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.

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 Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**William Walker**: *on* 4/8/17 at 2:45am UTC, wrote Hi Arved... ;)

**Dizhechko Semyonovich**: *on* 4/7/17 at 4:06am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

**Eckard Blumschein**: *on* 3/31/17 at 4:35am UTC, wrote Dear Arved, You should indeed use your mind better. Well, possibility...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 3/28/17 at 2:19am UTC, wrote I did read this.. And I thank you Stefan for sharing your thoughts in this...

**Rajiv Singh**: *on* 3/18/17 at 12:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Huebler, Fantastic ! What creativity and fertility of mind ! No, I am...

**Stefan Weckbach**: *on* 3/18/17 at 10:01am UTC, wrote Dear Jonathan, i read your comments here and i would like to add some...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 3/17/17 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote The word for Physics in Chinese is.. Wu Li Regards, JJD

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 3/17/17 at 16:01pm UTC, wrote I am wondering.. Could you elaborate on your usage of the word 'Dasein' in...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Agnew**: "The universe is finite and not infinite. The notion of infinity or..."
*in* Watching the Observers

**Anonymous**: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..."
*in* Manipulating the Quantum...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..."
*in* FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Georgina, That is very interesting, but please remember that the..."
*in* Watching the Observers

**Peter Morgan**: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..."
*in* Manipulating the Quantum...

**munized ward**: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..."
*in* Natural Selection in...

**Pentcho Valev**: "Not Even Wrong Concepts in Physics: Entropy The following argument is..."
*in* We Are All Connected

**Rajiv Singh**: "Dear Lorraine, Oh! I did not check your recent responses. Let me address..."
*in* FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**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?

**Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?**

To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

**Painting a QBist Picture of Reality**

A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

**The Spacetime Revolutionary**

Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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

Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

FQXi FORUM

June 23, 2017

CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]

TOPIC: The Dot, the Point, the Dot — the Intention by Arved C. Huebler [refresh]

TOPIC: The Dot, the Point, the Dot — the Intention by Arved C. Huebler [refresh]

Mathematics is not a formalism made by humans, but the logical origin of our reality. In this essay a hypothesis will be investigated, how physical entities derive from the mathematics by an emergent leap. Inspired by HoTT mathematical induction is assumed as main impetus of the development. Finally the intention as an emergent capability for analyzing meta-information will be considered.

Born in 1960, studying Physics in Heidelberg and Berlin, PhD as print engineer at Berlin University of Fine Arts, R&D director at Bertelsmann Group Gütersloh, since 1997 professor at the Institute for Print & Media Technology, Chemnitz University of Technology at Chemnitz/Germany

Dear Arved Hübler,

good work, although some people may consider it as purely metaphysical.

In the past, i have considered similar lines of reasoning and came also to the conclusion that mathematics must have been created. My current answer to this question is, indeed it was, but i have to make some restrictions on what you exemplified.

Firstly, one has to recognize that even...

view entire post

good work, although some people may consider it as purely metaphysical.

In the past, i have considered similar lines of reasoning and came also to the conclusion that mathematics must have been created. My current answer to this question is, indeed it was, but i have to make some restrictions on what you exemplified.

Firstly, one has to recognize that even...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Thanks for your intensive discussion on my thoughts. For sure, the essay may be classified under meta-physics. But I interpret this meta-physics solely as mathematics including logics, without anything else. This offers the fundamental option to calculate the next steps. The initial point is the entity of 'non-existence' combined with the mathematical induction, e.g. according to HoTT. Consciousness is not required. This is only part of the human understanding. The pattern of electrons in an atom shows a mathematical structure without any human consciousness.

My essay is only a hypothesis next to other conceivable hypotheses. We have to test, (1) whether the proposed singularity is evaluable, and whether (2) a link with emergent physical entities as e.g. the Minkowski space-time becomes possible. After that I dare talking about further philosophical implications.

Thanks

Arved

Thanks for your intensive discussion on my thoughts. For sure, the essay may be classified under meta-physics. But I interpret this meta-physics solely as mathematics including logics, without anything else. This offers the fundamental option to calculate the next steps. The initial point is the entity of 'non-existence' combined with the mathematical induction, e.g. according to HoTT. Consciousness is not required. This is only part of the human understanding. The pattern of electrons in an atom shows a mathematical structure without any human consciousness.

