Friday, May 25, 2012

Foundational Assumptions in the Bottleneck of Quantum Logic

Foundational Assumptions in the Bottleneck of Quantum Logic

L. Edgar Otto
    25 May, 2012

{Posting projects halted for awhile due to the drama of roommates...}

This is directed to Pitkanen as a link in the comments but is directed in general to the physics community that begins to concern itself with foundations.

I tried to make an informal and not exhaustive list of the positions I feel fundamental and inadequately  addressed by the existing physics and philosophy community but these are still too vague in the expressing and there are so many of which these have come up in my postings if one understand them.

We have another interesting metaphor in the relation of physics as part of life systems theory... in the analogs at the nano level we see articles that mimic the behavior of molecules.  That life sciences and physics are more intimately related in abstract structures than so far expected.

So I use this Science Daily article today for a background of the theme of this post. 

In the quantum phenomenology a photon can cover a wide span of atoms of which it is not clear or certain as to which one adsorbs the photon.  This as with general reasoning along these lines is forced into too strick a reductionism in the quasifinite non necessary world of higher abstract generalizations of space- that the first working principle that asks what ones are too limiting for a wider physics.

In this article we see that a single photon can initiate several places (we already know that there are connections between molecules with some proximity to each other including the conformal  shape as in proteins and the new nano forms and apparently in the  so called "water memory" idea of hydrogen bonding.  As far as I can tell by needle in Pitkanens description of "acupuncture" think more like photon as the minimum idea of our appeal to something physical.

We have here the first hierarchy problem of the confusion of the many and the one thing- the degrees of freedom if you will not so limited to a rigid time line and one function history.  The many-worlds or the multiverse are the same problem on scales including what may or may not be the nature of amplification, or arising at an initial source this from the ideas of complex space or some sort of idea of rigid stances toward rest or motion in a system with separate emphasis that in effect bifurcates the foundations of the first physics.

The counting of things, including the number of photons and there directions, the branching if not the possible branching, does seem intelligible.  It is now a matter of interpretation then as to in what theoretical system we restrict the count and on what assumption of principle, working ones at least.  Science seems to deny where some things in it is certain and treat some things that are applied more generally as if their restrictions are the limit of knowing and are certain. In this respect the falsification method is an affront to both free will and reason of which nature herself does not so self restriction or claim to "know" even as a matter of probabilities.

I ask then of Pitkanen, could his system have foreseen this effect in the article on photosynthesis?  Does this not imply abstractly, and yes toward a lower scale, some idea of many sheets, even real but not asserted negative influences or shadow ones on a system deeper than the quantum logic?  How would the TGD phenomenology explain this let alone the string theories- as both aim for the idea of a more rigid mechanism of physicality thus to claim it as science?   Can it be done without the undermining of the quantum view itself or a least a modification- certainly not just an intuitive sense of modifying it- that goes for the relativistic concepts also?

I could simply ask is this a surprise to Pitkanen.  From my last comment on his page and in indirect addressing to hammed, my worldview in these matters have not been a surprise for quiet a long time. There is no stream of consciousness where even in a continuous system as so grounded we have the facticity of one trace of history that we say alas, there is the nature of what is sentient or for that matter what is history or a timeline as an actual fact.  We cannot go even to the origins assuming that there is a rigid distinction between the symmetric or the irreversible, always, even if on some level of generalization this intelligibly applies.  That conscious is after all more like a delta than a stream is a more organic possibility within familiar equations that do not blow up upon some limit or vanish into some reduction.  Consciousness is a singularity in as much as space and time itself is such a singularity complex of which there are many forms we relate to as particles or principles- even perhaps the substance in a system of thought itself.

By these considerations even the TGD idea is a thinly disguised tendency toward understand what it seems the brane theories try to understand- and regard to some degree as a level of reality that ends in absolutes or nothingness in a rigid way, braiding, knotting and the like are to be regarded as diversions from the actuality of space and material structures- as perhaps only the imagination to some point of analysis of such neutral or irrelevant effects at least in the eye of a higher generalization even if it one of relative views.  The brane ideas are not as fundamental as they could be even if we adjust the principles of the underlying assumptions. 

One does not need an organic model to observe analogous effects, these exist abstractly even with the dimensions or the idea of shadows or supersymmetry in say one molecule of so many atoms- not surprisingly does the ATP questions of energy come up again here as if there is a shadow atom in some natural and regularly symmetric structure which in the scheme of things that have actual physical mirror or effects in space are truly independent vacua that can so be filled to the highest structure of states of symmetry or beyond.  Brane theory and other fine points of combinotorics converge in this sense to the TGD phenomenology.

* * * * *

Pitkanen's Post :  my last comment


I find it interesting that a platinum needle can induce an egg to begin development, parthenogenesis, as of fertilized.

Also interesting is of the 256 chiral forms of the carbons in cholesterol on one of them is recognized by the body. How is that for a binary reduction?

There is too much emphasis on the idea that we need to reduce things to some sort of material process alone- this is a mistake of fundamental principles as in that Scientific American theme this year (Ulla posted in a comment). Apparently, although we have talked in such areas a long time, they are reading our blogs :-)

Superposition, especially where it evokes ideas of dark or mirror matter is a non necessary, not rigid phenomenon in a higher physics- so is the use of group theory and dimensions- thus symmetry.

What of 5 coordinate changes so many state they are not clear about? Are the many sheets not possibly limited to say 5 Euclidean? How is it in mammal eggs when we reach the number 32 cells they are individuals and not 32 clones possible beyond that?

There is greater beauty out there still, and better reasons... not all that seems some zero place is rigid in its scales or energy nor is simply a point. Your idea of particles should deal with these new forms of say not that some are neutral but are intrinsically matter and antimatter. As I said it is a case of logic beyond the ideas or limits of quantum theory. Your title suggests that in such deeper than zero point space negative values can accelerate the bundled otherness of a vacuum... let us not just call these mathematical artifacts where we can simply defeat a theory by some arbitrary interpretation of a sign. (or we are too rigid and limit the math as did our humble correspondent the other day.)

The PeSla

* * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment