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

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 0:18am UTC, wrote Hello again Michael, It's good to see you made it. Best of luck in the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/8/13 at 2:36am UTC, wrote Yes it was me. Thought I was signed in. Jonathan

Anonymous: on 8/8/13 at 2:34am UTC, wrote Wow Michael, Right on. I greatly enjoyed the fun romp of your essay. ...

Michael Helland: on 8/8/13 at 0:32am UTC, wrote Thanks for all the kind reviews everyone! Good luck to you all

Stephen Anastasi: on 8/7/13 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Mike I loved reading this essay. Light and airy and fun to read. Well...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 20:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Mike, Very interesting and entertaining reading! I like how you move...

Gene Barbee: on 8/7/13 at 20:11pm UTC, wrote Hi Mike, information is well defined in information theory (c. Shannon) and...

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga: on 8/7/13 at 19:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Michael, thanks for your rating and I do the same for you. very...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Programming Bits and Getting Its by Michael Helland [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Michael Helland wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 14:59 GMT
Essay Abstract

The “from” in “it from bit” is the focus of this essay. Not just conceptually or figuratively, the task of how to technically formalize the transformation of “bit” into “it” with an algorithm in the era of Big Data is taken head on. The result is a startling new interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Author Bio

Mike Helland is a computer programmer, philosopher, musician, and inventor.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 11:15 GMT
Michael, I like the idea of thinking about what happens in a computer program to understand the relationship between it and bit. I wonder what the future will bring when we have computers that can calculate situations that come close to reality

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 20:05 GMT
Thanks for reading and the comments. I think what will happen in the future will be:

"Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings. It will be the first step towards a reconciliation of physics and philosophy. Perhaps it will be quickly followed by a change of view, to a point from where all of our universe can be seen as a consequence of our possible experiences just as the old philosophers wanted us to see it. What other ways will we have to modify our understanding to accommodate such a theory? Not all can be foreseen."

Look familar? :)

The main way we will have to modify our understanding is that time and space will come in relative and absolute flavors, And so does matter.

Bits are absolute matter, and its are relative matter.

This is, as far as I can tell, what Leibniz was going on about with monads.

Monads are premeasurement, atoms are post measurement.

Bookmark and Share



qsa wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:26 GMT
Hi Mike,

Your idea although very far from complete, there is a hint of truth in it. To see why, please look at my theory where I create a universe(sort of) in a computer using ONLY random numbers .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

qsa replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:36 GMT
I gave toy a 10 for the nice try !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 20:07 GMT
Thank you!

Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on May. 7, 2013 @ 19:13 GMT
Hi Mike,

I am not competent in programming but I think you would be interested in computational loop quantum gravity formulated by Paola Zizzi and some other scientists. They combine digital physics with loop quantum gravity (by Lee Smolin). Maybe you are familiar with CLQG but if not look at Zizzi P. Computability at the Planck scale. arXiv:gr-qc/0412076v2 (2005).

In my opinion when QM and GR are computable and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic. It does not mean that computability and determinism are related (an excerpt from my FXQI essay in 2011).

In conclusion you claim that the most of what we deal with is of a relative reality, of a relative truth, sprouting from an absolute reality that is fundamental to it. OK, I would say that EVERYTHING is of a relative reality and we are not sure if there exists only one absolute reality. That is the problem of QM interpretation and that causes that the essay subject is not trivial.

Good luck Mike!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 20:14 GMT
"We are not sure if there exists only one absolute reality."

Is that meant as absolute reality having an absolute reality of its own, turtles all the way down?

If we state our goal as a complete and consistent theory for all measurements, it isn't surprising ala the Incompleteness Theorem that when employing a superset to our measurements, the new superset poses some unprovable statements of its own.

if that makes any sense.

Thanks for your comments!

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on May. 9, 2013 @ 09:25 GMT
"We are not sure if there exists only one absolute reality" has meant only that there is the many-worlds interpretation of QM. But it is not my favourite.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on May. 23, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Ah, I see.

The Many Worlds interpretation says that there is many different relative realities.

I'm not sure it stakes out a position on an absolute reality.

So absolute -> relative (bit to it) is an alternative interpretation to many worlds which is relative | relative | relative | ect

Also, in this new interpretation is there is no waveform or a collapse of any kind.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on May. 8, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Michael,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the first part of your essay. As I have gone to great pains to explain in my essay, BITTERS, one real Universe can only be occurring once. The problem with information is its apparent repeatability, but no part of unique reality is repeatable. Mathematicians, even quantum mechanists, use the same numbers and symbols and functions over and over again, which is futile as only the unique exists. Unique reality is not subject to calculation. There are no real its and bits of anything. Each real snowflake is unique, once. Each real photon is unique once. I know that both you and I are unique, once.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 00:31 GMT
You say: Mathematicians, even quantum mechanists, use the same numbers and symbols and functions over and over again, which is futile as only the unique exists.

