The fundamental choice of the world

Forums: Science And Math, Philosophy, Physics, Pseudo-Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In physics, the variational principle is sacred, since every law of physics supposedly can be formulated as the stationary solution to an action integral. The law of mechanics with lagrange L=T-U would produce newton` s laws.

The idea is that there are many different path from point 1 to point 2, but there is one that is the stationary solution to the functional. I remember reading that the equivalent in QM is that each path is a possible history. In QM, it seems according to this interpretation, each possible history is a possible parallel world. So, according to this interpretation, there is only one, and only one parallel world that is the stationary solution. Ok, even if this interpretation is true, there is a non reducible choice of the precise lagrange in QM, so, this world is picked precise because it is the stationary solution to the lagrange. So, it seems, there is one world, and it is picked according to a given criterion( ie: the form of the action integral in QM).

It seems the variation principle has zero ontological significance, and it is just a tool to reformulate dynamic physical laws. The illusion is that you are really picking a world from an ensemble, but in reality, the world you pick is in accord with the form of the action integral given, or inspired from the dynamic laws itself.

It seems the choice of a world is determined by the choice of the dynamic equation. The dynamic equations is prior to any variation formulations of its self. How might we find the dynamic equations? Currently, the dominate view is the use of symmetry principle to guess the laws. From experiments, you come up with a set of symmetries by noting the relationship between conservation, and symmetry. You then guess the dynamic laws that satisfies those symmetries. Again, there is a brute fact, and that is the underlying symmetries de re, and the form of the law itself( this is why i use the word "guess").

If Modal realism is true, there would be different multiverses with different symmetries, and each symmetries would have multiple variations according to that symmetry. MR allow a completely contingent, arbitrary reality with complete chance even those, there is still necessity in each world.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,698 • Replies: 15

No top replies

@TuringEquivalent,

So you can get six different worlds starting from point 1 because each world has different physical laws?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

So you can get six different worlds starting from point 1 because each world has different physical laws?

There are two answer.

On one interpretation of QM, you don` t just get 6, but you get all logical possible worlds such that they all obey the rules of QM.

On the path integral formulation of QM, you get one world. All the different "worlds", or "histories" cancels out, or perhaps, picked out, because it is a stationary solution to a functional.

The second approach is sometimes confused as saying "selecting a world, because it is special". It is just no so. Imagine a different dynamic law, you would have a different world. Nothing special about the path integral approach.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

I'm interested in what you're saying, but I don't understand it.

What I do understand is that for a world to be understandable to us, it has to be reasonably related to previous state of that world. If you can get a multitude of worlds, each coming into actuality in its own universe, each one has to have internal integrity in terms of meaning... the alternative is meaningless to us, so even if meaningless events happen, they can't register on our minds... so as far as we're concerned they don't exist. Do see what I'm askng? How a single state of things is associated with numerous possible futures (which is what we imagine.) If physical law is dynamic in the sense that there is actually a set of physical laws unique to each event... in other words there isn't one universal law, but law at any point reflects the being of that event... that would make it so that multiple possibility makes a little more sense.

Bottom line: stuff is both wave and particle. Translating that into math isn't going to correct it into something that objectively makes sense. Is it?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

I'm interested in what you're saying, but I don't understand it.

What I do understand is that for a world to be understandable to us, it has to be reasonably related to previous state of that world. If you can get a multitude of worlds, each coming into actuality in its own universe, each one has to have internal integrity in terms of meaning... the alternative is meaningless to us, so even if meaningless events happen, they can't register on our minds... so as far as we're concerned they don't exist. Do see what I'm askng? How a single state of things is associated with numerous possible futures (which is what we imagine.) If physical law is dynamic in the sense that there is actually a set of physical laws unique to each event... in other words there isn't one universal law, but law at any point reflects the being of that event... that would make it so that multiple possibility makes a little more sense.

Bottom line: stuff is both wave and particle. Translating that into math isn't going to correct it into something that objectively makes sense. Is it?

Do you have anything specific in mind? Perhaps, a question?

0 Replies

Yes. How does one possibility become actual?

And what does it mean to say the other possibilities exist?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

Yes. How does one possibility become actual?

And what does it mean to say the other possibilities exist?

To be even more specific, those questions can only be answered in the context of some particular theory. Suppose the many world interpretation of QM is correct, then any "possible world" is as real as the world we live in. The word "actual" is just to refer to the world we are in, just like the word "here" denote the location of the speaker.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

To be even more specific, those questions can only be answered in the context of some particular theory. Suppose the many world interpretation of QM is correct, then any "possible world" is as real as the world we live in. The word "actual" is just to refer to the world we are in, just like the word "here" denote the location of the speaker.

How is there necessity? To what does it refer? If we think about it in terms of laws, from our point of view, does each possible world in the many-worlds interpretation have the same laws? Or are they different for each world?

If you start from one point, and several possible worlds come into existence.. each in its own domain... if they all follow the same form of necessity, then it makes no sense that they're different.

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

If the Law´s of Nature are the same and there´s only a variation in the initial conditions Necessity does not need to be questioned at least on this stance...

Necessity is only questionable if it is the case that the exact same conditions lead to different outcomes...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Necessity can't be questioned because it's required for the initial conditions and the outcome to make sense.

