The most fundamental structure in physics

In this video will see how the logic of experimentally verifiable statements gives us the most basic structure of physical theories. In other videos we will see how it connects to topologies and sigma-algebra, other foundational structures on top of which all other mathematical structures we use in physics are built.

[@gcarcassi]

Thanks to Saja Gherri for help with the slides! These are results from our research project Assumptions of Physics. More details on this topic in our open access book: assumptionsofphysics.org/book/ . If you are interested in our active research, see our other channel www.youtube.com/@AssumptionsofPhysicsResearch .

[@Kram1032]

Very cool stuff and well explained

[@fredericharmand]

I am interested in your concerns about the logical aspect of a theory. There is a situation in quantum mechanics where one can deduce from its postulates two contradictory statements. Consider Bell's experiments with entangled signals measured by Alice at one end, say A, and Bob at the other end, say B. Statement 1: the no-communication theorem states that the measurements made by Alice and Bob are independent so p(A^B)=P(A).P(B) Statement 2: the prediction of quantum mechanics based on the postulates is P(A^B)≠P(A).P(B) the measurements made by Alice and Bob are correlated. There is certainly a logical bug in the postulates or in the way they are used for the experiment. Have you heard of it? This is all quite important because the 1st statement is consistent with locality and relativity, the 2nd is not. For more information, take a look at my channel but it is in French....

[@fullfungo]

Nice video! As a math nerd myself I find your decision to “redefine” a Boolean algebra a bit weird, but if it works, it works I guess.😅 I haven’t discovered any new insights, but I’m sure this video might give other people some interesting ideas to think about.

[@gcarcassi]

LOL! 🤣🤣🤣 Thank you for accepting my idiosyncrasies!

[@ElFazo]

Thanks. This research is very promising to me. Are you going to show an example of current physical theory written formally?

[@gcarcassi]

When we have all the pieces done! 😊 This part about the logic brings us up to topological spaces. We know how to get real valued quantities, which essentially brings up to a manifold. That part you can find it in the book, and is already hundreds of pages. We are now working on how to get the higher level structures. The core ideas are progressing faster than I expected... but it is still a long time before we can get everything squeaky clean. 😊 But I may be able to have a video with a sketch of the whole construction within the year.

[@ElFazo]

@@gcarcassi good luck. I'll be there

[@wermaus]

Immediately hype

[@uptoapoint7157]

Esoteric presentation. However, there appears to have been a century-long divergence of observation and theory in science and mathematics had obscured more than it has explained. Observation of the very small and very large is difficult but we are better off saying we don't know rather than introducing theories that cannot be confirmed or rejected by observation.

[@gcarcassi]

The worst issue for me is a scientific theory that posits things that "in principle" cannot be confirmed or rejected. I am ok with a theory that predicts something that, due to practical limitation, we do not know how to confirm yet...

[@Roshawn-c2s]

WHATS THE BEST PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS BASE ON PRACTICAL APPLICATION OR APPLIED OR THEORY AND PRACTICAL WHATS THE BEST MATHEMATICAL LOGIC OR LOGIC TEXTBOOK FOR A PHYSIC TEXTBOOKS THANK YOU

[@gcarcassi]

I do not have a good recommendation. 😐 What I know is based on a decade of talking to people, working with some, reading scattered papers/parts of books, ...

[@wermaus]

i think it has to do with the possibilities that could exist as distinguishable by our mind on an existing downset of what physics would allow for because our little turing machine brains exist within our turing complete automata of physics. Then sort of "turing machines" exist as observations that change the possible "contexts" for something beyond information horizons. The ways sheer number you can project and organize data as dependencies to check against a solution is enormous, but if you can't come to a conclusion on something given the data at hand then it is displacable with ANY of the possible contexts it could exist within. Whether it's displacable is entirely dependant on whether the information from beyond that horizon has attenuated. This also has the weird impact of if brains are a turing machine then they are simplifiable to some other space, which means more importantly we can't necessarily distinguish the actual endpoints we're seeing, so in this set of all the possibilities exists some set of possibilities that aren't actually in physics at all. That's due to our lack of capacity to distinguish though rather than actual displacability of possibilities that could actually exist within physics. Physics being some downset of some hypothetical set of all possible compositions of functions

[@6ygfddgghhbvdx]

50:16 Is negation uniqely defined? Take exaple: All man are bad. The negation would be all man are good, or alternatively all women are bad. P(¬x) or ¬P(x).

[@gcarcassi]

"All man are good" is the opposite, not the negation. I can be that neither "all man are good" or "all man are bad" are true. The negation would be "not all man are bad", which is equivalent to "at least one man is not bad". If "all man are bad" is true, then "at least one man is not bad" is false. If "all man are bad" is false, then "at least one man is not bad" is true. Similarly, "All women are bad" is compatible with "all man are bad". They can all be bad! 😂 The negation always have to be false the original statement is true.

[@ronrice1931]

Why would you show text so small it can't be read? Just to make yourself look smart?

[@gcarcassi]

How would small text make me look smart exactly? 😂 Yes, probably the text will be small if you are watching on a phone.

[@ronrice1931]

@@gcarcassi I stand corrected. The idea that something could make you look smart is obviously absurd.

[@gcarcassi]

​@@ronrice1931 LOL!!! 🤣🤣🤣

[@chadkline4268]

Since Einstein, nearly all physics has been nonsense, so let's see what you say 😊 1. Yeah, that's why we use significant figures. I don't see the point of saying nothing is exact. Some things are, some have a limited precision. 2. An orange can be defined. There are things that can be analyzed to say this is an orange and this is not an orange. There are clear distinctions in the observable universe, even if a distinction is observationally non distinct. Physical reality is comprised of discrete components, no ambiguity, or forget about it. Physical reality doesn't perform magic and isn't blurry. 3. Particle physics: ok, now you're diving into nonsense, non science. CERN has no idea what it is doing with its high energy collisions. 4. Theory of Everything. If you don't see that this is a definitive scientific foundation, then you should not be talking about science. Science is exact+determinstic, or you are wasting time talking about it. 5. There are things that scientists think they know, that they don't know. There are physicists that use math to discover physics. There are physicists that create laws of nature by accepting math that describes in part, while ignoring the same math for the same nature where its description fails. Science doesn't work like that. Let's put your views to the test: 1. Uranium can be used to boil water. T or F? Science or non science? 2. The latest high energy collisions at CERN are discovering dozens of new fundamental particles. T or F? Science or non science? 3. Big Bang occurred. T or F? Science or non science? 4. Heisenberg uncertainty principle is science. T or F? Science or non science? 5. Schrodinger's equation is scientific. T or F? Science or non science? 6. Singularities exist. T or F? Science or non science? 7. There is no such thing as a void. T or F? Science or non science? 8. Hawkins radiation exists. T or F? Science or non science?

[@Levas-29]

It seems your very knowledgeable about this topic, I am interested. If you may entertain this selfish one, I want to know atleast few valuable concepts or advice or theories anything that stems from your point of view from your path of life in the context of pure science ( math etc. ). You may even take concepts out of them that you think is important and essential to understanding them. I would just need three or five, nothing more. Thank you.

[@chadkline4268]

@@Levas-29 yes, I agree with the work of Randell Mills and the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics. He sticks to classical physics, relationships of cause+effect, to describe all of physics+chemistry at all 85 orders of magnitude in the universe. No crazy theories or nonsense science.

[@williamnelson4968]

@@chadkline4268 Randel Mills. A bona fide Con artist. Give me a break.