I dont understand precisely why that is futile.

Indeed, your name itself is a symbol you use repeatedly .

Bookmark and Share



Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 10:06 GMT
Mike, an enjoyable and fresh essay. As a side note , I realized by reading your essay that the dream of artificial intelligence will never be met, yes we can design computers to play chess or win in Jeopardy, intelligent they are not. Can these same machines play tiddlywinks, no they have not been programmed to do so, and in the same way they cannot create something new which is the true sign of intelligence. However, that is not the subject matter.

I fully agree with your conclusion that an underlying absolute reality exists and our reality is relative to it. The idea that our QM models (which are based on wave functions) ignore the fact that we are travelling through space at some 370 km/s is absurd. Your idea to use Big Data to model this has one flaw, a simple mathematical algorithm or formula for an absolute point of view must first exist, all our formulas are based on relative point of view. As long as science is short sighted, by being adamant that the relative point of view is the only point of view, we have a loose-loose situation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 00:41 GMT
Hello!

You said : "Your idea to use Big Data to model this has one flaw, a simple mathematical algorithm or formula for an absolute point of view must first exist, all our formulas are based on relative point of view. "

The programmers view of the model is the absolute pov, but, just as the absolute is unobservable, the the programmers view of the model isn't where the models predictions come from.

The model makes predictions only when there are modeled observes with a pov that is defined inside the model.

So its more like this kind of model uses absolute pov to create the relative povs which is more analogous to reality than less complete models.

Thanks for your comments.

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 21:29 GMT
Hi Michael,

I liked your 'soup' approach. The conclusion that there is a “hierarchy of the real” was interesting and thought provoking. Perhaps you might like to take a look at my essay too - any feedback would be appreciated.

Best of luck!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 02:40 GMT
Dear Michael

Very well !

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul N Butler wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear Michael,

Congratulations on opening up a whole new conceptual area for intelligent discussion concerning the nature of the universe. You may not fully realize all of the implications that can result from a thorough analysis of the concepts that you have introduced into the conversation by your paper, but let me assure you that they are many and can, if pursued, lead to a great...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 01:02 GMT
Thanks for the comments. I want to address one thing, you say:

" Your model starts with a giant computer that first defines bits within itself as basic its (basic matter particles, energy photons, etc.). "

This is actually not accurate.

The bits are perhaps similar to electrons and photons, but they are not supposed to be electrons and protons.

The electron-lik and photon-like things are not material and do not obey the laws of physics, namely the uncertainty principle.

However these pseduo-particles arrange into molecule-like objects and then brain-like things that make measurements.

Encoded in the brain-like thing are measurements, and this is where "its" make their appearance in the model, this is finally where electrons and photons and molecules that follow the laws of physics show up.

Particles (its) exist post measurement, encoded in a neural network.

Pre measurement they are not yet matter, stored in the programs variables.

They are bits, or monads.

Notice they are not probabilities and there is no waveform that collapses.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:52 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Michael,

You, probably, haven't gone through the 'Biology' section of my essay and there I have said how 'mind' came in to existence; it is as a result of billions of years of the evolution of Life. It is identified as the over all function of brain and brain,in turn, is composed of living matter in the form of 'neurons' and the brain (now we can call it 'mind') is designed to comprehend its surrounding (i.e., environment) through its cognitive powers.

Mind can know of what happens in its environment only through Bit and there by assessing the situation itself is It. We can have more discussion on it, if you like. I will post my comments on your essay soon.

sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul N Butler wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:42 GMT
Dear Michael,

Thanks for the clarification of your concepts. I had based my comment on concepts that go to the lower level of the structure of photons and matter particles that explains the reasons for the various interaction outcomes and their probabilities, so that there is no need for the use of undefined wave functions and waveform collapse, etc. I, therefore, don’t have to consider...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 05:18 GMT
Dear Michael,

Thank you very much for pointing me to Newton's distinction. I agree with your arguments with just one exception. I tend to identify the reality with what can be discovered mainly be observation, measurement, and reasoning while I see so called absolute reality, e.g. Newton's God, an abstraction. See Fig. 1 of my previous essay.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 07:00 GMT
Hi,

You mention the reality. Like there is one flavor, one recipe.

There are problems with that.

The chair I am sitting in is real.

So is experiencing love,

But they are real in different ways.

Bookmark and Share


Author Michael Helland replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:00 GMT
As I noted in your essay thread, I did not clearly read where you added "while absolute reality". I agree with you, thanks for the comment.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 11:14 GMT
Michael,

Now that's my idea of a top essay, straight to the most important and most poorly understood point. Drive it home with a couple of precise hammer blows, job done! It's also earned my idea of a top score.

I spend a chunk of the middle of my essay trying to explain the very same thing, and it's implications. We mix real nature with metaphysical entities and wonder why our physics is gobblygook!

I hope I've shown the power of recognising, defining and separating the two distinct cases you identify. What I've identified in previous essays is that 'Proper Time' has an associated Proper(gation) Speed, and apparent or 'Co-ordinate Time' then has an APPARENT SPEED associated! i.e. apparent c+v is allowed, but the propagation speed limit remains c.

I do hope you'll read comment on and score my essay too. From yours I particularly commend (and consistent with mine);

"Relative time exists in a relative sense. Absolute time exists in an absolute sense. Relative and absolute don't exist the same way."

"There is measuring tape in the real measurement and not in the model measurement."

"The measurement exists in the complex relational data encoded in the brain."

"Bits and its now exist differently in the model. They are two different sets of information. They are both real but in different ways. The computer program deals with the information it assigns to and accesses from variables."

Excellent job. Well done, and very best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Thanks for your comments and also your essay.

It is a strange feeling participating in this event, as I am not accustomed to ideas like ours being received kindly.

Thanks again!

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
Michael,

I agree. Let's make the most of it, it's back to doctrine next week!

Have you read Einstein's 1952 (english 54) paper? He discussed the conceptions of "Infinitely many spaces within spaces" as Minkowski in 1908, and then considers 'small space s in motion within and with respect to larger space S'.

We know than light and EM (radio) signals pass through the solar system (Barycentric frame) at c wrt the sun. We also know EM waves are scattered to c by particle mediums however diffuse, so our ionosphere/atmosphere would of course then represent the smaller space s in motion within the larger space, the heliosphere, which is then itself in motion wrt the galaxy, etc, etc, exactly as he specified. So inertial systems are then REAL! always scattering light to local c. Even a lens or single particle will do so. Think hard!

My previous 2 essays present the case. I hope you get to read (and importantly score!) this years. Ignore the Abstract and read the glowing blog reviews (apart from basudeba who disagrees!).

Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

PS; The 'quark-gluon soup' of particle physics must be different for every proton. Perhaps so much for the assumption of QM!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:48 GMT
Dear Michael,

Your computer based simulation of It and Bit is an innovative way of comprehending the relationship existing between them. It is good to see that you have distinguished between two types of realities; absolute and relative, and also that science deals with relative form of reality and it cannot know the absolute reality hiding behind it. Relative reality springs from the absolute one; relative reality is a small pot of soup, whereas absolute reality is a monolithic pot of soup. Similarly you have split information in to absolute and relative and want to rest quantum mechanics on absolute information of the algorithm and its data.

I appreciate your ideas and it would be good if you put them in to practice.

Wish you all the best in the contest and I would like to rate your essay with a very good score.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT
Thank you!

I would like to comment on the soup again.

If absolute is a large bowl and relative a small bowl, then it should be pointed out that you can not pour from one bowl to the other.

Take the variables in a program, say x and y.

You can make what ever statements you want with these, x - y, xy, sqr(x - y), sect.

Now remember the observers measurement, 13 feet. Recall that he measurement is not stored in a variable but encoded in the simulated neural net.

Because of this you can not write a compilable statement that uses x, y, and the measurement 13 feet.

They are two fundamentally different.

Likewise the ingredients for the big bowl soup and the ingredients for the small bowl are on different planesof eexistence.

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 02:53 GMT
Clearly written with a friendly style. I appreciate that you have tackled the question very directly.I like your methodical approach.

I'm not sure the output obtained from bits of information are really its though. The output, simulated 'its' are certainly different from the absolute unmeasured its making up the computer or a brain.(You have differentiated between absolute and relative matter) There is electrical and chemical activity and growth of the neural network in response to stimulation but not creation of atoms, though perception of objects (that are thought to be 'built' from atoms),via images of them. (Hope that makes sense.)There is perception with *brain activity* but storage in the pattern of neural connections.

You are accounting for information and output but wanting to make the hardware or wetware required into further output by the simulation. Then you have bit to simulated it (structure) to simulated it (simulated sensory output).Making a computer analogue of perception, with simulated output its, from bits and simulated wetware its. Think I've got it, but I need to put in 'simulated' to keep track of whats what.

Mike Helland wrote "The main way we will have to modify our understanding is that time and space will come in relative and absolute flavors, And so does matter." Well said. Good luck , Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Thank you so much.

You have broken its into simulated wetware and simulated measurements. I think hats a reasonable version, but for merely for the sake of discussion let me tell you why I've the approach I have.

Lets say we are dissecting a mammal. In our textbooks there is dashed line separating the brain from the brain stem. Is that dashed line on the specimen?

We create the difference between brains and brain stems in biology, and hence we create brans and brain stems in biology.

So the simulated wetware is not an it. The simulated wetware are just compounds of bits.

It is when these compounds of bits make measurements that their neural activity creates relative space, relative time, and relative matter icluding electrons, photons, atoms, molecules, tape measures, planets, people, and brains.

The neural activity mentioned previously does not belong to a brain (because it creates the bran) but a brain-like compounds of bits.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 07:24 GMT
Hi Michael,

Thank you for helping me understand your explanation. Good question springs to mind, is a brain built from atoms or built from information?In your scenario it is an accumulation of bits. Which makes sense to me for a simulation. Though in external reality (outside of human or computer simulation) I think the answer would have to be both. The gross structure is from presumably genetic and biochemical controlled developmental processes but the fine structure from the flow of information within the brain. So is it a macro it or a macro output of bits? Both I think.So in the simulated brain would it be an accumulation of bits that encode the gross structure but also the macro output of other bits that flow through the structure and direct the development of the fine structure?

The relative things ( which I think are manifestations observed) are very different from absolute things because they are collections of characteristics that are stored in diffuse locations rather than as one thing in one isolated location in the brain. Thought that worth mentioning in my essay. I think that's an interesting difference between objects and the images fabricated from information received and important consideration for a simulation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 07:34 GMT
Brains and atoms are its.

They are physical matter, in relative space operating along physical clocks depicting relative time.

All its exist as measurements defined in the neural network of a mind, and a mind is a compound of bits that makes measurements of other bits.

What I have essentially done is place all physical phenomena in Popper's World Three and replaced World 1 with the algorithm, ie: information.

That's it from bit.

Bookmark and Share



Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Hello Michael

I just read your post on James Lee Hoover's 'It's good to be king.' I agree with your comments, and wonder if you would be so kind as to look at and rate my essay.

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 02:14 GMT
Hi Michael,

I used to go with the alias QSA and I was first to complement you. Now I have my essay which explains my theory a bit better than my website which you have seen. However I have added some programs in my website, and I will add more soon. Please tell me if you understand my system or not. I will rate you very good.

Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website

http://www.qsa.netne.net

please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

you can find my essay at this link

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

Adel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 01:42 GMT
Hi Michael,

I think you are right to distinguish the information used to construct a simulation of a virtual world from the information available via measurements taken within the world. (For example, beings within a virtual world may not be able to tell how long each virtual timestep takes to compute, as to them all timesteps would seem uniform.) David Deutsch has made the argument that, because of the universality of computation, we cannot know anything for sure about the "hardware" that our universe runs on, if it is a simulation.

Do you have an idea of how to model observers within such a virtual world? Do they each have their own private information/memories related to their perspective and history within the world? Is this a different kind of information from the other two types or is it stored in one or the other types of memory?

My essay Software Cosmos also describes a virtual world model: I describe a possible software architecture and carry out a test to see if we live in such a simulation.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Helland replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:59 GMT
Thanks for your comments!

You ask : Do you have an idea of how to model observers within such a virtual world?

Sure. Start with bits as explained by the essay. These bits may be similar in some ways to electrons, photons, quarks, etc but it is important o keep in mind they are not electrons, ect because those show up later.

They differ from electrons, photons, quarks sect in that they are immaterial and don't necessarily follow the laws of physics such as the uncertainty principle, that too comes later.

Use those bits to make compounds which are atom-like (again not atoms proper yet) and use those compounds to build more compounds that are molecule-like.

With those make something human like in that it has something like a brain and eyeballs.

Once the enormous compound of bits begins making measurements of its world, the bits don't stop being bits, but deep inside, encoded in the neural pathways of the brain-like compound, is something entirely new.

Those are the its, the material objects that are the focus of science and most of our daily lives, which include houses, cars, people, planets, molecules, electrons photons and quarks, whose behavior is generalized as the laws of physics.

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Michael,

What a clever and insightful interpretation of QM, I found you statement, "Reality isn't soup. There is a 'hierarchy of the real' [3], where most of what we deal with is of a relative reality, of a relative truth, sprouting from an absolute reality that is fundamental to it." to be in keeping with the findings of a recently concluded 12 year experiment.

