Anton Rize

Im starting to get tired of this... Close to what? You quoted me so I presume you read it at least once. Can you point where exactly did I said that Einstein's ontology or GR is the ontological reality? There's no realism in infinity's. I already used them as an example of artifacts in this thread. That's the whole point of this discussion to separate model independent interpretation free (as much as it possible) empirical facts from interpretation heavy model dependant ontological assumptions. Did anything we discuss in this thread came through to you? Yeh that's explains why you was the one who invite him. No further questions or expectations in your direction from my side. Spot on! Thank you @exchemist for formulating this in such a clear form. thank you for joining in mate! In your comment its not clear to me what prevent multiple ontological views (regardless right or wrong) to be attached to same mathematics. Also how do you know that "intrinsic randomness" is telling us about physical reality instead of just reflecting our own ignorance caused by limited information about quantum system? Don't you think that Many World interpretation is in direct conflict with the parsimony principle and Occam's razor? And if ontological understanding does not discriminate any data (one can explain anything with Many Worlds) it loosing its explanation and predictive value and its scientific status can be questioned don't you think? in general QM is just ontological mess... So maybe lets warm up on orbital mechanics first? I would like to hear your thoughts on textbook assumption that M and G are the cause of the redshift when no empirical readings that I know can support it. I illustrated this problem here: and then added important correction:

This is it. Then the open problems in physics are not problems. You solved all of them just now! Why did you created this thread then? With this position we genuinely have nothing to discuss with you. I'm not even sure your position can be called scientific... @Eise Starting strong with self-contradiction: No, I did not. 1. Summoned as specialist, didn't understood the thread, first comment mostly category errors and straw man. 2. Opened my repo ignored README.md (spam link removed), README.txt ignored my website, ignored my papers, just grabbed some random file ROSS.pdf. WTF?! No questions raised in your head yeh? hahaha! Just so you would know what you read. Ross is the name of a friend of mine. he's not a physicist but he is curios about foundations of physics. File ROSS.pdf is around 10 pages long personal letter that I shared with him via my repo as an addition to a very long and deep conversation we had. It is extremely context dependant + I had to remove all the math for him and simplify and cut lots of parts. this document never meant to be for public readings. But I keep it there because it wasn't the last time Ill need general audience story-like version. I never expected that anyone could mistaken this ROSS.pdf with my papers. And I usually don't have any traffic on my repo. All the action happening on the website. So what was driving you @Eise on my repo instead of website remains a mystery to me as much as your choice of ROSS.pdf. You can see that the name of the repo is WILL. In documents folder there's files called WILL_RG_I,pdf, WILL_RG_II.pdf etc... What was the reasoning to pick ROSS but not WILL? You are a very strange individual I have to say... 3. Based on this random file he came to conclusion (again no self criticism what so ever) without any idea what that random file was for. 4. Decided that he is privileged unlike everybody else to participate in debate using opinions instead of rigours arguments: and That's all he's argument! @MigL is it what you was expecting to see when you invite him? Im still curios about your intent with this. Are you just don't know the difference between scientific argument and opinion or you genuinely that delusional to the point where your opinion is that important so it doesn't need any argumentation? Because you also showed similar delusion about your "monopoly" on Dennet's quote: So far this is the most epic chain of fails that I ever seen on a public forum. On a good side I appreciate your intent to actually read the papers. But you failed epically in doing so. You know if you new to github and it seems overwhelming you could just DM me and ask for papers. Any way at least you made me laugh I give you that. Don't worry though we all learning, just try to be a bit more humble and at least trace your logic before posting anything. Look I explicitly written everything down step by step with clear operational primitives. I point out where exactly ontology meters and why. I asked question to everyone to spark the discussion of the real ontological problem. I do not know what else I could do. I can also answer direct well formed questions, but you didn't formulate those. This: is not very clear from my perspective. if you saying that most math tools used in physics was developed by mathematicians before the physical application was found and you asking me when the ontology appear between this two? Is that your question? If yes then its assumption loaded question. Ontological understanding of the physical phenomena and its mathematical representation are not two separate elements. Mathematical formalism is the direct reflection of the ontological understanding. For example Einstein first reached the physical idea that gravity is geometry, and then chose that existing mathematics, with Grossmann’s help, because it matched his idea. So its not a coincidence 4D pseudo-Remanian geometrical fabric is the math that represents Einsteins ontology. Same goes to Newton. He developed calculus not because he was bored. He's math is the direct reflection of he's ontology. So ontology doesn't appear somewhere between math and physics - its the conceptual understanding that bounds math and physics together. I want to remind everyone that this is a split from Zeno paradox threat. It was splited not by me but by @swansont . So the name of the thread is not my choice. We are not discussing pure math or engineering here. This is about foundations of physics and methodology of science.

