Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author 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 POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Hugh Matlock: on 8/14/13 at 11:32am UTC, wrote Hi Marina, > That's how, in fact, I understand the expansion of space,...

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/9/13 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Hi Hugh congratulations on making the cut. I left a post in the end of my...

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/9/13 at 20:01pm UTC, wrote Hi Hugh, thank you for your reply. I'm afraid I did not explain myself...

Hugh Matlock: on 8/9/13 at 4:05am UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan, Thanks, good to see you in the top 40, as I "rated you...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 0:37am UTC, wrote Glad you could make it! Good luck in the finals Hugh. All the Best, ...

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/8/13 at 3:48am UTC, wrote Hugh Good to see you're soaring high on the list -- and I suffered a...

Hugh Matlock: on 8/8/13 at 2:56am UTC, wrote Hi Marina, I am not sure that a lower dimension would provide a more...

Hugh Matlock: on 8/7/13 at 9:03am UTC, wrote Sorry.. the last sentence should read: But the resolution of current CMB...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joseph Campbell: "American and Chinese astrophysicists have suggested that by studying the..." in Multiversal Journeys'...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Georgina, Reality has got nothing to do with how I try to roughly..." in Quantum Dream Time

Georgina Woodward: "Joe, I think I ought to word my reply my precisely. I saw the product..." in Quantum Dream Time

austin fearnley: "You could investigate using the Rasch Model to grade the entries. There..." in What Is...

Watson waston: "Great and beautiful work is done by. You publish a detailed and informative..." in Kwiat’s Kwest:...

John Cox: "Good to know, Johnathan, thanks. I'm writing that down, hardcopy! Hope you..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

Jonathan Dickau: "To John and others lured in by such offers... My dad fell prey to this..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

Watson waston: "The information is very good and very useful. I really like it and I am..." in Kwiat’s Kwest:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?


FQXi FORUM
November 20, 2017

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Software Cosmos by Hugh Matlock [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

To decide the question “It from Bit or Bit from It?” we first describe a software simulation architecture for the cosmos. After refining the model using ideas from physics, we consider whether its operation is consistent with astronomical observation. A test is suggested, and carried out, for determining whether we now reside within such a system. The result will give us an opportunity to reflect on the insights available from ancient philosophies and finally to answer the question with another aphorism.

Author Bio

Hugh Matlock is a software architect and independent researcher. He became a programmer in high school and enjoyed simulating Conway’s Game of Life in 1972 and Von Neumann’s self-reproducing universal constructor the next year. He later managed the New Architecture Group at The Source designing and implementing online services. After over thirty years as a professional software developer and entrepreneur, he has been engaged in independent research for the last decade. He has a B.A. in Mathematics from Dartmouth College.

Download Essay PDF File




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 10:22 GMT
Dear Matlock,

Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ? I also work on Dynamic universe Model, for which some details you can find in questions of this essay also.......

I am requesting you to go through my essay. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:31 GMT
Hi Satyavarapu,

You wrote:

> Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ?

Thanks, I am glad you liked the idea. While I have not implemented the full software cosmos picture described in the body of the essay, I have calculated models of the grid structure described at the end.

You also said:

> And I take this...

view entire post




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Hugh,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.

Dynamic Universe model is the model I formulated with God's grace.

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

I think we form a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
Hi Hugh,

I liked your essay (I was in the IT industry but not a programmer).

I have developped a theory of the Universe that you could easily reproduce with a program (there are only two rules to follow).

You might want to take a look at my essay and if you like it (you never know !), you are welcome to try to simulate it with a program. You can also find the complete theory...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
Hi Patrick,

Thanks, glad you liked the essay.

I looked at your 3D Universe Theory paper, but I have to confess I did not understand it. One problem I had was with the formulae you give: while the numbers you compute are close to important physical quantities, most of those quantities are not pure numbers and so the formulae do not stand up to dimensional analysis.

Your...

view entire post




Patrick Tonin replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Hugh,

Thank you for your comments. If you downloaded my theory from viXra then you did not have the page explaining the way I redefined the dimensions, it is explained here.

It is quite extraordinary at first but it makes sense if you follow my theory.

Thank you for the link to DP, I will take a look.

