- There are More Things In Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than Are Hard Wired In Your Brain

On 01 October, 2011 I wrote:
- What Imps These Particles Be
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

"The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).

The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression."


Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox has, to some, been resolved by suggesting that to go half the distance takes half the time, etc., and when you add up all these increments you get a finite answer which happens to be the same amount of time as calculated using t=d/v.

This works for the Real Number line, but the issue is whether the space between two points is represented by the Real Number line - i.e. in 'real' (by naming the number system the 'Real' number system somehow it takes on a meaning of its own and becomes 'real' - as with giving the imp its name: 'neutrino') space, given two separate points can you find a point that is half way between - in other words, in going from point A to point B do you necessarily pass through a midway point.

Our perception tells us we can and do. That perception is the result of millions of years of evolution developing our senses to obtain information of our surrounding and developing a brain to process it, and presumably the underlying motivator is survival as opposed to reality and very small distances simply are not a factor. This may underlie the position some take - well, it is useful, so who cares.

In other words we are hard wired to perceive our surrounding as being a continuum. That the Real Number system expresses this is, in reality, a manifestation of this phenomenon. (Another concept of Physics where this may very well come into play is electrical charges i.e. being positive and negative, attraction and repulsion. In other words, the parallel between that and the very human reality of male-female, yin-yang, may not be a co-incidence, but our brains are hard wired to only be able to interpret such observations and perceive such effects in such terms - we understand our observations of our surrounding by relating them to pre-existing hard-wired psychological structures (I know, I know, sounds like Jung) and what we have already associated with them. This might explain why the concept of 'imp' comes into our world view. (It may also touch on why to some their concept of God might include very human characteristics - human characteristics I understand, God I don't).

Similarly, this applies to time as well.

Our concept of time and distance is based on the assumption that it is represented by the Real Number line; thus, so to velocity and momentum (since it also depends on mass, for which a similar argument applies, it is doubly implicated).

For distances that we are familiar with, assuming reality is represented by the Real Number System works quite well (in that we have been able to survive). However, in small distances we simply don't know. Is it any wonder that in the world of Quantum Physics they have trouble with position, momentum, time, etc.

Until they determine the mechanism by which an object actually gets from point A to point B in space - in which, it seems self evident, would be included just exactly what is 'space' anyway - I can't see them making huge progress. It seems to me that in current theories they have somehow swept this under the rug, so to speak, perhaps deliberately to avoid the issue.

Perhaps, between any two objects there are only a finite number of intermediary points which the objects could occupy. It is hard to imagine, but then that's viewed from our perception. Inertia and mass could possibly be a manifestation of 'drag' as we go through each one of these points (or the time it takes to materialize at that point then dematerialize - for fear of sounding too Trekky). It may be that objects are somehow draw to a point and then it takes something push them off. To express it in pre-conceived notions, perhaps the pushing is what requires energy (which is saved up in the pulling), and that is what takes the time, with the switching to being attracted to the next point occurring instantaneously (or the speed of light???, etc.) - and considering there is nothing in between - why not.

Or, perhaps, the number of points between two objects is a function of the two objects, where say, larger masses cause more points, or what we call 'mass' is a manifestation of those properties of objects that cause more points or longer times from point to point.

Each object having its own set of points which somehow combine with those of other objects. Perhaps objects with great mass have more closely spaced points

In such case, certainly the Real Number System may not be the best choice and a number system that is more discrete may be better.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html