Is Quantum Theory logical?

[friend]

I am not rejecting your idea out of hand. But I have some other ideas which for me are more pressing to explore. Life is short.

If life is too short, then we don't have time to waste on unprovable, speculative ideas. What we want is a complete explanation of things ASAP. If we rely on one physical thing explained in terms of another physical thing, then we have just moved the goal post, having now to explain where the more fundamental thing came from. For example, when we explained protons and neutrons in terms of quarks, now we have to explain where quarks come from, and we can't really say that we are any closer to explaining things, we just have new things to explain.

There is no complete explanation until you explain physics from reason and logic alone. And if it is derived from logic, then you can't argue with it, unless you want to argue with the principles of reason itself.

This is what I am attempting to do: derive physics from logic. Prior to this, it was only considered a pipe dream and an impossible task. Philosophers considered logic too general to derive something as specific as the laws of nature. But now, I have had some very smart people review my work, and they are not saying I'm wrong. No one has found any point of speculation in my work. In order to continue the debate, they are forces to question the reliability of mathematics itself. You are invited to review it as well at:

http://www.logictophysics.com

[minkwe]

This is what I am attempting to do: derive physics from logic.

You are trying to mix ontology with epistemology, which is forbidden. A lot of the rubbish of present-day QM is precisely due to similar mixing. I'm afraid you won't make any progress with such ideas. A proper physical theory must assume that the real world (ontology) exists independent of our knowledge/imaginations and reasoning processes (epistemology/logic). Logic is simply a theory of consistent reasoning (manipulation of information/knowledge in our minds). Logic does not care or depend on the specific pieces of information we manipulate. Logic is only relevant to physics, to the extent the information/knowledge we are manipulating (epistemology) is about physical things we have assumed exist, or we have measured in an experiment (ontology). You can use logic to predict the existence of new/previously unknown physical things(ontology). But you can not derive physical laws purely from logic alone.

Common language—or at least, the English language—has an almost universal tendency to disguise epistemological statements by putting them into a grammatical form which suggests to the unwary an ontological statement. A major source of error in current probability theory arises from an unthinking failure to perceive this. To interpret the first kind of statement in the ontological sense is to assert that one’s own private thoughts and sensations are realities existing externally in Nature. We call this the “Mind Projection Fallacy,” and note the trouble it causes many times in what follows. But this trouble is hardly confined to probability theory; as soon as it is pointed out, it becomes evident that much of the discourse of philosophers and Gestalt psychologists, and the attempts of physicists to explain quantum theory, are reduced to nonsense by the author falling repeatedly into the Mind Projection Fallacy
...
The belief that “randomness” is some kind of real property existing in Nature is a form of the Mind Projection Fallacy which says, in effect, “I don’t know the detailed causes—therefore—nature does not know them.”

[minkwe]

It appears from quick glance at your website that what you are really doing is deriving different mathematical formalisms, starting from logic. That makes sense because mathematics, just like logic, is a framework for manipulation of information. But do not confuse that with having derived laws of physics. Hilbert space is a mathematical tool, and so is Dirac delta, etc. probably 95% of QM is purely mathematical manipulation of information (epistemology), only relevant to physics because the information happens to be information about physical things (ontology). The information itself and the frameworks used to manipulate that information are not physical things or laws of nature by themselves. Many have fallen down that abyss already. Do not let the same fate befall you.

[gill1109]

Very perceptive remarks, Michel.

[friend]

It appears from quick glance at your website that what you are really doing is deriving different mathematical formalisms, starting from logic. That makes sense because mathematics, just like logic, is a framework for manipulation of information. But do not confuse that with having derived laws of physics. Hilbert space is a mathematical tool, and so is Dirac delta, etc. probably 95% of QM is purely mathematical manipulation of information (epistemology), only relevant to physics because the information happens to be information about physical things (ontology). The information itself and the frameworks used to manipulate that information are not physical things or laws of nature by themselves. Many have fallen down that abyss already. Do not let the same fate befall you.

Thank you. I'm sure I'll have to be careful. It's tempting to think there may be some sort of mind that does the derivation behind the physics that's derived. How can a logic that considers both true and false give rise to only true things that do exist? But the real argument is whether I've made a math error or a speculative assumption. We already use logic in math, set theory and its union and intersection that are involved with neighborhoods and topologies. What I seem to have done is to shrink to a point a set that forms a neighborhood which I use as a proposition in sentential logic in my math. Isn't this the usual way to turn union into conjunction and intersection into disjunction, like they do in DeMorgan's theorems (I may have gotten that backwards)?

[Ben6993]

Hi Friend

Have you applied your method of Logic to finding the laws of thermodynamics?