Cheers,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:16 GMT
Hi Patrick,

You might want to look at how Peter Rowlands combines the different fundamental parameters (length, time, mass, and charge) in A Foundational Approach to Physics. Notice that he specifies scaling constants to combine them.

I noticed that the infinite sum you use for some of your formulas can be expressed more simply (see geometric series for the derivation).

Using...

view entire post





Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Hugh

Hopefully "This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right" so that we no longer have a headache because of the questions that remain to be answered - also had from very ancient times - but in the fact is we seeing a very different conclusion.

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
Hi Hoang,

Thanks for your comment. I imagine that there will always be new questions that remain to be answered... but perhaps it does not have to result in headaches, as you say.

Aloha,

Hugh




James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT
Hugh,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Mr Matlock,

I am deeply in your debt. Please allow me to respond to the John Wheeler quote: “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful that when we grasp it – in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?”

The time has come. The only yes/no question Wheeler should have...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 10:55 GMT
Hello Hugh,

Excellent essay, happy to read it. You brought a good quote John Wheeler "In any field find the strangest thing and then explore it." There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites." What kind of opposites? Basic contradictions of the Universe (rest and motion, continuity and discontinuity, symmetry and asymmetry ...) that need to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT
A very interesting line of research: "Geocosmology at present may best be considered a philosophy or a proto-science rather than a science or religion. As it matures, perhaps it can form a bridge between these two great traditions." http://geocosmology.com/

But I think that in the search for warping need to use all the accumulated knowledge of mankind ... And your opinion? My direction I called - Ontitopologiya ... Nowhere did he find your post ...

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
I'm sorry: OntoTopoLogia http://www.ontotopology.ru/eng_st.php

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 00:55 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your insightful comments. Regarding these:

1. "There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites.""

In the Software Cosmos, the explicate world and implicate world can be thought of as opposites, or better yet, as two opposite sides of the same coin. When conducting the transformation from implicate to...

view entire post





Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Hugh,

1. I'm talking about the coincidence of opposites in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa: «coincidentia oppositorum» - minimum and maximum.

2. The ancient images of the "three elephants" and "three pillars" tells us about the idea of the trinity foundation of the world.

3. The introduction of the category "memory" as central to the new paradigm requires the disclosure...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 17:34 GMT
Vladimir

1. coincidence of opposites

The Software Cosmos, being finite, probably corresponds to the Cusan concept of "contracted maximum". At first glance no finite system could correspond to his "absolute Maximum". However, software can simulate something similar to the infinite, using a recursive process that opens up more detail below or a larger enclosing space above whenever...

view entire post





Philip Gibbs wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 10:35 GMT
Hugh, this essay presents a gerat combination of ideas.

The concept of the universe as a computer has always intrigued me although I see it as an emergent process rather than an ontological principle. I like that you tackle so many unsolved cosmological problems as well as leaning on the work of Bohm, Finkelstein etc.

report post as inappropriate


Author Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Thanks, I am delighted that you liked it.

It has been a surprise to me how few essays treat the issues in observational cosmology. I have found only about a dozen possibilities among the 183 essay abstracts.




Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 19:25 GMT
Hello Hugh,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I will certainly take a look at your essay and the links in the next few days and engage you in some dialectic. I will be rating all essays with a digital inclination high including yours as I feel thats the way to go. Before I come back here, can you take a look at the below 4 simple questions, which I will be asking a few others:

"If...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
Hi Hugh,

A great essay! The only thing is that you tried to cover too many phenomena. I would have wanted you to concentrate on one or two. A lot of beautiful ideas you have.

I would have for example wanted you to discuss more on dynamics. For example, as you may know the current model for motion is based on the assumption that space is infinitely divisible. That is the premise used...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

I was not offended by your questions, but I had some difficulty with them, as I was not quite sure what your unstated assumptions were. For example, were we to assume that we had not taken the million dollars out during the day? Was this to be taken as an analogue for a quantum experiment or just a philosophical question about the macroscopic world? Anyway, I thought I might...

view entire post




Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 23:09 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

You wrote:

> A great essay! The only thing is that you tried to cover too many phenomena.

