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: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: 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

Jack Flynn: on 7/19/17 at 7:57am UTC, wrote ShowBox APKt Tutuapp Vip TutuApp Vip

Judy Frank: on 3/20/17 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote thanks for a such truly interesting topic. I enjoyed reading and you helped...

Jonathan Khanlian: on 4/29/15 at 15:27pm UTC, wrote Another related topic along the lines of our color and structure discussion...

Jonathan Khanlian: on 4/27/15 at 16:30pm UTC, wrote Hi Luca, I was thinking more about colors and I think that looking at...

Jonathan Khanlian: on 4/27/15 at 12:59pm UTC, wrote Thanks, I did miss them. I will be back over for a response.

Luca Valeri: on 4/26/15 at 23:06pm UTC, wrote Hi Jon, me again. Maybe you missed my last reply. Anyhow I wanted to thank...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 4/24/15 at 23:12pm UTC, wrote Hi Jon, I think our way of conceptualizing whether spacetime is...

Jonathan Khanlian: on 4/24/15 at 21:11pm UTC, wrote Hey Peter. I'm glad "Digital Physics" is something you've been waiting...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Pentcho Valev: "Nothing in the podcast about this: Program Max Tegmark (Massachusetts..." in The Sudoku Universe, Why...

Herbal Sejagat: "Suatu keadaan yang tidak pernah saya rasakan sebelumnya minum Obat Herbal ..." in Deferential Geometry

Herbal Sejagat: "herbal sejagat Obat Tradisional Kanker Payudara telah mendapatkan izin ..." in Help Fight Negativity!

Herbal Sejagat: "Obat Tradisional Amazon Alami Penyakit Jantung Koroner ialah pilihan..." in Baez on Quantum...

Herbal Sejagat: "Jus Kulit Manggis yakni Obat Tradisional Alami penyakit Kanker Paru-paru..." in Quantum Distractions

Herbal Sejagat: "Online shop herbal sejagat dikelola oleh pekerja yang berdedikasi tinggi,..." in Open Source Science

Herbal Sejagat: "Batu Ginjal ialah berbentuk benda keras menyerupai batu yang berada di..." in Foundational Physics...

Herbal Sejagat: "Kista harus segera diatasi dan diobati apabila dibiarkan akan terjadinya..." in Is the Moon Alive?


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 25, 2017

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: … “Digital Physics”: An Essay That Uses Poetic License to Discuss A Few Theories in the Movie… by Jonathan Khanlian [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 13:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay will be an analysis of a few of Khatchig’s theories as they are set out in “Digital Physics”, an independent movie generated outside the formal system of Hollywood. Although Khatchig is merely a character in a movie, I will assume he exists in some platonic sense for the sake of this essay. Even though this foundational assumption may not be self-evident or true, it will allow me to effectively generate quotes that were Dedekind cut from scenes that don’t exist. I expect the reader will observe nothing irrational about this operation which can be used to achieve completeness of the real “Digital Physics” story.

Author Bio

Jonathan Khanlian has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and is a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries. He has a love for soccer, science, music, open-minded discussions, and film. “Digital Physics” is his first feature film. For more information on the movie, which will hopefully play at a film festival or university near you, please check out www.DigitalPhysicsMovie.com.

Download Essay PDF File




Author Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 14:54 GMT
Hi Derek,

I enjoyed your essay. You wrote:

“However, it is worth pointing out that, for example, calculus and a large part of differential equations -still among the physicist's most important tools-were designed precisely for physical applications.”

I agree, but do you think that achieving an infinite is actually possible in the physical world? Would potential...

view entire post





Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 06:25 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Your entry is certainly one of the most fun! I looked at the trailer of your movie and I love how (at least based on the limited impression I got) it is so unabashedly nerdy. However, it does raise a question in my mind about how you convinced yourself to make it, given that apparently you have an actuarial background. I would have thought that would have dissuaded you due to the inherent risks of such an undertaking. Very unfortunately, not too many people have ever bothered to think about the kinds of abstract things that the movie seems to be about.

Actually, I am really curious, since your educational background was not in film, how did you pick up the skills to make this? I mean not just the screenwriting, artistic conception and directing skills, but also that of bringing so many people together (The list of cast and crew seems rather large for an Indy movie), securing funding and generally taking an idea all the way to the finished product?