If what happens in between can't be objectified, it calls into question whether condition 1 actually "lead to" condition 2. Doesn't it?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

To be even more specific, those questions can only be answered in the context of some particular theory. Suppose the many world interpretation of QM is correct, then any "possible world" is as real as the world we live in. The word "actual" is just to refer to the world we are in, just like the word "here" denote the location of the speaker.

How is there necessity? To what does it refer? If we think about it in terms of laws, from our point of view, does each possible world in the many-worlds interpretation have the same laws? Or are they different for each world?

If you start from one point, and several possible worlds come into existence.. each in its own domain... if they all follow the same form of necessity, then it makes no sense that they're different.

The first question is probable yes, they all obey the same QM wave equation, since under this idea, there is no collapse of any wave function. The whole multiverse is governed by QM wavefunction.

The way you paraphrase the question makes it uneasy for me to give a straight answer.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Between either can be referred or it can´t...if it can then Causation is there.
If it cannot, then there is no between...but neither there is before or after...
...the problem around this matter seems to be that we are looking for an intangible "ghost" to prove causation...

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

So all the possible worlds are part of the same thing. If that way of thinking was true, then whatever necessity you see is only a tiny fraction of the whole necessity. The whole necessity has opposing things happening.

The other way has all but one possibility disappearing. How does one of them becomes distinct from the others?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
"Between either can be referred or it can´t...if it can then Causation is there.
If it cannot, then there is no between...but neither there is before or after...
...the problem around this matter seems to be that we are looking for an intangible "ghost" to prove causation... "

What do you mean by "ghost to prove causation?"

Thanks!

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

So all the possible worlds are part of the same thing. If that way of thinking was true, then whatever necessity you see is only a tiny fraction of the whole necessity. The whole necessity has opposing things happening.

The other way has all but one possibility disappearing. How does one of them becomes distinct from the others?

The word "necessary" has a technical meaning in academic philosophy, or branches of academic philosophy. Thus, you again makes me uncomfortable to give you an answer. I will say this: It is not right to use "necessary" in the way you use it. Perhaps you can ask me again without using tech words.

I think there is some confusion. I only suggest the many world QM is because it is the most simple concept i wish to express, and it is also the one most common when doing a google search. The topic that is interesting to me what is known as symmetries principles, and the laws that embody those symmetries. Some people have noted that there might be different multiverses based on different symmetries. It is an interest speculation, because it is cool. So, suppose the symmetry of the world is O, then the laws L governing our world must satisfies O. Well, given O, it is not deducible that we have L. So, it seems, there are many different laws that embody O. So, perhaps you have different multiverses based on different symmetry principles, and each of which is based on a particular set of laws that satisfies those as well.

In short, symmetries seem to be at a level higher up then the laws, and that is very interesting. In addition, it seems probable that symmetries are not just stupid generalization from the laws, but actually existing in the world.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

In this Forum (and not just in here but almost everywhere) we often speak in regularity´s going on...having trouble in defining agency objectively from A to B.
Either because A can itself represent a larger set of variables in which we cannot easily define whom or what causes precisely, locally, being the cause implied and foggily distributed in the full set of conditions conceptually verified to be required in A, either because of the conceptual limitations in the observer to mentally represent events to full extent in the process of cause, or finally because the subsequent event itself (so they say) needs not to be regular, meaning same causes can in principle lead to different effects or outcomes...
My position in this matter is pragmatic as you well know, and based intuitively on a simple idea that goes around accepting COMMUNICATION between variables, a sort of interpenetration in events mostly justified in their "visibility" to us, even if arguably partial...now, when cause is to be removed from the sequence of events that we observe, the first difficulty that pops into my mind, is how on hell we can relate them conceptually, and why they are not fully transcendent to us or to anything else ? How is it that an elegant epiphenomena comes about ? Unity, seams a rather sensible acceptable response here, and I take it for the lack of a better reason !
Extreme objectivity, to my view, can lead to a degree of abstraction that ultimately can confuse analysis by stretching the limits of conceptual aggregation, thus inducing in error and false precipitated conclusions...
To me this is the "Ghost" that we hunt on knowledge and that ultimately hunt us back down.

...My vision of cause is not against locality itself, but against the idea that local causation excludes Universal presence in loco, on the very nature of the agents that relate between themselves...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

To me this is the "Ghost" that we hunt on knowledge and that ultimately hunt us back down.

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Strangely, the first time I read this I didn't understand it. Then several hours later I read it again.. and it made perfect sense. I love the above sentence you wrote.

The ghost comes from pulling things apart.

It comes from exclusion... is this not the nature of the ideal thing, though... that it is somehow pure? We think the thing we're looking at is the ideal, but we say it's a deficient version of it. The deficiency is what? A sign that the ideal in its purity denies the reality that the thing is not disconnected... it exists as a unique thing, but in a sense it has the whole in it. Only the whole is pure. You see how it's the same particle/wave perspective? What do you think about ideals?

This odd idea came to me that you could live your life either forward or backward temporally. That's funny to me.

The objective viewpoint has been puzzling me. As always: thanks!

0 Replies

The fundamental choice of the world

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know