I would like to run some questions by you via email if I may and would like to know your email address? Or if you like you can send me an email to msm@physicsofdestiny.com

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Michael,

As I mentioned previously, I found your essay to be clever and insightful interpretation of QM and in keeping with the findings of a recently concluded 12 year experiment. I was wondering if you have considered fuzzy logic algorithms? I thought that perhaps you were going in that direction.

In any case, I hope your original approach will make it to the finals.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Michael,

We all struggle with the concept reality just because reality is always flying away from us, like you are mentioning measurements, the problem is always the reference, and if a reference is material it is like reality flying away. The reference of reference is in my opinion "consciousness".

So when the soup is too hot it cannot be eaten, because the present is already past.

I liked your approach, and valued it with an 8, perhaps you may also like mine

"THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE" link

hope for your comment.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 13:06 GMT
Dear Michael,

The ideas of John Wheeler, "trouble with physics" and the contest itself FQXi make every researcher to "dig" deep into philosophy. John Wheeler left a good covenant: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. You have made a very interesting sweeping conclusions:

«Reality isn't soup. There is a "hierarchy of the real", where most of what we deal with is of a relative reality, of a relative truth, sprouting from an absolute reality that is fundamental to it. Likewise, our future theories and models of quantum mechanics will be layered sets of information: the absolute information of the algorithm and its data, and the relative information emerging from internal measurements. That latter information, the measurements the internal observer made of its world, are the model's predictions that we should compare with the measurements we make of our world. »

Totally agree with you. I only have two questions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.
htm

In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to" an unlimited number »of viewers".

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And the second question: Why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Michael,

I added my rating.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 05:08 GMT
Hi Michael,

Your essay is enjoyable to read and your critics is transparent. Main thing

for my that you have understand what is what! I am saying: no need to mix independent physical realities with human's abstract creations!

I have high rated your essay.

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Michael,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

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

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:45 GMT
Michael - Interesting essay; short but very thought provoking. Being someone who stands with one foot in computer science and the other in physics, I really enjoyed your combining the two in something other than a pot of soup.

I also started out trying to solve a thorny problem in computer science, but then found I had to delve into the physics for an answer. You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

I would be honored to hear your opinion of it. Should I not quit my day job ;-) ?

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David M Reid wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi, Michael,

Your essay is excellent: straightforward, getting the point across in a very effective, readable and at times humorous fashion. Top rating.

And thanks for your kindness vis-à-vis my essay.

In my time zone it is night, so I have no more time to comment, but must go to bed. (So yours is the last essay I read before the deadline.)

All the best, David

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
Motion is everywhere,

Duality is everywhere,

1 and 10 is everywhere,

Our effectiveness reasoning is binary,

With me or against me,

And some refuse to believe in the reality of duality.

Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:42 GMT
Dear Michael,

thanks for your rating and I do the same for you.

very interesting essay, I agree with you completely, information has a hierachical structure with many layers (including also its semantic).

It was ghood that Matt brought us together.

All the best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:11 GMT
Hi Mike, information is well defined in information theory (c. Shannon) and thermodynamics uses a similar form. My 2012 essay (now posted as vixra 1307.0082) cracked the code and gave the relationship to particle data and interactions. I don't where the code came from, but it might be interesting for a programmer to look at it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Mike,

Very interesting and entertaining reading! I like how you move between programming and physics (myself being part programmer, part studying physics).

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Mike

I loved reading this essay. Light and airy and fun to read. Well done.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Thanks for all the kind reviews everyone! Good luck to you all

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:34 GMT
Wow Michael,

Right on. I greatly enjoyed the fun romp of your essay. Reality is not a soup, but is often treated that way by Physics folks, with Classical, Quantum, and Relativistic ingredients, all boiled down and simmered over a hot flame. Oh boy! Sounds yummy, huh? Perhaps some "Quantum Soup" a la Al Huang, but not exactly what Physics is about. So I like your idea better.

One caveat though; Big Data alone is not enough. Geoffrey West, in the May 2013 Scientific American calls for a unified conceptual framework of complexity, without which we will not be able to use 'Big Data' effectively, to make sense of the world. West states that without a "big theory" to explain it, 'Big Data' "loses most of its potency and usefulness, potentially generating new unintended consequences."

But if your goal was to make me think, it worked.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:36 GMT
Yes it was me.

Thought I was signed in.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:18 GMT
Hello again Michael,

It's good to see you made it. Best of luck in the finals.

Regards,

Jonathan

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.