I will be perfectly honest, there is a little bit of envy in me. When I was a kid, I did have a dream of being a movie director. I imagined that I would also write my own screenplay and my own music. Well, even though I went a circuitous route from pharmacy to physics/philosophy/mathematics, at least the music part has stayed with me.

I am sorry that your movie did not get the reception you had hoped for. I think taking the movie to the community that is bound to appreciate it most is a great idea. Hopefully this includes silicon valley or thereabouts. Come to think of it, are there any "Nerdy" film festivals? Given the success of the Big Bang theory I would think that if there isn't there might be niche for it.

Anyway, I wish you the best of success and hope that you continue to pursue your dreams.

Best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 21:37 GMT
Hi Armin,

I really appreciate your response! My girlfriend described it as “kind and heartwarming” which I totally agree with. Thanks for signing up for the movie’s email list as well. It has been difficult to drum up support for “Digital Physics”, given its uniqueness, so your enthusiasm and interest in the movie is really appreciated.

So you want to know why an...

view entire post




Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Jon,

Thank you for your response, as a matter of fact, I had been playing around a little with After Effects to see if I could create music videos consisting entirely of animated images appropriate to the music. My initial attempts proved to consume more time than I had available, so I had to set it on the back-burner.(I suspect the problem was fundamentally that my vision was too far...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 03:41 GMT
Hi Armin,

After Effects is fun once you learn a little. It's just photoshop in motion, if you are familiar with that program. Hopefully you get some time to mess around with it. Maybe you can devote some time to it if you convince yourself that it will help you stay lucid through developing your physics theories.

Are you saying that you think light cones should really be depicted as warped images instead of perfect cones? (Sorry, submanifolds are not my forte, and the few minutes i spent reading wikipedia didn't offer any immediate insight :) If so, that sort of makes sense in a world where matter warps spacetime... unless the warping of space and time perfectly offset each other so that the light cone looks normal for any object, whether it is near massive bodies or not. (I feel like my understanding is not right, so forgive me if I am off base)

I will try to respond to some of your explanations that you offered on your page to some of my questions, but I do remember thinking that some of it was a little over my head. Oh well, maybe I'll google some stuff and try to understand it a little better.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Jon




Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 06:34 GMT
One more thought that just occurred to me. When the movie Particle Fever screened at the local arts cinema here, the physics department at U of M gave a whole bunch of vouchers to the students for a free screening.

It might be far-fetched, but perhaps securing sponsorship by a physics/mathematics related organization that would be willing to sponsor vouchers at some large universities might be another way to increase the audience specifically from this community.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Armin,

I am hoping a positive response to this essay and interest in the movie will help me get some support from the scientific and festival communities. Unlike “Particle Fever” (and the standard model of physics), “Digital Physics” (the movie and the theories) doesn’t have quite the same established support in the scientific community, so your interest in the movie, as you so generously expressed here, is very critical to the film’s success and is much appreciated. The more support I can drum up here, the easier it will be to get science organizations (including FQXi), universities, and film festivals to support movie screenings. Feel free to pass the movie trailer along and encourage others to read my essay and comment on it. Independent films, especially ones dealing with foundational science questions, need all the support they can get! :)

I hope the FQXi community support will come through!




Luca Valeri wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 22:55 GMT
Hi Jon,

I like your questions and thought for a while of how one could measure when "Pi-Time" would be. But while I was thinking Pi-Time has past. If knowbody has measured it, has it existed?

Anyhow I also would like to ask a question. Let's have a set with 2 elements and the permutation group as the symmetry group of the set. How can I distinguish this two elements?

Best wishes

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 17:12 GMT
Hi Luca,

I am a little confused (and also not too familiar). Aren't symmetry groups suppose to make the object under transformation invariant, and therefore sort of indistinguishable. Please explain more; I want to try to understand this question. I feel like it is related to our discussion about color... like how a rotation of of a person's color wheel may not be discernible by another person.

Thanks,

Jon



Luca Valeri replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT
Hi Jon,

Sorry I took so long to answer. I tried to relate my question to your questions in the sense, that I tried to make a connection between the language of a statement and the meta language that describes the meaning of the statement. But did not succeed.

So finally it might just be related to the color question. Sorry that I use your forum for that!

Let the set A contain...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 00:09 GMT
Hey Luca,

Thanks for the enlightening and well-written explanation. So do you think it is possible that there isn't the substance at the bottom and we are living in some sort of self-referencing paradox? That we are all just defined in terms of each other? Or that that substance at the bottom that allows us to avoid self-reference is non-physical, like information? Or do you think the substance(s) is physical? Is that particle physics?

So in your example where the sheep are identical, could we not distinguish the two sheep by saying where they are in relationship to other objects, while avoiding distances associated with space? Imagine a network where you could say sheep A is closer to object B than sheep A'. (I am imagining a network where Sheep/Vertex A shortest route to B is say, 1000 connections away, and Sheep A' is say, 2000 connections away.) Of course with referencing Object B but not defining it, we avoid the self-referencing paradox while leaving the system not well-defined... It's like we have consistency but not completeness. Or we could define B and every other objet and have completeness, but not consistency due to the eventual self-referencing(assuming no substance at the bottom). This seems to jibe with Godel's work, which I guess would make sense since the network is an instantiation of arithmetic and sets. Thoughts?

Thanks for stopping by and stimulating some thoughts!




adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 17:08 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

If you have not seen my essay, well here it is. Please check it out I think this is what you've been looking for. I will explain more once you get the basic idea.

Nice movie, looks like a romantic comedy, but I don't think my wife would like it, the character looks too much like me!

Essay

Thanks and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 19:25 GMT
It looks like a "romantic comedy"?!?! Nnnooooooo... Well, that wasn't what I was going for, but I won't hold it against you:) I will check out your essay and try to comment on it sometime soon. Any thoughts on the mathematical aspects of my essay?

Thanks,

Jon



adel sadeq replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 20:41 GMT
I meant it "looks" like, not literally.

Since your essay had an unusual format I thought maybe it is better to wait until you read mine before I compare my idea to yours(also answering your questions). However, I did say that you seem to be saying similar things to what I have shown, mainly the discrete vs continuous. Both can be done, but it seems spin and gravity are both tied to discrete and give better results.

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 18:35 GMT
There actually is a "love interest" in the movie, but I don't think people will refer to it as a romantic-comedy... unless they are talking about Khatchig's romantic view of truth in mathematics and physics.

I started reading your essay last night but I got to the line segment part and then started getting a little confused. I hope to take another look at it soon, as I like how you are trying to start with the most simple model you could imagine.

Jon




Gordon Watson wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 02:41 GMT
Hi Jon,

Thanks for the lovely work! Is there a thinker anywhere that hasn't pondered something close to one of your questions? With some (alas), being less clever, moved on to higher orders?

1. We can put question C) to bed: I'm its living proof; eg, degree-thesis handed to Professor as his clock (slowed by the speed of my approach for the prior 90 minutes) chimed the deadline.

2. You might like this.

The continuum of the reals refuted v.2

Abstract: A refutation of the claim that the system of real numbers has the property that between any two of them, no matter how close, there lies a third.

Let 1.99 be a real precedent to 2, where bolding indicates unlimited repetition.

Example: 1.99 = 1.999 = 1.9999 = etc. (A)

So: 1.99+0.01 = 1.999+0.001 = 1.9999+0.0001= etc. = 2. (B)

Question: What is an intervening real?

As Arnie says, "I'll be back!"

With my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 06:12 GMT
Jon: In relation to some of your questions and issues that appeal to me, I'm very much stimulated (and educated) by related discussions on Akinbo Ojo's Essay and Forum.

Here's hoping he's a local realist like me! Regards; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 18:16 GMT
Hi Gordon,

Not that I agree with this point of view, but I believe the traditional analysis view is that 1.99 is 2, so there is no number between them. Maybe what you are pointing out is the reason why they are considered to be the same number from that point of view... The same number can take on different appearances.

But I still don't like that view point, because there still seems to be that infinitesimal difference. According to Akinbo's post below, I think this is a case where they assume "dx=0".

Also, I wonder if NJ Wildberger would challenge you to define addition between your infinite reals a little more precisely.

I'll come check out Akinbo Ojo's forum as soon as I get the chance.

And as Arnie aslso said, "I'm a cop, you idiot! I'm detective John Kimble!"

Thanks,

Jon



Gordon Watson replied on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 08:31 GMT
Jon,

The above 1.99 stuff was a nervous pitch from a first-time script-writer (me) to a recognised movie-mogul (you).

For, from my readings of your work: it seemed certain to me that we had one thing in common -- we do not easily accept traditional responses that ruffle our intuitions!

In the given case some would have us believe that:

1.99 = 2.00 = 2.01.

PS: As your dispatched my script to the bin, did you note that the first given number always ends in 9 and that "unlimited repetition" implies a frequency and a wavelength?

Cheers mate, and for another time; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

report post as inappropriate


Gordon Watson wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 07:18 GMT
RE BELL AND LEGGET INEQUALITIES

JON, a quote from your essay: "So how do physicists know that there isn’t some underlying pseudorandom process that could reproduce the results of quantum mechanics in a classical, deterministic way? Even if Bell’s Inequality rules out local hidden variables, this doesn’t preclude determinism in general.”

[Note: “Digital Physics” takes place sometime in the late 1980s before Leggett’s inequality was discussed, or I am sure Khatchig would have mentioned that in his Dedekind cut quote."

Jon, since QM breaches both inequalities, you're welcome to have a look at my essay and critique it. There you'll see an interesting mix of "randomness and determinism" (some might say "a pseudorandom" process) emerging from fairly conventional (classical probability) theory.

And though not quite in a "classical deterministic way":* enough to rule in "local hidden variables".

* Recalling Bohr's insight, it cannot be "classical" in QM: In QM, “the result of a ‘measurement’ does not in general reveal some preexisting property of the ‘system’, but is a product of both ‘system’ and ‘apparatus’,” Bell (2004:xi- xii).

With best regards from your local local-realist;

Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 18:28 GMT
Hey Gordon

I'll come over to your forum and check out your essay as soon as I get the chance... hopefully tonight. I hope I won't be in over my head. Sometimes it's easier for me to throw out ideas and questions, than to actually critique technical work.

Jon



Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 20:29 GMT
[Jon. Buddy. Psst. Mate. It's Chevy. Undercover again. I got that old job 'cos I was Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation's top apprentice; BA is family. And Good On You Old Son: But it's impossible for me to throw out ideas and questions; I got heaps of 'em.]

But, Jon, seriously: when you visit over there, it's not like there's actual technical work to critique. If you went to a good high-school, it's all high-school maths! (And remember what got writ in that classic, Jon? 'KISS; keep it simple son'.) Love, Chevy

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 00:31 GMT
Gordon/Chevy,

I looked at your paper. That some serious stuff! :) You're defining new things that I would want to have whole conversations about to really understand. Maybe others could take to it a little easier, but that may be the hardest essay in this contest for me to understand. I did not make it past some of your initial definitions :( ... even though they were all math formulas. But if you are on to something and all your work adds up to a different way to look at the experiments that lead to Bell to his conclusions... well that would be... WOW!

I think you should do a video explanation/lecture of it all, with some pictures or animations if you think that could help people understand it better. Some verbal explanations and maybe some nice animations as you write down the formulas? (Unless you think some of it cannot or should not be visually imagined ...or the math should not or cannot be interpreted.)

I'm putting your essay on the back burner for a little bit. I hope to come back to it when I have a lot more time to think about it. I hope by that time some other people have helped me to understand it a little more by having conversations with you on your discussion page.

jon




Steven P Sax wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 08:05 GMT
Jon,

The movie and essay are both stimulating and good contributions to this forum, and I hope the community shows strong support for it. Thanks for putting all the work into it. I liked how this takes place in the 80s in a setting where it was difficult to obtain the computer resources for his quest. It's a good reminder to us today to take advantage of the computing resources we have. Also, one of the ideas in the movie where he looks for patterns to discern physical concepts reminds me of some random walk research I did a number of years ago. To present these inspiring ideas in a dramatic environment where it takes itself seriously and yet to the point where we can have fun with it, strikes a delicate balance - but you achieved it. That is a form of brilliance too. I rate this highly, and hope to see more good things come of it - Thanks again, Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 18:55 GMT
I appreciate it, Steve. I'm glad you were able to make the Cast & Crew screening and that you enjoyed it so much!

And to echo your point, can you imagine how much more difficult it would be for people to try to comprehend some of these complexity science ideas before the computer age? Could you imagine somebody analyzing Conway's game of life on a piece of grid paper before the computer age? "Hey guys, look at this crazy pattern that emerges from these simple rules. What, you don't believe me? Well just spend the next 100 hours convincing yourself by checking my work by hand." I bet Leibniz struggled to have anyone appreciate his "digital" vision. Hopefully as computers progress, "Digital Physics" (the movie and the theories) will win over more people.

Jon




Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 11:33 GMT
Dear Jon,

Thanks for this thought provoking piece. I agree with your statement, "… the use of mathematics based on infinite precision “real” numbers by physicists, are both born out of a desire to overcome a logical impediment and reach a desired goal. Both are created for convenience sake… In the case of physicists using continuous mathematics, this technique enables the power of the infinite to be harnessed in order to create elegant closes-formed analytic solutions. Both serve a purpose but NEITHER MAY BE LOGICAL"

An example of such illogicality is the definition of the infinitesimal in calculus, that dx can be both equal to and unequal to zero, i.e. dx = 0 and dx ≠ 0 are both correct.

I see motion in the trailer of your movie, Khatchig may have one or two things to contemplate about "digital motion after reading my essay.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 19:34 GMT
"Digital Motion", Eh? Is this different than discretely changing positions?

I'm going to try to get to your, Adel's, and Gordon's essays tonight. Your comment about "dx = 0 and dx ≠ 0" reminds me of the measure theory view that non-computable reals turn a line composed almost entirely of gaps into a continuum, yet the probability of choosing a specific real is 0.

It feels like there are so many ways in which the assumption of real numbers lead to paradoxes, and yet the refutation of the reals via a reductio ad absurdum proof is never given much credence by almost all modern mathematicians.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the concepts properly... although I've been thinking about it for way too long!

Jon



Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 10:53 GMT
Jon,

Thanks for dropping comments on my forum. I have attempted a reply.

On a movie screen like yours, motion is digital with a pixel changing from the background pixel to the pixel of the moving object. If space is a substance made of 'pixels' (like my extended points), how would motion be accomplished. As you move do the pixels constituting you the moving object change their nature to that of the background pixels, while the background pixels in your direction of motion change their nature to the nature of the pixels constituting the moving body?

How can a line constituted by pixels be cut if the pixels are infinite in number and cannot be cut since there will then always be a pixel at the point of cutting incidence? If the number of pixel is on the other hand finite, what can lie between them? Certainly, not space since space is made of the pixels?

These are some of what I address in my essay. You are welcome back to read again when you can spare the time. Thanks.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 02:22 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

I think one way to look at "movement" is just to consider it as a changing of relationships between objects.

Imagine a tetrahedron, with an extra vertex and edge coming off one of the points. To avoid the notion of edges as lines made of points, we could mathematically represent this structure as follows:

1:{2,3,4)

2:{1,3,4}

3:{1.2.4}

4:{1,2,3,5}

5:{4}

And then object 5, which starts one connection away from object 4, discretely "moves" away from object 4 towards object 1 so that it is now 2 connections away from object 4. This is represented as follows:

1:{2,3,4.5)

2:{1,3,4}

3:{1.2.4}

4:{1,2,3}

5:{1}

Is this an acceptable instance of a discrete model with movement?

I look forward to trying to understand your ideas better.

Jon




Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Mr. Khanlian,

I thought that your colorful essay was exceptionally entertaining and I do hope that your movie is seen as often as the film THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, although, alas, perhaps by fewer discerning people.

Warm Regards,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 19:58 GMT
Thanks, Joe.

I didn't see "The Theory of Everything" because I heard it didn't have much science in it, but rather focused on love and the triumph of the human spirit, two things I'm not too keen on;) Just kidding... sort of. Anyway, I'm surprised it didn't win the Alfred P. Sloan science in film award, but I guess Mike Cahill's got that locked up.

I did see "The Imitation Game". I liked it, although I cringed when they butchered the pronunciation of Euler's name. I wish they had worked a little more of Turing's work into the film, but hey, you don't want to scare people away. After all, movies are supposed to be entertaining, not enlightening;)

Ok, enough sourness from this filmmaker:)

Jon




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 21:57 GMT
Jon,

I personally find it harder to ask new questions than to repeat well-known answers. Thus I find your questions a very attractive part of your essay. Sometimes a question will invoke a new perspective or realization, and sometimes the question will combine concepts in a way that illuminates these concepts.

Your question 4: 'If quantum mechanics is a world where things can be both 'yes' and 'no' at the same time ( then Zen… )' is phrased to appear to imply "physical world" but I think your question shows that considering QM a "formal world" makes much more sense.

Similarly, question 6: How can 1-D info in DNA/mRNA be transferred into a 3-D protein in a 2-D holographic universe? This again emphasizes (to me) that mRNA is real and is 3-D and proteins are real and are 3-D while the 1-D string of info was a formal conception and the 2-D holographic universe is merely a formal construction.

I believe these are valuable questions that shed light on complex topics. Thank you for them.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 03:03 GMT
Thanks for your response, Edwin. I'm glad you felt compelled to offer answers to a couple of the questions. I'm hoping more people will take a stab at some of them. A few of the questions were half-serious, half in jest, and I think you choose two of them.

With regard to question 4, would you agree that a single emitted particle does not spread out as a wave when it goes through the double slit (so it isn't both here and there, yes and no) but rather, it is only rendered into existence when it hits the plate behind the double slit?

With regard to question 6, do you think everything in the real world is 3-D? What about the event horizon of a black hole? Does that have thickness? Or is the notion of an event horizon just an idea or formal construct?

Thanks again for your thoughts! Please feel free to answer other questions!

Jon




Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for commenting on my essay -- I answered your question about relational vs self-contained structures on my page.

Your movie is certainly intriguing -- I signed for the mailing list, and I hope to be able to see it someday!

Although you don't give too many details in your essay and in the movie's trailer, it appears that your "digital physics" is trying to avoid the problem with infinite/continuous structures by postulating a universe based on finite/continuous processes. One of the questions in the list at the end of your essay criticizes the infinite/continuous approach in an original and amusing way:

"If actual infinities (as opposed to potential infinities) lead to inconsistencies, and if inconsistencies lead to all statements in a formal system being provable, then must all adversaries of digital physics believe in the multiverse?"

In my essay, I argued for the existence of a maximal multiverse, the Maxiverse, which is actually infinite. I am aware that this creates issues like the measure problem and the existence of true statements that cannot be proven by a finite chain of reasoning, but I wouldn't go as far as calling them "inconsistencies", in the sense that I don't think they prevent substructures within the Maxiverse (such as you, me and our observable universe) to be finite, possibly digital, and well-defined. In the Maxiverse, digital domains and continuous domains can coexist!

I hope your essay does well in the contest, and that you get to raise awareness in the existence of your movie so you can reach some sort of distribution deal.

All the best!

Marc

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 16:27 GMT
Hi Marc,

You said:

"Although you don't give too many details in your essay and in the movie's trailer, it appears that your "digital physics" is trying to avoid the problem with infinite/continuous structures by postulating a universe based on finite/continuous processes."

That is correct!... so long as you meant to write "finite/discrete"

I agree that there may not be an inconsistency between your model and a digital physics model, so long as the infinities in your model are not harnessed to achieve something. I think from a digital physics perspective, an unbounded, potentially infinite model is fine... so I do agree with your perspective that these two types of models may be able to coexist! What a happy thought:)

I am going to have another look at your paper and respond to your response on the nature of self. "Digital Physics" does touch on the notion of consciousness and "self" in the movie. Without giving too much away, I can mention that the words "Inconpletness, Self-Reference, Self, Consciousness, Computation" show up in a delayed feedback loop in the movie's drug trip scene.

Thanks again for your interest in the movie! I hope you get to see it soon!

Jon




Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 07:05 GMT
Your symbol of vision is provoked from the aspect's theory that resulted in honesty, cultural and economic physic attributes.

Great work.

- Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 14:45 GMT
I couldn't have said it better myself...I think?



Sujatha Jagannathan replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 17:11 GMT
How it cannot be better when you say it yourself?

Smiles :)

- Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 22:48 GMT
Thanks, Joe. So many essays to read, not nearly enough time. I hope I have the requisite understanding to give you some good feedback. Any thoughts on Digital Physics?

Jon




Steven P Sax wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 09:38 GMT
Hey Jon,

Thanks again for your very thoughtful and stimulating remarks and questions on my essay. I just wanted to let you know I posted some responses (sorry it took me a while!). And also thanks again for your movie and contributions here. Looking forward to speaking with you again,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 22:43 GMT
Thanks, Steve. I'll be over to check out your response soon.




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 21:23 GMT
Jon,

My apologies for the tardiness of my reply. You made a post in my forum and I did not notice it since it was a reply to an old thread.

I'll repeat it here

"Do you think it is possible that we may be living in a finite and discrete universe that could be described in an informational way? Do you think we could make more progress in our understanding of physics if we looked towards computer programs/simulations, instead of new sets of math equations, for explaining phenomenon? How much complexity do you think is in the universe, and how much of it is compressible?"

I think the universe is finite. I cannot say anything about whether or not it is discrete. I'm not even sure how the word "discrete" would be applied to the universe. Is the universe a discrete solution to a massive system of wave equations? Some people argue that the wave equation for a Bose-Einstein condensate at 2.7 K describes the universe.

How would a computer program or simulation help? Wouldn't it need to be given rules to obey? To me, that would still constitute mathematics. I think you are asking about emergent behavior ... Even that can be described by statistics although then there may not be a method of cleanly connecting the various laws to the results or to the other laws.

The universe is a complex as it needs to be to be the universe:-)

Regarding your essay ... it was interesting enough ... the numerous quotes were very telling ... which one is the actor and which one is the physicist? It made me think of a book titled "Physics on the Fringe". It was about some amateur scientists. I have not read it but the reviews were interesting. The author compared a meeting of the amateurs with a meeting of cosmologists and she concluded that she could not tell who was who:-)

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 23:31 GMT
Thanks for the response, Gary.

I'm not sure if you could actually have a continuous universe that was finite. I assume you are imaging a continuous universe that is bounded, say by the observable universe or something similar. A math analogy: You might say that the interval of real numbers between 0 and 1 is continuous and finite, but I would say that you have the infinite in the form of the infinitesimal because you implicitly believe in infinite precision non-computable real numbers when you believe in the continuum. Infinite precision non-computable real numbers are what make up the continuum in a mathematical sense.

A discrete universe would rule out a continuous wave, just like a computer couldn't actually contain the infinite amount of information needed to represent every point on a curve... although it could contain the finite algorithm to generate the wave to any desired level of accuracy... It just can't contain the non-compuable, which is what makes the continuum the continuum.

Jon




Author Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 23:30 GMT
Thanks for the response, Gary.

I'm not sure if you could actually have a continuous universe that was finite. I assume you are imaging a continuous universe that is bounded, say by the observable universe or something similar. A math analogy: You might say that the interval of real numbers between 0 and 1 is continuous and finite, but I would say that you have the infinite in the form of the infinitesimal because you implicitly believe in infinite precision non-computable real numbers when you believe in the continuum. Infinite precision non-computable real numbers are what make up the continuum in a mathematical sense.

A discrete universe would rule out a continuous wave, just like a computer couldn't actually contain the infinite amount of information needed to represent every point on a curve... although it could contain the finite algorithm to generate the wave to any desired level of accuracy... It just can't contain the non-compuable, which is what makes the continuum the continuum.

Jon




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 02:21 GMT
Jon,

You should exchange comments with Akinbo Ojo if you have not already done so.

Now I understand what you mean. I will maintain that I think it is finite - as demonstrated by the Hubble Bubble. I will also state that I think it is continuous. My justification for this is that the electron is considered to be a point particle.

Essentially, I am an Aether believer. The fact that electrons are viewed as a distribution around a proton to me indicates that the vacuum is the source of the electrons and they simply rise up as needed due to the presence of a proton ... Basically, I think the electron is a vibration of the vacuum.

I don't think the universe needs to compute anything ... it simply is.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 17:03 GMT
I give you a mathematical argument and you come back with the Hubble Bubble!? :) I don't even know how that relates, partially because I had never heard of it, and partially because my skimming of Wikipedia didn't give me too much insight. I sort of get your point with the point electron, but I would say that if you inspect these models that you think are accurate representations, you have to decide whether you believe if any continuous thing that the models represents is always fully formed (infinite) or if they are generated from a calculation done using the model (finite). Again, a wave equation or distribution is fine from a digital perspective if things are only discretely generated into existence, but if they exist always and continuously, I think you have the infinite on your hands.

Anyway, I have talked with Akinbo, but he didn't convince me that I couldn't have movement in a digital universe, although I did enjoy his essay. (see our discussion above) Long live digital physics:)




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 11:43 GMT
Hubble Bubble ... yes. It is the observable universe. It is everything within a radius of roughly 13.8 billion light years. My argument is why should I believe there is anything outside of that? The standard thinking is that we cannot be at the center of the universe and therefore the observed expansion must be the same everywhere. The reason for following that line of thinking is that scientists do not want to make the same mistake of geo-centrism made prior to Copernicus. I will reply that what is observed does not require that we be at the center. It only requires that we are moving slowly compared to those objects at the edge of the visible universe. This points out the essence of the math vs physics question. Observation has been replaced by speculation ... even good and reasonable speculation is still speculation.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 18:45 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for pointing out your interesting video. Did you submit it at the FQXI video contest?

