FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

Millennia ago, mankind arrived at a fork in the road. It became essential to answer a foundational question about the space in our universe. Are the most fundamental units of geometry, objects of zero dimension (dimensionless points) or would they be objects of an infinitesimal magnitude (extended points, i.e. monads)? As directed by Plato, physicists have followed the Zero Point road as an act of faith. Drawing on cues from the Pythagoreans, Aristotle, Proclus, Leibniz, Newton and Wheeler himself, we embark on a trip along Monad road. We report our suspicion that Mother Nature may have been using monads secretly as the 'it' (hardware), and their variable lifetimes as the 'bit' (the information and the software) of a digital universe, without obtaining Plato's consent.

Author Bio

Akinbo Ojo is a 1986 medical graduate of the University of Lagos, Nigeria and a practising physician. He has a keen interest in foundational physics topics and has authored a few unpublished papers. He also enjoys 'dialectic' with physicists over the internet.

Download Essay PDF File

Dr. Ojo,

I enjoyed reading your elegantly written essay, with its theme of "taking the road less traveled by". But I would like to focus on a more recent fork in the road, associated with wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. Given the difficulty in choosing between a wave route and a particle route, the physics community in the 1930s refused to decide, and insisted that one can travel along both roads simultaneously. This is logically inconsistent, and is not resolved by application of abstract mathematics. I addressed this in last year's essay, "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality" , where I pointed out that a consistent picture of quantum waves (not point particles) on the micro level leads directly to classical particle trajectories on the macro level. In this year's essay, "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" , I show how the same consistent quantum picture leads simply to general relativity, but in a way that avoids mathematical artifacts such as event horizons and black holes. This is highly heretical, but such a unified foundation is what Einstein and others sought for without success. Furthermore, breakthroughs in science are not obtained by following the crowd; I, too, prefer to take the road less traveled by.

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 19:24 GMT

Hi Alan,

Thanks for reading my essay and the road less traveled by will be less lonely if I have you for company :)

I observe your interest on wave-particle duality, which is one of the encountered difficulties on the zero point road. I therefore think it better to go further back in physics to identify the root cause of your area of interest.

One puzzle for you to ponder over, since the origin of duality started with the photon: When a light beam emerges from water to air, it starts travelling at a speed higher than hitherto. What is the origin of this speed increase? It is only waves that can increase speed when moving from one medium to another, particles cannot increase their speed that way. I may post more paradoxes on your essay page.

The import of monadology is that space is not a "nothing" but becomes substantival and will transmit signals as waves.

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 27, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT

I have read your article on the wave-particle duality. As I said some of the problems may result from the view that space is a 'nothing'.

You said "So if an electron is truly a fundamental particle, it had to be a point particle,which clearly cannot be divided further.." Is your definition of point particle one of zero dimension?

You also said "Applying special relativity to this massive photon in its rest

frame.." Can a photon be at rest in any frame? What is the velocity in other frames? These are unintended fall outs of what you rightly pointed out as "Generations of physicists have been educated to ignore physical intuition about the paradoxes, while focusing on mathematics divorced from physical pictures. In response, the field of theoretical physics became more mathematically abstract, straying far from its origins explaining the behavior of real objects

moving in real space"

The correctness or not of NQP proposal must come after you have first settled the question whether space is nothing but a relational entity or on the contrary a substantial thing.

Regards

Dr. Ojo,

That is a very well presented argument for extended point objects. While I certainly agree the zero point is an abstraction canceled by the very laws of abstract math it supports, ie, anything multiplied by zero is zero, thus a zero dimensional point is no more real than a zero dimensional apple, I think monads have their own conceptual problems, in the border issue. Necessarily a...

view entire post

Dr. Ojo,

That is a very well presented argument for extended point objects. While I certainly agree the zero point is an abstraction canceled by the very laws of abstract math it supports, ie, anything multiplied by zero is zero, thus a zero dimensional point is no more real than a zero dimensional apple, I think monads have their own conceptual problems, in the border issue. Necessarily a border would have to be smaller than the dimension it limits, but this refutes the claim of smallest possible measure. If the border is only as small as the dimension it defines, then the property would be a wave, or approximation that could extend to infinity, as such units cannot be isolated from one another. They combine, like Bose-Einstein condensate.

Think of this in math that we are not actually adding the contents of sets, but the sets and coming up with a larger set. 2+2=4 is 2 sets of 2 added into a set of 4. As the parts of your body are not just a sum, but a larger whole.

I think we need to go back and reconsider the idea of space as having no physical properties, because this does give it two attributes, since it cannot be bound, bent, divided, etc. So it would be absolute(inertial) and infinite. Consider the centrifugal force of Newton's buckets. It is not due to any outside frame, but the relationship of spin to inertia. The forces are not pulling against space, but each other. If it were only one bucket, it would fly off in a straight line. So the buckets are like 1+(-1), while space is 0. Nothing pulls against space, but against an opposite force in space. It is shown that overall space is flat, ie observed expansion is matched by gravitational contraction. What gets overlooked with the expanding universe model is that we can only observe the light of distant galaxies that has managed to travel between all the intervening galaxies. So if the space between galaxies is said to expand in inverse proportion to which it is collapsing into them and we can only observe the light that has traveled between the galaxies, it would appear the overall space is expanding because we can only see half the effect, that which expanded, not what was contracted, on this distant light.

Consider the Big Bang model still assumes a stable speed of light. In other words, it is said that galaxies x lightyears apart will eventually grow to be 2x lightyears apart and eventually fade from view. This distance is still being considered in terms of stable lightyears. What dimension of space determines the length of a lightyear, if it is argued the very essence of space is expanding? How can space be expanding when our only real measure of it is still assumed to be stable?

If we are to posit that for every effect, there is an opposite effect, then the opposite of absolute would be infinite. What occupies space is mass and radiant energy. Mass seems attracted to the inert, while light is attracted to the infinite. The resulting cycle would seem to be expressed in galaxies drawing mass into a vortex and light escaping it to expand out to near infinity. That microwave background radiation would logically be the solution to Olber's paradox, the light of ever more distant sources redshifted off the visible spectrum and those fluctuations in it are not the embryos of future galaxies, but the shadows of ever more distant ones.

It should also be noted the only reason to insist on recession as the cause of redshift is the insistence on thinking of light as only a point particle, that can not be redshifted otherwise, yet how do we know light actually travels as a point and not an expanding wave? It has no internal gravity or mass to hold it to a point, so its nature is to expand and it is only when it is received by a detector, does it collapse to the necessary quantity to "pop" the electron to a higher orbit.

So "space" collapses gravitationally, because points of mass draw together, but its measure expands because light does. The monad goes to infinity.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT

Hello John,

I appreciate your comments on my paper. You mention your difficulty on the border issue.... "Necessarily a border would have to be smaller than the dimension it limits, but this refutes the claim of smallest possible measure". If you consider that a border is a geometric object (likely to be a line or curve) and the Pythagorean idea is that the monad is the smallest possible geometric object, then it cannot have a shape and that being so it cannot have defined borders. Borders are attributes of composite geometric objects or else you start asking how many parts can a border be divided into? I agree the picture is not a familiar, everyday one but based on logic I concur with Leibniz on that attribute. Do you still disagree on the border issue? Regards

Akinbo: I think the reasons you adduce in favor of something like Leibniz's monads are basically sound -- and they're the reasons Leibniz gave, as well as the reasons Kant gave for "things in the themselves" (i.e. noumena). The argument is this: the physical things and properties we observe and measure (e.g. mass, extension, charge, etc.) are simply *relations* between things. Mass *is* what...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 20:00 GMT

Dear Marcus,

I am happy you found time to read my essay and would probably want you to enjoy a tour on Monad Highway. You must be aware that on the zero point road, we have been having different drivers changing seats. First the Mathematicians, then the Particle theorists and probably Computer scientists are warming up going by this year's essay topic. I recall Einstein saying somewhere that the moment mathematicians took over his theory he himself could no longer recognize it anymore. I will therefore not give you reassurance by delving into 'probabilistic blurs' so as not to fall into the trap of Mathematicians... The issue to focus on is whether there is a limit to divisibility? Mathematically, the answer is NO but Physically, what is your take? Cheers

Michael Helland replied on May. 30, 2013 @ 01:36 GMT

Monads are what matter is pre-measurement.

Particles, atoms, molecules, and stuff in general exist as measurements the monads made of themselves.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Ojo,

I thought your essay was very well written. As I have explained in my essay BITTERS, the real Universe and everything in it is unique, once. As conspicuously noted in your essay, philosophers and mathematicians have historically always ignored unique in favor of attempting to propound some sort of repeatable identical theoretical states. They have easily described the identical properties of the invisible.

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 20:05 GMT

Dear Joe,

I will read your essay BITTERS this weekend and thanks for your comment. Like I have asked others, what is your take on whether or not there is a limit to divisibility? Do you agree that a line has no breadth and a surface can really exist with zero thickness?

Regards,

Akinbo

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 27, 2013 @ 14:15 GMT

Hi Joe,

I have read your essay titled BITTERS but I will do so only ONCE :) The title and the abstract do not do justice to the SWEETNESS contained in the body of the essay. There is a resemblance between your 'unique' viewpoint and the powerful Philosophy of the One advocated by Parmenides and his student Zeno. You can google this and also check them out in the Aristotle references in my essay.

The questions I asked in my last post I think will throw light on your uniqueness theory.

Cheers.

Akinbo

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT

Dr. Ojo,

I am terribly sorry for rudely not answering your question, I lost track of my essay comments. Uniqueness cannot be quantified, qualified or rectified. Real uniqueness cannot be contrived, constructed or construed. Nature only deals in real uniqueness once and it only produces one whole real thing once. For instance, nature has produced one real unique whole me and one real unique whole you once. Mathematicians believe that there are such things as postulated identical “whole “ numbers, and these identical “whole” numbers can be odd or even and they can be repeatedly divided, multiplied and equated, provided some sort of abstract identical laws are applied to the process. Whereas there is no limit to the divisibility of an abstract 1, a real one cannot ever be divided.

Unique real nature does not provide any separable lines or surfaces.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Ojo,

You wrote "then the definition of the point and other objects of geometry

will eventually need to be revisited." While I enjoy many aspects of your refreshing approach, I prefer to simply distinguish instead between the ideal Euclidean mathematical object point, Leibniz's infinitesimal, and the assumed smallest physical entity.

You might read earlier essays of mine. Recently I got aware of what I consider an inconsistency in Wheeler's thinking: The dichotomy of yes/no-questions corresponds to rational numbers. The calculus used as to derive putatively physical singularities is based on the trichotomy of the real numbers. If Wheeler is correct, and the reality can be thought as a superposition on yes/no-basis, then the singularities are mere mathematical fictions like for instance the middle line inside of a electric conductor.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT

Hi Eckard,

Thanks for your comments. I will try and read your essay this weekend and give you my opinion.

Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 30, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT

Dear Eckard,

I have read your essays 369 and 527. Both reflect your strong engineering background. Signalling as well as Classical and Quantum measurements take place in an arena we call 'space'. All are agreed on this.

Surely, whether or not this arena is a "nothing", i.e. merely a relational concept which by implication will be infinitely divisible being a mathematical entity as propagated by the Platonic school OR a "something", i.e. a substantival thing, which by implication of the action-reaction principle must be capable of acting and being acted upon, must have implications for signalling and measurements.

Again, in line with the theme of this year's essay, if the arena is a substantival thing, then Nature can store its information in it.

Being an engineer you can explore what ideas such as 'Cellular Automaton', 'A New Kind of Science' by Stephen Wolfram, 'Digital Physics' by Edward Fredkin can do for your theories on signalling (check these out initially on Wikipedia).

Until proved otherwise, for me, monads are candidates for the fundamental Cellular Automata.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

The most striking thing about your essay is the glossary at the beginning. For unambiguous communication, we must assign precise and fixed meaning to the technical terms we use. Unfortunately, most scientists use an operational definition, which can be suitably manipulated in all possible manner. Congratulations for this bold approach. However, we wish you should have also defined...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

The most striking thing about your essay is the glossary at the beginning. For unambiguous communication, we must assign precise and fixed meaning to the technical terms we use. Unfortunately, most scientists use an operational definition, which can be suitably manipulated in all possible manner. Congratulations for this bold approach. However, we wish you should have also defined space, time and dimension, since you have discussed these quite often. And your ending is really dramatic.

The first 5 pages of your essay can be summarized as follows: Dimensions are perceived (ocular perception) through electromagnetic radiation, where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions which differentiate the “internal structural space” – bare mass from the “external relational space” – the radiative mass. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound. A point, which does not have “internal structural space”, cannot have dimension. The outgoing electro-component associated with heat energy also propagates through conduction, convection and radiation in objects associated with these states. But what about the propagation of a point, which does not have “internal structural space”, but has “external relational space” (because it has existence)? Like a photon it radiates. What is its life-time?

Time is the ordered sequential arrangement of events that shows their mutual degree of priority or posterity just like space is the interval between objects. In absolute terms, no event can be said to be the first event or the last event. Hence time, like space, is infinite. But unlike space, time comes in cycles – from being to becoming to growth, transformation, transmutation and finally destruction. This is the life-time. These cycles are different for different species. Hence relativistically, they lead to time dilation. Since everything moves like a wave which is cyclic, the minimum life time can be the time taken to cover one wave length. And that is also the maximum life time for it, because it has no dimension. Only the wave existed to give its perception indirectly. This is what is meant by virtual particles pop out and vanish in the quantum states. The photon is absorbed at only one place, so the cycle of the re-emitted wave comes from that point.

