Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:02:04 +0900
Dear Matti et al,
On Thursday, August 26, 1999 3:18 PM, Matti Pitkanen
<matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:
Subject: [time 618] Re: [time 616] Re: [time 611] Re: [time 610] Fwd
Marmet's reply #2again
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> > Dear Matti and Paul and Bill,
> >
> > Just a few philosophical comments...
> >
> > Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > >
> > snip
> > >
> > > [MP] I meant with 'works' that the redshift is large enough given the
> > > distance of hthe object. The required density seems so huge
> > > that it is difficult to understand how GRT cosmology could have coped
so
> > > well.
> > [PM]
> > > > -----------
> > > > >> If I remember correctly, the average recent density of matter
is roughly
> > > > >> one proton per cubic meter (correct me if I am wrong!). This is
by a
> > > > >> factor 10^-4 smaller than the needed density. This density
would be over
> > > > >> critical by factor of order 10^3 whereas Hubble's results
demonstrate that
> > > > >> density is subcritical by factor of order 10 at least (this is
bad news
> > > > >> for inflation theorists).
> > > > ----------
> > > > The paragraph above is what is written at so many places. It is
the most
> > > > non-scientific article in Cosmology.
> > > > "When you read: the average recent density of matter is roughly one
proton
> > > > per cubic meter"
> > > > Is this the result of a measurement? or the result of a theory? or
what?
> > >
> > > [MP] This is rough rule of thumb based on critical density according
> > > to standard cosmology. It is not a result of direct measurement:
> > > measurements of say Hubble telescope rely on redshifts etc.. and
> > > a model for cosmology. What one can say that the density reproducing
> > > redshifts is 10^4 times larger than this density. The factor of
> > > this order of magnitude requires dramatic revision of cosmology.
> > > GRT cosmology would be badly (mild word) wrong.
> > >
> > > This in turn makes wonder why so badly wrong theory migh have
survived so
> > > well. The problems of the theory are real but quantitatively rather
> > > innocent. One should understand why density is definitely subcritical
(TGD
> > > predicts this), why fluctuations in temperature are so small (TGD
explains
> > > also this whereas inflations is now in difficulties), one should
> > > understand apparement acceleration of expansion without introducing
> > > cosmological constant (TGD does also this), one should understand
> > > galaxy formation, etc...
> >
> > We have the example of the pre-Galileo-Copernicus cosmology as an
> > example! The models that are used to explain phenomena tend, as history
> > well illustrates, to follow a socio-political consensus. I remember
> > reading that it is know that the Big Bang theory is inherently
> > problematic, "it is just that no other alternative is palatable". The
> > Big Bang theory seems to be an extension of the religion based
> > cosmogonies that reassured the masses that the Universe has created for
> > humans by some ever loving Father. There is an emotional appeal to the
> > notion that the Universe, like our selves, has a finite beginning and
> > end and that we can trust our "common sense" to reassure us from our
> > insecurities.
>
> Actually the course of history was quite differenent.
> Big Bang solution were completely unexpected. Einstein himself was
> very disappointed and was ready to introduce cosmological constant in
> order to get static universe without beginning.
>
> What you meantion about socio-political consensus is true in short time
> scale: when inflationary models came in fashion it soon became clear that
> they do not really work: there was inflation of not quite working
> inflationary models. There are still people tinkering these models. TGD
> inspired cosmology has existed for more than ten years now and certainly
> many colleagues know about it but nothing happens because of
> socio-political situation in particle physics which has made impossible
> any progress after the string models became the official Truth (again
> it take only few years to unofficially realize that they do not work but
> who would dare to defy Witten).
>
>
> I believe that in long time scale we have left the pre-Galileo-Copernicus
> times. Scientific method forces sooner or later to give up dead theories.
> For instance, there are *very* few young people working with string
models
> and it is not difficult to guess the reason.
>
>
> >
> > [PM]
> > > > This is NOT the result of a measurement. Measurements always
report
> > > > missing matter. Intergalactic gravitational fields show that the
amount of
> > > > matter in the Universe in much larger.