@swansont , then we agree on the core: ontology starts when we assign physical meaning to mathematical expressions. We still differ on "not all of physics requires ontology". By your own account, ontology enters whenever we use equations to model what we observe. Every physicist does that. Aligning a laser into a fibre does not ask an ontological question. It inherits the answer to one. The device you align exists because in 1917 Einstein asked which processes between matter and radiation must physically exist, and found stimulated emission. Every laser lab works downstream of that question. Daniel Dennett framed this precisely, and @Eise keeps it in his signature: "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." So the question is not whether a physicist makes ontological decisions. Every physicist makes them the moment an equation is given physical meaning. The question is whether those decisions are made blindly or examined with the rigour physics demands. Rereading my orbital example, I found a logical gap in my own post, and it shows exactly the problem this thread is about. I wrote that with operational readings, \( v_a = v_b \) becomes a physical law. That sentence assumes the speed read from the spectrum is caused by G and M. No reading supports this. The physical law is: \( 2\pi \dfrac{t_d}{P} = \sqrt{1-(1+z)^{-2}} \) Neither side contains G or M. The readings fix one scale of the central body. Splitting that scale into a kilogram mass and G, and calling the mass the source of z, is an assumption added on top of the readings. Nobody in this thread flagged that step, and neither did I when I wrote it. That is the point. An unread term slips into an equation, and everyone, including me, accepts it as physics. Tracking which terms correspond to readings is the only check that catches it. @TheVat I will skip your comments on the claims I never subscribed to. You wrote that mathematics measures and predicts observed patterns. Which observed pattern does M describe? To everyone: on what basis do you hold that M is the source of z? Which reading shows it?

This is correct only if Vat was commenting on pure mathematics. If he did so then he's comment was off topic. So the only logically valid contradiction-free reading of he's comment "Math makes no ontological claims." is "Math (the one we use in physics) makes no ontological claims.". So the "manufactured disagreement" exists only in your context depraved narrow reading. This is a good point. I shouldn't limit my view with only physics. And it brings to questioning my statement "Pure math demands no ontology". The irrational constants like e, pi, sqrt2 actually might have some deep ontology behind them after all... But this demands its own ontological investigation that will join my never ending list of things to do. Im not sure about your comment on Taylor series though. Yes it is used in physics as approximations but its not physically real. So Taylor series do not have a direct link to real physical readings and therefore ontologically not real as far as I understand. And on mathematical discoveries that predate their physical application: we need to be carful here. Yes all physics mathematical, but not all mathematics gets to be physics and not all mathematics that we use in physics is ontologically real. That's kind of the whole point of this threat.

