Background Independencies vs. Background Dependency...

In an attempt to refresh my memory of all of the various aspects to consider for this debate, I came across Lee Smolin's work 'The Case for Background Independence' which addresses many of the dynamics at play with the background issues of RM and QM whereby each actually contain aspects of both types of background dynamics. Here's a link to a PDF by chance you haven't already came across this work, which I figure you have. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507235v1.pdf

Yeah Tim, I have Lee's newest book here in my camper. I just thought it odd that you'd send a link to the main 'background independence' physicist, when your ideas are usually so attached to 'background dependence'. If you'd read the entire paper, you'd have seen where his, and his colleagues, work was far more leaning toward 'background independence' than 'background dependence.' The book he published a year later than this paper has much clearer ideas of his older writings, where he's even more an advocate of 'background independence' and anti-string theory, than this paper portrays, but anyway...

Tim, the point is, if you divide the Universe down to it's most fundamental particles possible, then realize you need a methodology to describe what the further division of these fundamental particles is going to be represented by, then this is the point where one realizes, one needs a field theory, and if it's to be a quantum field theory, one must decide if there's a sound background to attach such a theory to, or not. If mathematically attached, then one is creating a 'background dependence', and if mathematically un-attached, then one is working in a 'background independence.'(The realization we don't have this mathematical gap solved, yet.) My question, to make the point obvious would be; "If it's 'background dependent', then what's it attached to, and how...?" Tim, once you've divided all particle structure to its most absolute fundamental structure__then it's pure 'background independent' field, imo, as that's all that's left.(We yet have no method of sound mathematical definition to close the gaps.) If you're going to attempt to make the field 'dependent', as per your PSF grid, then where are the co-ordinate and reference frame distance numbers coming from?(Especially if looked at, at state change points__recycle points.) You see, to me Tim, if you are using particle structures as your fundamental measurement basis, and you go below this particle structure measurement basis, or some fraction of a c-wave crossing the surface of a proton__what's left to measure?__The fine structure constant_1/137?__or do you go to probability waves?__which are purely theoretical or virtual measurements...?

This may be rather crude, but all I'm trying to point out, is reductionism has its 'limits of reduction'__to the point where further reduction begins to make no sense, meaning or definition even possible. When such a 'limit reduction' is reached, one must realize the methodology must change__and this is where field, or quantum field mechanics must enter__and when you are required to enter this, due to measurement necessities, you must realize this field system is an entirely different measurement system__and imo, can not be compared to any quantum particle structure measurement__other than possibly time__as our instruments just are not sensative enough to measure it accurately enough, yet__even though we could extend it infinitesimally small with math, such maths would/may not refer to reality, other than some fictitious virtual reality...

So imo, when this possible measurement limit state is reached, one is forced to decide whether they are going to accept a 'falsely created background dependent' deterministic field system__where there's actually nothing for such a field to depend on and or determine, other than meta-physical creations of__Or to accept the much more true absolute 'background independencies', where the absolute only refers to a fully dynamic field mechanics__fundamentally self-hydrodynamic wave-mechanics' initiating all motion, as the self-eternally existing source... Tim, particle mechanics, whether Newtonian or QM, just will not give the needed 'dynamic background independence', or anything close to the discreteness of fundamental particles, coming from some 'background dependence', as such is so limited and impossible to the consistent logic of the possible mechanics and measurement dynamics present, of the actual Universe's already measured books of facts. Absolute discreteness(where absolute discreteness means measurement of actual FS__so far.) is like the ol' creation problem__It requires an infinite regress of the structured substance present, as a reduction to a field__where such a field is 'background dependent' on a PSF measurement, measured within the confines and constraints of such a particle structure's 'background dependency' fails to supply the necessary mechanics' dynamics potential, to build the very particle structure, the model is dependent on.(It just lacks the necessary mechanics' entities, to build particle structures.) To me Tim, it's a snake swallowing its own tail, as I've always seen such quantum foam and virtual particle models. I'll explain this further, as I respond to your two other paragraphs' statements...

I still feel that there is a fundamental misalignment with your understanding of my theories Lloyd, which is to be expected at this level of conversation considering all of the aspects and dynamics involved with viewing the universal interactions as an entire functioning system.

Tim, are you not wedded to a non-feee-will, deterministic, 'background dependent' system__More than a free-will, indeterministic, 'background independent' system...? I am wedded to the opposite, Tim... And btw, so is Lee Smolin...

Keep in mind that my discrete ideas are very dynamic with reference frames moving within frames and the motion transferences thereof rather than a mere collection of "pool balls" converging to a centralized background region to construct a structured system.

If so, how would you describe such system mechanics at state change limits...? Let me exaggerate, to make my point clear. Let the entire finite Universe decay to its absolute recycle state limit__let this be understood to be the superfluid, super-positioning state of all fermions and bosons__let it be called the super-cycle-state. Now, let this state be represented to function within and by your PSF grid__Can/does the grid resize its grid-scale to accomodate the necessary re-scaling of the entire finite Universe, at such a necessary super-fluid hydrodynamics state, as would be necessary of such a fermion and boson state of such theoretical ultimate Hawking decay mechanics, yet also being necessitated to maintain the Universe's consistent fundamental dynamics, electro-magnetic and gravity motion states? Does your PSF grid shrink/scale accordingly, or stay the same__as per the absolutely necessary field scalar-shrinkage__at such decay limit, i.e., if fermions 'state change' to bosons, bosons must 'state scalar-shrink' back toward a new Universal structured state__No?

Within my most complex theorizing, the discrete properties of the background dependent model which go towards structuralization of a system at any given moment are in constant change whereby further defining the mass to velocity relationship of RM.

You see here Tim, I think you have a definitional explication problem__You state 'discrete properties', and 'constant change' within the same sentence, thus destroying the logic of your premises and conclusion, i.e., such logic is self-contradictory. It's simply not allowed to state such sentences, and think they pertain to logical representations of science. I think you'll notice this, as I've here pointed it out__No...?

For a structured system to remain near motionless within a region of the absolute background, then its mass would have to be great enough to warp all system transference aspects from any degree of linear to near perfect angular as with a black hole, which further goes into escape velocity aspects and such.

Again Tim, the term 'absolute background' really has two meanings__'physical absoluteness' and 'event-progression' absoluteness of motion, which must be made clear in sentences, for another person to clearly understand. By 'escape velocity aspects', do you mean 'decay mechanics...?'

I see RM and QM as explaining the same universal model, just at the scales at which they are appropriate within. Among other inconsistencies, RM requires spacetime to be smooth and continuous to establish the warpages which govern orbital aspects while QM requires it to be a lumpy dynamic field of virtual interactions and such as with 'quantum foam' models.

If RM and QM are explaining the same Universal model, then why can't we unite the maths, or might it be possible for one of them to be wrong__wrong at least partially, and somewhere in their definitional interpretations and statements...? Tim, do you actually believe in 'virtual particles' creations...?' And, do you actually believe in 'quantum foam' models...? I think it's 'background dependence' that falsely creates some of these anomolous models... Don't get me wrong, as I do think QM has many other 'true vilidities', at the same time__just not 'virtual particle creations' or 'quantum foam models'__To me, that's just ways of hiding what they don't know, and are too weak to admit, what they do not know...

The mathematics of both methodologies are merely an analog model of how the system is functioning with the smooth continuous motions of the massive bodies along with the deterministic mechanics thereof and faded uncertainty having somehow arisen from the seemingly indeterminate and uncertain interactions of a more fundamental resolution working at the shortest of distances.