There is a fine glitch in Newton’s action-reaction principle. Though every action produces an equal and opposite reaction, most of the time, the reaction is non-linear, whereas the action is linear. But most text books interpret it wrongly.

The simplest answer to Zeno’s paradox is that velocity is related to the mass of the body that is moving, the energy used (force applied) to move it and the total density of and the totality of the energy operating on the field. These are all mobile units against the back drop of the field that is static with reference to these. Middle of the distance is related to the frame of reference, which is relatively static with reference to the other mobile aspects. Thus, it is like comparing position and momentum. They do not commute. Hence there is no paradox, which is borne out of experience. While the middle of the distance is gradually reduced, the velocity is not reduced by the same proportion.

Rest of your points we have already discussed in our essay.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 08:33 GMT

Hi Basudeba,

Thanks for reply.

RE: Dimensions are perceived (ocular perception) through electromagnetic radiation, …

No. I don’t agree. Dimension can also be perceived in other ways, e.g. by sense of touch

RE: A point, which does not have “internal structural space”, cannot have dimension.

A fundamental geometric object cannot have internal structure. It can "have no parts". See Euclid's definition and my reference to a translation of Leibniz Monadology, available online). The issue whether a fundamental object can or cannot have dimension IS THE CRUX of the matter!!. Plato is not sure but asks us to assume they cannot have dimension. Aristotle, Proclus, Leibniz and the Pythagoreans INSIST that that fundamental object cannot be dimensionless if it exists.

RE: no event can be said to be the first event or the last event. Hence time, like space, is infinite.

Possibly. But if the universe has a beginning and emerged from nothing then there is a first event and if there is going to be a Big Crunch, there will be a last event.

RE: Zeno's Dichotomy paradox has nothing to do with velocity, unless you are referring to his paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. What Zeno is saying is that IF there is an infinite number of places between origin and destination then the runner will not reach his destination. For an account of the paradoxes, check out

http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

http://plato.stanford.edu
/entries/paradox-zeno

Wikipedia

Best regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I was very impressed with your essay. I have tried to prepare a comment on your essay, walking along the Extended Point Highway, but I am uncertain as to how the 'point' or 'extension' works in with Leibniz' belief that perception and consciousness cannot be 'mechanical'. So rather than display my confusion, I became sidetracked by a comment you made on Phil Gibbs' blog. Referring to the concept of bit as the answer to 'yes/no' questions, you asked Phil:

"What is the question?'

I believe that the essential question is 'One or Many?'

The Multiverse theory is based on hundreds of (hypothesized) fields, leading to 10-to-the-500 universes, all invoked to explain 'fine tuning'.

The Zen 'theory' is that the universe is essentially, 'not-two'.

I tend to fall on the 'not-two' side and address this in my essay. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed your essay.

Welcome to FQXi. You are already a valued participant.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 08:58 GMT

Thanks Eugene!

As you must have observed there are so many similarities between our essays. I think the appropriate place to comment on your essay is on your blog and I will be doing that right away.

RE: I believe that the essential question is 'One or Many?'

Before asking this, dont you think you should ask the question: existing (1)/not existing (0)? Then, if the binary answer is 1, ONLY THEN you follow up with ONE or MANY? But if you ask me, that is the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION and till today it has not been answered to everybody's satisfaction. Somewhere in Aristotle's papers, either Physics or Metaphysics you will find more. Parmenides and his student Zeno are the major proponents and are yet to be fully faulted, despite the use of Calculus and other mathematical tools (see Dowden' article on Zeno http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

I am glad to be in this community and someone here, Joe, always brings a smile to my face when I see 'codswallop'. He appears to believe in 'not-two' as well, though he prefers the term UNIQUE and ONCE.

Cheers and all the best.

Akinbo

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 23:08 GMT

Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for reading and for your gracious comments. I've observed that you always ask good questions!

1.) As I noted in an earlier essay, Eugenio Calabi in 1953 essentially asked if our Master equation was valid:

"Could there be gravity ... even if space is a vacuum totally devoid of matter?"

He reasoned: "...being non-linear, gravity can interact with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 23:18 GMT

Akinbo,

Too many windows open. The above was intended for my blog, where you numbered your questions.

As for your question above, I tend to assume existence, but if one has doubts, then I agree, that is the first question!

Joe is also right, but tends, I believe, to overlook some of the fine points.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 23:47 GMT

Akinbo,

You have, I believe, asked the same tough question on both our blogs so I am answering on both blogs. The question is about "the not-two aspect of reality". You note that Parmenides said "of necessity one thing exists, viz., the existent and nothing else."

If this is true then several questions arise: how to conceive of or represent this fact. And whether this is merely a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Akinbo,

Beautifully written essay, good concept and well argued. I agree the fork analogy (and also used it often) and particularly the argument about the implications of non-point particles. I hope you may read my last years essay which went a long way down that road and found many implications, as well as this years, firmly distinguishing the mathematical 'point' from nature.

One proposal is that Monad density may be variable and indeed have gravitational potential, so equivalent to dark matter. I identified these in my 2011 essay as the ions of the iono/ plasmaspheres of space, which then also act as the a border of 'boundary' condition and mechanism. This may help show the great potential of the fork you take.

As Einstein said objects are not 'in' space but are 'spatially extended'. The border may then be a scattering surface defining an inertial system.

Well written, good to read, and certainly a very good score to come from me. I'd also greatly welcome your views on my own essay, which may just give you a (rather dense) taste of what I have derived may lie down that road to 'physical reality'.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 11:48 GMT

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your comments. I have commented on your blog for last year's essay and right after this will be commenting on your essay for this year.

On Monads having variable density, it is my opinion that mass and so density is an acquired attribute and so will be a property of composite things. Apart from mass-energy 'interconversion' which suggests that mass is not fundamental. I have also suggested elsewhere that there will be a "temperature problem" in cosmology unless the universe's mass was increasing with its radius, starting from an initial Planck mass, 10^-8kg. Without this the universe will have a temperature 10^47K rather than 10^32K if all the universe's mass now ~10^52kg was present in the early era, inflation or not. (You can check this out yourself using the law relating energy density to temperature). I therefore appreciate your position but to me like the Pythagoreans, the SOLE property of monads is Position.

On what Einstein said, while not always agreeing with all he postulates, I think what this means is that Space is NOT JUST THE CONTAINER but is THE CONTENT as well. And then what is an object? Is a 'geometric point' an object? If so, then the Einstein saying you quote implies it is extended and has a physical reality. What is the consequence of this?

Let me stop here now and drop a few lines on your blog for this year's essay which I just read.

Regards,

Akinbo

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT

Akinbo,

Just a quickie amid wading through other essays.

You suggest, as the doctrine, that dark matter can't be baryonic. Do you have any other reason than it's low/zero em cross section? Did you know that plasma, including H, He etc ions, has a refractive index of one, giving it a zero em cross section? Very few in MS seem to know or case anything about plasma physics so such things get ignored.

Last year I fully argued the solid case for fermion pair production as the basis for dark matter, but leading to a significant baryon fraction.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the fine essay. It seems then that Plato wins the verdict - the abstract geometrical form of "point" cannot be pinned down by the finite limitations of the physical world, but exist most beautifully in the higher mental realm. Indeed, for the mathematician, the line is infinitely divisible and a multiplicity of infinities can easily be imagined. Not so for the poor physicist who must suffer with the ugly discontinuity of monads that pop in and out of existence.

Query - for physics to be complete, do monads require other properties than simply on or off?

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT

Hi George,

I like your humor! And it seems you really grasped what I had to say. Will look out for your essay here or in previous contests as I am just popping into existence here.

Now as to your query... To make things easier for the physicist it would have been easier for the monad to have other properties. But as Einstein would say, "an inner voice" tells me that the Old One would love to build reality out of the least number and the simplest of properties/ raw materials, i.e. "space" and "time" alone. All other properties, like charge, mass, etc must in someway be acquired properties and not fundamental. Wheeler himself tried to reduce ALL physics to GEOMETRO (space)-DYNAMICS (time).I think his undoing was his travelling on Zero Point road.

Cheerio,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Hi. Yours was a very good essay! As you mentioned in your posting on my essay, several of us are thinking along the same lines: using a bottom-up approach to model reality based on discrete units (monads, existent states, etc.). In addition to Franklin Hu, Kjetil Hustveit had a similar essay.

If I understood it correctly, one of the things I don't think I'll...

view entire post

Akinbo,

Hi. Yours was a very good essay! As you mentioned in your posting on my essay, several of us are thinking along the same lines: using a bottom-up approach to model reality based on discrete units (monads, existent states, etc.). In addition to Franklin Hu, Kjetil Hustveit had a similar essay.

If I understood it correctly, one of the things I don't think I'll agree on is that monads/existent states can't have a border. In my thinking, the border is not some separate structure because as someone above pointed out, this would be smaller than the monad, which would then lead to the conclusion that the monad isn't the smallest particle size. Instead, I think the monad/existent state and its border are really one and the same thing. I think this is necessitated by there being no interior contents within the monad (since it's the smallest existent unit size). In fact, I'd vote that the reason anything (monads, books, clouds, etc.) exists at all is because it is a grouping defining what is contained within. This grouping or defining relationship is equivalent to a border that gives substance and existence to the thing. Without a grouping saying what is contained within, the thing wouldn't exist.

This next part is usually where I usually lose people, so you might want to stop here. But, I think that at the smallest, most fundamental level, the only thing that can act as its own grouping or border is the complete lack-of-all, or what we used to refer to as "non-existence" or "nothing". "Non-existence" (lack of space, time, volume, energy, matter, mathematical and abstract constructs, minds, etc.) would be a situation that acts as its own grouping/defining relationship/border. By its very nature, it says the entirety of all that is present or not present is contained in this lack of all. That is, if we could think of this supposed lack-of-all a little differently, we would see that it's actually an existent state, a monad. Said another way, our distinction between "nothing" and "something" is not correct. They're just two different words for describing the same underlying thing. Monad/smallest-existent-state would be another word for this underlying thing.

Anyways, I think your essay was excellent, and I just wish more (or any) physicists and philosophers would start using the type of bottom-up reasoning that you use.

Roger

P.S. Sometimes, I think that studying biology helps in this type of thinking because we have to think in terms of things (cells, molecules) and physical mechanisms as opposed to physicists who think in terms of abstract/mental images.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT

Thanks Roger for your comprehensive reply. I believe this forum will bring back the 'dialectic' and reductio ad absurdum arguments that placed physics, hitherto called 'natural philosophy' where it was till the end of Newton's era.

You say, "If I understood it correctly, one of the things I don't think I'll agree on is that monads/existent states can't have a border. In my thinking, the border is not some separate structure because as someone above pointed out.."

RE: Yes. The scenario is an unfamiliar one. We are used to things having borders and shapes in everyday life. But then, what is a 'border'? Is it not made of lines and curves? If lines and curves are geometrically composite things, how then can a fundamental geometric unit have them? So I agree 100% with your comment that "Instead, I think the monad/existent state AND its border are really one and the same thing". In this vein I also agree that a grouping, being a composite can have a border. Leibniz agrees with us in paragraphs 1-3, see his Monadology:

"1. My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple

substance. By calling it ‘simple’ I mean that it has no parts,

though it can be a part of something composite.

2. There must be simple substances, because there are composites.

A composite thing is just a collection of simple ones

that happen to have come together.

3. Something that has no parts can’t be extended, CAN'T HAVE A SHAPE, and can’t be split up. So monads are the true atoms of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made".

You say, "This next part is usually where I usually lose people, so you might want to stop here".

Hmmm...I wont stop here, so we can thrash this out I will say more on your blog since you raise the issue.

All the best,

Akinbo

Roger Granet replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 02:31 GMT

Akinbo,

Thanks for the reply. That Leibniz sounds like he was a pretty smart guy! I'll write more over at your other comment. See you there!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

Though energy is quantified, that does not mean that the Planck constant is a minimum energy, and hence the Planck length the smallest possible length in the universe.

The short reasoning* is that since in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies, temperatures, so we need more and more decimals to distinguish successive...

view entire post

Hi Akinbo,

Though energy is quantified, that does not mean that the Planck constant is a minimum energy, and hence the Planck length the smallest possible length in the universe.

The short reasoning* is that since in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies, temperatures, so we need more and more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels, the energy gap between subsequence levels can become arbitrarily small: though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum, so the Planck length and Planck time etc. have no special significance.

The Planck constant h is like the number 1 in mathematics, encompassing all values between 0.5 and 1.5, so if we can measure the Planck constant in more decimals, at higher energies, then we can write that number as 1.0, which encompasses all numbers between 0.95 and 1.05.

So if in our equations we set h = 1, then every time we improve the accuracy of the Planck constant, then we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10.

Though there is no smallest distance, to what extent spacetime itself is detailed depends on the energy density somewhere: the higher, the more detailed the spacetime area is.

*For the long reasoning, see my 2010 FQXI essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/838

Another point is that if we do live in a self-creating universe where particles and particle properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, then two particles only would be identical if they would be at the exact same point in spacetime, if their environments would be identical.

So instead of saying that interactions between particles become weaker because distance 'dilutes' the property of one particle as observed by the other, we can as well say that the properties of particles become qualitatively more different as they are farther apart, as if from the point of view of a nail, say, a magnet turns more and more into a cork as it is more distant.

