Questions on a system theory of physics

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

I´m working on a systems theory of consciousness which I ultimately will have to ground on a “systems theory of physics” to meet arising metaphysical questions. In this enterprise I would be happy to get some critics, comments, or inspirations on my thoughts.

The basic assumption of my approach to the interpretation of physics is, that ultimately the only thing we could ever say about anything, is about interactions in the world. For if there is no interaction by definition we could not take any notice of it. And the only thing that could ever be measured or experienced are interactions. Therefore a “thing” (or a fundamental particle) is no ontological category, but already a concept of cognition. A “thing” is an interpretation of certain patterns of interaction while all there is, is interacting. Interacting is a complete description of all that is going on. A “thing” still exists in this description. Not as a fundamental building block of reality, but merely as a useful description of more or less stable patterns of interacting.

From there I develop a process ontology, where patterns of interacting evolve evolutionarily and create an infinitude of intertwined, ever more complex patterns and levels of interacting, relating, of systems...


I´m not close to physics at all. I’m a systems thinker with a background in ecology. So maybe some of you could assist me with some questions about physics that are bothering me:

1. Can anyone ever say anything else about an "elementary particle", except for its interacting properties? In my understanding that should be all you could ever measure in principle!?
2. Is there a definite answer to the question if “particles” have gravitation or if it might just as well be the other way round? The gravitational field could virtually excite the crystallization of particles and therefore only create a high correlation between observed “particles” and gravitational field....
3. Do you know corresponding basic theories of physics which assume that there are no "particles" but only interactions, relations and systems? Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics? Wheeler’s “It from bit”? Lee Smolin’s concepts?
4. What would it actually mean for the guild of physics, if space and time would maintain a circular, mutually generating relationship? If one could ultimately only be described in terms of the respective other. Or if the gravitational field and the quantum field were ultimately in a circular, mutually creating/expressing relationship. If self-reference were the fundamental principle, so to speak, which would express itself from the perspective of logic as paradoxes of all kinds at the limits of human knowledge?

Thanks in advance for your comments!

[Shaibei]

As for physics, I have nothing to add. On the philosophical side, have you considered reading similar things written on the subject?
When I read what you write, I am reminded for example of Spinoza's statement:

"The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things"

Salomon Maimon's discussion on the subject also sounds relevant. Here are some quotes from the encyclopedic entry on his thought:

" the thing in itself must be understood as the complete conceptual determination of an object, which can be approached only asymptotically...
Space and time are then taken to be fictions in that they add properties to objects that are not present in the conceptual determination of these objects. As such, they serve as “negative criteria” for the incompleteness of our knowledge of objects. Although we never have complete determination, we do get nearer to the complete concept of an object. The fact that we represent objects in space and time points to the fact that something remains to be determined — spatial or temporal diversities, that is, must have their ground in some conceptual differences."

When you write that "all we can know is interactions," it raises a philosophical question about the nature of the discursive way of thinking. If we believe, for example, that there is a starting point for creation, what can our thinking tell us about that point? After all, our thinking connects things to things, and at this starting point there was nothing to which thought could connect

[Eugene I]

3. Do you know corresponding basic theories of physics which assume that there are no "particles" but only interactions, relations and systems? Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics? Wheeler’s “It from bit”? Lee Smolin’s concepts?

Yes, there are two interpretations of QM that a similar approach:
1. Relational interpretation, posing that physics should only study relations without assuming what is exactly being correlated: "correlations without correlata" as they say
2. Qbit information theoretical interpretation

The interpretation of those interpretations is open to interpretations , but many take it not as an alternative ontology, but rather avoiding any ontology whatsoever and stating that physics should be agnostic to ontology and only study how nature behaves, but not what nature is ontologically.

[SanteriSatama]

1. Can anyone ever say anything else about an "elementary particle", except for its interacting properties? In my understanding that should be all you could ever measure in principle!?

The "elementary particle" of standard mathematical physics is really "point". In Hilbert's axioms of geometry point is postulated as undefined "primitive notion". Sometimes "point" means approximately same as "infinitesimal", but all of that is very vague. Sometimes numerically valued section in Cartesian co-ordinate system. Problem with points in Cartesian coordinate system is that basic geometric forms like circle and equilateral triangle don't really exist in rational coordinate system, and on the other hand theory of real numbers is awful mess.

The situation of point-reductionistic atomism is hopeless.

2. Is there a definite answer to the question if “particles” have gravitation or if it might just as well be the other way round? The gravitational field could virtually excite the crystallization of particles and therefore only create a high correlation between observed “particles” and gravitational field....

There's no coherent theory of gravitation. So far no attempt to build a quantum gravity theory has shown any serious promise.

4. What would it actually mean for the guild of physics, if space and time would maintain a circular, mutually generating relationship? If one could ultimately only be described in terms of the respective other. Or if the gravitational field and the quantum field were ultimately in a circular, mutually creating/expressing relationship. If self-reference were the fundamental principle, so to speak, which would express itself from the perspective of logic as paradoxes of all kinds at the limits of human knowledge?

That would mean much more responsible participatory creation. Naturally, coherent mathematical physics requires requires coherent foundation of mathematics. Work on that is proceeding nicely.

[Simon Adams]

1. Can anyone ever say anything else about an "elementary particle", except for its interacting properties? In my understanding that should be all you could ever measure in principle!?

You’re probably best to post that on a physics board, but there are some things we can say about particles ‘before’ they interact. For example, a single photon passes through both both slits in the Young's experiment if not measured, so there is this ‘wave of possible paths’ aspect in relation to space. There is entanglement where two particles are somehow like a single entity or a single form before any interaction. You only ever get properties as part of an interaction, but you can still establish at least something about the nature of ‘it’ before the interaction. Is that what you’re referring to?

I’m not sure if this will help on your last point

[AshvinP]

1. Can anyone ever say anything else about an "elementary particle", except for its interacting properties? In my understanding that should be all you could ever measure in principle!?

You’re probably best to post that on a physics board, but there are some things we can say about particles ‘before’ they interact. For example, a single photon passes through both both slits in the Young's experiment if not measured, so there is this ‘wave of possible paths’ aspect in relation to space. There is entanglement where two particles are somehow like a single entity or a single form before any interaction. You only ever get properties as part of an interaction, but you can still establish at least something about the nature of ‘it’ before the interaction. Is that what you’re referring to?

I don't believe that is correct. Science only has something to say about relationships between phenomenon. It does not concern itself with the nature of phenomenon in isolation. But since nothing exists in isolation and the relationship between ideal phenomenon also unconceals our participation in the world, scientific approach is of utmost value.

[Simon Adams]

I don't believe that is correct. Science only has something to say about relationships between phenomenon. It does not concern itself with the nature of phenomenon in isolation. But since nothing exists in isolation and the relationship between ideal phenomenon also unconceals our participation in the world, scientific approach is of utmost value.

I think there is a way in which that is correct, but the question was about whether there is “ever anything we can say other than the properties we measure”. We never measure a ‘wave’ property of a photon, we always measure a whole photon at one point in space. Nonetheless we know there is this wave like property before it’s measured, we know a single photon will go through both slits without measuring it, and we can accurately predict the probability of what the properties will be when we do measure them.

So we know that there is *something* there and we know some things about it, we just can’t say that it has any of the properties of matter separate from the act of measurement/observation/interaction. So if you look at it from an idealist perspective, there is a mental form there with the potential to have material properties, but it will only ever have those properties as part of an interaction with another form. So yes, as you say, “Science only has something to say about relationships between phenomenon. It does not concern itself with the nature of phenomenon in isolation”. However science can say that there are two entangled photons that have been separated by 100 km, and that when we measure them, they will have properties as if they are two parts of the same form. These are things the formalism above and beyond what we measure, such that it predicts what we will measure (albeit probabilistically).

Maybe we’re talking semantics, but this seems significant to me.

[SanteriSatama]

I don't believe that is correct. Science only has something to say about relationships between phenomenon. It does not concern itself with the nature of phenomenon in isolation. But since nothing exists in isolation and the relationship between ideal phenomenon also unconceals our participation in the world, scientific approach is of utmost value.

I think there is a way in which that is correct, but the question was about whether there is “ever anything we can say other than the properties we measure”. We never measure a ‘wave’ property of a photon, we always measure a whole photon at one point in space.

Is that really so? What is measuring, when a measurement is done? Wittgenstein: "Mathematics as such is always a measurement, not the thing measured".

For the mathematical measurement apparatus of mathematical physics of quantum physics, there is no "outside" of mathematics. Mathematics is measuring the properties of mathematics. Since Arkhimedes, calculus measures some mathematical object by back-and-forth between another mathematical object. Wave property is already inherent in the measurement relation between circles and polygons.

So we know that there is *something* there and we know some things about it, we just can’t say that it has any of the properties of matter separate from the act of measurement/observation/interaction. So if you look at it from an idealist perspective, there is a mental form there with the potential to have material properties, but it will only ever have those properties as part of an interaction with another form. So yes, as you say, “Science only has something to say about relationships between phenomenon. It does not concern itself with the nature of phenomenon in isolation”. However science can say that there are two entangled photons that have been separated by 100 km, and that when we measure them, they will have properties as if they are two parts of the same form. These are things the formalism above and beyond what we measure, such that it predicts what we will measure (albeit probabilistically).

Maybe we’re talking semantics, but this seems significant to me.

Semantics is important to keep track of, so that we don't fall into trap of believing that a mathematical language game of measuring "proves" that there is "something outside" of the language game being played when measuring. When you look at a mirror, is the mirror image really outside you? If you think it is outside you, how do you conclude that the self-image that thinking projects is outside the mirror image?

[AshvinP]

I don't believe that is correct. Science only has something to say about relationships between phenomenon. It does not concern itself with the nature of phenomenon in isolation. But since nothing exists in isolation and the relationship between ideal phenomenon also unconceals our participation in the world, scientific approach is of utmost value.

I think there is a way in which that is correct, but the question was about whether there is “ever anything we can say other than the properties we measure”. We never measure a ‘wave’ property of a photon, we always measure a whole photon at one point in space. Nonetheless we know there is this wave like property before it’s measured, we know a single photon will go through both slits without measuring it, and we can accurately predict the probability of what the properties will be when we do measure them.

So we know that there is *something* there and we know some things about it, we just can’t say that it has any of the properties of matter separate from the act of measurement/observation/interaction. So if you look at it from an idealist perspective, there is a mental form there with the potential to have material properties, but it will only ever have those properties as part of an interaction with another form. So yes, as you say, “Science only has something to say about relationships between phenomenon. It does not concern itself with the nature of phenomenon in isolation”. However science can say that there are two entangled photons that have been separated by 100 km, and that when we measure them, they will have properties as if they are two parts of the same form. These are things the formalism above and beyond what we measure, such that it predicts what we will measure (albeit probabilistically).

Maybe we’re talking semantics, but this seems significant to me.

Right so the experiments are telling us about some aspect of the relationship between whatever the photons are and whatever the measurement device is. They are telling us there is an appearance of the photon, an appearance of observer, and in some way one is dependent on the other. Any claims about the essence of the phenomenon and their relationship are added by our thinking and are not disclosed in the appearances themselves. So the concepts that "there is this wave like property before it's measured" and "there are two entangled photons" are added to the appearances by us. That conceptual addition is exactly what re-creates a unity out of the bare multiplicity of appearances.

[j.joerg@posteo.de]

1. Relational interpretation, posing that physics should only study relations without assuming what is exactly being correlated: "correlations without correlata" as they say

Isn´t that a very profound ontological statement!? It basically says ontology is not a subject of science. That is probably the deepest statement on ontology science could possibly contribute...