Simultaneity, Sameness, and Symmetry– or a complete lack thereof

MikeL

I can’t find reference to this on the net so I’m just going ahead. It seems a bit self-evident and therefore may be standard dogma to you guys, but... maybe not.

This OP begins by observing that space and time are continuous, or infinitely divisible, and posits that as a direct result of that fact, not only is nothing in the universe knowable, but that necessarily asymmetry and an inability for any two objects to have the same property value results.

If space is infinitely divisible, nothing can be measured accurately as there is no accurate measurement to give – the decimals keep rolling.

From this we can conclude that no two objects in the universe will ever have the same value when measured- the statistical probability would zero out in an infinite regress. Thus, no two objects weigh exactly the same, are exactly the same height, have exactly the same force, are exactly the same age, color and so on.

Because of this indivisibility of space, there is no true centre of anything either. How can you claim a centre when the decimals are still rolling?

Therefore, any attempt to expand an object from a centre point with an equal force will result in an asymmetry.

Rather than being a bad thing, this is very helpful to us. We know that during the spatial expansion of the Big Bang the symmetry broke leading to the curdling of matter from energy- perhaps this is why the symmetry broke. It was never going to be symmetrical because it was emerging from a continuum.

You could argue that the continuous nature of space and time can account for being able to make a decision when two thought values have the same weighting. If there is a biological basis for the decision then it could be the weightings are not actually identical – cannot be identical.

Most importantly the continuous nature of space and time allows outcomes to eventuate in the universe. Two equally matched entities will not push against each other forever, eventually one will slip past the other, even if it takes a million years. Thus there is a dynamism to the universe.

Even our beloved snowflakes are not perfectly symmetrical. In his book, Life’s Ratchet, Hoffman points out that snowflakes grow from a temperature instability at the centre of a freezing water drop, leading to some points freezing faster than others and creating spikes. He cites such instability as a possible force shaping the emergence of life.

The lack of a true centre of anything leads to asymmetry of expansion, the fact that no two objects can have the same property value leads to asymmetry of interaction – the continuous nature of space and time could thus be argued to create the fundamental motions of not only life, but the universe.

apokrisis

Small problem. Nature turns out to be quantum. There is a fixed fundamental grain of action and dimension. So spacetime and energy are discrete and not continuous at the bottom-most scale of things.

Fundamental particles also have quantum indistinguishability. Every electron or quark is exactly alike in its essential properties.

Continuity emerges at the classical scale of physics. The grainy fluctuating sea of quantum events turns into a steady looking blur if you step back far enough from it.

Hoffman describes that nicely when talking about how modern instruments can poke water at the quasi-classical nanoscale and actually feel it's quantum "bumpiness". Water behaves differently for biology at the level of molecular machinery in important ways.

All this is also semiotic of course. Information loss due to physical scale of observation. Stand back far enough and the fluctuating quantum realm becomes a smooth blur. But also, that is how universal laws emerge in a developing Cosmos.

The laws of nature could be changing, but so slowly that over our timescales of observation, they seem to be static and eternal. Continuity again becomes an optical effect - semiotic information loss. Instead of looking down and seeing a steady blur, we are looking up and finding ourselves unable to see a change that is so gradual, its edges are outside our field of view.

The classic text on this is Stan Salthe's Evolving Hierarchical Systems.

But asymmetry or symmetry breaking is definitely what it is all about. A hierarchy is what you get when you break scale symmetry. And Salthe shows how an upper and lower bound of "continuity" must emerge simply due to the fact of scale. In one direction a blur, in the other, a change so big its edges can't be seen.

SophistiCat

If space is infinitely divisible, nothing can be measured accurately as there is no accurate measurement to give – the decimals keep rolling. — MikeL

Who is doing the measurement? How? And what for?

When I measure the size of some object, I am comparing its size with the size of some standard ruler. But that means that there is an object whose size is not measured - it is taken as a standard unit for all other measurements. So there is at least one object in the world - the chosen standard ruler - whose size is known exactly: it is exactly 1 standard unit. Any object whose size is also 1 standard unit will have the same size as my standard ruler. And since I can choose anything as my standard ruler, then anything can have the size of exactly 1 standard unit, so those rolling decimals are not an issue (I have no idea what you think the problem is with decimals, anyway).

In practice, of course, the more precise length measurements are made using less direct methods, but ultimately the measurement comes down to the same principle: we compare something against another thing that we take as the standard unit of measurement.