My essay is only a hypothesis next to other conceivable hypotheses. We have to test, (1) whether the proposed singularity is evaluable, and whether (2) a link with emergent physical entities as e.g. the Minkowski space-time becomes possible. After that I dare talking about further philosophical implications.

Thanks

Arved

Dear Arved Huebler,

thanks for your comment. I think what HoTT does, is to facilitate a formal system which in its inner core states that without consistency there is no existence possible. If one assumes HoTT to be consistent itself, this leads to the impression that HoTT must capture and represent the fundamental truth. But not all consistent schemes do necessarily meet reality. Maybe...

view entire post

thanks for your comment. I think what HoTT does, is to facilitate a formal system which in its inner core states that without consistency there is no existence possible. If one assumes HoTT to be consistent itself, this leads to the impression that HoTT must capture and represent the fundamental truth. But not all consistent schemes do necessarily meet reality. Maybe...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, which helped me a lot.

To be frank, I am not in a position to judge HoTT and understand it in all aspects. Like a lot of other formal constructions, as you mentioned it shall consist of trivial elements, too. What I learned and where I was inspired is the idea of designing mathematics as a process instead of a steady...

view entire post

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, which helped me a lot.

To be frank, I am not in a position to judge HoTT and understand it in all aspects. Like a lot of other formal constructions, as you mentioned it shall consist of trivial elements, too. What I learned and where I was inspired is the idea of designing mathematics as a process instead of a steady...

view entire post

Hi Arved

I don't know if you have seen my idea which seems to be vaguely connected to yours , but mine directly leads to whole of physics. Please, see if it makes any sense to you and I appreciate a feedback. I will grade you in due time.

“Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally”

this is last years contest essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2451

And this is this year(please read my comment notes for missing info)

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2884

Thanks

Adel Sadeq

report post as inappropriate

I don't know if you have seen my idea which seems to be vaguely connected to yours , but mine directly leads to whole of physics. Please, see if it makes any sense to you and I appreciate a feedback. I will grade you in due time.

“Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally”

this is last years contest essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2451

And this is this year(please read my comment notes for missing info)

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2884

Thanks

Adel Sadeq

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel,

I have read your earlier essay „Fundamental Theory of Reality“. Because there are a lot of related papers available, I decided not to fill my eight pages with a review-like essay. Sorry for the missing reference. I will read your article asap.

Thanks Arved

I have read your earlier essay „Fundamental Theory of Reality“. Because there are a lot of related papers available, I decided not to fill my eight pages with a review-like essay. Sorry for the missing reference. I will read your article asap.

Thanks Arved

Dear Prof. Huebler

It is nice to get tbe scent of printing ink through your essay, I am a type designer as well as physicist, albeit an independant minded researcher as you can see from my fqxi essay. I liked your starting from a dot because in my theory Beautiful Universe Theory the building block of everything is a spherically symmetrical node or element interacring with its neighbor as a cellular automata. I could not follow your technical logical analysis (my limitations) but your approach reminded me of the artist Paul Klee (in The Thinking Eye I think) of his little diagram how a point becomes a line, lines form a plane and planes form a solid. As to mathematics I believe it owes its affinity to physics because humans (the inventors or discoverers of mathematics) evolved from organisms that interacted with the Universe at the 'dot' molecular scale, hence 'getting' how it works as they evolved.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

It is nice to get tbe scent of printing ink through your essay, I am a type designer as well as physicist, albeit an independant minded researcher as you can see from my fqxi essay. I liked your starting from a dot because in my theory Beautiful Universe Theory the building block of everything is a spherically symmetrical node or element interacring with its neighbor as a cellular automata. I could not follow your technical logical analysis (my limitations) but your approach reminded me of the artist Paul Klee (in The Thinking Eye I think) of his little diagram how a point becomes a line, lines form a plane and planes form a solid. As to mathematics I believe it owes its affinity to physics because humans (the inventors or discoverers of mathematics) evolved from organisms that interacted with the Universe at the 'dot' molecular scale, hence 'getting' how it works as they evolved.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Valdimir,

Thank you for your input. The printed dot guided me to the question on the smallest ever-possible information. From my point of view, this might be a simple change itself, as it also occurs in mathematics. But I do not believe in mathematics as an invention of man, as you stated. There is a logical, mathematical pattern behind everything independently from the human mind. And my hypothesis addresses the question, how it might be possible that this mathematical pattern with no physical dimension creates a first physical dimension.

