underlying the laws of physics, I don’t think it’s based on self-replication. In the physical world, self-replication is very hard to achieve – which is why life is so rare in the universe.

On the other hand, I’ve tried to make the point in other threads that there is a “process” that’s as ubiquitous in physics as the reproductive process is in biology – namely what we call “measurement” or “observation” or just the “communication of information” between physical systems. This is harder to envision than self-replication, because it’s not about the multiplication of physical entities (organisms) but about the multiplication of “measurement-events” between entities. And of course the whole issue of the role of “measurement” in physics is tremendously confused.

I won’t go into the reasons why I think communicating systems can evolve via “natural selection” much the way reproducing systems can. But I want to emphasize again that this is not necessarily about some or any of the laws of physics being “dynamic” in the sense that they could be observed to be different at different historical times. That may or may not be the case, but it’s a different issue.

Here’s the thing – the laws of physics we observe now, in our well-established theories, let us look back in time and learn a great deal about the very early universe. But everything we’ve learned about it teaches us that for hundreds of thousands of years after the “beginning”, the physical conditions of the universe would not have supported any way of measuring or observing those laws. Before the emergence of atoms, it may well be that no definable information could have been communicated from one physical system to another.

I’m not saying our theories about the early universe are wrong – just that these theories are only meaningful if there are physical systems that function as “clocks and measuring rods”, etc. And the theories tell us that there was a time when no such systems existed anywhere.

So the early universe as we see it now, based on present-time data, is the early universe as communicated through a very different and far more elaborately structured informational environment than used to exist in our universe.

The point is that the laws of physics may or may not have changed over time, but clearly they did become meaningfully definable in the course of time. And it seems reasonable to ask about which aspects of these laws became physically determinable first, and which later on – and whether this sequence may reflect an underlying evolutionary process. And we should probably consider time itself as one aspect of the structure that evolved in this sense, not as a “fixed, external” background within which this process occurred.

If you appreciate how powerful the evolutionary principle is in biology – i.e. how much can be explained about living systems without having to make arbitrary, unexplainable assumptions – then I think it will seem worthwhile to pursue any avenue that might lead toward a similar principle for physics.

 

[Fra]

Tom – This is profoundly incorrect. The DNA code certainly did evolve.

Indeed. Not only did the DNA CODE evolve, but the structure for the code as wel (compare microstate vs microstructure), this is I think the even more important point.

I objected to this to Tom before as well, in post#209 in the same thread.

Tom's response was to dismiss this flawed analogy beeing off point. But I think it's very much to the point.

If we picture a configuration space of all possible DNA sequences, then the point is that not only does dna sequences evolve, within the space, the more profound point is tha the "configuration space itself" has an origin.

This is the deeper point that Smolin also tries to explain in his motivation for evoling law. The configuration space bounds the questions you can possibly pose, therefore new possibilities arise and the configuration space changes. The alternative would be an infinite totally out of control infinite configurations space that would drown any computation. Not to mention that we run into the same old problem of having to accept an utterly even infinitely unlikely initial condition.

Weird as it seems but the evolving law idea actuall solve a lot of problems too; fine tuning problem and the problem of initial conditions etc.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

I would like to make clear that when I am talking about "dynamically changing laws" I definately mean changes in the sense of "evolution of laws". Sorry for the confusion.

It is clear that "trivial changes" like the value of a "constant" might be explained by some deeper, fixed theory (string theory suggests dynamically changing constants as they are expectation values of certain fields). So what we are really interested in is the question if these deeper theory itself dissolves in some "evolution process" and dynamically changing w/o being grounded again on some deeper, fixed structure.

I appreciate the discussion regarding this possibility, but I think I already made clear that - for various reasons - I do not believe in this theory.

Regarding the applicability of laws at earlier times that we derive currently: it compares to the area that hides beyond the cosmic horizon. If a theory explains experimental results in some domain (time, space, energy range, ...) then we try to extrapolate beyond this domain. This is what usually happens in physics (or science in general): we believe that planetary orbits exist in distant galaxies, even if they are not measurable. We even believe that if a planetary system forms from interstellar dust then the new planets follow the same well-known planetary orbits. Therefore we extrapolate in timelike as well as in spacelike direction.