This means that your monads not only have no minimum size, they can also differ qualitatively, the difference changing gradually, a difference which is observer dependent.

Regards, Anton

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Anton Biermans replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 06:50 GMT

Akinbo,

As the subject of Zeno's dichotomy belongs more to your thread than to mine, I post my reply to your post at my thread on yours -be it in a more concise form. OK?

According to relativity theory the length the walker observes his path to have depends on the pace he walks at: the faster he moves, the more contracted the path looks to him, to shrink to zero length if he could walk at the speed of light. So it are the relativistic effects of his motion, however tiny at walking pace, which allow the traveler, despite the mathematic impossibility, to reach his destination. Zeno's concept of space is that of classical mechanics which assumes that it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, that we live in a mathematical space were all points are identical but for their coordinates. In the actual spacetime we live in, the observed pace of clocks and length of yardsticks differs slightly at different distances, so you might say that the different points of his path live in slightly different universes, so the traveler at the end of his walk isn't the exact same person as the one who departed at the other end.

Anton

report post as inappropriate

Doctor Ojo,

Thank you for furnishing the website link to Plato’s rendition of Parmenides. I think the only improvement I may have added to our understanding of what unique is, is my tautological emphasis on once. It is not the fact that a fingerprint is unique once to each person who has lived, it is unique once to each person who will ever come into existence in the future. This will apply even if cloning becomes real. Aliens may exist, but if they do, they cannot have fingerprints or DNA in their cells.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo

An interesting presentation.

You can add comments to a prosecution lawyer in the following, or not:

It does not come from bits and the bits also did not born from it.

It is itself - it was born from the process activity of nature - because if there is no source of information dissemination, the information will not have to take over, and the bit is always available everywhere,so bit is not something that was born from it, the bit only absorb and transmission the impact from the source dispersal of information.

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

I would like to suggest that you look at Heckman's essay. It occurred to me that identification of his "agents" with your "monads" leads to some interesting perspectives.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

I like the closing statement that all is geometry and Bit and It seem to be just as fundamental. Also they style and format of your essay is nicely put together.

Perhaps my essay isn't too far removed from your own line of thinking to be worth a read?

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 00:38 GMT

Hello Akinbo,

Thanks for you kind comments over on my page. I've replied. I found your comments to be very helpful and thought provoking in line with the aims of the contest. Pleasure to "meet" you!

Cheers,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for commenting on my essay and introducing me to yours and about Leibniz's monads. I am flattered by its resonance and intrigued by the differences and their potential ways of reconciliation.

Take the idea of "lifetime" of monads in your essay which you also probed in the comment. From the perspective of monads, I would not treat lifetime of monads to be defined or derived from time if time has no further derivative. When monad appears from nowhere to somewhere, how does one define on long it has taken it to do so since there is no way to tell how long it has been in nowhere. Unless reference is made to something else which has the quality of time and that something else couldn't be a monad because it will spiral into infinite chaos and confusion if so. But from the perspective of non-monad, the monad will appear to have a lifetime between annihilation and creation and vice-versa. However the non-monad will have no way to identify which monad has been annihilated and created again, because the monad would have to leave traces or parts behind for the non-monad to identify, where no monad will do, since there are no parts to monad. Therefore monad cannot exist within the non-monad 'time-based' system and this is where we differ subtly it seems.

Regards,

Hon Jia

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 13:36 GMT

Hello Hon Jia,

Thanks for your comments. I cannot tell you I have all the answers but I do not see any other road that can lead us to truth and reality. The further details will be filled in by dialectic and reductio ad absurdum type arguments.

For example, nothing, not even a monad can exist in nowhere. A monad is a something and a somewhere. Nowhere means no place. If you check the...

view entire post

Hello Hon Jia,

Thanks for your comments. I cannot tell you I have all the answers but I do not see any other road that can lead us to truth and reality. The further details will be filled in by dialectic and reductio ad absurdum type arguments.

For example, nothing, not even a monad can exist in nowhere. A monad is a something and a somewhere. Nowhere means no place. If you check the Newton and Leibniz quotes, 'somewhere' and 'something' are essentially comprised of the same "atoms of nature". So, the question of how long it has been in nowhere should not arise. I think the appropriate phrase is arising ex-nihilo.

Only things that exist can have a lifetime and if existent things have a variable lifetime, by default duration and time must arise.

The appearance of a monad and its annihilation according to Leibniz will occur in an INSTANT. The current theoretical thinking of this shortest duration is the Planck time.

Non-monad do not exist so it cant have a perspective and cannot have a need to identify any event.

Monad is the fundamental unit of geometry so space is a composite of monads, just like you and me. Leibniz tells us that, "...monads are the true atoms of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made". And Newton concurs, "…And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between ... a body and a region of space. The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature,..." (see my reference). As you rightly point out, monad cannot leave traces. It has no parts, unlike composite things. It appears and disappears all at once.

Time remains a difficult concept for me to grasp. But time can ONLY be contemplated within and by what exists. And ALL that exist, both body and space is a composite of monads. Again, monads are not eternally existing things and are not all created or annihilated together. Somewhere in this, the perception of time must come in.

More homework needs to be done on 'Time'. Many thanks for your comments.

Regards,

Akinbo

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

Your work is really attractive. I am fully agree that thickness and actual sizes of objects must be no ignored in realistic descriptions. In the classical physics this demand is considered. However the matter is different in QM representation. Here you are right fully. On this question open please the reference from my article ,,Rethinking the Formal methodology ...,, and email my from there. I think we can talk seriously!

Sincerely,

George

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo,

Thanks for reading my paper. You are of course correct that the geometric point is a mathematical fiction, as are infinity and other mathematical concepts. Math is an abstract representational system. Math is not physics, although the two have been conflated by our observer-based measurement models (Relativity and QM). The facts clearly demand the hypothesis that space is a...

view entire post

Akinbo,

Thanks for reading my paper. You are of course correct that the geometric point is a mathematical fiction, as are infinity and other mathematical concepts. Math is an abstract representational system. Math is not physics, although the two have been conflated by our observer-based measurement models (Relativity and QM). The facts clearly demand the hypothesis that space is a substance, so the task of a theoretical physics is to understand that substance and its role in all phenomena. We now know much, much more about the physical world and the evolution of complexity than did the Greeks, Newton, Leibniz or Einstein. Space must have some smallest parts, but I think that they bear little resemblance to Leibniz's monads, which is why I did not use that term. We cannot proceed as did philosophers of old with abstract speculations about the elements of space. We need to instead look at the known phenomena and see what they tell us about space.

I have shown that gravity is most simply explained if Newton's "absolute" space is instead a fluid flowing into matter--its acceleration causing all matter to accelerate with it. We measure its velocity by the slowing of our atomic clocks. See the theory here. This theory solves Newton's action-reaction dilemma-space acts upon matter to resist its acceleration because matter is acting upon space, consuming it as a sink consumes a fluid. You speculate that the spatial elements disappear in front of and are created behind a moving object, that is possible, but because gravity appears to involve the consumption of space by matter and a resulting sink flow, I think it's more likely that when matter moves through space, space flows into and around it. Someday experiments may help differentiate between these two theories. You may be interested in my further speculations about space, its parts and its motions in this essay.

As you are a physician, you may also be interested in my thoughts on the corruption of medicine by pharmaceutical corporations, and the resulting ignorance of natural scientific medicine, including endocrinology. See my practice webpages.

Henry

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

I very much liked your essay. I never heard of these Monads before, they are very similar to my UB's (Universal Bits).

I believe that for a coherent world to develop, these monads need to follow a simple rule. I have described this simple rule in my essay. By following that simple rule, a coherent world with time and space emerges.

If you have the time, please take a look at my essay. I would love to have your comments. If you like the ideas in it, you can read the full story here:3D Universe Theory

Cheers,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

I left a comment on my website.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1773

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Ojo

Congratulatins for writing a lucid, engaging, enjoyable and thought-provoking essay, and one (unlike many others here) relevant to the It-Bit contest question.

Your learned guided tour along the Monad Road was of special interest to me because in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I have proposed a Universe composed of a single building block - I call it a node, but you may as well call it a physical monad. While I have not speculated on the 'size' of this node it differs from yours because it does not disappear/appear to describe motion as in your figure. Rather, a pattern of node orientations and energy changes, while the nodes themselves do not move or disappear. Please see Figure 26 in the above mentioned paper to illustrate this rather complicated convoluted motion!

Again thank you for an excellent read - I will also read Newton's paper that you referenced that I did not know about.

With very best wishes, Your Honor.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for your comments. I will take a look at your Beautiful Universe Theory and give some opinion on your blog when I do. It will be nice to compare and contrast nodes and monads.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo,

I cannot adhere to your "monad" concept but admire your presentation. It fits into the concept of a physical world of BB virtual particles erupting and inflating in vast numbers where time measures their demise -- an example, but I see no consciousness to observe -- as Wheeler would prescribe. I see consciousness as a feeble participant sensually -- noting a small percentage of physical phenomena (visual range narrow in EM spectrum, for example). The think your argument is clever and acknowledge that if I were gifted mathematically, my own images and concepts might veer in your direction. Monad Road fits into the universe as a computer. I see the 1010 input as the years 1010 but did I miss the significance of the happening in that year -- a thousand years ago the road taken.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 10:39 GMT

Hello Jim,

Thanks for reading and commenting.

I agree with Wheeler substantially as you see in my essay. Trying to decode that It from Bit puzzle. However, I will not swallow the "consciousness" prescription. The side effects are too many and what is more it would not cure any real physical ailment.

Here are a few of my reasons...

-Consciousness is the output of complex computation going on in the brain, most of which occur at the quantum level. Can an Output be part of the Input? Are molecules and atoms conscious?

- And on the hypothesis that Consciousness has a role in measurement, can measurement be done without a physical involvement? If not, it is the physical things involved in measurement that can distort measured things not Consciousness itself.

Anyway, Consciousness and even its definition is a wide topic. Same with 'life' and 'soul', 'love' etc.

Cheerio,

Akinbo

*If you want us to do more dialectic on consciousness I can come over to your blog.

Hello Akinbo,

I took your advice and downloaded the PDF at the end of your hyperlink, but after the first few pages I realized there were some fundamental differences between a "monad" and a "pointy bit" (pbit), and given that I would prefer to look directly a Leibniz's work before commenting on it, all I can say is that in item 3 the monad is extension-less, and not something infinitely small in extension. Whether this PDF is an accurate reflection of Leibniz's views is moot, because I simply can not accommodate things without extension in my understanding of reality. As a software engineer I can entertain any number of dimensions, but they are simple data structures, I can't go home and build a tree house in ten dimensions however much kids want a secret cubby hole with a Brane to keep rain from the eleventh dimension out. And with all due respect to Plato, it is my contention that Plato threw his subordinates an extension-less bone, and anyone caught chewing on that bone made themselves immediately subordinate to Plato, for ever and ever amen.

A pointy bit in my essay, i.e. (pbit), has extension in all three dimensions, and a net extension where one end is different to another, in other words its primary property is "direction". How big it is and whether or not it is divisible is moot if the idea can be used to describe the nature of gravity and the means to creating objects which are a stable configuration of those simple building blocks.

If I were you I would call your conception of a monad "Plank's dot" and describe its properties as uniform and immutable; and then add to that whatever else you need to satisfy others. Had you done so from the start your essay would have been half the size.

Now, if you win, and you take my advice and call it a (pdot), I want some credit.

Cheers!

Zoran.

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 10:26 GMT

Thanks Zoran,

Very funny. That Plato's bone having length and no breadth must be really delicious since we have been chewing it for over 2000 years!

In my thinking, the first 8 paragraphs of Leibniz monadology are the useful part. The remaining dwell on trying to factor God into the picture.

By 'can't be extended' is to mean can't be stretched into shapes. So rest assured, the monad has a fundamental extension, but it cannot be further extended. Recall that this is actually the area of divergence in describing the basic unit of geometry between the Pythagoreans and Plato as I point out in my essay.

Thanks for the Planck's dot suggestion. I didn't want to invent yet another term. And as to properties, I don't also want to add any to what the Pythagoreans and Leibniz have suggested, i.e. "position" and "a lifetime". The task ahead is to build up all other properties of existence and composite things such as mass and charge from a fundamental thing not possessing those attributes.

Regards,

Akinbo

Congratulations on a very well written and thought provoking paper, Dr. Ojo.

To dig deep into the past like this and put things in perspective is inspiring, and of substantial benefit to anyone interested in discovering the road we might be taking into the future.

The way I interpret your concept is that the Planck length indicates that all things are substantial, and that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 09:53 GMT

Hello John,

An equally thought provoking reply I must say, a true example of Newton's third law: action and reaction are equal and opposite!

A number of essays have just been uploaded bringing the count to over 300.

I will certainly read yours and give you some criticism and hopefully some praise.

I appreciate very much your critical comments, these have have been lacking.

Best regards,

Akinbo

In response to my post.

I reread your article (I scored and read all until today).

I like your idea of information: until now I associate it to a transmission or reception; it is strong to associate the information to the act to measure (in transmission or reception): a numerical string is measured, a communication channel is measured, the Kolmogorov complexity need a knowledge of the object (so it is necessary the measure of the object).

It seem that your definition is more inclusive, and fundamental.

I think that each particles is a gravitational positive-curvature ball, and each antiparticles a negative-curvature curvature ball, so that with the aligned matter-antimatter annihilation can be obtained gauge boson for each possible integer spin (infinite possible interactions). This my old idea seem similar to the geometrodynamic of Wheeler. There is an analogy with your concept of monad.