Tim, I think one of the major differences between your thinking and mine, is I don't try to guess that far into the dynamics I can't clearly see, or at least figure on paper. I think I accept much more of what I don't know, and what I don't think science knows than you do, imo. As I've mentioned before, it's safer to under-determine the ideas, than to over-determine them__as tis over-determining them that gets our egos into trouble. "I'd rather be right about being wrong, than wrong about being right..." You see, me being an absolute skeptic of 'determinism' being applied to any Universal state, makes absolutely no sense to me__as it implies a knowledge of absolute 'cause and effect' one just can not possibly have__when one can't even explain the mechanics of a/the 'prime mover'__Therefore, all statements about 'determinism' are necessitated to be fallacious, in my book... You explain the absolute origin and mechanics of fundamental motion, and I might accept your enthusiasm for 'determinism', but not until...

The concept of other dimensions of motion goes a long way here in considering a possible aspect of the rift between the two mathematical methods employed to analogously describe the interactions of nature at their appropriate distances and scales. I don't see the seemingly smooth continuous spacetime warping of RM as described by Einstein, but rather I see many quantum interactions going into the propagation and trajectory of massive bodies which aren't smooth and continuous but rather potentially discrete whereby many dimensions of motion at the shortest of distances dissolve into the very smooth fabric of spacetime to allow for its quantization along with such micro motions also going into the very structuring of the massive macro body itself. Thus, every smooth and well defined deterministic path of macro bodies along with the bodies themselves are built upon a background of various quantum motion dynamics which result in the macro interactions per the quantum micro interactions.

Wishful thinking Tim, doesn't hide the 'giant math and physics gap' in your 'false-jump ideology...' Science is about filling in the giant math and physics gaps... Words don't work, Tim__It takes sound math and sound logic, then the experiments to prove the results. We're all able to use idealist word systems to jump science's massive gaps in knowledge, but this in no way creates any new science... It's very simple to know a lot of what you are saying is true, Tim__But, it ain't adding anything to science, to jump the gaps, without forging new and sound bridges, much the way Ramsey and Herbrand did back in the late `20's...

Though Einstein went far in giving a mechanism to Newton's gravity which was till that point just known by its effects, RM still lacks the further mechanization of the relationship of unstructured and structured systems which would further define just mechanically how spacetime is warped in the presence of a massive system. What are the quantum interactions taking place whereby such processes are so deterministically resolved?

Quantum magneto-hydrodynamics, Tim__and known about since the thirties and forties... Some of the older encyclopedias included this field, the new ones love to ignore. The field is still very active, but research grants are simply going to the quantum deterministic nonsense... It might be deterministic Tim, if anything was actually measurably determinable__at the truly deterministic level, but you may also be quite surprised to learn about effects creating affects, at the truest scales of resolutions, definitions and interpretations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics I also posted much about this on 'East Meets West...' It's real quantum science and cosmology, Tim...

Though the absolute background upon which reality is fashioned may seemingly be hidden once the system reaches its deterministic resolution which allows for system to system or reference frame to reference frame exploration and observation, which led to Einstein's conclusion of the invariant speed of light thus variant aspects of space and time, I feel that Newton's approach goes further to understanding the universe at a more intimate level by allowing the absolute space and time invariance which will possibly unify the seemingly conflicting aspects of the Standard Model, more specifically RM and QM, by supplying the preferred frame of reference which allows the understanding of exactly what aspects of nature these two seemingly conflicting methodologies are analogously modeling.

True enough Tim, but only after one redefines the two meanings of absolute background space and time of Newton's era, as relates to today. The new definition requires the addition of 'Dynamic Absolute Space and Time'__Not 'Fixed Background Absolute Space and Time...' The PSF-Grid is an abstract tool, and an absolute illusion of the real absolute space and time, highly 'Dynamic Universe...' You see Tim, most of these silly problems come down to no more than false definitions and wrong interpretations of meanings... These interpretation problems are spread all throughout the sciences' and philosophies' histories...

Do I know how to resolve the mathematical inconsistencies? No, but this is the conclusion I'm drawn to when considering my apparent limited understanding of the vast complexities of nature itself. I guess to me, any mathematical description at the macro resolution would ultimately be a byproduct of the more fundamental mathematical aspects taking place at the much shorter micro distances as such constituent interactions went towards building the composite greater distance scales at which the rise of determinacy imposed a reciprocal fall of uncertainty as many unresolved interactions went towards a resolved fluid path of a structured system propagating within an unstructured medium.

