Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT FORUM POSTS

Peter Jackson: "Richard, If we want the right to decry, we have to earn it. You want it..." in Classical Spheres,...

Thomas Ray: "" ... the vast majority do not seek knowledge for its own sake, but rather..." in Classical Spheres,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?
Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

Quantum Computers Get Real
Fighting decoherence to scale up quantum technologies.

Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space
Satellite experiments could soon investigate the boundaries of quantum physics and relativity.

Classic Article: The Art of Math
A pictorial branch of mathematics could help physicists draw new conclusions about quantum gravity and the nature of time.


FQXi BLOGS
April 17, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: If God were to simulate reality, would he prefer it quantum? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share

Blogger Mile Gu wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
--or How Quantum Theory May Sharpen the Blade of Occam’s Razor

.

The 1999 movie ‘The Matrix’ explored a world where humans are plugged into a virtual reality. They go about their daily lives, unaware that the sensory inputs that they receive do not originate from their perceived reality. When a person, Alice, within the matrix observes a watermelon falling from a skyscraper, there is no skyscraper, nor watermelon, nor even gravity responsible for the watermelon's fall. Instead a complex computer program works silently in the background. The initial state of the watermelon, and the location of the observer, is all encoded by bits. The computer takes these bits, processes them according to a predetermined algorithm, and outputs the electrical signals that dictate what the observer should see.

To we who live in the twenty first century, whose lives are enmeshed in various information processors, the eventual plausibility of the Matrix does not appear as radical as it once did. One by one, the photos we view and the mail we send, have been converted to digital form. Common questions, such as, “How many megabytes does that song take up?" reflect a society that is becoming increasingly accepting of the idea that the observable qualities of every object can be represented by bits, and physical processes by how they manipulate these bits. Some scientists have even gone as far as to speculate we could live within a giant information processor, a giant ‘Matrix’, programmed to simulate the laws of physics we know.

If our observed reality were indeed a simulation constructed by some ultimate architect, what is the underlying code of our universe? What sort of information processing would they use? Would it be merely classical logic on classical bits, or would they harness the unique properties of quantum logic? On first impressions, such questions seem difficult to answer. After all, all observations we make lie within ‘The Matrix’, how could we say anything about what lies beyond?

One way to approach this problem is to walk in the shoes of the architect. Suppose you were an young architect, tasked to simulate a simple reality. A universe, consisting of a single observable bit evolving in discrete time steps, such that at each time, the bit flipped with probability 0.2 (see note (*) below, for why I have chosen 0.2). Being a beginner, you are presented with two potential solutions:

(i) A system consisting of two binary coins. At each time-step, the system sets the observable bit to 0 or 1 depending on whether the state of the two coins coincide, and one of the two coins is chosen at random and flipped with probability 0.2.

(ii) A system consisting of a single coin. At each time-step, the system sets the observable bit to 0 or 1 depending on the state of the coin, and the coin is flipped with probability 0.2.

Either solution works: The output of either system behaves exactly according to desired specifications. Yet, if tasked to select one of the two, most of us are likely to prefer the second option. A solution with a single coin simply appears more appealing than a solution that requires two.

This natural sense of aesthetics was first formalized by William of Ockham, a 13th century friar. Occam’s Razor posited that ‘plurality is not to be posited without necessity.' When given two different ways of doing the same thing, there’s no sense in choosing the more complex one without good reason. Since its inception, the principle has become an important heuristic that guides the development of theoretical models in quantitative science. In the words of Isaac Newton, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

When applied to the two potential simulators above, the natural appeal of the second solution can be given more rigorous footing. The first simulator kept track of two coins to simulate our toy universe. Since all configurations occur with equal probability, it would have an entropy of 2. In contrast, the second simulator keeps track of only a single coin, and thus requires only half this entropy. If we are tasked with simulating a plethora of such realities with a hard drive of limited space, we could manage twice as many realities with the second approach.

Therefore, should we assume that whoever designed The Matrix would have similar aesthetic tastes, and so we may use similar reasoning to deduce the underlying code to our own reality––or, at the very least, deduce how our reality should be designed if our computer overlords cared about how much storage space they used. These considerations thus motivate the question:

If we are to construct a simulator of observed reality, would we need to store less data if we chose to exploit quantum dynamics?

Let us return to the simple universes that consist of a single bit evolving in discrete time steps. The behavior of such realities can be characterized as a stochastic process, a probability distribution over a sequence of bits. A simulator for a stochastic process can be thought of as a physical system that stores select information about past outputs, and uses them to generate the require statistics for the future (see image, top right). Ideally, we want to construct a simulator that as simple as possible, such that its information storage requirements are minimized.

A priori, it is not obvious quantum dynamics would be of direct benefit; after all, the required behavior is merely a string of classical bits that obey a particular classical probability distribution. Quantum dynamics does seem to be of immediate relevance.

Yet, classical simulators have turned out to be less than ideal. Take for example, the simple case of our toy reality that is simulated by a single coin. The amount of information stored within the simulator is a single bit, namely the state of the coin. However, even if we could observe the entire future of this reality, we would still be unable to ascertain whether our simulator started with a coin in state 0, or state 1. Thus, not all information stored by the simulator was ever visible in its simulated reality, and thus should never be stored in the first place.

This is in fact, a generic property of classical simulators. For most stochastic processes, even the provable optimal classical simulator stores more information than it needs. If a binary property ‘X’ (such as the state of coin), had an effect on the future evolution of observed reality, then the value X must be stored. This is unavoidable; even all future observations made within the reality does not guarantee one can deduce the value of X. Therefore, classical simulators erase information; they contain a source of irreversibly that cannot be removed.

Quantum simulators, however, have greater potential freedom. Instead of allocating a full bit to store the value of X, we may store the conditions ‘X= 0’ and ‘X=1’ in non-orthogonal states. Consequently, the simulator saves memory, as it was never sure what state the property was in the first place. Nevertheless, we show in Nature Communications, this week, that it is often possible to engineer dynamics such that the simulator can still replicate the dynamics of our desired reality (full paper available at arXiv:1102.1994v4 ). The use of quantum processing has essentially sharpened Occam’s razor, allowing us to shave off the parts of X that we never needed to remember.

The applications of this result go beyond programming The Matrix for memory conscious computer overlords. The minimum amount of information required to simulate a given stochastic process is a significant topic of study in the field of complexity theory, where it is known in scientific literature as statistical complexity. The rationale is that if we are supplied any complex system, we can still make a meaningful statement about how complicated it must be by looking only at the statistical complexity of its output. If the system displays a statistical complexity of C, then whatever the underlying mechanics of the system, we need at least a memory of C to simulate its statistics.

The fact that this memory can be reduced quantum mechanically implies the counterintuitive conclusion that quantizing such simulators can reduce their complexity beyond this classical bound, even if the process they're simulating is purely classical. Many organisms and devices operate based on the ability to predict and thus react to the environment around them, the fact that it is possible to make identical predictions with less memory by exploiting quantum dynamics implies that such systems need not be as complex as one originally thought.

Nevertheless a puzzle remains: Quantum simulators are still not wholly reversible. For many stochastic processes, even the best quantum simulators we know still erase information--they still store unnecessary information. Could an even more general probability theory, with even more bizarre correlations, side-step this restriction? If our reality indeed lay with a grand Matrix run by some memory-conscious architect, he could certainly prefer a ‘quantum Matrix’ over a classical one; but could he have some even more exotic Matrix in mind?

Note (*): Many of you might wonder why in this toy universe, I chose to have each bit flip with probability 0.2 rather than the more natural 0.5. The answer is actually rather illuminating. 0.5 is a bit of a special case. If you, as the young architect, were given the task to design a universe where each bit was to be flipped with probability 0.5, then you should consider yourself very lucky. To anyone living inside the universe, the universe would look like a string of completely random bits. To simulate this, you won't need anything sophisticated. Just design a system that blindly tosses a coin into the air! Such a system is remarkably simple, it would need to keep track of absolutely nothing!

--

Mile Gu is a research fellow at the Centre for Quantum Technologies in Singapore.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Mile Gu wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 21:03 GMT
I should also mention that I have a short 12 minute presentation of this topic on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-pJWfIgVsE

It doesn't go into the nitty-gritty details, but does offer a quick overview of the research, as well as a quick tribute to the Flyign Spaghetti Monster. Hopefully, those interested in a little more information will find it useful!

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 22:08 GMT
Good Work, Mile! Interesting stuff! :D

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Mile Gu,

Thank you for showing us that. (It would be helpful if you could speak more slowly. As what you were saying was unfamiliar it was hard for me to follow you at that pace.)

A couple of thoughts that maybe (or may not be)irrelevant to you.

The trouble (for me) with having an external simulation is that we end up with infinite regression. There might be simulation within simulation and so on and who knows where it finally ends in the material hardware that is generating the the data and the simulations produced from it. Because ultimately we can not have a simulation without the data generator and simulator.Or the creation of software -and the hardware to run it- producing the simulation. Using the razor there is no need for an external simulation of reality only the generator of the data, that will be input to an observer who becomes the simulator.

I think biology holds the answers of how the means to generate a complex simulation can be simply stored. It is likely that the equations (the mathematical relations in vivo )themselves, within the biochemistry and physics of the brain, are far simpler than the output that can be generated from them. Just as is seen in chaos theory.

Tiny differences in input can generate very different output. The random unpredictability and diversity of input is what turns the simulation from something simple into something complex with diverse possibilities of output. The pattern and order observed that appears non random is a result of the generator providing the inputs to the simulation. Those inputs to the observer- simulator having been formed from unpredictable inputs to the relatively simple pattern generating equations of external nature.

In this (to my mind more satisfying) scenario external nature is the data generator and the observer is the simulator rather than there being an external simulation produced by the software and hardware of an unknown architect.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 22:36 GMT
Anonymous who replied Mar. 27, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT was me, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 21:34 GMT
Hello Mile Gu,

It is a very interesting article.

You know , I beleive that we are so far of this ultim code. This matrix is so far. In the two scales furthermore. The quantum design is like a relativistic foto of our universal sphere and its cosmological spheres considering the serie of uniqueness of course. Our Unievrsal reality is in evolution and the codes are fascinating.