It would be my defeat reach the top essays, after thinking for a smart method to stay out.

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT

Thanks Domenico

Saluti!

Akinbo

Dear Akinbo

I appreciate your style: spirit, originality and accuracy. Your depiction of movement thru space associates me to how digital presentation of reality creates that illusion. One pixel appears and while disappearing the neighbouring one appears and so on... Or Newton’s Cradle.

However, when addressing the finite dimensions of space or time... Planck’s length over Plank’s time measures the same speed of light. Is there a logical, mathematical or any other acceptable reason to conclude that perception inside Planks world, or any other, is anyhow different from ours?

And another problem addresses digital concept, yes or no, 1 or 0.

The product of any number and zero is zero. So we write 1, meaning, it is true. Any number multiplied by infinity is infinity. We write 1 again. The question is: what do we write for the product of zero and infinity?

Best regards

Andrej

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT

Thanks Andrej,

I am increasingly coming across suggestions referring to the monad as Planck's pixel. This may be due to the information age wherein and would be welcome if it solves our problems. Terminology is secondary.

Concerning perception, what is perception? Is it different from consciousness? Can a non-living thing like a video-camera monitoring people be said to be perceiving? Because of the confusion associated with this term I cannot give you a definite answer without knowing what you mean. But to me things like consciousness, perception, etc are the output of a computer algorithm and do not form part of the input.

To be frank I have no answer to the last question. Perhaps, this is where superposition between 0 and 1 may come to the rescue.

My Regards,

Akinbo

Hello Akinbo,

I'd love to read your essay. Very interesting ideas. Yes, understanding - that's "grasp the structure" (Gutner). Today, the task of "grab" the structure of the "point" - Zero Point. It means to grab the desired structure of space…

One day in spring 1996 a conference "Sense of Life" passed at the Moscow State University. Doctor of psychological sciences, blind and deaf...

view entire post

Hello Akinbo,

I'd love to read your essay. Very interesting ideas. Yes, understanding - that's "grasp the structure" (Gutner). Today, the task of "grab" the structure of the "point" - Zero Point. It means to grab the desired structure of space…

One day in spring 1996 a conference "Sense of Life" passed at the Moscow State University. Doctor of psychological sciences, blind and deaf from childhood, A.Suvorov was the first to speak. A man in dark glasses accompanied for a hand with the young man came to the pulpit. He began reading the report, touching the text with his fingers. The audience silently listened to the scientist. He has finished the report by words: "Everything that I have achieved in life was done due to my mother, her persistence, her heart. She brought up purposefulness and love to life in me. I am sure, that the following stage in evolution of the Mankind is a creation of Philosphere, Sphere of Conceiving Spirit, Sphere of Love ". After the report the scientist answered the questions. The young man took one palm of Alexander Vasiljevich and transferred the questions to him by pressing the certain site of a palm. The speed of transfer was very high. I should admit, I was amazed with all: the contents of the report, method of a statement, answers to the questions and the way of transfer an idea - through "point". The word was replaced with "an invisible point", set of "points".

To build a firm foundation of knowledge, we need to take a fresh look at the "Ontos", "Topos" and "Logos". Then we need to build the topology of Being: OntoTopoLogia. OntoTopoLogia is the topology of Being, "ontology of invisible". It is a way to overcome cleaving of knowledge through pro-cogitate of point: "that only, directing a rule", "material point", "ideal point", "point with a germ of a vector", "point - center" , "point-stay", "point-coincidence of minimum and maximum", "point of determination", "point singularis", "point - meeting of two worlds".

You and I are going to close the roads to one "point"- the source. Source of knowledge.

Good luck in the contest and best wishes,

Vladimir

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT

Waiting for you at the fork in the road Vladimir!

Good luck too

Dear Akinbo,

You have written a thought provoking essay. I liked the glossary at the beginning, the frequent references to what historical figures thought on this topic and the original presentation.

Let me state upfront that I find the concept of a point particle problematic and have in the past myself entertained the thought that these are really endowed with finite extent. Perhaps because of that there were some issues that I would have liked to see addressed in your essay which I did not find. I think that you will need to provide answers to some of the questions below before more people will take this idea seriously:

1) Take your characterization of force in figs 1 and 2. Since a monad is incompressible and has no parts, the process of changing its associated value from 1 to 0 in one location and then to 0 to 1 in the adjacent location must happen instantaneously. If it is not instantaneous, then either the monad is compressed or part of the monad disappears to allow for a finite interval for the effect of the force to spread across the monad. Let us string some large number of monads adjacent to each other. The force exerted on the first monad instantanteously affects the second, and then the third and so on, until the last monad is reached. But monads have finite extent, so the force propagates infinitely fast across the entire string, yet we do not see forces that propagate infinitely fast in nature. How do you explain this?

2) It seems that the monads can only take either the values 0 or 1. Yet quantum objects are characterized by the superposition principle, which in the simplest case of a qubit means that you can have an object that is characterized both by 0 and 1, and furthermore, you can prepare states where the contribution of each to the superposition can be anything between 0

report post as inappropriate

I forgot that there is a glitch (I noticed from previous contests ) which cuts the message when the text compiler encounters a "less than" sign. Here is the rest of my post:

0 "less than" sqrt(x) "less than" 1 where x is the probability of finding the object in that state if it is measured. How do you get qubits out of your framework?

3) It is very hard for me to visualize an extended object without a boundary. What does that mean? It seems to me that if a monad is three-dimensional it should be associated with a two-dimensional surface. How is it possible that it isn't?

Your writing style is very lucid and if you can find satisfactory answers to these questions it would make your position much stronger.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT

Dear Armin,

Thanks for being a good sounding board.

RE: 1) Thanks for this thought provoking comment. I have had to scratch my head a bit on that…

A monad cannot be compressed, neither can it disappear in parts, see Leibniz. I am not sure I get you correctly but the appearance or disappearance does not happen in zero seconds, if that is what you mean by instantaneous....

view entire post

Dear Armin,

Thanks for being a good sounding board.

RE: 1) Thanks for this thought provoking comment. I have had to scratch my head a bit on that…

A monad cannot be compressed, neither can it disappear in parts, see Leibniz. I am not sure I get you correctly but the appearance or disappearance does not happen in zero seconds, if that is what you mean by instantaneous. Rather, there is a minimum time probably of Planck time and also of longer duration depending on the magnitude of applied force, etc so that variable velocities can be manifest from c to below light speed. Probably, 'simultaneous' should be what you mean, where the monad ahead simultaneously changes from 1 to 0, while a new monad arises to take the place of the moving body.

In any case, I may be soliciting your comments (by email) soon on a paper I am working on, the summary of which is that:

Zeno's paradox + Planck's length = Digital motion.

RE: 2) Again, thanks. Qubits always require an 'it' for their expression, e.g. for an electron, we can have spin-up, spin-down or a superposition of these two binary choices. For a fundamental 'it', as Leibniz realized the only 'Bit' it can have is existence/non-existence. Non-existence is a choice that does not require any 'it' to carry the information (see my exchange with Georgina Parry). However, Ian Durham suggested on his blog that perhaps non-existence can be in superposition with existence in some form of probability amplitude. While not agreeing to this I mention in my essay, the possibility of spontaneous changes from 0 to 1 and 1 to 0, which may simulate the uncertainty encountered in the quantum realm. In summary, Qubits can be expressed only by Composite objects.

RE: 3) Yes, very hard indeed. That is because we are all used to visualizing composite 'its'. Indeed, no one has ever seen a non-composite 'it' so your visual acuity is excellent! A non-composite can only be visualized by logic and insight as the Pythagoreans and Leibniz do (see paragraphs 2 and 3 of his Monadology) . By a 'boundary' or a 'shape', the possession of lines, curves and surfaces is implied and these are COMPOSITE geometric objects, even in Euclidean terms. How then can a non-composite geometric object possess them?

Lastly, being the basic representation of a discrete space, how can the units be 'separated' from each other, separation being a task usually done by space itself. It is this and other considerations that make me look to 'time' for salvation and to do the separation as in "the map problem" which you also mention in your essay. If as Leibniz says, "the only way for monads to begin or end—to come into existence or go out of existence—is being created or annihilated all at once.", then such discrete coming and going out of existence will cause the discreteness in the otherwise smooth and continuous topology.

Hope my reply not too lengthy? Thanks.

Akinbo

view post as summary

Dear Dr. Ojo,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments. Being yourself a physician, you might like the biology section of my essay.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akimbo,

We have started our discussion and not yet finishing that. I have re reading your work and our comments one more (in my forum) and now I am hope we can mutually resumed our opinions and impressions which will be right for us. I hope get your response on this ask (If you think the same!)

Sincerely,

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT

Will reply on your blog

Regards,

Akinbo

George Kirakosyan replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT

Dear Akimbo,

I have ask you to resume our conclusions/opinions and you have offered a new discussion, more perspectiveless than the base one! Thank you for nice joke.

I have one small vs. question to you (the answer soposed in binary system!)

Are your patients always happy with your treatment?

Regards,

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 18:18 GMT

Ha ha ha George! You have make me laugh. I think the answer to your question is a superposition of 0 and 1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Dr. Akinbo. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you or your patients. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so.

With best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

You have offered an excellent presentation examining a fundamental question, and I am pleased that you defended the side of the monad! However, I think there may be different ways in which monads can be understood and would like to get your take on this.

One way to understand monads is as cells of a cellular automata, the kind of model for physics that Edward Fredkin has developed in his digital philosophy. In this case physics consists of determining the (local) rules that operate to change the state of the cells. An example of this kind of model is described by essayist Franklin Hu. Over the years Fredkin has been able to address several issues (such as circular propagation) that bedevil naive attempts at this kind of digital physics.

A second kind of monadic model associates them with particles and views particle interactions as a kind of computational network. This type is described by essayist Deepak Vaid.

And a third way to understand monads is as voxels (volumetric pixels). In this case the computational hardware is not observable; we can only see the display screen. Physics in this case can be any finite calculation that offers a discretized output. It need not be a local computation.

My own essay Software Cosmos takes a look at the third kind of computational model from the top down, considering what we can determine about the universe if we assume it is a kind of virtual reality. In fact, I am able to construct (and carry out) an observational test to determine if we currently live in a simulated world.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 09:20 GMT

Dear Hugh,

Many thanks for your comments. I share the philosophy of digital physics with monads acting as cellular automata. However, it might be premature to say I am biased towards monads. As a matter of fact judgement will be delivered soon in the case of Atomistic Enterprises vs. Plato & Ors (probably August).

I will comment more on your blog.

Regards,

Akinbo

Great Akinbo,

This essay 'On the Road Not Taken' brings to fore some questions which have been kept under the carpet by science as no single answer is viable in all situations. Many of us have pondered over these questions. Some such questions that have baffled us include relativity, wave particle duality, pre-dominance of analogue or digital world etc.

PicoPhysics has no such paradox. Both concepts are embedded in UNARY law. Discrete is embedded in Knergy and Analogous behaviour in Space of Unary law "Space contains Knergy".

I do decipher the term monad. so went along the Wikipedia and see it is based on abstractions that prevailed before and around Newtonian era.

I see you have some original questions to answer similar to mine.

It was great, reading your article and find solace in knowing there are some people besides me, who have un-answered, un-asked questions.

Vijay Gupta

Proponent Unary Law - Space Contains Knergy

report post as inappropriate

Hello Akinbo

Speaking as an author of two books, I found it to be a beautiful piece of writing.

Your argument is fabulous, and I will be rating it as such (8) because it is foundational, and uses philosophical principles very well. In many ways your attributes of monads from i to vii align well to the fundamental interactions between boundary omnets in my model. I went very carefully...

view entire post

attachments: 1_A_problem_for_geometry.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Very brilliant arguments Stephen! I will have to re-read your paper. I also read the attachment and it is a very powerful counter-argument to Weyl's. Your argument may even provide a proof that the Planck limit (or some limit at least) exists at some scale and lines cannot be infinitely bisected. Will copy this on your blog and comment more later.

On "compressibility is a human-centered concept, and presumes a background space without showing how it comes to be". My response is that monads have extension but cannot be compressed or further extended. They have no shape. The only change they can undergo is annihilation in an instant, unlike composite things that can be compressed gradually. I will however be looking deeper into the Harmony set.

On "Whence time in your world model? What is the foundational cause of change?" I suspect that if monads can change spontaneously and can also be induced to do so, this may be the origin of determinism and uncertainty in our dynamics on the classical and quantum scale.

On "the shifting of an 0 from one place to another", I hope I understand you. The O in the diagram stands for object. It does not shift from one place to another. The object remains in its own place, which place property is intrinsic to it as Zeno's Arrow paradox envisages. Motion therefore occurs because space itself participates in it, with the monad in the direction of motion changing from 1 to 0 simultaneously as the "one (since this was non-existent)" opposite changes from 0 to 1. Such action and reaction between a moving object and space being equal and opposite.

We still have to continue this dialogue because the issues you raise are quite fundamentally important. This reply cannot exhaust all the concerns.

Many thanks indeed.

Akinbo

Dear Akinbo,

You must have had a hard time in your youth deciding whether to be a philosopher, lawyer, physicist or physician. :-) I hope you agree by now that the world is most in need of caring physicians.

Your intellectual journey down the fork less traveled (Frost is my favorite poet; "The Road not Taken" may have been the first poem I learned by heart many years ago) is rich with promise. One doesn't hear of Leibniz's monads that often anymore -- I do recall Hermann Weyl's agreement with Leibniz that nature can only be truly understood in the behavior of the very small, so you're in good company.