Yeah, except for one thing, Tim__you forgot about the macro-structured bio-beings existing first, to allow measurement of the macro-geo-structures, enabling the fundamental possibility of any possible measurement at those micro-structure levels__to even or ever first exist...!!! Get that horse out from behind, and out in front of your cart... He can't see where he's going, when ya got him pushing the damn cart...

I'm not certain that a unification of such varying mathematical methodologies and the systems they are analogous to is the key to understanding, but I rather prefer to entertain the thought of how one composite mathematical methodology/system might arise from a vast region operating within a more fundamental set of interactions represented by a constituent mathematical methodology/system.

Again, you've tried another one of those self-contradictory sentences__Bogus logic, Tim... Nothing wrong with bio-emergences of mathematics and methodologies, but one can't use math to refute math__Tarski proved in the `30's, along with Church, Turing and Godel that 'no system can be used within itself, to prove its own validity or non-validity'__that also means, you...

Perhaps the unification of RM to QM will come by way of not understanding how such are related, but rather how macro measurements and observations are merely an approximation of interactions taking place at the more fundamental micro realm as not all quantitative aspects of such micro interactions go into the measurable values of the macro realm, as it is more representative of the dominant interactions which see to the preservation of structured systems and their trajectory through the unstructured quantum medium. I'll try to explain better later.

Yeah, but here again__you've forgot that all micro-measurements only exist because of macro-measurements' first inventions and long uses... Tim, it was many thousands of years before man ever dreamed of even the possibility of anything smaller than the atom__and many thousands of years after first dreaming about the atom, before he actually understood just how small, it's many parts actually were__and we still ain't there completely__Yet...!!!

Also, a few notes from that Smolin paper:

The Landscape Problem…
The reason that we do not have a fundamental formulation of string theory, from which it might be possible to resolve the challenge posed by the landscape, is that it has been so far developed as a background dependent theory. This is despite there being compelling arguments that a fundamental theory must be background independent. Whether string theory turns out to describe nature or not, there are now few alternatives but to approach the problems of unification and quantum gravity from a background independent perspective. Smolin

Leibniz’s argument for relationalism was based on two principles, which have been
the focus of many books and papers by philosophers to the present day. The principle
of sufficient reason states that it must be possible to give a rational justification for every choice made in the description of nature. I will refer the interested reader to the original texts for the arguments given for it, but it is not hard to see the relevance of this principle for contemporary theoretical physics. A theory that begins with the choice of a background geometry, among many equally consistent choices, violates this principle. So does a theory that allows some parameters to be freely specified, and allows no mechanism or rational argument why one value is observed in nature.

But it took physics a long time to catch up to Leibniz’s thinking. Even if philosophers were convinced that Leibniz had the better argument, Newton’s view was easier to develop, and took off, whereby Leibniz’s remained philosophy. This is easy to understand: a physics where space and time are absolute can be developed one particle at a time, while a relational view requires that the properties of any one particle are determined self-consistently by the whole universe.

QM’s Description vs. Construction Distinctions…

Einstein was among those whose thinking was changed by Mach. There is a certain
historical complication, because what Einstein called “Mach’s principle” was not exactly what Mach wrote. But that need not concern us here. The key idea that Einstein got from, or read into, Mach, was that acceleration should be defined relative to a frame of reference that is dynamically determined by the configuration of the whole universe, rather than being fixed absolutely, as in Newton’s theory.

Relational strategy: Seek to make progress by identifying the background structure in our theories and removing it, replacing it with relations which evolve subject to dynamical law.

An Effective Measurement Theory…???

If it is true than the reason that string theory finds itself in the situation described in the introduction is that no background dependent theory could successfully solve the five key problems mentioned there. If this is true, then the only thing to do is to go back and work on the less studied road of relational theories.