For an universal realistic simulation of our universal sphere and its spheres, it is essential at my humble opinion to consider this universal serie of uniqueness(and the correlated volumes of spheres). The quantization can be made with the complexification of evolution. After all a boson is like a fermion in a kind of BEC extrapolated by the mind. A sure thing is that the number of entanglement inside the universal sphere is so difficult to find .Now the serie of uniqueness , it is the same . Can we find the number of stars , planets, BH ...inside this universal sphere and its evolutive volumes? No of course , not at this moment! It is the same for the two main scales in 3D and a time constant.We have our limits and walls and our young age at the universal scale. That's why the universal simulation is so difficult in a pure realistic point of vue.

Now about the string, I must admit you that it is just for the computing. If the string is correlated with the pure 3D sphere. This becomes very relevant about a realistic quantization of this mass. After the volumes and the rotations spinals and orbital of the serie of uniqueness(with a main central sphere)make the road of evolution between m and hv in a general point of vue of polarization.

A sphere is more logic, more rational than a string. The oscillations can be correlated for an optimization.

The computing is the computing, the universe is the universe after all.

The ultim informations are inside these main central spheres, these biggest volumes. Our Universal sphere is in the same relativistic logic with the main central sphere. All turns around it.These main central quantum spheres are linked with this central universal sphere.The informations, spherical of evolution are already encoded. They build, they rotate, they polarize....

In all case, this universal sphere is fascinating and the word is weak.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 22:27 GMT
an important point is that we cannot quantize the mass correctly with a simulation. The mass is virtual in this case. The concept of matrix becomes like a categorification. The process can be realistic about the quantization of the evolutive mass but we have not an entropy correlated. The informations are totally different in a computer than in a mass, real.

The computing will be always a human invention. The Universal sphere and its spheres, quantic and cosmological, them are computed with a more complex codes than our simple human bits.

The probalistic extrapolations are so complex when we consider the quantum numbers of this uniqueness serie.v We cannot compute these codes because we do not know these main cnetral spheres. Now the steps of volumes of this serie of uniqueness(for a boson, like a fermion or our universal sphere) can permit several deterministic convergences if and only if these volumes and the rotations spinal and orbital are inserted. The simulations can show the proportions with the evolutive mass. The mass polarises the light, don't forget this since the begining of this physicality. The Universe computes itself indeed but we are not the Universe.

We can insert the information and a specific stochastic process.We are humans and we have our limits. Can we make the transmutation, no of course, because we do not know this main central sphere in the two scales, quant. and cosm.

I find these main central spheres in all so fascinating.And this central universal sphere inside this beautiful universal sphere and its cosmological and quantum spheres show the road of the spherization optimizationTheory :)

A good simulatuion is possible if we can approach this number of this serie of uniqueness. This serie, its number, its volumes and its rotations are the keys of all.

ps eureka :)

ps2 this universal central sphere is fascinating, but what is this central sphere, the biggest volume inside the physical universal sphere? What ere these main central spheres? and their informations of evolution spherization.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Fred Diether wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 01:35 GMT
Hi Mile,

I think if God were to simulate reality, she would prefer it to be both quantum and "classical". It's a duality; one does not exist without the other.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
Fred,

Can the God of Jewish, Chritian and Muslim religions be a she? I would at least write She. By the way, I admit having problems with the infinite dimensional matrix of Hilbert space, rigged Hilbert space etc.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 05:58 GMT
Mile

Physical reality is only known to us within the confines of our ability to be aware of it. All that has happened is that a certain type of entity has evolved, ie organism, in which a variety of sensory detection systems have developed that process, on receipt, pre-existing physical phenomena (commonly known as light, heat, vibration, noise, etc), and hence it is ‘aware’ of its ‘circumstance’. It is a closed system. We can only know that which can be sensed. And even that is a representation (albeit existent) of what occurred, resulting from an interaction with it. We can hypothecate what might occur ‘beyond’ this, but then where is the differentiation between science and belief?

Now, within that closed system, it cannot be assumed that the physical phenomena which have acquired a role with the development of sensory detection systems, are able to fulfil it perfectly; neither can it be assumed that the sensory systems are capable of receiving all the information available. So, in addition to verified direct experience, there is a necessity to hypothecate, based on that, in order to overcome these practical issues. But this is not the same as trying to go ‘beyond’ our existence.

Each existent state which occurs, must be a function of an interaction with previously existent states which were in immediate spatial proximity to one another at the same point in time. There must be a cause to this dynamic. Only one existent state in any given sequence (which could be the entirety of reality, or one event) can exist at a time. And when each existent state occurs, a number of physically existent representations of it, in a variety of media, also occur. This is the only way that our existence can occur, and then change.

So the answer to the question you pose is that we must find out by experimentation/ analysis. Not exactly a revelation! But this must both adhere to due process, and take into account, a priori, how physical reality can occur. Or put the other way around, does not presume reality is an abstract concept, which it is not. It exists, for us, and does so in an identifiable form which is the function of a discernable process. Nor presuppose some logic which is intrinsic to a representational device (be it maths, word or graphic) deployed in the analysis, which contradicts how reality can occur. Specifically, this means not presupposing any form of ‘the code’, eg binary, or range of outcome, and entails correlating any concept, logically, with a physical phenomenon which can occur, ie defining what it can physically constitute.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 19:11 GMT
Mile

Your response to Georgina clarified your philosophy a little, and I agree particularly with observer dependency and infinitely disparate interpretations possible.

As an Architect and also fellow of a scientific institution I may have a 'disparate' view myself. I certainly use a different approach than those you suggest. Your view would be interesting. When faced with what I know will be a complex set of problems, I (semi-sub) consciously construct a tapered multiple helix. Each consideration or issue is then linked to all other hierarchically and I conduct an iterative infinite 'what if' process and assign comparative values (importance) to each. Bizarrely this is developed from a matrix. Only then can I have confidence that the 'peak' result not only 'accounts' for all matters but is a good combined solution, including objective and subjective input.

In this case my decision on which of your two method to chose would be; . . Neither.

I'd invoke a complex and part random quantum process to make a concious decision in each case of head or tail. This also fulfils the need for the Architect to remain in overall control because nobody else is or can, though many specialists interact and drive sub systems, then 'control' is gradually delegated to contractors.

Somehow this seems to allow all unseen assumptions and prejudices to be identified and challenged. But how can it do that? I can't see the connection? It certainly seems to allow the equivalent of ontological as well as physical constructions. I see my brain cells and networks as simply part of quantized nature so no less relevant than tossing coins.

If there is a 'great Architect' I suspect I'd like to think she or (She) would at least put as much concious effort into designing the starting conditions as I do for a complex building or logically resolving a complex puzzle.

In that case I suppose I believe quantum weirdness is only weird because we are as yet incapable of making sense of it. Indeed after checking I'm also quite convinced that the only reason we CANNOT make sense of it, or relativity, is that we use the wrong hidden assumptions.

What sense can you make of that?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT
Quantum mechanics is almost more of a physical logic than a physical theory. The isomorphism between quantum states and qubits means that quantum systems might be thought of as computational systems. We do have a bit of a problem, for in teleporting quantum states in order to read the output of a quantum computation one must communicate a classical signal. The transfer of a quantum state to some ancillary state by C-NOT operations or Hadamard matrix transformations can only be read if there is a classical signal. This signal in effect tells Bob what orientation Alice used for her apparatus, such as a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Quantum mechanics does not tell us what basis the computation is to be read.

The universe is not a simulation by some machine that is outside the universe. The universe is a quantum machine which is computing itself. The loss of memory in registers is likely due to the fact one has to demolish entanglements to read an output. The divide between the quantum world and the local reality of classical physics continues to hamper us.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"...The universe is not a simulation by some machine that is outside the universe. The universe is a quantum machine which is computing itself. ..."

I would appreciate hearing more about how we understand the universe? Are you speaking about mechanical causes and effects, meaning things move this way and that and join together or separate or just sort of mix, or are you speaking about your ability to learn theoretical physics? If the latter, what is the source of your ability to learn theoretical physics and all else that you know? I assume you see that I am asking if you believe that mechanical causes, with no understanding of their own, can give rise to the effect called scientific learning?

James

report post as inappropriate

Mile Gu replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Dr. Crowell

I'm not sure if its every possible to make certain statements either way. Personally I merely find the idea that we live in a giant 'Matrix' like simulation to be an interesting paradigm, and no way subscribe to that as a firm belief! Of course, as you say, it is probably more likely that the Universe is a quantum machine that is computing itself.

In this framework, it still interesting to consider why not all the information that the machine stores is pass onto the future.

This, as you point out, could very well be because we only perceive classical information, and therefore our very act of describing the universe as a sequence of measurements introduces extra entropy and thus makes the universe look irreversible.

One could, however, equally argue from the Epistemological view of the universe that everything in the universe is defined by what we can observe, which is ultimately a probability distribution over classical numbers. Therefore, any inability to simulate this probability distribution could be regarded as a intrinsic property of the universe (as there is nothing beyond what we observe).

I am sure there are numerous other ways to interpret the result.

I find the Matrix version particularly entertaining, and chose to use that as the motivation for this article.

The actual paper of course, ascribes to no particular world view. Merely that, for some reason, to simulate most stochastic processes, we need more information to begin with that what we ever end up with. There is a cost to stochastic computation.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 23:24 GMT
If the universe actually is "computing itself" it seems far more likely that the computation is 'analog' based on continuous fields, than 'digital' based on some required structure.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
The matrix cosmos might be computed in a number of possible ways. We could say there is some machine which does the computing. If so then that machine should also obey certain rules. If it does not then that “machine” is something else, maybe a God or Schopenhauer’s idea of a WILL that operates the world. Since we are physicist we might prefer to think of the machine as operating...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 01:36 GMT
I'm glad there is at least someone to talk to.

I would like to treat the space-time continuum & quantum vacuum as a physical system. The laws of physics, the rules that the physical system adheres to, are primarily there to support the properties of light. Light has many properties including a speed c, frequency and phase.

If the space-time continuum & quantum vacuum are comparable to a quantum system, then is it possible to perform an experiment that will be too difficult for this system to sustain? The result would be that the experiment causes space-time/quantum vacuum to deviate from its expected behavior.

I have an idea for such an experiment. If an opto-electric machine were to output a frequency shift, from f_i to f_f, as wide as possible, and as quickly as possible, could we cause the local space-time to deviate from the Einstein equations? The result would be a local gravity field or space-time curvature.

I would suggest that we frequency shift from 400THz to 800THz, every 100 milliseconds. If we are careful to avoid a discontinuity in the phase, we might hope to overwork the laws of nature. The experiment was inspired by gravitational redshift.

Is it reasonable to consider such an experiment?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
The stress-energy of the electromagnetic field

T_{ab} = F_{ac}F^c_b - (1/4)g_{ab}F_{cd}F^{cd}

couples to the curvature part of the Einstein field equation G_{ab} by

G_{ab} = (8πG/c^4)T_{ab}

where if you put in number 8πG/c^4 is very small. Therefore electromagnetic fields we work with are far too small to couple significantly to spacetime.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 00:02 GMT
The Einstein equations were published in 1915. They represent everything that we know about gravity. In 1917, Einstein added another term to represent the Cosmological constant. You've made it difficult to argue that a mere electromagnet field can curve space-time.

If there is any hope of manipulating space-time, there will have to be another term added to the Einstein equations. That term will have to be proportional to df/dt (change in frequency versus tiime).

It really comes down to: how badly do you want to be able to warp space-time? If you're motivated, you will do experiments.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 15:34 GMT
Hi to all,

Humanity is just beginning to create sub-worlds that we call "virtual reality", these second hand realities are just now zero's and one's in a specific sequence, once the sequence is disturbed the "reality" is disturbed. The matrix as described is a idealised universe in which "we" pretend to be able to create a sub reality that cannot be distinghuised from the universe we live in, we claim that we can be GOD. But any sub reality that is created by our digital machines, will be uncomparable with the power of consciousness.

In the future we will perhaps be able to construct a "quantum computer", this is a machine that needs not to be started, only the fact that it exists will be enough to give all the answers of the universe , it is based on qubits. Qubits do not offer only TWO possible choices of yes or no, each qubit rêpresents an infinite superposition of possibillities, just as indicated in the "BLOCH" sphere (the superposition of two states is described by a linear combination with the form a x 0 + b x 1 , where the values of a and b are complex numbers. All these possible quantum states of a qubit we have to bring back to our "digital" causal status of yes or no (1 or 0), because we can only experience CAUSAL sequences. If we should have 1000 qubits we would have 2^1000 possible configurations = 10^300, which is more as all the atoms in our universe, so in fact there we stock 10^300 solutions for a problem, in other words we can treat at the same time 10^300 potential solutions.

So...Once when we will be able to realise such a "computer" (in my opinion it is a wrong word it would be better to call it "Simultaneity Creator", or SIMCRE)

Here you see that the so called "stocking" problem of Dr.Gu is solved, only it is not the strickt Matrix that we are used to think of, as a matter of fact it is the partly reproduction of what I called Total Simultaneity see : Realities out of Total Simultaneity page 3.

The question is how should our consciousness be able to receive the "asked" answers from the SIMCRE.

So God (if you call Total Simultaneity that) has already chosen (all the possibillities are there) only we don't know yet (causal universe hè...) if we will be able to achieve our wishes.

think free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear All,

I have been following the work of several of the prominent scientists to come up with a theory of everything. It seems that in this search of everything, one most important thing has not been considered. Who am I? I am in this universe as much as it is in I. What is I? I is sphere full of love. Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge, for all...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 21:44 GMT
Hello Sridattadev,

I find your spirituality interesting. You know,My project Unified Sphere Institute is to centralize several persons and to help humanity and this Erath with rational adapted solutions. It is so important to find the best solutions quickly.The Erath is sick and it is time to act simply. The sciences and its potential have the solutions, so why ? just because it exists a lot of unconscious. Fortunally it exists conscious people. At all problems it exists solutions.

In fact we loose our conteplations and the pure complementarity with our environment.

The Universe is a beautiful sphere in 3D in a pure optimization and increasing of mass. This concept of spherization optimization is an universal determinism.

The love and the compassion indeed are the keys of this optimizztion like a consciousness, universal.

In fact, we are catalyzers of this universal 3D Sphere, we are tools of spherization optimization.We are composed by spheres and their rotations are unique for all creations. The cosmological spheres turn around the central sphere(the biggest volume)inside this universal 3D evolutive sphere.

You know Sridattadev, it exists bad and good people in all countries, religions, systems or cultures...the most important is to unite the real universalists and generalists. I work about the creation of this international sciences center focus on priortities since more than 6 years.I have many friends whom wait me in Africa. The aim is to help the forgotten simply. They need food, we produce food, they need meds, we produce meds, they need water, we improve the systems of water, they need schools, we build schools, they need help and the word is weak. Have you seen in the Sierra Leone or Madadascar, or the somalia and Ethiopia. Or the Bengladesh or in India. The poverty is not acceptable. The differences are not acceptable. The responsability of the globality is to help them ! so why ???

I am sometimes disgusted to be a human when I see the human brothers whom wait. These forgotten are humans and they suffer, so why ? Just because the stupidity is the torch of this sad earth ! That must change , it is only simple that this simple reality.

The spherization, it is that also , the responsability and the compassion. All is linked after all since the begining of the big polarization.

It is difficult to turn off a big fire with only one water drop, nevertheless a whole of drops creates the Ocean.

The Humanity is like a rainbow, a diversity of colors united, unified in the light.

The spheres of light anD the spheres of mass imPRove and evolve in a pure spherization.

quantum 3D spheres....cosmological 3D spheres...UNIVERSAL 3D SPHERE AND ITS CENTRAL SPHERE.

Spherically

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear Steve,

I am aware of conscious soul like your self who are always at the fore front in trying to bring about peace on this planet. My mission is to motivate more intellectual people like your self to step in to the action and make a change. Yes we may be just a drop let as individuals but united we become the ocean.

What will the scientific community do once they realize the absolute truth about the universe, which is nothing but singularity of love and that we are all equal? End of scientific enquiry is the begining of compassion and spirituality. The real work begins when this realization dawns on the humanity as we will become compassionate and loving and we start working not just for our individual needs but for greater good of all beings on this planet.

Be in Love to Rest in Peace.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT
Indeed Sridattadev,

Love is the most important thing on this Earth. But an important thing is that all people are not aware of this universal truth. It exists bad people unfortunally. They must be stopped !

I will fight all my life against these systems !

I don't fear to die, I will die for this Universal Sphere ! I will fight all my life!

monney+power+vanity+stupidity=chaos

spherization,education,love,prosperity,universality=harmony

The truth is simple....

Be in love in seeing in the fly of a bee, the hopes of the evolution...

Regards

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 04:00 GMT
Mile,

I think there is a fundamental dichotomy of information and energy. Information is inherently static, while energy is dynamic. As information defines energy and energy manifests information, there is tension between this bottom up action and top down form. There is no universal, centralized system of order, because the order requires constituent energy to be manifest and so is emergent. There is no Platonic realm of laws. So a central, singular, universal program doesn't exist. To the extent multiple programs emerge, they can interact/conflict, but still occupy their own space and energy.

To the extent biological organisms reflect this dichotomy, the central nervous system evolved to process information, while the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems evolved to collect and manage energy. If you want to know what the future holds, information is actually a poor predictor, because it is most focused on the static details of what currently exists, rather then where the energy will coalesce. Where the energy goes, is what will exist in the future. Structure only survives to the extent it absorbs more energy than it loses, otherwise ambient energy reacts to it and breaks it down. Legacy is often just a static store of energy.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT
Hi John,

glad your still around.

I think that your emphasis on the importance of energy was good. That is what drives change. It is not unguided though. The relationships within the patterns of objects, particles and media are important too.As that gives the forces that will determine where things will go, rather than just how far or how fast.

I'm not convinced it is impossible to find all of the mathematics to describe what can occur. Even though it might not be possible to use it to predict exactly what will occur.It might be possible to eliminate certain scenarios as being too improbable and to be left with a set of more likely outcomes.Within some limits of probability. There are certain kinds of mathematical relationships within nature,that determine the forms that arise. Some kinds of pattern are seen reiterated throughout nature. Not just the orbits of planets and stars but erosion and deposition patterns and various growth patterns in living organisms. Not always giving identical forms but "variations on a theme" which indicate a basic equation with different inputs, or slight modifications.

I'm agreeing with Max Tegmark's mathematical universe idea here, that the universe is the mathematics, the relationships. Equations that are not separate from nature but are the relationships of the properties of the various parts. I had to get there myself by thinking what is really important in making it what it is- but I got there in the end. Its not just matter and energy interacting randomly. Though Max Tegmark did not emphasise the importance of its animation, and may have been imagining a static platonic ideal. Static like the space-time continuum or Julian Barbour's Platonia. Which I don't think is entirely correct. The Action of the parts of the Object universe have to be a part of the relationship of everything. Part of the mathematics "in vivo", which prevents it from being a static platonic form and instead animates it.

Patterns can become chaotic, though regular patterns can re-emerge from the chaos. So it isn't just completely fixed and repeating itself over and over nor is entirely random. Looking at the past and using that to predict the future might give an indication of what could happen or it might not depending upon the size of the changes that occur making it deviate from a predictable pattern. Though if a cycle of order to chaos and back has occurred in the past under certain circumstances it would not be unreasonable to predict that the same can happen again.I know that if my coffee is swirling with an ordered pattern and then I stir it disturbing that pattern it will if left alone settle into a new ordered pattern again.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Humanity is just beginning to create sub-worlds that we call "virtual reality", these second hand realities are just now zero's and one's in a specific sequence, once the sequence is disturbed the "reality" is disturbed. The matrix as described is a idealised universe in which "we" pretend to be able to create a sub reality that cannot be distinghuised from the universe we live in, we claim that we can be GOD. But any sub reality that is created by our digital machines, will be uncomparable with the power of consciousness.

In the future we will perhaps be able to construct a "quantum computer", this is a machine that needs not to be started, only the fact that it exists will be enough to give all the answers of the universe , it is based on qubits. Qubits do not offer only TWO possible choices of yes or no, each qubit rêpresents an infinite superposition of possibillities, just as indicated in the "BLOCH" sphere (the superposition of two states is described by a linear combination with the form a x 0 + b x 1 , where the values of a and b are complex numbers. All these possible quantum states of a qubit we have to bring back to our "digital" causal status of yes or no (1 or 0), because we can only experience CAUSAL sequences. If we should have 1000 qubits we would have 2^1000 possible configurations = 10^300, which is more as all the atoms in our universe, so in fact there we stock 10^300 solutions for a problem, in other words we can treat at the same time 10^300 potential solutions.