I know, my first draft was 30 pages and a lot had to go to get it down to 9 pages. But one of the things I wanted to do with the essay is describe a kind of top-down picture. Many people work from the bottom up, extending their favorite theory, and the question I always have...

view entire post





Mikalai Birukou wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:08 GMT
Hugh,

You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is. Check MOND. First observation of spiral galaxies let to suggestion of MOND (slight change on gravity equations). Recently guys reported that observations of elliptical galaxies are in line with MOND.

From a practical point, when doing simulation, it would be computationally cheeper to use MOND corrections, then adding new...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 17:01 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

You wrote:

> You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is.

I apologise, I did not mean to. I know some people "search" for dark matter, expecting to find some kind of new particle or something larger that can explain the observations. They assume that GR must be correct and so the observations must be mistaken. To me, "Dark Matter" is just a way of...

view entire post




Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 21:28 GMT
The starting point for my picture of gravity is Gauge Theory Gravity. David Hestenes has described GTG as "mathematically equivalent" to General Relativity in his article Gauge Theory Gravity with Geometric Calculus but he shows many ways in which it is easier to use than GR.

Its usefulness to me is that it is formulated in a flat space (and proper time) and the equation of motion of a...

view entire post





john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Hugh -

Your exposition of a computer simulation of the Cosmos is highly interesting, and brings into focus our relationship, and the relation of mathematics, to the Cosmos.

The implicate and explicate orders you deal with can be considered from different perspectives, of course. I think ultimately we are dealing with a cosmos composed of different but correlated dimensional...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 00:38 GMT
Hi John,

You wrote:

> I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation.

The S3 structure that I kept finding does look like a vortex in perspective.

> The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels...

view entire post




john stephan selye replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
Great - I am indeed very curious to see what you think once you've read my essay. I very much look forward to hearing from you.

John

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 02:30 GMT
Dear Hugh,

Congratulations for writing this engaging essay about how to go about simulating the Universe. It took me some time to read your essay : you discussed many mathematical tools such as Geometric Algebra and permutations of known theories in physics that I was not familiar with. I kept going to Wikipedia and other articles to get a sense of what you were saying!

The role of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 22:22 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I went through your Beautiful Universe Theory web page briefly, and what I saw was lovely, and I think, generally consonant with my own views. After the contest I will go back and study it in detail, but it appears to be consistent with a computational approach that defines an "architectural layer" for the physical world. In other words, your "nodes" are the "pixels" in a...

view entire post





Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Hugh,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:16 GMT
Hugh,

WOW, I must say I truly appreciated your objective and analytical approach to the topic at hand! The fact that you are a software developer I also find intriguing since I, and several physicists interested in the findings of my work, are looking into developing new algorithms to apply this new paradigm.

When you get the chance, I would appreciate if you could review my essay and let me know if you would be interested in further discussions. My email address is on the essay:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Hugh,

I am pleased that my high rating of your essay (10) has helped move your well deserved essay up in the community standings. I was wondering if you had the time to review my essay, and if so, return my rating of your essay in kind if you see fit to do so.

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT
Hugh,

Thank you for stopping by my essay page and for your comments. I will reply to them soon. I have noticed that you have chosen not reciprocated my support of your essay. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that your essay should make it to the finals and I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Manuel,

I have not voted on any essays yet. My planned procedure is to read as many as I can, then rank them and allow myself (say) one 10, two 9s, three 8s, and so on. Is there a way to tell what rating other community members have given you?

Hugh




Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 01:41 GMT
Hello Hugh,

I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Hello Hugh,

I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:11 GMT
Hi Antony,

Thanks so much for your comments. You wrote:

> I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.

I very much agree with you, in cosmology particularily we need generalists and philosophers as well as...

view entire post




Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:21 GMT
Hi Hugh,

My pleasure. You deserved a great score for a great essay. Thanks for the comments over on my page. I've replied.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Hugh,

Great essay. Fascinating to see a view from a software architect. Also relevant, original, well written, and arranged, so all boxes ticked.

Your comments on Bell interested me as I construct an ontology via a 3D geometry with motion leading to a resolution of the EPR paradox with no FTL, as vo Neumann proposed (the uncertainty emerging at each detector). I'd completely somehow missed Recursive Quantum Gauge Theory it seems, as that seems to parallels and probably precurses my own model. Thank you for that. I'll check it out the moment I stop essay reading!

