Re: Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 7:52:08 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 5:03:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> This replaces space, time, particles, fields with histories.
>>
>> I think this is compatible with universal machines.
>>
>>
>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/histories-of-phenomenally-everything-hope/
>>
>>
>> - pt
>>
>
> This illustrates a problem with the epistemology of physics. It stems from 
> Newton's laws, in particular the second law of motion F = ma. On the left 
> hand side we have the dynamics in a force. We have on the right a physical 
> quantity in the mass of a body as a scalar quantity. We then have the 
> acceleration 
>
> a = lim_{Δt → 0}Δ^2x/Δt^2 = d^2x/dt^2.
>
> This then multiplies the physical scalar mass to give a dynamical, which 
> means measurable, force that has a direction. We can then think of this as 
> a strange equation that multiplies a physical quantity by a geometric 
> quantity that then gives a dynamical force that is physical. Issac Newton 
> wrote this according to a construction called fluxions, which in time gave 
> was to the calculus based more on Leibniz and ultimately Weierstrass. Yet 
> the early period was full of roiling controversy over what we meant by 
> these infinitesimals and so forth. The geometric aspect of Newton's second 
> law appeared to have a different meaning from what would be expected of 
> something physical.
>
> This confusion continues into general relativity. We might write the 
> Einstein field equation as 
>
> Geometric curvature = physical dynamics,
>
> where Einstein was most enamored with the left hand side, calling it 
> marble, while the right hand side he cited as wood. There is the mixing of 
> categories in general relativity that is remarkably similar to Newtonian 
> mechanics. The general theory of relativity is based on the equivalence 
> principle, and this tells us that for a sufficiently local frame there is 
> no experiment that can determine if the frame is global in free space or in 
> a gravitational field. This gives the sort of calculus rule, small frames 
> removes geometric information and thus dynamics, and the geometrodynamical 
> theory is built from atlas-chart constructions on such infinitesimal frames.
>
> General relativity gives geometry more of an active role. There may be 
> gravitational waves, undulations of space that evolve in time, that we 
> observe by the physical displacement of interferometer elements. We have in 
> our minds these mental models of space and spacetime, but ultimately we 
> have a category problem; space and spacetime while defined by clocks and 
> rulers, is not in of itself something that has direct physics. 
>
> We might then consider quantum gravitation. I think that spacetime is an 
> emergent property of quantum entanglement. Given a group G for the 
> symmetries of a quantum system or field, then in the Cartan decomposition G 
> = H×K the subgroup H is G modulo the action of K so H = G/K, and for a 
> quantum system this means the wave function is invariant with respect to 
> some description. Such as for entangled spins, the entangled wave function 
> has no description according to the spins. 
>
> In general relativity dynamics can be thought of as what extremizes the 
> action S = ∫d^4x sqrt(g)R, for R the Ricci curvature. Action and entropy 
> share an equivalency under the euclideanized map t/ħ = 1/kT for t time and 
> T temperature. We can also work this within complexity, and with quantum 
> gravitation the importance is with entanglement entropy or complexity. This 
> means that quantum gravitation is built from quantum states, which as we 
> all should be aware are not ontological entities in a standard sense. We 
> still have physics, in particular the aspect of physics that conveys 
> geometric or spatial relationship content, that is not ontologically solid. 
> This appears to be a fundamental aspect of physics, or at least physics as 
> we can understand.
>
> For this reason I think ideas that have spacetime composed of little 
> elements that are physical are not likely correct. This has been a long 
> standing critique I have of quantum gravitation theories outside of string 
> theory. This is not to say I think string theory has everything sewed up. 
> However, these various ideas such as LQG, DT and SD etc seem to have 
> category conflicts.
>
> LC
>
>
I should note that in my histories framework (which is all it is right now) 
I added

*29 Jan 2019*

By “historical paths (curves or walks)”, “Histories have a path 
representation as a sequence”, I mean sequence in terms of having a 
linearly ordered index I, so each element of the history is indexed:

(στ,φ)ᵢ i ∈ I



The type of "linearly ordered index" I is not specified, so it could be 
discrete or continuous, in principle.


- pt

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

Re: Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 5:03:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> This replaces space, time, particles, fields with histories.
>
> I think this is compatible with universal machines.
>
>
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/histories-of-phenomenally-everything-hope/
>
>
> - pt
>

This illustrates a problem with the epistemology of physics. It stems from 
Newton's laws, in particular the second law of motion F = ma. On the left 
hand side we have the dynamics in a force. We have on the right a physical 
quantity in the mass of a body as a scalar quantity. We then have the 
acceleration 

a = lim_{Δt → 0}Δ^2x/Δt^2 = d^2x/dt^2.