So...Once when we will be able to realise such a "computer" (in my opinion it is a wrong word it would be better to call it "Simultaneity Creator", or SIMCRE)

Here you see that the so called "stocking" problem of Dr.Gu is solved, only it is not the strickt Matrix that we are used to think of, as a matter of fact it is the partly reproduction of what I called Total Simultaneity see : Realities out of Total Simultaneity page 3.

The question is how should our consciousness be able to receive the "asked" answers from the SIMCRE.

So God (if you call Total Simultaneity that) has already chosen (all the possibillities are there) only we don't know yet (causal universe hè...) if we will be able to achieve our wishes.

In creating this so called quantum computer we will be able to create a new consciousness, just a little bit different from ours but in essence different, so that in contacting this consciousness we will be able to contact to the so called "paralel universes".

It will not only be the total informtion (plus all probabilities) of our own universe but also that of other paralel universes that will become available, as a matter of fact we will be able to enter not only with our own consciousness in Total Simultaneity but also with other forms of consciousness , we can leave causality and enter eternity.

think free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Besides working two jobs, my interneting time has been diverted in other directions.

"then I stir it disturbing that pattern it will if left alone settle into a new ordered pattern again."

The pattern is entropic. Your coffee is a closed set that is losing energy and settled into paths of least resistance. When you stir it again, you are adding energy, but you are also adding additional information and the result is a combination of the commingling factors. My argument has been that order is subjective and the more complex it is, the more subjective it is. A bit ago I made the only slightly joking observation to Lawrence that the ultimate TOE is, "Stuff happens." Laws, principles, processes, systems, order, etc. are reductionistic. Not only in theories do we distill away the more subjective aspects of circumstances in order to induce general principles, but that swirling coffee in your cup quickly absorbs any irregular swirls into the larger pattern. They loose their energy first, as it settles into a more stable/reductionistic pattern. We, as a society, are convinced there is some ultimate set of rules, theological or mathematical, which governs everything. Yet the rules evolve the same multiples of complexity as the reality creating them. Think for a moment, what part of reality would not fall in the category of "Stuff happens." Only the Platonic realm, whether mathematical or theological, is unchanging. I also made the point, obviously ignored, that the difference between Joy's theory and Ray's disputing it, was like the difference between a circle and a spiral. They assume one must be right and the other is therefore wrong, but I suspect there is no ultimate arbiter, that even mathematical modeling is dependent on how it is framed. Only nothing has no frame. Absolute zero is the ultimate order.

On a side note, I wrote this essay on society from a bottom up evolutionary perspective.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT
Hi John,

I have missed your intelligent conversation. I agree "Stuff happens" and I have used that expression myself, such as when arguments are given for some higher purpose to "random" events. One of the 18 biases Daniel Kahnmen mentions in "Thinking fast and slow" is the Narrative fallacy, which is where coherent causal stories are created to make sense of haphazard events.

I think you make a good point about the mathematics itself evolving, which it probably does to some extent. When energy is put in knocking former stable relationships "out of balance". But there do seem to be certain shapes and patterns that nature "prefers" and keeps returning to. Such as Steve's spheres and those patterns that result from cycles of action; the action of waves, the action of wind, spurts of growth. Those cycles seems a bit like a pendulum, it can move a lot or a little depending upon the energy it has, and even if disturbed the cycle usually recovers and continues. Though it can be knocked completely off balance and new relationships and patterns can form. That is complex but not completely ungoverned anarchy. It can only be what the mathematical relationships allow it to be because that is what is providing the forces for change.

All along I have agreed that a model can only be a model and it is reductionist.I also agree with your point that how something is described mathematically can depend upon how it is thought about. It is possible to have different descriptions that are both/all valid, I agree. I don't agree though that the description of nature by scientists is useless and we can say no more than "stuff happens". Even if subjectivity does come into the framing of the description it is an appreciation based upon evidence. That can not be worthless to humanity, or less uplifting, than the work of artists, poets and philosophers even theologians who attempt to describe nature in their own ways. We might admit that all human endeavour is ultimately pointless, but we have to do something before we die and appreciating the working of the universe, one way or another, is one of the options.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 01:50 GMT
Georgina,

I'm not being defeatist, just trying to understand the limits of knowledge, in order to see beyond them. When we create narrative, we tend to ignore what is truly different and just try framing it in the context of what we know. In many ways, it can seem profoundly defeating, much like a chicken trying to understand the perspective of the fox. If you want to grab the universe by...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 05:02 GMT
John

"just trying to understand the limits of knowledge, in order to see beyond them".

How's that happen, other than on the basis of belief?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 10:37 GMT
John ,

thanks for your reply. I do appreciate it.

The equations can be relatively simple but via feedback generate complex output built up over a number of iterations. If the mathematics of the output is considered it is too complicated but not the generating equation if it can be distilled somehow. When a change to new equation occurs because a relationship has altered it can be a very small change but producing very different output.

I can remember learning about limb differentiation in frogs. The number of limbs is controlled by a single chemical concentration at a precise stage in the development process. Too much gives development of too many legs. Not enough, missing legs. The phenotype of the fully developed frog could be vastly different but was changed by a very small difference in chemical concentration at the receptor sites. Another thing that springs to mind is the controller genes on DNA, which switch on or off whole gene clusters. Tiny chemical change, big biochemical consequence.

Not sure there is any need to compute the whole universe to have an understanding of how it works. Its function might be distilled down to far less mathematics than would be imagined from its complexity.

report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 20:51 GMT
The physicist have the best approximation of the Reality: the differential equations.

Each physical phenomenon, after Galileo, can be described by differential equation.

The Fourier, Taylor and Lagrange series are the simple solution of a linear differential equation, so that the differential equation are complete in the class of the infinitely derivable function.

The non-linear differential equation (curvature in a derivative space) approximate each time-function (or more parameters function):



each continuous phenomenon can described by a computer, so that the Reality have a bit description (the Matrix or Turing program).

Each non-linear differential equation (using some tricks) can be transformed in a Lagrangian (Weierstrasse function L=\sum_i k^2_i (\dot y_{i-1}-y_i)^2), or Hamiltonian (H=\sum_i p_i y_i), if we use the double number of generalized coordinates (momentum and coordinates)

The Hamilton-Jacobi equation (in this description) is a continuity equation (a classical mechanic theory is a quantum theory?).

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate


Jame Putnam wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 21:26 GMT
The universe is always under control at all times everywhere in it. If it were not so, then, meaningless uncontrolled disorder would destroy order. Where there is order, there is purpose. One thing does not follow another with meaningful results unless it is required to do so. It is intelligent to argue that there is not now nor has ever been true randomness meaning purposeless disorder. The mechanical perspective, that there are free-bee given forces of nature, is unfortunately rooted into science so deeply that even the lack of intelligent attributes for those mechanical forces does not disuade science from pronouncing grand conclusions about intelligent results while relying upon the fog of complexity to hide behind.

James

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 02:05 GMT
James,

If the universe is always under control, then wouldn't everything be deterministic? What would be the purpose/necessity of intelligence in a deterministic reality? We need order to exist, but we need disorder to thrive, otherwise we would quickly degenerate into soulless automatons.

Law may govern action, but chance governs input.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 02:36 GMT
John,

Hi John welcome back,

"If the universe is always under control, then wouldn't everything be deterministic? What would be the purpose/necessity of intelligence in a deterministic reality? We need order to exist, but we need disorder to thrive, otherwise we would quickly degenerate into soulless automatons."

No this position isn't weak at all. The other has no place to rest except in one or another fog. I think that you may be applying mechanical ideas to my explanation. If the universe was purely mechanical and always under control, then, yes, it would be the home of automatons. However, it is not the home of automatons. It is the home of intelligen beings with free-will. Therefore, the nature of the universe cannot be argued on the basis of mechanics.

There is no intelligence resulting from mechanics. Intelligence is involved, now, in applying mechanics; however, that involvement has only to do with solving mechanical problems. Even in this case, there has to have been purpose provided. This mechanical concept of fundamental forces is groundless. The means by which this is shown is to eliminate the need for several important ones. That is what my work consists of. That is what I do. That is what is at my website. That is what is behind my statements here. There irony in all of this is that I have to explain this at all. As I pointed out, there is no place for 'unintelligence' to hide its magical powers except in the fog of complexity.

It is not I who should be explaining. It is those who believe in one effect following another without ever explaining 'cause'. By the way, no one knows, by scientific means, what cause is. However, I know that dumbness cannot be explained, in any way at all, as having the power to give rise to intelligence. Perhaps you are thinking that disorder can have meaning? The observation that, what you might think of as, 'disorder' leads to meaningful results is definitely not, clearly not, a scientific explanation for one meaningful thing leading to another meaningful thing.

Your message implies that your position should be easily apparent. I think there is no position there. I purposefully did not address my message to anyone in particular, because, the mechanical ideology and its escape into the fog of complexity is so ingrained that its holders use it to judge levels of intelligence and, therefore, rejecting it becomes very personal to those who believe that it is not intelligent to not be 'mechanically minded'.

Sincerely John, welcome back.

James

report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 03:01 GMT
Intelligence can only result from intelligence. Meaning can only result from meaning. Purpose can only result from purpose. The practice of attributing intelligence, meaning, and purpose to unintelligence, unmeaningfulness, and purposelessness has only theoretical basis and the fog of complexity for its propogation. There is no empirical basis and there is no clarity to linking mechanical causes to intelligent results. There is clarity in recognizing that mechanical theory is incapable of explaining the existence of intelligent life.

James

report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 03:35 GMT
If one is interested in solving mechanical problems, then one is justified in conjuring up inventions of the mind that substitute for whatever causes are necessary to make an incomplete explanation for mechanical purposes. If one is interested in understanding the operation of the universe, then multiple inventions of the mind are not acceptable.

For real analysis of the nature of the universe, only one miracle is permissible. Only one cause can remain inexplicable. Since no cause is explicable, that means that understanding the operation of the universe requires beginning and using only one miracle. From beginning to ending, the explanation must be step by step explainable without resorting to second, third, fourth, etc. miracles. If one cannot do it with only one miracle, then, one becomes a theoretician.

