However it is by definition is an abstract creation of the mind and therefore is not physically connected to the observable real world, most of us believe we live in.

Therefore, we can never be sure the equations developed by science accurately define the physicality of those laws or the real world they are describing.

This is true even though they make accurate predictions because unless there is a way of physically connecting the mathematical worlds create by the intellect to the observable world we live in science cannot be sure that is has chosen the correct set of facts that defines its existence.
Granted the mind can systematical quantify the natural world as the mathematics of quantum mechanics does with great accuracy but that does not necessarily mean it tell us anything about the reality of how or why that quantification takes place.

For example there are an infinite number of ways one can mathematically describe the fact that there are two apples on a table. One can predict why based on the assumption that there were originally four apples and two were taken away or assume that originally there were six and four were taken away.  However if there were only four apples to begin with the mathematical description using six apples even though accurately quantifies the existence of two apples it does not describe their world because in “reality’ that world did not contain six apples.

Similarly just because the mathematics of quantum mechanics can very accurately predict the quantitative observation of the particle world does not mean that it defines why it is that way.

Einstein was often quoted as saying “If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless.”

He realized for science to make a claim that they have organized the natural world into a single set of patterns or laws that describe why we perceive its  “reality” the way we do they must be able to conceptually connect the independent models developed by our minds to the reality of natural world that exists outside of it.

For example Newton in a letter to Bentley in 1693, talks about a conceptual problem he has with his gravity theory by rejecting the action at a distance that it requires.

“It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.”

However Einstein realized by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment to a four dimensional space-time manifold one could explain how gravity “may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum” in terms of a curvature in space and time.   This enables one to understand gravity based on a physical image formed by the “reality” of what we can see and touch in our three-dimension world.

In other words he was able to connect the observable reality of our three dimensional world to the mathematical one he had created in his mind to explain gravity in terms of a physical imaged form in our three dimensional world.

Unfortunately many of today scientists seem to be ignoring the lessons taught to us by Einstein.  They chose to look for reality only in terms of abstract mathematics instead of the physical imagery given to us by the “reality” of what we can see and touch.

The reason may be because it is easier to alter an abstract environment based on mathematics to conform to an observational inconsistency than it is to alter one based on physical imagery.

For example Quantum theory makes predictions based on the random properties of a probability function.  However because the abstract properties of probabilities which are not physically connected to our world, all its predictions no matter how inconsistent they are with the world they are describing can be incorporate into it.

This is in sharp contrast to the space-time environment defined by Einstein in that projecting the physical image of objects moving on a curve surface in our three-dimensional environment physically connects it to a four-dimensional space time-environment

For example a single instance of a mass being gravitational repelled instead of attracted would contradict the physical imagery define by Einstein and would be extremely if not impossible to explain because no one has ever observe objects rolling up hill in our three-dimensional environment.  In other words because he defined gravity in terms of a physical image based on how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment it makes observations like two masses gravitational repelling each other virtually impossible to incorporate into it.

However because quantum mechanics is based on probabilities anything that can happen eventually will.  Therefore it is virtually impossible to find any observation in the real world that contradicts it.  However this can only happen in an abstract environment which is not bound by the physicality of our observational world.

As mentioned earlier unless science can conceptually connect the mathematical worlds created by the intellect to the observable world we live in we cannot say that we know or understand anything physical laws that we assume define its reality.

But why should science put in the effort to understanding our theoretical models in terms of the physical “reality” of our world when both the abstract mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics and the physical imagery of Einstein’s theories make very accurate predictions of future events.

Because the mission of a science is to define the real world in terms of what we perceive in our environment not to perceive an abstract mathematical environment to define what we want it to be.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2014 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post The mathematics of the real world appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The problem exists because by definition reality is independent of the mind and any abstract mechanism it can create concerning it.  Therefore only way we can be sure the theoretical models created by the imagination have any connection to reality or physicality of the world we see and touch is by connecting it to what we can see and touch. 