Note that Jay Yablon has a new thread (with a link to his very recent paper) here http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=138
which sets out a derivation of the laws of "classical thermodynamics from spacetime geometry".

Because of the above, I was reading the last chapter of Thermodynamics (1936) by Fermi, which treats thermodynamics wrt quantum mechanics, and came across some wording which immediately made me think of your method of logic's 'implications':
"The phase space is divided into a number of very small cells all of which have the same hypervolume ι; the state is then characterised by specifying the cell to which the point representing the state belongs." ... "This representation of the state of a system would evidently become exact if the cells were made infinitesimal".

Apologies if this is a red herring. As you well know, I very much like your method of 'implications' because I see it as closely fitting the wave function collapse and hence physically fitting what it is that happens (at least in my imagination) to particles at interactions.

Best wishes

[friend]

Hi Friend
Have you applied your method of Logic to finding the laws of thermodynamics?...

Hi Ben,

Thermodynamics has to do with entropy which requires information which can only be derived from probability distributions. The very basics of a probability distribution is the ability to place a sample in a bin. From there it is just a matter of how many samples are placed in which bins and getting a distribution across all the bins. Samples in bins is another way of saying elements in sets or even points in a neighborhood of a topology. What I have done is to recognize elements in sets as a way of describing material implication of logic. This connects logic to sets to probabilities which results in information and entropy. It also connects logic to topology. What I have not derived yet is the metric of spacetime on that topology. If I could derive the metric of general relativity, then I might be able to connect gravity to thermodynamics.

[Ben6993]

Hi Friend

Thanks for the interesting overview. Good luck in deriving the spacetime metric from logic.

[friend]

Hi Friend

Thanks for the interesting overview. Good luck in deriving the spacetime metric from logic.

This is my thinking so far: The metric of flat spacetime dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2 = dtau^2 may be invariant under Lorentz transformation because of the result of some invariance principle of Gaussian distributions. Remember that the Feynman path integral was derived from the Gaussian of the form exp[-(x-x0)^2/delta^2], where delta^2 = 2ih(t-to)/m in order to give the denominator the same t-squared dependence as the numerator has with its distance-squared. See equations 24 and 25 of my my derivation at logictophysics.com. For if we were to hold the exponent constant at, C^2, for some reason, then you could multiply this constant by the denominator, [2ih(t-to)/m]^2, and subtract it on both sides to get the flat spacetime metric in differential form equaling zero as it is for a Lorentz transformation. But why hold the gaussian exponent constant? Is it because this gaussian is more fundamental than any spacetime coordinates (being the representation of the material implication of logic which is more fundamental than a metric)? Or does that represent a process for which there is no loss of information?

If this invariance of the exponent holds up for some process, then this might explain the signature of the flat spacetime metric (-+++). I don't know yet why 3 space dimensions. But it may be that the space metric is locally Euclidean (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) because it might be necessary to keep the gaussian form of the distribution which allowed a derivation of the Feynman path integral. I like the way this is consistent with the idea that a manifold is locally Euclidean.

This makes me wonder if the exponent could generally have other quadratic cross terms such as xy + xz + yz. And does this place some restrictions on the spacetime metric that accounts for General Relativity?

If anyone has any insight into any of this, please share.

[friend]

Hi Friend

Thanks for the interesting overview. Good luck in deriving the spacetime metric from logic.

This is my thinking so far: The metric of flat spacetime dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2 = dtau^2 may be invariant under Lorentz transformation because of the result of some invariance principle of Gaussian distributions. Remember that the Feynman path integral was derived from the Gaussian of the form exp[-(x-x0)^2/delta^2], where delta^2 = 2ih(t-to)/m in order to give the denominator the same t-squared dependence as the numerator has with its distance-squared. See equations 24 and 25 of my derivation at logictophysics.com. For if we were to hold the exponent constant at, C^2, for some reason, then you could multiply this constant by the denominator, [2ih(t-to)/m]^2, and subtract it on both sides to get the flat spacetime metric in differential form equaling zero as it is for a Lorentz transformation. But why hold the gaussian exponent constant? Is it because this gaussian is more fundamental than any spacetime coordinates (being the representation of the material implication of logic which is more fundamental than a metric)? Or does that represent a process for which there is no loss of information?

If this invariance of the exponent holds up for some process, then this might explain the signature of the flat spacetime metric (-+++). I don't know yet why 3 space dimensions. But it may be that the space metric is locally Euclidean (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) because it might be necessary to keep the gaussian form of the distribution which allowed a derivation of the Feynman path integral. I like the way this is consistent with the idea that a manifold is locally Euclidean.

This makes me wonder if the exponent could generally have other quadratic cross terms such as xy + xz + yz. And does this place some restrictions on the spacetime metric that accounts for General Relativity?

If anyone has any insight into any of this, please share.