I would make a note that the mathematical point at infinity is actually realized in the compactification of the complex plane, which shifts the discrete and probabilistic measure functions of the complex Hilbert space to the continuous and deterministic functions of a topological model. You might want to look into that to help further strengthen your argument.

Something else that caught my eye in regard to Newton's idea of spatial translation: " ... unless we postulate that there are two spaces that everywhere coincide, a moving one and one that is at rest, so that the movement of a part of the moving one involves a translation of that item from the corresponding part of the resting one to a different part of the resting space ... That is crazy (translator's inclusion) ... " I have to disagree with the translator's editorializing -- Newton's conception is not crazy; it follows directly from his belief in absolute space and absolute time. The duality is necessary -- which Einstein fixed, with Minkowski's model of continuous spacetime, in which neither space nor time are independently real, but rather preserve physical reality in a union of the two.

Thanks for your comments in my forum, and expect an appropriately high score from me.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

I have answered some of your questions in my blog

Cheers,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Greetings Akinbo,

I want to take a moment in this e-mail to address the key question you left me in a general way, here rather than on my forum. I've still not made it through your essay, but your intriguing and delightful questions bear some attention, and have been unavoidably a part of my contemplations of late. I'll talk here about learning how to count and measure. This is a key...

view entire post

Greetings Akinbo,

I want to take a moment in this e-mail to address the key question you left me in a general way, here rather than on my forum. I've still not made it through your essay, but your intriguing and delightful questions bear some attention, and have been unavoidably a part of my contemplations of late. I'll talk here about learning how to count and measure. This is a key part of the cognitive science research I've been engaged in the last 8 years or so. As I point out in my essay, an early cognitive landmark is grasping object constancy, but children up to a certain age have an endless appetite for games of peek-a-boo, where you hide and then appear to the child's delight. So there is a transitional period for learning to distinguish clearly between none and one, and to understand the persistence of objects (and people).

Just so we are clear (addressing the topic of your essay); I've never quite bought into the point-particle concept, and have always thought things had to have an extent and/or underlying structure - to exist in spacetime. In order to exist, particles and composite objects must possess duration or extent in time, as well as being extended in space - in my view. So I don't adhere to that part of Plato's reasoning. So to continue...

Distinguishing none from one, while it is a prelude to counting, also evokes a different but related skill - the ability to distinguish none from one, or a few, or from many, and from a very large number - magnitude range estimation. During this same developmental stage, however, children are also learning distance range estimation - through triangulation. There is a natural connection in this to principles of constructive and projective geometry, getting a sense of whether various things have size or thickness or depth. Children must learn the rules of dimensionality. In a lecture I attended by Alfie Kohn; I heard a wonderful story about how a group of children learned by being guided to playfully discover for themselves about standard units of measurement. At first; the teacher didn't provide rulers or tell the kids how to measure, but instead they posed a challenge - the boat had to be big enough to fit everybody in the class - and let them figure out how to do it.

There is a connection between the developmental or learning processes above and the hierarchy of smooth, topological, and measurable objects and spaces. Smooth relations admit fields and waves, topology is for objects that have a face, surface, or hypersurface, and the property of measurability arises only when you have two or more such objects to compare sizes. So there is a natural progression from continuity to distinct and separate identity, and for the verifiability or knowability of same. In my view, the way we learn about these things parallels how nature unfolds form. And it is certain that learning the difference between none and one helps the child to then learn how to count as well as to estimate magnitude, but that is grasped in stages.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:29 GMT

Akinbo My Friend,

I want you to understand me rightly, and out of respect I am posting it here. While I acknowledge that sometimes life reduces chices down to either/or decisions, the tendency to assume this applies more generally is a harmful logical flaw prevalent in modern society, because it fails to ask "Is there a middle path?" In more detail; sometimes the middle is excluded...

view entire post

Akinbo My Friend,

I want you to understand me rightly, and out of respect I am posting it here. While I acknowledge that sometimes life reduces chices down to either/or decisions, the tendency to assume this applies more generally is a harmful logical flaw prevalent in modern society, because it fails to ask "Is there a middle path?" In more detail; sometimes the middle is excluded erroneously, in other cases the fact there are multiple choices is not considered, and in some cases there is a virtually continuous range of choices - where sometimes our choice among these cases is determined by how we interact with the system. According to an article in August's Scientific American by Meinard Kuhlmann; that sometimes applies for the choice of 'particles vs vacuum' which begs the question "Is there a particle or no particle?"

I first read about the hierarchy of objects and spaces as a point made in passing by Alain Connes, in one of his papers about non-commutative geometry. Measurable is a subset of topological, which is a subset of smooth - in relating the categories of well-defined spaces. This point has more than passing importance, however, to people who study differential geometry and topology. In some cases; one can assert that the boundary between stable conditions or well-defined regions is a fractal. That is; there are interpenetrating regions of yes and no, or black and white, as in an M.C. Escher artwork. So while sometimes a simple yes or no will suffice; sometimes a more subtle answer is called for.

The studies begun at Tübingen, and run by the German Psychological Association for a number of years, showed a marked decline in the perceptual acuity in discerning shades of gray and other colors, for people at the end of the study vs the beginning. Early on more than 200 shades were easily distinguished, and later participants could discern half that - focusing mostly on bright colors. I would hate to imagine a world where everything had to be reduced to yes or no, black or white.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT

As you might imagine, ...

That should be 'sometimes life reduces choices.' I'm sorry for any confusion.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo,

Thank you for a great submission. Very well structured/readable. Interesting parallel between 1,0 and what I understood to be Monad Pairs (?). I think the idea that space substrate itself could be a giant Boolean Network of Monads is a model that may prove to be fruitful. Correct me if I'm a bit off here.

I also responded to your questions under my submission if you care to take a look @ that as well.

All the Best,

John

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

You have made the relationship between It and Bit quite explicit in your elegantly argued essay and finally have said that both are from each other and hence of equal importance for us. This is also what I have said in my essay while concluding. You have logically based your argument on the concept of ‘monad’ as fundamental indivisible entity and listed some of its attributes and also have identified it and its attributes with both It and Bit. You have historically analyzed the origin and development of the concept of monad and its current application to contemporary problems in physics and successfully explained the notion of motion with the help of diagrams. It is good to note that there are 10^180 bits of information in the universe derived from the concept of monad. I would like to rate your lucid essay with an excellent rating after you read my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827.

Best regards,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo

I rated your essay july 11 5 grade.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

Thank you for reading my essay. While it is hard to tell what you precisely have in mind( I have read yours many times), there seems to be some similarity between our theories in a specific area which is particle propagation. My theory follows standard QM which does not have easy interpretation in that regard. However, I am researching this issue in my system which seems to...

view entire post

Hi Akinbo,

Thank you for reading my essay. While it is hard to tell what you precisely have in mind( I have read yours many times), there seems to be some similarity between our theories in a specific area which is particle propagation. My theory follows standard QM which does not have easy interpretation in that regard. However, I am researching this issue in my system which seems to somehow include a concept that is called Feynman checkerboard, which has a sophisticated version of your idea.

just google " feynman checkerboard model", you will find loads of information, but you have to read a lot to see the similarity to your system.

My essay is all about how this interaction arises, please read carefully the first 3 sections. Of course, my essay was written for an academic person with extensive experience in QM in mind, so I have not spelled out everything clearly. Now, in classical physics the charge e is just a numbers assigned to a particle that enters the equation where 1/r is postulated via experiments. In QFT a similar but more sophisticated in the sense that now 1/r law is not postulated but derived (through the notorious virtual particles concept). Zee in his QFT in a nutshell book called that the greatest discovery in physics. Other theories like String and others describe charge as again a sort of abstract math like windings and such.

In my theory charge is a dynamic quantity that arises from the interaction and not the other way around. There is no positive and negative particles as such, it was forced upon standard physics because of the experiment and model strategy. It is all about the line intersection concept which is the basis of interaction and hence the rise of charge and the associated expectation value change corresponding to force.

Gravity is a bit harder because the weak force it produces making the numbers fluctuate highly. However I state my conjecture in the essay, which is when the lines meet head on at Lp. But why Lp? I leave that for the second season episode!!

Finally I have rated your essay very good for your nice try and good active participation.

Adel

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT

Dear Adel,

Thanks for your comments. Also thanks for the referral to Feynman's checkerboard model. It appears to be a way to quantize spacetime. I will meet you in a few minutes on your blog.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Dr. Ojo,

Your essay offers a very fascinating approach to information and fundamental reality. As I mentioned in reply to your interesting questions on my page, I like discussions about monads and infinities, and think these to be very fundamental. Although the infinitesimal and the infinite may seem as opposites, that in fact really links them. I also very much enjoyed the poetry...

view entire post

Dear Dr. Ojo,

Your essay offers a very fascinating approach to information and fundamental reality. As I mentioned in reply to your interesting questions on my page, I like discussions about monads and infinities, and think these to be very fundamental. Although the infinitesimal and the infinite may seem as opposites, that in fact really links them. I also very much enjoyed the poetry and theatrical setting you provided, while still being very clear and scientific. Have you had a chance to check out Lee Smolin's new book, 'Time Reborn' ? It also offers insight into some of the concepts you mentioned, like the platonic idea of the world composed of imperfect versions of perfect models, and also Leibniz's viewpoints.

Also, I wanted to address that second question you asked about the binary possibilities in Wheeler's quote, in view of inspiration from your essay: perhaps another way of casting the binary choices, is that they represent the infinite and the infinitesimal. The choice of '1' or 'on' or 'yes' all mean the same thing - completeness. It's there and it's whole. But this is an infinite change from being 'off'. Likewise, the choice of '0' or 'off' or 'no' all mean the same thing - an absence of wholeness or there-ness. It may sound similar to non-existence except that the "acknowledgement of the absence of something" is yet something too, but only as a starting point and that's it. This is I think similar to the monad ideas you brought forward, and it relates to the infinitesimal, that is, the starting point per se.

Fundamentally, this describes why only two states are logically possible, and how they would relate to each other. It also could lead to the nature of dualism in physics which touches on so many topics.

Thanks for an inspiring essay, and I rated it highly. Also, I'm not sure if you also had a chance to rate mine after you reviewed it but I hope you get a chance if not already. Thanks again,

Steve Sax

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:51 GMT

Thanks Steve for your encouraging comments. I doubt if I will be able to lay my hands on Lee Smolins book soon but I have read a couple of his papers which I found very good. Like the 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity'.

Wheelers viewpoint that information is fundamental and that we only need to consider all the various binary possibilities underlying reality is very inspiring. Infinitessimal and the infinite may be examples of this, but I suspect that they will be mathematical 'bits', not physical. The infinitesimal could confront Planck's length in the near future.

I will check your blog again to see if I have rated your essay.

Regards,

Akinbo

TAKE NOTICE that judgement will be delivered on Sunday, July 28 at 12 O'clock in the forenoon in the case of

Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors.

As you deem fit or otherwise, you are therefore invited to make your pleadings/RATINGS for or against any of both parties in the case.

THANK YOU!!

Hello again Akinbo,

I wanted to mention a few things. First off; as with Tom, Frost's 'The Road Not Taken' is one of my favorite poems and I also like the musical arrangement by Randall Thompson, which I have performed many times. And secondly; I told a story above of attending a lecture by Alfie Kohn, where he told the story of children learning to measure through guided play.

Though that evening was the first time I ever went to the James Earl Jones theater, and I was not certain exactly where to go, but for the most part I did not travel by the road. I went through the woods (not yellow, but...). There is a road in the woods too, that once carried horse-drawn carriages. To be honest, I took the road the last part of the way, but not the whole distance.

At the same event where I met 't Hooft, there was a lecture by Marni Sheppeard about the value of Ternary logic in QM - which of course sends us down the middle path sometimes. Right now I am sad, because Marni (Kea in the blogs) is struggling - but she is brilliant! So every once and a while; I wish those was a victory for those who travel the untrammeled road, walk the middle path, or insist that it is best to consider the third option.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:09 GMT

Thanks Jonathan. You will likely not be disappointed with the decision of the court next sunday (in preparation). I cant find Marni's essay.

All the best

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 04:35 GMT

Sorry my friend..

Marni was a participant in the very first FQXi contest and said; never again. I met her at FFP10, the same conference where I talked to Gerard. Let me just say that she is a brilliant physicist, and her PhD advisor was John Baez, but Kea has not found her niche, and no Physics related positions appear to be available to her right now. This is very sad, and a loss for the community, in my opinion. You can find some of her papers on viXra, if you are interested.

I have answers to the questions you left for me, and I'll try to enter them on my page tonight or in the AM.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 05:41 GMT

Your answers are there, Akinbo.

You can find them on my essay page. Thank you for your kind interaction.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo,

Very nice article. I read it with great interest and ranked it accordingly. For writing your program with monads, your may find the following invention of magnetic racetrack memory to be interesting, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racetrack_memory

Best wishes,

Brian

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

Very good realistic argument on the topic.

I think monads have extensive applicability to integrate discrete with continuum. For example, natural transformation of strong monads may express the gravitation as a tensor product in string-matter continuum scenario, while three-dimensional structures of tetrahedral-branes emerge on eigen-rotations of string-matter segments. In that, to define the unit of mass we have to adapt Planck length as the length of fundamental string-segment that may be a monad in this continuum scenario that ascribes an eternal universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo

I'm sorry I couldn't comment on your essay before. My duties at work demand considerable time. I found the topics of your work very interesting, I'm glad you had called my attention to your work. The notion of space is still one of the most debated in both physics and the philosophy of physics. From the ontological point of view, there are many conceptions of space. There is more less a wide consensus that space is either a substance or a mesh of relationships of objects. One can spend a lot of time discussing this two apparently irreconcilable viewpoints but at the end what matters for theoretical physics is to give a mathematical and consistent formulation of space.