Wow there's a lot to unpack here... Ok let me roll up my sleaves. This is addressed to everyone: I want to remind to all participants that our goal here is NOT to prove that one side is wrong and other side is right. The goal is to gain deeper insight on physics and our methods of doing it. The fact the our views are so different is an opportunity for both sides to learn and it is crucial for both sides remain ready and open for it. Any dogmatic unchallenged beliefs will create an obstacle in our mutual understanding. So I asking all participants to carefully examine the commitments they subscribed to before approaching any analyses. Thank you. --- Instead of trying to explain philosophy to old school physicists I will demonstrate the ontology in action: @Eise asked which physical actions I meant, and @swansont asked me to show the ontology involved. Here it is in one example. I will use one rule: every parameter that enters the math must be traced to the action that produces its reading. I call this operational reasoning. Take a circular orbit of radius r and period P. \( v_b = \dfrac{2\pi r}{P} \) P - is a local clock reading (discreet benchmark cycles count) of the duration of an orbital cycle. r - we do not measure distance directly. Instead it defined through light travel. I write \( t_d = r/c \) for the time light needs to cross the radius. Since 1983 the number c is fixed by definition, so c is a chosen unit conversion. Dividing by c gives the speed as a pure number: \( \beta = \dfrac{v_b}{c} = 2\pi \dfrac{t_d}{P} \) β is a ratio of two durations read on one clock. The unit of time cancels. Now the second expression: \( v_a = \sqrt{\dfrac{GM}{r}} \) No action on the orbit reads G or M. Setting \( v_a = v_b \) gives the only route to GM: \( GM = \beta^2 \, t_d \, c^3 \) Dividing by the unit conversion \( c^3 \): \( \dfrac{GM}{c^3} = \beta^2 \, t_d \) The right side is a duration built from two clock readings. This duration is the entire physical content of GM. Multiplying it by \( c^3 \) adds no physical meaning. Is there another route to GM? GM has units of length cubed over time squared, so every reading of it combines lengths and times only. A kilogram could enter only by weighing the body on a balance, and nobody weighs a star. Every method in use confirms this. Planetary ephemerides use radar times, Doppler shifts and periods. Gravitational-wave signals give the binary's scale directly as a duration, from the wave frequency and its rate of change. The speed can also be read from light alone. If z is the transverse Doppler shift of a spectral line from the orbiting body, then: \( \beta^2 = 1-(1+z)^{-2} \) So the orbit offers three ontologically real readings: the light radius \( t_d \), the period P, and the shift z. Any two of them fix the system's scale, and the third one tests it: \( 2\pi \dfrac{t_d}{P} = \sqrt{1-(1+z)^{-2}} \) This line equates a ratio of durations with a ratio of frequencies. These are two different types of readings, and the equality can fail. @joigus , this is why I do not call \( v_a = v_b \) an algebraic manipulation. With GM taken from the same orbit, it is an identity that tests nothing. With operational readings, it is a physical law. Can you see this difference? That what ontology is, and there's no need to escalate adversarial tones. We are better then this. For an elliptical orbit the same chain holds, with r as the semimajor axis and v as the speed at the point where the radius equals the semimajor axis. This is the ontology in action. The readings are durations and frequency ratios. G and M enter only when we convert the result into kilograms, a unit we invented. Relativists already drop G in practice by setting \( G = c = 1 \) and writing mass as a length, and the chain above shows why that convention works. Yet the way we teach orbital mechanics starts from the Sun's mass in kilograms and the value of G, and derives the orbital speed from them. The real physics operational order is the reverse: the speed is read, and the kilogram mass is computed from it. @swansont , aligning a laser into a fibre is a different shape of question and needs none of this. But the laser itself came from exactly this kind of reasoning. In 1917 Einstein published "On the Quantum Theory of Radiation". In its section on hypotheses about energy exchange through radiation, he asked which processes between molecules and radiation must physically exist for both to stay in thermal equilibrium. Absorption and spontaneous emission alone could not reproduce Planck's law. So a third process had to exist: emission induced by the incoming radiation. That process is stimulated emission, and the laser is named after it. Every laser rests on an ontological question asked forty-three years before the first one was built. Here I would usually supply direct links to colab notebooks that you could run yourself and verify every claim, but because @swansont is convinced that all of this is elaborate marketing act that I preform to sell something - in order not to get another ban from the local thought police I will leave this comment link free. You can always DM me for links anyway.

@swansont Thank you for splitting the thread. It was branching hard out there. I genuinely can not understand how can you split them apart. As soon as we claim that our math has any connection to empirical physical reality we engaged with ontology. Due to physics domain is empirical physical reality the split ontology or physics seems logically contradicting. Do you have any solid basis justifying this split? As far as I know pure abstract math doesn't demand any ontology. Ontology starts when we assign physical meaning to mathematical expressions. And if we not keeping track on what math expressions are physically real (Kepler's third law for example) and forced by the physical properties of the Universe; and what math expressions and solutions are just a consequence of the specific formalism we use to describe it (singularities for example) - we might find ourselves so far deep in the artifacts that nobody can agree anymore on what is actually ontologically real. Sounds familiar? Its the current state of the modern physics. Have you ever asked yourself "how many equations that I know and use are actually just artifacts?"? You should. You will be surprised to say the least. I think the core of this longstanding problem in physics is what I call the mirroring effect: "As humans, we often project ourselves onto observed phenomena, obscuring the true nature of physical reality behind our anthropic tendencies. In order to prevent this mirroring effect, theoretical development has to establish strong epistemic constraints on scientific reasoning. Without this constrains our resulting theories risking telling us more about ourselves then about the nature of the Universe."

@Time Traveler Don't you think you a bit trigger happy with postulates? Maybe we should consider postulating anything only as a last resort? What makes you think that plank units are not just artifacts? I think maybe before postulating we should examine if its possible to derive your T_U instead? For example if we adopt the interpretation of the cosmological redshift as expansion then H_0 become a natural base frequency (a Fundamental Tone of sort) for any observer within he's causal horizon --> R_H=c/H_0. What do you think?