As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections. Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue. Again I hadn't read the papers you referred and have them piled up!

Thanks for that, and a great essay. Worth a higher mark. I hope you can follow mine and look forward to your comments, particularly on the Bell solution which I believe largely consistent with Joy's.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Peter,

> As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections.

I have commented on your essay over on your blog. I think that Michel Planat (see below) has drawn an important connection by pointing out that the Hopf fibration links my S3 implicate space and your Intelligent qubit to his work on quantum contextuality.

> Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue.

I will have a look at your previous essays after the contest, as I like your approach to this. I can imagine that there are several connections.

Hugh



Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, so I will add my comments again)

> As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections.

I have commented on your essay over on your blog. I think that Michel Planat (see below) has drawn an important connection by pointing out that the Hopf fibration links my S3 implicate space and your Intelligent qubit to his work on quantum contextuality.

> Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue.

I will have a look at your previous essays after the contest, as I like your approach to this. I can imagine that there are several connections.

Hugh




Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 07:35 GMT
Dear Hugh,

I have replied to your comments in my thread. I will read your essay and shortly post my comments on it in your thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:45 GMT
Dear Hugh,

The whole theme of your wonderful essay is based on differentiating between two states of human ‘cognition’, implicate and explicate; where implicate represents independent ‘reality’ and explicate represents information from implicate. So information conveys the message about implicate to the mind and mind grasps it as explicate. This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say “Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit”. So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate. Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article. You have made your essay a readable one by quoting the interesting aphorisms of well-known physicists. The figure of S3 hyper sphere is too good to grasp the essence behind it. But following Joy Christian, when you say S3 hyper sphere follows from parallelized 7-sphere you are not clear because we can visualize the figure of S3 sphere but not so that of 7 sphere. 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere. This was also the objection raised by me in Christian’s FQXI blog the previous year.

Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say “the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit” and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, “the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness”.

Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner. I have answered to your queries on my essay in my thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:22 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

You wrote:

> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.

We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it could depend on what we understand by It and Bit. I think of "It" as representing measurable physical objects,...

view entire post




Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, and my comment disappeared; so I will add it again.)

You wrote:

> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.

We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it...

view entire post





Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Hugh,

Great essay well showing all the interesting maths one needs to improve our understanding of the real world. I hope you will have time to read mine by the end of the game.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

More comments soon.

A high rate in preparation.

Good luck,

Michel

report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Hughes,

I am quite sensitive to your (software) picture of the cosmos for the following reasons

1) First but not least, I understand it. I already met (not physically except for Carlos Castro and Laurent Noittale) most of authors you refer to.

2) Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.

3) The S3 sphere has several clothes (i) the conformally compactified Minkowski space, as you mention,

(ii) the single qubit (Peter Jackson call it the intelligent qubit!)

as described in quant-ph/0310053, R. Mosseri, "Two and Three Qubits Geometry and Hopf Fibrations"

with the Hopf fibration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_fibration

(iv) Dirac Monopole

, just to cite a few.

The Hopf fibration of S3 by great circles S1 and base space S2 is that interests me here.

This is because, in my essay, one important object is S2 (that can be seen as the Bloch sphere, the

Riemann sphere or complex projective line CP1, you can see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1005.1997).

Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty.

The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding

to aforementioned singular points. I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.

This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.

Good luck,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:42 GMT
Hi Michel,

You wrote:

> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.

I am delighted that you appreciate it.

> The S3 sphere has several clothes

Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start looking for it. The Hopf fibration is a kind of co-star, whose dance with S3 we are just beginning to appreciate. I...

view entire post




Michel Planat replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:34 GMT
Dear Hughes,

I boosted your essay as promised.

"Black Hole/qubit correspondence" you could enter the team if you like.

"Mereon"

Yes, excellent, and it is a good way to see where the knots enter the game.

"Hopf fibrations" we are fully phase-locked.

Your feedback goes even beyond I could anticipate.

I will also answer your questions on my blog.

Good luck,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:50 GMT
Hi Michel,

(It appears that the FQXI database as been reset, as my comments have disappeared. I will add it back in.)

You wrote:

> Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.

I am delighted that you appreciate it.