This would be true even though they make accurate predictions of all observable events in the environment it describes.
For example Quantum theory makes extremely accurate predictions of particle interactions based on mathematically generated probability functions.   However it also tells us that particles do not exist until a conscience observer looks at them.  In other words it is tells us that reality is completely dependent on the mind because it assumes the act of observation by the mind creates the physical reality of the particle world.

However this also it means there can be more than one reality because if it is completely dependent on the mind each individual mind can create one suited to its needs.

This presents a problem for science because as mentioned earlier it is tasked with defining a unique existence or set of facts describing the world in which we live.

However if existence is only defined by the mind as quantum mechanics suggests then identifying the unique existence of our world would be impossible because each mind can contain many different ones.

Einstein was often quoted as saying “If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless.”

He realized for science to make a claim that they have organized the natural world into a single set of patterns or laws that describes its reality they must be able to physically connect the independent models developed by our minds and imaginations to the world that exists outside of it.

For example Newton in a letter to Bentley in 1693, talks about a conceptual problem he has with his gravity theory by rejecting the action at a distance that it requires.

“It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.”

However Einstein realized he could explain this by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment to a curved four dimensional space-time manifold to explain how gravity “may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum” in terms of a curvature in space and time.   This allowed him to understand the “reality” behind gravity based on a physical image formed by the reality of what we can see and touch in our three-dimension world.

In other words he was able to connect the world he created in his mind and imagination to the “reality” of our three dimensional environment in terms of a physical imaged formed by the observable properties of our world.

Unfortunately many of today scientists seem to be ignoring the lessons taught to us by Einstein.  They chose to look for reality only in terms of abstract mathematics instead of the physical imagery given to us by the reality of what we can see and touch.

One reason may be because it is easier to alter an abstract mathematical environment to conform to an observational inconsistency than it is to alter one based on physical imagery. 

For example Quantum theory makes predictions based on the random properties of a probability function.  However because its abstract properties are not connected to any physical images of our world all observations no matter how inconsistent they are with the physical world it is describing can be incorporate into it.

This is in sharp contrast to the space-time environment defined by Einstein in that projecting the physical image of objects moving on a curve surface in our three-dimensional environment physically connects it to a four-dimensional space time-environment

For example a mass that was repelled by gravity instead of being attracted by it would contradict the physical model define by Einstein and would be extremely if not impossible to explain according his model because that would mean that we should observe objects rolling up hill in our three-dimensional environment.  In other words because he defined gravity in terms of a physical image based on how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment it makes observations like two masses gravitational repelling each other impossible to incorporate into it.

If however if some observation happened to contradict the complimentary principal of quantum mechanics such as simultaneously observing both the particle and wave properties of mass it could easily explained in terms of the fact that its probability functions tell us that anything that can happen eventually will.  This makes it impossible to find an observation that would contradict it because it tells us the even the impossible is possible if we wait long enough.  However this can only happen in an abstract environment which is not bound by the physicality of our observational world because in that world we observe that some things just cannot happen.

But why should science put in the effort to understand the physical reality of our world when both the abstract mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics and the physics imagery of Einstein’s theories make very accurate predictions of future events based on the past. 

Because the mission of a science is to define reality which can only be done in terms of what we perceive in the world around us which is not, by definition abstract.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2013 Jeffrey O’Callaghan 

The post The role of reality in science appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

In Plato’s allegory “The cave” he describes how people who have been chained to a cave wall view the world outside of it.  “The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato’s Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
However he could have been talking about today’s scientists who are locked into a worldview that projects shadows that cannot be made to agree with the reality of the world they are living in.

For example Quantum theory defines the existence of particles in terms of a mathematically generated probability function and that they do not exist until a conscience observer looks at it.  In other words it assumes the act of observation or measurement creates the physical reality of our particle world.  However because only conscience beings can be observers it implies that it cannot exist without them being there to observe it.

However if one assumes reality exist only after someone observes it one must also assume that we humans evolved out of something that did not exist.

This seems to contradict the most common definition of reality: that it is an environment with a set of physical properties that exists even when there are no observers present.  In other words most believe the world exist in even when no one is there to observe it.