I don't follow the current view of space represented by non-Euclidean geometry. Rather I upheld the view that space is a substance, a material field. In order to make this view consistent, the key is reconceptualize the notion of particle in terms of the notion of quasiparticle or solitons. In my view space is like an ocean and particles are only excitations of the ocean. This ocean is the medium for the quasiparticles and electromagnetic fields to move and interact. From this ocean quasiparticles are created and so on. The theory assumes that space is a continuous fluid in the sense of Descartes aether.

You may wish to see this video so you have an idea of what a particle is in my view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyjwZ39EDmw

I wish you good luck in the contest

Best Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akimbo,

First thank you for your kind interest. This post is a tentative response to your question having in mind your very pedagogical essay about monads.

You: Monad – a fundamental unit of geometry; that of which there is no part;...

i. extended objects, not further extensible or compressible.

ii. they are fundamental and not a composite of other...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Greetings my friend,

In relation to the Scientific American article by Meinard Kuhlmann cited above, and the existence or non-existence of particles; look up the Unruh effect.

Also; in relation to your comments left on my blog, about questioning the need to have a proliferation of names (like a 0-brane) or constructions for what is basically the same thing - a monad - please see the comment by Than Tin above, with the sentiments of Richard Feynman on that subject.

Back with essay comments soon.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 06:54 GMT

I'll recap a more detailed statement left on my page..

I see no problem with multiple constructions that yield something like a monad. I mentioned the 0-brane as it is a minimal figure - infinitesimal or Planck scaled at rest. The construction Greene used in Elegant Universe was that branes could be seen as something that wraps around another geometric structure, like a balloon (a 2-brane) around a ball or sphere, or a string (a 1-brane) around a circle or disc. The idea is that is contains what is inside, perhaps renders it invisible or prevents direct observation, or covers the object contained. And of course the surface can oscillate or vibrate while doing so.

If we note that spheres and circles are part of the same family and share the same formula, the original point can be made clear. The equation of a unit sphere is simply r = 1, and a sphere of a given dimension is called an n-sphere, where n is 1,2,3,... The conventional sphere is called the 2-sphere, and the 1-sphere is a circle. But a brane of a given dimension is a generalization of the associated sphere. So this reveals that the 0-brane is actually a pair of points. In the 1 + 1 dimensional space that the 0-brane is said to inhabit or define, it is usually assigned the role of instanton, having no extent in space but holding a Planck sized instant of time.

Of course String theorists like putting a charge on 0-branes and making them dance, but perhaps a resting 0-brane is a sort of monad.

More soon,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:00 GMT

And my main message is..

I see having more than one road to the same end as powerful evidence there is something worth seeing there. I don't think the monad is any different. If it is found essential in a new setting or in a new way, that is good. I posted the whole paragraph from Feynman that Than Tin excerpted, that eloquently makes my point, back on my essay page. And you can read the comment from me I'm struggling to recap there.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

My friend,

You make a most excellent case for revisiting the monad concept, and some wonderful things about the primal or foundational aspect of geometry. I concur whole heartedly with the assessment that it is a determine of how form in nature unfolds; ultimately the higher- and lower-dimensional aspects of geometry both enter the picture - in terms of framing what is possible. My approach to this research involves examining object/observer relations through elements of constructive geometry evolving into projective geometry (which studies perspective). It turns out there are some interesting connections with the octonions and other expected features, if you follow the thread out from minimal rules of constructivism through the projective doorway.

Fun stuff!

But on the downside; physicists have not observed any clear signs of graininess to the fabric of space, although there have been some attempts to elicit such information from astrophysical data and elsewhere. Lots more on that. And you should also know that your model has aspects of a Cellular Automaton or CA, which might lead to problems. The main subject of my conversation with Gerard 't Hooft was whether his CA based QG theory was or could be made Lorentz invariant. In our conversation at FFP10 he said this was very difficult. Then in his lecture at FFP11 in Paris, he devoted 4 or 5 slides to the subject and why Lorentz invariance is a difficult matter for CA based theories.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:20 GMT

Gee whiz..

that should be 'and other unexpected features' in the 1st paragraph above.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:28 GMT

I also want to mention..

In Twistor theory, points are NOT the most fundamental piece of geometry. Instead it is the ray. I imagine the shortest that a ray of light can be is the Planck length, you might want to check out the Twistors program for some interesting insights to explore.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hello Than and Jonathan,

I will posting on your blogs what I feel can throw more light on the scheme at hand. And thanks for all the information and references. I will be checking them out.

Regards,

Akinbo

Hi Akinbo,

I just upped the score on your underrated essay.

Point particles are a problem, and physics is crippled until it gets rid of them. Standard physics responds with do not worry about point particles, calculus handles them just fine, and in fact it gets rid of the logic of that goof off Zeno. The problem as you know is that particles are not points and calculus does not get rid of Zeno paradox. We are stuck with Zeno's conclusion that nothing can move. That is the truth, but it is not a show stopper. Remember the show must go on!

So, I started my "monad" logic with Zeno's statement that I interpret as "no quantum mechanical object can have a velocity in a space-time that is continuous". Since everything is composed of quantum mechanical particles, all quantum particles and all classical objects cannot move. How can that be?

The answer is that Zeno left out a detail that should have been included. Zeno's statement should read: "Nothing moves, everything changes". There is no such thing as velocity outside of calculations we make on a changing space-time.

You are not alone :)

Best of Luck,

Don L.

PS thanks of the history of monads

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT

Dear Don,

Your comments are treasured. Yes, I agree Zeno left out a detail. What is that detail? I will post this on your blog and give my suggestion what I think that detail could be. And thanks for the rating.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Akinibo

thank you for your nice essay, refreshing my high school knowledge about monads. Maybe your monads are the qubits of my quantum cellular automaton, though they have no extension literally, since space-time is emergent from them: but in this sense, they then acquire a Planck extension.

Coming back to your problem raised in by essay thread about the Mach principle and the Newton bucket, here I report my answer from my thread.

You are touching the apocryphal principle of Mach, which Einstein was so fond of, but, unfortunately he couldn't achieve in his GR. Its space-time metric played the role of a kind of ether. In his Lecture in Leiden he said that he believed that the rotating Newton bucket would have the water pushing up the bucket walls, even in an empty universe (see the masterpiece Einstein's biography of Walter Isaacson). Do we have the absolute inertial frame, or even the rest frame, as an ether? In practice we have an ether: it is the background radiation. It is a frame with respect to which we can check that we are moving. And, in practice, we define the inertial frame only relying on fixed stars. In an emergent space-time from an automaton Lorenz covariance is distorted, meaning that the principle of relativity does not hold in a ultra-relativistic regime.

I will post this also on your blog, as you asked me.

Thank you for raising the issue.

My best regards

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

I read your fine essay some time ago but could not think of any intelligent comment or question that would do it justice. I was hoping to do better than very well written, exceptionally clearly explained and relevant.It was interesting for me to learn about monads. Anyway for now I want to let you know I have read it and think you deserve to do well. Good luck, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo and all,

Thank you for posting in my essay. Here is some work I am doing to achieve what you are trying to do as well.

Simple mathematical truth of zero=I=infinity, iSphere and iSeries as described below can explain all the aspects of reality mathematically.

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:24 GMT

Please see the attached image.

Love,

Sridattadev.

attachments: 11_iDNASeries.bmp

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

I had a glance over your essay and the basic idea is that one should instead of idealized points consider "extended points" or monads. Is this correct? This idea seems to have some connection with the idea that there will be some smallest size one can probe (e.g. Planck size) and beyond this it is impossible to go to smaller distances. In some sense that there is a smallest unit of space-time. This is an idea which has received some attention. A colleague and friend of mine Piero Nicolini and co-workers have been looking at non-commutative geometry -- the postulate that just as in QM one has non-trivial commutators between x and p

([x, p] =/=0) so too there is some new non-trivial commutator between coordinates x, y, z for example [x, y] =/=0). The implication of this is that one can't simultaneously take x and y to zero (just as one can't simultaneously take x and p to zero in QM) or in other words one can't shrink things to a point. He has a nice review article of these ideas:

"Noncommutative Black Holes, The Final Appeal To Quantum Gravity: A Review"

Piero Nicolini (Trieste U. & INFN, Trieste & Fresno State),

Int.J.Mod.Phys. A24 (2009) 1229-1308; e-Print: arXiv:0807.1939 [hep-th]

In any case this seems to have some connection to the idea of monads.

Best,

Doug

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT

Thanks Doug for your look in. I will check the references you mentioned. I understand Wheeler also used the term in one of his papers. Take a look at the judgement to follow.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Akinbo,

I think this is a triditional philosophical essay. But it's pity,frankly speeking, I am afraid of I have not get your points. Still，it deserves a good rating.

Good luck,

Chenxi

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:31 GMT

Hi Chenxi,

Thanks for looking in all the same.

Best regards,

Akinbo

THE JUDGEMENT

In the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors, this honorable court wishes to commend FQXi for providing and maintaining courtroom 1764 for the proceedings.

In deciding this case, the court is pleased that both counsel founded their arguments on geometry, in keeping with the late Hon. Judge Galileo's admonition that in constitutional conflicts,...

view entire post

Gordon Watson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 08:04 GMT

Dear Akinbo,

Good to see you continuing in your wonderful way with words and logic.

I look forward to further developments (especially to join in the viXra.org dialogues and submissions).

With best regards; Gordon.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....

view entire post

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic – “complex, even inexplicable behavior”. Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of “the deer population in Northern Michigan”, is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one – without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others – every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,…n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use “a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers”, you do just that through “comparison and exchange instructions”. You develop these by “inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by ‘mating’ parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated” and repeat it “thousands upon thousands of time” till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought “evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible”. After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area – the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally ‘illuminates’ the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

I am SO sorry that I didn't read your essay until just now, but I am nevertheless glad that I eventually did. Wow. I think both your writing style and approach are brilliant. And, as an attorney, I loved the manner in which you handled your concluding remarks (and wondering why I didn't think of doing it that way).

I think you are absolutely correct - that 'it derives from bit' and 'bit derives from it.' The universe contains both 'hardware' and 'software.' Hardware without software is just a fancy pile of parts; software without hardware is just a fancy pile of instructions. Not only does each require the other in order to 'function' - each is needed to help create the other as well.

Although I missed the 'jury vote' prior to the judgment that was rendered, I am glad I didn't miss the deadline on rating your well-reasoned essay, which I think deserves very high marks.

Perhaps, if you are so inclined, we can continue to correspond in the future.

Best to you,

Ralph

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 08:43 GMT

Dear Ralph,

Thanks for your comments. I will reply on your blog. Perhaps, you may find grounds for appealing the judgement :)?

All the best,

Akinbo

Dear Akinbo,

I read you interesting essay and I gave it a very high rating of 9.

Hope you will read my essay and give it a rating.

Regards,

Ken

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akindo,

Fascinating essay that covers the history of zero point and Monad.

KQID does use as you explained below as Wheeler's "geometrodynamics" in the firm of in stein complex coordinates( Pythagoras numbers and Fu Xi's trigrams) that are computed and projected by the Monad bit into ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) relative holographic Multiverse.

"b). Use as 'bits'. Wheeler was in the forefront of a grand scheme to reduce physics to geometry. This he called 'geometrodynamics'.It was his dream to obtain mass from the massless, charge from the chargeless and field from the fieldless. To him, "what else is there out of which to build a particle except geometry itself?". If we follow Wheeler along this road, we infer that 'it' is from 'geometry'. A literal interpretation of the same Wheeler's 'it from bit' is then that 'geometry' and 'bit' must be strongly related, if not same."

KQID agrees that bit = it, thus, both it from bit and bit from it as the same thing. You wrote below:

"Plato: Your honor, all is geometry. From the dialectic of counsel for Atomistic Enterprises Inc., monads are 'it' and their change between two alternate states is the 'bit'. Thus, 'it' is from 'bit' and 'bit' is also from 'it'."

Excellent!

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

KoGuan Leo replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 01:22 GMT

Dear Akinbo,

I answered one of your fundamental question if the beginning of the big bang or KQID bit bang is bit or it. See my reply to Michel in my blog.

Good Luck,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akimbo,

You still did not react to my (possibly) imperfect understanding of your monads.

Let me know your view.

Then you will suffer my very good rate of your essay.

Kind regards,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

thanks for your words. Yes my intention is to uncover the geometric origin of matter. In particular, I try to obtain it from simple assumptions like the use of exotic smoothness structures.

Unfortunately, I had only time to skim over your essay. There are parallels to my view and I'm glad that you notice it. I have to read it more carefully because it is more philosphically.

Best wishes

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT

Thank you.

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you may wish to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT on this blog.

Akinbo,

I found your your approach to the topic at hand fascinating and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 09:32 GMT

Hello Manuel,

I recall I was one of the first to acknowledge your nice essay and rated as well without any preconditions.

Thanks and best regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

As I pointed out in my response on my thread, you raise far more issues than can be easily answered.