The bottom line is that in order to make a measurement, we compare one thing against another - which is exactly what you conclude is impossible, because we cannot measure anything (according to you, because of the decimals :s). So you've got it exactly backwards: We measure by comparing things to each other, not the other way around.

t0m

If space is infinitely divisible, nothing can be measured accurately as there is no accurate measurement to give – the decimals keep rolling. — MikeL

This is a good point. I've reflected on this myself. What you are talking about (as I see it) is the real numbers. "Most" real numbers are not rational. It's impossible to measure something that is exactly pi inches long, for instance, since pi is an ideal entity far more complex than an intuition-friendly rational number. Most real numbers are worse than pi, not only transcendental but incomputable. We don't even have a program that spits out a decimal representation for most real numbers. The set of all such programs is merely countable. The probability of choosing a computable number among all the real numbers randomly is 0. (To be clear, this is mathematics rather than metaphysics.)

MikeL

↪SophistiCat

Thanks for your input SophistiCat. I do understand the importance of using a standard unit to obtain consistent measurements, and I have no problem with decimals. The point was suggesting there was no way to get a perfectly accurate measurement of anything due to there always being another decimal about to pop up in the measurement itself, making it that bit more exact.

MikeL

↪t0m

Hi t0m, yes you are on a similar track of thought to mine. The interminable nature of real numbers certainly fits in. Eventually to get a reportable value we have to round out the number. So too with other measurements. We could measure in kilograms, grams, milligrams and so on depending on how precise we want our measurement to be, but because the scale keeps getting smaller for infinity we never truly know exact value because there is no exact value, there is always another decimal. Thus when comparing two identical objects we can claim that the identical nature is in fact an illusion based on an inability to measure sufficiently - how can you claim an identical nature when the decimals in your number have not stopped rolling out?

t0m

↪MikeL

I see now that you are thinking of a related issue, the idea that any actual measurement has only finite accuracy. Yes, that's a good point also. It's only strengthened by the additional consideration that there are irrational lengths. In the case of irrational lengths (just about all of them), even an "ideal" perfect measurement wouldn't work. In most cases, that measurement would require an infinite amount of information. The number would not be not compressible. So even if our measurement device could spit out ideal entities like "pi," such computable (compressible) lengths of finite information are a vanishing subset of all lengths. A random length almost surely "contains" or implies infinite information.

MikeL

↪apokrisis

Are you sure? What about all that stuff about Zeno's paradox with the ball breaking the window? I thought the consensus at the time was the continuous nature of reality. What about quantum field theory? Is the quantum level really as far as it goes? That's not very far at all when you think about it. We are only a couple of levels above it.

Hierarchy ideas in nature are always interesting. I like the description of the lower boundary being a blur and the upper being a change so big it's edges can't be seen (there is a circular geometry that would be interesting to explore in that in terms of a system where the inner turns faster than the outer - some type of winding up effect - which could negate a heat death if a critical spring limit is reached), but doesn't it seem like the blurs and the slow changes are simply a measurement problem?

Can we confidently say there is nothing below the quantum realm? I have gleaned that electrons and the other fundamental particles are energy knots, created through vibrations of energy fields so that it spits out the particles as a fixed quantum value, but again how confident are we of this energy value? Surely the decimals in the measurement don't close out. Surely no two electrons are the same.

MikeL

↪t0m

Your maths is stronger than mine t0m. It sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on it now. A strong maths base is just what is needed for this type of thinking. :)

apokrisis

Is the quantum level really as far as it goes? That's not very far at all when you think about it. We are only a couple of levels above it. — MikeL

We know it must be so. Otherwise any radiating body would radiate an infinite amount of heat (there being no smallest contribution if the underlying reality doing the radiating were continuous). That is the original problem quantum mechanics was required to solve.

And we happen to be 35 orders of magnitude distant from the Planck (distance) scale. That is 1 followed by 35 zeroes. Plenty enough to make it look a blur.

Surely the decimals in the measurement don't close out. Surely no two electrons are the same. — MikeL

Quantum theory can calculate basic properties to as many decimal places as you like. The difficulty becomes measuring particles with the same degree of accuracy. But famously, the magnetic moment of an electron - every electron - has been checked out to a greater number of decimal places than any other scientific fact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment

MikeL

↪apokrisis

Ahh, this fills me with hope yet.

any radiating body would radiate an infinite amount of heat (there being no smallest contribution if the underlying reality doing the radiating were continuous). — apokrisis

This is the problem with measuring the English coastline. So let me ask, how do they know that a radiating body actually does stop radiating heat? It could scale down quite quickly into the immeasurable where the sensors can detect nothing. It would just be an exponential curve. Dropping from something to nothing is a mathematical barrier where rate of fall off is being measured.

every electron - has been checked out to a greater number of decimal places than any other scientific fact. — apokrisis

But still no end in sight? Then that supports the idea. I see a crack in the door way.