In biology it should be clear that the laws of evolution do exist even before the first DNA molecule was formed. That means that the existence of these laws (as they are based on chemical and physical laws as well as on mathematical ones) transcend their application. I believe that the same is true in physics.

w/o this principle science would not be possible at all, simply because it would restrict the domain of validity of laws to the domain of their application. That would mean that predictabiliyt gets lost as we are simply not allowed to predict the result of an experiment before we have collected and evaluated the data.

So my credo is: Science forces us to believe in laws transcending their application

 

[tom.stoer]

Tom – This is profoundly incorrect. The DNA code certainly did evolve.

I do not talk about the evolution of a collection of DNA molecules but about the evolution of the laws of the DNA code. There is no such evolution! The chemistry of DNA was, is and will be fixed forever. If DNA molecules are crossed, changed, if there are DNA defects or if they are dying together with their phenotype doesn't matter.

The same applies to the laws of physics. If in a far future all physical objects in the universe fade away in a "Big Whimper" doesn't affect the laws for planetary motion. As already indicated I somehow like structural realism which says that the Kepler orbits (as laws) do exist even if the planets (as materialization) cease to exist.

 

[Dmitry67]

Tom, there are 2 versions of the DNA code: old one (ribosomal DNA - rDNA) and modern (DNA in all other cells - mDNA). So DNA code did evolve. Ribosomal DNA code looks similar to the modern one, but some codons are interpreted there differently.

But I agree that laws do not evolve.

 

[tom.stoer]

OK, fine. You found weakness in my biological reasoning :-)

No problem: The changes in the laws of the DNA code are explained on the basis of eternal laws of chemistry.

 

[ConradDJ]

Regarding the applicability of laws at earlier times that we derive currently: it compares to the area that hides beyond the cosmic horizon. If a theory explains experimental results in some domain (time, space, energy range, ...) then we try to extrapolate beyond this domain. This is what usually happens in physics (or science in general): we believe that planetary orbits exist in distant galaxies, even if they are not measurable... Therefore we extrapolate in timelike as well as in spacelike direction.

Yes – and this is difficult to make clear, because of all the confusion about measurement in QM – but I would argue that there is an important difference here:

1. Does the other side of the moon exist? Or does a planet exist before someone observes it? Or beyond the cosmic horizon?

2. Does an electron have a definite position, in a context in which its position it is not determinable by any interaction?​

My point is that the situation with the early universe could well be more like 2. than 1. In the first case, whether there determinate information is available or not depends on someone’s perspective. In the second case, it’s a matter of the structure of the laws of physics themselves, that allow some things to be measurable in certain circumstances, and not others.

In biology it should be clear that the laws of evolution do exist even before the first DNA molecule was formed. That means that the existence of these laws (as they are based on chemical and physical laws as well as on mathematical ones) transcend their application.

w/o this principle science would not be possible at all, simply because it would restrict the domain of validity of laws to the domain of their application. That would mean that predictability gets lost...

Again, this is a misunderstanding. There are no “laws” of biology in the sense that there are “laws” of physics. And indeed very little can be predicted in biology, though that doesn't disqualify it as "science". And in comparison with physics, the extent to which what happens in biology can be understood – after the fact – is quite remarkable. The explanations are essentially historical -- they don't refer back to fixed, changeless principles that apply in general, but to the specific circumstances in which something arose.

In physics, prediction is very powerful, just because so much can be understood in terms of changeless mathematical laws that apply to everything, at all times. On the other hand, the Standard Model remains so complex that to me it makes sense to look for a way of understanding why these laws and principles are the way they are... as we’ve discussed above. The model favored by most physicists is the traditional one -- look for more general principles from which those of the Standard Model can be "predicted". The quest for that kind of TOE has gone on for quite some time now, and it's hard to say whether it's closer to success than it was a few decades ago.

So this is why I think the very different scientific model of biology may turn out to be useful. Needless to say, there's room for disagreement!

 

[Dmitry67]

Again, this is a misunderstanding. There are no “laws” of biology in the sense that there are “laws” of physics. And indeed very little can be predicted in biology, though that doesn't disqualify it as "science". And in comparison with physics, the extent to which what happens in biology can be understood – after the fact – is quite remarkable. The explanations are essentially historical -- they don't refer back to fixed, changeless principles that apply in general, but to the specific circumstances in which something arose.

In MWI, or if our Universe is infinite in space, then everything which might happen happens. Then we can give - in some cases - accurate predictions of the evolution (of course, statistically on huge number of planets)

 

[Fra]

No problem: The changes in the laws of the DNA code are explained on the basis of eternal laws of chemistry.

I still insist there is something that you miss with this reduction, and it's complexity.

But the reductionist approach you advocate, the problem is that the information capacity and "computation power" need to implement this is massive. And unless this information and computation capacity is at hand, your reductionist approach fails.

Why doesn't biologist simply do numerical simulations of biological spieces from complex molecular and atomic mechanics? The complexity neede for that approach fails. Rounding errors and all kinds of chaotic problems makes this strategy inviable.

I'll rephrase the question I ask to make my point more clear: The question is howto predict the future, given the present (including retained parts of the history), but the constraints are also that we have finite representative capacity and computation power - thus an idea that in absurdum might work, but requires more information capacity and computational power than we actualyl have at hand, simple is of no use.

Thus, the theories themselves must "scale", this is what I think of as scaling the inference systems. The inference you picture, by the extreme reductionist approach (explain life from the laws of chemsitry) fails because these inference system gets a complexity that isn't physical.

Another example, an algorithm or computer code, written for one cpu, needs to be "scaled" to run on a smaller cpu wit less memory. For the case of physical law, I think this scaling can be nontrivial, it's not just averaging. It's also the reverse problem on howto scale up, this requires evolution as more information is added and needs to be tuned.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

1. Does the other side of the moon exist? Or does a planet exist before someone observes it? Or beyond the cosmic horizon?

2. Does an electron have a definite position, in a context in which its position it is not determinable by any interaction?​

My point is that the situation with the early universe could well be more like 2. than 1. In the first case, whether there determinate information is available or not depends on someone’s perspective. In the second case, it’s a matter of the structure of the laws of physics themselves, that allow some things to be measurable in certain circumstances, and not others.

The difference is not only that something may depend on someones perspective. The difference is - in addition - that in the first case the question is if some entity EXISTS whereas in the second case the question is if something HAS a specific PROPERTY or VALUE.

No it is certainly not the same level of existence in the two questions
if THE (OTHER SIDE OF) MOON EXISTS or
if A VALUE TO BE MEASURED EXISTS before the measurement process.

In the case of the electron there is (at least for me) no problem that there exists an entity called "electron" w/o having a certain property.

 

[tom.stoer]

But the reductionist approach you advocate, the problem is that the information capacity and "computation power" need to implement this is massive. And unless this information and computation capacity is at hand, your reductionist approach fails

I don't think so. The EXISTENCE of something (entity, law, ...) need not depend on the possibility to IMPLEMENT it. It could very well be that the complexity of the universe forbids its implementation or simulation.

Compare it to mathematics: the real numbers form an uncountable set, computer programs or algorithms form a countable set. Using algorithmic complexity as a condition for existence would mean that almost all real numbers do not exist.

Attention: My approach is not a reductionist one. I do not say that I can explain life with all its emerging properties from laws of chemistry. The latter one serve as a basis only. Look at language: assume for a moment that the English language would follow strict, logical rules. Do you think that would preclude literature to exist? Certainly not.

 

[Fra]

I don't think so. The EXISTENCE of something (entity, law, ...) need not depend on the possibility to IMPLEMENT it. It could very well be that the complexity of the universe forbids its implementation or simulation.

I know we differ here, but to me your notion of EXISTENCE is almost a non-physical and non-scientific one. I think it's because ou are more realist than me but from my point of view your question "does it exist" without considering how it's inferred, simply has no impact on the actions - which is the prime concern to me.

/Fredrik

 

[friend]

It sounds like you are thinking about stuff that doesn't exist. I don't know of any purely curve-fitting approach to anything in physics. Ideas will always creep in
Could you be wrestling with a straw man named Mr. Curve-Fitting Approach?

I'm skeptical of your being able to find any branch of science where practitioners consistently follow any stated rulebook method, as if they were automata.

Maybe I shouldn't argue this anymore with you, Friend. You have your opinion about the Limitations of Science based on your own concepts and reasoning. I have a different set of aperçus. In the end all we could do is make predictions about, say, the next 15 years of research and (if we both survive that long) check later to see whose mental model was closer to the real world.

Can you give me an example where the methods used are NOT curve-fitting. Yes we extend our models by trying to generalize the math and see if it's applicable. But how is that conceptually any different than finding the next term in a polynomial expansion in order to better match a curve? I mean even looking for gauge symmetries is just a means of trying to more easily find functions that match the data. Even string theory was first considered because it was math that seemed to closely match some nuclear physics. Yes, this may produce results. But it can never produce a TOE because you'll never know if it's not possible to find greater generalizations that might apply; let's add another term to the expansion and see what we get. What kind of creative thinking did you think we were doing?

 

[Fra]

thank you for your reply.
I have another question
Is there an effective way to distinguish
1. MWI (everything happens) + AP (Anthrophic Principle)
from
2. Cosmic Darwinism
and from
3. Evolving law?

One would have to admit that "evolving law" is currently not a specific theory. It's IMO first of all a new way of thinking, that takes a while to get used to. And it might possibly define a new direction for research programs.

Smolins CNS cosmic darwinism is one possible realisation of evolving law.

But the major difference between CNS and what I envision is that I do not think diversity and selection takes place isolated in black holes, I think it takes place everywhere. The difference between predictable time evolution as per some laws of dynamics and the not so predictable evolution of laws, are simply two extremes of the same scale.

I try to combine the ideas of laws of physics following from rules of inference, with the evolving law concept. It's a mix of smolings evolving law, and ariel catichas and jaynes idea to "derive" the laws of physics from an extension of logic.

The purpose of of the evolution in this context (this is how I think of it, not smolin an his CNS) is to bridge the problems of the rigid logic systems, regarding proving completeness etc. Tom was acknowleding this, but has not yet given up the idea it seems. I have come to the conclusion that an evolving inference systems is a possible way to do. I have great personal confidence in this, but it's a very complex undertaking, and it's probalby not realistic that one person should start from this point, and complete the reconstruction up until the standard model level.

This is why I think ALL research that are more or less in this direction is very interesting and important.

MWI and AP doesn't even enter the same level of ambition for me, so distinguishing them from the two others seems obvious. MWI is an interpretation of QM - I am suggesting a reconstruction of the entire formalism of QM, by deeper insights in intrinsic information theory.

note: In fact, from the way I reason, taking an intrinsic inference perspective seriously, the evolution is even a prediction becase there is no static solution. So I do not "assume" ad hoc that parameters vary randomly and there is some undefined selection, I rather think that the evolving inference system follows from the self-constructive inference itself. Successful parts are reinforced by a kind fo statistical weight, and inconsistent parts and eventually diluted and eventually become indistinguishable and are erased. What I am fighting with is to make this precise, and then the next step is of course to extract the physics we are used to - to reproduce 4D spacetime and matter content. The matter content in my view IS the inference system population. This is definitely not what smolin is thinking - it is a clear mix of smolins GENERAL idea, AND the program of physical inference (ariel caticha, et jaynes etc).

There is a synthesis of these two ideas to be made. Since few seems to bother with this I see no better option but to try to do it myself, although it's an overwhealming task.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

I know we differ here, but to me your notion of EXISTENCE is almost a non-physical and non-scientific one ... from my point of view your question "does it exist" without considering how it's inferred, simply has no impact on the actions - which is the prime concern to me.

Let me ask one question again: Go to a room with a huge library, lock the door and throw away the key. Do the books continue to exist?

From your last postings I would say that you position is very close to idealism. Of course I can't prove that it's wrong, but you certainly run into trouble that you have to explain how your approach differs from pure subjectivism.

It seems to me that your position is always jeopardized to become non-scientific.

 

[Fra]

Ok, this is a simple example but let me put it to make me point more clear.

Let me ask one question again: Go to a room with a huge library, lock the door and throw away the key. Do the books continue to exist?

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.

Do the books still exist in the world I will never be able to communicate with? I honestly would be completeley indifferent to which :)

However, if there was still interactions with that room, and there was mechanisms where the books beeing there or not, would influence my future, then I would take into consideration that the books exists or not exists, when inferring the possible future of mine, and it would also influence my action! And if we are talking about a macroscopic library then the mass of that makes it very probably that the information I received when the door was open, does not change immediately as I close and lock it.

So my answer is that the existence of the books is meaningul only if there is to me, an distinguishable mechanism for how it might influence my future. Otherwise I would not waste my time pondering about wether god is left or right handed, because I am completeley indifferent to these things. There is no basis at all for rising such question.

From your last postings I would say that you position is very close to idealism. Of course I can't prove that it's wrong, but you certainly run into trouble that you have to explain how your approach differs from pure subjectivism.

I think I've tried to explain this. In my view, objectivity is emergent as a RESULT of interactions and selection on the subjective inferenc esystems. This is a very important point.

My view of symmetry is for example NOT that there in a realist sense exists a set of subjective/relative views that happen to have a certain transformation which generates all of them. And the symmetry is again of realist type. (this is the COMMON view)

Instead, but view is that as a subjective inference system is put to interactions, the local group of interacting subjective inference systems will exert ON THE OTHERS a selective pressure that causes emergence of a local symmetry. However this symmetry has not global meaning beyond this local group of interactors.

I understand that on first glimps this may sound like anything goes etc, but that's not the case. The trick is the evolutio and selection. "Anything goes" simply doesn't survive the competition, a system needs to be in consistency with it's local environment to be in local equilibritum. About global equilibrium, there is no local definition of such a think. To make a very large scale equilibirum, you need a Very very complex and massive observer.

/Fredrik

 

[tom.stoer]

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.

Do the books still exist in the world I will never be able to communicate with? I honestly would be completeley indifferent to which :)

However, if there was still interactions with that room, and there was mechanisms where the books beeing there or not, would influence my future, then I would take into consideration that the books exists or not exists, when inferring the possible future of mine, and it would also influence my action!

OK, let's discuss this in the context of cosmic horizons. An area A of space that disappears from our "world" beyond the cosmic horizon will certainly no longer interact with you (your area X). But of course there are other distant areas B, C, D, ... still visible to you which can interact with area A. Therefore the EXISTENCE of area A does not only (as far as I can see) depend on the interaction with area X, but on the interaction with B, C, D, etc. Keep in mind that it is by no means clear that the interaction of X with B, C, D will (in the far future) be communicated to X. In a typical scenario with horizons these signals from B, C, D will be hidden in the future behind the same expanding horizon and will NEVER be received in X.

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.

What I am saying is that if your ontology is based on "your possible future, and influence on your actions", then this is essentially idealism. 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, ...).

 

[Fra]

I'll get back later and try to elaborate about completeness, existence etc. I'm currently running low on time but i'll return with comments evenetually.

But in short, the completeness of percection you seen to seek, are not physically realisable. BUT you are right that seeking it is rational, but the process itself involves time and resources. This is exactly why there is evolution. Time is even a consequence of this failure to capture eternal perfection in a moment of time.

But more later... I'm stuffed with work atm

/Fredrik