Another of Wheeler’s Questions
There is also another of Wheeler’s question: “Why there are any ‘Laws of Nature’?” Wheeler himself says only this much on this subject:
If I say that the laws of physics did not exist forever but they came into being, along with the big bang, then there ought to be some microscopic fraction of a second in the earliest days, when those laws haven't quite got hold, when things could come out contrary to the laws as we see them, in their firmly established shape of today. I can't be specific on that, but that is at least my present-day answer to your question, can they be violated? Yes, in the very beginning of the world; yes, in the very end of the world.
I think that in order to be able to address this question we must start with the most primitive constituents of the world, perhaps with something similar to Leibniz’ “monads”, or the “Ur-alternatives” of CarlFriedrich von Weizsäcker.
The Third Question: A New Branch of Science
The third question “Why the “one world” out of many observer-participants?” cannot be answered without first addressing the question of biology and life itself. And here it is that we find Heim’s “organization dimension” which is eerily similar to Rupert Sheldrake’s speculative concept of “morphogenetic fields”.
Thou Shalt Not Ask Questions About Dangerous Topics!
The subject is so difficult and so unusual that it is going to take more than Burkhard Heim or yours truly; it will require the focus of an entire new branch of science..
Unfortunately Science today is not really interested in going there. Scientists are mainly busy with their personal careers, getting their papers published, getting grants, getting support from politicians and from the industry.
Those who have really original thoughts, even if they have all the necessary qualifications, will lose their jobs if they work on those things that might alleviate the sufferings of humanity. Or, as it also happens, they may find a job sponsored by the “NavalSurface Weapons Center”.
P.S.1. Why the One World out of many observer-participants? Louis Armstrong gives a simple down to earth answer in his song "What a wonderful world" - which I dedicate to my wife
P.S.2
"Shun the barren snare of an empty metaphysics and the dry dust of an unfertile intellectuality. Only that knowledge is worth having which can be made use of for a living delight and put out into temperament, action, creation and being."Sri Aurobindo
P.S.4. 17:02 . New version of my notes on the conformal group. Added Sec. 8.1. Introduced the tautological bundle. Updated the previous section on affine structure.
A Reader wrote to me unhappy with my P.S.2 and P.S.3 - asserting that they are "demotivating", and that I am advocating here "my values". Of course I am advocating my values - this is my blog! There are millions of other blogs where you can choose any set of values you want. Everybody has also the option of creating his own blog.
ReplyDeleteI do my best to provide a high quality content. But as always some people like it, some hate it.
If a Category Theory theory Wiki does something like get you from Minkowski to tangent bundles then it could be useful for someone like me (I've traditionally used Google for things like that). Staying related to known real physical spaces like Minkowski instead of playing a lot in known non-physical spaces like string theorists do seems like the key "value".
ReplyDeleteThe exact detailed understanding of the Minkowski related spaces though quite fun to be reading here, is beyond my education and Googling abilities. Minkowski-Twistor-Phase Space-Conformal-Tangent Bundle-Affine all do seem to be running into each other nicely.
I am educating myself in Category Theory. Studying "Category Theory and Applications. A Textbook for Beginners" by Marco Grandis:
DeleteCategory Theory now permeates most of Mathematics, large parts of theoretical Computer Science and parts of theoretical Physics. Its unifying power brings together different branches, and leads to a deeper understanding of their roots.
This book is addressed to students and researchers of these fields and can be used as a text for a first course in Category Theory. It covers its basic tools, like universal properties, limits, adjoint functors and monads. These are presented in a concrete way, starting from examples and exercises taken from elementary Algebra, Lattice Theory and Topology, then developing the theory together with new exercises and applications.
Applications of Category Theory form a vast and differentiated domain. This book wants to present the basic applications and a choice of more advanced ones, based on the interests of the author. References are given for applications in many other fields.
Readership: Graduate students and researchers of mathematics, computer science, physics.
In the next version of my notes I will change the notation and the terminology in the more category theory friendly coordinate free section. There is no such thing as "the Minkowski space". There are infinitely many Minkowski spaces. Every "observer" at every instant has his own "Minkowski space". At another instant his Minkowski space becomes different. It is like when the horizon moves when the ship moves. Threfore I will get rid of the notation hat(M).
ReplyDeleteLittle by little all this becomes clear me.
Theere is no hat(M), because there is no such thing as M. There is an M_p for every p in the projective cone PN.
DeleteWhat is time? Imagine a ship moving on a wavy ocean. It crosses the waves. Time of this ship is the number of wave crests it cuts through. But when the surfer "rides the wave" - this kind of time stops for him.
ReplyDeleteDifferent ships would in general cross different number of waves. Thus their time ("proper time") depends on the motion - like in the twins paradox. Freely specultaing: so called "Aliens" may be "riding the wave". Coming here may take (almost) no time for them.