This then multiplies the physical scalar mass to give a dynamical, which 
means measurable, force that has a direction. We can then think of this as 
a strange equation that multiplies a physical quantity by a geometric 
quantity that then gives a dynamical force that is physical. Issac Newton 
wrote this according to a construction called fluxions, which in time gave 
was to the calculus based more on Leibniz and ultimately Weierstrass. Yet 
the early period was full of roiling controversy over what we meant by 
these infinitesimals and so forth. The geometric aspect of Newton's second 
law appeared to have a different meaning from what would be expected of 
something physical.

This confusion continues into general relativity. We might write the 
Einstein field equation as 

Geometric curvature = physical dynamics,

where Einstein was most enamored with the left hand side, calling it 
marble, while the right hand side he cited as wood. There is the mixing of 
categories in general relativity that is remarkably similar to Newtonian 
mechanics. The general theory of relativity is based on the equivalence 
principle, and this tells us that for a sufficiently local frame there is 
no experiment that can determine if the frame is global in free space or in 
a gravitational field. This gives the sort of calculus rule, small frames 
removes geometric information and thus dynamics, and the geometrodynamical 
theory is built from atlas-chart constructions on such infinitesimal frames.

General relativity gives geometry more of an active role. There may be 
gravitational waves, undulations of space that evolve in time, that we 
observe by the physical displacement of interferometer elements. We have in 
our minds these mental models of space and spacetime, but ultimately we 
have a category problem; space and spacetime while defined by clocks and 
rulers, is not in of itself something that has direct physics. 

We might then consider quantum gravitation. I think that spacetime is an 
emergent property of quantum entanglement. Given a group G for the 
symmetries of a quantum system or field, then in the Cartan decomposition G 
= H×K the subgroup H is G modulo the action of K so H = G/K, and for a 
quantum system this means the wave function is invariant with respect to 
some description. Such as for entangled spins, the entangled wave function 
has no description according to the spins. 

In general relativity dynamics can be thought of as what extremizes the 
action S = ∫d^4x sqrt(g)R, for R the Ricci curvature. Action and entropy 
share an equivalency under the euclideanized map t/ħ = 1/kT for t time and 
T temperature. We can also work this within complexity, and with quantum 
gravitation the importance is with entanglement entropy or complexity. This 
means that quantum gravitation is built from quantum states, which as we 
all should be aware are not ontological entities in a standard sense. We 
still have physics, in particular the aspect of physics that conveys 
geometric or spatial relationship content, that is not ontologically solid. 
This appears to be a fundamental aspect of physics, or at least physics as 
we can understand.

For this reason I think ideas that have spacetime composed of little 
elements that are physical are not likely correct. This has been a long 
standing critique I have of quantum gravitation theories outside of string 
theory. This is not to say I think string theory has everything sewed up. 
However, these various ideas such as LQG, DT and SD etc seem to have 
category conflicts.

LC
 

>
>
> Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)
>  
>
> *or* Everything Histories (EH)
>  
>
>
> 
>  
>
> *Perhaps… we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” 
> he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find 
> methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the 
> present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in 
> empty space.*
> — Albert Einstein
>  
>
> In a HOPE-ful ontology, histories  are 
> the fundamental constituents of the universe. They replace spacetime 
> 

Re: Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Jan 2019, at 21:12, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 7:29:43 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Jan 2019, at 12:03, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> This replaces space, time, particles, fields with histories.
>> 
>> I think this is compatible with universal machines.
>> 
>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/histories-of-phenomenally-everything-hope/
>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> That space and time, and energy, emerges from histories is compatible with 
> mechanism; even necessary; with mechanism.
> 
> With mechanism you need to convince the universal machine, and the only way 
> too do that, is to let doing the work and discovering this by itself. That 
> has been partially done, and the logic of the observable is a quantum logic, 
> and should be the one that von Neumann and Birkhoff were searching,and which 
> is the one defining all the relative probabilities, imposing a unique 
> measure, like with Gleason theorem.
> 
> A history is not a curve in some space though. A history is defined by a 
> universal number U, its number local data X, and the sequence of steps which 
> follows from U and X (like the phi_U,s(X), s = 0, 1, 2, …).
> 
> Continua and analog situations officers from the first person indeterminacy 
> on all relative computations + the structure imposed by the modal theology of 
> the machine (the intensional variants of auto reference imposed by 
> incompleteness).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By  "historical paths (curves or walks)", "Histories have a path 
> representation as a sequence" I mean sequences as having a linearly ordered 
> index I  [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order ], so each element of 
> the history is indexed: 
> 
>  (στ,φ)ᵢ   i ∈ I
> 
> (So can mean sequence as you defined it.)