And we happen to be 35 orders of magnitude distant from the Planck (distance) scale. That is 1 followed by 35 zeroes. — apokrisis

Yeah, but we are already using microscopes that exploit quantum effects. That didn't take us long to dig down to the lowest layer.

apokrisis

Yeah, but we are already using microscopes that exploit quantum effects. That didn't take us long to dig down to the lowest layer. — MikeL

So is seeing believing or not? You can't have it both ways. Either we see the graininess and believe it, or we do what you do and still seek to deny it.

So let me ask, how do they know that a radiating body actually does stop radiating heat? — MikeL

Just turn on your light. Did it vaporise the planet with an instant blast of infinite heat?

And all bodies indeed radiate some heat as they will have some relative temperature. Quantum mechanics assures even the vacuum has a zero point energy.

MikeL

So is seeing believing or not? You can't have it both ways. Either we see the graininess and believe it, or we do what you do and still seek to deny it. — apokrisis

Ha, there is no denying going on. What is it about the graininess that suggests that its the end of the road? Why must the fact that energy is dispensed in quanta from fields spell the end of the regress?

My argument is that while it is a layer - the smallest one we are currently aware of, it isn't the lowest layer, due to the indivisibility of space and time. The energy or fabric of the universe didn't change when we moved from atomic to subatomic measurements so why should it if we move beyond the quantum level?

I have heard of the idea of quantum foam where time and space both bubble around together and have seen images of quantum vacuums, but there is nothing in the idea that suggests to me that there is not an underlying 'something' that is causing the quantum layer to manifest itself.

The fact that electrons have no definite value feeds right into the assertion that no two objects will be identical - to suggest they are identical is to suggest that the forming agents of those objects acted identically in the formation, each and every single time. That the fluctuating field through off exactly the same quanta of energy at exactly the same point of the wave with exactly the same variable acting on it is hard to imagine.

The idea of interminable decimals which is what we appear to have feeds back into the assertion of a continuous universe. When the decimals stop coming in and a flashing cursor blinks patiently at the screen waiting for the next one, I may be convinced of a pure quanta.

Until then, my imagination will still roam. :)

So let me ask, how do they know that a radiating body actually does stop radiating heat?
— MikeL
Just turn on your light. Did it vaporise the planet with an instant blast of infinite heat? — apokrisis

I'm not sure how the eternal bleeding out of energy when the stimulus has been removed equivocates with the other end where an infinite amount of energy is emitted instantaneously from the system when it is switched on.

And all bodies indeed radiate some heat as they will have some relative temperature. — apokrisis

Hmm, I sense a contradiction here. So a radiating body, doesn't stop radiating heat after all because all bodies are radiating heat? But this was the conclusive statement against the continuity of space and time. More interminable decimals in the measurement?

It seems like what we have here is a counter to my argument I stumbled onto when writing the OP - range. It would be how you might counter the problem of interminable decimals without rounding - by assigning a range value - in effect stepping over the decimal infinity. For example pi 3.147 and forever will never reach 3.148. The measurement of the radiating body would have fallen within acceptable parameters for what was expected. It never stopped radiating though.

Rich

Small problem. Nature turns out to be quantum. There is a fixed fundamental grain of action and dimension. So spacetime and energy are discrete and not continuous at the bottom-most scale of things. — apokrisis

Small problem. Nature turns out to be a continuous connected wave. The wave is real.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26893-wave-function-gets-real-in-quantum-experiment/

And if course there is gravity waves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/10/03/nobel-winning-research-on-gravitational-waves-ligo-and-gravity-explained/?utm_term=.09a243e888d3

Note the similarity to Bohm's Quantum Potential:

"Gravity is invisible, as you may have noticed, and a little bit spooky, because it seems to reach across space to cause actions at a distance without any obvious underlying mechanism. What goes up must come down, but why that is so has never been obvious."

Nothing is discrete. Discreteness is manufactured. Pretty much everything physicalists write is goal oriented and pretty much ignores quantum physical experiments over the last 100 years. Nothing is more pathetic then goal oriented science and philosophy and the presenting it as some "fact" when all it is is storytelling. Pretty sad.

SophistiCat

Thanks for your input SophistiCat. I do understand the importance of using a standard unit to obtain consistent measurements — MikeL

No, you don't understand. The point is not about making consistent measurements, the point is about how we make any measurements.

Your idea is that we measure one thing, then we measure another thing, and then we compare the two numbers. But when you measure something, what are you measuring it against? What is an "inch" or a "meter"? They are nothing other than objects that you use as standard measures. When you measure the length of something, you are already comparing one object (what you measure) against another (the measuring instrument, the ruler). So your idea that the only way to relate the sizes of two objects is to measure each of them separately and compare the results is exactly backwards. We compare objects already as part of any measurement. That is what it means to measure something: it means to directly compare the same property, such as length, in two different things, one of which serves as the standard measure.