You making it very hard for me not to sound adversarial right now hahaha! If you will look at this two equations as an algorithms one has to preform in order to obtain the values of v_a and v_b - you will find that this are categorically different algorithms. They lead to radically different physical actions that lead to different measurements of different phenomenon. Is it reasonable to call it "algebraic manipulation"? Maybe if you would actually engage with the argument and spend just few minutes thinking about it before writing your comment - we could better understand each other? Would you agree?

This one is addressed to everyone: Guys, I think we all find this discussion more pleasant and productive if we all will tone down the adversarial overtones. I want to remind as much to myself as to every single one of you that there's no competition or battle taking place here. We are all on the same team and we share our common passion and interest in physics. Let's celebrate it with collaborative communication. All objections, different views and rigour stays the same. I ask only to reconsider the emotional tone. Just a pinch of kindness and collaboration might have very surprising effect on overall productivity of this engagment. Mine or anybody else thoughts or opinions are irrelevant here. What we have here is a different operational understanding of mathematical language between us. And I would like to understand your position clearly. Lets take this simple example where 2 equations are solving for the same value but, as I see it, having radically different ontological meanings: \( v_{a} = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}} \qquad\text{vs.}\qquad v_{b} = \frac{2\pi r}{P} \) Can you see the ontological difference?

I would like to remind you that we must be humble in the face of the Cosmos and never allow ourselves to introduce its properties at will. What operational procedure or reading can justificative such ontological claim? So far the Universal Time (TU) seems completely redundant to me. Every observer can read others time as ratio against his local benchmark cycle counts and nowhere in this process Universal Time (TU) is needed.

this answered my question: @studiot just unknowingly made a perfect illustration of how after 20K comments on SF an individual has no clue what ontology is. The only way it could happened is if one would adopt complete philosophical neglect. And then @TheVat finalised this illustration with: I think the words of Daniel Dennett are exceptionally framing the tragedy we witness here: "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

This one addressed to everyone: But aren't we already quantizing spacetime operationally regardless of do we want to or not? We operationally forced to define time locally through cyclic dynamical systems of our conventional choice (1 tick of Earths axis rotation = day; or 1 second = 9,192,631,770 ticks of cesium-133 atom energy levels oscillations). So the local benchmark that we measure everything else against is operationally forced to be quantised due to the tick count of what we call time. So I just can't understand how knowing this we still sometimes talk about continues spacetime as real ontological element instead of mathematical artifact. Am I missing somthing?

@Time Traveler Another friendly suggestion: I personally do not care about the source of the solution presented as long as it has value. It can be you or AI or talking parrot pet - doesn't meter. The authorship does not effect the content and validity of the solution. But you are clearly right now just copy-pasting generated text without editing. Another general rule is you want to distil AI's text to its irreducible core. Usually it means deleting more then 50%. In current form I consider this a slop. There's no need to overcomplicate and to introduce operationally redundant ontological statements like "cosmic refresh rate". About your solution: This is cool. I never thought about it this way. It's simple, elegant and resolving the problem on the level where physics supposed to give resolutions - operational level. So for me personally this resolves the long standing paradox in a very satisfying way and I'm happy to thank you for that. Well done! P.S. Im not an academic authority of any kind. So there's still a chance we both can be wrong. But again as I point out above - authority or lack of it is not a valid scientific argument. I guess what Im trying to say is: lets be vigilant to our own conclusions despite how elegant they are.

@Time Traveler Thank you for interesting post. First friendly suggestion: You want to learn how to spot trolls early on and don't waste your time on them. General rule is if the first comment reads like arrogant dismissal without clear signs of engagement or if comment is attempting to drag you in to barely relevant debate about semantics or specific formalism conventions that can not have clear resolution - its a troll. They will never properly engage with material presented and will move the goalpost endlessly. Just ignore them. Don't feed the trolls. I had to learn it the hard way... Now about your solution: The way its written is a bit obscure and I want to make sure that I got it right. So you arguing that the participants (Achilles, Tortoise) macroscopic operational means of interaction (runner's foot) is setting the scale of the "quanta" step in this system therefore collapsing the infinite continues problem on operational level. Is this correct understanding?

This is a great question. in its almost bold simplicity it highlights the potential circularity in the concept of mass that keeps me up at night. @swansont explanation is perfectly correct but it does not address the deeper question: what does device on the right actually measuring? So far I do not have the answer to this question. But whatever it is - it does not required to solve gravitational systems. Here's runnable colab notebook that demonstrates it: https://colab.research.google.com/github/AntonRize/WILL/blob/main/Colab_Notebooks/R_O_M__MASS_G_FREE_CLOSURE.ipynb If python is not your jam here's desmos demonstration: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mjen4ms452 So the question remains: what does device on the right actually measuring?