There is some form of determinism-geometry-topology-algebra that underlies the observables of multiple qubits. This has been my topic with collaborators for the last 10 years. Also the structure of primes plays a role, there are a few references in my essay that, I admit, may not be so easy to read in a single shot.

Good to have your essay that provides a different taste to the contest.

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 21:17 GMT
Hi Michel,

Thanks for the post. I did not submit the movie to the FQXi video contest since it is a feature length movie that I am trying to get into festivals and will eventually distribute. I guess I could have submitted the trailer, but I didn't think that it was relevant enough for the contest.

I plan to look at the your essay more in depth sometime soon. Primes in physics is an interesting concept. Do you look at them statistically as the prime number theorem does, or deterministically as a sieve does?

Jon



Michel Planat replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

My most recent paper is very close to Riemann idea of counting the primes statistically and of course connects to Riemann hypothesis (RH).

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1410.1083

Also

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs
/1103.2608

(in particular the Hardy-Littlewood function and RH, and a connection to qudits)

Michel

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 19:43 GMT
Jonathan,

At last a serious attempt to comprehensively tackle an important and potentially dead boring subject in a way guaranteed to keep the reader awake and wondering what planet he's on. Quite brilliant. When does it go on general release?

Can I assume you saw my own video? a full length feature film on how the whole universe works, blue shifted to gamma to compress to a 9 minute run time?

(if not; How universes work in 9 mins. ).

Thanks for your nice comments on my string. perhaps you or a friend can tell me if you understood my essay, video and quasi QM papers, and if so explain them to me in words or pictures of any number of syllables but without using dodgy manipulation of ancient Arabic symbols or Tarot cards? (I think those should come later).

Real nice job.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 24, 2015 @ 21:11 GMT
Hey Peter.

I'm glad "Digital Physics" is something you've been waiting for. I hope it keeps people awake:)

I didn't see your video, so thanks for sharing it. I'm going to have to google some stuff before I try to take it in again. Are you familiar with Roger Penrose's twistor model?[link] I'm not sure if this relates to your video, but the visualization's of your video did remind me of his talk.

Jon




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear Jon,

I enjoyed the quotes from Khatchig. I would love to see the movie. And the satirical abstract was very amusing, thanks!

Best wishes in the contest,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 24, 2015 @ 21:00 GMT
Thanks, Cristi!

I'm glad you found the satirical abstract amusing... subtle, heretical, mathematical humor doesn't always go over well:)

I hope you get to see the movie sometime soon!

Jon




Yafet Erasmo Sanchez Sanchez wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I like your thought provoking essay. I would like to comment on one of your Dedekind cuts where you say " Show me one place where

infinity exists in the natural world! Show me one infinite or continuous process!" Isn´t the total seconds of the Universe and infinite amount? or do you think that because everything is finite, the Universe must recollapse in a singularity in the future such that no observer can experience an infinite amount of proper time?

Kind Regards,

Yafet

report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan Khanlian replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 16:18 GMT
Thanks for reading my essay, Yafet.

Even if there won't be a big crunch, I think there should be a distinction between actual infinity and potential infinity. I think you would agree that we would never reach a point where we could say that an infinite number of seconds had passed sinced the big bang, right?

Jon




Luca Valeri wrote on Apr. 26, 2015 @ 23:06 GMT
Hi Jon,

me again. Maybe you missed my last reply. Anyhow I wanted to thank you for your comments and questions. I think I learned a lot in that dialog.

Best

Luca

report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Apr. 27, 2015 @ 12:59 GMT
Thanks, I did miss them. I will be back over for a response.




Judy Frank wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 14:47 GMT
thanks for a such truly interesting topic. I enjoyed reading and you helped me realize theme a bit so I would say now I am in a position to do my essay. Thank you for a wonderful essay and comments..

report post as inappropriate


Jack Flynn wrote on Jul. 19, 2017 @ 07:57 GMT
ShowBox APKt

Tutuapp Vip

TutuApp Vip

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.