> The S3 sphere has several clothes

Yes, it is quite remarkable how many starring roles S3 has, once you start...

view entire post





Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
Hello Hugh,

A very high mark to you. Now I do not understand everything you are doing, but in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality. Doing this modeling will keep you very honest. Much more honest than John Wheeler, who in my opinion turned physics and a whole bunch of physicists into mystery monger's. Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.

There is something about Calvin and Hobbes that gets real close to reality.

What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:05 GMT
Hi Don,

> in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality

Yes, exactly.

> Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.

Computer science has a concept of delayed evaluation that is similar to your lambda-hopping. This plays into the adaptive mesh refinement that I mention in the essay. But there is also functional programming which I plan to consider as a result of reading about lambda-hopping.

> What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!

As one Don to another: keep on tilting on!

Hugh



Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:52 GMT
Hi Don,

(It appears the FQXI database has been reset as recent comments have disappeared. I will add mine back in.)

> in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality

Yes, exactly.

> Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.

Computer science has a concept of delayed evaluation that is similar to your lambda-hopping. This plays into the adaptive mesh refinement that I mention in the essay. But there is also functional programming which I plan to consider as a result of reading about lambda-hopping.

> What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!

As one Don to another: keep on tilting on!

Hugh




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 17:56 GMT
I just wanted to let you know that Software Cosmos is on my Radar..

Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 02:03 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Hugh,

I found your essay to be deep, insightful, and very well-rounded. In particular, I was struck by your breadth of knowledge of physics combined with your reach outside the field. You are exceptionally articulate and well-rounded.

I also liked the quotes you interspersed throughout. Well done!

I believe you and John Wheeler are correct; we live in a participatory universe of which software is an integral part. For all of these reasons, I give you very high marks!

Best of luck to you!

Sincerely,

Ralph

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:00 GMT
Hi Ralph,

Thank you so much for your comment!

As the essay is currently in 36th place in the community rankings, I am not sure it will get to be considered in the next stage, but I hope so.

In any case, the contest has enabled me to learn about some very interesting ideas and has pushed forward my research in several directions. So it has been well worthwhile in any case.

Hugh




Anonymous wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Hugh,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I like how you used Bohm and Hiley's idea of implicate/explicate order. I consider that this idea should be explored in a more general ground that they originally did, and it should be viewed somehow independent. You seem to touch many recent results in building your viewpoint.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Hi Cristi,

> I enjoyed reading your essay.

Thanks!

> I like how you used Bohm and Hiley's idea of implicate/explicate order. I consider that this idea should be explored in a more general ground that they originally did, and it should be viewed somehow independent.

I always liked their idea, but it seemed to be more of a philosophy than to be attached to a specific mathematical formulation. I was happy to find a use for it in the simulation paradigm. There may be other ways in which their general idea applies.

> You seem to touch many recent results in building your viewpoint.

Observational cosmology is something I like to follow through the arXiv, and I noticed several relevant papers even while I was writing the essay in May.

Many of the theoretical papers and ideas are older. It may be that, in the end, we will find the important ideas have been around for a long time, just awaiting a fresh interpretation and contact with new observational data.

Hugh




Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 08:41 GMT
Dear Hugh,

Your essay makes extensive "connections" and references but let me focus on your concluding statement:

“The software cosmos picture answers the contest question in this way: “It from Bit and Bit from Us”….This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right and that the cosmos is inherently virtual [THE IT?], holographic [THE BIT?], and fractal [THE US?].”

In square brackets are my questions. They indicate how I can "picture" your elements TOGETHER. This is in so far as we MUST decide whether the "us" is in essence an "it" or "bit" or "both" or "neither".

I take it that the "us" is by definition a SCALE (i.e. fractal) of your implicate/explicate. That being the case I think yours is altogether a mighty useful picture worth my humble high rating.

Now you may try again and see how it fits with my own model, especially that part you quoted in my blog, then you will begin to see what I mean. I'll like you to leave a comment (and rating!)

All the bests,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
Hi Chidi,

You asked about what I had written:

> "The software cosmos picture answers the contest question in this way: "It from Bit and Bit from Us"... This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right and that the cosmos is inherently virtual [THE IT?], holographic [THE BIT?], and fractal [THE US?]."