James

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 05:41 GMT
James, I very much agree with your second paragraph. Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 23:43 GMT
Hi James,

Is eternal chaos any less likely than a miracle creation of an ordered universe -from nothingness-, or a sudden appearance from a singularity? I don't think so. It is perhaps seemingly miraculous that there is something rather than nothing but I'm not convinced that nothing must always precede something, or that a starting zero is more likely or natural than 1.

I'm going to say that it is Newton's first Law, as follows, that is the primary cause of the order of the universe that is deduced from observation. "A body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continues in that motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." With the addition that no body can be considered at absolute rest because its apparent state of motion depends upon reference frame of the observer.(So there is no way of knowing if it is absolutely stationary.)

Since all celestial bodies are in motion upon their (Object)universal trajectories and most objects under consideration will reside upon such a body that alone informs us that they are not at rest even if they appear to be so to an observer in the same reference frame. It is natural for all things to be in motion at all scales. The astronomical to the sub atomic. It takes great technical effort to still the particles in a substance to absolute Zero. Even at absolute zero the apparatus in which they exist is in a laboratory upon the Earth, which is not perfectly still (there may be disturbance from geological activity and man made disturbances if not accounted for in the apparatus design), and movement due to the astronomic motion of the Earth, and of the solar system and Galaxy.

The universe does not need to be set in motion because lack of motion is less usual /likely than the state of motion relative to everything else. It only seems the other way around from our perspective of having to push things that appear stationary (from our perspective) to get them moving.

With that, Object universal, continual changing of position of everything complexity can arise from simplicity and vice versa. The completely unordered might be considered maximally simple or maximally complex and the pattern is a balance between extremes. So as natural (if not more so) as either extreme.

The energy of the Object universal trajectory is never lost but can be transferred to other, objects, media or structures. So even if an object is suddenly destroyed the total amount of spatial change is conserved being transferred to the electromagnetic medium and high energy fragments and particles.Fluctuations in the output patterns, from feedback of previous output as well as fresh inputs is occurring, in many systems that are not closed off from neighbouring systems and which can therefore feed into each other preventing universal stagnation.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 1, 2012 @ 00:06 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for your message. Agreement with me from professionals has been very sparse over many years. However, the few emails I have received were either completely derogatory or very supportive to the point of knowing it is better to not put even their context forward in print. I don't release the emails and I certainly would not put their authors at public risk. It may even be that they have changed their minds.

I think that what I said is self-evident and will replace the multi-miraculous universe of theoretical physics. Those artificial endpoints, currently identified as fundamental causes, will not stand up to time. I say this because lack of unity appears to be intolerable to scientific knowledge over the long run.

The pasted on unity of today's theories where one tries to force theoretical components together by introducing unempirical properties so that at least the theoretical presentation appears to be finally put together has to be temporary.

It may be a theorist's dream to go to the chalkboard and fix equations by introducing whatever appears to be necessary to complete an impression of what unknown reality may be composed of; yet, reality will not long support these conjectures.

There is always empirical evidence pushing us forward and helping to fill our need to find unity in it. Theory is invention. Explanation without invention will ultimately supercede theory. The patterns of changes in velocity will ultimately play an explicable role in the evolution of human intelligence, and, the most important property ever produced by the properties of the universe. That most important property is human free-will.

That is what I think.

James

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 11:44 GMT
James,

I never said intelligence comes from unintelligence. I said intelligence is the intersection of awareness and complexity. Since I think both are eternal, as I see time as simply a measure of change, I don't even require a beginning.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 15:12 GMT
John,

"I never said intelligence comes from unintelligence. I said intelligence is the intersection of awareness and complexity. ..."

I understand. I was attempting to respond to this paragraph below and then to continue typing my thoughts about why it is intelligent to argue in favor of purpose.

"If the universe is always under control, then wouldn't everything be deterministic? What would be the purpose/necessity of intelligence in a deterministic reality? We need order to exist, but we need disorder to thrive, otherwise we would quickly degenerate into soulless automatons.

Law may govern action, but chance governs input."

I left this part off earlier, but, I wasn't certain how you meant it. I don't discount tht things can happen by chance. What they cannot happen by is true meaningless randomness. I wasn't assuming that you meant this latter point.

"...Since I think both are eternal, as I see time as simply a measure of change, I don't even require a beginning."

There is always a beginning. Even if the universe always existed. What I mean by that is one either explains the cause of the universe or they are making it up for free. This cause is not just a physical beginning. It is the reason why the universe continues to operate. It is the beginning for explaining the operation of the universe. It is the always present cause. It can never be absent. The mechanical inventions called fundamental forces are not that cause. They are theoretical endpoints adopted out of ignorance about how to continue to find unity in the form of the single cause.

What I am writing is not intended as a response to anyone in particular. It is my claim that it is intelligent to understand that intelligence can only come from intelligence and could never arise from the mechanical fundamental invented causes of theoretical physics. In short form, intelligence cannot be explained by the generally accepted theoretical physics of today.

James

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
James,

The issue I have with meaning of life questions isn't to do with life, but with the concept of meaning, or purpose. These are essentially reductionistic concepts. What we have left when we distill away all that is meaningless. What is that hard little nugget of eternal validation residing at the core of life and reality? It is a useful concept when we are making subjective decisions about everyday reality, such as what we want to keep and what isn't worth the effort required to maintain, etc. It doesn't apply to the larger dynamic though. Life is it's own meaning and purpose. When people really start asking that question amongst themselves it can readily boil down to questions of whose life is worth saving and whose is just taking up space that could be put to better use. Then it gets applied to whole groups of people. These questions do come up and likely will always come up, since we live on an increasingly crowded planet.

This is not to say judgements should never be made, but that they need to be made relative to circumstance, not as universal standards and declarations. That's why we do have individual intelligence. Judgement is subjective. There are no perfect standards, because perfection is everything balanced out to a big flatline on the universal heart monitor. Ultimate simplicity. It's the squiggles, details, imperfections, opposing elements, conflicting perspectives, etc. which are the basis of this reality we inhabit. It's constantly evolving tapestry of interaction, not a singular path from one point to another. Consider that for individuals, birth is in the past and death is in the future, but for the species and life in general, the future is constantly being born, as the past dies off. Details and events go from being in the future to being in the past, while the process constantly creates new details and events.

This reality is not random, but it's not linear. There is no way to know all input into any event, prior to its occurrence. In basic physical terms, information can arrive from opposite directions at the speed of light, so in order to predict what might occur, we would need to gather that input faster than the speed of light. If such a method were possible, then this method could also transmit information to events faster then light and the same dilemma occurs.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 19:48 GMT
John,

"The issue I have with meaning of life questions isn't to do with life, but with the concept of meaning, or purpose. These are essentially reductionistic concepts. What we have left when we distill away all that is meaningless. ..."

I don't have anything argumentative to say about macroscopic observations of variations in intelligence and its uses. I think most people have interesting input about these after-the-fact observations, meaning results.

Your quote above is something that I would disgree with as I understand it. While it does seem obvious that if one removes elements of intelligence there should be a point where there are no elements left. I see this as a macroscopic opinion based upon observation of results. I do not see it as addressing the nature of intelligence as in understanding what it is and why it is.

I have been here long enough and so have you that I assume you have seen my attempts to point to what I refer to as the photon storm and our ability to make any sense out of it at all. That is the simplest macroscopic example I thought of in order to be able to begin discussions that could lead to moving away from macroscopic observations and toward microscopic involvement, about the why and where of intelligence in the universe. I don't recall what you might or might not have thought about that example.

I am not writing these messages to anyone in particular or in an effort to change minds. I am writing them because they say what I think should be self-evident. It is clear that this is not about obvious logic because it gets rejected so easily from most persons. Now it does appear obvious to me, but, I do not wish to convince others that what does not appear obvious to them should be obvious. No, not that, but, I think there is a strong case to be made for self-evident.

I do not find such to be the case in positions that depend upon free-bee causes and free-bee intelligence and foggy veiled arguments to suggest that anything about the nature of the universe arises from lack of purpose or lack of meaning or just plain 'dumbness'.

I think your message made plenty of valid points. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

James

report post as inappropriate


Author F. M. DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 01:25 GMT
Ultimate truth in physics lies not in what is inanimate. You always seek the typical and fundamental experiences first. Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing lies at the very heart of physics -- fundamentally, that is, in reference to F=ma, instantaneity, particle/wave, quantum gravity, and balanced attraction and repulsion.

Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space. A great truth in physics. Physics happens in and with time. Inertia and gravity both

at half strength/force is key. Inertia and gravity are elemental and fundamental to distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT
The Miracles of Theoretical Physics

A miracle is an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is thought to be due to supernatural causes, especially to an act of God.

I want to tighten up that definition. It will be the criterion for this message: An event or action that contradicts known scientific laws and is unnatural with natural being defined by the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT
Removing Miracles From Theoretical Physics

It will very likely be the case that as the theorist attempts to remove each cause, that one after another firmly resists being removed. It will be determined that that there is no way to theoretically fill the void that is left. As the theorist moves from one cause to another, it may be found that each must be preserved on the basis that theory cannot tolerate their absence.

The reason that this difficulty could arise is that each invention that is not a true cause injects error into theory leading to the need for additional invented causes. The need results because a theoretical error, that is not removed, requires one or more artificial steps to be inserted to bring theory back into balance.

The path out of this dilemma is to determine which step in theory was the first to be injected as an unnecessary miracle into the mix. There is a good chance that all or at least many of the unnecessary miracles are due to that first theoretical misstep that required one or more extra, unecessary miracles to be introduced.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 21:23 GMT
The Reason And Cure For Theoretical Disunity

The miracles of theoretical physics are its invented causes. Every cause is a miracle because no one knows what cause is. There are no scientific laws for which to give credit to for the existence of any cause. Some and perhaps all but one cause are pure inventions that serve the purpose of stuffing something into one or more holes existing in scientific knowledge. The stuffing, if it consists of introducing a cause, is miracle stuffing.

A benefit of removing miracles from theoretical physics is immediate in the form of coming closer and closer to establishing theoretical unity. This result is due to the fact that the cause of disunity is multiple causes. As this healing process progresses, the holes in scientific knowledge begin to be filled in with understanding.

There is a way to circumvent the need to go through this process. It consists of starting theory over with one cause and resisting, with conviction, the temptation to add any other causes. The first problem encounterred is the need to decide what cause is the real cause, the cause that really is needed? Knowing where to begin is the challenge.

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 22:28 GMT
James,

said I wouldn't comment on Your stuff anymore, but I've decided to risk it after all.It was an intention not a promise.I hope you will not be offended. I think that you've explained the approach well. This not a complaint or negative criticism or an attempted misrepresentation of what you are saying but feedback on -my own- reaction to and comprehension / miscomprehension of what you have said. Which may or may not be helpful or interesting to you.

I can understand the desire to be sure that no misunderstanding or unexplained assumptions have crept into physics. It seems to me now that you are not so much trying to remove the spanners from the works, so physics works better, but applying a 'puritanical' zeal for the ultimate reductionist model of nature. (Which I think you believe/know will make physics better.) It seems to me that the intention is to de-construct physics, distil the essence. It seems to me that the intuition or reasoning is that nature can be built particle by particle, like starting out with a blank page and ink. That seemed to be what Edwin was implying. Your strong objections to seemingly rational explanations now make sense. The explanations given may work using known science but the replies lack the purity you think (in your own mind know) is essential.

Concepts used for hundreds of years are denied to the physicist/philosopher, like the earthy pleasures of song and dance denied to the People as ungodly. Not a criticism but a realisation that purification is the aim. That is helpful to realise as it makes clear that no explanations other than those derived from "purified physics" will suffice and that there is no point supplying any other kind.It saves a lot of unnecessary conversations and distress. That is what I tried to tell Paul and for some reason seemed to cause great upset in doing so.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 3, 2012 @ 12:12 GMT
Hi Mile,

does a simulation have to be isomorphic to the reality it is simulating or can there be significant differences that would not be readily apparent? It does not have to contain correspondence to all of the information of the original, and it can vary significantly and still be plausibly real IMHO.

The observer's reality is generated by the visual cortex and other parts of the brain from sensory input, memory and other brain function. The whole of the visual field is not scanned systematically but the eyes roam over the field providing information to update the observed image. Which means most of what is being observed is provided by retention of previously generated output filling in gaps in the new output. Gaps can also be filled by imagination as shown by the blind spot demonstration, extending the known data to fill the unknown area. So far less data goes into the simulation than in the reality simulated. Not because it is compacted but because it is omitted but then filled in again with an approximation of what might be there. The way in which the visual system filters and amalgamates data is interesting and relevant too IMHO.

More isn't always better. There has to be a balance between enough data to be aware of the surroundings and navigate successfully and the energy requirement of data processing. Too much information could be detrimental to function, overloading the processing capability or demanding too much energy. The brain being very energy hungry. I can't see the advantage right now of as much data as possible,"quantizing" to fit every little piece in and loose nothing from the original at all, just for the purpose of a simulation.

I know it doesn't quite fit the bill as something more exotic but at least its getting back to the idea of most efficient memory storage.Is the question really about the simulation ability or just the memory?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
Perimeter institute outreach, black hole cafes, "The world as a hologram". Speakers Richard Epp and Robert Meyers.

Gives an very easy introduction to the ideas of the universe possibly being holographic.Interesting. Talked about data being stored in the frequencies, intensities and polarisations of photons. The talk included the maximum amount of information storage possible. Really good point was stressed, that information is not just abstract but has to have a concrete form in which it exists. So there is a physical maximum that can be stored. The calculation was based on energy and mass being equivalent and so energy storage would have a mass itself which could only rise up to a maximum before a black hole would form, as a result of the increased gravity- theoretically. That able to fit into a sphere before the mass becomes a black hole turns out to be related to surface area rather than volume.

Then the talk seems to concentrate on black holes themselves which seems less relevant to the world as a hologram theme. Seems to me the hologram bit is just another part of the entirety of reality and not in itself everything. So the talk of people possibly being 2 dimensional beings who are also 3 dimensional was a bit bizarre. But that the data to recreate images of 3 dimensional objects only needs a 2 dimensional surface to exist upon, which could form the surface of a sphere is interesting.And IMHO relevant to a data pool existing in the external reality environment, part of what I have been referring to as the Object reality.

The tiniest thing that can be several things at once would give the maximum memory storage, and the photon which can have a number of attributes seems to fit the bill. Even though the observer can only extract one bit of the information with a single receptor, not multiple bits of information. Its intensity or frequency not both.- It makes me wonder what else is really small and can be several things at once. How small would it have to be to only fill up the space that could denote a one or zero in a computer now?

Something with several surfaces that could be exposed, shape ?or potential colours,a chemical "code" ie absorbs or reflects photons of different frequencies? This might mimic what happens in nature. The EM data from which the biological simulation can be formed is the product of photon interaction with the material reality, reflection or absorption from surfaces will give on/off (light/dark)and then also a frequency (colour), polarisation(potential holographic image) and intensity (strength).

Is this getting closer to the point?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 6, 2012 @ 05:06 GMT
Georgina,

I think in memory storage, it's not so much bits as coding for the receptors. In any process effective complexity builds up through feedback loops, more than just bulk storage. Minds might work like computers, but brains are far more evolved and complex, with multiple layers of subconscious perception.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 6, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
John,

Also in the brain the information is stored in such a way that it can be accessed from many different routes. Which are actual neurons. If one route is lost another might be used to activate a memory.A smell perhaps instead of a name. Connections grow and other unused connections are lost. Does a good job fabricating alternative realities as dreams too. Have a Happy Easter.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 3, 2012 @ 19:19 GMT
For those who think that the Einstein equations are perfect, doesn't dark matter tell us that we don't understand gravity as well as we think we do?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 01:38 GMT
Jason,

Actually it only tells us we don't know what causes the outer spirals of galaxies to spin as fast as the inner spirals.

We assume it's due to gravitational attraction from unknown sources, but wouldn't external pressure cause this? What if "space" expands, but the universe doesn't, possibly because it is infinite and sufficiently energetic? So the only effect would be additional external pressure on these gravity wells?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 03:27 GMT
Hi John,

I will take you as our dark matter expert. Do ALL galaxies contain what scientists call dark matter? Since galaxies don't collapse into the center, we can infer that the force of gravity due to the galactic center and inner star clusters is balanced by the centripetal motion equation:

. If we solve for velocity, we get



But the mass get's greater as you get further away from the galactic center. OK, I admit, I'm not a cosmologist. I'll have to ask: what is the velocity profile v (r) supposed to be?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 03:59 GMT
You made an elementary algebraic mistake, please check your math.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 5, 2012 @ 18:30 GMT
Jason,

Since this exchange caused me to consider an implication I hadn't previously focused on, I thought I might repeat it;

I've argued there is a basic convection cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass. Obviously when mass is converted into energy, it is characterized by expansion. Think nuclear explosion.

While I've focused on explaining redshift as an effect of the expansion of radiation, it might be interesting to consider the relationship between mass and gravity. We think of it as simply a fundamental property of mass, but if mass turning into energy results in expansion, then is the opposite true; does energy turning into mass cause contraction? The idea being that gravity is not so much an effect of mass, but an effect of the creation of mass? So what would be causing the additional spin is not so much the existence of dark matter, but the creation of matter.

Currently it's assumed most mass is produced within stars, where fusion is possible, but what about the near absolute zero of intergalactic space? Could this affect the charge of protons? Do we know where all forms of neutrinos come from?

I think physics will eventually decide the geometry of spacetime as cause of gravity has it backward and they will have to find an explanation based on physical processes, not mathematical equations.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 5, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
John,

You said, "I think physics will eventually decide the geometry of spacetime as cause of gravity has it backward and they will have to find an explanation based on physical processes, not mathematical equations."

"Geometry of space-time" is the accepted terminology. Using very careful, very clever wording, the physics community can avoid words like "light bearing aether". In spite of whatever occult connations one associates with the word "aether", an aether or medium suggests the physical existence of something that behaves like a space-time time continuum, behaves like a quantum vacuum.

In contrast, words like "geometry of space-time", which are accepted by the physics establishment, lead you to think of angles, lines, dots and other mathematical symbols. It misleads physicists into believing that all of the answers are in the math...alone.

Theoretical physicists refuse to look beyond the math symbols, they refuse to go back to the source of all physics,...nature itself.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 6, 2012 @ 04:48 GMT
Jason,

Math as dogma presents an interesting quandary. You would think though, that with all the accumulated fantasy patches; inflation, string theory, multiworlds, multiverses, singularities, wormholes, blocktime, dark matter, dark energy, super symmetry, etc. there would be some consideration for rewriting the entire program. You are in the computer industry. If you have a system this buggy, would you keep patching it, or throw it in the round file and go back to the drawing board? It's time to throw away the duck tape and super glue and bring out the hammers and chisels. Quit adding on and start chopping away.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 6, 2012 @ 05:29 GMT
John,

I'm actually in the high end electronics industry; I troubleshoot the most accurate oscilloscopes in the world.

http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/dpo-dsa-mso70000

You asked: "If you have a system this buggy, would you keep patching it, or throw it in the round file and go back to the drawing board? "

My answer would be: come up with a new capability. Come up with something marketable. I don't care how peicemeal, how patchy or ad hoc it is, but come up with a warp engine. Come up with something that will explode the economy into vast new growth. Come up with something that can be experimentally verified. Come up with something that will supercharge everyone with excitement about the future.

In my industry, it's not about how pretty the math is, it's always about results.

report post as inappropriate


Robert H. McEachern wrote on Apr. 7, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT
There is a fundamental misconception regarding information and complexity here. Coins are always two sided. The "state" can only be determined by comparing a coin to some other reference, such as the surface the flipped coin lands on, or, more simply, the angle at which it is observed. Instead of flipping one coin, flip the observer (relocate it relative to the fixed coins). The first system now produces two new observable bits per flip (one for each coin, assuming they are floating in space at a fixed, but random orientation), while the second only produces one.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2012 @ 14:44 GMT
Tom,

I moved this quote from 'disproofs' to here so that your conversation with

Richard wouldn't be interrpted:

"...Einstein's model of a universe that is "finite but unbounded" -- when we assume that this means finite in time and unbounded in space, we get singularities -- changing the convention to bounded in space and unbounded in time (Joy's framework) eliminates singularities while preserving all other features of relativity, special and general."