Now of course we can't measure anything exactly. And measuring something as exactly pi units, as

↪t0m

suggested, is no easier than measuring something as exactly 1 unit: either way, there are a number of factors that will limit the accuracy and precision of your measurement, so that it can never be exactly x units, whatever x is and whatever the units are (unless you take the object itself as your standard measure - in which case you do have the exact measurement of 1 unit, since every object is identical with itself!) But if you are a realist (at least about spacial dimensions) and believe that things possess sizes independently of our measurements of them, then I don't see why you regard our inability to perform an exact measurement as a confounding ontological issue. And if you a not a realist, then your conclusion that objects don't possess definite sizes follows directly from that, and you don't need to confuse yourself with any "digits."

SophistiCat

↪MikeL

You don't understand what he is talking about. If you don't understand something, it is better to ask than to try and fake it, otherwise you will just look foolish. The issue that apo is alluding to has nothing to do with fractals (measuring the coastline) or with "digits," with which you've become obsessed. It's historically known as The Ultraviolet Catastrophe - look it up.

Small problem. Nature turns out to be quantum. There is a fixed fundamental grain of action and dimension. So spacetime and energy are discrete and not continuous at the bottom-most scale of things. — apokrisis

So, two things: First, to say that "nature turns out to be quantum" because of such-and-such features that allegedly lie at the "bottom-most scale of things" is a thoroughly reductionist statement (and - oh horrors - bottom-up reductionist!) Which is ironic, given how apo likes to carp about reductionism. So nature cannot be anything above and beyond what said "bottom-most scale" expresses - not really. Now, I am not necessarily objecting to this view - just highlighting its philosophical presuppositions, which no one is obligated to accept on faith.

Second, it's just not true. If you are a reductionist and you are going to bet your metaphysics on today's quantum physics, then there is nothing there that says that "spacetime and energy are discrete and not continuous at the bottom-most scale of things." This is well-known to anyone who studied quantum physics to any extent, so I won't even go into this. There are some speculative developments that seek to quantize spacetime at the fundamental level, but so far they have not been successful, and they certainly do not constitute the theory as it stands now.

Nevertheless, quantum physics sort of vindicates your original idea, though not for the same reasons (nothing to do with numbers). Although space is continuous and infinitely divisible in quantum physics, and any spacial interval can be expressed there without a problem, the theory undermines the idea of the world consisting of sharp-edged objects with definite sizes. And more generally, it suggests that one does not have to be a realist about familiar, "classical" properties of things like position and momentum. Things at quantum scale aren't necessarily what they are at our everyday human scale. And that is an idea worth considering, even if you are not a reductionist, or if you are holding out for a future "bottom-scale" theory that would replace quantum physics.

Rich

Although space is continuous and infinitely divisible in quantum physics, and any spacial interval can be expressed there without a problem, the theory undermines the idea of the world consisting of sharp-edged objects with definite sizes. — SophistiCat

The problem of using discrete symbolism to express reality.

The quantity wave is continuous and indivisible. Had anyone actually split a quantum want? What would lie in between? Any attempt to create certainty using measurement or mathematics simply creates greater uncertainty somewhere else. Ontologically the wave cannot be divided. Too often, philosophical precision is disregarded in order to arrive at a pre-set objective. As a result, the nature of nature is not understood.

apokrisis

There are some speculative developments that seek to quantize spacetime at the fundamental level, — SophistiCat

Interesting how loop quantum gravity takes the condensed matter approach to explaining the emergence of spacetime. So in fact the grainy fabric of reality is organised by top down constraints. Not so bottom up reductionist, eh? But nice try.

t0m

The idea of interminable decimals which is what we appear to have feeds back into the assertion of a continuous universe. — MikeL

This touches on a fascinating problem. To what degree is our intuition of continuity "real"? The real number system of pure math does a pretty good job of capturing this continuity. (There was of course a massive philosophical controversy with the advent of set theory.) In theory these are the same real numbers of physics. But in practice (as I understand it) we use floating point rational numbers. So "pure math" is not the basis of physics. We believe physics because it predicts with impressive but never perfect accuracy and empowers us to build working computers, fly through the air, etc.

So are we ever talking about the thing in itself? Or do we just have at all times the state-of-the-art prediction-control system? Must we embrace the scientific image as the metaphysical image? I think a "total" vision of human reality must include the existence-for-us of all these "images" side by side. Every particular image can be viewed as a useful reduction of the total image for this or that particular purpose.

MikeL

↪t0m

Sure, makes sense to me. I can see your imagination is starting to fire up. :)

Simultaneity, Sameness, and Symmetry– or a complete lack thereof

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions