Quantum Gravity 175.1: Why Different Phases Are Highly Compatible With Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
- From: OsherD <mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:35:21 -0700
From Osher Doctorow
Why should different phases be so compatible with Probable Causation/
Influence (PI)?
One reason that I'd like to suggest here is that PI is "non-
restrictive" in the sense that it doesn't axiomatize upper or lower
bounds for variables other than 0 and infinity (or in probability
scale, 0 and 1 normalized).
Euclidean Geometry's "parallel postulate" was a hidden finite upper
bound postulate which can be rewritten as follows in somewhat rough
outline:
POSTULATE. Lines which appear to be parallel (don't meet) by finite
constructions in the vicinity of a stationary human observer remain
parallel outside that vicinity.
This is actually false on the surface of the Earth, although it can be
regarded as abstractly true in Euclidean geometry and also as true in
tangent planes at points on the surface of the Earth.
Non-Euclidean Geometry simply dropped this postulate, and the rest is
history, so to speak.
But from the viewpoint of different phases, the point of this example
is that hidden or overt finite restrictions on domains or ranges of
variables conceal phase differences. Non-Euclidean Geometry
introduced mathematicians and scientists to an overwhelming variety of
spatial or spacetime "phases" including not only black holes and black
rings but additional spacetime (compactified or not) dimensions and so
on. Indeed, we are arguably on the verge of regarding geometry
itself as a somewhat different physical phase from matter and energy,
which would unify "geometric" Inflation and velocities of "material"
objects and light.
The Light Cone as well as the "finite" velocity/speed of light c are
finite relativistic restrictions, and Quantum Mechanics has its own
"very tiny restrictions" with Planck's constant h and the Planck mass
and Planck length and the latest hidden restriction involved in the
assertion that "geometry is meaningless (at or) below the Planck
level.
The result of the finite restriction methodology has been a weird
divorce of philosophy/logic and physical theory in which "non-
existent" objects like tachyons and monopoles and their condensates
are postulated to have somewhat generated the Universe but not exist
(either now or possibly ever) in the Universe, and "mathematical but
not physical entities" in equations and inequalities and operations
are accepted as being "naturally different in themselves" with no
attempt to link them.
I will refrain, tongue in cheek, from calling this the "missing link",
but I leave to others that possibility.
Osher Doctorow
.
- Prev by Date: Re: photons
- Next by Date: Quantum Gravity 175.2: Quantum "Fluctuations" As a Misinterpretation of Probability
- Previous by thread: Quantum Gravity 175.0: Negative Mass and Naked Singularities
- Next by thread: Quantum Gravity 175.2: Quantum "Fluctuations" As a Misinterpretation of Probability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