Plato’s in his allegory “The Cave” he tells us that one should base his or her interpretation of reality on direct physical observations of the “shadows” they cast on the cave walls because he feels it is the only way to connect their existence to the reality of the world outside of it.

However the  proponents of quantum mechanics face an even greater problem than those who reside in Platoâ€s cave because they assume that reality and existence is defined in terms of abstract mathematical probabilities which by definition do not have physical properties; therefore they are unable to cast shadows on the reality of the non-abstract environment that exists all around us. 

In other words the reality defined by quantum mechanics cannot create or define the physicality of the shadows projected on the walls of our world or cave as Plato calls it because they themselves do not have any.

Some would argue the fact that quantum mechanics can accurately predict what we observe in the world in terms of the abstract nature of probability functions means that what we perceive as the reality does not exist. 

However as Plato pointed out our only connection to reality is though the observation of the “shadows” it displays on our physical or material world.  Yet because of the abstract nature of probability functions of quantum mechanics they, by definition can never be part or interact with that world.  Therefore because we can physicality observe of the “shadows” of the quantum mechanical world in our environment isn’t it more likely the abstract one defined by quantum mechanics does not exist while those of the world that we can see and touch do.

Einstein was often quoted as saying “If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless.”

He realized as Plato did that reality can only be discovered by forming a physical image of what its shadows are telling us.

For example Newton in a letter to Bentley in 1693, talks about a conceptual problem he has with his gravity theory by rejecting the action at a distance that it requires.

“It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.”

Einstein looked at the shadows of reality cast by gravity and realized they could be created by a universe made up of four dimensional space-time.  He extrapolated the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment to a curved four dimensional space-time manifold to show that it can explain and predict how gravity “may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum” in terms of a curvature in space and time.   This allowed him to understand the reality behind the shadows we can see in our three-dimension world in terms of a physical image based on the existence of four dimension space-time.

In other words he was able to explain the gravitational shadows on the Newtonian cave walls in terms of a physical image cast by four dimensional space-time on them.

As Plato would say he perceived the true form of reality based on a physical image of the shadows seen by its prisoners.

Unfortunately many of today scientists seem to be ignoring the lessons taught to us by Plato and Einstein.  They chose to look for reality in terms of abstract mathematics instead of the physical imagery given to us by its shadows.

The reason may be because it is easier to alter an abstract environment based on mathematics to conform to an observational inconsistency that it is to alter one based on physical imagery. 

For example Quantum theory makes predictions based on the random properties of a probability function.  However because its abstract properties are not connected to any physical images of our world all observations no matter how inconsistent they are with the physical world it is describing can be incorporate into it.

This is in sharp contrast to the space-time environment defined by Einstein in that projecting the physical image of objects moving on a curve surface in a four-dimensional environment directly connects it to the physicality of the shadows it casts on our three-dimensional environment.

For example a mass that was repelled by gravity instead of begin attracted would contradict the physical model define by Einstein and would be extremely if not impossible to explain according to that model because that would mean that we should observe objects rolling up hill in our three-dimensional environment.  In other words because he defined gravity in terms of a physical image based on how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment it makes observations like two masses repelling gravitational each other impossible to incorporate into it.

If however if some observation happened to contradict complimentary principal of quantum mechanics such as simultaneously observing both the particle and wave properties mass it could easily explained in terms of the fact that its probability functions tell us that anything that can happen eventually will  This makes it impossible to find an observation that would contradict it because it tells us the even the impossible is possible if we wait long enough.  However this can only happen in an abstract environment which is not bound by the physicality of our observational world because in that world we observe that some things just cannot happen.

But why should science put in the effort to understand the physical reality behind the shadows of our world when both the abstract mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics and the physics imagery of Einstein’s theories make very accurate predictions of future events based on the past. 

Because the mission of a science is to define reality in terms of what we perceive in the world around us which by definition is not abstract.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post Plato’s lesson on quantum mechanics. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.