Consciousness may influence the local pattern, therefore the relation between time and consciousness. All that is a untamed speculation - nothing more.
DeleteWhat kind of "waves" I am talking about? Perhaps waves in the fabric of "aether".
DeleteCoś jest niedobrze z dowodem: onto w lemma 1 - alfa i beta ze wzoru (11) nie dają jeszcze jedynki jako ich suma kwadratów.
DeletePoprawny dowód jest chyba skomplikowany. Możliwe, że trzeba by wziąć moduł mianownika we wzorze (4) żeby dowód był prostszy.
I do not understand the objection. alpfa and beta are determined by unitary U1. Sum of their squares is 1, because U1 is unitary. (11) is writing them as complex numbers with real and imaginary parts. We give these parts names x1,...,x6 as in (11). Then we define X through x1,...,x6.
DeleteWith these explanations is it better?
Added an explanation in the proof of Lemma 1. Thanks.
DeleteJest lepiej ale coś mnie jednak uwiera w tym dowodzie. Może gdyby napisać w pierwszym wierszu (11) dodatkowo, że c wybieramy takie, żeby "moduł c jest równy 1" byłoby lepiej.
DeleteAdded a sentence explaining why |c|=1 automatically.
DeleteW tych dodatkach:
DeleteSince |det(U) = 1 ->
brakuje pionowej kreski
Wielkie X5 zamiast małego x5 trochę zaburza rytm.
Thanks. Fixed. Also removed the hat(M) in the "abstract" part. Replaced by PN.
DeleteA Reader asked me if I can formulate the problem of phase transitions in EEQT in category theory terms?
ReplyDeleteThis indeed would be a whole new project - good for a PhD. But that would require for a student to really seriously study the subject about which PhD is being written. To find a supervisor for such a thesis would be next to impossible.
A Reader wroto to me asking about these late night speculations above: "how to make this speculation a scientific theory and whether this is possible under the current scientific paradigm?"
ReplyDeleteOf course I have an idea how to make this speculation a scientific theory. And I am doing it right now. Otherwise I would not have written openly about it.
And no paradigm shift is needed for that. It will be just enough to forget a couple of dogmas, and scientists are already ready for it.
Ark wrote: "A Reader wrote to me unhappy with my P.S.2 and P.S.3 - asserting that they are "demotivating", and that I am advocating here "my values"."
ReplyDeleteThe attitude that everyone must conform to their expectations is common among a certain group of young people often referred to as "Snowflakes". Wikipedia tells us that this generation of poorly parented individuals who never had to face consequences are persons who "have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, are overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions."
The term is said to have originated with Chuck Palahniuk who wrote in his 1996 novel Fight Club, "you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake". He says he was consciously reacting against the constant praise he had encountered in the education system, which he said had rendered him an "idiot" and poorly equipped him for the world. He said "A lifetime of disingenuous, one-size-fits-all praise had kept most of my peers from pushing hard to achieve any actual triumphs, and therefore we had no internal sense of ability or potential."
Wikipedia goes on to say: "Such terminology refers to people who believe their status as a unique individuals means they are destined for great success, or deserve a special career, with abundant praise and admiration. ... in the 2000s snowflake referred "mostly to millennials who were allegedly too convinced of their own status as special and unique people to be able (or bothered) to handle the normal trials and travails of regular adult life".
The terms "generation snowflake" and "snowflake generation" are frequently used in reference to use of trigger warnings and safe spaces, or to describe young adults as anti-free speech, specifically in reference to a practice referred to as deplatforming. It has also been used to refer to a reported increase in mental health issues among young adults.
So much for Wikipedia.
Psychopathology rules our world today; that’s the bottom line and that’s why everything is as screwed up as it is. But it can only rule if people aren’t aware of it and exactly how it operates. For psychopaths, their victims have no rights of their own. They do not even have the right to free speech or to choose who they do or do not associate with. Now, obviously, if you tell a normal person “Hey, we don’t have anything in common bud, so hit the road” that person will think: “okay, you don’t have to tell me twice… I’m already gone!” They go away and that’s that. Both parties can happily pursue their own interests, live their own lives, and not infringe on the rights of each other. But that’s not what happens with Snowflakes. They demand that all conform to what THEY want. This demanding psychological nature of some individuals is a huge clue to their internal mental/emotional landscape.
There is a lot of pathology in our society, from corrupt politicians and world leaders, to their servants: mainstream science and education. And because of them, there are huge inequities in our societies which are putting enormous pressures on all systems and everything is cracking, deteriorating, falling apart, wherever you look. From human rights to education to health care to employment security (hell, just basic jobs would be nice!) to the economy, to fundamental needs like clean water and nourishing food for all. So, yeah, there are gaps where pathological types can come in and offer faux solutions and take over systems.
Unfortunately, people who do not have enough knowledge or awareness – especially of the real world, history and psychopathology – are easily used as tools against the very things that could help them.