> > > > This claim is a theoretical prediction assuming Einstein's General
> > > > Relativity. We know that this model does not work. They had to
invent the
> > > > inflationary universe to correct Eintein's theory. Astrophysicists
admit
> > > > all the time that there are problems, but they do not have the
courage to
> > > > change the model.
> >
> > Ah, but any time a measurement is made there is an inherent bias in the
> > measuring system! We can not expect to observe spectra with a cloud
> > chamber or particle trajectories with an interferometer! I admit that
it
> > is a bit naive to fully believe Lerner when he says in The Big Bang
> > Never Happened that the angular momentum distribution can be accurately
> > accounted for by a mathematical model that takes into account that
> > electro-magnetic forces are involved. Why are we so quick to defend a
> > mathematical theory that has obvious failures, viz singularities and no
> > time? We must be courageous! I can understand the "tenured"
professional
> > physicist being conservative, but at what price? What are we interested
> > in? The truth or the ego gratification?
> >
> > > GRT model is not complete. Inflationary scenario is in difficulties.
> > > I believe however that the geometrization of gravitation is correct:
> > > what is needed is to generalized spacetime concept: spacetime
> > > as a 4-surface and manysheeted spacetime concept are my medicines
> > > to the diseases of cosmology.
> >
> > The biggest problem we have, Matti, is that we do not understand the
> > basic concepts that you are using. I still do not understand what
Kahler
> > action or NMP. :-( I believe that you see something that we are
missing,
> > but the price of knowledge is the responsibility to explain yourself.
>
> The problem is that you are philosopher rather than
> theoretical physicists by education. There
> is nothing mysterious involved. Basic concepts of Riemannian geometry,
> fiber bundle theory, some elementary topology, basic variational
> principles. I could explain for centuries without
> any result if my audience has not never performed actual calculations
> in classical and quantum field theories and do not have practical grasp
> on the mathematics behind these concepts.
>
> What is lacking is what psychologists would perhaps call implicit
> knowledge, which one does not get without working hardly, doing
> calculations, guessing solution ansatze to field equation, etc... I spend
> 12 years in this business and learned to know Kaehler action
> like a good friend. It is very difficult to teach some-one to walk
> by giving mere verbal instructions about great principles of walking.
>
> But there is alternative possibility: to concentrate on philosophy in
> philosophical discussions. Forget the details of Kahler action and
strong
> NMP and think only what these variational principle dictate:
> dynamics of classical and subjective time evolution.
>
>
>
> > When I propose a dualism, i am burdened to explain why I believe this
is
> > so. I can not just say: "because I (or some "authority") said so! If we
> > are going to accept the "medicine" of manysheeted spacetime, we need to
> > understand why. BTW, you are not the only one proposing manysheeted
> > spacetime...
>
> It seems that quite many people are proposing manysheeted spacetime
> concept nowadays! Since I am not allowed to publish
> anything anyone of course can steal my ideas freely. Is this person
> possibly Sarfatti?
>
> We have been during last 4-5 years in same disccusion groups with Dr.
> Sarfatti and has been trying to steal my ideas all the time. Of course,
> only after not even-wrongizing them with his characteristic manner
> in every possible discussion group. He has not forgot to declare
> that I am a mad man also. The last hit was wormhole
> concept: someone in qmind group referred to Sarfatti and me as
> discovered of particle like wormholes! For roughly year ago Sarfatti
> told in qmind that he had suggested manysheeted spacetime for 15
> years ago! I could not believe my ears! The discussions with Sarfatti
> had demonstrated that he does not know absolutely anything even about
> elementary Riemann geometry, to say anything about topology! Couple of
> years ago Sarfatti began to talk about geometrodynamics and configuration
> space as his own inventions as also about the importance of quantum
> entanglement. I even found speculation about importance of neutrinos
> in biology in some discussion group! Well, Sarfatti is pop scientists and
> no one in his right maind takes him seriously so that I am not worried
> about Sarfatti.
>
> But Sarfatti is not the only one. Nobelist Josephson was with me in ECHO
> III conference held in Finland last year. My work
> together with person who had financiated me to the conference was about
> quantum self organization, totally new concept. In last Flagstaff
> conference Josephson had talk about quantum self organization, he
> mentioned even papers of participants of ECHO III conference but
carefully
> avoided mentioning our work! This is the situation in science nowadays.
