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 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/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

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 3:36am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

George Gantz: on 4/5/17 at 13:37pm UTC, wrote Michael - A fascinating essay! I confess that my mathematics is not up...

Michael Manthey: on 3/18/17 at 0:47am UTC, wrote Hi Pete - Many thanks for your several comments. I much enjoyed reading...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/17/17 at 8:33am UTC, wrote Nice essay Manthey, Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg… 1....

peter cameron: on 3/17/17 at 4:17am UTC, wrote Michael, Very glad to see your work on Clifford algebra here (tho its...

Joe Fisher: on 3/16/17 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Michael Manthey, Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a...

Michael Manthey: on 3/15/17 at 19:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe Fisher - I'm all for simplicity! But I just don't think things...

Joe Fisher: on 3/15/17 at 16:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Michael Manthey, Please excuse me for I have no intention of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jonathan Dickau: "As it turns out... My personal philosophy specifically treats the notion..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Jonathan Dickau: "I agree Lorraine, I've never been so much a fan of the 'paragon of..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Quantum Antigravity: "EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —..." in The Myth of Gravity

Pentcho Valev: "Money for teleology and silly songs only? The teleology contest is a..." in Towards a Goal — Two...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi FORUM
April 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Causality & Teleology by Michael Manthey [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Michael Manthey wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

I address the question, “What is the relationship between causality – the explanation of events in terms of causes – and teleology – the explanation of events in terms of purposes?” by equating distributed computation with the semantics of geometric (Clifford) algebra over Zed(3) = {0,1,2} = {0,1,-1}. I conclude that both explanations are simultaneously and equally true, and that the whole thing is made out of space, whose essence is Void.

Author Bio

BS Mathematics, Rensselaer; Phd Computer Science SUNY/Buffalo. Have taught computer architecture, operating and real-time systems, and networks at universities in both Europe and USA.

Download Essay PDF File




Author Michael Manthey wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Oops!

1. Page 2: "if-a-then-X-else-Y": it's a dot product with plus/minus a, and "1 dot +-a" = 0.

2. Page 5,: middle: Replace

"Looking at the skeleton above"

with

"Looking at the skeleton below (next page)

Apologies! Friday nite was too short -

-mm




Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 07:14 GMT
Dr Manthey,

Wow! At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 02:59 GMT
Hi Richard Benish -

> Wow!

Thanks for the Up - I've been bakin' this for some time now, and this is the first public tasting.

> At least visually, an impressive display of mathematical analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "visually" ... superficially? Howsoever, the underlying computational ideas - from which all of this *derives* - came to me in the 1990's. I knew right off that I was onto something, but with software (as with so many things) if you don't have some mathematics on it, you ain't got so much. It just took me this long to figure all the pieces.

> Conceptually, rather hard to grasp. Has an experiment been conceived to test whether or not your model is correct?

I agree that this purely mathematical version - namely sans the inspiring computational source - is kinda dense. The two referenced websites,

RootsOfUnity.org (AI slant) and TauQuernions.org (physics slant)

have a more balanced presentation. This essay is a condensed cross-section of the former, along with some unpublished material. My [most excellent] students did three successive implementations in the 90's - it all worked just fine.

> Near the end, as I understand it, you connect back to (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. So the scheme seems to depend on the validity of the assumption that the world is (3+1)-dimensional.

This is as I state. Maybe (re your point ++) you are on to something, maybe not - I don't know. Myself, I'm just very pleased that, coming in from a completely novel point of view, I (or rather, the algebra, and uniquely so) landed me square in the middle of the Standard Model of physics, with a novel QM/GR bridging as a cherry on top. I'm just a humble computer scientist and mathematics 'user' with neither the need nor the desire to overly annoy the physicists ;-)




Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 06:19 GMT
Michael Manthey,

Question: What is objective test of awareness?

You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.

Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Shaikh Raisuddin -

Thanks for reading my essay.

> Awareness is collective state of disturbance by an information (entropic event).

I agree - this is a central theme of the essay in that, as stated, the erection of the hierarchy is entropically favored: Info(a+b) > Info(ab). See "TauQuernions: 3+1d Dissipative Space out of Quantum Mechanics" for this and related calculations.

