[Defining nature the set of observations produced by logical rules] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

Pages:1


Defining nature the set of observations produced by logical rules

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: MikeHelland

Hello,

I have something that I think this forum would be interested in reading and providing feedback on.

The paper can be summarized like this:

Observation is the result of an interaction defined by a logical rule

The set of all observations is nature, and nature (according to Goedel) cannot be complete and consistent at the same time

I can create a set of encompassing statements (of which nature is only a subset) to describe nature completely and consistently

This encompassing set is allowed to evolve predictably while the subset we call nature evolves unpredictablly with uncertainty

Essentially, I think I'm providing, at the least, a break through for a Final Theory of Everything by showing nature and its encompassing nature in a single computational model formalized as, you guessed it, simple programs.

Please let me know what you think:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm


Posted by: Gunnar Tomasson

Mike:

Here are some comments on the first two sections of your paper:

1. We have identified four forces that account for every observable phenomenon in nature: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces. To provide some justification to the claim that the forces and the particles of matter that they act on can explain nature consider the world around us. Every object you see, including yourself, is a nicely pieced together atom puzzle.

The atom itself consists of particles of matter. These individual pieces of matter work together in two ways to make an atom. Some particles are bound together to create larger particles like the proton and neutron in the atom's nucleus, and some particles orbit the nucleus. The forces are responsible for both holding the nucleus together and causing the electron to orbit it.

It follows that if atoms make up everything we see the forces create all the objects we see. But they do more than that.

The same forces that hold an atom together are the same forces that put them into action.

Comment:

This last proposition is problematic with respect to the atom viewed, Niels Bohr-fashion, as miniature solar system. For, as Newton observed with respect to the solar system towards the end of ‘Opticks’:

“The vis inertić is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this principle alone there never could have been any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies into motion; and now that they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving the motion.”

2. As it falls to the ground an apple progresses through many changes of its position and velocity; as a result the apple's fall can be modeled as a series of states. When something changes state like this, a consequence is the object exists in multiple states that must be differentiated from each other. This process is called time. When something changes state, time is the result.

Comment:

As indicated by Paul Davies’ following comments, the full implications of the Relativity of all Motion have yet to sink in insofar as the conventional concept of Time as function of Motion is concerned:

“…Einstein’s view of time forces us to conclude that, if the universe as a whole is naively [?] treated like a mundane mechanical system, its energy is obliged to vanish. This remarkable result, known to physicists for many years, has profound consequences for a quantum description. In quantum physics, energy always goes hand in hand with time. In a sense, the amount of energy determines the rate at which time passes – the beat of the quantum clock, if you like. No energy means the quantum clock ceases to tick: time bafflingly drops out of the physical description altogether. So quantum cosmology, treated in this manner, makes no reference at all to time: in effect, time has totally vanished too!” (‘About Time – Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’, Penguin Books, 1995, p. 180)

This complex subject matter is addressed at length in my post of November 22, 2003 on the NKS Forum Thread entitled ‘Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’.

3. Now if all the true statements produced by these rules were present, the system would be said to be complete. There is an important consequence of this. According to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem this logical system cannot be both complete and internally consistent at the same time. Well, it can, but only if you use a larger encompassing system in its description.

Comment:

In the above post, I concluded with respect to Gödel’s theorem as follows:

The concept of “theory” as a UNITARY structure implies that “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem” is NOT applicable to “realistic mathematics” – for UNITY is akin to a POINT in Euclidean geometry with respect to which the “incompleteness” issue cannot arise.

Gunnar


Posted by: MikeHelland

Hello and thank you for your insightful response!

>As indicated by Paul Davies’ following comments, the full implications of the Relativity of all Motion have yet to sink in insofar as the conventional concept of Time as function of Motion is concerned:

Yes this is the conventional concept, and what I am proposing is a different concept of time.

Intead of motion existing in time, I propose that motion creates time.

There is an interesting and subtle difference that the third section of the paper should help illustrate as it describes a computer model that I am aiming to build.

Because time is created by a motion (a quantum of action), and motion is the final result of logical rules being evaluated along an underlying version of time, the concept of time requires another version of time.

This defintion is not cyclic, but it is self referencing. Which is another good reason why I think that the Incompleteness Theorem applies to time (as well space and matter and all of nature for that matter).


Posted by: MikeHelland

Hello again,

I realize that changing the concept of time is a "big hammer" to solve some problems, but as well as solving the incompatibilities of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, my proposal may also resolve all four of Zeno's time and motion paradoxes including the tricky "Stadium" paradox:

(Due to how this messageboard renders HTML the "X"s should be viewed as spaces.)

Solution to Zeno's Stadium Paradox

We begin with my concept of time: time is created by motion, time exists because of motion. This is contrary to the widely held conventional concept of time where time is a function of motion; that is, motion exists in time.

Knowing this we can show the error in the statdium paradox is that the movement that Zeno is proposing is simply not allowed. He suggests that we have rows of bodies:


XXXXA1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4


and that row B will move to be in line with:


XXXXA1 A2 A3 A4
XXXXB1 B2 B3 B4


And that we should regard this motion as occuring in one instant in time. By adding another row moving in the opposite direction Zeno shows that the interval of T actually equals twice itself. Like so:


XXXXA1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
XXXXXXXXC1 C2 C3 C4


moves to:


XXXXA1 A2 A3 A4
XXXXB1 B2 B3 B4
XXXXC1 C2 C3 C4


We see that in this one movement that occurs in one istant of time, C moved past one space in A but it moved past two spaced in B. Observing this Zeno tries to show that if this movement occured in one instant of time depending on how you measure how far something moved in that time you can show that time is not equal to itself.

Zeno's error is that he assumes these two measurements of the motion must be equal, presumably because the uniformity of the time continium that this motion occurs in. But if we accept my proposition, that time is created by movement, we know that Zeno's presumption is incorrect, that the two time intervals measured by relating the position of two sets of bodies moving at varied speeds are not in fact quantums of a uniform continuim but two disagreeing relatvistic observations of time.

In that case the movement Zeno suggests is not allowed in reality. I will explain why. Starting with:


XXXXA1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
XXXXXXXXC1 C2 C3 C4


We know that the B row is going to move all the way down one seat. Presumably it will look like this after one instant:


XXXXA1 A2 A3 A4
XXXXB1 B2 B3 B4


But I say that this is not an instant! What we have observed here are four separate movements resulting in four separate instants. How would I want to represent our bodies after a single isntant? Like so:


XXXXA1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 XXXXB4


We see here that since only B4 has moved one space only one interval of time has elapsed. Now that that time has been created as a result of movement, B3 is free to move one space over to create its next moment of time. If we consider each bodily movement one instant of time now Zeno's observations will indeed agree, this discrete movement of bodies will agree with quantum physics, and the paradox is resolved.




Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-2009 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings