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


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/discusswinners

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 Fund.
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

Stuart Heinrich: on 12/4/12 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Mitra, I have enjoyed reading your paper on a mathematical...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:33am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 3:22am UTC, wrote Dear Saibal Mitra Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...

qsa: on 9/30/12 at 18:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Saibal, My theory and yours are similar in principle but...

Frederico Pfrimer: on 9/29/12 at 22:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Saibal All this idea about the universe running an algorithm is...

Saibal Mitra: on 9/29/12 at 4:06am UTC, wrote Dear Frederico, Thank you for your comments on my essay. I'll read your...

Frederico Pfrimer: on 9/28/12 at 20:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Saibal Mitra, Nice essay. I not only agree with most of your main...

Jayakar Joseph: on 9/6/12 at 3:44am UTC, wrote Dear Saibal Mitra, Uncertainty that evolves from the discrete particle...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A Mathematical Multiverse Without Postulates by Saibal Mitra [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Saibal Mitra wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

I show that the notion of a physical world is problematic. The known laws of physics should be taken to give an effective description of a mathematical multiverse. In this setting there is no room for any postulates.

Author Bio

Saibal Mitra is a free lance teacher/tutor who practices physics and mathematics for fun in his free time. He has argued that the reason why some DM direct detection experiments have inconsistent results may due to DM particles trapped in some DM detectors: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409121 Also, he finds experimental mathematics interesting, see e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1763

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 19:57 GMT
Where did the universe come from?

See my essay devoted to cyclic universe

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Saibal Mitra replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Thanks,

I'll give my comment on your essay page.

Bookmark and Share



Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 20:58 GMT
Dear Saibal Mitra,

Please see the true mathematical equation describing the multiverse that have submitted in this essay contest for all of us to realize.

zero = i = infinity.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Saibal Mitra,

Uncertainty that evolves from the discrete particle nature of the universe proceeds with measurement uncertainty by information loss at the observer in experimentations. Outcome from probability density function is inconclusive and probabilistic. If we define universe in continuum, with string dynamics; I think we may precise information at the observer with a different algorithm for the decomposition of compound tetrahedral-branes.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Saibal Mitra,

Nice essay. I not only agree with most of your main motivations but they were also related the main motivations for my essay. These ones specially:

“The whole concept of a physical world is actually rather problematic.”

“One can take the view that this is just an irrelevant philosophical matter that can be ignored. But this isn’t actually the case; the ill defined concept of a physical world does come with its own baggage and should therefore be questioned.”

And then you could perfectly say why the understanding of this concept is so important for physics and is not only a philosophical matter:

“The assumption of a physical universe can thus lead to the wrong questions being asked and lead to wrongly motivated theories that answer those questions.”

Wrong concepts lead us to wrong interpretations and conclusions about our theories and experiments. And lead us making the wrong question, or worse, asking meaningless question. The first thing we should know is does it makes sense to ask if the universe exists? or that the universe is real?

You also mentioned a big problem that goes overlooked: the hidden baggage of our concepts. You should take a look o my essay The Final Theory and the Language of Physics. There I discus on how can we give precise meaning to these concepts. I think it is deeply connected with your main ideas, and also invite you rating it.

All the best wishes

Frederico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Saibal Mitra replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Frederico,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I'll read your essay and give you my comments on your essay page.

In 2008 I also participated in the essay contest here about the Nature of Time, see this arXiv version (the version posted here contained some formatting errors and I decided to rewrite it and post it on the arXiv). This was also about quantum mechanics, I argued that forgetting the result of some observation would make the result again undetermined in the Many Worlds Interpretation.

A few days ago I realized that this actually solves a problem with my current essay. In my essay I argue that within quantum mechanics the computational state of an algorithm that some classical computer is running at some moment in time is well defined, because the quantum state of the computer plus environment is some completely entangled state which contains the information of not just the state of the registers of the computer but also that it was the result of the running of the algorithm. All of that exists at any instant in time, while in classical physics, you just have a state as a the positions and velocities of particles, and that doesn't contain the information about what algorithm was running.

I can then say that if my brain recognizes some pattern, whatever I experience should be identified with the computation that leads to that pattern being generated. The paradox on counterfactuals raised by some philosophers against artificial intelligence is then bypassed, because some range of counterfactuals actually does exist and that defines the algorithm. If I'm aware of the pattern I'm not aware of the parts that make up the pattern, there will be an astronomically large number of inputs that lead to the same pattern.

However, you can still consider being made aware of some of the details that make up the pattern. Now, it is well known that people actually cannot epxerience two different things at the same time, at best you can have the illusion of this, but in reality you switch rapidly between experiening one or the other pattern. Then this means that when your attention is one one thing, you have "forgotten" the other, even if the information about that other thing is stored in your brain. So, the experience you get when being aware of some pattern is (in my theory) not compromized by the existence of the information about the details that make up the pattern, because that information itself exists in the form of some superposition when your attention isn't there.

But note that I use all of this to motivate the idea of a mathematical multiverse, the fundamental elements of that being algorithms that should be identified with observers (or observations or simply experiences) and not universes as in Tegmark's theory.

Bookmark and Share


Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:23 GMT
Dear Saibal

All this idea about the universe running an algorithm is something that really attracts me. But this can lead you to an interesting conclusion: mechanics = theory of computation! But, but, this is not the theory of computation we have today. For now there is no mathematical theory that explain what computation is. I’ve read some papers of more than 3 decades ago asking for a mathematical theory of computation but they remain unanswered. But in common sense there is such a theory, but that’s an illusion.

Well, I just thought of something interesting. What if the algorithm that is running can change with time? What if there is something that chooses which is the algorithm will be running just like we choose the program that will be executed?? A think this idea might be interesting…

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Dear Saibal,

My theory and yours are similar in principle but different in the way they were born. My theory which I derive from a fundamental concept leads to a unique mathematical structure that seems to mimic our reality.

"quantum statistical automata".

Reality exists hence we say it is true. But what is really true besides that more than anything else which we...

view entire post


attachments: 3_newqsa.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 03:22 GMT
Dear Saibal Mitra

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:33 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stuart Heinrich wrote on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Dr. Mitra,

I have enjoyed reading your paper on a mathematical universe without

postulates, and thank you for referencing my recent writing on the

subject. I hope you appreciate me taking the time to discuss with you

on a few of the finer points below. Naturally, there is more to say

when it comes to points of disagreement than of agreement, so...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
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.