The ancient Romans are castigated for not having a zero in their number system, yet they were a notoriously practical minded people and given that zero creates more problems that it easily solves, they may have left it out on purpose, like that relative one deals with as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT

Hello John,

Thanks for commenting. A quick response...

John: On "theoretically" cutting a monad in half and an appeal to authority

Reply: You may be right but what authority will you also be relying on that it was possible? I think these are the sort of things that have to be resolved by the reduction ad absurdum type arguments since no experiment can say for certain. Zeno's Dichotomy argument is an example in that a runner getting to destination is certain but what will that step be, as there must surely have been one. So running steps could not have been infinitely cut in half from observation of completed races.

John: in order to have size, it must have boundaries, which requires structure and definition smaller than the proposed unit

Reply: Not necessarily. Indeed, because of this difficulty it is the monad's "lifetime" that serves as the boundary, not a geometric object. Otherwise, geometrically space is continuous.

John: As for something and nothing, they are not the computational 1 and 0. In order to measure anything, even nothing, you need something to measure/detect whether it does, or doesn't exist. So actually it is 1 and 2. The detector silent and the detector ringing.

Reply: I think you may be confusing what is doing the measuring with what is being measured?

John: empty space. It is not a singularity or bound in any way, because it is nothing. Being nothing, it cannot move, therefore it is inert

Reply: See the Judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT on this blog which is the outcome of insights gained from exchanges with other community members.

John: Centrifugal force is another example of the inertia of space,

If motion is entirely relative, then why would an object in an otherwise empty frame ever have measurable spin?

Reply: Agreed. Again see the judgement.

Best regards and thanks.

Akinbo

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 23:17 GMT

Akinbo,

While I still disagree, I wish I'd given you more than the seven I did, on presentation alone.

You will have to go back and read my essay to get the context, but I do see the "energy" as necessarily foundational to the "information," since information changes while energy is conserved. To me, the "bit" amounts to the "peak" of a wave. It rises to the level of signal, above...

view entire post

Akinbo,

While I still disagree, I wish I'd given you more than the seven I did, on presentation alone.

You will have to go back and read my essay to get the context, but I do see the "energy" as necessarily foundational to the "information," since information changes while energy is conserved. To me, the "bit" amounts to the "peak" of a wave. It rises to the level of signal, above the ambient noise. As for why it doesn't make sense to me to specify monads as being temporally defined, you would have to go back and read my Questioning the Foundations entry, where I make the argument that the problem with our understanding of time is that we treat the sequential experience, from past to future, that physics reduces to a measure of duration, as foundational, yet it is an effect of the process of change that turns potential into actual, ie, future becoming past. Tomorrow becoming yesterday, rather than the vector from yesterday to tomorrow. This makes action foundational to events. The idea of past and future, whether of you and I, or of a monad, is conjectural, not physical.

Time then emerges from this activity, just like temperature. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. The "arrow of time" emerges from the fact that since energy is conserved, in order to create new information, old has to be erased.

It is very revealing that you use the device of a court proceeding to argue your point. It is the purpose of a court to make determinations of the evidence, in order to reconcile divergent views. The fact remains though, that there are divergent views because perspective is inherently subjective. Consider the Relativistic argument against simultaneity, that different points of view can even have different timelines of the same events. This is illustrative of a point I tried making in my entry, that such distinctions are necessary to having perspective in the first place. That if you combine all the colors, you just get one shade and that is the conceptual basis, or absolute state. It is necessary to have distinct colors in order to create complexity. This goes to the nature of theology, in that there is no "God's eye view." An ideal is not an absolute. The absolute is the universal state from which we rise, not an ideal form from which we fell. The proper representation for the spiritual absolute would be a new born babe, not a bearded old man. It is only as this essence fractures into parts and they interact that complexities, numbers, geometry, etc. arise.

Now we do need to frequently coalesce, judge, determine, will, etc. a choice out of all the potential options, but that never fully resolves the issue, because that essence naturally grows back in the open spaces of what is neglected. Like grass pushes through the cracks in the sidewalks of our decisions. What is hard and set and fast, grows old quickly when it cannot adapt, yet in order to adapt, it must change to met the new, so if the future is a continuation of the past, the old must evolve, or it creates reaction. Evolution or revolution.

I'm starting to go off into politics, so I'll leave it at that...

Regards,

John

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:55 GMT

Dear John,

Thanks for your engagement. I will go back and read your entry in past contest. Between extension, energy and time I think extension is the easiest to apprehend. It also appears more fundamental in that we can contemplate extension without energy but we cant contemplate energy without extension being present. Time also appears to be interwoven with extension, appears one cannot do without the other. Whatever, I will check on those references as soon as I get the time.

Best regards,

Akinbo

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hi Akinbo,

Can you give a conceptual meaning of the use on infinity in renormalization? The link between infinity and energy is not clear to me. Also, you say "A line having the width and thickness of Planck dimension, cannot divide space infinitely." Where infinite division is at hand, can getting as close to possible to the infinite dividing reaches be useful mathematically? I would think that here since the monad has a role in the real world, this nearing of the infinite would also have some physical significance.

It is really nice to see geometry and philosophy-like ideas discussed in a science pap. I think this is what the time needs right now. The complexities of theory today keep many genius minds at bay. I did not know Wheeler's geometrical nature in his work, and this motivates me to learn more about him. I know nothing of his. What's the other side of the plank scale from the view of the Extended Point Highway? You know, the one that isn't well known to us. Many physicists are looking form smaller discrete parts 'lower' than Planck distance, but I think the general behavior around that scale is more important than the particulars at the moment. I am unsure what the view based on nomads would have to say, if anything at all.

This essay followed the discussion points of the contest very closely, and was made interesting with the invocation of the Muses...

Sincerely,

Amos.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

Judge: What of extended points?

Jacek: Your honor, I agree that all is geometry. It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of a pure (conformally flat, isotropic, elastic, homeomorphic and self-organized) spacetime. We shall be looking for that one, universal, distance scale invariant metric (eventually reducing to Einstein GR metric within Solar System distance scale) and having ability to generate predictions. The first prediction of that geometrization concept is the spin experiment outcome. Depending on the outcome we shall look for a proper metric or give up.

Judge: The hearing is suspended until the spin experiment is carried out!

-------

You are absolutely right that we seem to have been led along the wrong road. I do not mean that I agree with you in 100%. E.g. I would exchange your extended points for wavepackets (spacetime deformations) as fundamental objects of geometry. This is not the same in details but they are also extended objects. That is a way to reduce physics to geometry.

I like your approach and I think that philosophy is very important to understand the reality (for teaching purposes) but in my opinion it is not enough to prove anything (for judgment) in the field of physics. My experiment is not described in the essay (my fault as I had a lot of place). It is the best to read full description here: http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027

We differ in some issues but I think your essay deserves the high rating!

Best regards,

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT

Dear Jacek,

Many thanks for your comments. An initial brief response...

Jacek: I would exchange your extended points for wavepackets (spacetime deformations) as fundamental objects of geometry.

Judge: Wouldn't you then agree that what can be deformed must have some structure? And if it does, will this be composite or not? Then is your conception of space, relational or substantival? This answer will allow your further cross-examination :)

Regards,

Akinbo

*Rate me if you can acquit yourself of the charges!

Best

Jacek Safuta replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT

Judge: Wouldn't you then agree that what can be deformed must have some structure? And if it does, will this be composite or not? Then is your conception of space, relational or substantival? This answer will allow your further cross-examination :)

Jacek: The spacetime is continuous, conformally flat, isotropic, ELASTIC, homeomorphic and self-organized. If composite means: made up of distinct components - there is only one component - the spacetime itself. If substantival means: not imaginary, actual, real than YES. Please proceed the further examination.

I have rated your essay long time ago and very high as your essay is very well written and accessible and as you have shown it has potential.

Best regards,

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 13:15 GMT

Judge: Well then, at the moment I will not take you up on technical terms like homeomorphic, conformally flat, isotropic, etc.

First, I put it to you that your testimony that spacetime is continuous (i.e. relational) is conflicting by definition with testimony that it is "not imaginary, actual, real", (i.e. spacetime is substantival).

Second, if you say it is actual and real...

view entire post

show all replies (1 not shown)

Akinbo,

As Yogi Berra put it, “When you reach a fork in the road, take it.” The point, line, etc are just model systems from a physicist’s perspective. One uses them in a way that is appropriate to the problem at hand. What mathematics means in of itself and its bearing on physics is a subject that many people have pondered and written about. This extends to ideas about mathematical realism, which is a variant of Platonism, and Brower’s constructivism that considers mathematics as largely just a mental model set.

There is a monad aspect to things. I think elementary particles are just projections of a single eigenstate into different configuration variables. This means there is only one electron in the universe, and the vast number of them around us are just holographic projects of that single particle state.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 18:47 GMT

Dear Lawrence,

Thanks for commenting. Are you by chance saying the electron in your body is the same as the one in mine?

If mathematical objects and models have served us well although leaving us with paradoxes and infinities requiring renormalization dont you think physicists should then develop own physical models?

Many thanks. Any rating to be expected. By the way are your views of space relational or substantival?

Best regards LC,

Akinbo

Akinbo

You asked me, again to look at your essay.

Overall, I do not understand what you are trying to convey, and your assumptions about the generic physical circumstance are incorrect.

There is no ‘it’ as such, other than in the sense that ultimately physical existence/reality must comprise of something (or various types of something). A reality, ie what exists at any...

view entire post

Akinbo

You asked me, again to look at your essay.

Overall, I do not understand what you are trying to convey, and your assumptions about the generic physical circumstance are incorrect.

There is no ‘it’ as such, other than in the sense that ultimately physical existence/reality must comprise of something (or various types of something). A reality, ie what exists at any given time, is a discrete definitive physically existent state of whatever comprises it.

Space is implied by existence (ie of something), we do not measure space, but the difference, spatially, between somethings. This might sound like ‘splitting hairs’, but the important point is that one can only establish the space between/relative spatial position of whatever is existent at the same time, and that is a specific physically existent state. Not a thing. There are more than 3 dimensions, this is, rather like things, just a high level conceptualisation of what actually occurs. The concept of dimension is associated with any possible direction, either way, of the spatial footprint of whatever physical state being considered. So, however many directions the smallest thing can travel from a spatial point, halved, is the number of possible dimensions. This would represent a line as you define it.

The point is this. When considering distance, spatial position, etc, what we are doing is imposing, conceptually, a spatial grid on any given reality. Although it is probably impossible for us to do, in order to properly correspond with what physically occurs, that grid would need a ‘mesh’ size equivalent to the smallest existent substance. The grid is located with respect to something. But if we do not understand how reality occurs, then application of this gets confused, eg we are relating things that do not exist at the same time, or we are referring to things that physically do not exist as we conceive them, etc. X=vt can be misunderstood. The concept is that space is being expressed in terms of the duration it would take something to travel a distance. But it cannot actually do this, because whilst doing so, the reality has altered.

To put this all another way around, there is no duration, no motion, no change of any degree whatsoever in a reality. Any difference constitutes another reality, ie a different physically existent state. There cannot be two different states of whatever comprises existence occurring at the same time. Duration, motion, a degree of change of any type is a reflection of the difference between one reality and its successor. In other words, it is a sequence.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Paul for accepting my invite. Your idea of "no duration, no motion, no change of any degree whatsoever in a reality" reminds of the ideas of Parmenides and his student Zeno, who further went ahead to put forward his popular paradoxes. I think instead of being frustrated that there is no motion or change the challenge is to see how this gives us the illusion, (if you may call it that) that those events are occurring. Pondering whether there is a first smallest step in motion in Zeno's Dichotomy argument may make us possibly reach some understanding.

Best regards,

Akinbo

*Obviouslsy I am to be rated low :(

Paul Reed replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 07:03 GMT

Akinbo

I am not bothered who else said this. It is a fact, that is how, generically, the physical existence we know must occur.

Now, you raise the right question, but it is not a challenge, it is very easy to explain. Well, generically anyway (as per my essay). How this actually manifests in our existence is very difficult to establish, and that is what physics is supposed to be...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT

In summary what you say boils down to:

"sequence", …" existent state at a time", "the predecessor must cease to exist so that the successor can exist", "From one point in time to the next it is not the same" VS. "there is no degree of alteration within a reality".

Thanks Paul for expressing your position. Appreciated.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Akinbo,

You wrote an intriguing and compelling essay about monads. In the quest for understanding the universe, we are all beginners, and it is great that from time to time curious minds follow roads not taken.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:37 GMT

Dear Cristi,

Thanks for your kind encouragement on this lonely road. As I informed on your blog and stated in the judgement above, there actually seems to be a bridge linking the roads, which I have called, "Wheeler's Bridge". In summary, Points and Monads are the binary states that space can occupy. Look forward to more cooperation in future.

Best regards,

Akinbo.

Akinbo,

You missed my response and question (below June 8th post) above ref Dark Matter and the erroneous assumption it can't be baryonic. Saw you on the cusp, and the good news is that I hadn't addressed your points. Situation now remedied. I trust you'll double check too.

Thanks, and very best wishes for the final cut.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

Good to be home! I like your classic approach.

You ask: “in a very fundamental discussion, what information will be "occupying the ontological basement"”?

I say it is in any system of events the OBSERVER proper as signifying the “virtual exchange” of standard model or “space-time” of general relativity. Thus to realize Wheeler’s participatory universe we must assume that the universal computer or algorithm proper is ANY DE FACTO OBSERVER as the “configuration space” of all matter/bits and what is better known in QM as the matter wave (wave function).

