Comments on: Quantum Gravity Solved! … If You’re an Ant http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/quantum-gravity-solved-if-youre-an-ant/ The Blog of Cambridge University Press, North America Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:55:51 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: amrit sorli http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/quantum-gravity-solved-if-youre-an-ant/comment-page-1/#comment-4406 amrit sorli Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:41:58 +0000 http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=1296#comment-4406 gravity is atemporal, carried by the atemporal space gravity is atemporal, carried by the atemporal space

]]> By: KevinTC http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/quantum-gravity-solved-if-youre-an-ant/comment-page-1/#comment-1929 KevinTC Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:19:15 +0000 http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=1296#comment-1929 Your starting point of assuming 3 dimensions - 2 space and only one of time. What if time has 2 dimension? How do we know that time is not a variable, hours changing in period length over the years? Your starting point of assuming 3 dimensions – 2 space and only one of time. What if time has 2 dimension?
How do we know that time is not a variable, hours changing in period length over the years?

]]> By: JOSEPH BRENNER http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/quantum-gravity-solved-if-youre-an-ant/comment-page-1/#comment-1638 JOSEPH BRENNER Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:53:10 +0000 http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=1296#comment-1638 In response to my previous posting about self-duality, you asked me for more detail, available outside my book. I must confess that I have not created such detail (and have not even created a website), but I still propose the following for discussion. The physical meaning of self-duality of quantum entities needs to be understood, also, I think, in relation, to the domain of non-self-dual entities. On p. 126 of his article in the above book, Shahn writes that "Concrete matter curves space and this breaks the de Morgan duality of intuitionist logic (which is abstract). However, this does not mean that other physical but also logical dualities, that have their origin in self-duality, may not persist in "real matter", say, a hydrogen atom. I have tried, in my logic in reality, to describe these dualities in terms of actuality and potentiality. These terms, unlike in their original usage by Aristotle, have not only physical values, but conjugate variables, taking probability-like values between > 0 and < 1. I am convinced that such a description can be applied to complex phenomena, non-metaphorically, that is, to non-Markovian processes, and that some kind of non-Boolean algebra and non-Kolmogorovian probability calculus can be used to represent such values. Non-commutative geometry and the (categorial) topos theory of Lawvere and his school are fine as far as they go, but they are 'geometrical' theories, and it seems to me that geometry is not somehow more primitive than the energy that Shahn has defined. Above all, the logics of these latter theories do allow "contradictions", e.g., superpositions of states, for which my logic offers a non-many-worlds, non-anti-realist interpretation, in terms, again, of simultaneous actual and potential states. My theory could be described as "Six intuitions looking for a mathematical physicist". I can describe real phenomena using a sort of calculus representing the flow of actuality and potentiality, providing both for stable macrophysical objects and emergence, but I am the first to say that this is mathematically naïve. For the time being, if Shahn and others are moved to make comments, I could send you individually pieces from my book by E-mail, especially, referring to the theory of quantum gravity of Lusanna and Pauri which fits my picture. Thank you. In response to my previous posting about self-duality, you asked me for more detail, available outside my book. I must confess that I have not created such detail (and have not even created a website), but I still propose the following for discussion.

The physical meaning of self-duality of quantum entities needs to be understood, also, I think, in relation, to the domain of non-self-dual entities. On p. 126 of his article in the above book, Shahn writes that “Concrete matter curves space and this breaks the de Morgan duality of intuitionist logic (which is abstract). However, this does not mean that other physical but also logical dualities, that have their origin in self-duality, may not persist in “real matter”, say, a hydrogen atom. I have tried, in my logic in reality, to describe these dualities in terms of actuality and potentiality. These terms, unlike in their original usage by Aristotle, have not only physical values, but conjugate variables, taking probability-like values between > 0 and < 1.

I am convinced that such a description can be applied to complex phenomena, non-metaphorically, that is, to non-Markovian processes, and that some kind of non-Boolean algebra and non-Kolmogorovian probability calculus can be used to represent such values. Non-commutative geometry and the (categorial) topos theory of Lawvere and his school are fine as far as they go, but they are ‘geometrical’ theories, and it seems to me that geometry is not somehow more primitive than the energy that Shahn has defined. Above all, the logics of these latter theories do allow “contradictions”, e.g., superpositions of states, for which my logic offers a non-many-worlds, non-anti-realist interpretation, in terms, again, of simultaneous actual and potential states.

My theory could be described as “Six intuitions looking for a mathematical physicist”. I can describe real phenomena using a sort of calculus representing the flow of actuality and potentiality, providing both for stable macrophysical objects and emergence, but I am the first to say that this is mathematically naïve.

For the time being, if Shahn and others are moved to make comments, I could send you individually pieces from my book by E-mail, especially, referring to the theory of quantum gravity of Lusanna and Pauri which fits my picture. Thank you.

]]>