I am not sure how to understand this. I think that my own thoughts may be distracting me. For example, we receive, via photons, information about change of velocity. The two properties involved are length and time. Now and then as a mental exercise, I try to picture the universe if we reversed the roles of length and time. We use velocity as length per unit of time. If the ratio is inverted to time per unit of length how would we see the universe.

For clarification, I see ourselves as receiving information and after processing it our minds form a picture of what it thinks we are seeing. It draws the picture with length visible but time not visible. My exercise involves reversing this so that time is visible but length is not visible. I haven't been able to do it, but I see no reason why a mind couldn't. Whether or not this idea has physical merit, I do think exercises like it have potential for expanding our thought process.

When I look at what you say above, I tend to interpret it through the lens of the example above. I don't think you mean it that way. Could you explain a little more about your quote?

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT
Hi James,

I'll try.

It was always Einstein's intent to get a complete theory of nature free of singularities. He intended general relativity to be a stepping stone to that goal, and never considered the theory physically complete, though it is mathematically complete (i.e., every element of the mathematics corresponds to every element of physical measure in the classical domain). The presence of singularities limits the domain, and therefore the range of the theory is limited; beyond the Planck time, general relativity has nothing to say about what nature is doing.

Before I address your thoughts and questions, please let me try and explain how Joy's framework overcomes that problem. After seeing that Kaluza-Klein theory was a higher dimensional mathematical unification of physical phenomena (though still physically incomplete), Einstein in later years admitted that if there were good physical reasons to add dimensions, mathematical completeness could follow, in principle. Obviously, the biggest obstacle was the formation of singularities. Joy extended the domain to eight dimensions, where the 3 + 1 dimensions of measure space -- i.e., Minkowski space -- is a subset of the space of complete measure functions. (This is well demonstrated in Hestenes' spacetime algebra from which Minkowski space may be derived.)

You ask, " ... I try to picture the universe if we reversed the roles of length and time. We use velocity as length per unit of time. If the ratio is inverted to time per unit of length how would we see the universe."

You would see it as Joy has modeled it -- as a world finite in space and unbounded in time. To explain: consider the result of special relativity, E = mc^2. We don't actually need the c^2 to conclude E = m as anything other than a calculating tool, a mathematical artifact. That constant merely describes the limit of the measure domain, "time per unit of length" as you say, which in the quantum mechanical domain is equal to unity, i.e., 1. E = 1m. In the classical domain of continuous functions, however, judgments of the value of the time metric make a difference, because given that algebraically E - m = 0, velocity of relative metrics described by Lorentz's mathematics, recovers the reality of finite mass by transforming spatial (length) measures to relations of mass to time. All of our measures, as Lamport has made clear, are in a bounded length of time, yet we cannot understand relativity without the assumption of uniformity -- i.e., that physical laws are invariant throughout the universe regardless of the interval of measure, independent of any observer frame. The generalization of relativity gives us a reciprocal relation between mass and spacetime, just as Joy shows in the reciprocal relation between dichotomous variables in a framework of continuous functions -- over the complete bounded domain of S^7.

That's the best I can do for now.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 8, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Gooood mooorniiing Crazzzy thinkers, and the words of the day are ....

still a publicity for the other pseudo searcher.

You do not understand neither the general relativity, nor the special relativity, nor the deterministic QM,nor the geometrical algebras.

The continuity is bad understood. The domains , frankly Ohhhh Myyyy God .But what are your foundamentals ???

You do not understand nor the lorentz works, nor them of Maxwell and still less them of Borh or Newton.

Your maths , to you and Joy and friends are a pure joke, a pure fantasy, a pure metaphysics without rationality.A pure joke for the real rationalists and generalists. We are not numerous but we see your stupidities and the rule of a responsible universal scientist is to show you the road of foundamentals.But apparently it is not the case, you do not learn but you continue in your stupid line of reasoning. The opportunism is your torch, I can understand, but your works are so ironical. In fact you do not rerally understand what is the mass and the light, like youi do not really know what is the entropy and its distribution or the uniqueness and its distribution. You speak about things totally unknown for you in fact. How can you ponder a correct work? it seems not possible in fact for you and your friends. A real generalist speaks totally diffrently than your words to you and your friends. Don't compare a water drop with an ocean !

The respect is a thing which is essential when the real respect is respected of course.

Respecfully spherically yours.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
James,

Let me see if I can make it a little clearer. Physicists (at least those of a classical bent) are happy to describe reality in no other terms than space and time alone. Until the two of us interacted mutually with Fred Diether on SPF, it wasn't obvious to me that this is what you are trying to do, with a nonstandard approach; Fred’s clarification made it obvious.

Let's go...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some of it.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
It's on its way, in a package addressed to Anonymous, in the state of nowhere.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
Anonymous,

"Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some of it."

I see you hiding behind those bushes. Anyway if you are referring to my ideas, I can support them to the extent that I have developed them. If you are referring to Tom, you had better be very well armed with knowledge. If you are referring to neither then my message still stands.

James

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

I moved this away from disproofs:

"...Everyone should listen to Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here," and in particular the lines modified as:

We're all lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, ..."

When are some physicists, perhaps many academics in general, going to learn that they are not experts on politics, economics, social sciences, social values, Biblical knowledge or religions in general, psychology, anthropology, literature, logic, etc., or experts on how to save the rest of us for our own good, or how to save the world. When it gets to that last extent: I say save us from saviors. The references to folk, rock, rap, or whatever lyrics, are poetic in simple terms, but are not the final word in complex matters. Usually, they are gross oversimplifications.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that some physicists, and again perhaps many academics due to their being specialists, feel compelled to reach out to art, opera, Pink Floyd, etc., on a sporatic basis pasting in bits of this and bits of that, as if, in spite of their own great academic accomplishments, the loss of those greats who, in past times, were able to complete the full cycle of learning, threatens to lower their self-esteem.

I have nothing against Pink Floyd. I rewired my son's Strat guitar, when he was fifteen, with the same electronics that David Gilmour uses in his red Strat. But, why should those who are seriously evaluating Joy Christian's work put their efforts aside and find the solution in a Pink Floyd quote.

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 00:42 GMT
Are physicists not people too? Being always only focussed on the immediate task at hand might be regarded as being narrow minded. Who knows where inspiration may come from.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
Ddear Georgina,

Of course not. And, my message never said any such thing.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 11, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT
There is a risk of dragging the debate over JC's quantum locality here, which is probably not pertinent to this blog entry. It does though save me from slogging through over 1200 posts, which is getting ridiculously huge and time consuming.

Some Senator during the Vietnam War suggested we should declare victory and get out. In some sense that is all that is left to do here. Of course JC will declare victory as well as the last voice standing on this FQXi blog site with his small minion of followers. However, that is of little concern to me. I put in a few serious comments on this last summer and fall, and frankly all of this is a re-thrashing of the same stuff. From this comes the Pink Floyd reference.

I have encountered several people of this sort who seem clever and determined to keep convolving arguments to uphold something which is simply wrong. Often these people are utterly impossible to argue with beyond a certain point. JC is just the latest example of such people I have encountered. In the end such people may “win” their case in some isolated situation, such as on an FQXi blog page with a half dozen panegyrics or followers. If JC were correct then after five years I think the matter would have percolated through the community and would by now have world support. He would have been getting Nobel Prize nominations by now, if not the actual prize. Overturning a major canon of physics such as theorems on locality in QM is something which would take the scientific world by storm. This would be a so called paradigm shift on the same level as Einstein or Feynman. I see little evidence of that taking place.

I think that arguing this matter further is a total waste of time. Even writing this is a waste of my time, which would be better spent elsewhere. So while I can admire Florin and Gill in their efforts to defray this error or misrepresentation on the part of JC, it really does little good any more. It is best to “declare victory and get out,” and don’t worry whether JC ends up as the “Quantum King” on an FQXi blog page.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 11, 2012 @ 20:18 GMT
How do you distinguish between words like (space-time geometry) which are part of the mathematical model, from words like (space-time continuum) which is nature. The mathematical model models nature. General relativity models nature, the part of nature that we call the space-time continuum. The model is accurate, but not necessarily complete? If you assume that the model is complete, then technological advancement is stymied. However, if you think up new and clever experiments that attempt to discover something new about the space-time continuum and/or the standard model, then a discovery is possible.

Why is nobody coming up with ideas for clever experiments to discover something new about nature?

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Apr. 11, 2012 @ 20:33 GMT
Here Jason, here is an idea for a clever experiment to discover something new about nature. Can you do this experiment?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 11, 2012 @ 21:30 GMT
Reinterpreting some experiments may also teach you a lot about nature. For instance, if you know how the lifetime of muons "at rest" is measured, you may come to the conclusion that the famous muon experiment has nothing to do with time dilation:

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

A similar wisdom:

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall. Lifetimes of moving drivers can be much longer...

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 01:28 GMT
Hi Joy,

It seems like Edwin, Lawrence, Tom and others have been debating your paper for about six months now. I was told that you are basically arguing in support of Local Realism and local hidden variables. Personally, I think that quantum entanglement makes more sense then local hidden variables. But this should probably be verified experimentally.

Hi Pencho,

The dilation of muon lifetime is most certainly a convincing argument that time dilation is real.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 04:38 GMT
Fred Diether wrote: "Only a classical EPR type experiment will tell if Bell is right or if Joy is right."

Experiments are double-edged in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the dependence of the speed of light on the speed of both the light source and the observer:...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 20:06 GMT
The Lifetime of Muons at Rest

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf

Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."

That is, muons bump into the plastic of the detector and their speed suddenly changes from almost 300000km/s to zero. Could such a violent collision cause rapid subsequent disintegration? Or non-colliding muons gloriously live longer because they suffer time dilation and we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

A similar wisdom:

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall. Lifetimes of moving drivers can be much longer...