Best regards

Arved

Thank you for your input. The printed dot guided me to the question on the smallest ever-possible information. From my point of view, this might be a simple change itself, as it also occurs in mathematics. But I do not believe in mathematics as an invention of man, as you stated. There is a logical, mathematical pattern behind everything independently from the human mind. And my hypothesis addresses the question, how it might be possible that this mathematical pattern with no physical dimension creates a first physical dimension.

Best regards

Arved

Arved,

I appreciate your essay for its clarity and intelligence. Unlike some other attempts to derive the universe from pure mathematics, you don’t make exaggerated claims to have solved all the problems in physics, and admit that your work is “highly speculative”. My own feeling is that while mathematics certainly has a universal character that transcends the particularities of the physical world, it still depends on many features of our world for its meaning. Just counting, for example, would not be meaningful if the world consisted only of continuous fields. In fact, discrete, stable, countable entities are abundant in our universe… and yet at the quantum level, “elementary particles” turn out to be far more complex than pixels.

You write, “A change is only relevant if an effect happens.” I would add – “and if its effect also has an effect, in some other context.” I think the basic difference between physical existence and mathematics is that the latter takes for granted that its basic concepts (point, set, number) have meaning, while the physical world actually provides all the many kinds of contexts needed to make all its concepts meaningful and measurable, in terms of each other. I explore this in my essay, which roughly sketches out the beginnings of “a generalized theory of evolution” based in empirical science rather than pure logic.

Thanks again for an interesting and imaginative piece of work.

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate your essay for its clarity and intelligence. Unlike some other attempts to derive the universe from pure mathematics, you don’t make exaggerated claims to have solved all the problems in physics, and admit that your work is “highly speculative”. My own feeling is that while mathematics certainly has a universal character that transcends the particularities of the physical world, it still depends on many features of our world for its meaning. Just counting, for example, would not be meaningful if the world consisted only of continuous fields. In fact, discrete, stable, countable entities are abundant in our universe… and yet at the quantum level, “elementary particles” turn out to be far more complex than pixels.

You write, “A change is only relevant if an effect happens.” I would add – “and if its effect also has an effect, in some other context.” I think the basic difference between physical existence and mathematics is that the latter takes for granted that its basic concepts (point, set, number) have meaning, while the physical world actually provides all the many kinds of contexts needed to make all its concepts meaningful and measurable, in terms of each other. I explore this in my essay, which roughly sketches out the beginnings of “a generalized theory of evolution” based in empirical science rather than pure logic.

Thanks again for an interesting and imaginative piece of work.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Conrad,

thanks for your feedback and impetuses.

If I understand right, you feel mathematics is to simple to cover all the phenomena of physics, e.g. continuous fields. But I thing, it is possible to show mathematically a transition from a countable set of infinite entities to a continuous entity.

Perhaps my text was not sufficiently intelligible. The term pixel was defined as a basic element, which can be identified at a certain scale level. This pixel may consist of very complex substructures, based again on basic elements at a lower scale, and so on. So, an printed dot of ink is much more complex than one quantum dot, because it consists of an uncountable number of quantum dots in a very complex structure.

As you state very right, a ordinary logical (=: mathematical in my essay) structure itself has no effect in the physical word, it needs an entity with at least one physical parameter to effect something in the physical world.

But my hypothesis is: At a fare end of highly complex mathematical structures, an emergent creation of a first physical entity, e.g. a Minkowski cell, might happen. And the I look for a possible way, how this can work.

Regards

Arved

thanks for your feedback and impetuses.

If I understand right, you feel mathematics is to simple to cover all the phenomena of physics, e.g. continuous fields. But I thing, it is possible to show mathematically a transition from a countable set of infinite entities to a continuous entity.

Perhaps my text was not sufficiently intelligible. The term pixel was defined as a basic element, which can be identified at a certain scale level. This pixel may consist of very complex substructures, based again on basic elements at a lower scale, and so on. So, an printed dot of ink is much more complex than one quantum dot, because it consists of an uncountable number of quantum dots in a very complex structure.

As you state very right, a ordinary logical (=: mathematical in my essay) structure itself has no effect in the physical word, it needs an entity with at least one physical parameter to effect something in the physical world.

But my hypothesis is: At a fare end of highly complex mathematical structures, an emergent creation of a first physical entity, e.g. a Minkowski cell, might happen. And the I look for a possible way, how this can work.

Regards

Arved

Dear Arved,

Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human beings, exactly at the center of the 3-sphere one can experience the unity of the trinity and that is the now moment we experience. As there are 4 dimensions required for a 3-sphere, the regular 3 dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, it is obvious that the 2-sphere (Riemann sphere) of consciousness with in us is with out the time dimension and hence the saying "eternal soul". Poincare` conjecture implies that consciousness is homeomorphic (same or similar) in all beings manifested in all dimensions of the universe, as i have shown that Riemann sphere can serve as the fundamental unit of consciousness in There are no goals as such its all play[/lin].

PS: i thinks therefore we are VR(Virtual Reality), i "am" not GOD but i "is".

zero = i = infinity = sqrt ( e power (i * pi) )

Love,

i.

attachments: 10_zero__i__infinity.docx

report post as inappropriate

Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human beings, exactly at the center of the 3-sphere one can experience the unity of the trinity and that is the now moment we experience. As there are 4 dimensions required for a 3-sphere, the regular 3 dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, it is obvious that the 2-sphere (Riemann sphere) of consciousness with in us is with out the time dimension and hence the saying "eternal soul". Poincare` conjecture implies that consciousness is homeomorphic (same or similar) in all beings manifested in all dimensions of the universe, as i have shown that Riemann sphere can serve as the fundamental unit of consciousness in There are no goals as such its all play[/lin].

PS: i thinks therefore we are VR(Virtual Reality), i "am" not GOD but i "is".

zero = i = infinity = sqrt ( e power (i * pi) )

Love,

i.

attachments: 10_zero__i__infinity.docx

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sridattadev Kancharla,

thanks for your feedback, but I am to restricted to follow you argumentation. Fpr me it is difficult to find the link between your approach and my essay.

Good luck for you work

Regards

Arved Hübler

thanks for your feedback, but I am to restricted to follow you argumentation. Fpr me it is difficult to find the link between your approach and my essay.

Good luck for you work

Regards

Arved Hübler

Dear compatriot,

You wrote: " The physical dot becomes a mathematical point by losing all physical features, and vice versa." Except for the vice versa I agree.

You are arguing for a discovered rather than created mathematics. Again, I agree with the exception that Robinso(h)n's hyperreal numbers are perhaps a rather unphysical consequence of pragmatic, one could also say dirty, definition and use of infinity by Leibniz, Bernoulli, and Stevin. Cantor claimed the essence of mathematics its freedom.

Best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: " The physical dot becomes a mathematical point by losing all physical features, and vice versa." Except for the vice versa I agree.

You are arguing for a discovered rather than created mathematics. Again, I agree with the exception that Robinso(h)n's hyperreal numbers are perhaps a rather unphysical consequence of pragmatic, one could also say dirty, definition and use of infinity by Leibniz, Bernoulli, and Stevin. Cantor claimed the essence of mathematics its freedom.

Best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

thanks for you statement. But what a pity, the vice versa is my approach.

Lets try to explain my understanding by and improve the weak explanation at my essay:

Assume elements, and assume these elements will assemble a pattern, a structure. You may be able to discover logical rules and regularities in this structures. If the elements have physical features, you will discover physical laws. If we think the elements without any physical properties as an abstract model, we will discover pure mathematics, logical patterns itself. That is, what you agree about.

Now the vice versa:

My 1st hypothesis: This pure mathematics may exist without any physics. They exist as logical pattern of the existence itself (I call it mathematical point). You do not agree, as you stated.

But it is only a hypothesis to see what happens, if we assume this. Is there a logically reason, why this assumption might be nonsense?

My 2nd hypothesis: At a moment when this pure mathematics becomes highly complex, an emergent step will create a first physical entity (e.g. a Minkowsky cell or something else).

Again: Is there a logically reason, why this assumption might be nonsense?

Rest of my essay is asking for A possible explanation, how and why such an emergent process works. I supposed a singularity.

My future task: To proof this hypothesis (and perhaps adjust it).

But if there are arguments showing that these hypotheses are impossible, I could save time.

Thanks for your time and regards

Arved

thanks for you statement. But what a pity, the vice versa is my approach.