> Perhaps the best characterization for big and pop sciences would be as
> the Noblest known forms of organized crime.
>
>
>
> >
> > snip
>
>
> > > > It is non-scientific and misleading claiming that the density of
matter is
> > > > the one calculated by one particlar model (one special case of
Einstein's
> > > > relativity), when observations and knowledge of spectroscopy lead
to a
> > > > quite different answer. By the way, my formation as a physicist is
in
> > > > spectroscopy.
> > >
> > > What I see as a problem is the huge discrepancy of order 10^4.
> > > If you are right then one can safely forget General Relativity in
> > > cosmological length scales and concentrate to rescue it in planetary
> > > length scales(;-).
> >
> > Wow, I would think that if we "forget General Relativity in
> > cosmological length scales" the whole Big Bang baby goes out the window
> > as well! Can we start with the experimental facts, as Heisenberg
> > teaches, and start over?
> >
> Certainly. But I am convinced that the basic principles of General
> Relativity remain. As I mentioned manysheeted spacetime surface concept
> solves nicely not only the problems of cosmology but also the anomalies
> of particle physics. Much bigger problem is the mystery of particle
> masses: Higgs mechanism is only able to reproduce particle masses
> but TGD predicts mass scales and masses and accuracy is better than
> per cent. The scandal of century is that theory with this predictive
> power cannot published: but this is socio-politics of big science
to-day.
> String models are the TOE now.
>
> > snip
> > [PM]
> > > > One must note that this is motion with
> > > > respect to the universe is NOT COMPATIBLE with Eeinstein's
Relativity.
> > > > According to Einstein, it must be impossible for the observer to
detect his
> > > > own motion. Einstein claimed that all velocities are "relative"
and that
> > > > there is no difference between us moving with respect to the
universe and
> > > > the universe moving with respect to us.
> > >
> > > One can however fix local frame with respect to which matter is at
rest.
> > > This is length scale dependent concept. In larger length scale
> > > the rest frame might well be different and this would give rise to
> > > motion of rest frames defined in various length scales with respect
> > > to other.
> >
> > The problem is that "rest" is not an absolute notion! This "fixing" is
> > what I call subjective and contingent upon local restraints...
> >
> 'Rest' is precisely defined mathematical notion: calculate
> the classical four momentum of 3-surface and find the frame in
> which 3-momentum vanishes. There is nothing subjective in it.
>
>
> > > In TGD framework the concept of scale becomes precise. Spacetime
sheets
> > > glued on large spacetime sheets define entire hierarchy of rest
frames
> > > moving with respect to each other. When one speaks of scale, also
> > > fractality is often involved. TGD cosmology is indeed fractal.
> > > Also fractal GRT cosmology has been recently proposed
> > > and was inspired by apparent acceleration of expansion.
> >
> > Question: Are their any constraints stemming from the cohomology
> > properties of the sheets, e.g. are the "movements" of the rest frames
> > constrained by the topology of the sheet that they are "glued" to?
> >
> The best answer is no. As long as smaller spacetime sheet stays inside
> larger, everything is ok. Illustrations would help immensely here.
>
>
> > > > According to Einstein, we should
> > > > not be able to detect that anisotropy of the radiation. You must
notice
> > > > that NOBODY has predicted that anisotropy before observing it.
However,
> > > > experimentally it is an experimental fact that this anisotropy is
> > > > observable in spite of Einstein's relativity.
> > > > My explanation of the phenomena requires a fixed frame of reference
as
> > > > explained in my book and some papers. This anisotropy is in
perfect
> > > > agreement with my description (and mass-energy conservation).
> >
> > Could we get the same prediction from a model that assumes that the
> > anisotropy is related to an stochastic fluctuation in the average of
the
> > observations of interaction observers? This is my idea... I see that
the
> > "cosmos" that we observe has such and such properties because the Local
> > Systems can agree enough. We have a consensus reality!