Here is how I think of these terms: The essay describes...

view entire post





M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 20:07 GMT
Hugh

thank you for your very interesting, stimulating essay. You show an amazing breadth of knowledge in the area. I even saved your essay on my machine for the future reference. I also looked at your site and read all the posts on this blog -- very interesting! I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.

I answered the 2 questions you asked in my blog and here wanted to discuss an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 09:58 GMT
Hi Marina,

You wrote:

> I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.

Thank you!

> I know that topologists call it a 4-sphere, emphasizing the 4-dimensionality of the object as a whole, while mathematicians and physicists call it a 3-sphere, being mainly interested in its 3-dimensional surface.

Yes, I apologise to the topologists. I had to pick one convention or...

view entire post




M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
Hi Hugh

thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I really appreciate it!

In regard to this:

> The other *proof* I was looking for is that 4-space is unique among all N-spaces (N>2) in the sense that it has the highest degree of all conceivable symmetries.

you wrote:

"I think the hypersphere plays an important organizing role, but there are other...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Hi Marina,

I am not sure that a lower dimension would provide a more relaxed environment for high-D structures (wouldn't they feel "squashed" by the restriction?), but the lower dimensions seem to provide more opportunities for interesting structures to appear. I can think of some links that might give you some ideas for your research. As far as dimensions go, the ones that get the most...

view entire post





eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Hugh,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Hugh,

I Will love to have your gracious input. It is valuable to me.

Best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
Hi Chidi,

I will have to take another look after the contest... I still have many essays to rate before tomorrow, since I saved that task until I had read as many as I could.

Hugh




Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:59 GMT
Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Hi Charles,

Thanks for doing this... it is great to have a summary post and a kind of index!

Hugh




Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:12 GMT
Dear Hugh,

thank you for visiting my FQXI-page and leaving a comment. I appreciate much the clear and transparent way of reasoning, but I do not agree with the explicit (resp. explicate) physical conditions, in particular with those mentioned in your section TRANSFORMATION.

To give an example: I am convinced the Minkowski diagram implies only an incomplete description of spacetime. The complete spacetime is given by an entangled structure of a sphere and a square - a structure that looks very much like a MANDALA.

It is clear, that a different transformation between explicate space and implicate information occurs if spacetime is seen differently. And I do that...

Despite these objections, I think it is a meaningful and important concern to have a conscious look at these transformative processes. So, I scored your paper very high.



Kind Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
Hi Helmut,

You wrote:

> It is clear, that a different transformation between explicate space and implicate information occurs if spacetime is seen differently. And I do that...

Over time, I hope to model several different possibilities for the transformation, within the general picture I described. I will take another look at your work on this.

> Despite these objections, I think it is a meaningful and important concern to have a conscious look at these transformative processes. So, I scored your paper very high.

Thank you!

Hugh




Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:50 GMT
Dear Hugh,

a really interesting essay. Now I had a chance to have a more complete look in it. I agree with about the importance of the 3-sphere. Also from the topological point of view, the 3-sphere is the root of all compact 3-manifolds (one can obtain every compact 3-manifold by surgery -or cuta nd paste- along a knot or link). I also tried to uncover the role of the 3-sphere.

In my opinion, it is the topological origin of the dark matter but it is not fully worked out.

Best wishes

Torsten

PS: So, you got a high vote more than one week ago.

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Hi Torsten,

You wrote:

> Also from the topological point of view, the 3-sphere is the root of all compact 3-manifolds (one can obtain every compact 3-manifold by surgery -or cut and paste- along a knot or link).

I wonder if we might be able to see dynamical processes in the 3-sphere induce such knots... and the knots will take us a long way: Lou Kauffman has described the basic connections between knots and physics in several papers and his book.

> PS: So, you got a high vote more than one week ago.

Thank you!

Hugh




Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
I also appreciate the importance of the 3-sphere while I come at things in an entirely different way [basically I take the opposite stance] :)

I'd appreciate your thoughts on my essay.

Cheers and best of luck,

Jennifer

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi Jennifer,

Thanks... I made some comments on your blog back on July 22.

Hugh




Richard N. Shand wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:13 GMT
Hugh,

I like your idea of a digital simulation model in which you view the implicate cosmos as "a dynamical fluid on the surface of a hypersphere". Good food for thought!