OK. Just note that with a computation (even with oracle), the sequence is 
determined by the given of a universal machine/number, the input, and then the 
sequence of natural number, playing the role of index steps.

Bruno



> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 7:29:43 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Jan 2019, at 12:03, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> This replaces space, time, particles, fields with histories.
>
> I think this is compatible with universal machines.
>
>
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/histories-of-phenomenally-everything-hope/
>
>
>
>
> That space and time, and energy, emerges from histories is compatible with 
> mechanism; even necessary; with mechanism.
>
> With mechanism you need to convince the universal machine, and the only 
> way too do that, is to let doing the work and discovering this by itself. 
> That has been partially done, and the logic of the observable is a quantum 
> logic, and should be the one that von Neumann and Birkhoff were 
> searching,and which is the one defining all the relative probabilities, 
> imposing a unique measure, like with Gleason theorem.
>
> A history is not a curve in some space though. A history is defined by a 
> universal number U, its number local data X, and the sequence of steps 
> which follows from U and X (like the phi_U,s(X), s = 0, 1, 2, …).
>
> Continua and analog situations officers from the first person 
> indeterminacy on all relative computations + the structure imposed by the 
> modal theology of the machine (the intensional variants of auto reference 
> imposed by incompleteness).
>
> Bruno
>




By  "historical paths (curves or walks)", "Histories have a path 
representation as a sequence" I mean sequences as having a linearly ordered 
index I  [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order ], so each element of 
the history is indexed: 

 (στ,φ)ᵢ   i ∈ I

(So can mean sequence as you defined it.)

- pt


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Jan 2019, at 12:03, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> This replaces space, time, particles, fields with histories.
> 
> I think this is compatible with universal machines.
> 
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/histories-of-phenomenally-everything-hope/



That space and time, and energy, emerges from histories is compatible with 
mechanism; even necessary; with mechanism.

With mechanism you need to convince the universal machine, and the only way too 
do that, is to let doing the work and discovering this by itself. That has been 
partially done, and the logic of the observable is a quantum logic, and should 
be the one that von Neumann and Birkhoff were searching,and which is the one 
defining all the relative probabilities, imposing a unique measure, like with 
Gleason theorem.

A history is not a curve in some space though. A history is defined by a 
universal number U, its number local data X, and the sequence of steps which 
follows from U and X (like the phi_U,s(X), s = 0, 1, 2, …).

Continua and analog situations officers from the first person indeterminacy on 
all relative computations + the structure imposed by the modal theology of the 
machine (the intensional variants of auto reference imposed by incompleteness).

Bruno



> 
> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> Histories Of Phenomenally Everything (HOPE)
> 
>  
> or Everything Histories (EH)
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  
> Perhaps… we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he 
> wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find 
> methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the 
> present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in 
> empty space.
> — Albert Einstein
> 
>  
> In a HOPE-ful ontology, histories  are the 
> fundamental constituents of the universe. They replace spacetime 
> —by
>  embedding(bits of) spacetime within themselves.
> 
> Spacetime is derived from histories. (Some like the word emergeshere.) The 
> spacetime continuum is replaced with historical paths (curves or walks).
>  
> There are possible histories and actual histories. Possible histories 
> reenforce or interfere with each other (via the path integral).
>  
> Histories replace not only spacetime, but particles and fields as well, which 
> are defined in terms of ensembles of histories. Histories have physical 
> properties, so a particular history can be an ‘electron’ history, for example.
>  
> Histories have a path representation as a sequence going backwards in time. 
> An element of the path sequence could be (στ,φ), where στ is some sort of 
> spacetime-like parameter and φ is a physical parameter.* The reverse paths 
> (going forward in time) are called futures. In a biverse (reflective path 
> integral  
> universe), retrocausality could be a feature.
>  
> Underspecified above: The type of path (sequence) and στ; how histories 
> interact.
> * In a panpsychist theory 
> , it would 
> be (στ,φ,ψ), where ψ is the psychical parameter.
> 
> HOPE can also be Histories Of Practically Everything
> 
>  
> Philip Thrif 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.