> >
>
> I would answer no. What experimentalists strive at is to eliminate
> stochastic fluctuations.
>
> > snip
> > [PM]
> > > > A model of gravity that started to exist later is NOT COMPATIBLE
with
> > > > Einstein's Relativity.
> > > > It is an Ad Hoc hypothesis. It is like before Galileo when the
circle was
> > > > a perfect figure and they decided to draw circles inside circles
instead of
> > > > drawing ellipses. When a theory does not work (like relativity),
we must
> > > > find a new one, instead of putting a cataplasm on the old theory.
> > > > ---------------
> >
> > YES! Please!
> >
> >
> > There is more than mathematical consistency involved! Consistency
> > merely implies existence, not observable by us "fact"! Look at how
> > Hitoshi uses the R-W metric to explain the "illusion" of an expanding
> > universe! Why can't we face the fact that we each use our own clock and
> > ruler to define our poset of observations? What is so scary? "recent
> > estimates", by who and based upon what? I know that I am being
childish,
> > but really, when do the observational facts count less than some
> > markings on a chalkboard?
> > I will not get into the problem that I have with singularities and
> > "nulls"!
> >
>
> Of course there is more than consistency involved. Conscistency and
> simplicity are however basic requirements on theories.
>
> I have nothing against clocks and rulers. We have discussed this topic
> in length and my proposal is that the concept of clock involves
> construction of theory of consciousness, mere set-theoretic or geometric
> concepts are not enough.
>
> I take seriously the 'recent estimates', say for mass density of the
> universe: the accuracy of recent day physics is amazing. For instance,
> what they do in CERN, looks almost magic to me and I feel deep awe.
> It is easy to play with hypothesis and theories but experimental
> work at this level is something extremely difficult, already because it
> requires collaboration of thousands of highly intelligent individuals.
>
> What I do not take too seriously are theories and models. I remember
> my last particle physics conference: about neutrinos held in Finland.
> There were models after models: every modeller explained some pieces
> of data and 'forgot' those things the model could not explain.
> The big problems of theoretical physics are now on theoretical side.
> Holistic view is simply missing and very few remember the meaning of
> intellectual honesty. The reasons for this is that good science
> is nowadays defined as optimized production of publications.
>
>
> > snip
>
>
>
> > [PM]
> > > > There are so many things wrong in the Bing Bang model. It never
happened.
> > > > Tell me, since there were nothing before the Big Bang, what is the
cause of
> > > > the Big Bang?
> > > > ------------
> > [MP]
> > > This is good question and goes to the core problem of present day
physics:
> > > the relationhip between subjective and geometric time.
> > >
> > > I see nothing problematic in Robertson Walker cosmology
> > > geometrically. It is well defined spacetime manifold with boundary,
the
> > > big bang. If you have soap film spanned by a frame it is not useful
to
> > > talk about the state of soap film as causated by the boundary
> > > values at frame. The question what 'caused the state of soap film'
at
> > > frame is not sensical. Situation is same now.
> >
> > What about the old mathematical property of transitivity? We either
> > have a "before" and "after" or nothing at all! To postulate that
> > existence "began" is a monstrous contradiction!
>
> I agree completely. I have been talking all the time about difference
> of subjective and geometric time: with respect to geometric time
> nothing 'begins', it just exists. This new view does not
> change basic structure of physics: physics has managed in ingenious
> manner to circumvent the problems caused by the lacking theory of
> consciousness. The new things come on the side of consciousness:
> quantum mechanics ceases to be mysterious toolbox of calculational
> recipes.
>
> One must be realistic: the physicists of past have done brilliant
> work, the basic theories, even cosmology, are surprisingly detailed
> and tested in many manners. There is no return to pre-Einstein times.
> We cannot throw away, we must generalize.
>
>
> > What I see going on is
> > that the "observation" of events by a finite LS "began" at some point
> > and will, inevitably, end at some other. To assume that "existence in
> > itself" is contingent upon any particular observation is pedantic! Yes,
> > the particulars properties of the observation are contingent, but the
> > "potential to be observed" is NOT!
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > > What is wrong with the identification of psychological time
experienced
> > > by conscious observers with geometric time extrapolated to the notion
> > > that some kind of time=constant front='now' propagates in geometric
> > > spacetime. This identification indeed leads to your question what
> > > caused the initial values at the moment of big bang, At least to the
> > > problem what dictated the initial values.
> >
> > Yes, Matti, but that is not the point! if there were no "psychological
> > time" possible, these questions would not "exist"! Why don't we just
> > consider that we are projecting an actuality, independent of the
> > observers involved, and this projection acts to "fix" "initial values"
> > that are consistent with the poset of observations of the interacting
> > observers? There is no need to assume that there is a space-time with
> > definite particle trajectories outside of observation, all that is
> > needed is to understand that posets of observations are ordered both by
> > physical causality (laws of motion, conservation laws, etc.) and
logical
> > consistency/precedence restrictions.
>
>
> As I explained above, geometric time is absolutely crucial for entire
> physics done hitherto. Physics has been able to circumvent all
> difficulties caused by the lack of proper theory of consciousness bu
> giving up geometric time would leave absolutely nothing.
> Giving up the spacetime out there would mean return to pre-Newtonian
> days and start from scratch! If some super mathematician can reproduce
> recent day physics withouth ever mentioning geometric spacetime, I can
> only admire: this would be heroic deed.
>
> I have gone during last twenty years through entire physics,
> looked what new TGD implies in quark, hadron, nuclear,.... levels
> and learned that I must be realist: this construct is something which I
> can only generalize, not throw away.
>
> The idea of Pratt is nice but its applications might be at totally
> different level: in computing rather than consciousness and basic
physics.
> How to reproduce the effective action describing CP breaking in
> kaon system or Cabibbi-Maskawa-Kobayashi matrix describing the mixing of
> quarks from this idea? This one should be able to do.
>
> Putting it still differently. Theoretical physics has always created
> its mathematics. Taking piece of mathematics and building physics from
> it has not worked. The sad story of quantum groups is excellent
> example of this. In TGD I learned the same lesson: functional integral
> approach simply did not make sense at all. This forced to discover
> configuration space geometry. Later came p-adic mass calculations
> and gradual realization that entire quantum TGD involves p-adics in
> essential manner. Some simple counter arguments against p-adic
> evolution implied by unitarity and simple argument inspired
> by p-adic length scale hypothesis led to the discovery of infinite
> primes.
>
>
> I spend a lot of time by discovering counter arguments against my own
> mental constructs. This method might be very productive also
> in Pratt's case. Does fundamental mind-matter causation allow
> genuine free will or does it imply that the evolutions of mind and
> matter fix each other uniquely: if this is the case then one has
> just materialism and mind becomes epiphenomenon? Does this theory
> explain passive and active aspects of consciousness? Or is the theory
> able to circumvent basic counterarguments of Chalmers: what
differentiates
> between matter and mind in so deep manner that we can really call
> mind 'mind' and matter 'matter' and not vice versa?
>
>
>
>
> > Instead of assuming that there exists some divine entity "out there"
> > making sure that Laws are obeyed, why can't we consider that local
> > logical considerations are necessary and sufficient?
> >
> I am not sure what you mean by some divine entity out there.
> Perhaps our refer to the concepts of objective reality, configuration
> space, imbedding space and spacetime as dynamical concept.
>
> The problem is that entire science relies on the idea
> that there is something out there, the objective reality. This was the
> great discovery of Galileo and we know the consequences. I am ready to
> believe that Galileo was almost right: the only new thing is that that
> something out there (as also in here) changes in every moment of
> consciousness.
>
> One can perhaps build nice philosophy without the idea of
> objective reality (realities) assumption but I simply have no idea how to
> do any physics without this assumption.
>
> I have nothing against locality.
> Entire TGD relies on locality appropriately generalized. Quantum TGD
> is local with respect to configuration space. Kahler action is local
> variational principle. It is good to think what locality is: before
> one can event formulate this concept one has assumed a lot.
> One has assumed space and topology telling what the concept of nearness
> is. Already these assumptions means someting out there.