You wrote that the "the explicate world of 'It' arises from the implicate world of 'Bit'. For Bohm, knowledge of the implicate order is acquired by insight. What we perceive is implicate order unfolded as explicate order. If so, it is explicate order, as the contents of our consciousness, that is epistemic (composed of "bits") and the underlying implicate order that is ontic ("it").

Also see my response to your comments to my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".

Best wishes,

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 02:39 GMT
Hi Richard,

> If so, it is explicate order, as the contents of our consciousness, that is epistemic (composed of "bits") and the underlying implicate order that is ontic ("it").

Rather than a binary epistemic/ontic distinction, I would break these up into three categories: (1) an observer's physical environment, the explicate, (2) an objective, shared reality, the implicate, and (3) the contents of our consciousness.

My category (2) may be best described by "ontic", but notice that (1) is the only thing we can measure, and what we commonly take for "it". Categories (1) and (2) are closely linked by via a (mathematical) transformation, which I think of as (1) from (2) or "It from Bit".

To properly account for the phenomenology of consciousness, I see Mind as an architectural layer (in the sense of software architecture) below Matter (i.e. not emergent from Matter as in the conventional view). This is what I call "Us" and is what informs (2). Thus my category (3) would correspond to the epistemic.

(1) Explicate, It

from (2) Implicate, Bit, ontic

from (3) Consciousness, Us, epistemic

Hugh




Sundance Bilson-Thompson wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
Hi Hugh,

I found this to be an interesting essay. I'm not really sold on the more mystical overtones at the end, but the idea of a search for systematic effects that might arise from the source code of the Universe is a good one. Maybe such a search is a low-likelihood, high-payoff undertaking, like SETI. Rather than looking for evidence that highpoints on Earth are in some way correlated, it seems more reasonable to me to search for correlations at galactic or super-galactic scales. If the idea that most computational power is given to the places close to observers, then I would expect the CMBR to be quite "crude", and the detail in the planet I live on to be very high.

Cheers,

Sundance

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:59 GMT
Hi Sundance,

> Rather than looking for evidence that highpoints on Earth are in some way correlated, it seems more reasonable to me to search for correlations at galactic or super-galactic scales.

There was interest in this sort of analysis of the CMB about 5 years ago. Jean-Pierre Luminet and also Jeff Weeks have described techniques and results. They basically look for regions of space that appear to be replicated in more than one direction, suggesting the shape of space is, for example, dodecahedral.

If we want to extend the fractal creasing Landscape Test to the cosmological scale we must decide what constitutes a "highpoint". For example, we might use density, or energy. We also have to decide what we want to use as a "center". Using the Earth as a center is convenient but seems overly anthropocentric.

Nevertheless, about ten years ago I tested a gamma ray burst catalog for evidence of alignment, but found that source positions were not sufficiently resolved to tell anything. The digital elevation data on Earth had much higher resolution and has a natural geometric center so that is what I ended up using for later analysis.

> If the idea that most computational power is given to the places close to observers, then I would expect the CMBR to be quite "crude", and the detail in the planet I live on to be very high.

Whether or not it is true in some objective sense, this is true in terms of our state of knowledge. There is a lot of interest now in finding ways to explain CMB anisotropy of various sorts. But the resolution of current CMB data is good enough to find complex creasing patterns, while the detail we have of our planet's terrain is much higher.

Hugh



Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:03 GMT
Sorry.. the last sentence should read:

But the resolution of current CMB data is *not* good enough to find complex creasing patterns, while the detail we have of our planet's terrain is much higher.




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:49 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:37 GMT
Glad you could make it!

Good luck in the finals Hugh.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 04:05 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thanks, good to see you in the top 40, as I "rated you highly". (I guess that's the catch phrase in the contest...)

The process in the last week has been interesting to watch... it gave me the impression of 183 turtles in a bucket, clambering over each other to get to the top.

But many of my favorites made it, and I think the organizers have at least 20 good essays to choose from.

Hugh




M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
Hi Hugh

congratulations on making the cut. I left a post in the end of my thread in your blog above and hope very much that we could continue our discussion about 'Why 4D?'

Thanks a lot for all your input,

-Marina

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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.