Lets try to explain my understanding by and improve the weak explanation at my essay:

Assume elements, and assume these elements will assemble a pattern, a structure. You may be able to discover logical rules and regularities in this structures. If the elements have physical features, you will discover physical laws. If we think the elements without any physical properties as an abstract model, we will discover pure mathematics, logical patterns itself. That is, what you agree about.

Now the vice versa:

My 1st hypothesis: This pure mathematics may exist without any physics. They exist as logical pattern of the existence itself (I call it mathematical point). You do not agree, as you stated.

But it is only a hypothesis to see what happens, if we assume this. Is there a logically reason, why this assumption might be nonsense?

My 2nd hypothesis: At a moment when this pure mathematics becomes highly complex, an emergent step will create a first physical entity (e.g. a Minkowsky cell or something else).

Again: Is there a logically reason, why this assumption might be nonsense?

Rest of my essay is asking for A possible explanation, how and why such an emergent process works. I supposed a singularity.

My future task: To proof this hypothesis (and perhaps adjust it).

But if there are arguments showing that these hypotheses are impossible, I could save time.

Thanks for your time and regards

Arved

Dear Arved,

You should indeed use your mind better. Well, possibility obviously precedes actuality. Impossibility definitely belongs to the past. Isn't therefore a Minkowsky cell no physically real entity?

Your first hypothesis assumes that there is only one pure mathematics. This would contradict to G. Cantor's claim that the essence ...

Let's go into details. Inspired by Bedürftig, Katz, Mückenheim, and Spalt, I am distinguishing between the strictly logical Galilean notion "infinite" as the opposite of finite and the so called mathematical pragmatic notion of a relative infinity introduced by Leibniz/Bernoulli which led to counter-intuitive and evidently unnecessary in physics constructs including naive and axiomatic set theory, hyperreal numbers, etc.

I maintain that the lazy pragmatic neglect of the distinction between rational numbers and the continuum of genuine real numbers led to - as I found out - nonsensical physical singularities within IR instead of CQ.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

You should indeed use your mind better. Well, possibility obviously precedes actuality. Impossibility definitely belongs to the past. Isn't therefore a Minkowsky cell no physically real entity?

Your first hypothesis assumes that there is only one pure mathematics. This would contradict to G. Cantor's claim that the essence ...

Let's go into details. Inspired by Bedürftig, Katz, Mückenheim, and Spalt, I am distinguishing between the strictly logical Galilean notion "infinite" as the opposite of finite and the so called mathematical pragmatic notion of a relative infinity introduced by Leibniz/Bernoulli which led to counter-intuitive and evidently unnecessary in physics constructs including naive and axiomatic set theory, hyperreal numbers, etc.

I maintain that the lazy pragmatic neglect of the distinction between rational numbers and the continuum of genuine real numbers led to - as I found out - nonsensical physical singularities within IR instead of CQ.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Arved C. Huebler……….

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate

Dear Héctor Daniel Gianni,

thank your for your long list of statements. Unfortunately I am not able to find a connection to my essay, so I am not in the position to comment it.

Thanks again and good luck.

Regards

Arved

thank your for your long list of statements. Unfortunately I am not able to find a connection to my essay, so I am not in the position to comment it.

Thanks again and good luck.

Regards

Arved

Interesting essay. It has some overlap with the FQXi essay I wrote in 2015. I discuss HOTT there. This does seem to be a discrete structure that emerges from homotopy theory that is a digital-like system of types. My current essay does discuss some math foundation issues as well.

It is interesting to ponder the nature between the continuum with its infinitesimals and points with the finite and discrete. The continuum has no physical content as I see it, but is a convenient model system for a lot of physics. The physical dot or pixel (voxel) in quantum gravity is the Planck length, and this is the smallest length or region where a qubit of information can be localized. Anything smaller than this is the continuum that has a somewhat different physical meaning, and in the case of infinitesimals the physical meaning reduces to zero.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

It is interesting to ponder the nature between the continuum with its infinitesimals and points with the finite and discrete. The continuum has no physical content as I see it, but is a convenient model system for a lot of physics. The physical dot or pixel (voxel) in quantum gravity is the Planck length, and this is the smallest length or region where a qubit of information can be localized. Anything smaller than this is the continuum that has a somewhat different physical meaning, and in the case of infinitesimals the physical meaning reduces to zero.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

thanks for your statement. I have read your earlier paper "Mathematical Physics as Topological Numbers, Types and Quanta" and I found a lot of interesting ideas. But for this essay of mine, I decided not to review other papers because of the eight pages restriction. I am very sorry.