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT
Please figure out how to use the link help page so that you don't whack out the blog listings on the side. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 13, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
The Lifetime of Muons at Rest II

Einsteiniana's textbooks teach that cosmic-ray muons moving at a speed close to c live much longer than muons "at rest", and that this gloriously confirms time dilation, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Then textbooks explain how the lifetime of moving muons is measured but usually don't mention the experimental procedure allowing Einsteinians to assess the lifetime of muons "at rest". How do Einsteinians measure the lifetime of muons "at rest"? When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because rationality in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is so devastated that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' (nobody cares to contradict them) and infer that non-crashing (moving) muons live longer than crashing ("at rest") muons, in perfect accordance with Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/muons.pdf

"A muon that COMES TO REST in the detector induces one signal upon entry and another upon decay."

http://www.particle.kth.se/~pearce/muonlab/muonlab.pdf

"The purpose of this laboratory is to measure the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons. The experimental technique is straight-forward. Cosmic ray muons ARE STOPPED in an aluminium target which is sandwiched between plastic scintillator detectors... (...) A stopping muon is indicated by a signal in the top and middle scintillators but no signal in the bottom scintillators. The time between the muon stopping and its decay (a further signal in the middle or bottom scintillator) is measured with an electronics system."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 08:41 GMT
I wish I could articulate more clearly to you why frequency shift will induce gravity fields. It helps if you know what the space-time continuum is made of and what the quantum vacuum is made of; space-time and the quantum vacuum are two facets of the same thing.

At the moment of the big bang, everything was quantum entangled with everything else. This total quantum entanglement survives today, it is called the space-time continuum. If you look closely enough, it is the quantum vacuum. That is all you have to work with; lots of matter, lots of energy, and this quantum entanglement mesh.

Gravity causes gravitational time dilation which causes gravitational redshift; in principle there should be a wave function that includes time dilation and all possible frequency shifts that can occur. A synthesized frequency shift should be able reproduce at least part of this wave-function. You should be able to get back at least some of the gravity by reproducing the wave-function.

There is another consideration. The Einstein equations may be an equilibrium state for the space-time continuum/quantum vacuum. Wide range frequency shifts in very short time periods may be enough to disturb the local space-time away from equilibrium.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 10:04 GMT
If someone wanted to perform the frequency shift experiment to test whether or not it can produce a gravity field, this is what I would suggest. Build the circuit on a gallium arsenide wafer. By varying the ratio of gallium_x to aluminum_1-x, you can vary the bandgap and obtain a range of frequencies. Fill up the wafer die with light emitting diodes with 16 different frequencies. Design a circuit that will step through each frequency "step", from lowest frequency to highest frequency. You won't be able to match up the phase between frequency steps, but you can still get proof of concept. The 16 different frequency LED's should be evenly dispersed throughout the die. When the GaAs wafer is completed, wire a clock and a voltage supply to each die on the wafer. The wafer is fragile, so I recommend dipping the wafer in polyacrylic glass. The faster you step through all 16 frequencies, the better. Use the fastest clock available. You are trying to simulate a linear frequency shift of

f(t) = [df/dt]t+f_0. Do this and you have a gravity field generator.

There are jewelery scales that can read down to the micro gram. Place a 100g weight on the scale. Direct the gravity field generator at the scale. The goal is to get the generator to cause a deviation in the weight of the 100g weight.

report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 00:47 GMT
Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure. A computer program can illustrate that easily. While reality CAN be simulated but it looks like it is a natural process. A mathematical structure not unlike a circle.

Here is what I call the most beautiful graph ever, I simulate two particles interacting, with different compton wavelengths for each run. they all converge on the .00054858 the mass of the electron. This is just one of many results that I have obtained by the simulation.

http://www.qsa.netne.net

attachments: 1_emassinter.jpg, 1_qsaclean.txt

report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
let me explain a bit about the program.



the thumbnail shows 1D implementation. 1,2,3,4,.... are the number of loops. in each loop I throw two numbers for each particle denoting their position and length. if the lines cross (star) I ignore I don't register the position( the round marks) or don't do anything with the lines. But if they don't cross then I have a counter that updates the number of times a hit happened in the particular position (the squared marks). then for each particle I have a counter that simply adds the lengths of this line to the previous total for each particle.



I do that(loops) a million, sometimes a 100 trillion times. then I normalize to the number of throws. the totals of the lines(normalized) are the energy. the numbers of hits for each positions is operated on to get the expectation values. normalized position hits are the probabilities that are similar to the ones we get from the "squaring" of the wavefunction. Without interaction the expectation value is the midpoint of the particle. But when interaction happens the expectation value moves. lets say to left in the left particle and right in the right particle. That denotes a repulsion. you can also get attraction with different logic. But more on the logic part later.



then the particles are moved to a different distance and the operation is repeated.

QSA Theory

attachments: qsalines.jpg

report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 20:51 GMT
This is my last post unless somebody becomes interested and responds. I find it a bit strange that the blog is about simulating reality and yet when a possible system is shown nobody takes interest with tens of unrelated posts.

you can run the program by downloading C++ express (free) plus SDK 7.1(free) to run the 64 bit.

This is just a write up on the background of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 21:38 GMT
Hi qsa,

If you have observed this site before posting, then you would know that everyone has their own bandwagon to push. You are going to have to push yours yourself. For starters: "...what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts. ..." is not true for me. Perhaps someone else will find it attractive. Also, any results you achieved through programming were due to the initial conditions, restraints or whatever, that you put into the computer. It is telling you back what you have told it. Again, perhaps someone else who will offer to correct me. Then you may have the dialogue you are looking for.

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 22:13 GMT
Hi Qsa,

I have read your posts. It is interesting to hear about what other people are doing. I think what you are saying about a mathematical simulation of reality is interesting. I have an inexpert interest in fractals and 3D simulations and interest in how the mathematics of chaos theory might be relevant at the foundational level of reality. Your description of the mathematical approach...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

qsa replied on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 00:18 GMT
Hi,

Thank you both for your responses.

James,

I did not claim that reality is mathematical and stopped, I provided evidence. I understand your concern. But it would be stupid of me to rig the program and at the same time publicly publish it. However, it is possible to make mistakes and overlook things, and that is why I ask people to check it for themselves. There is also a possibility that my system is by chance mimics a good model of reality and the model has nothing to do with reality being mathematical. But that will be only established after a good number of qualified people look at the model and its results seriously. I will reply to Georgina separately.

Thanks again

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 21, 2012 @ 01:51 GMT
Zeeya,

How about a post on missing dark matter?

here

here

What I find to be an interesting connection is this:

"According to Porter, the new analysis leads to several conclusions. For example, it shows that the density of cosmic rays is higher than anticipated in the outer regions of the galaxy and beyond the central galactic plane. In addition, the total amount of gamma radiation from cosmic ray electrons due to interactions with infrared and visible light – which consist of photons of much lower energy than gamma rays – is larger than previously thought."

So instead of a halo of dark matter, they find a halo of cosmic rays. We certainly know mass turns to energy, but if the opposite is true, what would be the circumstances? If light collapses into elemental particles, wouldn't it leave a corresponding vacuum and wouldn't the cumulative effect resemble gravity? Such that gravity is not simply an effect of mass, but energy turning into mass, leaving a vacuum. So that what is on the perimeter of galaxies isn't a halo of dark matter, but energy condensing into matter, with increasing density the further toward the center of the galaxy.

How could it be tested? It would certainly push the boundaries of what's measurable.

The wave collapse as something more than math.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 24, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Another interesting observation that might be relevant to this line of argument:

"An in-depth analysis by scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) zeroed in on tiny, bubble-like islands that appear in the hot, charged gases—or plasmas—during experiments. These minute islands collect impurities that cool the plasma. And it is these islands, the scientists report in the April 20 issue of Physical Review Letters, that are at the root of a long-standing problem known as the "density limit" that can prevent fusion reactors from operating at maximum efficiency."

So fusion naturally produces "bubbles of impurities?" Where would "impurities" come from, in plasma? Could this be mass condensing out of energy?

report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 11:28 GMT
Here is the most important first result from the three results that I will show. The results confirm that the classical Bohr Model falls out from QSA model which encompasses QM and QFT.

Please always refer to these wiki

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model[/url]

this is the result of simulating two particles with a width of 1823 which is close to 1822.8885 for electron compton wavelength (just simplification)interacting at a seperation of around Bohr radius which is

1/(m*alpha)=1/(.00054858*.007297352569) = 249801.3

the raw data is below from the program with int=50. also make this change in the program to get these results

for (mk = 2475; mk

report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
here I show the second and third results. all to be discussed in the reply.

first I show (attachment) the 1/r law generated by the system. I just compute few more points in the same simulation for the Bohr model result. And then plot distance vs energy(P.E.) and do curve fitting.

second (see attachment) , the running phase of the charge until its relative stabilization. The interaction starts when the particles are very close to each other. the interpretation of the results in quite bit more involved, but shows the basic feature.

attachments: sf.jpg, running.jpg

report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 17:01 GMT
I repeat the Bohr model post here and put the results in text file since the system cut off the post. Although it showed it very good in preview.

attachments: bohr.txt

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Without gravity, effectively, there is nothing -- gravity involves the real and the actual, and the theoretical/thoughtful -- and space and time.

Gravity, invisible and visible, is key to distance in/of space. Without gravity, ultimately, nothing is felt or seen/observable, as gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space.

Truth in physics ultimately involves THOUGHT (of course) and LIFE, NOT what is inanimate.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 18:58 GMT
Now add this -- There is no difference between inanimate and animate, ultimately. However, thought cannot truly describe/approximate what it is not, ultimately. Ultimate and fundamental unification extends/involves concepts like F=ma AND the integrated and interactive nature of being, the body, thought, and experience (including space). DREAMS MATTER.

report post as inappropriate


Bryan Sanctuary wrote on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Yes, agree with others that this is an interesting, well written and thought provoking article. I have a comment.

"Would it be merely classical logic on classical bits, or would they harness the unique properties of quantum logic? "

Do you believe Schrodinger, who said in 1936, that entanglement was not A difference from classical mechanics, but THE difference? So we are talking about entanglement here, as a few others have noted.

Regarding the irreversibility of quantum processes: that is because we are measuring. I see qm as a theory of measurement, not necessarily the most fundamental theory of Nature. If you did not measure, then quantum processes are reversible.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 4, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
Quantum gravity is ultimately dependent upon the space being inertial, gravitational, and electromagnetic -- ALL of them, at once -- in a balanced and equivalent fashion. This fundamentally demonstates/involves/includes instantaneity. Dreams do all of this.

Come on Joy Christian, where is your rebuttal?

True/fundamental quantum gravity and fundamental instantaneity require inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing -- both at half strength energy/force/feeling.

Dreams achieve fundamental gravitational/inertial/electromagnetic equilibrium.

report post as inappropriate



Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.