If speaking in my context, I would say these assumptions are the ones on
our mind structure. Mind does not exist "out there" but inside us.
I understand by your postings that you are a believer of the Modern Science
initiated by Galileo Galilei. But consider what science is. It explains the
world _for_ us, i.e. for human beings' convenience. It does not serve other
creatures and existences. It is just useful for human beings; it helps us
to make/produce things and lets us be able to operate other things out
there, but it would not help other creatures and might be even harmful to
them. Science is a human knowledge that is made to be useful just for
humans, and rationalism is another name of this anthropocentric attitude of
the Modern Age. Ratio is as it means the ratio/counting by human beings.
Science is a system of knowledge to tell us how to behave to avoid dangers
and to get benefit from nature. It is just a knowledge of humans'
surviving, not the understanding of the world for the general beings.
In other words, science is from its birth an anthropocentric production of
human beings. This explains the scientists' favor with the anthropic
principle. There is no other way for humans' _knowledge_ than to be
anthropocentric, for the purpose of humans' knowledge is to serve humans'
convenience, while _understanding_ is different.
The characteristic of the western culture/civilization in the Modern Age is
its power to control nature. This was a success of the rationalism in the
short run.
But they forget that there is the inner world, the world NOT "out there."
At least staying on the level of what you can see and touch, the
rationalism works well for you and gives you many conveniences by letting
you exploit what you want from others and nature. But the world cannot
afford to serve you anymore and would not be tolerant to your further
exploitation.
The age is changing. The pursuit of the anthropocentric/rationalistic
knowledge would not be our future. The necessary thought now is the
understanding of the inner world. No further ability of controlling the
outside would be necessary. It would lack the balance of our understanding
and would ruin our world outwardly as well as inwardly: Remind what changes
science brought to the earth in the Modern Age. They were actually
convenient for us, but do you not feel they are _too_ convenient _just_ for
humans?
The pursuit of the understanding of the inner world is now needed to
recover the balance of understanding which has been lost through the biased
pursuit of the anthropocentric rationalistic Modern Science.
> If one takes your idea to logical exteme, one can make only one
> conclusion, stop totally attempts to understand the world and just
> experience it.
>
>
> > > The correct question to ask is what is the mechanism causing
> > > the conents of our conscious experience to be concentrated around
> > > definite moment T of geometric time (as it seems) and why the
> > > value of T increases at least statistically. This unavoidably leads
to
> > > a theory of consciousness. which cannot be done yet publicly.
> >
> > This is one of the aspects of Pratt's dualism! The connection between
> > time and consciousness becomes obvious when we consider that "time" is
> > meaningless independent of observation! When we require a "mechanism"
to
> > "cause the contents of our ... experience to be concentrated
around...",
> > we are tacitly assuming that there is a unique T increasing ("at least
> > statistically").
>
> Yes. I am assuming geometric time. I do not believe that mere
> irreversible subjective time measured just as ticks
> (as it seems to be in Pratt's theory) without any other
> properties can explain the geometric aspects of psychological time:
> complexity and macroscopy do not bring in these geometric aspects of
> psychological time. This would be magic which rarely works in this
> bad world.
>
> My materialistic colleagues often say that consciousness somehow
> 'emerges' when system becomes sufficiently complicated. This is wishful
> thinking and does not say anything about consciousness. Similar wishful
> thinking is the idea about discrete net of points which somehow gives
rise
> to continuous spacetime at 'macroscopic' level and that Riemannian
> geometry in some miraculous manner establishes itself. I do
> not believe in this kind of hat tricks.
>
>
>
> > Why? Is it not enough to consider that each observer
> > has a clock and can make observations (of each other!) and that classes
> > of observers that have similar enough observations tend (statistically)
> > to be able to agree? This "mechanism" looks suspiciously, to me, like
> > "God"!
> >
>
> The basic problem is 'observer' as something pregiven: natural in
> dualistic approach where you have mind and matter
> as something a priori given. Selves however get drowsy and can sleep
> and die. One useful potential objection against dualistic approach is
> how to describe what it is to be unconscious
> observer in dualistic framework.
>
>
> Best,
> MP
>
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:31 JST