I write that awareness is a persistent *resonance*, a more precise statement of your "collective state of disturbance".

> Question: What is objective test of awareness? You stated that question but evaded with short assumption. Further probe and detail of it is required.

I actually explicitly signed up for a different question, namely causality vs. purpose, in the essay's first sentence. The actual Test is, as noted in the last sentence, to be found in "The Topsy Test for Awareness" ... I didn't have room to include a description of the test in the essay, but wanted to point to it. I'm unsure what "short assumption" you are referring to.

-mm



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Michael Manthey,

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

Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher -

I'm all for simplicity!

But I just don't think things can get much simpler than a binary vector algebra that, on a purely combinatorial basis, hones (and homes) in all by itself to a unique set of forms that, Lo and Behold, exactly match the Standard Model, with a gravitational coda thrown in for free. Oh, and don't forget wave-particle duality, Noether's theorem, and entropic favor - they come for free too.

Plus, as I've described in the essay, Everything can be construed as an entangled, aware, and maybe self-aware, Whole made out of Space.

This from pure mathematics - geometric (Clifford) algebra - interpreted as distributed computation, cf. the original Essay Question!

The apparent divergence from Simplicity lies in the difficulty of communicating said simplicity to the time-like Turing-limited mind that we all inhabit all day long, whilst the prophets weep!

-mm




peter cameron wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
Michael,

Very glad to see your work on Clifford algebra here (tho its sophistication far exceeds my grasp), and agree that it provides excellent framework for Standard Model physics and beyond.

Are you familiar with the work of David Hestenes? His geometric calculus web page has a wealth of information.

http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/

I much like the FQXi search engine. Searching for any of the three terms 'geometric Clifford algebra' gives what appear to me to be useful links to other essays in this year's Forum Posts section.

In particular I think you might find the essay submitted by Michaele Suisse especially relevant.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2913

While much less elegant and abstract than your remarkable work, it has the beginnings of a good solid grounding in the practical. It appears to me they support each other well.

Best regards,

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Manthey replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 00:47 GMT
Hi Pete -

Many thanks for your several comments. I much enjoyed reading your and Michaele Suisse's essay, and am thinking that your impedance is my hierarchy dynamics.

So we are, I think, very much on the same page, not just re geometric algebra but also re the multitude of puzzlements stemming from the lack of *structure* in the formulations of quantum mechanics. I have recently realized - please correct me if I'm wrong - that the whole of physics, not least QM, is formulated as *necessarily* all taking place in 3+1d. The early history of QM explains this "seeing is believing" operationalism, but cannot continue to justify the prejudice.

Instead, I've come to think of the situation via the analogy, "An operating system is to its 'user' processes as quantum mechanics is to the (relativistic) processes in 3+1d". My approach is thoroughly that of a computer scientist trying to figure out how Nature builds her amazing self-organizing distributed systems. That is, my points of departure all lay within computer science, and from there over hill and dale, mountain and valley, to finally meet physics in Clifford City.

One of the first lessons is the realization that there *must* be an underlying (or, rather, behind-the-scenes) agent that supplies the necessary synchronization, one that is cognizant of the potential interactions between processes, and allows them to run as appropriate to maintain given exclusionary constraints. That is, something that is in charge of managing the system's *potential*. So I think this analogy is quite accurate in the context it sets, so long as 'scheduling' is driven by entropy alone!

Re links to Clifford algebras, I can recommend Stephen Slehar's excellent blog.

-mike




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 08:33 GMT
Nice essay Manthey,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. From a probabilistic point of view, the external behavior generated by the hierarchy, which is governed by, driven by, internal, long-term stability-based goals, can easily and naturally be construed as goal-directed, which it indeed is. But the actual goals - inherently invisible from the outside, and devoted to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 13:37 GMT
Michael -

A fascinating essay! I confess that my mathematics is not up to the details of your essay, but the surprising conclusion is completely consistent with my own thesis - that the intention which moves agent processes in the universe is love.

Regards -

George Gantz (The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention)

report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 03:36 GMT
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


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.