For sure, the question of the physical content of an continuum is interesting, as you discussed in your paper. But I believe, it is not such a big secret. Perhaps it is related to the emergent step from one scale to another.

Also interesting is the physical equivalent of the smallest physical dot, as you mentioned. I did not proceed as far as quantum information, because that is a very tricky discussion, which I want to avoid. What is a technical necessity at a qubit, and what is the real physically effective information content?

So, I restrict myself and talk only about bits in general, which also includes qubits. And in my essay I used the term "pixel", because that is a single parameter entity. Your suggestion to talk about voxels refers to three dimensions, but perhaps one dimension is the initial state.

Thanks again,

Regards

Arved

thanks for your statement. I have read your earlier paper "Mathematical Physics as Topological Numbers, Types and Quanta" and I found a lot of interesting ideas. But for this essay of mine, I decided not to review other papers because of the eight pages restriction. I am very sorry.

For sure, the question of the physical content of an continuum is interesting, as you discussed in your paper. But I believe, it is not such a big secret. Perhaps it is related to the emergent step from one scale to another.

Also interesting is the physical equivalent of the smallest physical dot, as you mentioned. I did not proceed as far as quantum information, because that is a very tricky discussion, which I want to avoid. What is a technical necessity at a qubit, and what is the real physically effective information content?

So, I restrict myself and talk only about bits in general, which also includes qubits. And in my essay I used the term "pixel", because that is a single parameter entity. Your suggestion to talk about voxels refers to three dimensions, but perhaps one dimension is the initial state.

Thanks again,

Regards

Arved

Arved C. Huebler,

Quoting you, "The mathematical empty set is like a substrate, a carrier or a homogeneous background. The empty set is the precondition for the existence,"

The empty set (substrate) thus seems to be not of mathematical origin. Your analogy of 'pixels' creating dots on 'paper' using 'ink' is interesting. Here, there are three players. Which of these are of mathematical origin? In my opinion, the pixels alone are mathematical. The 'paper and ink' together create a 'black and white' substrate; if paper is white, ink is black, if paper is black ink is white. Only then can the pixels create dots. So logically 'ink' is also not of mathematical origin. So I argue that the substrate 'paper and ink' is of physical origin and 'pixels' is of mathematical origin. So what we see as 'dots' and 'complex patterns of dots' are just mathematical possibilities of the physical world. Physics provides the substrate, mathematics decides the structures.

Jose P Koshy

report post as inappropriate

Quoting you, "The mathematical empty set is like a substrate, a carrier or a homogeneous background. The empty set is the precondition for the existence,"

The empty set (substrate) thus seems to be not of mathematical origin. Your analogy of 'pixels' creating dots on 'paper' using 'ink' is interesting. Here, there are three players. Which of these are of mathematical origin? In my opinion, the pixels alone are mathematical. The 'paper and ink' together create a 'black and white' substrate; if paper is white, ink is black, if paper is black ink is white. Only then can the pixels create dots. So logically 'ink' is also not of mathematical origin. So I argue that the substrate 'paper and ink' is of physical origin and 'pixels' is of mathematical origin. So what we see as 'dots' and 'complex patterns of dots' are just mathematical possibilities of the physical world. Physics provides the substrate, mathematics decides the structures.

Jose P Koshy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jose,

thank you for your contribution. You highlight a very interesting question, which was the initial motivation of mine to enter this field between physics an information and mathematics.

But I do not agree with your way to distinguish mathematics from physics. All three „player“, as you called it, have an equivalent entity either in the mathematics and the physics:

name – physical entity, e.g.print – mathematical entity

existence – printed dot on paper – mathematical point/element

potential existence – unprinted paper – empty set

impossible existence – missing sheet – not defined

Acording to my hypothesis, mathematics describes only the existence itself and its logical relations (mathematical rules). But in physics we have the existence of at least one physical parameter, e.g. voltage or spin, or here in the case of printing the visual contrast, and its logical relations (physical laws).

Regards

Arved

thank you for your contribution. You highlight a very interesting question, which was the initial motivation of mine to enter this field between physics an information and mathematics.

But I do not agree with your way to distinguish mathematics from physics. All three „player“, as you called it, have an equivalent entity either in the mathematics and the physics:

name – physical entity, e.g.print – mathematical entity

existence – printed dot on paper – mathematical point/element

potential existence – unprinted paper – empty set

impossible existence – missing sheet – not defined

Acording to my hypothesis, mathematics describes only the existence itself and its logical relations (mathematical rules). But in physics we have the existence of at least one physical parameter, e.g. voltage or spin, or here in the case of printing the visual contrast, and its logical relations (physical laws).

Regards

Arved

Dear Arved,

Your approach is interesting and I agree with some of your points. You talk about information but how do you give sense to that information ? Someone or something should to be observing it ? Information alone is just potential information, I believe that some sort of consciousness needs to be brought into the equation in order to transform that potential information into "real" information and eventually create a reality.

If you feel like it, please take a look at my essay and you will see more precisely what I mean. (A Universe of information and consciousness).

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Your approach is interesting and I agree with some of your points. You talk about information but how do you give sense to that information ? Someone or something should to be observing it ? Information alone is just potential information, I believe that some sort of consciousness needs to be brought into the equation in order to transform that potential information into "real" information and eventually create a reality.

If you feel like it, please take a look at my essay and you will see more precisely what I mean. (A Universe of information and consciousness).

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Dear Patrick,

thanks for your comments.

Not I have to give sense to information, but something has to be able to sense a change, if this change should be information.

I known, there are a lot of very complex definitions of information available, e.g. the term of "potential information“ you have mentioned. But I want to start with the simplest definition of information, which is possible. And that is the "message of a change“ for the case, that this change has an effect.

But my essay was only able to address the way from the basic mathematical existence to the emergence point of physics. The way onwards to more complex forms of information like consciousness is not covered. A task for the future.

Thanks and regards

Arved

thanks for your comments.

Not I have to give sense to information, but something has to be able to sense a change, if this change should be information.

I known, there are a lot of very complex definitions of information available, e.g. the term of "potential information“ you have mentioned. But I want to start with the simplest definition of information, which is possible. And that is the "message of a change“ for the case, that this change has an effect.

But my essay was only able to address the way from the basic mathematical existence to the emergence point of physics. The way onwards to more complex forms of information like consciousness is not covered. A task for the future.

Thanks and regards

Arved

Dear Arved C. Huebler

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They...

view entire post

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Arved C. Huebler

What are essential characteristics of a goal-directed system? A List?

report post as inappropriate

What are essential characteristics of a goal-directed system? A List?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shaikh Raisuddin,

I see no relation to my essay, but from my point of view an answer to your question is: At least the system needs the capability to detect the direction of the goal.

Regards

Arved

I see no relation to my essay, but from my point of view an answer to your question is: At least the system needs the capability to detect the direction of the goal.

Regards

Arved

Dear Professor Arved C. Huebler,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Nice essay Huebler,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

At this macroscopic systems complexity and singularities play an important role. The idea is obvious to identify the singularity M as a candidate for the emergence of the physical universe.

But singularities are mathematical problems, do you feel it is necessary that they exist in the real universe...

view entire post

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

At this macroscopic systems complexity and singularities play an important role. The idea is obvious to identify the singularity M as a candidate for the emergence of the physical universe.

But singularities are mathematical problems, do you feel it is necessary that they exist in the real universe...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Greetings Arved,

I was attracted to this essay, as I am also a fan of the HoTT program, and I am glad I took the time to read it. I like the idea you are presenting and the first few pages of the paper very much. The way the paper wraps up fails to give the reader a clear idea of how this thesis fits into the assigned topic, and honestly it gets a little scattered, but it is an interesting exploration in its own right.

Your comments on page 3 "The impossible existence (_) leads logically to its opposite, the possible or potential existence (○). From this, real existence is derived (●), and then two existences are logically true (●●)." are a precise re-statement of the ancient Chinese philosophical doctrine of Wu Ji and Tai Ji as taught by Taoist philosophers. In my essay, I argue that some of the ancient philosophical texts might encode secrets put there by mathematicians.

But what you describe is broadly supportive of the main thesis in my own essay, Putting the Elephants to Work where I assert that evolutive trends observed in nature arise from properties of higher Mathematics. I would invite your comments. After reading your essay; I have the impression that HoTT offers rigorous proofs for some of the statements I made as logical arguments in my paper. But my work is also highly speculative, so it might be nice to know where my ideas are well supported.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I was attracted to this essay, as I am also a fan of the HoTT program, and I am glad I took the time to read it. I like the idea you are presenting and the first few pages of the paper very much. The way the paper wraps up fails to give the reader a clear idea of how this thesis fits into the assigned topic, and honestly it gets a little scattered, but it is an interesting exploration in its own right.

Your comments on page 3 "The impossible existence (_) leads logically to its opposite, the possible or potential existence (○). From this, real existence is derived (●), and then two existences are logically true (●●)." are a precise re-statement of the ancient Chinese philosophical doctrine of Wu Ji and Tai Ji as taught by Taoist philosophers. In my essay, I argue that some of the ancient philosophical texts might encode secrets put there by mathematicians.

But what you describe is broadly supportive of the main thesis in my own essay, Putting the Elephants to Work where I assert that evolutive trends observed in nature arise from properties of higher Mathematics. I would invite your comments. After reading your essay; I have the impression that HoTT offers rigorous proofs for some of the statements I made as logical arguments in my paper. But my work is also highly speculative, so it might be nice to know where my ideas are well supported.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

As it turns out..

I got to spend a lot of time hanging out with printing presses as well.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I got to spend a lot of time hanging out with printing presses as well.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I am wondering..

Could you elaborate on your usage of the word 'Dasein' in this essay? There is a substantial difference between the usage of Heidegger and that of Karl Jaspers, where you seem to be leaning toward the latter. This would be in accord with the original usage, if indeed Heidegger first encountered the notion in the Taoist works of Zhuangzi - as some assert. But this seems to be the key point, or at least a hinge in your argument.

Let me summarize; by imposing the impossibility to exist (in a particular state or at a certain location in real or parameter space) we are creating an openness which is effectively the opportunity for something to exist - which is the possible or potential existence. Only when the possibility exists, or the potentiality is non-zero, can existence assert itself - so an entity or identity can come into being. One could also say; only when the space is available can something come to exist within that space.

In Chinese philosophy; Tai Ji is the grand ultimate, representing the form of the universe as a divided collection of forms. Wu Ji is the eternal unity, beyond and before the existence of form. Philosophers talk about Wu Ji as being "neither hot nor cold, neither light nor dark, and neither large nor small" which presents an analogy with non-commutative geometry. This fits with the notion that there is a process of becoming, which brings forms into being, and that this process is dictated by Math.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Could you elaborate on your usage of the word 'Dasein' in this essay? There is a substantial difference between the usage of Heidegger and that of Karl Jaspers, where you seem to be leaning toward the latter. This would be in accord with the original usage, if indeed Heidegger first encountered the notion in the Taoist works of Zhuangzi - as some assert. But this seems to be the key point, or at least a hinge in your argument.

Let me summarize; by imposing the impossibility to exist (in a particular state or at a certain location in real or parameter space) we are creating an openness which is effectively the opportunity for something to exist - which is the possible or potential existence. Only when the possibility exists, or the potentiality is non-zero, can existence assert itself - so an entity or identity can come into being. One could also say; only when the space is available can something come to exist within that space.

In Chinese philosophy; Tai Ji is the grand ultimate, representing the form of the universe as a divided collection of forms. Wu Ji is the eternal unity, beyond and before the existence of form. Philosophers talk about Wu Ji as being "neither hot nor cold, neither light nor dark, and neither large nor small" which presents an analogy with non-commutative geometry. This fits with the notion that there is a process of becoming, which brings forms into being, and that this process is dictated by Math.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Huebler,

Fantastic ! What creativity and fertility of mind ! No, I am not offering these generous words for your line of thinking that Mathematics or order alone must be the cause of the existence [I too have been worrying about it for quite sometime], but rather for the jugglery and ingenuity of associating the elements of logic with elements of physical universe, and for the attempt...

view entire post

Fantastic ! What creativity and fertility of mind ! No, I am not offering these generous words for your line of thinking that Mathematics or order alone must be the cause of the existence [I too have been worrying about it for quite sometime], but rather for the jugglery and ingenuity of associating the elements of logic with elements of physical universe, and for the attempt...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.