My “observer” is in other words the thing we call individually “mind” or biologically “life” and physically “energy" (or generally a “conservation law”).

Thank you for your engaging essay.

Regards,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:40 GMT

Thanks Chidi for looking through my window!

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Akinbo,

I hope the comment I wrote here, and lost during changing the server, will be restored. If not, I will try to make another one.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

Thanks very much for reading and commenting on my essay. Sorry it took so long to reply, but I've finally managed to read your essay. I thought your analysis of monads was very interesting, and I really liked the way you handled your discussion of historical philosophical views on the topic. I think it's really important that anyone who stands on the shoulders of these giants should know what they were actually thinking and how they arrived at their ideas, since textbooks often either misrepresent things, or just leave out the original reasoning entirely.

Regarding your question about existence/non-existence as a binary choice, I think our views are very different on that point, although I can appreciate what you're going for. It's just that I do think a continual passage of time is fundamental, and prior to any particular thing existing. I can think of a three-dimensional set of monads existing, like the "one-dimensional" set you've drawn at different stages in the two figures in your essay, but I can't think of those two instants if the monads don't exist. And in order for objective time to pass uniformly throughout the Universe, which is what I've argued for in my essay despite relative proper duration, etc., I don't think random discrete particle creation and annihilation in the Universe could be the cause of this uniform absolute duration.

That's why I think 'it from bit' has to fail, despite the possibility that bits (monads) are the fundamental building blocks of everything in the Universe. But I'm no stick in the mud, and as I said I can appreciate your position, and I enjoyed your essay. You have my vote!

Best of luck in the contest,

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 10:02 GMT

Thanks Daryl for your frank comments. "Time" and "Space" are indeed enigmas yet to be fully subdued. I guess that is why most FQXi essay contests focus mainly on these two, or even as some hold a union of both.

Your position that "…a continual passage of time is fundamental, and prior to any particular thing existing" is understood, although it comes with its own baggage. For how long then was there non-existence before existence? How can this be ascertained in that who is keeping the time in the realm of non-existence since such a realm where time runs must exist? And from that last sentence can a situation where time runs be said not to exist? These I believe are questions to be argued by dialectic and not by equations so I understand that until those arguments are comprehensively done and resolved one way or the other to absurdity, those who harbor views like yours must be allowed to EXIST! This I fully support.

I think the question whether time is digital or analogue, continuous or discrete or a simulation of both is the fundamental issue. As I have proposed, the nature of space is both continuous and discrete. You may also view the Judgement above.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT

Ah, I see that I was to careless with words. When I type "prior" into dictionary.com, I get two definitions of the adjectival sense:

1. preceding in time or in order; earlier or former; previous

2. preceding in importance or privilege.

I meant the second one. Sorry for the confusion. No, I don't think a continual passage of time took place before anything existed. I just think continual passage has to be a prior if things are to exist, and not the other way around, which I find incoherent; i.e., I just can't make sense of the position that time passes because things exist.

I do accept your best regards, and I hope you accept mine, too! I appreciate your insight and your willingness to discuss these important things.

All the best,

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo - an interesting essay, but a little too philosophical for my tastes. However, I did appreciate your extended discussion of monads, which I think certainly shows some unique insight.

Good look in the contest.

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Paul,

Thanks for looking in and sorry for the philosophical taste of the essay. The essay topic I think can only be resolved by argument and not by mathematical equations per se. For instance can you give the mathematical equation for 'it' or that for 'bit'? The essay is an attempt to rise to Wheeler's challenge that "…space-time derives its very existence entirely - from …binary choices, bits". If that were so, what are the binary choices from which space can derive its meaning? I doubt if these can be determined by mathematical equations.

So apologies for the philosophical content. Perhaps the Judgement that followed on this blog may have more relevance to today's physics (see Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT). You may view.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 05:11 GMT

Akinbo - no need to apologize. This is my bias, not your problem. At a fundamental level, I believe that we make better progress when all the disciplines are first class citizens in the conversation.

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

I found your essay an interesting read and I have rated it accordingly.

Some comments:

1) On page 6 you write that monads can exist in two states, which you refer to by the numbers 0 and 1. I understand what you want to say, but the 0 designates nothingness resulting from the monad's annihilation. So the 0 does not denote a state in which the monad exists, since upon annihilation it ceases to exist. Therefore, the monad cannot exist in two states: it exists only in the state refered to by the number 1. Or how do you see it?

2) On page 6 you write that monads can change spontaneously. Is that property mentioned in the literature, or is it your own addition?

3) Suppose I have an object A and an object B that are separated by 8 monads, analoguous to the situation in figure 1. Their distance is then 8. Now one of these intermediate monads changes state spontaneously: as a result, the distance between the objects A and B is then 7. Is there then any way of finding out which monad has annihilated? In other words: do we have to see the monads as particles so that we can say we have this monad here and that monad there, or do we have to see them as quanta that merely aggregrate (like digital dollars in a bank account: if you withdraw a dollar, it is senseless to ask which one of the 8 dollars on the account has been withdrawn)?

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 08:48 GMT

Thank you Marcoen. I knew to expect good and objective commentary from you.

1). Your observation is correct. Indeed, following additional insights gained from FQXi community I have improved my argument. You may read that in the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT and posted above. With that I think my position becomes stronger. That state designated 0 is the Platonic point. It has no dimension, it does not exist but yet in Plato's words it is not a geometric fiction! This satisfies Wheeler's contention that Space must derive its meaning, function and existence from Bits. It also satisfies Newton's desire for a space that can act and be acted upon. In short, Points and Monads are the binary states of space.

2). That property is not mentioned in the literature. However, if we are to make room for some indeterminism, it must occur occasionally. This will allow for free will, intuition, etc in a digital universe.

3) Excellent comment. I don't think there is anyway we can find ut which dollar is annihilated. The best we can observe is that a length has shortened or lengthened by some phenomena.

Very grateful for these comments.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 11:36 GMT

Akinbo,

About the state designated by 0 not being a geometric fiction.

For non-negative integers x and y, I introduce the notation | x, y > for a physical system consisting of x monads in the state 0 and y monads in the state 1.

Now consider the systems | x, y >, | 2*x, y >, and | x, 2*y > for any positive x and y. It is obvious that the last system can be physically distinguished from the first two, as it has more monads in the state 1: this system should thus have more spatial extension than the other two. My question is: if the state 0 is not a fiction, then how are the systems | x, y > and | 2*x, y > physically different?

I am interested in your answer.

With best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marcoen,

First let me correct my sentence in 3) above. The moment you mentioned dollars, monad annihilated from my brain! It should read, I don't think there is anyway we can find out which monad is annihilated. The best we can observe is that a length has shortened or was lengthened by some phenomena. At the kind of size we are talking about no measuring instrument can detect a monad other than by reductio ad absurdum arguments and encountered paradoxes if their presence is denied.

Then regarding your question, your assessment cannot be faulted, state | x, 2*y > is physically distinguishable and more extended than | x, y >, | 2*x, y > and there is no doubt at all about that! If we however wish to build a bridge across the theoretical physics divide with as little resistance as possible from the Platonic school, it may be better as the Judge did in my blog post to hold that even though the Point is of zero dimension and so it does not exist, since an existent state can arise from a non-existent one, it may in some sense be acceptable that that 0 state is not a fiction. Just a play with words really but in my opinion a small concessionary price to pay so that our physics can move forward in a reconciliatory mode. The alternative is to be asked to physically present a monad before any ground can be yielded on the nature of space (i.e. whether relational or substantival).

Best regards,

Akinbo

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:35 GMT

Akinbo,

Thanks for your reply. I already understood that I had to read 'monad' where you wrote 'dollar'. Your insistence that we must view the states denoted by 0 as some kind of entity introduces, as I see it, a metaphysical (i.e. unverifiable) element in the theory. But that is not necessarily an argument against it.

In my own work, by the way, I attempt to model 'space' as a semi-continuum, this is neither a continuum nor a discrete entity. The simplest one-dimensional model would be set of real numbers, together with the set of all open intervals (x-1, x+1) where the number 1 represents the Planck distance. These open intervals are then physical 'bits of space', somewhat comparable to your monads: together they form the one-dimensional space. This model is an oversimplification but it shows the principle of how space as a substance is built up in a semi-continuum.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo,

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.

report post as inappropriate

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented your essay in what follows.

Of the nearly two hundred essays submitted to the competition, there seems to be a preponderance of sentiment for the ‘Bit-from-It” standpoint, though many excellent essays argue against this stance or advocate for a wider perspective on the whole issue. Joseph Brenner provided an excellent analysis of the various positions that might be taken with the topic, which he subsumes under the categories of ‘It-from-Bit’, ‘Bit-from-It’, and ‘It-and-Bit’.

Brenner himself supports the ‘Bit-from-It’ position of Julian Barbour as stated in his 2011 essay that gave impetus to the present competition. Others such as James Beichler, Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Agung Budiyono, and Olaf Dreyer have presented well-stated arguments that generally align with a ‘Bit-from-It’ position.

Various renderings of the contrary position, ‘It-from-Bit’, have received well-reasoned support from Stephen Anastasi, Paul Borrill, Luigi Foschini, Akinbo Ojo, and Jochen Szangolies. An allied category that was not included in Brenner’s analysis is ‘It-from-Qubit’, and valuable explorations of this general position were undertaken by Giacomo D’Ariano, Philip Gibbs, Michel Planat and Armin Shirazi.

The category of ‘It-and-Bit’ displays a great diversity of approaches which can be seen in the works of Mikalai Birukou, Kevin Knuth, Willard Mittelman, Georgina Parry, and Cristinel Stoica,.

It seems useful to discriminate among the various approaches to ‘It-and-Bit’ a subcategory that perhaps could be identified as ‘meaning circuits’, in a sense loosely associated with the phrase by J.A. Wheeler. Essays that reveal aspects of ‘meaning circuits’ are those of Howard Barnum, Hugh Matlock, Georgina Parry, Armin Shirazi, and in especially that of Alexei Grinbaum.

Proceeding from a phenomenological stance as developed by Husserl, Grinbaum asserts that the choice to be made of either ‘It from Bit’ or ‘Bit from It’ can be supplemented by considering ‘It from Bit’ and ‘Bit from It’. To do this, he presents an ‘epistemic loop’ by which physics and information are cyclically connected, essentially the same ‘loop’ as that which Wheeler represented with his ‘meaning circuit’. Depending on where one ‘cuts’ the loop, antecedent and precedent conditions are obtained which support an ‘It from Bit’ interpretation, or a ‘Bit from It’ interpretation, or, though not mentioned by Grinbaum, even an ‘It from Qubit’ interpretation. I’ll also point out that depending on where the cut is made, it can be seen as a ‘Cartesian cut’ between res extensa and res cogitans or as a ‘Heisenberg cut’ between the quantum system and the observer. The implications of this perspective are enormous for the present It/Bit debate! To quote Grinbaum: “The key to understanding the opposition between IT and BIT is in choosing a vantage point from which OR looks as good as AND. Then this opposition becomes unnecessary: the loop view simply dissolves it.” Grinbaum then goes on to point out that this epistemologically circular structure “…is not a logical disaster, rather it is a well-documented property of all foundational studies.”

However, Grinbaum maintains that it is mandatory to cut the loop; he claims that it is “…a logical necessity: it is logically impossible to describe the loop as a whole within one theory.” I will argue that in fact it is vital to preserve the loop as a whole and to revise our expectations of what we wish to accomplish by making the cut. In fact, the ongoing It/Bit debate has been sustained for decades by our inability to recognize the consequences that result from making such a cut. As a result, we have been unable to take up the task of studying the properties inherent in the circularity of the loop. Helpful in this regard would be an examination of the role of relations between various elements and aspects of the loop. To a certain extent the importance of the role of relations has already been well stated in the essays of Kevin Knuth, Carlo Rovelli, Cristinel Stoica, and Jochen Szangolies although without application to aspects that clearly arise from ‘circularity’. Gary Miller’s discussion of the role of patterns, drawn from various historical precedents in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology, provides the clearest hints of all competition submissions on how the holistic analysis of this essential circular structure might be able to proceed.

In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey’s assertion that a ‘conceptual leap’ is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a ‘linearized’ perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is ‘circularized’ is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hello Akinbo, from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder !

I'm so cross with myself for leaving it too late to discuss your essay properly, as there is quite a lot I would have liked to have said.

I did not know that Wheeler said - as you quote in your essay :-

Wheeler was in the forefront of a grand scheme to reduce physics to geometry.

This he called 'geometrodynamics'...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello Margriet,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

If you come out every evening for 7 days and gaze at the night sky, on the first night you look up and see the moon, then you go back in and write 1, the next night you do same and write 1 again. On the third night you gaze again and there is no moon, then you write 0, etc until you have 1100011...

So when you say, "each literally carries some information on its back", what is carrying the information on its back on those nights when no moon was sighted?

Can a friend who was not with you on those nights, seeing those digits not know the information of those days when there was a moon and when there was none? That is why Barbour says as I quote in my say that though the digits are abstract, they must stand for something concrete... Just some more food for thought for you

Stay blessed!

Akinbo

Congratulations Akinbo!

I see it's now official - according to Brendan's contest blog - you are in the finals. Good luck! I hope the expert reviewers are kind.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo,

Congratulations, I was watching your bumpy roller coaster ride nervously. It must have been exhausting! Looking forward to working with you. We need to catch up on each of our papers as I think the whole may be stronger than the sums describing the parts!

Best of luck in the final judging.

Peter

report post as inappropriate